It’s Still the Demography, Stupid
As Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit writes, “Bad News For Dems… Ultra-Blue States Continue to Lose Population to Red States — Texas Will Gain 4 House Seats.”
The census report coming out on Tuesday is expected to give Republicans more good news as the US population continues to shift from ultra-blue states to more conservative southern Sun Belt states.
The AP reported:The 2010 census report coming out Tuesday will include a boatload of good political news for Republicans and grim data for Democrats hoping to re-elect President Barack Obama and rebound from last month’s devastating elections.
The population continues to shift from Democratic-leaning Rust Belt states to Republican-leaning Sun Belt states, a trend the Census Bureau will detail in its once-a-decade report to the president. Political clout shifts, too, because the nation must reapportion the 435 House districts to make them roughly equal in population, based on the latest census figures.
The biggest gainer will be Texas, a GOP-dominated state expected to gain up to four new House seats, for a total of 36. The chief losers — New York and Ohio, each projected by nongovernment analysts to lose two seats — were carried by Obama in 2008 and are typical of states in the Northeast and Midwest that are declining in political influence.
Meanwhile, back in the Blue States, in 2005, James Taranto spotted an AP report on the dearth of Frisco Families:
“San Francisco has the smallest share of small-fry of any major U.S. city,” the Associated Press reports. “Just 14.5 percent of the city’s population is 18 and under.” The AP dispatch attributes the small number of children to high housing costs and Frisco’s high prevalence of nonprocreative sexual orientations. Not mentioned is the Roe effect. The AP also describes how the city is responding:
Determined to change things, Mayor Gavin Newsom has put the kid crisis near the top of his agenda, appointing a 27-member policy council to develop plans for keeping families in the city. . . .Newsom has expanded health insurance for the poor to cover more people under 25, and created a tax credit for working families. And voters have approved measures to patch up San Francisco’s public schools, which have seen enrollment drop from about 62,000 to 59,000 since 2000.
One voter initiative approved up to $60 million annually to restore public school arts, physical education and other extras that state spending no longer covers. Another expanded the city’s Children’s Fund, guaranteeing about $30 million a year for after-school activities, child care subsidies and other programs.
So the lack of children is a reason to spend more taxpayer money on schools and other programs for kids. If there were more kids, would that be a reason to spend less? The question answers itself, doesn’t it? As Ronald Reagan once observed, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this Earth.”
Five years later, in case you’re wondering if San Francisco is still number one on this unfortunate list, and who number two might be, the Newsalert blog has you covered. “Young, hip Seattle still very short on children,” they note, linking to a Seattle Times report:
There’s something missing from many Seattle neighborhoods: the sound of children’s laughter.
Recent census data indicate Seattle is continuing a decades-long trend of having the lowest concentration of children among all the major U.S. cities, except San Francisco.
Less than 20 percent of all Seattle households included children younger than 18, compared with 34 percent nationally and 33 in Washington state.
Seattle also has one of the nation’s highest rates of married couples without children and one of the highest rates of people living alone.
On the eve of last month’s liberal electoral shellacking, Ronald Radosh pondered “The Disappearance of the Emerging Democratic Majority:”
In 2004, John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira wrote an acclaimed and seemingly prescient book, The Emerging Democratic Majority. Their thesis was based on a demographic analysis, which led them to predict the end of any future Republican ascendancy. As Judis summed up their thesis after the Obama landslide of 2008, Obama’s “election is the culmination of a Democratic realignment that began in the 1990s, was delayed by September 11, and resumed with the 2006 election. This realignment is predicated on a change in political demography and geography. Groups that had been disproportionately Republican have become disproportionately Democratic, and red states like Virginia have turned blue. Underlying these changes has been a shift in the nation’s ‘fundamentals’–in the structure of society and industry, and in the way Americans think of their families, jobs, and government. The country is no longer ‘America the conservative.’ And, if Obama acts shrewdly to consolidate this new majority, we may soon be ‘America the liberal.’” Therefore, those commentators who argued that the United States was still a center/right nation were dead wrong.
The realignment, according to the two authors, took place reflecting “the shift that began decades ago toward a post-industrial economy centered in large urban-suburban metropolitan areas devoted primarily to the production of ideas and services rather than material goods.” And living in these areas were the three main groups that composed the new Democratic majority: professionals, minorities, and women. With Obama’s victory, Judis predicted, a national crisis would produce “popular willingness to entertain dramatic initiatives.” And, moreover, President Obama would not “face the same formidable adversaries” that had faced Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton in previous Democratic administrations.
As for Judis’ advice to the new president, he argued Obama should not move slowly and opt for incremental reforms but move forcefully to a full-fledged commitment to the kind of fundamental transformation of America he promised his left-wing base.
