Losing Your Census
The census is in. America is just short of 310 million.
What everyone's talking about is the political fallout. It seems good news for Republicans, since mostly red states are gaining Representatives and blue states losing them:
Texas will gain four new House seats, and Florida will gain two. Gaining one each are Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington.
Ohio and New York will lose two House seats each. Losing one House seat are Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
But where did all these new people come from? (I know where babies come from--that's a different question.) How much is due to immigration? I'd be surprised if a fair amount of new citizens aren't Latino, first, second or third generation, who tend to favor the Democrats. Are the rest due to higher birth rates among conservatives? Or is the change in state populations more about people searching for better places to live? (I wouldn't be surprised if the next census shows California losing seats for the first time ever.)
I wonder how this effects the odds for Obama's reelection? Actually, the Republicans need all the help they can get. They haven't had an Electoral College blowout since 1988.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:12 AM
5 Comments:
Have the Dems had an electoral college blowout? They've had greater margins, but blowouts?
And you might be more right than you say, since it may well be that the migration is bringing Democrats into the more functional states, to spread their dystopia. "It'll work this time, Moonbeam!"
Code word: Mynesses. That's got to be an all time winner.
It doesn't take a big percentage of the popular vote to win the Electoral College handily.
Let's look at the last several elections:
2008: D - 365 R - 173
2004: D - 251 R - 286
2000: D - 266 R - 271
1996: D - 379 R - 159
1992: D - 370 R - 168
Seems to me if you double the other side, that's a blowout. So for almost twenty years, the Dems win pretty easily while the Repubs pull out squeakers, coming down to one state.
In the Reagan/Bush elections, it seemed the Repubs could win virtually any state. Now, apparently, they spot the Dems New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California, Oregon, Massachusetts and Washington, to name the most obvious. That's a lot to give up before the election even begins.
I question your perspective. It wasn't that Reagan could win any state, it's that he won virtually every state.
1980-489
1984-525
Even HW Lips managed 426.
So, when the Dems break 400, then talk to me about a blowout. Given the design of the system, I'd say 300 is expected, and the fact that we've had squeakers is what's odd, not that the winner takes in the 300's.
My point is not what the level of blowout is. My point is for whatever reason--perhaps demographic shifts, maybe something else--for almost a generation the situation seems to be Democrats can win big but Republicans can't. If the trend means anything, and the Reagan coalition is gone, it's something Republicans should be concerned about.
Oh, indeed. While this election is the first time I've had any sense that Republicans might be softening their freezeout in the northeast, it has long been the case that the south and especially the west will eventually be penetrated by the Dems. If Republicans don't manage to get the border enforced within the next four years, then we can just set the clocks for 10 or 12 years and kiss it all goodbye, particularly if your sense of the electoral college is right, that Republicans have only a 15 vote margin anyway. (BTW is that how you yield a point, to say, My point is not the level of blowout, after the previous point was all about the numbers of a blowout?)
Post a Comment
<< Home