Posted on 01/01/2006 12:38:52 AM PST by SmithL
The Census Bureau's mid-decade population estimate shows definitively that the American political center of gravity has shifted to the South and West. Those states are now as politically dominant as the Northeast and Midwest were in 1940.
That trend will accelerate when the 435 House seats are reapportioned after the full decennial census in 2010. Texas and Florida are expected to gain three seats each. Nevada, Arizona and Utah are likely to gain a seat.
New York and Ohio are likely to lose two each, and Iowa, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts will also lose.
The exception to growth in the South was Louisiana, which even before Katrina was on track to lose a seat. This latest census estimate was conducted before the mass migration out of New Orleans so the state may yet lose more clout.
The South did indeed rise again; 36 percent of the nation's population lives there, putting it well ahead of the other regions -- the West with 23 percent, the Midwest with 22 percent and the Northeast with 18 percent.
The three states that lost population between 2000 and 2004 were Rhode Island, New York and Massachusetts.
During that period, Tennessee's population, which stands at about 5.9 million, grew by 3.7 percent, lower than the national average of 4.3 percent. During the previous decade, from 1990 to 2000, the state's population grew 16.7 percent, exceeding the national average of 13.1 percent.
Over half the nation, 54 percent, lives in the 10 most populous states, a concentration that could grow as the Census Bureau found that over half, 52 percent, of the population growth from 2004 to 2005 occurred in just five states, Florida, Texas, California, Arizona and Georgia.
For the 19th straight year, Nevada grew at the fastest rate followed by Arizona, Idaho, Florida, Utah, Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, Delaware -- the only state outside the South and West among the top 10 -- and Oregon.
The 2010 reapportionment will mark a significant shift in the national political balance of power. We can only hope that redrawing the new congressional districts will be in the hands of dispassionate, nonpartisan bodies that will end the politically self-serving practice of carving out noncompetitive, one-party districts.
For what it's worth, the population as of last July 1 was 296.4 million. We should hit the 300 million mark sometime in 2007.Experts give various reasons -- weather, jobs, affordable housing -- for the exodus out of the Northeast and Midwest, but is there any way to reverse that migration? We like Ohio Republican chairman Bob Bennett's idea. He told the Associated Press: "If you ever banned air conditioning, I think people would flock back."
It sure looks like a Blue to Red migration.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Migrating leftist does not change his/her stripes on resettling in a "red" state [and why TF "red"? Red color is for the commies. We need to reclaim "blue"]. If anything, it leads to the dilution of conservative states.
"We can only hope that redrawing the new congressional districts will be in the hands of dispassionate, nonpartisan bodies that will end the politically self-serving practice of carving out noncompetitive, one-party districts."
I believe it is up to each state to decide for their own state.
Since the high growth states are almost all Republican, I expect them to redistrict to maximize that party's benefit.
Overall, these population growth and migration trends favor conservatism. That is a good thing.
The shift should favor conservatism, but I think it depends on how many liberals are escaping simply for jobs, affordable homes, or other reasons.
I don't think, for example, that a conservative who winds up in California like I did when searching for the best job, will somehow become more like the political leanings of the majority in the state. If anything, seeing how liberals act and how they think caused me to become more conservative. I used to think I was a Democrat, but I didn't really understand what they were all about until I lived in California long enough.
I'm glad to see that New York and Massachusetts are among the states that will most likely lose representatives, but I'm always concerned about how many more California will get in the future.
Anyway, when you take these liberals out of their blue states and put them in more rural and more conservative environments I think you'll see some of that conservatism rub off on them.
Also I'm guessing that one of the reasons for these population shifts is that we have more babies than the libs.
It's nice to know the South is the most populated region in the U.S.
What is BFE?
"The shift should favor conservatism, but I think it depends on how many liberals are escaping simply for jobs, affordable homes, or other reasons. "
I think on balance, the trend favors conservative causes in elections. It means more seats from areas that already have Republican majorities.
First, I think those who migrate tend to be the conservatives. Risk takers, business builders, etc.
So what if some liberals migrate? I don't see them having the ability to so completely change existing districts.
So if states in the south and west pick up 8 to 10 house seats, most will become Republican.
If more than half do, it is a plus.
BFE = Behind Fred Engelshot
It's that farm over there on the left. Everybody down here knows Fred.
BFE stands for "butt-f***ing Egypt." Endearing term that means you live in the boonies.
Bum Fug, Egypt, Neanderthal.
The Sticks. The Boonies. Fly-Over America.
To Liberals it's just South of East Armpit, Indiana.
Jack.
Sometimes. But if they aren't already fairly conservative, they usually coalesce into enclaves which demand city style services in rural areas and manage to vote themselves a big chunk of the local pie. Then they set about turning the area into the same thing they fled.
They whine no matter where they are.
It's not just a question of Blue state people moving south. It's also a matter of higher birth rates among Southerners than Northerners. So, a good deal of the gain comes from people having more children in the south while people in the North, especially the Northeast, have fewer children.
If the "blues" live in a red state long enough, they'll come around.:)
Red is a fine color. I'm perfectly happy to reclaim it from the commies.
Not all of this can be attributed to "immigration". Remember birth rates are lower in blue states due to so many same sex unions while red states still believe in sthe old fashioned way to live. OK trolls/libs, maybe it's a little tongue in cheek, but............oh forget it, flame away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.