Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Racial voter profiles by party from 1980 to 2008

Randall Parker recently posted his thoughts on the Democratic white upper class (who I now tend to refer to as "whiterpeople") and how their influence on the party is trending. He thinks it has been getting stronger over time. I'm not really confident enough to cede or dispute that assertion. What I am able to do is show how the white percentage of the Democratic party's voter coaltion has been steadily shrinking for nearly three decades now, at a rate twice that of the Republican party's white shrinkage:

Democrat %WhiteBlackHisp.AsianOther

Republican %WhiteBlackHisp.AsianOther

Hispanic voter growth, following population growth, has increased in both parties at similar rates (by 400% since '80 for Democrats and 350% for Republicans). That's bad for the GOP, which cannot hope to catch up with the Democrats by going slower than they are. Even if the growth rates were identical, the trend would bode terribly for Republicans. If we both double our holdings, but you held twice as much as I did before the doubling, the absolute difference between our holdings just doubled--in your favor!

The black vote as a percentage of both parties' total representation has remained pretty steady, at about an order of magnitude more substantial on the Democratic side.

Demographic changes have attenuated white dominance in the GOP as well, but the rate of reduction has been about half that of contracting white representation among Democratic voters. Democrats are (as a proportion of the total) losing whites faster than Republicans are, even though whites already favor Republicans. Keeping the country as Euro-descended as possible seems an obvious even though politically incorrect strategy for continued GOP competitiveness.

The other option is to go the McCain route. He spoke to three major Hispanic interest groups in July alone, and has thrown himself on the mercy of the NAACP, even as national polls show him carrying 1% to 2% of the black vote. He's refused to make an issue of Obama's racialist past, but has had no qualms decrying the 'biogtry' of restrictionists. The RNC evinced no concern about immigration at all.

From this vantage point, other than picking a VP to steal the spotlight from Obama, it seems as though he's doing everything possible to play to Obama's strengths and his own weaknesses (even admitting that he was until very recently a computer illiterate).

A few remarks on the tables above: All data are from the Presidential exit polls of their respective years with the exception of '06, which comes from a national sample of people voting in elections to the House of Representatives. The only adjustment I made was for the '04 Hispanic vote, 44% of which is shown to have gone for Bush in the national exit polling even though polling at the state level showed that to be an overstated absurdity (as John S Bolton identified and Steve Sailer refuted). I lowered Bush's Hispanic share from 44% to 40% and increased Kerry's from 53% to 57%.

The Asian and Other numbers are imprecise. In '88, whites, blacks, and Hispanics comprised 98% of the vote, so I assumed that Asians represented 1% of the total and that their votes went the same way as the national vote went. I did the same for Others as well. In '84, the Asian and Other vote combined for only 1% total, according to exit polls, so I split it evenly and again mirrored the national vote. In '80, exit polling data showed that 100% of the vote came from whites, blacks, and Hispanics. That wasn't actually the case, but their representations were too small to factor in. In '00, Asians jumped from 1% of the voting population as estimated by exit polling to 2%, and in '04 Others did the same, which is the reason for the relatively large increases for each between those respective years and the election cycle preceding them.


Stopped Clock said...

You're awesome. I just have one comment: if Republican attempts to win the votes of Hispanics and blacks are useless because those combined vote totals are so small, would that mean that Democratic attempts to do the same are also useless? It would seem to me that blacks, in particular, are a lost cause since their voting tendencies are so extremely predictable. I would have to conclude that visible attempts by BOTH parties to appeal to blacks are nothing but a show to convince soft-hearted whites that they can talk to blacks about social and economic issues that matter to the nation as a whole instead of writing them off as the race-first ethnic bloc voters that they are. On the issue of illegal immigration and amnesty, I agree that taking a tough stand against immigration would probably win more white votes than it would lose, and that the change in the Hispanic vote would be minimal, but John McCain isn't doing that because he simply isn't anti-immigration; he's very strongly pro-amnesty and he's running on his honest beliefs instead of trying to hide them by appealing to politically correct diversitarianism.

I plan to vote for John McCain. No he isn't perfect, but he's better than Obama. And if John McCain wins, it's almost a guarantee that Democrats will contest the election, for the third time in a row, and people will start to really question the Democrats' commitment to democracy. Especially if, as I predict, blacks will be inconsolable and will start riots in the inner cities and attack local whites who are for the most part just as liberal as the blacks are. They will explain that they're outraged at the prospect of 12 years of Republican presidents, and thus essentially be fighting democracy itself. And that can't be good for them long-term at all. So yes, I really really want John McCain to win the election. Though I will admit I don't think it's very likely at all; while I admit being surprised that McCain is suddenly ahead in the polls and I don't think it's due to a "convention bounce" (if it were it would have happened a week ago), I also don't think it will last very long. Obama will win, do a poor job as president, and either be re-elected on the basis of his personality cult or be replaced with a Republican (but who? Pretty much all the guys who ran for president in 2004 are out because they look like losers now.)

