Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For years now, it has been often preached that the Democrats have a strong demographic advantage that threatens the Republican chances at the presidency for years to come. However, traditionally Democratic states are predicted to lose electoral votes to hardcore Republican states in the South and West.
The South and West are gaining more and more political power, whilst the Rust Belt and Northeast post more losses. And to those of you who feel that a few electoral points every 10 years does not matter, keep in mind that Al Gore only lost the EC by a few points. By 2030 most of the political power in the US will have shifted to the Republican states, and away from the Democrats.
Keep in mind that the Northeast and Rust Belt is not losing population, the growth is just at a sluggish ~2% compared to the Sunbelt's ~12%.
Enter the census debate; it is expected that Obama will try and change the way the census is taken. Instead of using an actual headcount, representative samples will be taken. Of course, that has not been enacted yet, but most of us here remember when Clinton tried to impose the same thing...
Anyway, if you skipped the article here is a summary of the predicated changes:
Projected Losers:
Illinois (-1)
Iowa (-1)
Louisiana (-1)
Massachusetts (-1)
Michigan (-1)
Minnesota (-1)
Missouri (-1)
New Jersey (-1)
New York (-1)
Ohio (-2)
Pennsylvania (-1)
After taking significant hits, the Republican party tends to rebound via a landslide, so we'll have to see what 2010 and 2012 brings. And with the red states predicted to gain more electoral votes over the next 20 years, it could actually prove that demographics are on the Republicans' side.
The premise seems a bit fallacious. Just because someone may move his family from Chicago to Dallas, for example, does not mean he automatically becomes a Republican.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
For years now, it has been often preached that the Democrats have a strong demographic advantage that threatens the Republican chances at the presidency for years to come. However, traditionally Democratic states are predicted to lose electoral votes to hardcore Republican states in the South and West.
The South and West are gaining more and more political power, whilst the Rust Belt and Northeast post more losses. And to those of you who feel that a few electoral points every 10 years does not matter, keep in mind that Al Gore only lost the EC by a few points. By 2030 most of the political power in the US will have shifted to the Republican states, and away from the Democrats.
Keep in mind that the Northeast and Rust Belt is not losing population, the growth is just at a sluggish ~2% compared to the Sunbelt's ~12%.
Enter the census debate; it is expected that Obama will try and change the way the census is taken. Instead of using an actual headcount, representative samples will be taken. Of course, that has not been enacted yet, but most of us here remember when Clinton tried to impose the same thing...
Anyway, if you skipped the article here is a summary of the predicated changes:
Projected Losers:
Illinois (-1)
Iowa (-1)
Louisiana (-1)
Massachusetts (-1)
Michigan (-1)
Minnesota (-1)
Missouri (-1)
New Jersey (-1)
New York (-1)
Ohio (-2)
Pennsylvania (-1)
After taking significant hits, the Republican party tends to rebound via a landslide, so we'll have to see what 2010 and 2012 brings. And with the red states predicted to gain more electoral votes over the next 20 years, it could actually prove that demographics are on the Republicans' side.
Where do you think all the folks down here in the south came from? That's right! The NORTH and as more and more of us move here, it will be less and less Republican in the future. Florida is already blue, New Mexico is teetering, Arizona will be close if we can get the Mexicans legalized. Demographics are on our side no matter how you cut it.
For years now, it has been often preached that the Democrats have a strong demographic advantage that threatens the Republican chances at the presidency for years to come. However, traditionally Democratic states are predicted to lose electoral votes to hardcore Republican states in the South and West.
Population gains have to come from somewhere and if there are population losses in blue states we can safely assume that former blue state residents are adding to those red state increases. If that is the case, the argument that there will be an increase in representation but not a change in the political climate, so to speak, would require that migrateing populations change political attitudes at the border. I don't beleve that to be the case, as the election outcome in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada aptly demonstrated.
The GOP can return but right now it shows no sign of doing anything which will help it return. First and foremost if the GOP wants to win elections then it needs to change its positions to ones which appeal to the majority of Americans because you just can't win when you totally **** off 50%-60% of the American people. What the GOP needs to do is 1) ditch its current leadership because they've utterly failed but no one has lost their job; they're like herpes you just can't get rid of them. 2) they need to move back towards the center and give up the stupid idea that if the GOP just becomes more extreme right that they will magically win. The reality is the more extreme you become the narrower your base of support becomes and the more you alienate everyone else (the centrists who make up the majority of American voters). 3) Right now the GOP is basically a Southern regional party and it is very hard to win a national election as a regional party. This is why the GOP lost New England, the midwest, and most of the west so if you want to start winning national elections you must change your platform so that it appeals to voters in those areas.
For years now, it has been often preached that the Democrats have a strong demographic advantage that threatens the Republican chances at the presidency for years to come. However, traditionally Democratic states are predicted to lose electoral votes to hardcore Republican states in the South and West.
