1The Political Geography

of America's Purple States: Five Trends That Will

Decide the 2008 Election

William H. Frey and Ruy Teixeira

October 10, 2008National Press Club

Five Trends that will Decide the 2008 Election

1. The Declining White Working Class: Still Central to Election Outcomes in Purple States

2. White College Graduates: Growing and Trending Democratic, Especially in Purple States

3. New Minority Voters: Particularly Important in Fast Growing Purple States

4. It’s the Metros, Stupid

5 Growing Areas are Mostly Trending Democratic

Five Trends that will Decide the 2008 Election

1. The Declining White Working Class: Still Central to Election Outcomes in Purple States

2. White College Graduates: Growing and Trending Democratic, Especially in Purple States

Size of Working Age White Working Class among Eligible Voters, 10 Purple States, 2006

54 52 50 4944 42 40 39 38

25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

OH MO MI PA NV CO VA AZ FL NM

Change in White Working Class Share among Eligible Voters, 10 Purple States, 2000-2006

-5.7

-3.1 -2.9 -2.8 -2.6-2.3 -2.2

-1.9-1.4 -1.3

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0NV AZ VA NM FL CO PA MI OH MO

Size of Working Age White College Graduates among Eligible Voters, 10 Purple States, 2006

26

2118 17 17 17 16

14 14 14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

CO VA PA MO MI AZ OH NV FL NM

Change in White College Graduates Share among Eligible Voters, 10 Purple States, 2000-2006

1.8

1.5 1.5

1.21 1

0.80.7

0.6

0.3

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

2

PA NV MI CO AZ OH VA FL MO NM

Change in Democratic Margin, White Working Class Vs. White College Graduates, 1988-2004

-3

9

4

17

911

1921

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

National Purple States Ohio Florida

WWCWCG

Change in Democratic Margin, White Working Class Vs. White College Graduates, 2004-2008

79

3

13

1817

1214

0

4

8

12

16

20

National Purple States Ohio Florida

WWCWCG

Democratic Margin, 2004 and 2004-2008 Shift,White Working Class,

Intermountain West Vs. Midwest

-27

16

-9

4

-30-25-20-15-10-505

101520

2004 Dem Margin 2004-2008 Shift inMargin

Intermountain WestMidwest

Democratic Margin, 2004 and 2004-2008 Shift,White College Graduates,

Intermountain West Vs. Midwest

-5

4

-17

14

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

2004 Dem Margin 2004-2008 Shift inMargin

Intermountain WestMidwest

Change in Democratic Margin, Whites with Some College Vs White Working Class as a Whole,

