Republicans And Diversity: How The GOP’s Rural Base Spoils The Party

My previous post on the GOP’s problem with projecting a love of diversity when they don’t live it focused on the Republican House caucus and the heavily white districts they tend to represent.  Another way to illustrate this point is to look at where GOP support tends to come from by population density.  The denser an area, the more cosmopolitan and diverse it is likely to be. And that’s precisely where Republicans tend not to be.

Start with the states that Governor Romney won in 2012.  By and large, they tended to be rural and lightly populated.  Fourteen out of 26 states carried by President Obama this year had 10 or more electoral votes, while just six of 24 states carried by Romney had 10 or more electoral votes. Obama also carried seven of the eight most populous states: California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. Only Texas went for Romney.

But the population density pattern can be seen most clearly by looking at the types of areas that Obama and Romney did well in. Obama ran strongest in large metropolitan areas (those with more than 1 million in population), winning these areas by 56 percent to 42 percent. Well over half (54 percent) of the U.S. population lives in these 51 large metropolitan areas.

Obama and Romney tied, 49 percent-49 percent, in medium metropolitan areas (those with 250,000 to 1 million in population).  Medium metros contain another 20 percent of the U.S. population.

In small metro areas (nine percent of the country), where the population dips below 250,000, Romney was finally able to build a vote margin over Obama.  Romney carried these areas 55 percent-43 percent.  And outside of metro areas, where population density continues to fall, Romney did even better. In micropolitan areas — think of these areas as the small town sections of rural America — Romney beat Obama by 18 percentage points, 58 percent-40 percent. Micropolitans are another 10 percent of the U.S. population. And in the rest of rural America, the part that is most isolated from population centers and the most spread out, Gov. Romney bested Obama by 23 points, 61 percent-38 percent. These areas, despite the vast land area they cover, contain only 6 percent of the population (which is why, if you look at county maps of election returns, so much of it is colored red despite President Obama’s solid victory).

The same density-related patterns of support for Obama and Gov. Romney can be observed within large metropolitan areas. Here we can use a typology developed by Virginia Tech’s Metropolitan Institute and Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Program to break these areas down by density and distance from the urban core. In large metro areas Obama did best in densely populated urban cores (9 percent of the country), carrying counties in this classification by a whopping 55 points (77 percent to 22 percent). Moving out from pure urban core counties to the densest, closest-in suburban counties—classified as inner-suburban in the typology—Obama carried these counties by a wide 25-point margin (62 percent-37 percent).  Almost a fifth (19 percent) of the nation’s population is contained in these inner-suburban counties.

President Obama also carried mature suburban counties (16 percent of the nation’s population)—counties that are somewhat less dense than inner-suburbs and typically contain no portion of the central city—by 13 points (56 percent-43 percent.

Moving out to the emerging suburbs, it is important to distinguish between these areas and true exurbs, which together constitute what people usually think of as “exurbia.” Today’s true exurbs contain only 3 percent of the nation’s population. That is where Gov. Romney did the best, carrying these counties by 24 points (61 percent-37 percent).

In contrast, emerging suburbs contain 8 percent of the nation’s population and tend to be faster-growing and denser than true exurbs. Emerging suburbs include such well-known counties as Loudoun County, VA, just outside of Washington, DC;  Scott County, MN, outside of Minneapolis; Warren County, OH, outside of Cincinnati;  and Douglas County, CO, outside of Denver.  In this category of counties Gov. Romney also did well (53 percent-45 percent) though not nearly as well as he did in the true exurbs, where population density is lowest and concentration of white voters is highest.

Living where they ain’t: that’s today’s Republican party.  It’s a problem that is not amenable to a quick GOP image makeover, as the party is currently finding out.