Skip ahead to the present — a scant two years later. The reality today is precisely the opposite of what John B. Judis predicted. His permanent Democratic majority has turned out to be illusory. As a front-page story in The New York Times explained, the coalition that gave Obama his electoral majority in 2008 is fraying apart at the seams. As the story noted, “Republicans have wiped out the advantage held by Democrats in recent election cycles among women, Roman Catholics, less affluent Americans and independents. All of those groups broke for Mr. Obama in 2008 and for Congressional Democrats when they grabbed both chambers from the Republicans four years ago, according to exit polls.”
And it seems rather difficult to build an emerging Democratic majority when two of the most prominent “liberal” cities in America (very much in name only, given the mammoth regulatory mazes and bureaucratic armies these cities come equipped with) have such poor future demographics. Or as Mark Steyn, who inspired our headline above with this classic 2006 article, wrote about Europe’s similar (and not at all coincidental) demographic woes, “what’s the point of creating a secular utopia if it’s only for one generation?”
And speaking of secular utopias, the New Republic explores “How Democrats gave up on religious voters:”
When Barack Obama burst onto the national scene at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he represented—among many things—the shining hope for the religious left. Here was a liberal politician who was not afraid of the language of faith, who just might reclaim territory that the Democratic Party had, willingly or not, ceded to Republicans. Red America did not own religion, Obama declared: “We worship an awesome God in the blue states.
Between 2004 and 2007, when Obama announced his candidacy for president, he became possibly the most prominent Democratic politician who was comfortable speaking about religion—a liberal who gave the impression that his religiosity was heartfelt, genuine, and important to his politics. He spoke with ease about his conversion; of the influence of Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King, Jr.; and, in a key speech before the Call to Renewal conference in 2006, of the importance of “religion in the public square.” In the 2008 presidential election, Obama’s message seemed to resonate with religious people who had not, in recent years, gravitated toward the Democratic Party. He won more churchgoers than any Democratic presidential candidate since Bill Clinton.
And yet curiously, Obama’s own former church and its legendarily punitive fire and brimstone-spewing pastor go unnamed in the article. It’s a Wright-Free Zone, to coin a phrase.
But then, losing their appeals to the religious after “Progressive” elites lost their religion in the first place isn’t the only way that the left have come full circle in a decade.
I believe religious voters were duped in 2008; they realised that they had helped to elect ‘a wolf in sheep clothing’, and will no longer support him.
The other so-called ‘left religious’ voters worship a god, I do not know.
The God I worship condems abortion, adultery, cheating, homosexual marriage etc…!
One thing all liberal cities, and States have in common:
overspending, budget deficits, overwelming illegal immigration, special interest run govts, high rates of abortion (most liberal do not have kids), high taxes etc.., to name a few.
Liberals/progressives are incapable of good governing due to their ideology!
in the ideal world…all liberals would move to CA just before it fell off into the Pacific. So that means the NE, OR,WA etc would be deserted.
Welfare suckers, (and all the other free programs) don’t seem to understand that someone, somewhere has to pay for all this…don’t understand or just flat out don’t care.
As long as we keep giving, we will keep giving and giving and…
Let me add…I have met some “damned!!!” self righteous conservatives that I would not want running our country.
‘Liberals’ and others stinking of the taint of the Left have been moving to California since the days Steinbeck wrote of the Joad migrants. And creeps blame California’s woes on California rather than on the pinko-exporting states.
Your elders remember when Barry Goldwater wishfully spoke of the east coast* drifting off into the Atlantic.
*Patient Zero of America’s pinko plague.
i think you meant to say a elected “wolf in wolf’s clothing.”
Some things can’t be fully learned without seeing by example, and liberalism’s failures are one of those things. The “something for nothing” ethos is enticing, especially for those who haven’t suffered through the law of unintended consequences, and so as a new generation of young voters comes up, they have to find out the problems by living through it.
We go through this cycle roughly every 16 years since World War II – young voters get enticed by the beautiful package wrapped around liberalism by the big media, jump at it and, as they age, learn to know better as a new generation of naive youth then enter the voting rolls. Though in San Francisco’s case, it may be harder in the future for young voters not to see the downside of liberalism at an early age — what kind of kid wants to live in a city where the adults go out and ban Happy Meals?
Don’t get cocky, kids.
The infiltration inroads have done tremendous damage already, the techniques used have been effective, they OWN a vast media empire, virtually ALL of the pop culture outlets for disseminating information/ideas, virtually all of academia, entertainment and international news outlets.
That infrastructure remains and is wholly undamaged. They couch their intentions in populist and humanitarian terms and the counterargument against their true intentions has garnered little exposure into the mass market. In fact, any great work attempting to to this very thing is buried and ignored.
