Population trends favor Republicans

[zorkpolitics]

U.S. Census Bureau released 2005 populaiton growth numbers for the states.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122200268_pf.html

Red states average growth 1.7%
Blue states average growth only 0.50%
MA, NY, and RI actually lost population.
Seems people are voting with their feet as well as ballots.
Looks like we can expect Republicans to expand their electoral advantage after the 2010 census.  This is part of the long term shifting population from the Democratic Northeast and Midwest to the Republicn South and West:
see figure 1:

http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2005/summer/article2.html

[opebo]

All this population growth in 'Republican States' will be whiped out when some state or states shift Democrat - like Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, or Virginia.

[True Democrat]

A lot of the people moving into these red states are Democrats from the Rust Belt, so it will even itself out.

[zorkpolitics]

All this population growth in 'Republican States' will be whiped out when some state or states shift Democrat - like Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, or Virginia.

To be balanced perhaps as WI, MN, PA or MI shift Republican

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

All this population growth in 'Republican States' will be whiped out when some state or states shift Democrat - like Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, or Virginia.

To be balanced perhaps as WI, MN, PA or MI shift Republican

None of those states are trending Republican.

[bullmoose88]

Pennsylvania might be...

PA's a weird state, overall a slow grower...but the Philly burbs and exurbs are growing extremely fast...and I don't quite know yet how that will shape state politics.

[Gustaf]

How much of this is natural growth and how much is migration? Migration obviously doesn't have an effect since the ratio remains the same. In fact, it's better for Democrats if Democrats from MA and NY move to FLorida and Nevada and vote for Democratic candidates there.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Don't count your chickens before they hatch

[muon2]

It is interesting to compare results from projections (as done in the Indiana article, and matched by my own calculations) with estimates (as done by myself in this thread). The projections seem to rely on past behavior rather than current activity. For instance, the 1995 projections significantly overestimated the number of seats that CA was going to get in 2000, but 1990 had seen a large number and the slowing rate of growth didn't seem to be well modelled by the Census.

The projection data and estimate data differ as follows:
AL: proj -1, est 0
AZ: proj +1, est +2 (this difference occurred with the 2005 estimates data)
FL: proj +2, est +3 (also a change reflecting the 2005 estimate)
LA: proj 0, est -1 (this is independent of Katrina)
MI: proj 0, est -1 (another 2005 chage from new estimates)
MN: proj 0, est -1 (same as MI)

However, many posters are correct to recognize that a number of states that have been predictbly for one Presidential party over the last few years may not be in the coming decade. This is due to migration, but also shifting policies by the national parties, particularly in reaction to major events.

[TeePee4Prez]

Pennsylvania might be...

PA's a weird state, overall a slow grower...but the Philly burbs and exurbs are growing extremely fast...and I don't quite know yet how that will shape state politics.

You still have your constants like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh proper  being solid Dem and the "T" solid GOP, always was, always will.  The Philly burbs growing would help the Dems, BUT the exurbs may benefit the GOP. 

[zorkpolitics]

Polidata has updated their projections using the new 2005 census data.  Bottom line as population moves west and south, there would be a net +14 Electoral Votes in the Bush 2004 states (and a net +16 in the Bush 2000 states, and presumably an increase in Republican Congressmen.
http://www.polidata.org/census/wprel22a.pdf

Clearly the only hope for the Democratic party will be for it to devleop a message that will turn multiple states Bush won twice to vote Damocratic. 

Time will tell

[muon2]

Polidata has updated their projections using the new 2005 census data.  Bottom line as population moves west and south, there would be a net +14 Electoral Votes in the Bush 2004 states (and a net +16 in the Bush 2000 states, and presumably an increase in Republican Congressmen.
http://www.polidata.org/census/wprel22a.pdf

Clearly the only hope for the Democratic party will be for it to devleop a message that will turn multiple states Bush won twice to vote Damocratic. 

Time will tell

Polidata uses estimates from 2003 to 2005, so they weight recent trends estimated by the Census. Even so, when compared to my estimates using data back to 2000, we agree on all shifts except I have CA +1 and LA -1. The Polidata conclusions about the partisan effect on the electoral college would be about the same, but the my gain for the GOP would be +6 instead of +7.

[Gustaf]

Zorkpolitic, I'm sorry, but you're not really making a lot of sense here. Demographic trends based on state size is completely irrelevant. Only actual voting blocs' demographic changes are interesting. If people move around that ain't gonna change anything (at least not automatically). What could matter is if certain political groups, such as farmers or mine workers or house-wives or whatever would change in size, because these are groups with 'real' voting habits. States aren't.

[minionofmidas]

Yes and no ... remember the EC.

[zorkpolitics]

Zorkpolitic, I'm sorry, but you're not really making a lot of sense here. Demographic trends based on state size is completely irrelevant. Only actual voting blocs' demographic changes are interesting. If people move around that ain't gonna change anything (at least not automatically). What could matter is if certain political groups, such as farmers or mine workers or house-wives or whatever would change in size, because these are groups with 'real' voting habits. States aren't.