View the original article here

No, Conservatives, America Isn’t A Christian Nation: The Rise Of Religious Diversity

In conservatives’ preferred vision of America, we are a white Christian nation. And it is true that in the not too far distant past, we were, at least in numerical terms, an overwhelmingly white Christian nation.  In 1944, 80 percent of adults were white Christians.  But things have changed a lot since then.  Today only about 52 percent of adults are white Christians. By 2024, that figure will be down to 45 percent. That means that by the election of 2016, the United States will have ceased to be a white Christian nation. Looking even farther down the road, by 2040 white Christians will be only around 35 percent of the population and conservative white Christians, who have been such a critical part of the GOP base, only about a third of that—a minority within a minority.

Part of this of course is the inexorable march of race-ethnic change.  The white share of the population is declining at a rate of about a half percentage point a year and is expected to continue to do so for the next several decades.  But the other part of the shift away from white Christians is less well-understood: the rise of religious diversity.

There are two components to the rise of religious diversity: (1) increasing numbers of Americans who practice a non-Christian faith; and (2) increasing numbers of Americans who are secular or unaffiliated with any religion.  A recent Pew report sheds light on these important trends.

The Pew report aggregates data from their surveys between 2007 and 2012.  They found that those of non-Christian faiths have gone up from 4 to 6 percent over the time period, while those who are religiously unaffiliated have gone from 15 to nearly 20 percent of adults.  This is an astonishing rate of change, particularly for the unaffiliated who, according to some projections, were only supposed to hit 20 percent around the middle of the next decade.  This group’s growth is clearly way ahead of expectations.

Part of the reason for this rapid growth is generational.  Pew’s study notes that, among the youngest Millennial adults—those born 1990-1994, over a third (34 percent) have no religious affiliation.

There are significant social and political implications to these trends.  Pew and other data consistently show how liberal the unaffiliated are, particularly on social issues.  And they vote that way: in the 2012 exit poll, the unaffiliated supported Obama over Romney, 70-26.  In addition, those of non-Christian faiths supported Obama by 72-27.  To add to conservatives’ woes, their strongest group, white evangelical protestants (78-21 Romney) actually declined by 2 percentage points in the 2007-2012 time period.

Even conservatives should be able to do the math.  It’s time to give up on America as a white Christian nation and fully embrace its diversity–race-ethnic and religious.

View the original article here

Jarrett: Expect more diversity in future Obama Cabinet picks

Senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett on Sunday predicted more minorities and women would be tapped for positions in the president’s Cabinet.

“His Cabinet, when he's finished — and he's far from finished — will have diversity, including women, including people of color,” said Jarrett in an interview with CNN.

“He believes he makes his best decisions when he is surrounded by people who have different perspectives and give him their best ideas,” she continued. “And so, one picture does not speak a thousand words, in this instance. I spent a lot of time in the Oval Office, and I'm in there with a great number of women whom he listens to, and whose counsel and advice he trusts greatly.”

The White House has faced scrutiny over an alleged lack of diversity among President Obama’s top advisers, prompted by a New York Times report earlier this month questioning the “all-male look” of Obama’s inner circle. A photo accompanying the report showed Obama consulting a number of white men. 

Those questions have intensified with Obama’s senior-most Cabinet nominations, including former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) for Defense secretary, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) for secretary of State and Chief of Staff Jack Lew for Treasury secretary.

Those nominations have come amid a number of high-profile second-term exits of female Cabinet members, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.

In a press conference last week, Obama rejected charges that he had neglected diversity, saying that he was “proud that in the first four years, we had as diverse, if not a more diverse, White House and a Cabinet than any in history.”

Obama said his critics should “wait until they've seen all my appointments, who is in the White House staff and who is in my Cabinet, before they rush to judgment."

On Sunday, Jarrett said that the president had a strong track record of appointing women to key positions in his administration.

“The president has been surrounded by strong women throughout his entire life. Raised by a single mom, lived for a while with his grandmother, who was a great role model for him. Obviously, married to a very competent wife, and his first Cabinet reflected the diversity of our country,” said Jarrett. “He put women in charge of key initiatives, such as Nancy Ann DeParle, his deputy chief of staff, who helped craft the Affordable Care Act, and now Kathleen Sebelius is implementing it.”

View Comments

View the original article here