One often used measure of a district’s vulnerability to takeover is its presidential vote, but the 2008 cycle has made matters confusing. What should we do with districts whose 2008 movement far exceeds the national movement?
For instance: Should national parties trying to decide how much attention to devote to IN-9 look to 2004 (an 18% Bush victory) or 2008 (a 1% Obama district) as most reflective of the district’s partisan leanings? That question can be translated in another way: Should we hold Obama’s over-average gain in that particular district as a fleeting consequence of ephemeral circumstances (for instance an unbalance in campaign spending) or as the reflection of a more fundamental demographic and partisan transformation?
This morning, Swing State Project published a fascinating analysis of congressional districts’ racial composition changes between 2000 and 2008 that helps answer that question. The post has lot of important demographic tidbits. First, clear evidence of the gentrification of urban districts, especially in New York: four of the ten districts with the biggest white gain (in terms of percentage) are in NYC. Second, confirmation that African-Americans are increasingly moving into the suburbs, especially in Georgia: the two districts that have seen the largest African-American growth are in the Atlanta suburbs.
There are a lot of ways in which to read this data, but the point of my post is to point out the electoral consequences: Some of these districts with big demographic changes are also on the list of those that swung to Obama by big margins. That means that their political movement is a long-term transformation - one that is likely to continue in the foreseeable future, very seriously endangering Republicans and solidifying Democrats who occupy these seats.
All of these questions are particularly important for the DCCC to ponder in California, where 9 districts (8 of them represented by a Republican) swung from Bush to Obama - all in large movements ranging from 15% to 20%. And 3 of these 9 are on the list of 25 districts in which the share of the white population decreased the most!
- One is represented by a Democrat: Jerry McNerny’s CA-11. It was 64% white in 2000, when it voted for Bush by 8%; it is now 51% white, and voted for Obama by 10%.
- Two are represented by Republicans: McKeon’s CA-25 and Lungren’s CA-03. The former was 57% white in 2000, when it voted for Bush by 14%; it’s now 44% white, and it voted for Obama by 1%. The latter was 74% white in 2000, when it voted for Bush by 14%; it’s now 63% white, and it narrowly went for Obama.
When deciding which California seats are worth targeting, the DCCC should look very closely at CA-25 and CA-03, as they can now point to a concrete demographic reason that these districts so dramatically swung to Obama in 2008. By contrast, the NRCC might reconsider the high priority it’s put on CA-11: The district’s quite dramatic demographic evolution over the past 8 years makes the GOP pointing to Bush’s victories inadequate. McNerny looks less vulnerable.
Similar conclusions can be drawn in other districts, starting with Dem-held districts where incumbents can breath easier:
- NV-03 (Titus): 69% white to 59% white; 1% Gore to 12% Obama
- VA-11 (Connolly): 69% white to 57% white; 7% Bush to 15% Obama
- CA-10 (vacant): 65% white to 55% white; 12% Gore to 32% Obama
Note that VA-11 is a very interesting case, as no one would point to the 2000 or 2004 results to argue that Connolly should be considered vulnerable. Northern Virginia’s blue drift has been accepted by most as a long-term phenomenon, and Obama’s 15% victory is recognized as a better indicator of Connolly’s (lack of) vulnerability. Also: I am only including CA-10 because a special election is coming up, and this gives us a useful indicator as to whether the GOP has a chance of defeating Lieutenant Governor Garamendi.
Then, we have GOP-held seats about which Republicans have reason to start worrying:
- FL-12 (Putnam): 72% white to 63% white; 10% Bush to 1% McCain
- TX-24 (Marchand): 64% white to 52% white; 36% Bush to 11% McCain
- TX-10 (McCaul): 66% white to 55% white; 33% Bush to 11% McCain
- FL-15 (Posey): 78% white to 69% white; 8% Bush to 3% McCain
- NJ-07 (Lance): 79% to 70% white; 1% Bush to 3% Obama
Pay particular attention to FL-12, which will host an open seat race in 2010 since Putnam is running for statewide office. Based on the district’s giving Bush two large victories - not only 10% in 2000, but 16% in 2004 - the district is described as hostile to Democrats despite the 2008 election’s near tie. However, the fact that the partisan evolution coincidences with quite a stark demographic change suggests that we should pay more attention to last year’s results when deciding whether Democrats have a chance at picking-up the seat.
TX-24 and TX-10 still remain too conservative to be top-tier opportunities for the DCCC, though Democrats are mounting a spirited challenge to McCaul. Yet, it is clear that the demographic evolution is so rapidly threatening GOP dominance over these regions that it is probably only a matter of time before Democrats grow truly competitive.
That gets us to one final observation: The demographic problem the GOP faces in these districts is only the preview of a broader challenge they’ll face nationally as the share of the white population decreases in the United States as a whole. This will be a problem for Republicans at the presidential level and at the House level; it’s not like other districts will get whiter in a way to benefit Republicans because the GOP is losing its grip on the district I listed above. Republicans have to urgently find a way to update their electoral coalition; that they’ve alienated Hispanic voters in recent years certainly won’t help.
I think demographic trends are never consistent, particularly to how they vote. I’m always hesitant to put too much value onto them.
That said, if we continue to let the Tom Tancredos of the world drive our immigration policy, we will destroy ourselves for a generation. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.
Strangely, Tancredo managed to poison McCain with hispanics, even though McCain was by far the most pro-immigration person to ever be nominated by EITHER PARTY. Sort of ironic, isn’t it?