Or worse. It is often ridiculed, lampooned, marginalized, …by the very implements that are engaged in the class warfare, race warfare, gender warfare gamesmanship and the tear down the system master plan.
There are miles to go before we sleep.
Agreed. We are at our most vulnerable when we think we have it “in the bag”. Our vigilance must be mustered from now on. No longer are we a weak people with no voice…”WE SPEAK”.
All true. Yet, somehow in November we witnessed strong evidence that the Left’s hegemony in these spheres has not yet managed to fatally poison the culture past the point of no return. Not yet, anyway.
I was going to say something like this myself, but since CF already beat me to it, all I can add is “Yeah. What he (or she?) said.”
According to Charles Babington at AP, the Census Report due on The One’s desk tomorrow shows that the blue states, and the Rust Belt, are going to lose House seats for exactly the reasons given here. The biggest gainer will be Texas, which is not good news for The One’s reelection chances. Also, a lot of the swing states (OH, PA, etc.) that had Democrat governors and Democrat-controlled legislatures are now going to be in GOP hands, meaning their state governments aren’t going to be putting a heavy shoulder behind The One’s wheel this time around.
In response to this, here’s what Babington reports out of the Democrats’ headshed;
“Democratic Party spokesman Brad Woodhouse said his colleagues are aware of the challenges they face, ‘but we are putting a plan in place to maximize our opportunities, minimize potential setbacks and ensure that the process in each state is fair and done in accordance with the law.’”
Right. We are supposed to believe that the party of hanging chads, endless recounts, ACORN, SEIU, the New Black Panthers, etc., is suddenly going to ensure that an election they must win at any cost will be “in accordance with the law”.
I think it’s far more likely that 2012 will go down in history as the dirtiest, most corrupt, and least verifiable election in U.S. history, making Bloody Kansas in 1856 and 1860 and the Tilden vote-buying scandal in 1876 look like damp squibs by comparison.
2012 is a “must win” for the Democrats if they want to continue remaking the nation in their own weird image. And after all, their “philosophy” is based on a sophistry; that being that “the ends justify the means”.
And if you are convinced you are born to rule, it’s both stupid and downright immoral to let the peasants tell you “sorry, we want somebody else”.
Just food for thought.
clear ether
eon
CF is right….this is a marathon, not a sprint.
The left still has so many weapons to fight with, and so much to lose, so I can’t and won;t get too optimistic. For instance, just the Hispanic vote/illegals could pull the Dems rear out of the fire.
While visiting San Francisco, June 2001, we were driving around touring the city. A 1st cousin , a 50 year resident of the city, said the same thing. ” dearth of Frisco Families” He expounded on this by saying the the city had a very high number of twins being born. Many women taking fertility drugs. It was plain to see , few kids playing on the streets. Many dual baby strollers. One can speculate on the reasons for observed data, but it is as plain as the nose on your face. He him self had two kids. The daughter, the younger, she has an older brother, was very learned in Chinese. We were driving looking at real estate. Million dollar homes. That is what the city has the most of. Can you imagine paying the taxes on a house worth one million dollars? $7,000 per month? A family with two kids? At the time the job I had did not pay that much each month. Our tour guide was and still is a democrat. We were there for the funeral of his father, a life long democrat.
The high number of twins is part of an interesting trend in all affluent communities. A friend’s son married a very successful woman stockbroker. She was 33, beautiful and very much in control of her life. She had built a career, found a good looking, fairly successful husband and then had her family in one fell swoop. She told me that all her friends are doing the same thing. They wait 6 months after marriage to see if they get pregnant. If not, they go to in vitro fertilization, a $10,000 process. They have two embryos implanted and when their pregnancy progresses, they all get together with their friends to show their uterine ultrasounds. It’s quite a concept and since that conversation a couple of years ago, I have noticed all the two seat strollers.
I’ve noticed that a lot in NYC. But I thought it was just because most of these women are taking fertility drugs because they are older, and fertility drugs often produce multiple births.
I’ve read there are lotsa aborted triplet and quadruplet siblings. yeeg.
San Francisco has also managed to drive most black people out of the city; as we all know progressives are just not that into them.
Vice President Rubio in 2012 and President Rubio in 2020 will pound the nail in the coffin of the Far Left marxists and assorted kooks.
Which explains whay they are so increasingly desperate to hoodwink amnestry through by hook or by crook.
The next two years will be a full-frontal assault on liberty by every sneaky, perverted and outright illegal method they can come up with. The country is in for the equivalent of the Battle of the Bulge. There is NOTHING they won’t do to retain power.
