Author Topic: Demographic Blueshift  (Read 4198 times)


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7344
    • View Profile
Re: Demographic Blueshift
« on: July 06, 2020, 12:18:50 am »

Texas nearing flipping point?

The gap between Texas’ Hispanic and white populations continued to narrow last year when the state gained almost nine Hispanic residents for every additional white resident.

With Hispanics expected to become the largest population group in Texas as soon as 2022, new population estimates released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau showed the Hispanic population climbed to nearly 11.4 million — an annual gain of 214,736 through July 2018 and an increase of 1.9 million since 2010.
The estimates come as lawmakers begin to sharpen their focus on the 2021 redistricting cycle, when they’ll have to redraw the state’s congressional and legislative maps to account for population growth. And they highlight the extent to which the demographics of the state continue to shift against the Republican Party.


Too slow! If you calculate the differences per decade, the rate of Blueshift was actually fastest in the 90s (by no coincidence the most positive decade in living memory), but slowing down with the post-9/11 era. Unlike some demographers who look only at the heights of the graphs and hence think there is nothing to worry about, I always look at gradients. If the gradient is becoming less steep over time, it could eventually be leading to a turning point (ICE?). That is what worries me.

Perhaps this could speed things up slightly:

The Venezuelan exodus may exceed eight million people by the end of next year, which would make it the largest migration crisis in the world, according to a special working group of the Organization of American States (OAS).

The group's projection puts the exodus between 7.5 million and 8.2 million in 2020, far surpassing the 6.7 million people who in eight years have fled Syria.

Hopefully they consider migrating to the US.



Can we make it fast enough?

There is a significant and growing probability that Texas will become the most consequential swing state in presidential and senatorial elections to come. A campaign in the Lone Star State could cost President Trump the White House next year, even if Texas voters will ultimately choose him.

A powerful combination of demographic forces are propelling Texas from one of the reddest states in the union into a swing state. Democrats will likely make an outside play in Texas ahead of 2020, along with a full run for its projected 41 electoral votes. Texas also stands to gain three seats in Congress after the next census, making it a crucial state for both parties.

Texas demographics today are strikingly similar to those of California in 1990, before Democrats began their seven to nothing streak of Golden State victories in presidential races. Like California in 1990, the Texas population currently hovers around 29 million and is changing rapidly in light of heavy immigration from Mexico. The second generation children of Mexican immigrants have played a major role in keeping California out of Republican reach. This same transformation is taking root in Texas.

Immigration has already had a very tangible impact on Texas politics. While illegal immigrants cannot vote, their children born in the United States are indeed citizens and make up a significant share of the new generation of voters in the southern state. There are around 35 percent of Texans under the age of 18 who are the children of immigrants, a figure that has nearly doubled in the last 30 years. This carries weight.

Young Texas voters overwhelmingly turned out for Beto O’Rourke over incumbent Ted Cruz in the Senate race last year. O’Rourke beat Cruz with 18 year olds to 24 year olds by a margin of 68 percent to 32 percent and with 25 year olds to 29 year olds by a margin of 73 percent to 26 percent. O’Rourke also outperformed the traditional edge Democrats already have among Texas Latino voters by a wide margin of 64 percent to 35 percent.

With these second generation Mexican Americans strongly supporting Democrats at the polls, Texas changing to a purple state could not happen at a more inconvenient time for Trump. His margin in the state in 2016 was the smallest for a Republican nominee since the poor showing of Bob Dole in Texas in 1996. Considering the immense and enduring new wave of left leaning voters that O’Rourke attracted, there is a real chance that Texas will be close enough in 2020 that Republicans cannot take it for granted.

Over the next year, Trump and his surrogates will be forced to spend more time campaigning in Texas, which will diminish time spent on the ground in other crucial swing states. Ultimately, this could be a death knell for the campaign. A major reason Trump won in 2016 was due to his critical time investment in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. He spent around 50 percent more time in these battleground states than Hillary Clinton did. A diversion of time and money campaigning in Texas over the next 15 months could deal a fatal blow to high hopes for a second term.