The South and West are gaining more and more political power, whilst the Rust Belt and Northeast post more losses. And to those of you who feel that a few electoral points every 10 years does not matter, keep in mind that Al Gore only lost the EC by a few points. By 2030 most of the political power in the US will have shifted to the Republican states, and away from the Democrats.
Keep in mind that the Northeast and Rust Belt is not losing population, the growth is just at a sluggish ~2% compared to the Sunbelt's ~12%.
Enter the census debate; it is expected that Obama will try and change the way the census is taken. Instead of using an actual headcount, representative samples will be taken. Of course, that has not been enacted yet, but most of us here remember when Clinton tried to impose the same thing...
Anyway, if you skipped the article here is a summary of the predicated changes:
Projected Losers:
Illinois (-1)
Iowa (-1)
Louisiana (-1)
Massachusetts (-1)
Michigan (-1)
Minnesota (-1)
Missouri (-1)
New Jersey (-1)
New York (-1)
Ohio (-2)
Pennsylvania (-1)
After taking significant hits, the Republican party tends to rebound via a landslide, so we'll have to see what 2010 and 2012 brings. And with the red states predicted to gain more electoral votes over the next 20 years, it could actually prove that demographics are on the Republicans' side.
You can go by that but I also by by talking to friends just normal everyday people.
I was at a good friends b-day party for their 3 year old child. All the adults outside and out of a good friend of ours mouth is. I think this country messed up we elected the wrong person. The person that said this voted for Obama is Hispanic and not happy at all with his spending and talking to Fidel and Chavez. Then majority of the rest went on to agree
You can go by that but I also by by talking to friends just normal everyday people.
I was at a good friends b-day party for their 3 year old child. All the adults outside and out of a good friend of ours mouth is. I think this country messed up we elected the wrong person. The person that said this voted for Obama is Hispanic and not happy at all with his spending and talking to Fidel and Chavez. Then majority of the rest went on to agree
Population gains have to come from somewhere and if there are population losses in blue states we can safely assume that former blue state residents are adding to those red state increases. If that is the case, the argument that there will be an increase in representation but not a change in the political climate, so to speak, would require that migrateing populations change political attitudes at the border. I don't beleve that to be the case, as the election outcome in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada aptly demonstrated.
It seems kind of silly to move due to high cost of living, then vote the same way at your new home . Most of the newcomers to Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc. are retirees who traditionally vote Republican.
After the housing bubble burst, the transition from North to South slowed significantly because it was no longer a real bargain to sell a home in the North, and purchase in the South. So in essence, whats done is done, and I just do not see people escaping high living costs wanting to vote for the same snubs who ruined their own state to begin with.
Being briefing in the real estate business I can tell you that most of the people coming down from the North, and from the West are generally middle class suburbanites (i.e. Republicans/swing voters), and retirees.
Of course, we won't know for sure until after the census has been conducted, and after the mid-term elections..
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
I don't beleve that to be the case, as the election outcome in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada aptly demonstrated.
I believe that the 2008 elections proved that most Americans are willing to cross party lines if the right candidate comes along. We witnessed the same thing in 1980 and 1984. However, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada are swing states, so I am not sure they make the best example anyways...
The list of losers/gainers is 12 electoral votes. In the 2008 election, the score was Obama/365 versus McCain/173. If we take 12 electoral votes from Obama and add them to McCain, the numbers would be Obama/353 versus McCain/185. Still a landslide.
I'm opposed to any and all attempts to tweak the census for political purposes, and to the gerrymandering of congressional districts. We have to let honesty and accuracy rule, or we're no better than third-world tinhorns.
EDIT: in the 2008 election, CO, NM and NV all went for Obama, and Obama only lost MO by 4000 votes. The more northerners who retire and head south and west, the more some GOP states will be in serious play. Southern states of VA, NC and FL all went for Obama.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 04-20-2009 at 11:26 AM..
And with the red states predicted to gain more electoral votes over the next 20 years, it could actually prove that demographics are on the Republicans' side.
I guess hope springs eternal but the reality is those Northerners aren't dying and instead they're just moving to where the weather is better. Do you think they will magically change their entire world view when they move? What we're seeing is a demographic shift in traditionally red states which will mean they will become bluer and bluer much like we recently saw in places like Virginia and North Carolina.
The GOP so far shows no signs of making any serious attempts to reform itself so I doubt we'll see any big revival in 2010. After 2010 we have the national census and redistricting which is almost guaranteed to favor the party in power (it always does) and that will likely mean even more GOP loses in 2012. I'm afraid it looks like the GOP is in for a long walk in the wilderness before they become relevant again just like the conservatives in the UK after Thatcher pissed off most of the UK voters (other then a brief care taker government by John Major immediately after Thatcher the conservatives there have never regained power).
The good news is this will eventually discredit the current crop of idiots in charge and eventually some new more pragmatic leadership will arrive to reform the party and make it relevant again. This is unlikely to happen before 2014 or 2016 though and only then if the GOP actually starts coming up with real solutions instead of offering more of the same failed policies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Most of the newcomers to Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc. are retirees who traditionally vote Republican. 
