Les Jones: Why 2008 May be Hillary's Best Chance

June 07, 2005

Population > Why 2008 May be Hillary's Best Chance

But, if I had to be a bit more mathematical about it, I�d look at it this way. If the Democrats ever want to take back the White House, 2008 is their best shot. After the 2010 census, the electoral college apportionment for the 2012 Presidential campaign will reflect the population shifts to the south and west � ie, growing Republican �red� states will get more votes and declining Democrat �blue� states will have fewer. The trouble with being a party that promotes abortion as a sacrament is that after a generation or two it catches up with you: in 2004, the 16 states with the lowest fertility rate voted for John Kerry; 25 of the 26 with the highest fertility rate voted for George W Bush. In the long run, a lot of Democratic turf is looking as demographically barren as the European Union. And, even discounting the long-term prognosis, right now more red states are trending blue than vice-versa. So, if the Dems don�t win in three years� time, things are only going to get worse. In 2008, they need a candidate who can hold all the territory John Kerry won plus flip Ohio or Florida into the Democratic column.

Read the whole thing if you're following Hillary's chances for 2008, or for that matter, Jeb's:

The Republicans do have a popular governor of a large state, but his name's Jeb Bush, and even loyal Baathists might have drawn the line at Saddam being succeeded by both Uday and Qusay. On the other hand, if Jeb wants to avoid being penalised by American distaste for dynastic succession, the 43rd President's brother running against the 42nd President's wife may be the most favourable conditions he'll ever get.

Posted by lesjones

Comments

The trouble with being a party that promotes abortion as a sacrament is that after a generation or two it catches up with you: in 2004, the 16 states with the lowest fertility rate voted for John Kerry; 25 of the 26 with the highest fertility rate voted for George W Bush.

This is an extremely ignorant assertion on many levels:

a) abortion has little impact on fertility rates in this country (and in most others)
b) correlation is not causation -- most of the blue states are those with predominantly urban areas. This statistical skew is multicausal and well-documented (and oft-debated). Fertility rates also follow this pattern -- they are always lower in urban areas than rural.
c) Fertility rate is only one determinant in population demographics.

I have no real opinion on Hillary's chances, but this guy's conceptual framework is extremely flawed.

Posted by: Chris Wage at June 07, 2005

I think the "Roe effect" as James Taranto calls it is a bit overblown for the reason you state - abortion doesn't have that big of an impact on reproductive rates. But it does have some effect.

The Democrats are really painting themselves into demographic a corner with their choice of constituencies: pro-choicers, urban professionals, gays, and environmentalists. What all of those groups have in common is low reproductive rates.

Posted by: Les Jones at June 07, 2005

I don't think that abortion itself as this effect, but the cult of individuality, that is more focused on Democratic Party ideals increased abortions and decreases fertility. People that tend to view themselves as the only end, and that children are 'burdens' or even, luxeries, instead of a vital part of a full like will be less likely to have a kid and more likely to have an abortion.

For a variety of reasons, these people are more prevalent in both the Democratic Party and Urban areas.

Posted by: Dave Justus at June 07, 2005