Consider the margins in 2016 to see how razor thin the next election may be. Trump won Michigan by less than 11,000 votes, Wisconsin by 23,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by just 44,000 votes. These were all margins of less than 1 percent. Democrats need to take back all three states to win 2020, and whoever gets the nomination will pour immense energy and resources into each, which Trump will need to reciprocate. Any diversion of the large but finite campaign resources to shore up a traditional red state like Texas will cut into the ability of Trump to win key swing states.

Moreover, Texas is not just any state. As the second largest in the nation, by both population and land area, it is an expensive state in which to run a full campaign. Just ask O’Rourke and Cruz. The two combined spent nearly $125 million on their 2018 Senate campaigns, with O’Rourke outpacing Cruz by over 50 percent. Furthermore, outside donations and spending did not just impact the midterm Senate race, with donors also sending millions of dollars into suddenly competitive House races.

Republicans took note of the sheer volume of Texas votes that Democrats attracted in the last cycle. A Republican affiliated group, Engage Texas, is spending $25 million to register and turn out red voters. Considering the Trump campaign spent $325 million for 2016, the implications of such a drain of resources are clear well before the general election race begins.

Republicans are already walking a tightrope between the 2018 midterm results and changing demographic realities. In many ways, the resources used to keep Texas red next year are balanced by the fates in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Several campaign stops or a late ad buy could mean the difference in the race. Trump could see his electoral chances go to hell, if Democrats spend more time and money in Texas.


This is good:
Lobbyists working for thousands of Indian contract workers are promising to overwhelm GOP Sen. Rand Paul’s opposition to a bill which puts many Indian temporary workers on a fast-track to permanent green cards.

“We have lots and lots of doctors in Kentucky, both in Louisville and in Lexington, and in other cities around Kentucky, who can all express how important this bill is to them, and how they literally can’t afford to be doctors anymore,” said Leon Fresco, a former congressional staffer who is quarterbacking the contract workers’ campaign for green cards.
Fresco’s bill is titled “Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants,” and it would abolish the “country caps” which diversify the annual award of 140,000 green cards to the various foreign nationals of American companies.

The prime beneficiaries of the “country cap” bill are the many Indian contract-workers who arrived on temporary H-1B visas, and who then avoided going home by getting their employers to nominate them for green cards. At least 200,000 Indians have already obtained green cards via the employer process during the last decade.

But the huge number of Indian who volunteered to take Americans’ jobs via the H-1B visas are jammed by the “country cap” on green cards for Indians. Perhaps 300,000 resident Indian contract-workers and 300,000 family members are waiting in several backlogged lines for roughly 23,000 green cards issued to Indians each year.

If Lee’s bill become law, the Indian share of the employer green-cards could quickly quadruple to at least 100,000 cards a year, or 1 million per decade.

That offer of at least 75,000 extra green cards per year would create a huge incentive for more young Indian graduates to take U.S. jobs at very low wages.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The legislation, HR.1044, claims to promote fairness for high-skilled contract-workers, dubbed “immigrants” by the advocates. The bill removes “country caps” which limit Indians’ share of the 120,000 green-cards awarded each year to employees nominated by their companies. That change would allow Indians to get roughly 100,000 green cards each year, up from roughly 23,000. The change would allow the 300,000 Indian workers — and their 300,00 family members — get on a fast track to green cards, citizenship, and the voting booth.
In the medium term– by 2030 — the GOP will also lose more seats as the Indian migrants become citizens and vote Democratic.

The HR.1044 legislation will add roughly 600,000 Indian voters to the rolls during the next 10 years. Indians are highly likely to donate to Democratic causes and to vote Democratic. For example, the chief Senate sponsor of the bill is Sen. Kamala Harris, whose mother is Indian.

Roughly 77 percent of Indians supported Democratic candidates in 2016, while only 16 percent said they voted for President Donald Trump, according to a post-election survey funded by the National Science Foundation.

A growing population of skilled migrants in a district also tends to pull American-born voters into the Democratic camp, said an April 2018 study. “Our strongest and most significant finding is that an increase in high-skilled immigrants as a share of the local population is associated with a strong and significant decrease in the vote share for the Republican Party,” said the report, authored by pro-migration economist Giovanni Peri, Anna Maria Mayda, a Georgetown University professor now at the U.S. State Department, and Walter Steingress, an economist at the Bank of Canada.