Taniel - a very interesting post. I was going to make the same point that Cliff did that we cannot assume that certain ethnicities will always vote one way. It is probably reasonable to assume whites and african-americans will vote in a similar way for the next few cycles. The big question mark is hispanics. Especially since they are increasing in absolute number AND in the % who vote. Essentially a double whammy for the GOP if they keep their current reputation.
I agree with Cliff that McCain was pro-immigration reform. However he was an outlier (deemed a moderate on this issue). If you look at potential 2012 candidates you don`t see many moderates on this issue. Romney ran to the right on this, as did Huckabee. Since the GOP has shrunk in the last few cycles their conservative base has become even more important. And that conservative base listens to Michael Savage, Rush L, Glenn Beck and others who are all anti “comprehensive” immigration reform. I don`t share Cliff’s view that the GOP will see sense on this issue for at least the 2012 Presidential election.
Guy, this is unrelated with this post but I thought of your comment from the other day when I saw Markos’s tweet about now minding if Harry Reid were to lose. It says a lot about his popularity among Dems that we hear this more about him than about Lincoln.
Christopher Leinberger has a very interesting article; “The Next Slum?”; in the March “08″ issue of The Atlantic Magazine that discusses the reasons for the demographic changes that are occurring in American suburbs and inner cities.
The Swing State voting analysis fits well with the Atlantic article thesis.
As well,there are probably more demographic changes (education, income, religion etc.) that are now occurring in suburbs, exurbs & inner city neighborhoods that are just as important as race in determining changes in voting patterns.
Great news about Ryan Frazier!
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13547966
It’ll be a tough race, but he had no chance at Senate. He’s an attractive candidate with a bright future, if the cards fall his way, he’ll win, if not, he’ll be available for other races I think.
Taniel - people expect Lincoln to be a conservative Dem because she is from Arkansas. If the GOP ever got their act together at a state level and had someone win statewide (AG or Governor for example) then the senate race would be competitive (just like it would if Huckabee ran). Reid represents a more moderate state and is the majority leader. Therefore he is blamed for a variety of decisions (like letting Lieberman back into the caucus, who gets chairmanships, general discipline). The Dems also have the luxury of 60 seats so if you lose one who really craes. It is not like the recent past where majority parties had 51-54 seats so each one counted. You have to give the GOP credit for in 2001-2003 ramming through most of their agenda with only 50-51 senators. Very good discipline when you think Chafee, Snowe and other moderates were there. Quite a few Dems would like to see Reid replaced and him losing his eat is one way to that goal.
Regarding the original post - you know the Hispanic vote is crucial when Karl Rove who is happy to stroke the base’s prejudices (gay marriage bans in state referendums in 2004 for example) went against the base to get Bush to argue for immigration reform and got defeated.
The GOP is, as I have said in the past, going to repeat the UK Labour parties trajectory in 1979-1983. Labour lost to Margaret Thatcher and some on their side said it was because they were not socialist enough. Therefore they elected a very left wing leader and in 1983 ran on the most leftwing manifesto the UK has known. They lost in a landslide. Even before the election last year you had some GOP people say McCain was not conservative enough. That is how they explain the loss. Therefore they will nominate a very conservative nominee who will lose heavily and then in 2016 they will learn moderation - why do you think Governor Huntsman (other than serving his country) choose to tbe the new ambassador to China? He knew a moderate couldn`t get the nomination in 2012 plus it is Romney or Huckabee’s turn!
Sorry for the long post.
As Mel Martinez has said, the GOP’s problem with hispanic voters comes more from rhetoric than from policy. Plenty of hispanics are against illegal immigration–but a cautious tone is needed even when promoting conservative policies. When Tancredo, Savage, etc. are your party’s voice on the issue, opposition to illegal immigration gets confused with racism–and rightly so, since their statements are meant to appeal to racists. I think Tancredo has probably done more to damage the Republican Party since 2007 than Barack Obama.
One way to solve this problem would be to nominate Huckabee and let him speak his mind on this issue. Yes, he ran to the right on immigration–but only tentatively and because he was forced to. I remember Huckabee speaking in one of the early Republican debates about the importance of remembering that America was built by immigrants, and that even illegal immigrants ought to be treated like human beings. Had I been there, I would have cheered. The silence with which the audience answered him convinced me that the GOP was in well-deserved trouble in 2008.
Since Huckabee is considered a leading candidate for the 2012 nomination, it will be interesting to see if he can reach out to hispanic voters (many of them quite religious and socially conservative) without getting pilloried by Rush, Beck, etc. If he survives the primary, he has a chance to win over some non-white voters. I doubt anyone else in the Republican field can do that.
Taniel,
You write that Republicans shouldn’t expect to do better in other districts just because Democratic voters have moved out of them.
In the long run, the GOP certainly has a demographic problem. But are things really moving that quickly? When the districts you mentioned see 10+% increases in their nonwhite populations over four years, doesn’t that mean some other districts have increased white populations? Or are we looking at genuine population shifts, with more people of all shades in those previous Republican strongholds? Do we have to wait for state-legislatures to, *ahem*, “fix” the congressional districts before we’ll know how things really shake down for 2012 and beyond?
I also wonder if liberal democrats moving to the suburbs will stay so liberal and democratic. Blacks who are moving to the suburbs may be more affluent, and less subject to the radicalizing groupthink of inner cities. Of course, Republicans still have to convince them that they aren’t racists…