Stopped Clock said...

I got off track with that diversitarianism thing. I thought I was writing about McCain's stance against affirmative action, but I seem to have blushed over that. What I meant to say, of course, is that McCain is running on his honest beliefs about immigration instead ofappealing to those who take a tough stance against illegal immigration.

JBS said...

The GOP will probably become the defacto white party as minorities cause the Democrat coalition to fracture.

White women and white indpendents are now flocking to McCain right now according the latest national polls.

Btw, I'll bet many of those Hispanics who voted GOP in 2008 are actually white Hispanics. Hispanics are more likely to vote GOP if they have good incomes, and in my experience, most Hispanics with high incomes are either white are at least 3/4 white by appearance.

Remember that if just 13% of US Hispanics are white then there are 6 million white and probably another 10-15% of Hispanics are 3/4ths - 7/8ths white.

John S. Bolton said...

AE said: "He's refused to make an issue of Obama's racialist past, but has had no qualms decrying the 'bigotry' of restrictionists."
McCain is really caught in a nasty contradiction there. Discrimination against non-citizens is not undesirable anyway, but necessary, actually inevitable.
What Obama was amen-corner-ing in Cone-oid anti-caucasianist racial hatred, for decades at at stretch, would be a dealbreaker for 90% of the elctorate if it were generally known.
Thanks for the mention of my quarrel with the Hispanic GOP numbers. I knew that it would be used again and again, dishonestly, ruthlessly, to make it sound like the right depends on not upsetting some Mexicans concerned over immigration of their relatives.
I think you mean: Steve Sailer refuted, not "repudiated". Possibly you might even say 'definitively refuted', for a good strong statement.

JBS said...

One positive thing about Palin is that she appears to have coattails for Republicans running down ticket.

For example, Senator Elizabeth Dole and Republican Gubernatorial candidate Pat McCrory have taken leads in their respective races since Palin was chosen:


If she boosts Republican turnout, the Republicans may minimize their losses in the House and Senate.

Should the GOP remain a decent sized opposition in the Senate, we ought to be able to defeat a third attempt at amnesty.

Audacious Epigone said...


"Unnecessary" is the word I'd use in persuading especially blacks to vote Democratic (and music to the ears of whiterpeople). But not self-destructive like Republican attempts to do so are.

Your analysis of McCain's sentiments strikes me as spot on. At the risk of sounding like I'm in denial, it was a set of propitious circumstances that allowed McCain to win the Republican nomination--Romney's Mormonism, Huckabee's surge and duration, and Republican "winner take all" rules in several states like Missouri.


It would be great if pollsters broke self-reported Hispanics down by Census race categories. I suspect you're right.

Re: Senators, that is encouraging. If the GOP drops below forty, a McCain-Kennedy reincarnation becomes a dire threat.


Your perspicacity turned out to be an enormous contribution to understanding the futility in Republican Hispandering.

Anonymous said...

Audacious Epigone:

Actually, this is just the question for someone like you, if you are interested. To what extent did the structure of the Republican primaries contribute to Romney's final standing in the election? (Romney was my favorite candidate and yours too it seems).

(1) Open primaries. For instance, New Hampshire, the second state to hold primaries, has a semi-open primary.
(1a) There was the discussion at Larry Auster's site, that although the Florida primary was officially closed, Independents seem to have made up 17% of the voters in the Republican primary. They cast their vote overwhelmingly for McCain over Romney. NY Times link for the Florida results.
(2) You've already mentioned that some states are winner take all.
(3) Romney seems to do better in caucus states than in primary states.

What could the GOP do to ensure that a more representative Republican wins the Republican primary?

(1) Closed primaries.
(2) Allocate electoral votes proportionally.
(3) More caucuses.


Audacious Epigone said...


My top three were Tancredo, Paul, and Hunter, in that order. But among the 'first tier', Romney was my favorite.

"What could the GOP do to ensure that a more representative Republican wins the Republican primary?"

If we offer it any insight, we're likely to see everything done to counter it!

I don't think I could add anything especially insightful to Romney's caucus success, other than the bland observation that particapatory rates in caucuses are lower than in primaries, and those participating are less 'moderate' than the average primary goer. Romney was more conservative than McCain or Huckabee, and consequently his performance was relatively better in caucus contests than primary contests. And I'd wager his executive functioning surpasses both of theirs (combined?).

A delegate count for proportional voting and Republicans only up to Romney's dropout date would be neat thing to know. I'll do it in the next couple of weeks if no one else does.

Anonymous said...

pusillanimous - I wonder if that is the origin of the word "pussy" ?

just a thought