Which states grows faster than the national average (and which states don't) have very significant effects on Presidential elections, since Presidents are elected by Electoral College votes from states, not by voting groups.  So if a state in 2008 votes Republican (like TX will) and in 2012 TX has 3 more electoral votes, then Republicans from 2012 to 2020 have gained a 3 EV advantage over where they were in 2008, without any shifts in voting blocs. 
I would argue that we have seen very little shift in voting patterns from 2000 to 2004, so that the addition of EVs to states Bush won will tend to favor Republicans for the next decade.  Of course candidates matter and campaigns matter, so swing states will likely change somewhat between Democrats and Republicans.  But the trend of moving EV from states Kerry and Gore won to states Bush won will be net plus for Republicans, perhaps by up to 14 EV.

[Gustaf]

Zorkpolitic, I'm sorry, but you're not really making a lot of sense here. Demographic trends based on state size is completely irrelevant. Only actual voting blocs' demographic changes are interesting. If people move around that ain't gonna change anything (at least not automatically). What could matter is if certain political groups, such as farmers or mine workers or house-wives or whatever would change in size, because these are groups with 'real' voting habits. States aren't.

Which states grows faster than the national average (and which states don't) have very significant effects on Presidential elections, since Presidents are elected by Electoral College votes from states, not by voting groups.  So if a state in 2008 votes Republican (like TX will) and in 2012 TX has 3 more electoral votes, then Republicans from 2012 to 2020 have gained a 3 EV advantage over where they were in 2008, without any shifts in voting blocs. 
I would argue that we have seen very little shift in voting patterns from 2000 to 2004, so that the addition of EVs to states Bush won will tend to favor Republicans for the next decade.  Of course candidates matter and campaigns matter, so swing states will likely change somewhat between Democrats and Republicans.  But the trend of moving EV from states Kerry and Gore won to states Bush won will be net plus for Republicans, perhaps by up to 14 EV.

That is true up to a point. My point is that unless these new voters providing these additional EVs are Republicans, which is no given, all we're seeing is a redistribution, which is not necessarily bad for the Democrats.

[Smash255]

Zorkpolitic, I'm sorry, but you're not really making a lot of sense here. Demographic trends based on state size is completely irrelevant. Only actual voting blocs' demographic changes are interesting. If people move around that ain't gonna change anything (at least not automatically). What could matter is if certain political groups, such as farmers or mine workers or house-wives or whatever would change in size, because these are groups with 'real' voting habits. States aren't.

Which states grows faster than the national average (and which states don't) have very significant effects on Presidential elections, since Presidents are elected by Electoral College votes from states, not by voting groups.  So if a state in 2008 votes Republican (like TX will) and in 2012 TX has 3 more electoral votes, then Republicans from 2012 to 2020 have gained a 3 EV advantage over where they were in 2008, without any shifts in voting blocs. 
I would argue that we have seen very little shift in voting patterns from 2000 to 2004, so that the addition of EVs to states Bush won will tend to favor Republicans for the next decade.  Of course candidates matter and campaigns matter, so swing states will likely change somewhat between Democrats and Republicans.  But the trend of moving EV from states Kerry and Gore won to states Bush won will be net plus for Republicans, perhaps by up to 14 EV.

That is true up to a point. My point is that unless these new voters providing these additional EVs are Republicans, which is no given, all we're seeing is a redistribution, which is not necessarily bad for the Democrats.

Exactly, especially when you take a look at where some of these people are moving from.  Some of the borderline GOP states could become tossups & tossups could become borderline Dem due to the fact that much of the growth in some of these states can be contributed to people moving away from areas such as the northeast which, and as a result of where these people move from they will tend to be more Democrats.  Areas such as Nevada, Colorado & Florida have already seen an impact like this in the past 10 years or so & thats something that could spread to some of the other growing states such as Arizona & North Carolina (though it will take awhile for any real switch in the last tewo states).

Bottom line is while the population shifts will give more EV's in the states that are currently GOP, the population shift might make these states more Democratic & more competitive as a result.

[jacob_101]

I totally disagree with this.  In the short run it might help, but as more Democrats move from the NE to places like FL and out west, the less likely there will be any Republican gain. 

If TX gets more EV's which it will and FL does as well...FL over time is likely to become more Democratic which would mean a 27+ EV vote LOSS for the Republicans. 

Hey, maybe enough Democrats will move out of places like Wisconsin and New Hampshire and Republicans won't move and then some Northern states will shift Republican....you never know!  I don't think so.  The Republicans need to focus on one thing when it comes to winning elections, and that is getting more minority votes!  If they don't do this we lose, and all this population shifting is a moot point.

What I would like to see is what the population growth is per state, minus migration and immigration.  That would really tell us something.

[Gustaf]

I totally disagree with this.  In the short run it might help, but as more Democrats move from the NE to places like FL and out west, the less likely there will be any Republican gain. 

If TX gets more EV's which it will and FL does as well...FL over time is likely to become more Democratic which would mean a 27+ EV vote LOSS for the Republicans. 

Hey, maybe enough Democrats will move out of places like Wisconsin and New Hampshire and Republicans won't move and then some Northern states will shift Republican....you never know!  I don't think so.  The Republicans need to focus on one thing when it comes to winning elections, and that is getting more minority votes!  If they don't do this we lose, and all this population shifting is a moot point.

What I would like to see is what the population growth is per state, minus migration and immigration.  That would really tell us something.

Exactly, natural growth is much more relevant. But even so, it could well be that Democratic groups within a Republican state are multiplying quicker (Hispanics, for isntance). So even such trends are not that easy to decipher.