Democrats after 2010 census

[Brutus]

Consider this:
Due to reapportionment of congressional districts after the 2000 census, George W. Bush would have gained 7 electoral votes in 2004 by simply holding the same states he had won in 2000.

Given that the population shift seems to be moving south and west - both Republican strongholds (except CA), do the Democrats stand a chance of ever winning again after the 2010 census beefs up the Republican states even more?

[danwxman]

Consider this:
Due to reapportionment of congressional districts after the 2000 census, George W. Bush would have gained 7 electoral votes in 2004 by simply holding the same states he had won in 2000.

Given that the population shift seems to be moving south and west - both Republican strongholds (except CA), do the Democrats stand a chance of ever winning again after the 2010 census beefs up the Republican states even more?

Obviously states like Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico are going to get big boosts. But, all those states could very well be leaning Democrat by 2010. I've said it before and I'll say it again...the Democrats need to concentrate on the Southwest...THAT is where the population is going. Richardson in 2008.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

even though states out west are gaining population, they're also gaining Democrats. People from the northeast and Hispanics are mostly moving in. So those states will be easier to win.

It's kind of like how the Democrats could still win after losing the south because we picked up California.

[Brutus]

even though states out west are gaining population, they're also gaining Democrats. People from the northeast and Hispanics are mostly moving in. So those states will be easier to win.

It's kind of like how the Democrats could still win after losing the south because we picked up California.

True, and I do believe that some of the Southwest will be competitive.  You'd be amazed, however, at how many newcomers to Nevada and Arizona are retirees from California fleeing taxation.  Also remember that the deep south is gaining too.  Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina all gained EV's after 2000.

[badnarikin04]

This is good news.

I'm just hoping for something to come along and topple either the Republicans or Democrats or both.

[Beet]

even though states out west are gaining population, they're also gaining Democrats. People from the northeast and Hispanics are mostly moving in. So those states will be easier to win.

It's kind of like how the Democrats could still win after losing the south because we picked up California.

True, and I do believe that some of the Southwest will be competitive.  You'd be amazed, however, at how many newcomers to Nevada and Arizona are retirees from California fleeing taxation.  Also remember that the deep south is gaining too.  Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina all gained EV's after 2000.

New Mexico is not gaining any EV's, its stagnant growth is an anomaly in the southwest. It will stay at 5 ev's for decades.

The states that are growing there are Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. Arizona and Utah are trending Republican (yes, Utah is trending Republican, however strange that may seem), and the party positions as they are now, means the Republicans are likely to hold Colorado. Only Nevada could become more competitive, but Bush still held onto it this year despite the Yucca mountain thing. Kerry's margin in Clark county was also lower than Gore's in 2000.

In the end, the southwest is a hold for Republicans under the current positions. The parties would have to shift their issue positions in order to make different parts of the country competitive. And with an increasing number (now 42%) of hispanics going for Bush, and most Hispanics going for Bush in the states that are actually important, such as Florida, the Hispanic population has already delivered the presidency to Republicans twice but has never delivered it to a single Democrat. Therefore, the most surefire suicide strategy by the Democrats that I can see would be to continue to rely on "the hispanic vote" and a miraculous "trend in the southwest". For them, it should be wake up and smell the coffee: change yourselves first. Re-alignments have not been built on demographic trends but on new issue positions. For example: the South didn't change in the 1960s-2000s. The parties did.

[Bogart]

Here's one possibility for 2012 election. If my math is correct, net shift +2 Republicans.



And, after the 2020 census.  These reapportionments are based upon actual, though as has been pointed out, potentially flawed Census projections. New projections don't show CA picking up as many seats as these numbers do.

[True Democrat]

The democrats are gaining in states such as Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada.  The only reason those states were not very close is because Bush won by 3 points.  If democrats stop taking the Hispanics for granted, I believe the Democrats will make great electoral gains.