Given that hispanics, the demographic that is exploding, vote 70% Democrat, I don’t think conservatives have anything to look forward to or the Left has anything to fear.
Given that, absent a flood of quasi-legitimate mojados such as DREAM would have authorized, “Hispanics” (by which you Mexicans) tend to assimilate and vote Republican, leftypigs have nothing for which to hope.
I’m not seeing a lot of assimilation here in the midwestern city where I reside. I see lots of bright colors and Habla Espanol.
I would suspect that virtually all of them are illegals. How do I know this? Because I live in a place (Phoenix) where a person’s nationality is impossible to hide the moment they open their mouth. When you encounter someone who is obviously hispanic, it isn’t usually clear whether they are an American or not until they begin to speak. Americans speak English. Illegals speak Spanish. Now I’m not talking about the ability to speak Spanish here. My ancestry is Irish and even I can muddle through VERY basic Spanish. I’m talking about people who lack the ability to speak English, or speak it only very poorly. Such a person MIGHT be a legal immigrant, but that is highly unlikely. The legal Mexican immigrants I’ve met all speak good English.
I can’t comment on how the Americans with Spanish surnames vote here, but I can say that Arizona has very strong safeguards in place to ensure that illegal aliens don’t get to vote in our elections.
Hispanics do not tend to assimilate and vote Republican. In a bad year Republicans get about 30% of the Hispanic vote. In a good year (this year) Republicans get about 35-40% of the Hispanic vote. That’s still a terrible result and it is one which shows no sign of changing in our lifetime.
What you see is false. The problem is you are lumping all Hispanics together. Cubans vote heavily Republican. Others match the societal trends in America. Mexicans, however, vote very heavily democratic. This is why CA stayed so blue, and why almost the only Blue in TX is the very south of TX. The problem is the Mexicans. THEY do not assimilate. Others do.
The main thing is to seal the border and Americanize the Hispanic population already in the country. Many of these people will turn Republican as they become part of the solidly middle class.
@David Thomson and Akatsukami
Yes, normally as soon as immigrants have families they turn from Democrat to republican. Anybody can see that the Democrats are only interested in short term outcomes and ‘if it itches scratch it’ policies. Most parents want a better life for their children, not just for themselves.
However, they have this covered. They turn parts of the population into ‘special interest groups’. Those are the ones that benifit from their policies of ‘positive discrimination’ (An oxymoron if there ever was one!)and will lose their priviliges and protected status under the Republicans.
Lately they have shifted their focus from African Americans and gays to hispanics (read Mexicans) and muslims. They are making concentrated efforts to influence immigration to import as many potential democratic voters as possible.
The Dream bill would have given them millions of extra votes from Mexican immigrants. Muslim immigration to the US has also increased dramatically. Muslims are a group with potential for the democrats and they will do anything to curry favour with them.
The annual growth rate of the muslim population in the US is 6% versus 0.9% for total U.S. No wonder Obama wasted no time in opening up the visa regulations for muslims when he took office.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/10/obamas-visa-policies-increase-islamic-immigration-to-the-u-s-a/
That would be nice, but unless by “many” you mean 35%, there’s really no evidence it is true.
I don’t have numbers for the rest of the nation, but in Colorado, at least, the number is that high. In 1996, 12% of Colorado Hispanics voted Republican. In 2000, it was 25%, in 2004, 30%, and in 2008 (yes, 2008), 38% of Colorado Hispanics voted Republican. Colorado might not represent the demographics of California, but it is probable that the rest of the nation is more like Colorado than California at this point.
Remember that I wrote “absent a flood of quasi-legitimate mojados such as DREAM would have authorized”. Control for time in the U.S., and see why the Demonrats are so invested in repeated amnesties for repeated floods of illiterate criminals.
No – The main thing is to seal the borders. Enforce and make harsher the penalties for knowingly employing illegals. End all services for illegals of any kind including medical care and education. Then wait for them to self-deport. Then as they come across law enforcement deport whomever remains.If you are here illegally you leave. If you are a minor child, born here of an illegal you are sent home with mom. Zero tolerance for illegals. Once we clean things up, if we determine it is in the best interest of this nation, we can start a process to investigate making it easier to come legally.
New gAy Rights issue” The absolute right to procreate. Good luck, fellas.
Ricpic:
you don’t understand the term demographic, and what is a hispanic…..”one that can trace lineage to the Iberian Peninsula” where do you come from????? The term exploding you got right but you don’t understand America, the core states nor “Hispanics” that produce and/or work for a living.
I’m not too optimistic. Blue states are loosing population to red states, but a results red states turn purple, like Washington, Oregon and Nevada, for instance.
