-
President 2012: Does the GOP Have a Hispanic Voter Problem?
Yes and President Obama will exploit it in 2012.
Hispanic population. Latinos made up half of all U.S. population growth in the past decade, by far the fastest growing group. Hispanics have nearly doubled to make up 16% of the country. We’ve said it here before, and now with the new Census numbers out it’s worth repeating: Latinos are already a serious political force in America and their influence will only get bigger. And that could be problematic for Republicans on a presidential level, because overwhelmingly right now, they prefer Democrats. Obama won Latinos 67%-31% in 2008, and they made up just 9% of the electorate. In the 2010 exit polls, when Republicans swept Democrats out of the U.S. House, Hispanics still preferred Democrats by a similar 64%-34% margin. And they made up just 8% of the electorate. In fact, look at the states out West with large Hispanic populations and how Democrats performed out West vs. the Midwest. In states with high Hispanic populations, Democrats were able to keep their losses to a minimum, holding on to Senate seats in Colorado and Nevada, keeping California fairly blue and holding on to House seats in Arizona they should have lost. As one Republican operative said to us in April 2010: “We have problems, clearly, with Hispanics,” the operative said. “If we do not manage an immigration bill appropriately, and we alienate Hispanics, Obama’s going to run up his numbers in the 70s [with Hispanics]. That is not a sustainable model to win.”
The national GOP will soon have to decide on a strategy to reach out to the growing Hispanic population of voters. It will have to be a multi-faceted voter outreach program, while at the same time isolating the growth of illegal immigration, which in turn results (in a decade or so) more Hispanic voters.
As you can see, this will take some finesse.
Or, the GOP can write off most of the Hispanic vote and try to isolate the effects of their numbers to a few states.
There is danger to the Democrats as well, since too much pandering to African-American and Hispanic voters will label them as the NON-white party.
But, for now, President Obama has the advantage going into 2012 and you won’t be seeing too much GOP Presidential campaigning in California.
-
California Census 2010: Hispanics RULE
Well, not really but you get the idea – they have surged in population growth in California.Latino children for the first time made up a majority of California’s under-18 population in 2010, as Hispanics grew to 37.6% of residents in the nation’s most populous state.
A new U.S. Census report showed the state’s non-Hispanic white population fell 5.4% over the past decade, a continuing trend offset by a 27.8% surge in Hispanics and 30.9% increase in non-Hispanic Asians.
Though in decline, white Californians remained the state’s largest demographic group at 40.1%. But demographers said Hispanics were poised to take the lead.
Underlying the demographic shifts, California grew at its slowest pace in the past decade in more than a century. The population rose 10% to 37.3 million, an increase in line with the national average.
As in California, Hispanics are gaining ground in many other states, such as North Carolina, as whites are on the verge of becoming a minority among all newborn children in the U.S.
What does this mean for California politics when these Hispanic children mature and start to vote? Just as it is now for the very Blue Democratic California – TOUGH.
Since past electoral history has shown a propensity for Hispanics and Latinos to vote anywhere from 60-75% for Democratic Party candidates, the GOP will be at a demographic disadvantage. There are, of course, districts both Congressional and Legislative where their population numbers will not have as great an impact. And, with redistricting by an impartial commission, the GOP will have a chance there.
So, what happened and why did this growth of Hispanics occur?
Easy- the illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America of the 1980’s to present had children born in the United States as middle-class whites either died or migrated out of the state to Nevada, Arizona or other states like Colorado.
Mr. Frey said the decline of whites and blacks in the decade, as well as the slowdown of Hispanic growth, is partly attributable to more middle-class families leaving pricey California for more affordable places elsewhere. (…)
“I think it’s a middle-class flight,” Mr. Frey said. “California is still very pricey, so to the extent people can get affordable housing they leave.”
But, California is now a no-growth Democratic state which by the way heavily regulates business.
Good luck with solving that California state budget shortfall.
And, the Republicans? They will be a dwindling minority party like in New York, Massachusetts and Maryland.
-
Flap’s Links and Comments for March 9th on 15:22
These are my links for March 9th from 15:22 to 15:28:
- California Census 2010: Where the Children Aren’t – Children are a disappearing presence in the Bay Area, the 2010 census shows, with slow growth or a net loss of the under-18 set in the region's nine counties, as families with young children move to areas with cheaper housing and better job opportunities. But diversity of the youth population is increasing as white and black families leave and are replaced by Asian and Latino families with young kids.
The drop in the overall population of children in the Bay Area would have been greater if not for the increased numbers of two particular groups: Asians and Latinos. In several counties, in fact, the loss of black and white children was mostly balanced out by the increase of Asian and Latino children.
======
Not too many children in San Francisco with all of the gays who have migrated there either.
