MyDD :: The Future of the Electorate, Part Two

The Future of the Electorate, Part Two

by Chris Bowers, Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 07:59:01 PM EST

The Latino population in the United States is very, very young:

The new census figures paint a portrait of a Hispanic population dominated by the young: Half are under age 27. By comparison, half of non-Hispanic whites are over 40. That reflects a demographic divide that could have broad implications, experts say. And the speedy growth of the Hispanic population beyond the enclaves of the past could put their concerns into a more national spotlight.

"It's going to have profound effects on America. They are no longer regionally concentrated in places like California and New York," said Harry P. Pachon, president of the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, a California think tank. "There are more Hispanics in Cook County, Chicago, than in Arizona or Colorado or New Mexico. . . . The major significance is that it's a national presence."

In July 2004, Hispanics numbered 41.3 million out of a national population of nearly 293.7 million. They have the fastest growth rate among the nation's major racial and ethnic groups. In the 1990s, they accounted for 40 percent of the country's population increase. From 2000 to 2004, that figure grew to 49 percent.

Reading this piece led me to wondering about he age breakdown of the Latino vote. While we all know that Republicans gained among Latinos from 2000 to 2004, we also know that Democrats gained among younger voters from 2000 to 2004. Considering this, I thought that if Democrats had gained among young Latinos, which seemed reasonable considering their gains among other young voters, that they might actually be gaining among Latinos where it counts. It has become something of a truism around these parts that an individual's voting patterns are fairly well locked after participation in three election cycles, so if Democrats were gaining ground among young Latinos and the Latino population itself was incredibly young, then it really wouldn't matter if much that Republicans were gaining among Latinos overall. However, NAES quickly burst my bubble:

Latino Swing By Age
	 Dem Margin 2004     Dem Margin 2000
18-29	      +22		  +40
30-44	      +6		  +20
45-64	      +28		  +34
65+	      +22		  +38

While Democrats still won Latinos by a healthy margin in 2004, the greatest Latino shift toward Republicans actually came within the 18-29 age group. This is horrifying news, and must be rectified immediately.

As a side note to this piece, I would also like to point out that over the past fifteen years, the population of the Unites States has increased by roughly 48 million people. I have previously documented the rise of non-Christians in the US, which have accounted for roughly 75% of our population growth since 1990. If Latinos have also accounted for more than 40% of the population growth in the Unites States since 1990, as the census bureau claims, that means demographic groups that are both Christian and non-Latino are actually experiencing a combined negative growth rate. This must especially be true for white Christians.

Now, some bloggers will claim that by pointing out these trends I am revealing a personal fantasy about the end of white Christianity in the Unites States. To be as blunt as possible, that is just bullshit. I do not view these larger demographic trends in qualitative terms. I simply aim to point out what is happening in this country, so that Democrats will grow more aware of the future of the electorate. The population growth in the country is coming from non-whites, especially Latinos, and non-Christians, especially the irreligious. Those are facts, not statements of value. Right now, Democrats are doing quite well among these groups, as Kerry defeated Bush among this group by a whopping 69-29, improving upon Gore's 61-30. Further, Kerry won 86% of the new voters in this category. The total Democratic margin among this group of voters increased by a whopping 4.7 million in 2004, in an election where the overall Democratic margin dropped by 3.6 million.

Whatever we are doing to appeal to this extremely diverse group of voters, we must continue to do so. Already, they represent more than 55% of our voters, and roughly 70% of our new voters fit into this group. They are unquestionably the future of both the party and the country, and we are winning them. However, as this post also notes, due largely to their youth, our status among these groups is anything but permanent. Strategically and morally, it would be nothing short of idiotic to abandon any group of voters, but to ignore the particular importance of these high growth rate groups would be equally myopic, if not more so.

Tags: Demographics (all tags)

Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment

Question (none / 0)

After the election there qwere several articles that claimed that the GOP share of the Hispanic vote had been exaggerated. For example here and here and also here.

Do you think they are wrong?

by GT on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 09:13:49 PM EST

Hispanic Vote -- R & D (none / 0)

From what I understand, the initial reports of Bush gains were overstated -- although he did improve his percentage over 2000. Same with African Americans -- Team Bush did a lot of things right, and Team Kerry could not have been more inept.

As I recall, the 35% Republican 65% Democratic split is considered the Hispanic benchmark. If the Dems can maintain or improve on that, we will ride a demographic curve to eventual control. If the GOP can move up to 37 or 40%, they can maintain and extend their control. This is a big part of the Rove / Bush Latino outreach program. Without Hispanics, the GOP is doomed.