It’s true that SF is childless. Still, size-wise SF is a fairly small town. It attracts the young and hip as well as the very rich. Once they are through with partying, middle class couples move out to East Bay suburbs. They don’t have very many kids, true, but if one is looking for middle class kids in the Bay Area, that’s where they are.
That’s where the Roe effect comes in.
Basically, there are gonna be fewer and fewer babies born into lefty households, which means that–insofar as nurture has an effect on political leanings–we’ll see a diminishing of lefty numbers over time.
Add in the number of lefties who deliberately not having kids “to save the planet from overpopulation,” or some such drivel, and you can see where the lefties are going to be on a long decline.
The “Roe Effect” is utter nonsense. It assumes women can have only a few children, and that an abortion results in that-number-minus-one. Unfortunately for the theory, women drop an egg per month.
A more plausible theory is that making abortion illegal would result in more single mothers dependent upon government welfare and hence, more likely to vote Democrat.
Obviously, you didn’t read the theory. It has nothing to do with the number of children a woman can have.
I don’t deal with straw men or red herrings. Now, go read the article and see if you can come up with an objection based on the theory, not on a made-up straw man.
I’ve read this article before. I’ve even written Taranto about why he’s wrong. I’ve read it again. It’s still nonsense. Taranto is using the greater child-bearing rate of conservatives vs liberals and applying that to abortion, when even he concedes the counter-argument that an abortion doesn’t subtract from the number of potential children of that woman.
My opinion that Taranto’s piece is illogical is, it seems to me, borne out by the fact that he’s the only conservative writer I’ve ever read who ever uses the phrase. It’s his baby, he birthed it, and he stubbornly won’t let it go.
Conservatives have more babies than liberals because they choose to. But conservatives still limit the number of babies they have, either by birth control or abstinence. Liberals add abortion to those choices. One can argue about the morality of the choice, but not the result, which is the same – limiting the number of births. Conservatives just choose a higher limit. That’s the demographic key, and Roe has nothing to do with it.
You yourself said, “Basically, there are gonna be fewer and fewer babies born into lefty households.” My alleged “straw-man” is simply this – why? Why does it follow that an abortion (and you must be saying abortion is the key, since it’s called “The Roe Effect”) causes fewer babies to be born to the woman who got the abortion? If a woman plans on having three children after age 22, and has an abortion when she is 19, it doesn’t follow that now she will have only two children.
If that isn’t the central thesis of the Roe Effect, then please explain to me what is. Don’t just dismiss me with “straw man” and “read the article.” It seems to be what both you and Taranto are saying. If it isn’t, then please tell me what “Basically, there are gonna be fewer and fewer babies born into lefty households” means and how it relates to Roe.
Okay, let me see if I can explain this so you’ll understand it.
It’s not about biology. It’s about ideology and psychology.
The Roe Effect theory simply says that those of a leftist persuasion are more likely to abort their kids. Period. The 19 year old who aborts one but wants three doesn’t enter into the theory, because the theory is concerned with those who–by reason of ideology–don’t want any kids, and sometimes don’t want others to have any either.
I once worked with a lady who got pregnant and aborted it. I asked her why she didn’t put the child up for adoption. She replied (and I am paraphrasing) by asking why she should go through the burden of childbirth just to create another human being who would be a burden on the planet. That’s precisely the worldview that the Roe Effect seeks to analyze.
Lefties see kids as a burden. Conservatives see kids as a blessing. It’s as simple as that.
And that’s at least part of the reason that lefty enclaves like SF and Seattle are woefully lacking in the laughter of children.
Q. E. D.
I think you both make valid points.
Certainly the Roe effect is valid. Liberals tend to murder their own in the womb, allowing only one or two to live, whereas Conservatives value every baby and tend to have larger families as a result. So there are fewer children born to the loony left for nurture in their filthy culture. Unfortunately the lowlifes have decided to co-opt our children via public ed.
Now on the other hand it seems there is some real science emerging that ones politics are at least partially determined by genetics. That does give hope that the Roe -effect will see liberals killing off their diseased selfs.
And your point is valid as well. Case in point… 50% of black babies are aborted. Blacks vote 85-95% for democrats. You do the math
Short term I do believe your point has the greatest impact. However the Roe Effect, over time, may produce a liberal free population… Now That Is a Real Utopia. Hmmnn… maybe the Jetsons are a glimpse of the future.. everybody worked, a real family and no deadbeats. Plus the place was clean… we’ve seen how liberals leave everyplace they have been.. obama’s coronation anyone?
Yuk Yuk.
I seems to me that most of the women having abortions are unmarried, and that even lefty women who approve of abortion in principle, if they are married, will carry their children to term. Most of the unmarried women having abortions are unlikely to be politically active and therefore count as neither left nor right. So the Roe effect is probably just an illusion.
