Bobby Jindal

Jindal Measures Success by Migration (Part 2)

"25 years in a row, more people had left Louisiana than came into Louisiana. The only state in the South to lose our sons and daughters. One of the worst public school systems in the entire country. [...] You heard, we cut our budget 26%. We've got over 30,000 fewer state government bureaucrats than the day I took office. Eight different credit upgrades. Smallest number of state employees; best credit ratings in decades. I don't think that's a coincidence. Top-ten state for private-sector job creation. Seven years in a row of more people moving into Louisiana rather than leaving the state."

On Thursday, June 35, 2015 on C-Span
Sources: C-Span, WMUR

The Context: Speaking at C-Span's "Politics and Eggs" breakfast event, Bobby Jindal describes Louisiana's success through a series of metrics often used to measure economic and social opportunity. He includes that at the start of his tenure as governor, the state "was still reeling from Hurricane Katrina" and that New Orleans "was still trying to get back on its feet." While for several decades the state had suffered a population decline, he recounted that many of the displaced were not sure that they should or could return and rebuild. While his list of metrics, numbers, and rankings offers a variety of ways to measure growth, change, and opportunity, this portion of his speech began and ended with the question of whether American were move to or from Louisiana. It is also worth noting that the full speech begins with detailed anecdotes of his parents' immigration and early years in the US.

Part 2 of 2

In Part 1we looked at the distribution of domestic migration per county in recent years in terms of both the net gains and losses in population and the percent change of local population from year to year attributable to Americans relocating. We also raised a few of the effects and implications of internal migration within the country.

Domestic migration raises a tricky set of concerns for policymaking and leadership on the federal level, all of which require decidedly different approaches than they do at the state level. If where Americans move can indicate local economic success and a wealth of opportunity, then states and their governors effectively compete with one another for the American populace. As we saw in Part 1 of this entry, for every gain in one part of the country, there is a loss elsewhere. How these shifts are handled and managed federally is thus more of a balancing act than a competition. And, as the international immigration discussion has thus far shown, vying for arriving populations nationwide does not carry with it the same rhetorical implication of growth and success. Still, the distances Americans travel in their moves and the redistribution of the American households in search of new opportunity can be telling: whether these households and families relocate within their states' boundaries or move across state lines redefines and reconstitutes our regional economies, our congressional apportionments, and thus our politics at all levels. And so, we asked

How far are Americans moving? What percentage of local populations lived elsewhere one year ago, and did they move from within their state or beyond? 

Jindal Measures Success by Migration (Part 1)

"25 years in a row, more people had left Louisiana than came into Louisiana. The only state in the South to lose our sons and daughters. One of the worst public school systems in the entire country. [...] You heard, we cut our budget 26%. We've got over 30,000 fewer state government bureaucrats than the day I took office. Eight different credit upgrades. Smallest number of state employees; best credit ratings in decades. I don't think that's a coincidence. Top-ten state for private-sector job creation. Seven years in a row of more people moving into Louisiana rather than leaving the state."

On Thursday, June 35, 2015 on C-Span
Sources: C-Span, WMUR

The Context: Speaking at C-Span's "Politics and Eggs" breakfast event, Bobby Jindal describes Louisiana's success through a series of metrics often used to measure economic and social opportunity. He includes that at the start of his tenure as governor, the state "was still reeling from Hurricane Katrina" and that New Orleans "was still trying to get back on its feet." While for several decades the state had suffered a population decline, he recounted that many of the displaced were not sure that they should or could return and rebuild. While his list of metrics, numbers, and rankings offers a variety of ways to measure growth, change, and opportunity, this portion of his speech began and ended with the question of whether American were move to or from Louisiana. It is also worth noting that the full speech begins with detailed anecdotes of his parents' immigration and early years in the US.

Part 1 of 2

With much of the election discussion centered around international migration, the question of domestic migration has not yet received much attention despite all that this movement implies and indicates. Within the United States, Americans are moving—as they have done for the last generation—at higher rates than before in our history. And just as with international migration, these movements are usually described as decisions made in search of new opportunities, and as a result states and cities end up competing with one another in their attempts to attract businesses and workers. 

When certain states and cities experience incredible population growth resulting from domestic migration (as opposed to international immigration or natural birth rate increases), then of course this means that other states and cities are losing that important population. Just the same, when we talk about shrinking cities and local economies, we should be asking where these families and individuals are going. And so, we decided to ask just that in this two-part post. First, we should start with asking

How many Americans have been on the move recently? Which parts of the country have seen net increases and decreases in population due to domestic migration in the last few years?

This map (above) shows the total net population change because, in the end, the absolute numbers are important. They imply the total number of households to accommodate, new children enrolled in schools, greater (or fewer) jobs required and taxpayers contributing to the local economy, and larger (or smaller) loads placed on local infrastructures. But all counties are not equal nor have the same capacity, and thus the percent of population change from year to year is also relevant and should be considered in tandem. And so, we asked

Which parts of the country have seen the highest and lowest percentage shifts in population since 2010? And how consistent, from year to year, has that pattern been?

