Demographic Trends Could Make It Harder for Obama and Democrats
Here are Polidata's estimates of which states will gain and lose House seats and electoral votes based on extrapolations from the 2007 Census Bureau population estimates. Here's a list of which states are projected to gain or lose seats, for Bush 2004 and Kerry 2004 states.
| Bush 2004 states | Kerry 2004 states |
|---|---|
| Arizona +2 | California -1 |
| Florida +2 | Illinois -1 |
| Georgia +1 | Massachusetts -1 |
| Iowa -1 | Michigan -1 |
| Louisiana -1 | Minnesota -1 |
| Missouri -1 | New Jersey -1 |
| Nevada +1 | New York -2 |
| North Carolina +1 | Oregon +1 |
| Ohio -2 | Pennsylvania -1 |
| South Carolina +1 | |
| Texas +4 | |
| Utah +1 | |
| TOTAL +8 | TOTAL -8 |
Which is to say that, under the new electoral vote distribution, Bush's 286-to-252 electoral vote margin in 2004 becomes 294-to-244. Bush would have lost in 2004 if Ohio had not gone his way; under the projected post-2010 apportionment, Bush would have won 276-to-262 if Ohio had not gone his way. The demographic trends reflected in these projections would not prevent Barack Obama from being elected this year and re-elected in 2012, but they would make it marginally more difficult. Demography, modestly, favors the Republicans, and more than modestly over the long haul; see my May 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal.
Note: Polidata projects California to lose one congressional seat. This may or may not happen. But if it does, or if California just stays even, this will represent a stark reversal of a very long trend: California has gained House seats in every Census-dictated reapportionment since it was admitted to the Union in 1850. Immigrants are still streaming into California, but the domestic outflow is balancing that off.
Tags: Democrats | presidential election 2008 | Barack Obama
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (11) | Print
Reader Comments
Shift South and West
Certainly people are leaving the Mid West (centered on Illinois) and the North East in droves for greener pastures to the South and Mountain West. The number one reason for this trend is economic rather then idealistic. People leave New York because taxes are too high, specifically corporate taxes. Companies are moving down south to take advantage of tax breaks (a great example is my father’s firm leave Buffalo New York for Charleston South Carolina) and frankly people are following the job market.
The bottom line is that people move with their own political ideology and will undoubtedly change the political landscape of their destination, but, the political landscape of their destination (read the South or Mountain West) effects them as well (that is to say a more conservative or libertarian culture). These states have a history of small government and keeping out of people’s pocket books and lives, and while people may leave blue areas, entering areas that are redder may cause a subtle political shift for them as well the state.
It is not hard to understand why this would occur. A solidly union man from New York, leaving the state due to a high cost of living and bloated bureaucracy (it take takes 3 years before a social security claim is even heard before a court due to red tape and backlogs) looks with envy at a state with no or little state income tax and an anemic state bureaucracy. Certainly the relative success of these small government Southern and Mountain West States have an appeal, both economically and to a lesser degree ideologically to a North Easterner or Mid Westerner living in a state with high taxes, no jobs, and a corrupt and dysfunctional Bureaucracy.
The major takeaway is that states like Texas, Utah, and South Carolina are most likely to stay solidly GOP for sometime, while states like California, New York, Mass, and Illinois will stay in the Blue column. Most of the other states slated to gain or lose are either "swing states" or at least purple enough that counting them a guarantee for one party or the other for the next decade or two may be a bit much. The bottom line is a more modest GOP gain (which can easily be squandered if the party doesn’t adapt to a changing political landscape).
Joe has the right question
I did a research paper this past semester, that focused on this very thing. And not only is this true for the 2004 election, but had the 2000 election having operated under the 1990 census been operating under the 1980 census, Al Gore would have won. 2000 was pivotal momement for Republicans. This ebb and flow is constantly in motion. The overall rise in the Sunbelt is really happening in the Southwest. The more solid Republican old Confederacy is sustaining in numbers. The Northeast and Midwest are being stripped of precious electoral votes. Take a look at a map of Union Shop versus Right to Work states, and the landscape will be much more clear.
Re: Californication
Did you know that California is the fifth largest economy in the WORLD? Yeah. Let's "give [California] back to Mexico and build a fence."
Real smart.
advertisement