[M]

As to the argument that the Southwest is a GOP Achilles' heel because of the Hispanic vote:

Year   Dem's percentage   Hispanic Votes
96               72                  4.9 mil
00               67                  5.9 mil
04               56                  7.0 mil

Also interestingly, the first time Hispanic vote this year was 50-50. Bush also won about 59% of the Hispanic vote in Texas- a predominantly Mexican bloc that used to vote about 65-70% Dem. Only in Cali do the Dems still have a monopoly on this vote- but it still mirrors the state trend, and Arnie still has just barely got going. Also, there is evidence Hispanic consciousness as a "race" is declining, and support for affirmative action is down (again outside Cali)- the Census Bureau is strongly considering removing the option of identifying oneself as Hispanic from the race question.

Still, I would say Richardson would be a fantastic Dem choice for a running mate. Though perhaps a less brilliant presidential choice, he may not be the ideal magnet for Midwestern voters; still, I can imagine him winning against a less-than-excellent GOP candidate. I think Bayh would be wiser, though.

The other thing is, this sort of thing is kind of a default, if you will. 2004 and especially 2000 were sort of default elections. If someone from either party can build a consensus, this sort of thing will become less important.

[12th Doctor]

Two things:

1) There is no gurentee that the growth in these states will benefit the Republicans.

2) The parties will change to represent the current political realities.

In reaction to Bogart:

I know I have said this before, but your maps fail to take into account economic and technological changes in regions.  They only base projections off of what the current treands are.  The current treands will not hold, in fact they are changing right now.  Califonia, due to sprawl, environment, etc. will not continue to grow at the present rate.  In fact I think that by 2020 it will start to lose EV's.

The movement of major corperations to the south will cause a boom in Georgia, North Carolina and South Virginia.

Minnesota is currently the most dynamic and economically sound states in the nation.  Minnesota will grow considerably in the next 30 years.

There are other things, but I'll get to those later, if I have the chance.

[Bogart]

I do realize that the projections are flawed in the respect you mention---I did acknowledge that. There will be new numbers soon and I will re-work formula. I simply used what I had because it I could not spare the time when I posted. Admitedly, California will not grow as fast as current projections predict relative to some other states. As to actually losing seats--I'm not so sure. You are very correct with respect to several souther states, especially Georgia.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In the end, the southwest is a hold for Republicans under the current positions. The parties would have to shift their issue positions in order to make different parts of the country competitive. And with an increasing number (now 42%) of hispanics going for Bush, and most Hispanics going for Bush in the states that are actually important, such as Florida, the Hispanic population has already delivered the presidency to Republicans twice but has never delivered it to a single Democrat. Therefore, the most surefire suicide strategy by the Democrats that I can see would be to continue to rely on "the hispanic vote" and a miraculous "trend in the southwest". For them, it should be wake up and smell the coffee: change yourselves first. Re-alignments have not been built on demographic trends but on new issue positions. For example: the South didn't change in the 1960s-2000s. The parties did.

once again comparing apples to oranges.

Hispanics in Florida are mostly Cubans, which have entirely different voting patterns and always have. Florida can't be compared to the entire nation in this context.

[12th Doctor]

In the end, the southwest is a hold for Republicans under the current positions. The parties would have to shift their issue positions in order to make different parts of the country competitive. And with an increasing number (now 42%) of hispanics going for Bush, and most Hispanics going for Bush in the states that are actually important, such as Florida, the Hispanic population has already delivered the presidency to Republicans twice but has never delivered it to a single Democrat. Therefore, the most surefire suicide strategy by the Democrats that I can see would be to continue to rely on "the hispanic vote" and a miraculous "trend in the southwest". For them, it should be wake up and smell the coffee: change yourselves first. Re-alignments have not been built on demographic trends but on new issue positions. For example: the South didn't change in the 1960s-2000s. The parties did.

once again comparing apples to oranges.

Hispanics in Florida are mostly Cubans, which have entirely different voting patterns and always have. Florida can't be compared to the entire nation in this context.

