blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
OK got it. I misinterprated the meaning
Oh yeah....public votes dont count anyway, soooo hehehehehehe
OK got it. I misinterprated the meaning
Oh yeah....public votes dont count anyway, soooo hehehehehehe
Actually no, I simply do not believe that the influx of democrats will be sufficient to overturn the political affiliation or voting patterns of the entire state. Texas could absorb tons of true blue Democrats without switching the entire state to a blue state. Also, as far as my "sources", the source was my own brain, not the articles I posted. I simply posted a variety of articles that explore the issue, some from the left and some from the right. They all seem to feel that this trend structurally favors republicans, which seems to agree with my perception of the situation.....
I think you're right to a certain extent.
But what's important to realize is that a large portion of the "red" votes are negative votes, or (to put it frankly) "HATE VOTES". Much of the republican-voting poor-to-low-middle-class votes are not votes FOR any kind of policies, but rather votes against ideas or people. They are votes AGAINST gays, abortion, evolution, secularity, etc... The republican voter recruitment campaigns largely focus on these wedge issues, to drive people to vote against ideas and philosophies that are not their own.
How is California a "failed state"? California does have its problems, but despite that, it has managed to become, by far, the most influencial and economically powerful state in the union. They have a hugely varied economy, everything from high tech telcom giants to farms to wine, and in many areas, they do it better than anyone else in the country. Some budget issues and illegal immigrants are a drop in the bucket.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
OK got it. I misinterprated the meaning
Oh yeah....public votes dont count anyway, soooo hehehehehehe
No problem, misreading happens to the best of us
That's because you all are, no offense, not thinking it all the way through. If the influx of new voters isn't enough to change even the small marging present in many red (and blue) states, how could they be enough to shift more electoral power in that state's favor? You can't have it both ways, if the influx of blue staters is enough to give a red state more electoral power, it would also stand to reason that those voters would be numerous enough to shift the balance. Even deeply red states aren't all THAT red, and most red states are not nearly as populated as Texas.
But let's look at a real example, using the example of California from your first post, and the example of the textbook red state, Texas. This is somewhat of a gift, of course, as Texas is a state that would register the least impact from an influx of new voters (and more strongly pro-Bush than they probably would be for other Republicans). Let's say, for our purposes, that the only migration was from California to Texas, a state that we are assured "could absorb tons of true blue Democrats". Let's further assume that location doesn't change voting practices of the Californians and that an influx of new Dems doesn't make the Texans vote blue.
In 2004 in California (55 electoral votes), 12.5 million people voted, about 55% of them for Kerry, which is a little more than 6.5 million votes.
In 2004 in Texas (34 electoral votes), 7.5 million people voted, about 60% of them for Bush, which is 4.5 million votes.
Assume population evened out between the states, about 10 million voters and 44 electoral votes each (rounding down). Assuming identical voting patterns from 2004, Republicans would gain by 10 electoral votes, as they would still win Texas, although the vote would be 56% to 44%. But what if you take away Bush's home field advantage, something that certainly doesn't apply to all Republicans, and say the original Texans vote Republican like the Californians vote Democrat...and suddenly your new big red state is won 52% to 48%, well into swing state territory. There is the potential for gain in electoral votes, but it also might give control of a huge block of votes to the Dems that they could NEVER have got before.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
The whole concept that the red states will be stronger than the blue states in 2030 is relying on things remaining more or less the same. 24 years is a long time. In 1984 the whole country was one giant red state when it came to presidential politics.
Wile the prediction regarding the distribution of house seats by state in 2030 based on current population shifts may hold true, assuming that they will remain "red" or "blue" is quite a stretch. I wouldn't bet on it.
You know, I was sort of taking a lot of this discussion on faith. But as someone who frequently disagrees with Republicans, I've often found it useful to check the facts myself, since facts and pro-Republican arguments rarely enjoy each others company. And what do you know, good old fact checking payed off again. We all sort of took this discussion on faith after reading the OP, but looking at the actual numbers is a little more interesting. Projections are one thing, but past results frequently predict future performance, so they are important as well, and they tell a much different story.
