Across the country, Republican performance correlates closely with a state's level of "affordable family formation" because the GOP's family values orientation appeals most to voters with families. The huge increase in California's population, including the Hispanic baby boom triggered by the 1986 illegal alien amnesty, drove up the cost of buying a home and devastated the public schools. This drove many family-oriented voters out of the state, and kept others from getting married and having children. The Total Fertility Rate of white women in California dropped 14% between 1990 and 2000.
Is there anything to this?
If you read my blogs, you will recall that I've previously explained how laissez-faire zoning laws in "red states" reduce housing costs in those states, while in "blue states" excessive regulation and zoning significantly increases the cost of housing.
Furthermore, I've previously written about how liberals are less likely to have children.
Steve Sailer seems to think that we can create more conservatives if we can just get liberals to have children. I doubt this because one's political disposition is somewhat genetic and somewhat influenced by one's parents, so getting liberals to have more children will only create more liberals. However, conservatives can take comfort that liberals will eventually die out. Liberals should be a lot more alarmed than they are.
I agree with Steve that middle class parents don't want their children to attend school with poor children. This is a topic in my post on why Republicans should like cities; a major reason why middle class families abandoned cities is because of the unavailability of public schools free of poor children.
And now, let's ponder the economic incentives related to getting married and having children. Economic considerations do alter people's major life decisions. It's common to hear about couples putting off child bearing until they can afford it. And the high cost of housing has resulted in increasing numbers of young men being forced to live at home with their parents. Surely this contributes to people getting married later than ever before.
Although I suspect that liberals are naturally predisposed towards having less children, the problem is exacerbated by the high cost of living in blue states. Most couples living in cities in blue states have to move out of the city in order to afford a residence with extra rooms for children and to obtain free public education that is deemed of an acceptable quality (acceptable quality meaning no poor children in the school). Some of these people will forgo the expensive blue state and move to a red state with affordable housing. Thus the red states gain in population, and because a good chunk of the gain comes from couples with children who are more likely to be conservative, the red states remain conservative while the blue states become even more liberal.
This creates a virtuous circle, because Republican policies in red states make them less expensive for families encouraging more families to move there, making them even more family friendly. At the same time there is a vicious circle for blue states, because the most conservative voters leave, making the laws even more hostile towards affordable housing and public schools suitable to middle class tastes.
After the 2010 Census causes Congressional districts to be reapportioned, the increasing population of the red states (on account of both immigration from blue states and the more numerous children of Republicans reaching the age of 18 and becoming new Republican voters) will grant Republicans a solid majority in Congress and the Electoral College. The 2008 election may be the last one in which a Democratic candidate is competitive.