A small wager -- is this why Jeb Bush married a Latina?

by ck on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 11:17:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hispanic Vote -- R & D (none / 0)

No, its because Latinas are fucking HOT

by turnerbroadcasting on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 11:39:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hispanic Vote -- R & D (none / 0)

jeb married columba in 1974. wayyyyyy before the latino population boom. even before the marielito influx of cubans.

by dre2k5 on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 09:35:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

18-29 group (none / 0)

My intuitive guesses as to why the 18-29 group went strong for the dem ticket:

Americans 18-29 have grown up in a more pluralistic culture than their predecessors, and are more likely to be turned-off, even fearful, of the gop's catering toward white fundamentalist christian conservatives.
The 18-29 demographic as a whole is more economically vulnerable than other age demographics, and the 2000's have been very unkind to younger adults seeking work. This demographic remembers the Clinton 90's, and how good economically they were.
Americans 18-29 generally think Bush is a moron. I wish I could state this more elegantly - call it some sort of culture-gap or something.

my web log.

by matty fred on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 09:24:41 PM EST

Re: 18-29 group (none / 0)

As far back as people in the 18-29 age group can remember about politics, the following things happened:

Republican president: War, deficit, recession
Democratic president: Peace, surplus, prosperity
Republican president: War, deficit, recession

The worst things we had to worry about when Democrats ran the country was whether or not Clinton lied about a blowjob, and what to do about the massive budget surplus. Is it any wonder the youngest age group are so heavily Democratic?

by wayward on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 10:15:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 18-29 group (none / 0)

Latinos tended to sway towards Dems because of economic policies. That said, Latinos (mostly Latino men), specifically Cubans, Mexicans, and some Puerto Ricans swayed toward Bush. Why, you ask? Hmmm...let's see, what minority group was Bush from Texas trying to reach out to most? Oh, right, Mexicans. Cubans and some Puerto Ricans tend to be economically better off, so it benefits them to vote Republican (plus the Cubans could stick it to Fidel). I knew many well-off Latinos that voted for that reason. But Latinas, mostly, supported Dems on stuff like education, economics, etc. Dominicans and Salvadorans, for example, lean more Dem than Republican. They also tend to as a group, be poorer. Still another sad fact is that many Latinos cannot or do not vote, which decreases potential Dem numbers, because REGARDLESS OF RACE, rich people will vote to keep their own best interests.
Other reasons? Religion. Religion is part of the culture, whether you are Colombian or Cuban or Mexican or Dominican. Parents and older generations tend to be more religious, but many of our generation (18-29) feel torn between secular pop culture and the "old ways." And as always, candidate image. John Kerry was not appealing to many youths, so they either stayed home (like many African American youths aged 18-29 did in 2004) or voted Republican. The "minorities" are less liberal than most people think; many Latinos and blacks, including 18-29 year olds, are more moderate. They lean Dem, but are conservative on other issues. Asians used to lean Republican, but the emergence of Southeastern Asians, who are below Latinos and blacks in income and social status, are leaning more Dem than their more affluent Chinese, Japanese, and Korean counterparts, most of whose ancestors CHOSE to leave their country and saved up money to settle here.
But most importantly, regardless of race, I think upbringing and experience are more telling factors. I look over my peers ages 18-29 and I see that overwhelmingly, city kids of ANY RACE are more LIBERAL. Why? Because they had to go through inner city schools, saw poverty (even if some did not themselves experience it), and/or support the idea of labor unions, just to cite a few examples. Kids in the suburbs tend to be more likely Republican, though some can be Dems. Basically, a lot of the "rich frat boy" types classify themselves as conservative. Why? Because they came from money and want to keep it. Now there are people who do not fit this mold, but those are my observations. The issue is not so much racial, but it does have racial overtones. Any person of any race who is more well off tends to lean more conservative. It really comes down to an individual issue for most people. So far, from my experiences, one of the biggest problems facing the 18-29 crowd is the cut in Perkins loans and the realization, especially among Latinos, that they make up only a small fraction of those lucky enough to attend college, usually due to the inability of even middle-class families to pay $30,000 to 40,000 college bills.

by ciudadano on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:10:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The 18-44's (none / 0)

Both of the two younger demographics swung strongly for towards the GOP -- or was it away from the wind-surfing flip-flopping out-of-touch Vietnam-coward elitist?

