Part 1: Changing Demographics and Political Orientation

One question looms large after the 2016 election: How did California become such a blue bubble,  and so unrepresentative of most of the nation?  One answer lies in the preconditions for turning a state from twice electing Ronald Reagan for governor into a lock for the Democratic Party and consistently pushing its presidential candidate over the top in the national popular vote. (2)  The fact is, the place is different from its 60s persona.  As the author D.J. Waldie said in a LA Times piece, “How do we understand California when it’s not Californian anymore?” (5)  Quite so.

One factor affecting the state’s politics is its transformed population.  It’s not just the growth of certain population categories.  It’s also the decline of others.  These conditions are a backdrop to an altered political orientation.

Granted, actions by the now shrunken Republican Party have magnified the trend.  Dilatory and half-hearted outreach to Latinos contributes.  Also, party decisions to avoid the state, while understandable to some extent, has meant surrendering it to the opposition.  The Democrats are the only ones active in this playground.

Yes, it’s a one-party state.  But Republican negligence pales when compared to a tidal wave of changing demography as the driver.  The state has a population more receptive to the identity politics and victim-mongering so characteristic of one of the nation’s most zealously left-wing state parties.

The state’s population is more immigrant-centered.  Promises of low taxes, small government, and robust nationalism isn’t likely to find much appeal to an increasingly immigrant population, one largely unfettered from assimilation expectations.  As the immigrant component has grown, the native Californian sector has declined in relative numbers.  Any increase in population for the state is due to foreign immigration, not domestic in-migration.  In fact, domestic in-migration is negative by 720,611 from 2004-12 for example.  In other words, more people have left for other states than have moved into it from other states.  As of 2010, the foreign-born accounts for 27% of the state’s total population. (5)

The exodus is concentrated among the middle class and families, constituencies more receptive to Republican-like appeals.  Certainly, the high cost of housing, energy, high taxes, and fewer status-raising jobs has taken its toll.  (7)  These are the kind of things that discourage families.  The chart illustrates the phenomena by age group from 2004 to 2012.  The bar extending below the center line is out-migration.

The 40-54 cohort is people in their wage-earning prime.  The 0-15 are youngsters tied to their parents, i.e. families.  (7)

If you need more proof, look at the next chart.  It shows the labor force status of out-migrants.  The largest sectors among the exodus are “Employed” and “Retired” (like yours truly).  It’s people with jobs, and likely to get other jobs, like the middle class, who are leaving. (7)

Examining out-migration from an income level reinforces the nature of the exodus.  The chart below breaks it down. (7)

The conclusion: The state’s middle class is increasingly looking elsewhere.  With them goes Republican votes.

Do the changing demographics, in fact, show in the political orientation and behavior of the state?  While correlation isn’t causation, the coincidence of the trends is at least interesting.  A connection is highly probable.

When was the last time California voted Republican in a presidential election?  Answer: 1988.  In the last 3 presidential elections, the Democrat garnered at least 60% of the vote (2008, 2012, 2016).  In those 3 elections, the Democrats won 31-34 of California’s 58 counties.  Not only that, and more importantly, they won the populous and vote-rich counties along the coast … overwhelmingly.  The figure below shows the coastal counties to be most fervently Democratic.  The next figure distorts the counties to show the weight of their voting numbers. (1)

The coast overwhelms anything to the east of the Coastal Range.  Cleary,  the coastal plain is all blue.  A glance at LA makes clear how blue a California coastal city can be.  Take a look at the map from the 2012 election. (8)

It is even more pronounced when you move up the coast to the Bay Area and the environs of Nancy Pelosi.

Even Orange County isn’t immune from the trend.  In 2016, Clinton won the county by 5%. (4)  The tidal wave is washing over the last Republican outposts in the state.

For the near term, Republican prospects can’t be described as rosy.  No Republican officeholder is safe.  Things might get worse before they get better for the R’s.  Yet looking over the horizon, things might look a bit different.

The middle of the country between the Appalachians and Sierras are in a no mood for California politics.  They comprise a potentially election-winning block for the Republicans.  If they unite, they can discipline California’s left-wing zealotry.  They can save California from itself, as well as rescue the rest of the country.

A middle-America alignment could gain control of immigration and reduce the receptive critical mass for identity politics and victim-mongering.  As the state’s and the country’s demographics begin to gel, upward mobility and assimilation will take care of the rest of the pandering.

Republicans can only hope that the middle-America block remains solid for a long enough time, while Republicans jettison their “whites only” brand.  Their message of real prosperity and upward mobility, as opposed to the Democrat’s message of government dependency and serfdom, should have appeal beyond the white enclaves.  Really, it’s a message for everyone.

Republicans get busy and develop a broader appeal.

RogerG

Sources:

(1)  “California’s Political Geography”, Eric McGhee and Daniel Krimm, Public Policy Institute of California, Feb. 2012, http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?i=1007

(2)  wikipedia.org – Calif. votes 2008, 2012, 2016

(3)  Ballotpedia, ballotpedia.org/United_States_congressional_delegations_from_California

(4)  LA Times, 11/9/16, “Orange County voted for Democrat for the first time since the Great Depression”

(5)  LA Times, “California demographic shift: More people leaving than moving in”, Nov. 27, 2011, by Gale Holland and Sam Quinones

(6)  “Land of Inequality”, Troy Senik, NR online, 3/10/14, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371796/land-inequality-troy-senik

(7)  “California’s Migration Problem: “Good Luck Movin’ Up Cause I’m Movin’ Out””, Carson Bruno, Hoover Institution, 7/21/13, http://www.hoover.org/research/californias-migration-problem-good-luck-movin-cause-im-movin-out

(8)  “Interactive database: How did your precinct vote for president?”, LA Now, LA Times, 11/13/12, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/11/presidential-election-interactive-map.html

If you want to watch a discussion in a bubble, watch this “roundtable” of talking heads on San Diego’s KPBS. Whether the subject is immigration or climate change, it’s an echo chamber that is far removed from the rest of the country.

Some facts and opinions won’t penetrate the membrane. Fact: Science is not a primer for the pet ideologies of California’s governing class. Fact: The debate over “climate change” is robust and certainly not settled. Fact: The value of so-called sustainables (energy) is not all positive. Anyway, how can we honestly evaluate them while they are heavily subsidized, protected by a cocoon of regulation, and alternatives are bashed into pulp? Fact: California’s nullification of immigration law is blatantly unconstitutional.  We fought the Civil War over that issue.  California’s position lost.

Some California apologists make the absurd claim that anguish in policy is therapeutic, that massive tax hikes and regulations make things wonderful. I call it the “Slavery approach to human betterment”. You know, like John C. Calhoun’s absurdity of slavery being good for the slave.

They’ve even massaged numbers to conform to the oxymoron. It’s deliciously delirious. It’s Disraeli’s dictum all over again: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”