Now I'll say right up front, some of the red states are showing rather impressive population growth, especially Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Georgia, Texas and Florida (although two of those are more properly swing states) that isn't matched by most blue states. But while those examples are what ended up being the focus on the article linked to by the OP, I think it's more useful to look at total trends. After all, picking a handful of states, only a few of which were blue states, can't possibly be as instructive as looking at all of them. And it's also more useful to look at trends, not just what's happening in a particular year. After all, ALL the states will eventually change their seat numbers, not just a handful in 2010.
Basically, the idea that red states are growing faster than blue states (only two states are actually decreasing in population, the OP aside, and both are red states), is simply bunk. Handpicking certain states at certain times and placing them side by side may look impressive, but much simpler numbers are harder to argue with. And the simple numbers (taken from census data since 2000) say this...red states are, on average, growing by 69,000 people per year while blue states are growing at a rate of 77,000 per year. Now that's not the total victory for the blue states that it appears to be, since red states have only 65% of the population (on average) that blue states do. In reality, the average growth rate for red states is 2.23% while blue states are only growing at 2.04%...so red states are growing about 0.2% faster. Which means that their growth numbers will surpass those of the blue states in about 2060.
Well hot damn, no wonder the Washington Times and Free Republic were being so smug. In only 54 years, the Repubicans will finally START gaining long term in overall electoral votes. And that's assuming that things stay exactly as they are in terms of voting patterns and population growth. Party time!
Now I'll say right up front, some of the red states are showing rather impressive population growth, especially Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Georgia, Texas and Florida (although two of those are more properly swing states) that isn't matched by most blue states. But while those examples are what ended up being the focus on the article linked to by the OP, I think it's more useful to look at total trends. After all, picking a handful of states, only a few of which were blue states, can't possibly be as instructive as looking at all of them. And it's also more useful to look at trends, not just what's happening in a particular year. After all, ALL the states will eventually change their seat numbers, not just a handful in 2010.
Basically, the idea that red states are growing faster than blue states (only two states are actually decreasing in population, the OP aside, and both are red states), is simply bunk. Handpicking certain states at certain times and placing them side by side may look impressive, but much simpler numbers are harder to argue with. And the simple numbers (taken from census data since 2000) say this...red states are, on average, growing by 69,000 people per year while blue states are growing at a rate of 77,000 per year. Now that's not the total victory for the blue states that it appears to be, since red states have only 65% of the population (on average) that blue states do. In reality, the average growth rate for red states is 2.23% while blue states are only growing at 2.04%...so red states are growing about 0.2% faster. Which means that their growth numbers will surpass those of the blue states in about 2060.
Well hot damn, no wonder the Washington Times and Free Republic were being so smug. In only 54 years, the Repubicans will finally START gaining long term in overall electoral votes. And that's assuming that things stay exactly as they are in terms of voting patterns and population growth. Party time!
Hmm, it appears I got a LITTLE ahead of myself. While everything I said was true, I left out one little important piece...the fact that there are more red states than blue states. While blue states individually will indeed be growing faster for some time, blue states as a whole will not be. There is indeed a red state population shift, although that doesn't imply that red states are individually growing faster, just that there are more of them. So in the long term, by my 2060 date, there will be 2% more people in red states and 2% fewer people in blue states. In 2030, the shift will be 1% away from blue, and 1% towards red. Not exactly earth shattering, but still, I was wrong. And rather than editing my post to hide my shame (), I figure I'll leave it up there to hopefully remind people that we're all just searching for the truth here, not supporting some arbitrary position.
And by the way, this doesn't change my opinion about this being a boon for the Republicans one bit. The idea that a long term population shift won't bring with it any political change is just silly. 2030 may see 1% more "red staters", but it may see fewer actual red states. Or more. Who knows, none of the data presented so far says anything about political leanings, which are difficult to predict 20 WEEKS into the future, much less 20 years.
), I figure I'll leave it up there to hopefully remind people that we're all just searching for the truth here, not supporting some arbitrary position.And by the way, this doesn't change my opinion about this being a boon for the Republicans one bit. The idea that a long term population shift won't bring with it any political change is just silly. 2030 may see 1% more "red staters", but it may see fewer actual red states. Or more. Who knows, none of the data presented so far says anything about political leanings, which are difficult to predict 20 WEEKS into the future, much less 20 years.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter