What are the most over and under rated demographic trends today?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Overrated
-The age-gap.  For one, Trump cut significantly into it in 2016, and the Senate races had even smaller ones (or none).  Secondly, while there are more conservative and more liberal age cohorts, all do get somewhat more Republican as they age.

Underrated
-The absolute Democratic collapse with Christians (both evangelicals and Catholics), largely due to family values and abortion.  If the Republicans can extend this to religious Hispanics and blacks, the Democrats will have to become socially conservative or be irrelevant for good.

I know you probably want to believe this but no, social conservatism is dying.

Almost literally impossible.

[DC Al Fine]

Another underrated one:

Liberal whites do not really have many kids anymore and tend not to marry until very late in life, while conservative whites are still having a lot of babies.

This one deserves a lot more attention than it's getting.  Although I do suspect it's easier to pass all your political values on to an only child than to all 4 of your children at once.  The large families probably have a lot more who switch sides when they come of age.

I feel like this is both over and under rated.

Conservative birth rate is underrated by liberals, because, I think frankly the sort of person who is inclined to have six kids can't afford to live in a high cost of living area, and is going to follow a very different life pattern than the typical white liberal.

However it's also overrated by conservatives, overestimate the difference in birth rates and the role retention rates play. The typical fundamentalist or Evangelical birth rate is only marginally above average.



It's a sort of open secret that conservative Christians aren't that different from their secular counterparts. Some conservatives seem to have images of Israel where a birth rate of 6 vs 2 in the average population allowed the Hasidic population to swell in a few generations. Those people exist in America, but they are a very small portion of Evangelicals, and it will take a long time for that birth differential to have a noticeable effect.

[bore]

Underrated:
Rising share of population that is non-religious or functionally non-religious. Our political culture does not incorporate this view yet but the numbers are getting quite high, especially among the young.

Most of such people were already thoroughly secular, now it's just being formalized.

Nevertheless, that formalisation is itself important. People who are Christian in name only do have different politics than people with the same religious beliefs who say they have no religion.

[Skill and Chance]

Another underrated one:

Liberal whites do not really have many kids anymore and tend not to marry until very late in life, while conservative whites are still having a lot of babies.

This one deserves a lot more attention than it's getting.  Although I do suspect it's easier to pass all your political values on to an only child than to all 4 of your children at once.  The large families probably have a lot more who switch sides when they come of age.

I feel like this is both over and under rated.

Conservative birth rate is underrated by liberals, because, I think frankly the sort of person who is inclined to have six kids can't afford to live in a high cost of living area, and is going to follow a very different life pattern than the typical white liberal.

However it's also overrated by conservatives, overestimate the difference in birth rates and the role retention rates play. The typical fundamentalist or Evangelical birth rate is only marginally above average.



It's a sort of open secret that conservative Christians aren't that different from their secular counterparts. Some conservatives seem to have images of Israel where a birth rate of 6 vs 2 in the average population allowed the Hasidic population to swell in a few generations. Those people exist in America, but they are a very small portion of Evangelicals, and it will take a long time for that birth differential to have a noticeable effect.

Interesting, so religious minority birthrates are still notably higher than white fundamentalist Protestant birthrates and even the gap between white fundamentalist Protestant vs. no religion is still only about 0.5 children per family.  And white Christian liberals, who are only off by 0.2-0.3 children are likely still a larger group than white atheist/agnostic liberals.  It's certainly not a 3.5 kids/family vs. 1 kid/family situation in aggregate.  That does throw a wrench into the theory that differential birth rates are what is pulling the white population rightward (if the white population even is still moving rightward post 2012).

I do think differential birthrates could explain why traditional gender roles have been more resilient than most people expected they would be in the 1980's/90's though.  That is something that people do seem to model after their parents, but it also isn't a direct correlation with D vs. R politics (some very Dem minority groups are more traditionalist on these issues).

[Nyvin]

It really doesn't matter since "no religion" is still easily the fastest growing religious group in there.

They're called "babies" not "clones"

[krazen1211]

Looking at the national precinct maps,  I really think 2016 is the year that might begin the phase of Republicans "self-packing" into rural areas of the country, while the suburbs move to the Democrats.   At least the suburbs that are fast growing ones.   

There aren't many small town/rural places left in the country where Dems have much support, except minority heavy areas and Vermont.   

Counterwise, there isn't much left of the Mark Kirk-type Republicans that did well in the suburbs of big cities.

Trump won suburbs by 5 points. Romney won suburbs by 2 points.

[Sol]

Growing Hispanic populations in certain rural meatpacking areas.

[Nyvin]

Looking at the national precinct maps,  I really think 2016 is the year that might begin the phase of Republicans "self-packing" into rural areas of the country, while the suburbs move to the Democrats.   At least the suburbs that are fast growing ones.  

There aren't many small town/rural places left in the country where Dems have much support, except minority heavy areas and Vermont.  

Counterwise, there isn't much left of the Mark Kirk-type Republicans that did well in the suburbs of big cities.

Trump won suburbs by 5 points. Romney won suburbs by 2 points.

There is way more to the picture than that,  it's quite obvious where the trends are heading towards nationally.  Also Clinton won nationally by 2,   Obama won nationally by 4, so that accounts for a portion of that already.

