Voter realignment happening?

Are black and Hispanic voters moving from Democrats to Trump? Any kind of shift spells disaster for Democrats. So hopefully, yes.

The opportunity of a century lies before you!

Jack Chapple has an interesting take on demographics in the 21st century, arguing that only one country will be able to emerge from a global downturn in population [SPOILER ALERT: If you want to skip over the details behind his predicted winner, it's Egypt].  Here's his argument, before I move on the my own premise which is markedly different.

A lot of what he points out is simply factual.Developed countries have a serious demographic challenge that no one has really every overcome to this point.  Global population is expected to start to decline at some point in this century (or perhaps the next).  As Chapple points out, this creates economic challenges on a global scale.  Not to mention, it may create demographic challenges that are even more catastrophic than economic ones.  

Peter Zeihan sees the same demographic trends, which seems undeniable.  He sees different winners emerging than does Chapple:

Regardless of who might win globally, and I do think that the United States will be fine, there is the opportunity of a century for conservatives in the United States, and really the entirety of Western civilization that may pass us by if we do not seize it right now and begin building ahead for it.

I'm speaking of what I have argued in favor of doing before, what Jeff Deist has also argued before.  De-urbanization. I'll argue for it again now with an additional flavor added because it serves two purposes with one effort. 

Technology has finally enabled de-urbanization.  You do not need to live close to a major city to be able to commute to your job (in large part, manufacturing and some other industries remain aside).  That means you can live in a small town, or some other remote rural location and work from home. This obviates the need for office space, for commuter trains, for massively expanded super highways in urbanized locations, for subways, for as many bank machines, and coffee shops etc.  Most of those things do not go away, they morph and disperse into a more diffused set of locations.   Small towns grow, big megalopolis sized cities shrink.  Why?  Housing costs, crime stats, quality of life differences, among other reasons.

This requires a lot of transition.  Much as the United States and much of the Western world are transitioning production away from China (finally), with the adjunct pains of transition, transition to a more rural or at least less urban nation will be painful in the short term.  New fiber optic cabling spanning tens of thousands of miles must be laid. That's a primary requirement.  But so too will be water, sewage handling, fuel pipelines, medical facilities, police services, and everything necessary to support smaller local communities that are spread further apart.  These things do not happen overnight and they certainly do not happen without a concerted political effort to make the option to de-urbanize possible.  That's what needs to be happening right now.

There are certainly benefits for conservatives if this geographic shift occurs.  Urban centers tend to be far more liberal and rural areas and smaller towns tend to be far more conservative.  This is an environment that offers home field advantage as it were, in terms of political momentum.  Smaller communities tend to be more religious, more friendly, and cleaner.  They also may help level the playing field between mega-corporations and mom and pop shops. It could help regrow the entrepreneurial spirit that made America a great economic power . 

Here's the added benefit that not only benefits conservative demographics, it argues against the inevitability of population decline and global economic stagnation: rural populations have higher birth rates than urban populations.  It's easier to raise children in an environment that is safer, that has more room for them to play, that does not require tens of thousands of extra dollars spent on car payments and mortgages and commutes and enhanced security etc. With less distraction there's more opportunity to procreate. There's more time to spend with family.  That benefits conservatives.  It benefits America, and it benefits America's contribution to global population.  It's a win win win.

Lastly, here's a bonus thought on this; it would be easier to co-opt the environmental movement to get the political effort started because you can argue it will result in a significantly lower carbon footprint without the need for such a massive volume of commuters. As conservatives, we just need to get out in front of this because this opportunity of a century will not remain available forever.  States should probably start this effort on a localized basis.  If you live in Kansas for example, this is something that can be started in a more localized effort, which makes it easier and the chances that you can succeed that much higher.

COVID as opportunity. Pay attention conservatives.

Jeff Deist discusses why COVID is an opportunity for the Right. In my 10th Rule for Patriots (Be Prepared), I mentioned the Democratic mantra 'never let a crisis go to waste'.  COVID is not a crisis, but it is messed up situation.  That's the closest to a crisis it actually gets.  Jeff Deist is right, this is an opportunity, not just a threat. He argues it's an opportunity for new ideas to be presented.  He's right, but I think it's bigger than that.

[2023 UPDATE:  The above video was removed, here's a related video instead]

What I see as the real opportunity is to further push things like working from home. That facilitates decentralization. Decentralization of any kind, including work environments, enables decentralization of living locations which in turn enables a more rural populace, which is conducive to common sense, and conservatism. To me that's the real opportunity. The other Democratic mantra, demographics is destiny is not wrong, but they have overplayed the racial aspect of that. There are so many attributes that are part of demographics and you can overwhelm the 'systemic racism' messaging with demographics. Rural vs. urban is a lever that serves conservatism. Let people flee California. Encourage work from home, encourage the opportunity for small town values to flourish.

