The Future Electorate: Race and Ethnicity

by: Chris Bowers

Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:31


What will the electorate look like in twenty years? This is a question I have set out to answer this week, with a series of articles forecasting future demographic trends in the American electorate. Using historical voting data, exit polls, and population projections from the census, it is actually possible to develop a detailed and reasonably accurate view of what the electorate will look like from 2012-2032.

First, here are the projections for race / ethnicity as a percentage of the electorate, from 2012-2032:

Projected Race / Ethnicity % of Electorate, Presidential Elections 2012-2032
Group 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032
White 74% 72% 71% 70% 68% 65% 63%
Black 13% 14% 12% 13% 13% 13% 14%
Latino 9% 10% 11% 12% 14% 15% 16%
Asian 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4%
Other 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
(Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding)

The overall trend is pretty clear: the white percentage of the electorate is decreasing, while the Latino percentage rising rapidly (plus slower rises within the Asian community, and a slow, uneven rise within the African-American community). There is nothing revelatory or controversial about this, given that the self-identified "white" share of the electorate has already dropped from 87% in 1992 to 74% in 2008. This table actually forecasts a slightly slower rate of decline for the white percentage of the electorate over the next twenty-four years (-11%) than was witnessed during the previous 24 years (-12% since 1984). This difference is primarily due to exceptionally high African-American turnout for President Obama in 2008 (for the first time ever, in 2008 African-Americans turned out at slightly higher percentages than whites), which I forecast will repeat in 2012 but then revert to a normal pattern of growth in 2016 based on 2004 turnout numbers.

I will have more on this projection later today, but for now here are some salient points to consider:

  1. Voter Turnout Will Rise Indefinitely: One thing I noticed while constructing these charts is that it is highly likely voter turnout will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Every indication points toward increasing voting. As the population ages, it will vote more often. As the population ages, crime will be reduced, and the voting ineligible population will drop. (Many states are rolling back voting restrictions on ex-felons, too). As the country (hopefully) becomes more prosperous per capita, it will vote more often. As a higher percentage of the Latino and Asian resident communities become citizens and native-born, turnout rates will increase among those groups. Overall, it is highly likely that voter turnout is on a long-term, one-way, upward growth pattern.

  2. Obama Coalition now equal to Reagan's. A look at the race / ethnicity cross-tabs from 1984 shows that Reagan would have won by 8% in 2012 according to his levels of support among each racial / ethnic group. For the sake of comparison, in 2012 Obama will win by 9% if he maintains his 2008 level of support in each racial / ethnic group. As such, demographic shifts have now made Obama's coalition the equal of Reagan's.

  3. Republicans can stay competitive with 2004 Bush coalition: For the next twenty years, Presidential elections will be decided by 1% or less if Republicans can rebuild the 2004 Bush coalition. However, that still means they must return to their peak performance of the last twenty years just to stay competitive during the next twenty years. That is not a good forecast for them.
As I said, later this afternoon I will follow-up this post with more data. Also, every day this week I will examine the future of the electorate from another demographic perspective (religion tomorrow). The data used to make these projections can be downloaded in an Excel file here.
Chris Bowers :: The Future Electorate: Race and Ethnicity

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
2004 Peak? (4.00 / 2)
Bush's "victory" in 2004 (there has never been a real investigation of Ohio, where even the irregularities had irregularities) was that of a "war-time President" (not really, but the Dems utterly failed to even question, much less challenge this formulation), and as such has to be judged as incredibly weak.  Indeed, even without such consideration, it was the weakest re-election margin since 1916.

On top of which it was the product of a self-destructively inept Dem campaign (not responding to the Swift Boat liars, and just hoping they'd go away?), combined with the most intensively short-termed propaganda effort imaginable (see  Bush's approval ratings, which almost immediately headed downward after the election).

In short, I simply don't think it's possible to read Bush's 2004 total as any sort of baseline for anything.  Rather, it's a highwater mark of unique circumstances--AND from an era that has now passed from the scene.

The 2008 GOP primary richly illustrated how hopelessly fragmented the Republicans are, and without the set of circumstances that allowed their deep fissures to be submerged in 2004, it seems like pure fantasy to even speak of a "2004 Bush coalition."

