From the Washington Post: Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls may be larger than it seems. Here’s why.

Building off our discussion of current problems with polling.

- Click here for the article.

In 2012, national polls in October suggested the presidential race was a virtual tie. The Real Clear Politics polling average gave Barack Obama a slight 0.7 point lead over Mitt Romney, but he actually won by almost 4 points. Of the final 11 national polls released in 2012, as reported on Real Clear Politics, 7 were a tie or had Romney ahead, while only 4 had Obama ahead.

Why were so many of the polls wrong? In part, because they failed to capture how minorities would vote. Unfortunately, some pollsters may be making the same mistakes in 2016 — and thereby underestimating Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls.

In 2012, many polls underestimated how many minorities would vote and how many would vote for Obama. For example, a Politico poll released the morning of Election Day said the race was tied at 47 percent each for Obama and Romney. The poll said that 62 percent of Latinos supported Obama, while the exit polls reported 71 percent, and Latino Decisions reported 75 percent. Among the “another race” category, which is mostly comprised of Asian Americans, Politico reported that 47 percent supported Obama, while the exit polls reported 73 percent, and an Asian American Decisions exit poll reported 72 percent.

. . . In 2016, the country is even more diverse. Pollsters need to take steps to more accurately estimate the political attitudes and behavior of black, Latino and Asian American voters. Polls that are conducted only in English and that do few or no callbacks to try contact hard-to-reach populations are not going to accurately reflect the American electorate. Polls that are conducted via online panels need to ensure that they are not under-representing minority voters with less formal education and lower incomes. Finally, pollsters should take steps to make sure each racial subgroup in their poll is weighted to match the American Community Survey’s estimates for that particular group, not just their national sample overall.

From the NYT: Why Donald Trump Has Done Worse in Mostly White States

Apparently whites in states with high populations of minority groups are more responsive to Trumps message. The author speculates about why this may be the case. It has little to do with his stances on issues, and much more with who he targets his wrath towards. Race is central to it.

- Click here for the article.

An appeal to white identity tends to work better in areas where that identity is felt to be under threat. The South, where Mr. Trump has performed well, has long been known for racially polarized politics.

Race essentially predicts political affiliation there, with blacks lining up for Democrats and whites for Republicans. A state like Mississippi, whose population is around 37 percent black, is an obvious example. If even 25 percent of white Mississippians voted for Democrats, the state could tilt blue — and perhaps elect the state’s first black governor, or first black senator since Reconstruction.

Democratic strategists dream of a blue North Carolina and Florida, and further in the future, a blue Georgia or Arizona.

But few dream of a blue Mississippi. The numbers have long been locked in. For example, according to the 2012 Mississippi exit polls, 96 percent of blacks voted for President Obama, but 89 percent of whites voted for Mitt Romney, who won by 55 percent to 44 percent.

Political scientists have written about the importance of tipping points in ethnic strife or resentment around the globe. It occurs when one group grows big enough to potentially alter the power hierarchy.

The author links to a large number of studies. Here are a few:

- RAND Kicks Off 2016 Presidential Election Panel Survey.
- Who Are Donald Trump's Supporters, Really?
- Measuring Donald Trump’s Supporters for Intolerance.
- How political science helps explain the rise of Trump: the role of white identity and grievances.
- Obama's Unwanted Legacy: The Renewed Influence of 'Old-Fashioned Racism'
- Racial Identity, and Its Hostilities, Are on the Rise in American Politics.
- Could America Become Mississippi?
- THE BROWNING OF AMERICA.
- The downside of diversity: A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life.

Pew Research Center: Super Tuesday showcases electorate’s growing racial, ethnic diversity

This might be what sets off the authoritarian minded part of the electorate.

- Click here for the article.

The U.S. electorate this year will be the country’s most diverse ever, and that is evident in several Super Tuesday states holding primaries or caucuses on March 1 in which blacks could have a significant impact.

In five of 12 Super Tuesday states, blacks account for at least 15% of the electorate, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of 2014 census data. Black eligible voters have the largest footprint in Georgia (31%) and Alabama (26%), while Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas also have sizable black electorates.

In a reversal of historical migration trends, Southern states have seen their black populations increase more than twice as fast as non-Southern states since 1990. From 1910 to 1970, 6 million blacks left the South, with many pursuing industrial jobs in Northern cities in what is called the Great Migration. But since then, blacks haveincreasingly chosen to live in the South.

. . . Hispanics have a large presence in the Super Tuesday states of Texas and Colorado. In Texas, Hispanics make up 28% of the electorate and outnumber blacks 4.8 million to 2.2 million. In Colorado, Hispanics make up a rising share of eligible voters, standing at nearly 15% in 2014, up from nearly 13% in 2008. Overall, Hispanics favor the Democratic Party, but to a lesser degree than blacks. Exit polls in 2014 in some states showed significant shares of Hispanic voters supporting Republican candidates in races for governor and U.S. Senate.

Several other Super Tuesday states have largely white electorates. For example, whites make up 95% of eligible voters in Vermont and 88% of eligible voters in Minnesota.

Diversity as a Compelling State Interest in Public Education

I just stumbled across this law review article that outlines the issue involved in the argument that racial diversity is a compelling state interest that justifies affirmative action, which we've been discussing in 2305 this week.

- Click here for the article.

It was written in 1999, so I'll look for more recent articles - but the background it provides is still useful for us.

From the Volock Conspiracy: Asian-American state senators block proposal to reintroduce race preferences in California

An interesting twist to our discussion of civil rights and affirmative action. A repeal of affirmative action in public education in California has lead to over representation of Asian-Americans in public universities. This has lead to the obvious conflict - based on self-interest for one's racial group - on whether an effort to repeal the repeal should be presented to the voters.

