New population figures give a boost to the GOP

Washington Examiner ^ | December 28, 2009 | Chris Stirewalt

[Stultis]

New population figures give a boost to the GOP

By: Chris Stirewalt
Political Editor
December 28, 2009

The 2010 census is sure to be controversial.

Republicans will thunder about the community organizers who get hired to do the counting, and Democrats will wail that the homeless and migrant workers are undercounted.

But in the final pre-count estimate just released by the Census Bureau, we already have a broad idea of where the results are headed and what they will mean politically.

The numbers are cause for alarm for Democrats.

Of the states gaining House seats -- Texas (three) and Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington -- only Washington is reliably Democratic, having last voted for a Republican presidential candidate in 1984.

Of the states losing seats and electors -- Ohio (two), Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania -- only Louisiana is reliably Republican. And the fact that there are 170,000 fewer residents of New Orleans than before Hurricane Katrina has made the state even more reliably red.

But the real shocker is California. After a consistently large gains in the second half of the 20th century, California is on track for only 9 percent growth in the first decade of the 21st. Compare that to 14 percent growth in the '90s, 26 percent growth in the '80s, 19 percent in the '70s and 27 percent in the '60s.

The nonpartisan Election Data Services projects that for only the second time in the state's history, 1920 being the other, the state will not gain a seat in Congress after a census.

California has 10 more electors now than before the reapportionment following the 1980 census. That offsets the 10 presidential votes and House seats New York lost over the same period, helping Democrats contend with the explosive growth in the South.

Texas and Georgia alone gobbled up the 11 seats in Congress given up since 1980 by New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Pennsylvania.

If California, now an economic basket case, can't pick up the slack for the other big blue states, Congress and presidential elections will look very different.

Democrats bet that when the economy picks up, so will immigration from Latin America, providing the kind of electoral base for the party in the Southwest that immigrants from Ireland and then southern Europe once provided in the Northeast.

But initiatives by the states to stem illegal immigration, along with rudimentary efforts by the federal government, may mean that the wave of newcomers won't resume once the labor market improves.

And while many of the new Southerners and Westerners are more amenable to the Democratic Party than the indigenous populations, the slowing of the influx probably means that for the medium term, at least, the reddest states, like Texas, will stay red, and competitive states, like Arizona, will stay competitive.

Plus, much of the red-state growth comes from the higher reproductive rates in the South and West -- the top two states by birth rate are Utah and Texas. The bottom two: Vermont and Maine. As Vermonters scoop out bowls of Ben and Jerry's to celebrate their civil unions, out in Utah they're breeding new conservatives by the minivan load.

Even with the population growth of the Southwest, Democrats will still have chances for big-swing elections like 2008. But the party will continue see a steady erosion of the strategic value of strongholds like Michigan and New York that made narrow presidential victories and slim congressional majorities possible in election years when the national electorate was narrowly divided.

Claiming and holding new political territory is hard and expensive, as Virginia's 2009 election results showed. Republicans, meanwhile, will be talking to receptive audiences, including those who moved from big-government states to more free-market states.

Consider Florida, which has gained 10 electoral votes since 1980 and also become more Republican.

It's not by accident that tax haven New Hampshire has the fastest growth rate in New England since 2000 at 7.2 percent, compared to 2.1 percent for Vermont and 3.9 percent for Massachusetts.

A bigger, more conservative New Hampshire means a smaller, more liberal Massachusetts.

With fewer people to tax, Massachusetts Democrats are raising taxes again to pay for unsustainable entitlements and a patronage system.

That will speed the exodus of the most industrious and prosperous citizens, and the Bay State will look more like neighboring Rhode Island, where this cycle has been playing out longer: a stagnant, aging, population that can't finance the services the remaining residents demand.

The Republican Party is still a shambles, but the policies of the Democratic majority have put the GOP back in the hunt for majority status.

If Republicans find a way to press their policy advantages now and in 2012, demographics could do the rest of the work for them.

Chris Stirewalt is the political editor of The Washington Examiner. He can be reached at cstirewalt@dcexaminer.com

[nathanbedford]

I am thoroughly skeptical of the implications drawn by the author and I am instinctively far more inclined to agree with neverdem who shrewdly asks where do these demographic changes originate?

Instead of moving house districts and Senate seats into the blue column we might find just the opposite occurring with the extraordinary growth of the Latin American demographic. These people now constitute at least 14% of the national population and they are voting more than 70% Democrat. I would wager the huge proportion of the changes recounted in this article are Latinos, Caribbean blacks and Africans who are statistically unlikely to vote our way.

The history of in floods of immigrants dating back to the postbellum era clearly show that the newcomers do not vote conservative. Look at the changes in New Jersey in the last 20 years and one can easily cite California, Washington and Oregon as obvious examples. I am suspicious that the author is even intentionally misleading when he says:

Consider Florida, which has gained 10 electoral votes since 1980 and also become more Republican.

Florida did not flip because of the influx of New Yorkers to Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach counties, Florida became more Republican because the South swung over to the Republican side from the side of darkness. Moreover, Florida is always in danger of slipping into the red column because of the I- four corridor combined with the above mentioned three counties. These emigrants have created in Florida a suburb of New York City which votes that way. Likewise, Northern Virginia has witnessed an influx of emigrants and immigrants and neither class has shown itself disposed to vote conservative.

In short, I think the article is virtually worthless as a predictor absent a statistical breakdown of the ethnicity of every district.

