For soberer minds, one of the more interesting straight news pieces on the reapportionment comes from John McCormick and Tim Jones at Bloomberg, which is mentioned above. The writers point out that this reapportionment needs to be put into historical perspective.
The scope of the reapportionment would be the smallest since 1970 if just 17 states see a gain or loss. That’s a reflection of slower migration in recent years triggered by the worst recession since the Great Depression.
The reporters also put flesh on the bone of some of the statistics we’re seeing, contextualizing the population changes in some states.
Nevada, which is projected to gain one seat, was the nation’s fastest-growing state for much of the past decade, before its growth was stunted by the recession. The state had the highest foreclosure filing rate for the 47th straight month in November, at one in every 99 households, five times the national average, according to RealtyTrac Inc.
And there is a nice diversion into the reasons Ohio, “the biggest loser,” lost its two seats. Such case studies are rarer in the other reporting, which focus either on the big Dems-vs.-GOP picture, or dig into the minutia of strategic redistricting to come.
The biggest loser for total seats could be Ohio, which has played a pivotal economic and political role for two centuries. It is the birthplace of seven presidents and a core member of the nation’s manufacturing heartland, producing automobiles, rubber, steel and glass.
Since January 2000, Ohio has lost 409,000 manufacturing jobs — a 40 percent drop — Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows.
…Ohio’s industrial heritage has taken a back seat to Wal- Mart Stores Inc., Kroger Co. and the Cleveland Clinic, the state’s three largest employers, according to the Ohio Department of Development. General Motors Co., once a major employer in the state, ranks 23rd.
As jobs moved out, the state’s political influence began to slide. Ohio had 24 members in its congressional delegation in 1972. Today, it has 18, and that number is projected to drop again this time.
“It’s all about votes and power,” said Ned Hill, an economist and dean of the college of urban affairs at Cleveland State University. “Ohio and the Midwest are going to be at a huge competitive disadvantage.”
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