1988-2004

-3

9

1

17

-5

0

5

10

15

20

National Purple States

WWCWSC

National Democratic Margins, Whites with Some College, 1988-2008

-26 -25

-8

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

01988 2004 2008

Five Trends that will Decide the 2008 Election

3. New Minority Voters: Particularly Important in Fast Growing Purple States

Size of Minorities among Eligible Voters, 10 Purple States, 2006

50

30 28 27 2720 19

14 14 14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

NM FL NV VA AZ CO MI OH MO PA

Change in Minorities Share among Eligible Voters, 10 Purple States, 2000-2006

4.7

3.6

2.6 2.51.9

1.4 1.2 1.10.7

0.4

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

NV FL NM AZ VA PA MO CO OH MI

Democratic Margins, Blacks and Hispanics, 2004 and 2008

77

19

87

38

0

20

40

60

80

100

Black Hispanic

20042008

Fast-Growing States: Growth of Eligible Voters by Race, 2000-7

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Nevad

a

Arizon

aColo

rado

Florida

New M

exico

Virgini

a

Perc

ent C

hang

e

WhiteAsian/OtherBlackHispanic

27%

9%12%

13%

20%

6%

Fast-Growing States:Minority Shares of Eligible Voters, 2007

81%

74%

72%

71%

71%

51%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Colorado

Virginia

Nevada

Florida

Arizona

New Mexico

White

Hispanic

Black

Asian

Other

Slow-Growing States:Minority Shares of Eligible Voters, 2007

87%

87%

86%

82%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Pennsylvania

Ohio

Missouri

Michigan

White

Hispanic

Black

Asian

Other

47%

46%

35%

26%

25%

12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Virginia

New M exico

Colorado

Arizona

Florida

Nevada

Fast-Growing States:Percent of Eligible Voters Born in Same State

Slow-Growing States:Percent of Eligible Voters Born in Same State

76%

74%

72%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Pennsylvania

Michigan

Ohio

Missouri

Five Trends that will Decide the 2008 Election

4. It’s the Metros, Stupid

5. Growing Areas are Mostly Trending Democratic

Large Metro Shares of State Populations

Albuquerque42%New MexicoDetroit45%MichiganPhiladelphia, Pittsburgh45%PennsylvaniaCleveland, Columbus, Cinn.48%OhioDenver51%ColoradoSt. Louis, Kansas City56%MissouriMiami, Tampa, Orlando56%FloridaPhoenix66%ArizonaDC, Va. Beach, Richmond68%VirginiaLas Vegas72%Nevada

SOUTH

NORTHEAST

NORTHWEST

COLUMBUS SUBURBS

CINCINNATI METRO

CLEVELAND SUBURBS

FRANKLIN CO.

CUYAHOGA CO.

Dayton

Toledo

Akron

Wheeling

Parkersburg

CantonLima

Huntington

Mansfield

Springfield

Weirton

Sandusky Youngstown

Counties

REGIONS

Metropolitan areas

Ohio Metropolitan Areas and Regions

Cleveland18%

Columbus16%

Rest of State66%

Cleveland and Columbus Share of Ohio Population, 2007

-6.9

5.94.3

16.3

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

CuyahogaCo

Suburbs Franklin Co Suburbs

Cleveland Columbus

Cleveland and Columbus Growth, 2000-7

Eligible Voters: Key Demographic Groups

339

237

15

16

18

23

21

3557

4359

14

11

17

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CuyahogaCo

Suburbs FranklinCo

Suburbs

White Working ClassWhites Coll GradsWhites 65+Minorities

Cleveland Columbus

Change in Eligible Voters, 2000-2006

-20,000

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

MinoritiesWhites 65+Whites Coll GradsWhite Working Class

Cleveland Columbus

SOUTH

NORTHEAST

NORTHWEST

COLUMBUS SUBURBS

CINCINNATI METRO

CLEVELAND SUBURBS

FRANKLIN CO.

CUYAHOGA CO.

Republican Margin Increase 10%+

Republican Margin Increase up to 10%

Democrat Margin Increase up to 10%

Democrat Margin Increase 10%+

Change in Presidential Voting Margin by County, 1988-2004

SOUTH

NORTHEAST

NORTHWEST

COLUMBUS SUBURBS

CINCINNATI METRO

CLEVELAND SUBURBS

FRANKLIN CO.

CUYAHOGA CO.

4%+ Decline

Up to 4% Decline

Up to 6% Growth

6%+ Growth

Ohio Population Change by County, 2000-7

Greeley

Pueblo

Grand Junction

Fort Collins-Loveland

WEST

EAST

CENTRAL AND SOUTHEAST

COLORADO SPRINGS

DENVER INNER

SUBURBS

DENVER OUTER

SUBURBS

DENVER OUTER SUBURBS

BOULDER

DENVER

Metropolitan areas

Counties

REGIONS

Colorado Metropolitan Areas and Regions

Denver and Suburbs Share of Colorado Population, 2007

Denver City12%

Denver InnerSuburbs

31%

Denver Outer Suburbs

8%

Rest of State49%

5.89.3

41.2

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

Denver City DenverInnerSuburbs

Denver OuterSuburbs

Denver and Suburbs Growth, 2000-2007

Eligible Voters in Denver: Key Demographic Groups

3722

10

1113

9

28

22

2443 40

41

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Denver City DennerInnerSuburbs