Oh, and thank you, John Kerry -- for telling us how it was the October Osama video that doomed your campaign. Do you think that maybe a teeny tiny amount of the time you spent planning your cabinet picks, might have been better spent, umm . . . campaigning? Oh, in your case -- I suppose not. Six months of cluelessness could not be counteracted by another rah-rah event.

Seriously -- John Kerry sucked so bad as a candidate, it's a wonder he did as well as he did.

Oh wait -- that was the Not Bush vote . . .

by ck on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 11:39:09 PM EST

Re: The 18-44's (none / 0)

Kerry's positions on environmental stances
will mark him as one of the great statesmen
of our time. In five short years you will
pray you had a different view about him,
and that there were others like him.

We are a world undergoing a financial
and environmental disaster and the vested
media-entertainment interests are blinding
you to it as strongly as they can, because
they want you to keep right
on consuming their cheap whore advertisements
and cheap consumer goods.

I promise you, in five years, this country
will know what kind of emergency is really
going on.

by turnerbroadcasting on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 11:38:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The 18-44's (none / 0)

Boy do you ever have that right. The crackdown is coming. There probably will be another staged "terrorist" attack followed by martial law. Then the economic collapse will follow, displacing literally tens of millions of Americans who will be unable to escape their crushing debt because of the bankruptcy act and whose homes will be gentrified out from under them because they will be white elephants once the housing bubble bursts. Folks who won't or can't "volunteer" for the military will be swept into any one of 59 prison camps that have been not so secretly built here in the U.S. Prison planet is coming.

One world government, run by
One world bank.

This is the "New World Order" planned centuries ago.

The human race's biggest nightmare.

YOU ARE A SLAVE, NEO.

by Marblex on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 12:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

speaking of which (none / 0)

how about if we get some translation tools here on MyDD so that others can join in the conversation

DAGGER

by goplies on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 01:48:19 AM EST

Strength not in numbers (none / 0)

but in Kind.

The characterization of the latino vote
as a young vote, is a false one, as
is the precept that the rise of Non-Christians
in the United States can for a basis
for electoral support in 2006 or
any other year.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The latinos vote in their own network,
they don't get as much impact from publicized
speeches - the pollsters don't head into their
churches - you don't end up getting
any idea of what their community is all about.

LA, for example, was won by the sheer
force Villaigrosa brought to the table,
two elections in a row, before he punched
Hahn's ticket. This wasn't a media
strategy or the frankly crass characterizations
about their religious alignment, after all,
most latinos are strongly catholic.

Instead, it was a measure of the latino
community communicating amongst itself
as to what to do, it took a bit of time,
but the base of support there
was so strong nothing could either influence
or shake it. Thats what brought him
to victory. Born in EAST LA Amigo.

... Follow the advertising..

by turnerbroadcasting on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 11:36:16 AM EST

Villagrosa won... (none / 0)

...because Hahn pissed off whites (by being anti-valley sucession) and blacks (because he fired the police chief Bernard Parks, who was black), and for no other reason. Latinos voted for Villagrosa in 2001, and they voted for him in 2005. The irony here is that both of these fatal decisions for Hahn were probably the right ones. Unfortuantly, Hahn lacks the political skills of his father. Had he had them, he might have been able to overcome such decisions.

by Geotpf on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 05:46:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Villagrosa won... (none / 0)

Hahn was also plagued by corruption issues.
Villagrosa was able gain ground with blacks, thus siphoning off a major part of the Hahn base.

If a coalition of African-Americans and Hispanics can be forged, it can prove to be a real force. Often, both groups have been at odds with each other, but the LA Mayor election may change this

by v2aggie2 on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 08:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

PS - churches sometimes act as a conduit (none / 0)

for information that needs to be sent out to the flock. For example, in "operation gentle death"
in Nazi Germany during WW2, people from the
insane asylums were rounded up and gassed
with carbon monoxide fumes.. the catholic
church (who inexplicably couldn't seem to
speak out against the holocaust) told their
congregations, " how can we allow this to happen -
what if our troops came home, would we do this
to them"..

And the SS dropped it..

This article speaks to that, in modern times,
but from a counter perspective that you
can only fight by being a part of
it, not trying to pretend you're
in a group that is somehow outside of it..

