2010 Reapportionment Predictions, Hey, the first post about the 2010 elections!!! Options

[Noonan]

Census Data Shows Florida's Gain Is New York's Pain

The new Census Bureau 2006 state population estimates are out and the numbers offer some insight into the post-2010 Census reapportionment of congressional seats. While it’s still too early to predict exactly which states are gainers and losers, a few things are already clear.

According to an analysis by Polidata, a political data consulting firm, seven states are all but certain to lose at least one seat: Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Another six states are all but certain to gain at least one seat: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Texas and Utah.

A few other interesting projections from Polidata: Texas could pick up as many as 4 congressional seats; New York and Ohio could lose 2 seats. California, for the first time since statehood, may not pick up any seats.

Polidata’s Clark Bensen also observes that Florida (currently with 25 seats) is now poised to replace New York (29 seats) as the third most populous state – and that both states might end up with 27-member delegations when the dust settles after reapportionment.

Sixty years ago, no one would have believed that Florida and New York might one day have House delegations of equal size. In the 1940s, the New York delegation was a 45-member congressional powerhouse while Florida was a puny 6-seat weakling. But between 1942 and 2002, Florida gained 19 seats while New York lost 16.

Much of Florida’s surge in congressional clout has been carved directly out of New York’s hide; out-migration from New York to Florida has been a prime contributor to Florida’s growth. The 2000 Census revealed that, between 1995 and 2000 alone, 308,000 people moved from New York to Florida – the largest state-to-state flow in the U.S. At last count, nearly 1.5 million Floridians were born in New York, including five members from Florida’s current House delegation. Two are Democrats born in Queens: Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Robert Wexler. The three Republicans were born outside New York City: Ginny Brown-Waite was born in Albany, John Mica in Binghamton and Dave Weldon in Amityville.

Among the New York five, Brown-Waite (who is a former New York state Senate staffer) ranks as an aberration. She represents a Gulf Coast-side district located just north of Tampa, while the other four represent districts on Florida’s Atlantic Ocean side. Traditionally, the Gulf Coast has been a haven for Midwesterners – they took Interstate 75 south to Florida for vacation and later resettled close to that familiar corridor. Until recently New Yorkers (and other East Coasters) tended to follow a different path, settling on the Atlantic Coast along I-95, in places like Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Miami.

[Noonan]

Diary from MyDD about the above article

Following the 2010 elections, there will be minor, though important, shifts in the electoral landscape for the House of Representatives and for the Electoral College:

According to an analysis by Polidata, a political data consulting firm, seven states are all but certain to lose at least one seat: Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Another six states are all but certain to gain at least one seat: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Texas and Utah.

A few other interesting projections from Polidata: Texas could pick up as many as 4 congressional seats; New York and Ohio could lose 2 seats. California, for the first time since statehood, may not pick up any seats.
This means the following:

• * Republicans control the trifecta in several of the fastest growing states: Florida, Georgia, Texas and Utah. Unless non-partisan redistricting boards are created in those states, this will give them total control over the new congressional maps in those states.
• * "Safe" Republican states in terms of the electoral college will gain electoral votes, while "safe" Democratic states in terms of the electoral college will lose votes.

Sounds bad for Democrats, right? Not so fast. When it comes to deciphering the future electoral landscape, the shift in population is complicated by a second variable: the changing partisan inclinations of individual states. Several swing states are clearly becoming bluer, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Especially after the 2006 elections, outside of Louisiana, and perhaps West Virginia and Georgia, it is difficult to discern any clear rightward trends in individual states, much less among swing states.

For a while, it was conventional wisdom that long-term electoral trends looked bad for Democrats, because "red" areas of the country were experiencing much larger population growth than were "blue" areas of the country. However, Democrats can more than offset coming "red state" reapportionment increases by shifting the partisan status of individual states. If Virginia were to become a true swing state, Colorado were to become lean Democratic, and Pennsylvania were to become safe Democratic, then the Republican advantage gained from at least three decades worth of red state population gains would be entirely wiped out. Actually, the comparative advantage Democrats would gain from such a shift would be far greater.

Democrats should not concern themselves with the incremental changes that will happen to the Electoral College and House of Representatives as a result of the 2010 census. If the 2006 taught us anything, it is that the paradigm of the evenly split nation we saw in 2000 and 2004 is by no means permanent. If for some reason the nation in 2012 is identical to the nation in 2004, then yes we will have cause for concern from these numbers. However, our much greater concern would be that after what will then have been fourteen years of movement building, we would not have made any serious inroads into currently "red" areas. The goal of the progressive movement is not just to trim around the edges and turn an excruciatingly narrow Republican "majority" into an excruciatingly narrow Democratic majority. If all goes well, these reapportionment losses will be but a minor setback in an era otherwise dominated by repeatedly strong Democratic and progressive gains.

[ap215]

As a new yorker i just hope we win the NYS Senate so we don't have to face the redistricting issues in '08 and keep the seats in future general elections.

[jeffmoskin]

Let's face it. The "old" Dem coalition that FDR built up in the 30s was built on Unions, "Yellow Dog Democrats" (i.e., racists who would sooner vote for a yellow dog than a Republican), and Northern Big City Liberals.

Unions are a shadow of their former selves.

LBJ "lost" the South to the Civil and Voting Rights Acts (well worth it, IMHO)

Northern Big City Liberals have retired to Florida where their votes tend to be cancelled out by rednecks (or not counted at all).

Time for a new coalition, and I think Edwards is on the right track - - TWO AMERICAS.

The "ownership society" of BushCo

or the "Servant economy" oops - - my bad - - I meant "SERVICE economy"

Careless slip.

[Arneoker]

Strictly speaking this is not relevant to the 2010 elections, but to the 2012 elections and beyond. The Census will be done in 2010 and the results first applied to the 2012 elections.

[Noonan]

Good point Arne, my bad.

Although (trying to save some face here), it does highlight the importance of the 2010 elections.

This post has been edited by Noonan: Jan 5 2007, 01:42 PM