Denver OuterSuburbs

White Working Class

Whites Coll Grads

Whites 65+

Minorities

Denver, Change in Eligible Voters, 2000-2006

-20,000

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

Minorities

Whites 65+

Whites Coll Grads

White Working Class

Denver cityDenver

Inner SuburbsDenver

Outer Suburbs

WEST

EAST

CENTRAL AND SOUTHEAST

COLORADO SPRINGS

DENVERINNER

SUBURBS

DENVER OUTER

SUBURBS

DENVER OUTER

SUBURBS

BOULDER

DENVER

Republican Margin Increase 10%+

Republican Margin Increase up to 10%

Democrat Margin Increase up to 10%

Democrat Margin Increase 10%+

Change in Presidential Voting Margin by County, 1988-2004

WEST

EAST

CENTRAL AND SOUTHEAST

COLORADO SPRINGS

DENVER INNER

SUBURBS

DENVER OUTER

SUBURBS

DENVER OUTER SUBURBS

BOULDER

DENVER

Decline

Up to 9% Growth

10% to 19% Growth

20%+ Growth

Colorado Population Growth by County, 2000-7

SOUTH AND WEST

VIRGINIA BEACH

NORTHERN VIRGINIA

RICHMOND AND EAST

RichmondLynchburg

Roanoke

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV

Charlottesville

DanvilleKingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA

Winchester, VA-WV

Harrisonburg

Blacksburg

Counties

REGIONS

Metropolitan areas

Virginia Metropolitan Areas and Regions

15.0

4.7

9.9

4.2

0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

16.0

Northern VA VA Beach Richmond-East

West

Northern Virginia and Other VA Region Growth, 2000-7

Eligible Voters: Key Demographic Groups

23 27

1014

35 15

33 44

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Northern VA Rest of State

White Working Class

Whites Coll Grads

Whites 65+

Minorities

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

Minorities Whites65+

WhitesColl Grads

WhiteWorkingClass

Change in Eligible Voters, Northern VA, 2000-06

82%

76%

64%

45%

0 20 40 60 80 100

West

Richmond-East

VA Beach

Northern VA

Percent Born in South, Eligible Voters (2007?)

SOUTH AND WEST

VIRGINIA BEACH

NORTHERN VIRGINIA

RICHMOND AND EAST

Republican Margin Increase 10%+

Republican Margin Increase up to 10%

Democrat Margin Increase up to 10%

Democrat Margin Increase 10%+

Change in Presidential Voting Margin by County, 1988-2004

SOUTH AND WEST

VIRGINIA BEACH

NORTHERN VIRGINIA

RICHMOND AND EAST

Decline

Up to 9% Growth

10% to 19% Growth

20%+ Growth

Population Change by County in Virginia, 2000-07

Florida Metropolitan Areas and Regions

Orlando

Ocala

JacksonvilleTallahassee

Lakeland

Gainesville

Naples

Tampa-St. Petersburg

Pensacola

Punta Gorda

Sarasota Port St. Lucie

Vero Beach

Palm Bay

Deltona-Daytona Beach

Cape Coral-Fort Myers

Panama City

Fort Walton Beach

NORTH

SOUTH

I-4 CORRIDOR

MIAMI METRO

Counties

REGIONS

Metropolitan areas

Miami30%

I-4 Corridor36%

Rest of State34%

Miami and I-4 Corridor Share of Florida Population, 2007

Miami and I-4 Corridor Growth, 2000-7

7.7

16.6

0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

16.0

20.0

Miami I-4 Corridor

Eligible Voters: Key Demographic Groups

50

24

15

19

13

15

2242

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Miami I-4 Corridor

White Working Class

Whites Coll Grads

Whites 65+

Minorities

Change in Eligible Voters, 2000-6

-75,000

0

75,000

150,000

225,000

300,000

375,000

Minorities

Whites 65+

Whites Coll Grads

White Working Class

Miami Metro I-4 Corridor

Population Change by County in Florida, 2000-07

NORTH

SOUTH

I-4 CORRIDOR

MIAMI METRO

Decline

Up to 9% Growth

10% to 19% Growth

20%+ Growth

NORTH

SOUTH

I-4 CORRIDOR

MIAMI METRO

Change in Presidential Voting Margin, 1988-2004

Republican Margin Increase 10%+

Republican Margin Increase up to 10%

Democrat Margin Increase up to 10%

Democrat Margin Increase 10%+