The new demographics

Bill Whittle and company discuss the demographic shifts that were expected and how reality has differed from what was anticipated.  What I have been predicting (and I posted on this somewhere a few years ago) was an offshoot of what they are discussing here. Which I will re-emphasize below the video.

I predicted years a go a shift towards a work from home economy.  COVID-19 has obviously accelerated that paradigm shift, but it was inevitable regardless.  Businesses can save real estate or costs (either through purchase or rental) by having fewer workers in a centralized office.  The savings are dramatic.  I worked for a company back in 2014 that had combined three office buildings into one by requiring office workers to work from home 40% of the time.  It resulted in the company saving millions per year in office space rental, electricity, and myriad other cost associated with having an office facility.  That makes a huge difference in the bottom line profits.  While not every job can be taken home (factory jobs for example), this will result in a very significant portion of the population as remote workers.

There's implications with that, including some important ones.  For example, if 50% of workers can work from home, they don't need to commute.  The need for roads and road development is decreased.  People don't need to live in congested cities to work, they can move just about anywhere and telecommute (for lack of a better word).  That means property values in cities decrease and in rural areas with more space and less smog, they will increase.  That will result in a population shift to small towns and rural areas.   Rural and smaller town areas tend to be, and vote, more conservative.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.  There are so many impacts and factors that will influence the shifts (for example, the proximity to hospitals still matters, but so does where future hospitals get built).

This merits a longer discussion, which I am sure will happen soon.

Has China's economy jumped the shark?

China is running into some serious economic and demographic challenges, as this FT documentary from last year points out.  China's boom may not yet be over, but it certainly appears there's a very real end in sight.

There are implication for Sino-American relations and even how China deals with North Korea, as these changes develop.

What you need to know about Canadian immigration

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, son of former Prime Minister and prime purveyor of multi-culturalism Prime Minister continues Canada's trend of subverting our own culture for political gain (re-election).  The problem is snowballing and Canada's future will be affected.

Demographics and De-urbanization

There's a good article by Joel Kotkin at RealClearPolitics regarding demographics and suburbanization versus urbanization. I thought I'd add my two cents in the form of a single, salient point (followed by some reasoning behind it).

Yet if politics are now being dominated by big cities along the coasts, the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data suggests that when it comes to their own lives, Americans are moving increasingly elsewhere, largely to generally Republican-leaning suburbs and Sunbelt states. In other words, politics and power are headed one way, demographics the other.

Perhaps no American president has been less sympathetic to suburbs than Barack Obama. Shaun Donovan, Obama’s first secretary of Housing and Urban Development, proclaimed the suburbs’ were “over” as people were “voting with their feet” and moving to dense, transit-oriented urban centers. More recently, Donovan’s successor, Julian Castro, has targeted suburbs by proposing to force them to densify and take more poor people into their communities.

Here's my two cents: The trend towards de-urbanization is inevitable.  With the advent of the Internet, the ability to work from home via VPNs is becoming more common.  Additionally, companies have come to realize the benefit of open seating offices with shared desk space by leveraging the work from home model.  The real estate cost savings are significant for companies.

So too are the savings for commuters.  Less fuel.  Less time travelling.  So, suburban and rural alternatives become more palatable as places to reside.  Congestion, crowding are not problems.  De-urbanization becomes possible allowing people cheaper residences, more room and and stronger sense of community given the lower density towns.

Not overnight, but the Internet has the potential to replace the automobile as the work-related necessity for employees.  Given the ongoing offshoring of skilled labor and the advent of 3D printing technology, perhaps even skilled laborers can benefit from the de-urbanization potential. 

Urban centers will remain meccas for entertainment and medicine and social activity.  But not forever.  Even those things are becoming decentralized.  Amazon with drone delivery technology waiting to be realized mean even mass transport of goods will change.

In the social arena people who are concerned with global warming will take heart in the ability to avoid using vehicles as much as possible. The desire to 'eat local' and buy local are truly reinforced with smaller communities.

All of this is not a small thing. And the implications will be global. Consider the impact on the automobile industry and mass transit.  Consider the impact on conservative politics versus progressive politics - the opportunity to grow faith in a distant central government exists.  But so does the opportunity to localize education as opposed to Internet-izing it.  The same is true for mass media and news outlets.  The potential to localizing religion exists - for good or bad. The implications are vast, and I've only just begun to consider them.  What do you think?  Is it even possible let alone inevitable?  And if it does happen, what do you see changing?

The future is still wide open.