Acctually, most Hispanics in Florida today are non-Cubans, if I am not mistaken.  I believe that Cubans only make up a little more than 40% of the total Hispanic vote in FL.

[Alcon]

In the end, the southwest is a hold for Republicans under the current positions. The parties would have to shift their issue positions in order to make different parts of the country competitive. And with an increasing number (now 42%) of hispanics going for Bush, and most Hispanics going for Bush in the states that are actually important, such as Florida, the Hispanic population has already delivered the presidency to Republicans twice but has never delivered it to a single Democrat. Therefore, the most surefire suicide strategy by the Democrats that I can see would be to continue to rely on "the hispanic vote" and a miraculous "trend in the southwest". For them, it should be wake up and smell the coffee: change yourselves first. Re-alignments have not been built on demographic trends but on new issue positions. For example: the South didn't change in the 1960s-2000s. The parties did.

once again comparing apples to oranges.

Hispanics in Florida are mostly Cubans, which have entirely different voting patterns and always have. Florida can't be compared to the entire nation in this context.

Acctually, most Hispanics in Florida today are non-Cubans, if I am not mistaken.  I believe that Cubans only make up a little more than 40% of the total Hispanic vote in FL.

This may be true, but 40% of the population is a huge amount. That can turn a 20% defecit into a tie.

[2952-0-0]

Yes but you're also forgetting VA, FL and possibly NC are trending Dem. On the other hand PA, WI, and IA is trending R.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Here's one possibility for 2012 election. If my math is correct, net shift +2 Republicans.



And, after the 2020 census.  These reapportionments are based upon actual, though as has been pointed out, potentially flawed Census projections. New projections don't show CA picking up as many seats as these numbers do.

NC and GA both will have 16 or 17 by then. Also Ohio, NJ, NY will lose EV.

[patrick1]

The key for the Republican party is to continue to court the Latino vote.  Demographic reality is such that if the Republicans fail then they will be a minority party for some time.

[Napoleon XIV]

Unless I'm very much mistaken several people have shown that NC and VA are trending Republican ever so slowly...  Eh, but I guess it depends on the source.

Am I the only one who thinks that CA is beginning to level off in terms of growth and will soon go down the same road as NY (ie losing EVs)?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sort of off topic, but IIRC Washington was one of a handful of states were younger voters were more Republican than state average this year.

[Bogart]

Here's one possibility for 2012 election. If my math is correct, net shift +2 Republicans.



And, after the 2020 census.  These reapportionments are based upon actual, though as has been pointed out, potentially flawed Census projections. New projections don't show CA picking up as many seats as these numbers do.

NC and GA both will have 16 or 17 by then. Also Ohio, NJ, NY will lose EV.

As I said, these numbers are based upon Census projections which seem to be somewhat flawed. They do seem to overstate California's realistic growth.  Having said that, if in fact popluations were to keep in line with these projections, these maps accurately reflect House apportionment. I used the same system that is actually used to dole out seats. In other words, if California were to keep growing, NC and GA would not gain seats as fast and these numbers would be correct.

[chadnat1019]

Hey, how about this one.

Stop wondering about a population shift in 2010 and start thinking about putting up a good canidate in 2008.

We all know that Scary Kerry is not the answer.

[M]

Bayh
Rendell
Richardson
Warner
Ford
Maybe Obama
But especially Bayh

[A18]

Yes but you're also forgetting VA, FL and possibly NC are trending Dem. On the other hand PA, WI, and IA is trending R.

None of those states are trending Democrat. The opposite is true in FL.

[Alcon]

Yes but you're also forgetting VA, FL and possibly NC are trending Dem. On the other hand PA, WI, and IA is trending R.

None of those states are trending Democrat. The opposite is true in FL.

I don't think that any of those states except for WI and IA are trending at all. WI and IA are slowly trending Republican.

I don't buy the FL stuff. One election does not a trend make.

[A18]

It's not one election. We're making gains in registration.

This is a state where both chambers of the state legislature are comfortably Republican, and where the GOP governor got elected with a double digit margin.