It's good that Chris pointed this out as part of his comprehensive overview.  But it's necessary to not make of it more than it was.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


Oh, I agree (4.00 / 1)
I agree that it will be very, very difficult for Republicans to return to 2004 levels of support among just about any racial / ethnic group, especially Latinos. This is due not only to the reasons you cite, but also to the widespread unpopularity of Bush as a result of the economic and foreign crises that happened from 2005-2008. And the radicalized, anti-immigrant Republican base doesn't help much.

Further, there are other demographic trends, notably religion, that will make it difficult for Republicans to maintain even their 2008 percentages, much less return to 2004 levels. Younger whites and Latinos are much more likely to be Democratic than their older ethnic cohorts.

There is more coming on this.


[ Parent ]
Demography Is Not Destiny (0.00 / 0)
Demography, as they say, is not destiny.  Did you look at trends in partisan loyalty within racial groups over time?  What about other complicating factors that have strong relationships with vote choice (e.g. income percentile, education, union household status, etc).  I don't mean to be a multivariate stickler (and I'm doing some vigorously bivariate research right now), but I think this is just a bit too simple a way to look at things.

Do I agree with your general sentiment?  Hell yes.  Your general sense is similar to that at the root of my assumptions for my own research.  But I think that methodologically you leave some things to be desired.


[ Parent ]
It is all coming (0.00 / 0)
As you may have noticed in the article, I will be looking at several other factors, and going deeper into this factor.

This one post isn't the entire project. It is the first in a long series.


[ Parent ]
Coalicion Bush (4.00 / 1)
Bush received a remarkable 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, something I cannot see any Republican replicating on a national level given the decidedly nativist tilt of the GOP base.  

It might not have even been that high (0.00 / 0)
Those numbers are controversial, even though I used the in this projection. Some claim that the actual numbers were 58%-40%, and the issue remains unresolved.

However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Republicans are unable to return to those numbers. Partisan support within these groups is a lot more fluid than the overall percentage of each group in the electorate, not to mention more difficult to predict. It wasn't long ago, for example, that Democrats won 75% of the Latino vote. That seems to have gone away for good, too.


[ Parent ]
Really Great Work (4.00 / 1)
A couple of other observations:

1.  I agree with Paul that the '04 coalition was very much a War coalition. It is worth noting, though, that I would expect future GOP policians will likely try to avoid angering the Hispanic base, and as a result it may be possible for them to duplicate the 44% Bush got in '04.

2.  The great unknown is whether the current cohort between 18-29 remains as Democratic as they did in '08.  Schlessinger thought understanding age cohorts was the key to understanding American politics, and if he is right then as the Eisenhower generation dies off and the current youth cohort ages, we could see an enduring democratic majority.  Here is an exercise: try to predict the election of 2016 based on the assumption that the current cohort stays as democratic as it is, and that the baby boomers replace the Eisenhower generation in the over 65 group.  When I did this a few months ago the results were astonishing.  


My guess is a 10% Democratic increase in 2020 (4.00 / 2)
After all of the demographics are considered, my best guess is a net 10% increase in the Democratic margin by 2020. That is, the Democratic nominee will win by 17% in 2020 if nothing changes. I don't think that will happen, but you are right, the coming changes could be astonishing. Obama won first time voters by 39%, even though he lost seniors by 8%. That can only project to a huge shift in coming years.

[ Parent ]
The Rs getting back to 44% Latino Vote? (4.00 / 1)
Is this really possible in the short term (say over the next twenty year)?  I agree with fladem that GOP candidates for the Pres. will try and go after Latino's in full force, but I don't see how that will be enough.  John McCain was relatively sane on immigration.  I don't think he lost the Latino vote because of his proposed policies, past votes or rhetoric.  I think he lost it because of the loud, overzealous racism that is the R base.  I don't see how future R Pres. candidates change this dynamic (again, over the next 20 years or so).  How do you muzzle the entire southern R delegation, not to mention almost the entire R media establishment (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc.)?  They are loudly and proudly racist.  

Perhaps I'm not giving these politicians and media men enough credit for being able to change their views in order to regain power.  But this seems like a major shift in attitude for a group that is very intense about their hatred of Latinos.  


[ Parent ]
Generations of immigrants (0.00 / 0)
Has anyone seen any data that suggests differences in voting habits between immigrants who become naturalized citizens vs. their children and grandchildren who are born in this country?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

More on that later (4.00 / 1)
There is data on that score, which shows the situation as much worse for Republicans than even these numbers suggest. However, rather than dumping all the data at once, I'm going to work through this slowly, so that it all makes more sense.