- Click here for the article.

It hits on a question we're discussing in 2305 about whether diversity on a campus is a compelling public purpose that allows for the consideration of race in public education. The article's author is opposed - though I don't he draws the argument out that well here.

Here's a useful bit from the commentary:

. . . if one is looking for proportional representation, or a “University that looks like California,” then one would want to reduce the number of Asians at the most selective University of California campuses, since Asians are sharply overrepresented there. Even if one is looking for things such as “diversity,” the fact remains that, so long as a disproportionately high number of seats is taken by Asians, a disproportionately low number of seats will be taken by members of other racial groups. That’s true not just for blacks and Hispanics but also for non-Hispanic whites at many campuses. For instance, in 2013 non-Hispanic whites made up only 30 percent of non-international UC Berkeley freshmen — or 34 percent if you assume that all the “decline to state” students were white — while East and South Asians made up 48 percent. Non-Hispanic whites make up 39 percent of the California population, while Asians make up 14 percent. Indeed, some backers of race preferences argued during the Prop. 209 debate that having too many Asian students is one of the problems that race preferences are supposed to fix.

. . . If it somehow ends up that Asians make up 80 percent of the students that have the non-race-based predictors UCLA Law School uses for admission, and my own racial group is thus vastly underrepresented, I would have no complaints whatsoever, and wouldn’t think there is any basis to use racial preferences to either reduce the number of Asians or increase the number of whites, blacks, or Hispanics.

I'm curious about the political consequences though. If more middle class and poor whites see the repeal of affirmative action programs as hurting them by expanding opportunities for Asian Americans, might this lead to a backlash? Affirmative action might - ironically and problematically - become favored by whites, and this might be driven to some degree by animosity towards Asian Americans. Racial identity has always played a role in politics. It is unreasonable to assume it will not continue to do so.

From the Atlantic Cities: Americans Vastly Overestimate How Diverse the Country Really Is - Part Two

I thought this graph was worth posting separately. It points out which groups are more and less open to diversity - white conservatives not so much, liberals and non-whites much more so.



Attitudes about inequality - whether it is a problem - also varies depending on race:

From the Atlantic Cities: Americans Vastly Overestimate How Diverse the Country Really Is - Part One

And this impacts political decisions, erroneously. We tend to worry about things that aren't really happening.

In the last few years, the U.S. Census Bureau has released a series of high-profile projections narrowing in on a significant demographic milestone for the United States set to take place in the early 2040s. By then, America's population will for the first time become "majority-minority" (the Census Bureau has revised the target a few times between 2043 and 2041). At that moment, non-Hispanic whites will make up less than 50 percent of the U.S. population. And groups that we now consider "minorities" will collectively make up the largest share.

In effect, no individual group in America will constitute a "majority" any more.

That moment is still three decades away. But apparently most Americans think it's already nearly upon us. The Center for American Progress, PolicyLink and the Rockefeller Foundation released some interesting survey data today on perceptions about America's looming demographic change. One of the first questions asked of nearly 3,000 adults (with an over-sample of minorities): What percentage of the current population do you think are racial and ethnic minorities?

On average, people went with 49 percent. The reality is closer to 37 percent.

From the Chron: Houston region may be nation’s most diverse, but congressional delegation isn’t

A year ago the Houston Chronicle ran a story detailing how the local area has emerged as the nation's "most ethnically diverse large metropolitan area." This is especially true for area suburbs:

Two suburbs - Missouri City and Pearland - have become even more diverse than the city of Houston. Other suburbs aren't far behind.

These findings are from a report released Monday by Rice University researchers, based on an analysis of census data from 1990, 2000 and 2010.

"We are a little United Nations," Pearland Mayor Tom Reid said. "You go to one of our neighborhoods, and there will be a person from Nigeria living next to somebody from India, living next to somebody from Mexico and somebody from Louisiana."

Today the paper runs a story pointing out that this diversity is not reflected in the racial composition of the Houston area delegation to Congress. They also claim that this is deliberate:

Despite the fact that the Houston region is a model of 21st century America, the congressional delegation is stuck in the 1970s. Of the 12 lawmakers who represent a piece of the Houston area, only one has Tejano roots (Republican Bill Flores of Bryan) and two are African Americans (Democrats Al Green and Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston). There are no Asian American representatives, even though the census reflects a rapid growth in the area’s Asian American population.

Nine of the 12 House members — 75 percent — are non-Hispanic white, known in Texas political circles as “Anglo.” Those include eight Republicans and one Democrat (Gene Green of Houston).

Why is the delegation’s composition so out of step with the demographic changes of the region? Blame the Texas Legislature and the federal courts. The Texas Legislature drew a map that minimized the voting power of Houston-area Latinos in order to maximize the voting power of Republicans. And it divided diverse Fort Bend County in an attempt to preserve a safe seat for Republican Pete Olson of Sugar Land while packing as many minority voters as possible into the Harris County-dominated district of Al Green.

Also, two “Anglos” are representing districts that are majority Latino: Gene Green and Blake Farenthold, a Corpus Christi Republican whose district includes the Coastal Bend and the southwestern edges of the Houston metro area.

The federal courts are responsible in that they approved an interim map that formalized the Legislature’s plan that minimized minority representation in Southeast Texas and the Coastal Bend.

Judges and Diversity

Jeffrey Toobin reminds us that diversity has always played a role in deciding who to appoint to the Supreme Court. At one point, it was regional diversity, now its gender and race. That's the only thing that's changed.