One thing you are NOT considering in this equation is that abortion has virtually dried up the market for infant adoptions. Oh, there still are some, but not nearly enough to supply the demand. Every aborted child represents, at least potentially, one child that would have been happily adopted and raised by some couple having difficulty conceiving their own child. Back in 1977, when we first applied to one small agency, there were 5,000 couples just on their waiting list alone. We eventually adopted our daughter late in 1978. Thank God her birth mother was opposed to abortion and chose the more humane, loving option instead. One abortion DOES diminish the population by one child, even if the birth mother does NOT raise the child herself.
And George J only worked 9 hours a week. YES!
Look to europe for the answer…..that is, if you can find any europeans anymore.
You don’t seem to be taking the post-abortive experience into account: an increase of suicides, depression, future fertility problems and breast cancer from abortion (and, to a much lesser extent and only the last two, birth control pills). These, along with a “birth-limiting” mindset, tend to decrease a post-abortion woman’s future fertility. …Just what do they teach in sex ed? I thought it was supposed to be comprehensive lol.
Thinking of my childhood, riding a bike without a helmet, no even knowing what a cell phone is, sneaking out a night I shudder at what is left of the children of SF are raised to be. No PBJs, back yard BBQs, or just kids being kids. With their oh so politically correct parents its is probably a life of way to heavy backpacks, very tight daily schedules and way too many vegetables.
Oh the horror, the horror.
Having lived in both SF and Seattle for most of the last two decades and having raised a young kid in both of them the answer for the dearth of kids, especially middle class white kids, in both cities is very simple. Absolutely appalling public school systems. Unless you are very well off and can afford private schools (which I could) once you have kids and you give a damn about their education you move out of the city. In SF you move to the East Bay, Marin or Peninsula. In Seattle you move to the Eastside (Bellevue, Redmond) or Mercer Island. Based on what I have seen and heard of the public school systems in both SF and Seattle over the years I would consider anyone who sends their kids to public school in either city and who could afford either private school or to move as engaging in little better than child abuse. Those who no choice in the matter , mostly minorities, have my greatest sympathy for what their kids have to suffer.
I don’t know about this theory. How’d it work out when New Hampshire went from staunch conservative to purple trending blue with the influx of tax refugees from Massachusetts (an irony that never fails to amuse)?
Liberals, by nature, are stupid. When they flee their blue-state hellholes for a red-state paradise, they take their destructive ideology with them. So states like North Carolina and New Hampshire and Colorado (infested with Noo Yawkers, Massholes and Califlakians, respectively) turn blue. That’s not good news.
California was a solidly Republican state until flakes moved in from your state and others. And now you’re bawling that the spawn of your state’s flakes are migrating back. Payback’s tough, ain’t it?
What the hell are you talking about? If there’s been an in-migration of Californians into Maine, it’s news to me. And it would hardly make a difference anyway, since this state is already pathetically blue. Care to explain?
Back in the late ’90s, one of the museums in Golden Gate Park faced a choice: bring their old building up to code for earthquakes, or move to a new location. Not wanting to move, they got a bond issue on the ballot and promoted it the slogan “Keep the Museum in the Park…for the children” If failed to pass. They did their research, and found that their audience was almost entirely adults. They tried again the next cycle with a new slogan — I forget, something like “keep arts and culture alive,” or some such — and it passed.
Ahhhh…the structural death of liberalism is two megatrends: 1) the lack of procreation, and 2) the peculiar gumbo of intellectual superiority, anti-Americanism, and defeatism.
For a sampling of this mindset, just review the comments section of any Frank Rich op-ed.
Don’t celebrate too soon, kids.
Electoral votes shift to red states, but all red states near the border are getting bluer and bluer due to Mexicans.
NV, NM, and CO are turning blue due to Mexicans.
Also, the GOP cannot win without Ohio, so Ohio cannot be considered a blue state.
About San Francisco – people party there in their 20s, and move to the suburbs when they get older and have kids. The same is true for Manhattan. Duh.
The state of CA has a pretty high birth rate. Of Mexicans.
reality has escaped scott free from …
… the reality based community
imagine that … live your entire adult life in the Wide Wonderful WIKI world of “make up shit and believe it” … and where does it get you … endlessly baffled at how things actually turn out.
who could have ever predicted any of this?
Rich
In terms of birth rates :
Hispanics > White Conservatives > While leftists
See how the left outmaneuvered the right again? I don’t think demographics are trending rightwards. I would also note that both parties are moving leftward. The GOP of today is much like the Democrats in the JFK era.
CA was a red state as recently as 1988. Now, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado are turning blue from Mexican influx.
Conservatives should not be celebrating just yet.