[ Parent ]
Turonout to rise indefinitely? Not if people's hopes are unredeemed. (4.00 / 2)
Look at South Africa.  In the nineties, when they had their first free election, people walked all night and stood in line all day to vote.  There was an astronomical turnout,a nd people expected better.

Now South Africa's poor still cannot afford school fees, their water, phone and other services have been privatized, and they are squeezed unmercifully by international capital and a black class of its collaborators who run the ANC.  Turnout in the most recent parliamentary election is in the seventy percent range, and lower in poor constituencies.

And let's not talk about Haiti, where about ten percent showed up for the most recent election, because the party of Aristide which usually accounts for ninety percent of turnout has been banned by the occupying forces.

My point is that if you do not give people what they want, they will stop turning out.  Chris's article is an empty exercise because voters are humans, not trend lines, and their participation depends on their estimation of the utility of the electoral process.  If Democrats don't give African Americans, for example, what they want when they DO turn out and when the president himself is black, just why does anybody think the trend of higher turnouts will continue forever.  It's just plain silly.

"If you want that good feeling that comes from doing things for other people, then you have to pay for it in abuse and misunderstanding..."
Zora Neale Hurston


Not comparable (4.00 / 1)
The situation in South Africa is simply not comparable. Suffrage was established there in the mid-1990s, while it was established nationwide here in the mid-1960's and in many regions for over a century. Further, the per capita income for the poor in the United States is more than ten times what it is in South Africa, and even greater compared to Haiti. and, as you noted, there is an occupying military force in Haiti along with banned political groups that complicates the situation further.

Comparing elections in countries with such vastly differing institutional histories and demographic makeups is an empty exercise. Dismissing demographic projections out of hand is even worse.

Humans don't act in completely random patterns. Turnout will keep going up.


[ Parent ]
I am not dismissing demographic predictions out of hand (4.00 / 2)
I am saying that people's expectations DO matter, and Democrats disappoint them at their peril.  You cannot fail to give people what they think they want and deserve and expect turnout to continue to rise.

"If you want that good feeling that comes from doing things for other people, then you have to pay for it in abuse and misunderstanding..."
Zora Neale Hurston


[ Parent ]
There is nothing in Chris Bower's writings that ever indicated this was a foregone conclusion. (0.00 / 0)
In fact, if you are new here, these projections are part of a  long running poly sourced meta analysis of how to "get there" - not a "snapshot of today"
Any analysis CB projects assumes to a large extent that you have been following at least soem of the discussion about delivering the changes needs to 'per4fect the union' in an ongoing progressive transformation of our democracy.

I would point you to the phrasew better democrats.

The point being Chris' writings assume progressive action.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
#3 (0.00 / 0)
The only way the GOP can rebuild the 2004 coalition is to recapture the Ron Paul types.

The war on drugs, the empire, the police state, the corporate oligarchs: can one have too many allies?


Although Paulards include many very wealthy benefactors (4.00 / 1)
some clever online types and some trully crazzzzzy wingnuts of the militia style, there is no indication that he attracts a larger fraction than he appealed to in the last primary.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
part of his appeal (a big part) (4.00 / 2)
was due to being the only anti-Iraq War Republican in the race. When the public finally got that the Iraq war was a tremendous blunder and every Republican candidate was pro-war except Paul it didn't leave some conservatives anywhere else to go. McCain tried to straddle the issue by being in favor of invading, against the execution of the war, in favor of the surge and against leaving.  

[ Parent ]
Hispanic Turnout (0.00 / 0)
I suspect that Chris's numbers are actually rather pessimistic. I suspect that at some point we'll see a major surge in Hispanic turnout, given that Latinos vote at so much lower a rate than other groups. If that happens, you'll see a sudden surge towards the Democrats. The question is how one makes this happen. Putting a Latino on the ticket sure wouldn't hurt....

I still like Bruce Dixon's idea. (4.00 / 1)
Win people's votes by addressing their concerns. It's worth a try anyway.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 1)
The population of Hispanics far outpaces the voter population of Hispanics.  Many of the former aren't citizens.  Many of the former are not acculturated to the US yet.  The second generation will change all that, in addition to adding raw population numbers.  

There will be a Latino and Hispanic voter explosion in the 2010s and 2020s.

The poster below me and you both are right: need to include and empower both the people and the priorities of Hispanics.  We need more Democratic Hispanic leaders and we need them in prominence; and we need to address concerns of Hispanic voters (and the Hispanic population at large).  