Obama repeats the past, only worse

Decades ago when Social Security was enacted,  and later Medicare and Medicaid as well, planners planned based on assumptions about what I would call a static growth model.  That is to say that the success (or more correctly, sustainability)  of those programs was, and is, dependent upon two things:

1. that the population would continue to grow, or at least not shrink, and 
2. that the make up of the population would not change significantly over time.  

Of course neither of those conditions are certain and one has in fact, already proven to be wrong.

Let's not panic

So there are conservatives ready to throw in the towel - in some quarters.  In order to win, the rationale goes, they need to promise more free stuff than the Democrats.  Or else, they weren't conservative enough in the election cycle.  Others have argued that it's over for conservatism.  The trending demographics - the browning of America as they've called it (not my words) - means that conservatism is on a slow downward trend.  Oh wait, that one is from liberals.  See how liberalism sneaks in on you?

There's a million prescriptions to cure the problem.  There's a million reasons to panic. Don't.  Let's not panic.  There's no need, and panic rarely ever leads to a good decision and a good outcome.

Before I get too far, let me just note that there's an important point below about John Boehner worth sticking around for.

The Hispanic Female Vote

Don't ever think Hispanic voters are a lost cause for conservatism - no voting block is a block, everyone is an individual and everyone is reachable. With conservative truths, this should be an easier demographic than it is.

Remember, there is hope.



Every supposedly solid liberal group is reachable with the truth - African Americans, Hispanics, women, unions, every one of them. Not by pandering but by talking, listening and educating them on what conservatism really is and what it means for them.

Race, Gender & Religion

Back during the 2008 election cycle I visited a lot of websites looking at different polling results, and models to predict electoral college outcomes. A lot of sites offered the option to flip states red/blue or neutral and see how it impacted electoral college totals.

But one site offered a way to adjust voter turnout and voter split by race, gender and religious affiliation. By playing with those breakdowns on a national level, it would flip states appropriately and calculate the resulting electoral college totals. It was (is) a great toy for experimentation. You can check out the full demographic options here. Credit to http://www.boston.com/ for the tool.

I've included a sample that relates to Hispanics, a topic I've discussed previously.



Being a numbers guy, and a database marketing guy, I'd really love to see the algorithms behind the summary totals. But being a marketing guy, I see the value in having RNC members, conservatives, the GOP in general see the power of those shifts, in small scales and what it means to the electoral college. I'd encourage you to go there and give it a try, just so you can see what I'm talking about.

The litany of McCain errors - Part 2

Yesterday I wrote that McCain had made a number of campaign-related mistakes, and I focused on the money matters. Today I want to look at the demographic issues related to the McCain campaign. How did McCain's failure to have an effective demographic strategy and/or his failure to materialize that strategy in an electoral college sense, cost him the campaign? There's two ways to look at these problems - what demographic groups McCain failed to deliver and what electoral college impacts the campaign decisions resulted in.

Demographics

John McCain's strategy team clearly were out-gamed in the demographics department. President-elect Obama beat out both Hilary Clinton and then John McCain by having a demographic strategy and sticking to it. I'm sure the Obama team crunched the numbers and figured out what they needed to do to win. George W. Bush had won 62 million votes in 2004. Karl Rove was praised at the time (or vilified, if you were a Democrat) for his GOTV machine. But Obama outdid Bush by garnering 67.1 million votes. Where did they come from. And why did McCain garner only 58.4 million votes? Surely he could have at least matched Bush?



When you break down those numbers, Obama got 52.7% of the popular vote to McCain's 45.9%, while Bush had received 50.7% in 2004. In 2008 125.4 million people voted, in 2004 121 million people voted. So there were 4.4 million net new voters. McCain got 3.7 million less votes than George Bush. You combine those two points and you get approximately an 8.1 million vote victory that Obama enjoyed (according to NPR, the margin was 8.6 million).



Let's take as a plausible but unproven given that the 3.7 million votes McCain leaked versus Bush in 2004 were unavoidable. After all Bush had become very unpopular, and McCain wasn't Mr. Charisma. Those votes could be votes that stayed home or actually shifted to Obama. Let's further assume the latter is the case for simplicity sake for now. Why did those voters become Democratic voters and how did Obama bring an additional 4.2 million new voters to the table?

Obama was clearly going to win 2 groups in unprecedented numbers;

-youth
-African-Americans

Both of these groups contributed to a good number of the new voters while the latter probably also contributed slightly to the number who voted Democrat this time around.

But there was a third group that Obama did better than I would have expected. Hispanic voters. Considering Bush was friendly to Hispanics and McCain had tried to be, why did McCain fare so much more poorly than Bush had done previously? Another demographic where McCain underperformed were disaffected Hilary Clinton voters, or PUMAs.