If you divide it between inner suburbs and outer suburbs the trend would become more clear, also there seems to be a big regional difference.

[TDAS04]

Growing South Asian population in the US may be underrated.

[hopper]

Another underrated one:

Liberal whites do not really have many kids anymore and tend not to marry until very late in life, while conservative whites are still having a lot of babies.

I didn't know the Muslim Birth Rate was that high but it could have slowed down since '03 though.

[hopper]

Growing Hispanic populations in certain rural meatpacking areas.

Nah Hispanic Populations in some rural meatpacking areas is neither underrated or overrated in my opinion.

[Figueira]

Underrated: how much of the suburban D trend is due to minorities moving in.

Overrated: Rhode Island's R trend, suburban D trend (a lot of suburbs actually trended towards Trump). Also Virginia's D trend is slightly overrated, although it does exist.

[hopper]

Underrated: how much of the suburban D trend is due to minorities moving in.

Overrated: Rhode Island's R trend, suburban D trend (a lot of suburbs actually trended towards Trump). Also Virginia's D trend is slightly overrated, although it does exist.

Yeah I don't see RI going R at the Presidential Level in the future although the state isn't as socially liberal as its neighbor MA.

As far as the suburban D trend goes the LA, Houston and Dallas Burb's had a moderate D trend as well as the Northern Virginia Burb's.

Yeah Trump did do well in some suburban areas like in the Detroit Burb's like in Macomb and Saginaw Counties. He actually won NY-18 CD too in the Hudson Valley area of New York State.  

[DC Al Fine]

Another underrated one:

Liberal whites do not really have many kids anymore and tend not to marry until very late in life, while conservative whites are still having a lot of babies.

This one deserves a lot more attention than it's getting.  Although I do suspect it's easier to pass all your political values on to an only child than to all 4 of your children at once.  The large families probably have a lot more who switch sides when they come of age.

I feel like this is both over and under rated.

Conservative birth rate is underrated by liberals, because, I think frankly the sort of person who is inclined to have six kids can't afford to live in a high cost of living area, and is going to follow a very different life pattern than the typical white liberal.

However it's also overrated by conservatives, overestimate the difference in birth rates and the role retention rates play. The typical fundamentalist or Evangelical birth rate is only marginally above average.

img snip

It's a sort of open secret that conservative Christians aren't that different from their secular counterparts. Some conservatives seem to have images of Israel where a birth rate of 6 vs 2 in the average population allowed the Hasidic population to swell in a few generations. Those people exist in America, but they are a very small portion of Evangelicals, and it will take a long time for that birth differential to have a noticeable effect.

Interesting, so religious minority birthrates are still notably higher than white fundamentalist Protestant birthrates and even the gap between white fundamentalist Protestant vs. no religion is still only about 0.5 children per family.  And white Christian liberals, who are only off by 0.2-0.3 children are likely still a larger group than white atheist/agnostic liberals.  It's certainly not a 3.5 kids/family vs. 1 kid/family situation in aggregate.  That does throw a wrench into the theory that differential birth rates are what is pulling the white population rightward (if the white population even is still moving rightward post 2012).

I do think differential birthrates could explain why traditional gender roles have been more resilient than most people expected they would be in the 1980's/90's though.  That is something that people do seem to model after their parents, but it also isn't a direct correlation with D vs. R politics (some very Dem minority groups are more traditionalist on these issues).

I'm going to throw out a caveat with that chart. I haven't been able to find the chart maker's definition of fundamentalist, moderate, and liberal Protestant. If they used an overly expansive definition of fundamentalist, it would drag their birth rate down a bit. It is interesting how both liberals and conservatives seem to think that fundamentalists have tons of kids though. I guess we must both be falling prey to stereotypes.

[DC Al Fine]

Another factor to consider is religious retention rates. Here is a chart from the Pew Religious Landscape Study



Some things to consider:

1) This puts a damper on the idea of a resurgent religious left that some media figures are pushing in the age of Trump. Mainlines do a terrible job at catechizing and retaining their youth.

2) There's a pretty huge churn in unaffiliated people, which is interesting

3) The death of the religious right is somewhat overstated. Evangelical growth will slow down or even decline as unaffiliateds grow more hostile to the church and the pool of Mainlines and Catholics to attract converts from shrinks, but their high retention rate should prevent complete disaster.

[Gass3268]

1) This puts a damper on the idea of a resurgent religious left that some media figures are pushing in the age of Trump. Mainlines do a terrible job at catechizing and retaining their youth.

To be fair this poll is from 2014. I would be interested to see a comparison about a full year into Trump to see if there is indeed a spike as anecdotal evidence seems to suggest.

[Biden his time]

Not a demographic trend, but I really think the "high turnout always benefits Democrats" argument is a myth.

You called it eh

Overrated is the idea that Republicans could win over more minority voters through social conservatism. But I definitely do think that a lot of Democrats underestimate how many voters vote against their party because of the abortion issue.

This is very true, lots of other things would have to change for such a change to be permanent and not alienate parts of the current Republican base. It would take an Obama-esque figure to balance such a shift while keeping many largely secular culturally conservative white voters in the fold, who usually would be in natural opposition.