[ Parent ]
More complicated (0.00 / 0)
Most of the Democratic base states are, in fact, more white (non-hispanic white, actually) than the country as a whole.  Maine and Vermont are 95% non-hispanic white (national population is 66% non-hispanic white.  States like Ohio, Massachussetts, Rhode Island, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Minnesots clock in at around 80%.  So does Oregon.

Six traditionally Democratic states have a higher percentage of minorities than the country as a whole: NY, NJ, MD, , IL, CA, HI.  Only CA and HI have a majority minority population.

The Republicans seem to do better than expected in states with a portion of the minority population above the national average: Texas, Georgia, and Mississippi all come to mind.  There seems to be a space where in some spots the declining "majority" coalesces as it droops to be solidly Republican.  Fear?

In my view the biggest threat to Democratic dominance over the next 20 years is the failure of the auto industry and the abandonment of its retirees.


Just curious (0.00 / 0)
Do people here agree with these demographic trends or find them a problem or just not care?

I'd personally feel better if folks on the left thought it worth considering and debating a bit.

All those Batista fans who washed up on our shores sure had an effect these last 50 years. The Jewish contingent (and their fundamentalist Christian fans) over the last 60 years sure have us worshiping AIPAC and Netanyahu policy, not that there aren't quite a lot of irritated US Jews whose more balanced opinion of Israel is lost in the debate. Armenians and Greeks seem to own the Turkish debate.

I see lots of arguing about No Child Left Behind but rarely if ever see anything about the effects of English As A Second Language on test scores, even though say 30% of our population now is foreign born. Wouldn't loads of new immigrants push English test scores down?

Ironically, fertility rate in Mexico is somewhere around 2.1 now, while fertility rate for Mexican-Americans is around 3.2, and the American trend towards out-of-wedlock teenage births is opposite as well. (Cuban and Puerto Rican Americans have much lower TFRs).

Don't get me wrong, I realize we stole large parts of Mexico, and would have stolen much much more if it wouldn't have given more votes to the South. And Mexican and Salvadoran crews in the US work really really hard and well - they deliver good value for their work.

But we see government projections showing really a 1.8% Mexican (not Hispanic) increase every 5 years, going from 16% Hispanic in 2010 to over 30% by 2050, and the discussion's all over the effect on elections, not whether say turning into a poor manual labor-based Mexico of say 1980 3rd World characteristics is really our desired policy, especially since Latin America has moved on from those days. Is there some time and place where it's appropriate to have that debate? Why not more Ethiopians and Nigerians, more Indians, more Bosnians and Croats, more Indonesians, more Turks, more Argentinians and Brazilians?  


Turning into a "poor manual labor based (4.00 / 1)
Mexico of say 1980 3rd World characteristics" is the long term project of the Conservative movement and exactly what we are fighting against. That's why we need to win elections, and keep on winning them. That's why an increasingly diverse electorate is good news.

If it's the color brown you have a problem with, then I think you will find yourself very alone here.



Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Try again (0.00 / 0)
"Why not more Ethiopians and Nigerians, more Indians, more Bosnians and Croats, more Indonesians, more Turks, more Argentinians and Brazilians?" I'd say almost all of these are brown or darker. And I like these people. I'm asking why we have a monotonic thumb on our immigration scale. Even if we think 1 million+ immigrants a year is sustainable, by what logic have we decided that we will jump our Mexican population by 14 percentage points over the next 40 years, or are we just ignoring the issue? I don't know that this can be laid at the feet of Republicans. Why not Venezuelans and Colombians, why not Peruvians and Chilenos? Hey, I'm fluent in Spanish, and know enough about history and politics to realize there's more than 1 country in the Hispanic world.

[ Parent ]
30% Foreign Born??? Try 12%! (0.00 / 0)
According to the Census Bureau, as of 2004 (pdf), the US population was 288.280,000, of whom 254,037,000 were native-born, or 88.12%.  Meaning less than 12% were foreign-born.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Apologies (0.00 / 0)
Brain should have filtered charts like this one:

http://www.migrationinformatio...

showing both raw numbers and percentages. Percentage of foreign born is about 12.8% now, estimated via other references to be about 18% in 2025. Quite a huge increase over the last decade, and again, unlike the waves of immigration in the 1800's, this isn't diverse stock or even 1 ethnic group - it's primarily 1 country.

Hmmm, can we do charts via HTML? Doubtful, but...
failed, click here


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search