• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Census results - GOP leaning states will pick up house seats

boomerang

boomerang

Lifer

Eight States in South, West to Gain House Seats Based on 2010 Census Results


The Census Bureau announced that eight states will gain a total of 12 seats, while 10 states -- mostly in the Northeast and Midwest -- will lose seats. The population shift sets the stage for potential GOP gains in Congress in 2012, while changing the political landscape ahead of a presidential race which in some respects is already starting.
Click to expand...

But the regional population shifts are what matter to lawmakers looking to boost their party's numbers in Washington. The Census is used to shape state legislative seats and allocate the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. With growth in the South and West averaging about 14 percent, states in those regions are set to gain the most additional representation in Congress.


Texas, continuing seven consecutive decades of growth, will gain the most seats with four more House members in 2012. Florida gains two, while Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington each gain one.

States losing seats include Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. All those states lost one seat apiece, save for New York and Ohio, which lost two each.

Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census and National Archives, congratulated the Census Bureau for the work it did putting together the decennial count, and suggested the migration patterns show the Rust Belt is losing out to the Sun Belt because of better state and local opportunities.

"It is no coincidence that the states gaining population the fastest over the last 10 years have lower tax rates and, consequently, stronger economies. As states draw new congressional districts to reflect this shift, we will certainly see more Republicans in the U.S. House," McHenry said.
Click to expand...

Gee whiz, even the Census is dealing a blow to the Dem's. Counting all those illegals didn't help either.

Who will oversee redrawing districts?

http://2010.census.gov/news/pdf/apport2010_map1.pdf
 
Last edited:
Let me get this straight. Shouldn't the Democrats who move to the South increase the number of Democratic representitives from the South?

and

It is no coincidence that the states gaining population the fastest over the last 10 years have lower tax rates and, consequently, stronger economies
When I saw this I decided to check out the link. Foxnews, of course.
Funny, I would have said these states have low wages, low benefits and low services. Not to mention lower education, lower life expectancy, are fatter and more out of shape, etc.
 
Last edited:
OCGuy said:
"Republicans are a dying breed!" - AT Loonies after 2008 election
Click to expand...

Based on their general obesity levels, poor health insurance, lack of retirement savings, and love of fried foods, yeah, they are on their way out. They only have another 30-40 years tops.
 
techs said:
It is no coincidence that the states gaining population the fastest over the last 10 years have lower tax rates and, consequently, stronger economies
When I saw this I decided to check out the link. Foxnews, of course.
Funny, I would have said these states have low wages, low benefits and low services. Not to mention lower education, lower life expectancy, are fatter and more out of shape, etc.
Click to expand...
Speaking for myself, I'd love to see some stats. I know a lot of what you think and say is based on "feelings", but let's see something to back it up.
 
techs said:
Let me get this straight. Shouldn't the Democrats who move to the South increase the number of Democratic representitives from the South?

..
Click to expand...


Not necessarily, only if there is enough of them to swing elections to the democrats (not likely). The result is that the states have more reps and electoral votes but the reps will be republican and the electoral votes will go to republican candidate in 2012.

And the districts will be redistricted by republican governors and legislatures as well.
 
techs said:
Based on their general obesity levels, poor health insurance, lack of retirement savings, and love of fried foods, yeah, they are on their way out. They only have another 30-40 years tops.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest. The reason those red states have higher obesity, less insurance, fried foods, etc is that they have a higher proportion of poor whites, blacks, Latinos, and illegal immigrants. It's ironic because those are the people that the GOP despises.

Remember slaves being 2/3 of a person? It's like that all over again. People like to use that as an example of blacks being considered less than a whole person, but really they should have counted as 0 because they were denied every citizen's right. It was a way for slaveowning states to get more representatives than they deserved.
 
Last edited:
The bigger the tent, the harder it is to keep it together. This will ebb and flow, like so many things in life.

The people who draw the distinctions of RINOs and DINOs will have a smaller and smaller voice; ideological purity will not be anywhere near being in the driver's seat.
 
OCGuy said:
Huh?


http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html



Educate yourself. (Unless you think blacks and hispanics are voting (R) ??
Click to expand...

map_county_obese_2007.jpg


map_county_diabetes_2007.jpg


map_county_obese_diabetes_2.jpg
 
Lets see how long texas stays republican when they opt out of Medicare for 2.5 Million people....thats ALOT of votes..


btw their governor hinted at that recently...

How many of those new constituents Latin american as well?

Hows that fear mongering about the boogie man illegal aliens gonna go over?
 
A few things to point out.

1. In terms of raw blatant gerrymandering, that is basically only a function of which given State has a democratic or Republican Governor. Which is not a function of population net change, but still net advantage GOP immediately post 2010.

2. As traditional "Blue" States lose population and traditional "Red" States gain population, the GOP gamble is that traditional blue State voters will retain their blue voting habits. And worse yet start converting their red state fellow voters into voting blue in the next election. Because now that the GOP has promised prosperity post 2010
and is very unlikely to deliver, we may end up with even bluer blue states and far paler red states come 11/2012.
 
Lemon law said:
A few things to point out.

1. In terms of raw blatant gerrymandering, that is basically only a function of which given State has a democratic or Republican Governor. Which is not a function of population net change, but still net advantage GOP immediately post 2010.

2. As traditional "Blue" States lose population and traditional "Red" States gain population, the GOP gamble is that traditional blue State voters will retain their blue voting habits. And worse yet start converting their red state fellow voters into voting blue in the next election. Because now that the GOP has promised prosperity post 2010
and is very unlikely to deliver, we may end up with even bluer blue states and far paler red states come 11/2012.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the blueing of red america via breeding muahahah!
 
All this proves to me is that population is rising in the south.

It is fairly likely that it has a lot less to do with politics and a lot more to do with immigration and jobs.

As a side note: How many college educated people do you know with 4+ kids?
 
Not sure why people are even talking about this they way they are. In Texas Obama lost by about 11%, Kerry by 20%+.

"Red" states may get more seats but they also are starting to lean "Blue". VA use to be a solid red state but now has 2 Dem Senators and several Dem congressmen.

So be careful what you wish for. 😉
 
techs said:
Let me get this straight. Shouldn't the Democrats who move to the South increase the number of Democratic representitives from the South?

SNIP
Click to expand...
Only those Democrats too stupid to understand WHY they had to flee their Democrat-controlled states will try to increase the number of Democrat representatives from the South and West. Those Democrats smart enough to understand the failure of the Democrat model of government should be smart enough to not try to repeat the same mistakes in the new home. Since the latter group will move to the new states intentionally whereas the former group will move more or less at random, the net effect of liberalization hopefully should be fairly small.
 
I wouldn't be a bit suprised if at least 2 of the 4 seats gained in Texas turn out to be democratic seats. As much as the repubs in this state will try to skew things with redistricting, two of the areas poised to pick up a seat DFW metroplex and Austin and surronding areas are decidedly blue. This won't help Obama for the presidential election in 2012 because under electoral college rules all 36 seats will most likely go Red. But as far as control of the house counting those 4 seats as sure pickups for the R's would be a mistake.

And if history proves anything, redistricting efforts in Texas will be a stalemate and require federal arbitration as it did in 2000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top