There goes the decade.
That decennial phenomenon “reapportionment” is back in the news with the U.S. Census Bureau releasing the latest population statistics Tuesday—there are now 308,745,538 Americans living in the United States—and the media musing over changes in store for the nation’s political map.
Congressional seats will next year be reapportioned based on new state population counts—state legislatures and governors will handle the redistricting—as will the Electoral College. Eight states are set to gain seats (the big winners are Texas with four new seats, Florida with two) and ten states are set to lose (the big losers: New York and Ohio which both lose two). The general shift is a swell in the populations of the south and the west. While most have declared this a big advantage for the GOP—population growth in the south and west favors Republican-held states and districts—the rise in minority populations, traditionally part of the Democratic base, means the jury is still out on which party is best positioned to take advantage of America’s new demographics.
The political fallout, a loss of House seats in the northeast and pickups in the south and southwest, are neatly summarized and mapped in this New York Times graphic.
And last night’s NBC Nightly News report has some nice graphics in its quick rundown of what the Census data means for Congress.
Most outlets are running with ledes similar to that chosen by NBC: this is good news for the GOP. The Bloomberg report opens: “Republican strongholds in the U.S. South and West are poised to gain political power in time for the 2012 presidential election, taking electoral votes away from states Barack Obama carried in 2008, new population data is likely to show.” The New York Times’s Sabrina Tavernise and Jeff Zeleny take a characteristically more ambivalent approach, describing “far-reaching implications for elections over the next decade” before eventually conceding that Republicans seem to be bolstered here, though with an important caveat.
If President Obama were to win in the next election the same states he carried in 2008, he would receive six fewer electoral votes under the new map. Yet that shift would be significant only if the race were very close.
It is also unclear if the gains will go mostly to Republicans, since more than three-quarters of the population gains in the last decade were members of minorities, populations that tend to vote for Democrats.
The Times then goes on to explain further the Republican advantage, as they see it.
On the surface, Republicans would seem to have an overwhelming advantage. Most of the states gaining seats trend Republican, and most of those losing them tend to elect Democrats. What is more, Republicans will be well-placed to steer the process, with Republican governors outnumbering Democratic ones 29 to 20, with one independent, come January.
“Republicans are in the best position since modern redistricting began,” said Tim Storey, an expert on redistricting at the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Of the 336 districts whose borders are drawn by state legislatures, Republicans have full control of 196, Mr. Storey said. Democrats control legislatures for 49; a further 91 are split. The rest would be drawn by divided legislatures or appointed commissions.
Elsewhere at the Times, Michael D. Shear writes on the Caucus blog that there is an argument to be made that this is in fact a potential boon for Democrats, signaling an increase in minority voters and in the populations of Democratic pockets in Republican stronghold states.
At Slate, Dave Weigel isn’t seeing it:
This is about as bad as it could get for Democrats, and as good as it could get for Republicans. The next GOP presidential candidate gets six free electoral votes from South Carolina, Texas, Utah. The Democratic caucus in the House is about to see internal warfare in the rust belt and northeast, as their members are forced into Thunderdome battle for the diminished number of seats. Only in Illinois, I think, will the Democrats be able to create a map that hurts the GOP’s newly elected members and takes back a seat or two.
There's been much discussion of the shifts from Democratic-friendly states toward GOP-friendly states. But there's been very little discussion as to why this is a long-standing trend. Democratic activists and pundits used to talk vaguely about the climate, and retirees. But California has the climate a northerner could want, and California's days as a population magnet are over. Population movements closely track job creation. I'd think some writers would start to get a clue and make some connections.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sun 26 Dec 2010 at 06:36 PM
The cost of housing is a big factor too. Of course, that has a lot to do with job creation as well.
I don't think voters are turning more conservative, just rejecting those who happen to be in power. If the GOP doesn't deliver they'll get whipsawed next.
#2 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sun 26 Dec 2010 at 08:50 PM
JLD, maybe, maybe not. But the longer-term trends since the 1970s have been toward the Republicans. I'd remind you that the Dems still have the White House and the Senate, so it's still going to be hard for them to lay all the blame on the GOP in 2012. If the unemployment rate is still above 8% on Election Day, I believe, then Obama will lose. The Dems are almost certain to lose the Senate anyway (they are defending 23 seats, the Repubs 10). Add to that the population shifts discussed in the Census, and the fact that the GOP will be drawing new district lines in most states, and you may have another Powder Valley in the House, too, for the Dems. The Democrats don't hold power in real swing states. Take Massachusetts, which loses a seat - they don't have any Republican House members to sacrifice left there. In Ohio, it's been the Cleveland-Akron area losing population, so it's almost certain Dennis Kucinich's seat will be erased. People do vote with their feet.
Last time the GOP won the House, they held it for 12 years. When the Dems won in 2006, they could only hold it for four. Without knowing it, political journalists may be in the midst of a 'Republican era' similar to 1865-1932 and not realize it - the Dems win only when voters decide to punish Repubs for corruption (as in 2006), but no underlying shift away from a basically center-Right voting environment since Reagan. Per the 'Hispanic voter' argument eagerly promoted by liberals, the flight of white voters from the Dems is still going to be more important than the rise in Democratic Hispanics for quite a while, i.e., the lifetimes of most people active in politics today. Dysfunctional California, supposedly a model, is more a cautionary than exemplary model for the country.
#3 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 27 Dec 2010 at 08:18 PM