Demographic determinism in elections

Count me amongst those who has in the past been taken with idea of demographics as being perhaps the most important trend in the future strength of the Democratic party, both in Colorado and nationally. Here in Colorado the influx of highly educated white professionals from the coasts has helped to grow the Democratic base. The growth of the Latino population across the nation and specifically in the mountain west combined with GOP nativism directed at Latinos have combined to severely handicap the Republican Party. As ethnic minorities grow as a percentage of our population the GOP's inability to draw anything beyond cursory support from minority communities spells continued electoral doom.

There are also more subtle shifts in age that are at play and that render old GOP tactics of the culture war less and less effective. The median age of a voter in 2008 was 44 years old. The old culture war allegations of socialism, attacks on gay rights and even abortion (which has been legal for the entire adult lives of more than half the voting population) have lost their resonance.

Yesterday the Denver Post ran an interesting piece on the newcomers to Colorado and their effect on the transition of Colorado from a GOP stronghold to Democratic domination.

In traditional Republican strongholds such as El Paso and Douglas counties — where Obama did 15 and 17 percentage points better, respectively, than John Kerry did in 2004 — the trend away from Republicans was even stronger than the statewide average.

"Essentially, that's what this whole election was all about, right?" asks Bill Bishop, an Austin, Texas,-based writer who is the author of "The Big Sort." "It's incremental increases in all areas."

In the book, Bishop, with help from retired professor Bob Cushing, argues that one of the reasons for Colorado's red-to-blue shift isn't so much politics but demographics. Counties with the highest rates of people moving into them from other states — mostly those along the Front Range — are trending bluer because of the newcomers' influence, he writes.

In rebuttal to Bishop the Post cites DU Political Scientist Seth Masket. Unfortuntaly Seth's rebuttal is given short shrift, fortunately though Seth blogs at Enik Rising and has written more extensively on this topic in recent days. Seth cites simple Bush fatigue nationally as the root of our 2008 flip,

The story that pundits and observers (including me) have been telling is one of interstate migration. Liberal left-coasters who can't afford housing in LA, SF, or Seattle are moving to the Denver area, driving the state further to the left. Yet the election returns don't support that story. Colorado just voted more Democratic like the rest of the country, because its voters were angry at Bush and scared about the economy.

I think this is too narrow a focus. Certainly the historic unpopularity of President Bush was a critical factor in this past election and that effect was felt nationwide. What about 2004 though when Colorado broke from national trends one election cycle early and handed over the state legislature to Democrats for the first time in 40 years and filled an open Republican U.S. Senate seat with Democrat Ken Salazar? Paradoxically the state voted for George W. Bush in 2004 but at significantly lower rate than his national average. Colorado has been trending blue for the past 3 election cycles, the nation has only trended blue for the last 2 election cycles. It seems likely to me that our demographic trends have pushed us to the lead edge of the national trend.

Yesterday Ed Kilgore weighed in on the side of those preaching caution about demographic determinism,

Truth is, if you really think demography is the main determining factor in politics, with most elements of governing and campaigning being marginal, then there's not a whole lot to do between election days other than waiting for the next incremental change in the composition of the electorate. I guess you could make the case that an Obama administration would in that circumstance be free to govern as progressively as possible, since voters have predetermined positions that won't much be affected one way or another. But in the end, I doubt that Chris Bowers, or that many other advocates of "demography as destiny," really think events in the real world of politics and governing matter so very little.

This is of course exactly right. It's an internal conflict that I battle with. I believe strongly in the importance of a strong campaign organization and specifically in a strong field organization to identify your voters, keep them engaged and get them to the polls. If demographics is determinative why bother to nibble around the electoral edges with a field program?

I try to avoid being too doctrinaire on any issue and I think it truly is nearly impossible to untangle the various elements at play in an election from each other. For example most people would list the economic conditions of the nation as a fundamental, something that McCain could not effect much change on but which would greatly impact the outcome of the election. This analysis though assumes that ebbs and flows in the economy just happen over the natural course of time. While the economy is certainly cyclical the current crisis can be tied directly to GOP policy positions of the last several decades. So is the economy really a fundamental or is it a result of specific partisan policies? The truth is that it is a little bit of both. More from Ed,

Truth is, if you really think demography is the main determining factor in politics, with most elements of governing and campaigning being marginal, then there's not a whole lot to do between election days other than waiting for the next incremental change in the composition of the electorate. I guess you could make the case that an Obama administration would in that circumstance be free to govern as progressively as possible, since voters have predetermined positions that won't much be affected one way or another. But in the end, I doubt that Chris Bowers, or that many other advocates of "demography as destiny," really think events in the real world of politics and governing matter so very little.

Real world events do matter, governing matters and demographics matter. If this past election has taught me anything it is that trying to untangle all of these forces and find the one over-riding factor in determining electoral outcomes is a Quixotic quest at best. Elections are complicated matters with dozens of moving parts with ever shifting levels of importance and weight.