- CA GOP issues formal invite to Jerry Brown: Come out from "behind your picnic table" and debate Norquist – In a move that ramps up a high profile battle of words over the state budget, the California State Republican Party has formally issued an invitation to Gov. Jerry Brown to "come out from your office picnic table" and attend the party's upcoming state convention in Sacramento — to debate anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist.
We just got hold of the letter being delivered to Brown's office from state party chair Ron Nehring, who says Americans for Tax Reform President Norquist has already agreed to debate the governor, if it can be arranged at the three day state GOP convention scheduled March 18-20 at the Hyatt Regency in Sacramento. Democrats, including Brown and state party chair John Burton, have been engaged in a verbal tug of war with Norquist over the issue of a special election to let voters decide on tax extensions.
========
Jerry Brown just might do it but I would rather have John Burton since he would try to fight Grover after the word exchange. and, I would like to see that.
- Will Another Dream Fade? Obama Should Endorse Same-Sex Marriages for Immigration Purposes – The way out of this inequity is the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). UAFA would allow U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to sponsor their same-sex partners for immigration to the United States. In the last Congress, UAFA was introduced in the House by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Mike Honda (D-CA) and in the Senate by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Over 120 co-sponsors signed on in House and more than 20 co-sponsors in the Senate.
UAFA would amend the immigration laws by simply adding the term "permanent partner" in sections where "spouse" appears, thus ensuring that a non-citizen permanent partner may receive the same immigration benefits that a non-citizen spouse now receives.
In the lame-duck session of Congress this past December, the DREAM Act that would have legalized undocumented youngsters who have graduated from high school in the United States went down in a disappointing defeat. The Obama Administration's late, but strong, support for the measure proved insufficient. With little hope for comprehensive immigration reform on the horizon, will the administration at the very least step forward to announce support for UAFA and get the ball rolling on this important effort? Let's hope so.
=======
It is called the Defense of Marriage Act and unless it is repealed or SCOTUS declares it uncosntitutional, it is the law of the land.
End of story.
This legislation will never become law with a GOP House – thank goodness.
- California Census 2010: Where the Children Aren’t – Children are a disappearing presence in the Bay Area, the 2010 census shows, with slow growth or a net loss of the under-18 set in the region's nine counties, as families with young children move to areas with cheaper housing and better job opportunities. But diversity of the youth population is increasing as white and black families leave and are replaced by Asian and Latino families with young kids.
-
Flap’s Links and Comments for March 9th on 10:52
These are my links for March 9th from 10:52 to 11:46:
- California Census data will bring a big shift in Legislative and Congressional Districts – When state legislators drew new districts for themselves and their congressional colleagues in 2001, they were interested only in political impacts and largely ignored demographic changes revealed in the 2000 census.
The bipartisan gerrymander was aimed at preserving the numerical status quo in both the 120-member Legislature and the 53-member congressional delegation by designating the partisan ownership of every district.The public's adverse reaction to the insider deal, however, led to a 2008 ballot measure that shifted legislative redistricting to an independent "citizens' commission" and a 2010 measure that added congressional seats to its duties.
On Tuesday, the Census Bureau released the detailed 2010 census data that the commission will use to draw new legislative and congressional districts, as well as four Board of Equalization districts, and the numbers confirmed that big changes are in the air.
==========
There will be some big shifts to the detriment of the dominant Democrats, especially in Northern California and the coastal areas.
- Sarah Palin Would Base Presidential Campaign in Arizona – Like Goldwater in ’64? – A source tells Ben Smith that Sarah Palin would base her possible presidential campaign in Scottsdale, Arizona, close to where Bristol Palin recently bought a house.
"Basing a campaign there would be a provocative rejection of any lingering political cost from those who connect her harsh rhetoric and Gabrielle Giffords' shooting — a traditional refusal to retreat. It's also the core of the politically contested, fast-growing new West. And it would also hark back, perhaps not to McCain, more a Washington figure than an Arizona one, but to what now stands as the iconic campaign for many base Republican voters: Goldwater '64
=========
Sarah's polling numbers against Obama are not very good. She may be able to win a multi-way GOP primary in some states but that is probably the extent of her campaign.
- California Census data will bring a big shift in Legislative and Congressional Districts – When state legislators drew new districts for themselves and their congressional colleagues in 2001, they were interested only in political impacts and largely ignored demographic changes revealed in the 2000 census.
-
President 2012: The First Map of Battleground States Updated
Back in November, I posted a first map of 2012 Presidential battleground states. Of course, this was before the census and a concomitant reapportionment.Republican-leaning states will gain at least a half dozen House seats thanks to the 2010 census, which found the nations population growing more slowly than in past decades but still shifting to the South and West.
The Census Bureau announced Tuesday that the nation’s population on April 1 was 308,745,538, up from 281.4 million a decade ago. The growth rate for the past decade was 9.7 percent, the lowest since the Great Depression. The nation’s population grew by 13.2 percent from 1990 to 2000.
Michigan was the only state to lose population during the past decade. Nevada, with a 35 percent increase, was the fastest-growing state.
The new numbers are a boon for Republicans, with Texas leading the way among GOP-leaning states that will gain House seats, mostly at the Rust Belts expense. Following each once-a-decade census, the nation must reapportion the House’s 435 districts to make them roughly equal in population, with each state getting at least one seat.
That triggers an often contentious and partisan process in many states, which will draw new congressional district lines that can help or hurt either party.
In all, the census figures show a shift affecting 18 states taking effect when the 113th Congress takes office in 2013.
Texas will gain four new House seats, and Florida will gain two. Gaining one each are Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington.
Now, we have some additional polling/party identification information which should also give us a clue as to the identity of 2012 Presidential KEY battleground states:
Watching the party identification polling will give us the trend toward or away from the incumbent Democratic President. Remembering Obama/Biden won 365 electoral votes Vs. McCain/Palin 173.
Looking at the states that lost Electoral Votes:
And, the states that gained Electoral Votes:
Before, I identified the key battleground states (pre-census release):
- Ohio – 20 (electoral votes): -2 after reapportionment
- Virginia – 13
- Colorado – 9
- Florida -27: +2 after reapportionment
- Nevada – 5: +1 after reapportionment
- Wisconsin -10
- New Hampshire – 4
- Indiana – 11
- North Carolina – 15
And, I think, at least for now, pending any dramatic change in party identification I will stay with these states.
The question for the GOP will be: Who will be the best candidate in these nine states to match up against President Barack Obama?
-
2012 GOP Bonanza: All 10 States Losing Congressional Seats Tilt Democratic
And, 5 of the 8 states picking up congressional seats tilt to the GOP.
Plus, with the Republicans winning or holding 29 Governorships, the perfect storm for controlling the Congress over the decade is almost complete.The full political implications of congressional seat losses in 10 Democratic states remain to be seen, and will in large part depend on the process of redistricting that will now get underway in each state. It is assumed that Democrats will lose some representation in the House as a net result of this process, but the precise way this will play out is not entirely clear. Similarly, although the majority of the states gaining seats are Republican in orientation, it is not clear whether the newly created House districts in each of those states will necessarily end up with a Republican representative, although it can be assumed that the net number of Republican seats in these states will increase.
The impact of reapportionment on the presidential election process is more straightforward. Traditionally blue states are losing electoral votes, while traditionally red states are gaining them. Various calculations have shown that Barack Obama would still have won the 2008 election even if the electoral votes were divided based on the new census apportionment. But the shift in population between states could give a Republican candidate just enough of an edge to bring victory in a close 2012 presidential race.
But, let’s see if the GOP can hold its majority. They have blown it before – remember 2006?
-
U.S. Census Shows Slow Population Growth and Likely Republican Party Gains
Utah gained one Congressional seat, adding 530,716 new residents since 2000, according to the 2010 census. Arches National Park, Moab, Utah. Photo By Flap
The 2010 census is out and the South and West are among the winning states.Republican-leaning states will gain at least a half dozen House seats thanks to the 2010 census, which found the nation’s population growing more slowly than in past decades but still shifting to the South and West.
The Census Bureau announced Tuesday that the nation’s population on April 1 was 308,745,538, up from 281.4 million a decade ago. The growth rate for the past decade was 9.7 percent, the lowest since the Great Depression. The nation’s population grew by 13.2 percent from 1990 to 2000.
Michigan was the only state to lose population during the past decade. Nevada, with a 35 percent increase, was the fastest-growing state.
The new numbers are a boon for Republicans, with Texas leading the way among GOP-leaning states that will gain House seats, mostly at the Rust Belt’s expense. Following each once-a-decade census, the nation must reapportion the House’s 435 districts to make them roughly equal in population, with each state getting at least one seat.
That triggers an often contentious and partisan process in many states, which will draw new congressional district lines that can help or hurt either party.
In all, the census figures show a shift affecting 18 states taking effect when the 113th Congress takes office in 2013.
Texas will gain four new House seats, and Florida will gain two. Gaining one each are Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington.
But, a lot of growth was from immigration and how the new people are assimilated, population growth accommodated (infrastructure provided) or if they can be are issues that will soon come to the forefront with the next Congress beginning next month.
The Rose Institute has an excellent analysis here.
California has picked up 10 Congressional seats since 1970, growing from 43 in the 1970s to 53 today. Seven of those ten came in one decade alone (after the 1990 census). California gained two districts in 1980, seven in 1990, and another seat in 2000. One contributor to California’s population surge between 1980 and 1990 was the Reagan administration’s large military build-up. The military growth boosted the California economy, which attracted immigration from throughout the country. Between 1980 and 1990, California’s population increased by about 6 million people. Alone among the otherwise high-growth southwestern states, in the past ten years California’s growth slowed to the national average.