Best personal wishes to you for a happy new year and to all FReepers as well.

[MNJohnnie]

In short, I think the article is virtually worthless as a predictor absent a statistical breakdown of the ethnicity of every district.

Thank you, you put your finger right on what was bothering me about this article. For what it is worth, I agree with your and Neverdem thoughts. I think the assumption that this is good news for the GOP is wishful thinking.

Best personal wishes to you for a happy new year and to all FReepers as well.

And mine to you and yours as well.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Meehan isn’t a member of Congress, anymore. Paul Tsongas’s widow, Niki, holds that seat.

[acton_guy]

If only we could be assured that Tsongas’ seat would be eliminated! She is a disaster!

[fieldmarshaldj]

Oh, c’mon, ALL 12 of the members of the MA federal delegation are a total f***ing disaster. Not since the “Two Peters” were defeated in ‘96 has there been a remotely credible or mainstream elected fed official.

[AuntB]

How many of those gains are for immigrants leqal and illegal who vote for the ‘crats. In a few years they will tip the tables in some of those Red states.

________
http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/analytical-document09.pdf

Projections showing the impact of various immigration policies on America’s population (which is today 308 million):

“… a greater number of migrants arriving in the United States will correspond to a larger increase in the size of the total population. Under the assumption of a high level of net international migration, the population is expected to grow to 458 million by 2050. … “
[United States Population Projections: 2000 to 2050 by Jennifer M. Ortman and Christine E. Guarneri of the Census Bureau]

That’s an increase of 150 million carbon-belching residents of America.

“In contrast, for the Zero Net International Migration series the population will increase slightly by 2050 to 323 million. “

That’s an increase of only 15 million.

In other words, immigration policy will determine whether the population grows over the next four decades by 150 million or by 15 million—an order of magnitude!

[SuziQ]

Oh, that’s right! You’d think I’d pay more attention, living here, but since they’re all Democrats, I simply don’t care. Our local State Representative is a Republican, but there are very few others.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Yeah, just one Socialist rodent abomination replacing another. As for the R’s, they’re now down to just 10% of the legislature, and most of those are left-wingers, too, since Conservatives were purged from the MA GOP, it’s why the party is dead there. If you don’t have an ideological opposition party, there’s no need for two parties to exist.

[SunkenCiv]

Of the states gaining House seats -- Texas (three) and Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington -- only Washington is reliably Democratic, having last voted for a Republican presidential candidate in 1984. Of the states losing seats and electors -- Ohio (two), Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania -- only Louisiana is reliably Republican. And the fact that there are 170,000 fewer residents of New Orleans than before Hurricane Katrina has made the state even more reliably red. But the real shocker is California. After a consistently large gains in the second half of the 20th century, California is on track for only 9 percent growth in the first decade of the 21st. Compare that to 14 percent growth in the '90s, 26 percent growth in the '80s, 19 percent in the '70s and 27 percent in the '60s. The nonpartisan Election Data Services projects that for only the second time in the state's history, 1920 being the other, the state will not gain a seat in Congress after a census.

[SunkenCiv]

Melting, melting...

[Little Ray]

Then they’d be Democrats, not the GOP, aka “The Stupid Party.”

[peteram]

Republicans will thunder about the community organizers who get hired to do the counting,

After all the exposed corruption is ACORN still going to be given this job? Unbelievable.

[grellis]

If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.

Unfortunately, Michigan is now more reliably blue.

[justiceseeker93]

So “the final pre-count estimate just released by the Census Bureau” inspires this author to state that Republicans were given “a boost.” Regrettably, we Republicans shouldn’t be countining our chickens before they hatch. Remember who is going to be doing the actual census and their recent history of fudging (voting) numbers. I wouldn’t trust Obama’s Census Bureau any more than I would trust Enron’s accountants for accuracy.

[justiceseeker93]

I'm convinced this is what happened to Virginia and North Carolina in '08. They got Yankee-fied.

If so, where were these Virginia "Yankees" in this year's state elections?

What happened in North Carolina in '08 (and possibly Virginia as well) was that the election was "won" by massive cheating at the polls.

[cradle of freedom]

Mah-ty Meehan is retired from politics with over 4 million in his campaign chest and now has a very well paying job as a dean at one of the state colleges.

[shield]

bfl

[cradle of freedom]

Do you think that the suburbs of the blue voting areas, whether up north or down south may one day switch to Republican? I ask that because these people are middle class people who pay most of the taxes. Will these people ever learn? I live in Massachusetts where there are many people who vote Democrat by habit. I keep hoping that they will finally get it —that THEY are the ones who have to pay the bills.

Many of the people in Massachusetts and states like New York are descended from the immigrants of the 18 and 19 hundreds who were recruited into the Democrat party when they arrived in the country. These voting habits have passed on for several generations. Many people are middle class and even college educated but up till now, they have continued to vote Democrat. I think there should be a strong effort by the Republicans to win over these people who should be made to realize that they are not getting anything from the Democrats’ big government policies, rather they are the ones who are paying the price.

[SuziQ]

Yeah, it shows you just how closely I pay attention to the politics in this state. ;o)
I know that ALL of the representatives from MA in the Federal Govt. are wild-eyed liberals, so nothing I say or do will change anything THEY say or do, so I rarely even bother. Oh, I write letters from time to time. I just got a typical response from my local Congressman giving his glowing reasons why Obamacare is the most wonderful thing to come down the Pike.
Garbage.