New population count may complicate Obama 2012 bid

[aggiesal]

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Charles Babington, Associated Press – Sun Dec 19, 11:21 am ET

WASHINGTON – The 2010 census report coming out Tuesday will include a boatload of good political news for Republicans and grim data for Democrats hoping to re-elect President Barack Obama and rebound from last month's devastating elections.

The population continues to shift from Democratic-leaning Rust Belt states to Republican-leaning Sun Belt states, a trend the Census Bureau will detail in its once-a-decade report to the president. Political clout shifts, too, because the nation must reapportion the 435 House districts to make them roughly equal in population, based on the latest census figures.
< For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics >

The biggest gainer will be Texas, a GOP-dominated state expected to gain up to four new House seats, for a total of 36. The chief losers — New York and Ohio, each projected by nongovernment analysts to lose two seats — were carried by Obama in 2008 and are typical of states in the Northeast and Midwest that are declining in political influence.

Democrats' problems don't end there.

...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101219/ap_on_el_ge/us_census_redistricting

********************************************************************************************************************************

Why is this bad news?
The way I see it, more registered Democrats are moving into Republican strongholds,
thus, weakening the Republican position.

Am I missing something here?

[WillParkinson]

1. Well, technically...

If they are moving out of Democratic strongholds they are weakening the base there as well. Add to that the fact that unless Democrats are moving in mass amounts into Republican strongholds their presence there will not affect the dynamic of power.

[SocialistLez]

6. What you said.

Of course Obama's chances weren't looking too hot for 2012 anyway.

[kenny blankenship]

2. People who move south tend to redden in their political outlook

rather than bluen-up the state into which they have moved. For years very learned people have predicted that the South would become like the upper Midwest or NY politically because of Northern immigration. These learned people have been talking theoretically, as very learned people tend to do. What you can see, though, if you actually look is that the newly minted southerners tend to adopt the political outlook of their new neighbors and co-workers. Politics in the South is heavily segregated by race, like neighborhoods. If you're white or non-black you tend to affiliate with the Republican party. If black, with the Democratic Party. Everyone including the theorists understands this is the way it has been for time out of mind. Even before the Johnson-Nixon years that began to flip white southerners from D to R, black and white in the South belonged to different political parties. They may as well have been called the B party and the W party. What the theorists miss, when they predict that Northern immigration will make the South Democratic again, is that new Northern (non-black) immigrants to the South tend to work with and settle among white, suburban, Republican communities, and they largely assimilate into the racially based partisan divide - even if they are ethnically quite different from the old stock Southerners they now work for and live among.

[notesdev]

3. It's mega bad news

Basically it means that Obama is going to have to win Republican states in order to get re-elected. At the rate he's going he'll be lucky to match Kerry's 2004 performance.

Oh, and the redistricting for the census... our brain trust party leaders probably didn't mention that the GOP is in control of most of it, even in traditional Democratic states like Michigan, since we lost control of so many state legislatures this year. So you can count on a number of traditionally 'safe' Democratic seats getting redistricted away at the pleasure of these state GOP parties.

[bbinacan]

4. Is the population

shift more internal or is from people moving? Also, with these states getting more seats, redistricting may play a roll.

[Lithos]

5. The republicans are expecting that

And are gerrymandering like crazy.

[Johonny]

10. I agree

Texas would be a lot bluer if Rethugs hadn't fixed the districts to maximize house races for them.

[Brickbat]

7. Redistricting and states losing House seats are issues. Minnesota was in danger of losing its 8th,

which has been a DFL seat for decades. Now it looks like we'll keep it, but it just went R this election.

[WinkyDink]

8. Tell me again which Party has the chess players?

[tblue37]

9. Something in your post forces me to scroll far to the right to see the whole message. nt

[Johonny]

11. The problem is states are win and take all for the most part

and not enough people have moved to shift states from red to blue. But enough have moved to loss a few points here and there in probably a red direction. For house seats it might mean more dems will eventually get elected in the south, or what usually happens massive gerrymandering will take place to protect seats.

[SoCalDem]

12. They may be moving, but as they leave places they lose congressional seats

due to population count...and they are not in enough numbers to change the flavor of their new place...

The stupid part is how we froze the number of districts based on 1911 population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives

Under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned among the states by population, as determined by the census conducted every ten years. Each state, however, is entitled to at least one Representative.

The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House says: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand."Congress regularly increased the size of the House to account for population growth until it fixed the number of voting House members at 435 in 1911. The number was temporarily increased to 437 in 1959 upon the admission of Alaska and Hawaii (seating one representative from each of those states without changing existing apportionment), and returned to 435 four years later, after the reapportionment consequent to the 1960 census.