San Francisco is a famous mecca for gay people, who on average don’t tend to have a lot of kids. Seattle has the second-highest gay population in the West. I’m not anti-gay by any means, but concentrations of gay populations in certain cities is bound to have an effect on the ratio of children in households. It may not be the only cause, but surely it is an important one.
The blue voters flee the messes they’ve made in their various nests,only to try and recreate them in their new homes. Californians have ruined Colorado.
If you really believe that, start sending back to California all the California tech and its jobs located in California – all of it, including the US Air Force Academy because it wouldn’t exist without the aerospace pioneered in California.
Remember, California would still be a solidly Republican state without your free-riding, welfare seeking migrants who moved to the (once) Golden State.
including the US Air Force Academy because it wouldn’t exist without the aerospace pioneered in California.
By that reasoning all the firms in Silicon Valley should be moved to Philadelphia because that was where the computer was invented.
Another relevant Steyn classic quote: “the future belongs to those who show up for it”.
10 years ago I used to drive one of my kids around the wealthy suburbs of Austin. In the late afternoon, after school. Large houses, large yards, and no kids…. Not sure if kids were inside, at private classes, or did not exist. Why have those large houses and empty yards?
@“what’s the point of creating a secular utopia if it’s only for one generation?”
That’s just the point–the secular left, and especially the perpetrators of the sexual revolution, don’t care about the future beyond them. Their lives are one big pleasure carnival.
Look at John Maynard Keynes, the founder of “spend now” economic policy. He advocated mental evaluations for useless savers. Since he was a hedonist and homosexual, this made great sense to him. Thank him and his wretched philosophy, and those who act like him, for spending our grandchildren’s future on their pleasures today.
Keynes was bisexual. He married and was quite happily so the rest of his life, which was fairly short due to bacterial endocarditis. I wonder how he got that as it is seen frequently in IV drug users. I believe he was in his 50s when he died. No, he was 62. The wikipedia article does not mention his SBE but that was the cause of his death. His brother wrote the first book about blood transfusion which probably did more good for humanity than the economics of the other brother.
18. Toads
“In terms of birth rates :
Hispanics > White Conservatives > While leftists”
That is true for the first generation only. The second generation carries all the same wounds as other Americans.
Pertaining to the second part of Mr. Driscoll’s article, I read that bit about the Dems and religious voters yesterday and was struck that the entire article was devoted to nothing but an analysis of DNC tactics. The reason why the story was a Wright-free zone was that there was no mention of actual religious beliefs at all, no analysis of religion within the liberal worldview. It treated the lack of religious Democratic voters as a problem with marketing, not message. Truly a weak, weak piece. The problem with the Democratic party isn’t that they have poor PR among the religious, it’s that the religious don’t want to worship the state. After all, the Dem elites want to tell us how to live and what to believe- and they don’t like competition.
Of course, religiosity does correlate strongly with childbearing. The birthrate among Hispanics isn’t just higher because they’re Hispanics, but also because they’re Catholic, and there’s no reason to think that Hispanic democrats won’t suffer the same demographic and religious decline as other varieties of liberals.
Demographic trends present a mixed bag for conservatives and liberals alike.
1. As the number of Latinos grows (all of my Tex-Mex and Puerto Rican friends and co-workers hate the term “Hispanic”), Anglos and Latinos will begin to influence each other more and more. Also, as usually happens when two groups of similar size live side-by-side, we’re going to see a LOT of intermarriage. The distinction between “Hispanic” and “Anglo/White” will no longer exist (and good riddance to it) within two or three generations. IMHO this will mean that the future electorate will, as a rule, be more economically and fiscally conservative, and more culturally liberal, than is the case to-day.
2. I say this because of my experience with my own kids. I’m a white guy with a son and a daughter. My son-in-law is Latino; my daughter-in-law is Latina. All these kids (including the in-laws) are dead-set against government giveaway programs in almost all circumstances. They think that Obama has played them for suckers and that the Dems have run up debts which they (the kids) will have to pay down. The kids also favor gay marriage and legalization of marijuana. Interestingly, they also are much more strongly opposed to abortion than I am (perhaps because they have seen the sonogram tapes of themselves in utero?).
There is a joke making the rounds among the young right now:
Q: Have you heard of the new Obama Burger Meal at McDonald’s?
A: You don’t have to pay for it, but the guy in line behind you does.
Which indeed speaks volumes about young peoples’ state of mind.
Interesting about what mexican-americans call themselves. It’s different depending on where in the country one is. My good friend from high school wouldn’t even call himself anything though he’s first-generation American- as far as he’s concerned he’s just an ordinary American with no modifiers, but then again we were raised in the northern Rockies where there was no La Raza around to tell him differently. He’s a petroleum engineer in Wyoming and identifies with his Mexican roots about as much as I identify with my Slovenian ones- that is to say, not much.
