Buy WILLisms

XML Feed

Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Blogroll Me!



July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004

Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006


Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori

WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):

The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site


This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif

Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif


« The Third Mainstream Melee. | WILLisms.com | Roger Ailes: Not Fit To Serve. »

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 241 -- The Future Of The Electoral College.

Sun Belt & Snow Belt Population Changes-

Projecting anything 25 years into the future is difficult, but we can, with a reasonable level of confidence, examine population and demographic trends in the fifty states and forecast relative population levels for 2030. It is those relative population levels (who is up, who is down, and by how much) that matter most in politics, because they determine the apportionment of Congressional seats and Electoral College votes.

Indeed, over the past three decades or so, Republicans have benefited profoundly from growth in deeply Republican states (red states), gaining Electoral College votes in the process; meanwhile, blue states have lost people-- relative to the red states, at least-- losing Electoral College votes along the way.

If trend hold up, we'll continue to see rapid growth in the "Sun Belt," while growth in the "Snow Belt" will be truly anemic:


Some of this is foreign immigration. Some is domestic migration within the U.S. Some, meanwhile, is due to differences in birthrates.

Clearly, differences in population growth had economic and political consequences in the past. They will likely have consequences into the future:


After the 2030 Census, "Sun Belt" states are projected to gain a substantial number of Electoral College votes at the expense of the "Snow Belt."

But, wait, you might be thinking, there are red states in the Snow Belt and bluish (or at the least, purple) states in the "Sun Belt." So this doesn't necessarily benefit Republicans or hurt Democrats.

Well, yeah, but take note of these numbers:


"Snow Belt" red states will lose relative population and Electoral College votes, but "Snow Belt" blue states will take a much harder kick to the stomach. Meanwhile, "Sun Belt" red states will gain an enormous number of votes, while "Sun Belt" blue states will gain very little.

Some claim that these population changes could lead to a major realignment in American politics, favoring liberals and Democrats. The basis for this claim is that "blue state" people, with "blue state" values and political preferences, are moving to red states. Furthermore, Latino immigration may tip those marginally-Republican states to the Democrats.

These are valid concerns, but Latinos should not be taken for granted by either party. Republicans have made substantial gains with Latinos, especially in Texas and Florida, and especially among non-unionized Latinos. In short, Hispanic immigration is not a slam dunk for Democrats. Next, the "blue state voters moving into red states" theory doesn't hold water for a variety of reasons (many of which I've covered here in the past). Essentially, blue staters moving to red states typically do so for economic reasons. They often seek lower taxes, bigger houses, and a "red state" suburban family-friendly lifestyle. Increasingly, Americans are sequestering themselves into alcoves of politically like-minded people, away from those which which they disagree. Thus, the "Yankeefication" of, say, Texas is a remote possibility. Florida, on the other hand, may see an impact. Similarly, Arizona and states in the Mountain West may become a bit Californiacated.

What this means for America's political system remains to be seen, but it is (overall) bad news for Democrats.

Indeed, by 2030, look at the states projected to lose:

New York: -6
Ohio: -4
Pennsylvania: -4
Illinois: -3
Massachusetts: -2
Michigan: -2
Iowa: -1
Missouri: -1
Kentucky: -1
Louisiana: -1
Indiana: -1
Nebraska: -1
Alabama: -1
West Virginia: -1
Connecticut: -1
Rhode Island: -1
New Jersey: -1
Wisconsin: -1

Indeed, by 2030, look at the states projected to gain:

Florida: +9
Texas: +8
Arizona: +5
Nevada: +2
North Carolina: +2
California: +2
Georgia: +1
Utah: +1
Virginia: +1
Oregon: +1
Washington: +1

Brookings (.pdf).


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Eco-Idiots.

Posted by Will Franklin · 10 December 2005 05:22 PM


Most Americans are not firmly committed to one party or another. Registration preference changes less often than actual voting patterns.

Instead of saying the voters decide which party is in the majority it is more accurate to say the party itself decides if it will be in power when it adopts positions.

About 1964 the Republicans began adapting to what more voters wanted. The Democrats have essentially kept a static platform for forty years.

The Democrats of today would convincingly defeat Republicans of the 1950's, and they often seem to think such are their GOP opponents.

Posted by: K at December 10, 2005 11:05 PM