In Part 2, we'll look at how far Americans move in search of these opportunities and changes.


The Issues Thus Far

Update 1:00PM EST Tuesday, July 21, 2015: At the time of writing, the project had in fact successfully made it through the complete list of declared candidates. This morning, within hours of this entry going 'live,' John Kasich announced his run for the presidency.

The Campaign Mapping project has now officially gone through the list of declared major party candidates, highlighting aspects of each of their announcement speeches. As a result, now seems like an appropriate time to reflect on the issues that have received attention and the ways in which they were discussed.  (Of course, we'll be adding any others who decide to throw their hats into the ring as they make their announcements.)

[The links throughout this summary will take you to specific atlas entries or to a list of those including reference to specific issues.]

Perhaps unexpectedly, there are a handful of issues and themes emerging at the fore of the rhetoric. Similarly, there are a variety of tactics the announcements themselves have exploited in terms of venues and approaches. While most gave a speech close to their hometowns, Clinton and Fiorina both released short videos on the Internet boosted through social media, while Webb declared his candidacy via Facebook with a letter posted as well. 

We've heard several references to the American Dream and the need for greater opportunities for working Americans. We've heard the beginnings of discussion on income inequality and jobs. Further, we began to translate what they might mean when candidates talk about the "middle class" as an expectation, a social contract, and an income bracket. We've also heard a bit of confusion on the nature of social programs and policies, particularly where "entitlements" and "welfare" programs are concerned. We anticipate several future atlas entries further clarifying the difference, and we got that process of translation underway with a brief discussion of "welfare" specifically.

While immigration was a popular topic from the very first announcement, it became an enormous talking point with Trump's announcement. The country saw divergent rhetorical approaches between candidates of color who each emphasized their families' stories of coming to the US (or in Bush's case, the story of starting his family with his wife whom he met in Mexico) and other candidates whose discussion of immigration which is centered around legality, policy, and economic opportunity. 

While rarely explicit, the topic of immigration dovetails into a growing theme of diversity and identity. While Clinton's video highlighted a diverse population in middle-class America and others voiced pride in the national origins of their families, a few candidates have called for an end to "identity politics" and "hyphenated Americans." We translated one aspect of identity politics from the statement made by Fiorina. Interestingly, it was Jindal, who described his parents immigrating to the US as an idea rather than a place, who also seeks to unite the diverse population through reduced nomenclature.

Taken together, more often than not, these issues describe each candidate's imagined audience and the image of "America" each of them sees. Specifically, they describe who they believe the typical American is and what characteristics comprise American households and families. Even in this very early phase of our project, we have seen many "typical American households" and many "Americas."

On the process of politics itself, almost every candidate made a point of critiquing the system into which they've been launched. Be it on questions of campaign finance or partisanship or general voter disillusionment, candidates from both parties agreed that these were issues to be addressed. (Christie calls the latter Americans' "anxiety.")

In the coming weeks, we expect to hear more specific policy priorities and agendas. This will likely mean fewer maps of Americans in favor of mapping our infrastructures, energy usage, environmental concerns, and economic systems. With that, our questions will move away from "who lives where?" toward "who might be impacted?" by such policies. And all that fun starts...tomorrow.

- the Campaign Mapping team

Bobby Jindal Is Running for President

"We cannot allow people to immigrate to our country so they can use our freedoms to undermine our freedoms. [...] It is not unreasonable to demand, if you want to immigrate to America, you must do so legally. You must be ready and willing to embrace our values, learn English, and roll up your sleeves and get to work."

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015, in Kenner, LA
Sources: Time, C-Span 

The Context: Jindal bookends his announcement speech by referencing the story of his parents' immigration to the US. He says, "They weren't really coming to a geographical place. They were coming to an idea." At both the beginning and end of the speech, he describes those "looking for a land where the people are free and the opportunities are real." His comments on assimilating into American culture and the country's labor force include a comparison with immigration patterns in Europe, which Jindal insists we cannot allow to replicate in the United States.

Earlier this week, we looked at the landscape of this country's immigrants (the foreign-born population) as well as the prevalence of non-English-speaking households.  Moving beyond these, Jindal connects immigration to employment (see our overall employment maps) and raises the issue of immigrant willingness to work. Thus, we asked

How does the willingness to work (measured as labor force participation rate) of immigrants compare to those who were born in the United States? Is this pattern different in metropolitan or larger employment centers across the country?

Cross-reference:

Employment (link to Atlas Entry)

Foreign-born Population (link to Atlas Entry)

Non-English Speakers (link to Atlas Entry)

An additional contextual note: Because we here at Campaign Mapping are concerned with what is said on the campaign trail and how campaign issues and messages are framed, it is worth noting that the rhetorical centerpiece of Jindal's announcement speech is speech itself, presented in two competing forms. On one hand, he repeatedly invokes a motif of speaking truth (to Washington-power). On the other hand he gives considerable attention to the distinction between "talking" and "doing." At one point, he goes so far as to "translate...political speak into plain English."