I'm about to become another statistic within the next few months. The county finance director has said that if Michigan were to start turning around its economy NOW (which isn't going to happen anytime soon), it would take a minimum 4-5 years for the state to recover.

I, and many others, can't wait that long. Many of my friends have already left, especially the ones with college degrees. Most went to Florida, one's in Kentucky, one's in Idaho, two will be in Pennsylvania by March, and I've decided on east Tennessee, where most of my dad's side of the family moved in the late 1970s and never looked back.

Regarding what these trends mean for the future of political power, it's been my observation that the people who've moved to my formerly-quiet little town in the past ten years have tried to apply some of their suburban thinking to nonexistant problems. Some young mother invariably notices that one of our side streets only has two stop signs and complains loudly that we have to make the intersection a four way stop. Won't somebody think of The Children™! The facts -- that no child has EVER been hit by a car there since records began in the 1800s -- are irrelevant to her feelings, gradually reinforced beyond the point of no return by years of suburban living. Well-meaning but misguided, they sometimes cause problems where none previously existed, but at least they get to feel like they made a positive difference.

People who don't need facts when they have feelings... kind of sounds like a certain political party. Perhaps as more of those types move to red states, they'll attempt to change their surroundings to resemble more closely the blue states from which they came. I would hope that instead, more of them realize that "blue state" values were the reason they wanted out in the first place, especially when it comes to raising a family.

Our family has been trading from net importers - New Hampshire, Kentucky, Texas - this year, so I'm not sure how illuminating our example is. Sons went to places where they liked the schools or the jobs better.

New Hampshire used to be solid Republican, but our importation of people from Mass and elsewhere over the years has made us purple. (Vermont is flat out blue because of three decades of New Yorkers moving in). I think something of that pattern will happen in the other receiving states. They are more conservative, but the new entrants will be more liberal. In the short run, they won't change the politics of solidly red states much, but they will pad the population totals and get them more representatives. They may become more conservative by going to red state areas, but I doubt this will be profound. In the long run, they will make their new states more liberal.

Didn't Republicans just lose seven House seats in four of the top five states listed (which are all "red" states)? As such, I'm not really sure that any statement can be made about "future political power" at this time.

Well, Foley, DeLay, and Bonilla were flukes. Those seats are going back Republican in the next cycle or two.

Dan, do a study of mid-term elections back to 1946.

Will,

The county by county breakdown is even more impressive. You have posted that before.

Nice listing of net migration. Yes, red states are gaining and blue states are losing. But good point made; will the blue migrants screw up the red states they reach? I never understood that. Why leave one state for better economic opportunity, more freedom (e.g. there is a significant correlation with gun control and net migration with the red states having less gun control, in general) and then turn around and try to make it as bad as the place you left?

Just the cussedness of people I suppose.

Will, I agree on Foley and DeLay, but would lean more towards two cycles given current conditions. Bonilla's seat will take a little more effort, probably, but Ciro is definitely the wrong Democrat to hold for the Democrats.

AVI, what's your point?