Census Estimates for 2005 -> 2010 apportionment

[Alcon]

While we're only halfway through the decade, it does seem likely that the Bush states will be 'up' from 4 to 8 U.S. Representatives (and Electoral College votes) for the 2012 elections.

I think there's very little chance that Republicans won't gain, although Nevada and Florida flipping would benefit the Democrats.

[Alcon]

While we're only halfway through the decade, it does seem likely that the Bush states will be 'up' from 4 to 8 U.S. Representatives (and Electoral College votes) for the 2012 elections.

I think there's very little chance that Republicans won't gain, although Nevada and Florida flipping would benefit the Democrats.

As important a reapportionment is (particulary for the Electoral College), redistricting in more important with regards to U.S. House of Representatives seats and state legislative seats.  As I noted a few months ago in a thread on another board, the growing areas within states were far more likely to support Bush than Kerry, while those areas with little (or negative) population growth were among Kerry's best areas.

I'm not aware of a time in history when this wasn't true, especially relative to national average.  Republicans may do well in the fast-growing areas, but that does not go without previously Republican "inner suburbs" drifting more Democratic.  We saw this between 2000 and 2004 in most parts of the United States.  I wonder how 2000's fastest-growing areas voted in 2004?  (Turnover obviously wasn't that quick, but you get the idea - new Republicans are not generated simply by moving without distilling the political demographics.)

[Alcon]

While we're only halfway through the decade, it does seem likely that the Bush states will be 'up' from 4 to 8 U.S. Representatives (and Electoral College votes) for the 2012 elections.

I think there's very little chance that Republicans won't gain, although Nevada and Florida flipping would benefit the Democrats.

As important a reapportionment is (particulary for the Electoral College), redistricting in more important with regards to U.S. House of Representatives seats and state legislative seats.  As I noted a few months ago in a thread on another board, the growing areas within states were far more likely to support Bush than Kerry, while those areas with little (or negative) population growth were among Kerry's best areas.

I'm not aware of a time in history when this wasn't true, especially relative to national average.  Republicans may do well in the fast-growing areas, but that does not go without previously Republican "inner suburbs" drifting more Democratic.  We saw this between 2000 and 2004 in most parts of the United States.  I wonder how 2000's fastest-growing areas voted in 2004?  (Turnover obviously wasn't that quick, but you get the idea - new Republicans are not generated simply by moving without distilling the political demographics.)

First, from 1920 - 1950 the trend was for people to move from rural areas to big cities. This fueled the New Deal vote.

Second, while suburbs established before World War II are frequently limosine liberal and trending Democra, most suburbs established post war are trending Republican. 

Where are you getting this information from?  You couldn't see that unless you analysed precinct returns countrywide.  Have you done so?

[Alcon]

With respect to the second point in my most recent post, this has been noted by psepologists for decades.  Certain suburbs (Shaker Heights, Scarsdale, etc.) have been following the path for a long time. Its pretty common knowledge.

Could you link me to a paper on this?  I would enjoy reading it.

Both examples you describe, I would think, involve an area becoming significantly more affluent because of the increased land values.  I'm not familiar with whenn suburbs were established.  Around here, basically all suburbs were established post-World War II except ones incorporated in the original city.

[Alcon]

With respect to the second point in my most recent post, this has been noted by psepologists for decades.  Certain suburbs (Shaker Heights, Scarsdale, etc.) have been following the path for a long time. Its pretty common knowledge.

Could you link me to a paper on this?  I would enjoy reading it.

Both examples you describe, I would think, involve an area becoming significantly more affluent because of the increased land values.  I'm not familiar with whenn suburbs were established.  Around here, basically all suburbs were established post-World War II except ones incorporated in the original city.

This pheonomena has been discussed in a number of books, starting with Kevin Phillip's masterpiece, The Emerging Republican Majority.

In a nutshell, the distinction is between pre World War II affluent suburbs in the Northeat and to a lesser extent the Midwest like Scarsdale, and comparing them to post World War II suburbs like Levittown.

The distinction is not merely one of time, but of community purpose and composition.  Prior to World War II, suburbs were few in number and were communities for the rich while after World War II the new suburbs were communities where average people could buy a house and escape the unheavenly city.

The problem with that argument is that the rich are even more likely to be Republican than those "escaping to the suburbs."  I've read The Emerging Republican Majority.  It is interesting, but I'd rather read a work that is not attempting to prove something.