I think demographics is considerably more malleable and subject to rapid evolution than politicians and demographers think it is- and that people will quickly align their views more along socioeconomic lines than racial ones.
You’re right about intermarriage. My brother-in-law is a legal immigrant.
However, Prop 8 California passed with a lot of blackand hispanic votes, and Obama won. So that means a lot of Obama voters went for Prop 8.
End result….more conservative across the board for the future.
If we want to crack the fifty percentiles with th e Hispannics, we need to go hard core with bilingual anti-abortion adds, and so on.
I dunno. The Asians and Hispanics here in Frisco have children.
The fantasy that Hispanics are the Democrats’ political salvation is almost imbedded in the Democratic Party now. This is the kind of nonsense that fading political parties tend to come up with and cling to emotionally even after they are shown the exit door. But dems can’t escape the fact that most Americans now understand that they want to use people from a foreign country to (illegally) impact our elections in their favor. The more dems push for open borders the deeper the hole will be for them when 2012 comes around.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
This is a big part of why we have SB1070 here in Arizona. We’re sick of the left’s nonsense and we’re not going to play by their rules anymore.
@12 Mark Buehner If you look at the county maps of NH for recent elections you will see that the south east – where those Taxachussets city folk dwell – are the ones voting Republican. The rock ribbed Republicans that I grew up among are voting Democrat. I left a long time ago so I don’t understand what happened to these former Republicans but the young middle class drift to the right in the suburbs all over the US was discussed at length by David Brooks a few years ago. One thing I am aware of is that a lot of the people who move to the remoter parts of NH are wealthy city folk who probably are and remain Democrat voters. They are not tax refugees but rich blue state liberals wanting to live in the country. A lot of the ordinary country folk that used to vote Republican have moved elsewhere for economic reasons. Or maybe that have changed parties. I don’t know. I suspect the sociology of inner migration is quite complex. For example – will those new Texans vote Republican? My guess is that the hard times we are facing is triggering two impulses – the one for bigger government and the one led by the Tea Party for smaller government. I think the side that comes up with policies that actually work will prevail – under the name of one of our parties or not. Right now I find Chris Christie’s attempts to rein in government in NJ (a state I dearly love) the most interesting because he is loudly proclaiming that he is trying to do it and appears to be serious.
Well, I think you have it. Liberals have less kids. Often, they are liberal because they went to liberal colleges. With less kids, they have more money. The various taxes do not hurt as much.
However, once you get married and have to feed and clothe kids, suddenly your dollars get stretched thin quickly. Makes you lots more conservative, when you become the ones footing the bill, while trying to support a family. Also, when you have kids, you become less liberal towards crime.
Having a spouse and kids is the cure for liberalism. Do your part. Marry a liberal and have kids. Provide the antidote: children.
Whight-wingers are maybe not the ONLY folks who “breed like rabbits”?
But Malthus knows best.
As others have said, political power is shifting to the South and Mountain West, but Democrats are gaining more voters in those areas. Republicans need to increase support among Hispanics from around 30% to closer to 50%. We have some hard work ahead winning some converts.
One of those new US House districts will be here in North Texas and it will likely be a packed majority Hispanic district for West Dallas, making it difficult for Republicans to capture that seat. On the other hand, in exchange for packed majority Hispanic seat to go with the packed African American Eddie Bernice Johnson seat, the surrounding Republican leaning seats will have a more conservative electorate.
America’s future is neither Red nor Blue. It’s future is Third World. As we are de-industrializing, our population is being replaced by immigrants from the Third World. Fifty years from now we will be like Brazil, with a small middle-class population surrounded by shantytowns.
Yeah, and every liberal who moves to Texas automatically becomes a right-wing nut. I’m not convinced.
Actually, Ed, they aren’t short of children. They’re short of adults.
If there is one thing I respect about Leftists, it is their realization that it is inappropriate for them to breed.
It’s the one thing that the whole country agrees on; there are just too damn many liberals. Conservatives want them to change their minds, liberals want to eradicate their lineage. I’m quite pro-life, but I have to confess that there’s only so much I can (and want to) do to stop libs from killing themselves off.
Leaving Blue States? Now why would anybody want to do that. NO I am fleeing idiotic regulations on my business and ridiculous taxation on everything I own. I called my forty five year old accountant who has lived in MD all his life to ask about moving my business to reduce my taxes and he was only too happy to help. It turns out he is moving too.
So will the last sane person who is actually not a Government worker or a parasite of one form or another please turn off the lights when they leave good old Maryland. If you can’t vote honest government in, at least in America you can still leave.