WARNING: This British story will deeply
shock you. No American president in history
has ever tried to do this..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822_1,00.html

by turnerbroadcasting on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 12:00:24 PM EST

That's why they're trying to impose a .... (none / 0)

dominionist theocracy and dispose of birth control and abortion. They know the white pseudo christians are a dwindling population.

by Marblex on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 12:33:42 PM EST

Re: That's why they're trying to impose a .... (none / 0)

I seriously question how much race has to do with these attitudes. I see more of a desire to return to a romanticized past with all those big happy families being something like the Waltons ("Good night, John Boy") or the stereotypical Catholic family lampooned by Monte Python ("Every sperm is sacred") and celebrated elsewhere.

That being said, there is an undercurrent of race, or more accurately, culture, being a large part of this push. Evangelicals and conservative Catholics are both frightened that what they consider "their culture" is dying. Pat Buchanan wrote an entire book about it, and the theme is often repeated throughout most of the writings of many members of the religious right. They believe that culture is dying, so "Christians" must repopulate it with large families that have grown up sheltered from what they consider to be a toxic culture.

As for the Catholic Church itself, race has nothing to do with it, because they don't believe anyone should use birth control, not that only Catholics shouldn't. (Also, Rome is fairly sympathetic to the immigrants.) The Catholic Church maintains the prohibition on birth control for two reasons, first of all, because they always have, and second of all, to do otherwise would be to admit that the Anglicans were right and the Pope wrong when the Anglican Church allowed birth control in the 1930's and Pope Pius XI wrote a scathing encyclical condeming the decision. Being infallible means never having to say you're sorry.

by wayward on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 10:41:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let us not forget..... (none / 0)

That in many of the Latin American nations, an important element in influencing voters is machismo, which G.Walker had in abundence.

Also, we really could of used someone like Zinni at the top of the ticket. This Democratic party really needs to be taken over by people who have no fear and openly scorn those who are afraid of the darkness and are ready to make it vanish.

by strrbr on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 02:20:53 PM EST

getting back to the point (3.00 / 1)

It strikes me that none of the above posts address the very systematic and very effective outreach effort by the GOP to win over a larger proportion of Hispanic voters -- through Catholic churches with large Latino/a populations (many of which have very conservative Anglo priests) and through Spanish-language media. Here in NV, those outreach efforts were one of many factors that enabled them to win a state they had no business winning.

The Democrats need to engage in a similarly organized and systematic outreach effort -- more than just recruiting candidates with Hispanic surnames.

Second, we need to address issues of concern to Latino/a voters, especially younger ones -- public schools, educational opportunity (notice the massive cut just announced in Perkins loands and other college aid), opportunities for full-time employment that affords social mobility, and access to home-ownership (skywriting home prices and property tax assessments fall hardest on those seeking to enter the home-ownership market). (Immigration of course as well but my experience suggests this is more of a hot-button issue for whites, at leat until immigration restrictions are either loosened or more likely restricted, in which case there is likely to be movement by Hispanic voters towards or away that party.)

Finally, based on my experiences last fall, a lot of younger Latino voters (specifically Latino here, not Latina) supported Bush because of the war -- lots of whom had recently served or were active duty military. A disproprotionate number of our active-duty service-men (more so than our service-womemen) are Latino, and while Kerry had important proposals concerning access to health care for veterans, we lost their votes on perceived national security weakness. Whether that was Kerry's peceived lack of machismo or actual policy differences I am not sure.

by desmoulins on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 04:34:23 PM EST

a question about latino population (none / 0)

I am wondering if anyone has some statistics about how many latinos are eligible to vote and how that breaks down by age group.

Its just a hunch, but I am inclined to believe the less skilled less upwardly mobile sectors of the latino population (and thus more ripe for dem outreach) are probably disproportionatly less able to vote.

by dre2k5 on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 09:29:35 PM EST

We're still underestimating 9/11 (none / 0)

That event derailed or delayed the Energing Democratic Majority realities. Hispanics are much more GOP leaning after 9/11. Here is a 2004 (pre-election) link from PEW on party affiliation switch post 9/11: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750

"During the late 1990s, Democrats outnumbered Republicans among Hispanics by a margin of more than two-to-one (41% to 19%). In the aftermath of 9/11, Democrats still lead, but by a smaller margin (36% to 22%).

Republican gains have been greatest among Protestant Hispanics especially those who consider themselves evangelical Christians.

Among Catholic Hispanics, there has been little change in partisan identification.

The Northeast is the only region where the Democratic party has held its own. Hispanics and Latinos living in that region are just as Democratic today as before Sept. 11."

by jagakid on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:37:16 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.