Let's look at each of these areas and see what went wrong for McCain.







Youth

Interestingly in 2008 the youth vote was only up to 18% versus 17% in 2004. Obama's margin of victory in this demographic has been typically sited as 68-30 to 66-32. This compares to John Kerry's margin of 55-44 in 2004. The number of voters in the demo is estimated at 22 to 24 million, versus 21 million in 2004. In other words, there's a net swing of 2.7 million related to the improved voter share, and 450,000 as a result of new youth voter turnout. All told there is 3.15 million votes that helped to Obama.

Could McCain have prevented this? Probably not. He might as well be 1000 years old to some of that Demographic. He's someone to whom they just can't relate. Showing videos of his heroics in Vietnam is just too distant to them. But McCain could have done something to stem the margin of the tide. Instead of the margin that occurred, perhaps McCain could have fought for a 60-40 split. It would have potentially shaved a million votes off Obama's total gains.

How to do that would have been another matter, but looking at McCain's campaign there wasn't any highly visible youth outreach. Did McCain concede the demographic? Did he feel the youth turnout was being overestimated? In either case, there was a strategic mistake to not seriously contest this group. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but my premise is how do we learn from 2008, so hindsight is meaningful.

What's the lesson on youth? A vote is a vote. Uninformed votes count the same as informed votes, and they must be contested. Working in the GOPs favor for 2012 is the same enthusiasm for Obama's hope and change message is going to be highly diminished after 4 years of not seeing immediate impactful change in their young lives. That demographic edge will still be there, but it will be smaller. This is especially true if the youth outreach is started by the RNC in 2009 and carries on through 2012 and beyond.

African Americans

There's no way McCain stood a chance in this demographic. To put it in any other light would be unfair. Conceding this demographic to Obama was not a strategic blunder but rather a strategic necessity. It was always Obama's demographic. The impact?

These numbers are still preliminary because final numbers seemingly haven't been published yet, but apparently 95% voted for Obama while in 2004 it was 88% for Kerry. Approximating the voter turnout of 60% in 2004 and outright guessing at 70% in 2008, we'd see 21 million voters in 2004 and 25.5 million in 2008. Breaking those approximations down, Obama gained 1.47 million voters versus Kerry in 2004 and attracted 4.5 million new African American voters, for a net gain of roughly 6 million. We'll have to wait for official releases to see if this number bears out.

Combined with the youth vote we're already nearing 9 million voters gained for Obama at this point.

But wait, why do African Americans vote Democrat in such percentages when there is ample evidence they are more conservative in many respects? In California on Proposition 8 regarding gay marriage, they voted against gay marriage in significant numbers. African Americans aren't really lost causes for conservatives. It's a matter of outreach. That's the lesson. We really aren't that far apart, we just need to have the dialogue as often as possible between now and 2012. Obama will still win, but maybe we can push back to the Kerry margins in 2012 and assuming a non-African American in 2016, perhaps work towards an even more central tendency in 2016 and beyond.

Hispanics

Hispanics voted 67% to 31% for Obama in 2008. In 2004 Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote. That means McCain dropped 13% of Hispanic voters. Similarly I haven't seen turnout numbers but these numbers work in Obama's favor. Overall, this demographic slippage provides a lesson that requires some investigation.

Why didn't McCain fare better? Clearly the amnesty issue wasn't a winner for him. Hispanic voters were similar in California to African Americans on Proposition 8. They are also typically more religious than other demographics. So on social conservatism this group is winnable. Again, the issue is outreach. We need to learn what is motivation the demographic economically or otherwise to sway them away from socially conservative based voting. If we don't know what is motivating them, how can we ever hope to reach them? Bush had made inroads, but those appear to have been foregone now.

Clinton Women / PUMAs


While there are no specific breakdowns of PUMA voters that I have seen yet, Obama carried the female vote. In doing so he dispelled the myth that depending on a disenfranchised voter segment to help you carry the day is a bad idea. It didn't work for McCain, or at least not in sufficient numbers to overcome the build up for Obama in the other demographics. They seemed to be a non factor, or a minor one at best I'm sorry to say.

Unfortunately this analysis barely skims the surface and some underlying data is still outstanding to do it justice. But it's a start for now. The passage of time will reveal more for us.

But the point to be taken away is unchanged. We need to identify a coalition not of interest groups but of demographic groups that we know our message will resonate with. Then, we have to pound the heck out of that group with consistent messaging about their issues and concerns. My belief is that a conservative message plays to many more demographics that are traditionally targeted and the only way to expand conservatism is to take the message to new population segments that are a more natural fit than is currently considered.

Tomorrow I will continue with Part 3, Strategy.