The 2010 Census
I have no idea who’s going to do what in the 2010 midterm elections. The mere fact that Democrats hold most of the House seats suggests to me that the odds favor the Republicans picking some up. But this logic from Karl Rove predicting big things for the GOP seems badly flawed:
[T]he 2010 Census could allocate as many as four additional congressional districts to Texas, two each to Arizona and Florida, and one district to each of a number of (mostly) red-leaning states, while subtracting seats from (mostly) blue-leaning states like Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania and, for the first time, California. Redistricting and reapportionment could help tilt the playing field back to the GOP in Congress and the race for the White House by moving seven House seats (and electoral votes) from mostly blue to mostly red states.
But of course in the House we vote by Congressional District and not by state. Yes, New York will probably lose a House seat. But at the same time, the New York State Senate flipped from Republican to Democratic control. With the state overwhelmingly Democratic in its electorate, and the state government under total Democratic control, the lost seat will almost certainly be a lost Republican seat. And by the same token, the population growth in Texas, Arizona, and Florida is being driven by growth in the Democratic-leaning Hispanic population. In all these cases, you have to look at the demographics and the redistricting process in detail, not just ask whether it’s a blue state or a red state.
Again, the GOP was unusually unpopular in 2008 and so it seems likely they’ll be more popular and do better in 2010. But the main demographic trends are against the Republicans — they’re strong with old people and weak with minorities.
48 Responses to “The 2010 Census”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 18th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
The first time the 2010 census matters is 2012, right? I thought the counting and reallocation won’t be done until the end of the year.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
this appears to be the census timeline for redistricting. It looks to me that Apr 1 2011 is when the states officially receive the data to execute the redistricting plans.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Sorry Matt, but you and Rove both missed a crucial fact: Redistricting as a result of the 2010 census will not go into effect until the 2012 elections. Your points, however, are still well taken.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Like everyone says — 2012 is the next redistricted year, not 2010. The growing states — Colorado, Georgia, NC, Florida and Texas are red, but the growing areas within those (Front range, Atlanta, Research triangle, I-5 corridor, Harris County and Dallas) are Blue or turning blue.
So a lot depends on who cotnrols the state houses.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
New York is now 23-3 Democratic. Good luck eliminating one of those Republicans through gerrymandering alone.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Also, NY’s Congressional delegation is all Democratic, except for about 3 or 4 seats. It’s difficult to imagine that they could gerrymander to remove a Republican seat.
Pennsylvania before 2006 and Ohio still would be better examples, as they had wholly-Republican dominated gerrymanders in 2001.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Excuse me, 26-3.
One from suburban Buffalo and the rural west, one from the North Country, and Peter King from Nassau.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
This is the same flawed thinking that gave us “the fastest growing counties in Ameirca are strongly Repblican!” in 2002.
Rural areas are strongly Republican. As they fill up, they turn gradually bluer.
Come to think of it, it was Rove making the argument back then, as well. I can’t believe he used to be called “boy-genius.”
November 18th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
And by the same token, the population growth in Texas, Arizona, and Florida is being driven by growth in the Democratic-leaning Hispanic population.
If Republicans do poorly in 2010 they will have to turn to socially conservative hispanics in 2012. Yes this will mean compromising on immigration but in a two-party state there is nothing gained from consistently loosing elections. The real question is, once the GOP returns to the center, what will this mean for progressive policies.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
But for the point Rove is wrong about the districts themselves, he is right that for the Electoral college, this would favor the GOP, since overall the states gaining EC votes are Red, and those losing EC votes are Blue. Dems may not lose seats as a result of this, but it tilts the EC playing field toward the GOP. Although maybe not enough, if the field otherwise stays like it did for Obama.
November 18th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Oregon’s also getting an extra seat, probably in the Portland ‘burbs, that should go Democratic with a little bit of effort.
November 18th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
You don’t have to wonk out very hard to see that Rove’s being an idiot here. At the next census three blue states will gain seats: Florida, Nevada, and California. Four red states will gain seats: Texas, Arizona, Georgia, and Utah. Three of those states got notably bluer this year, and Arizona only stayed red because McCain led the ticket. Moreover, Florida, Georgia and Texas have been gerrymandered in as pro-GOP a manner as could be imagined, the latter two states in mid-decade redistrictings that used to be illegal.
The states that are losing districts: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio. Yes, they’re all blue now, and Massachusetts will by design be losing a Democrat. But again, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Michigan have maps that were designed to send Republican delegations to Congress. In 2002, blue Illinois had 10 Republican congressmen and 9 Democrats. Blue Michigan had 9 Republicans and 6 Democrats. In both state, hard-to-crack districts have swung to Democrats because the GOP imploded in the suburbs. But that’s the only reason they swung.
It would be damn, damn hard to create a House map better for Republicans than the one that existed circa 2005. And the Republicans have been getting their ass kicked on that map.
November 18th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
The Dems really should be targeting Fla’s state legislature. Here’s a 50/50 state that is gerrymandered for complete GOP dominance in the legislature and in Congress.
November 18th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
You’re mis-reading Rove, I think. His point about the 2010 Census is separate from the 2010 midterms (as the 2012 election is the first one that would be redistricted) and is making the point that it will be helpful to the Republicans in the 2012 Presidential election since, on balance, EVs will move from deep blue Northeast and Rust Belt states to red or swing states in the south and west.
November 18th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Just checked. Fla Senate is 26 GOP/14 Dems….you can guess how those extra three districts will be drawn up.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Stav - The 2002 redistricting was signed off on by Gov. Jeb Bush and sent a 18-7 Republican-Democrat delegation to Washington. This in a state that went 50-50 for Bush-Gore.
It’ll be extremely hard to get a more Dem-fucking map than that if they go up to 28 seats.
November 18th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
People in DC often overlook the importance of having control of STATE Legislatures during Census time, when the Districts are redrawn.
Here in Pennsylvania, Republicans used their temporary majority in the State Legislature to gerrymander the hell out of several Congressional districts in 2000. I think some of those Republicans (including my Congressman) are doomed when the Democrats redistrict Pennsylvania in 2010.
But in the meantime, I spent a lot of volunteer time in 3 campaigns trying to unseat Jim Gerlach. The Democratic Party here spent a lot of money and effort trying to unseat him. To no avail. His district was drawn up to waste a ton of Democratic votes but to leave Gerlach with 5 or 6 percentage points advantage — which we have never been able to quite overcome even with strong efforts and money.
Here’s what our District looks like:
http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/pa06_109.gif
November 18th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
First: The Democrats have not, in fact, taken New York’s upper house. Self-described Democrats won a majority of seats, 32-30, but 3 Senators are refusing to endorse the Democratic leader. It increasingly looks like the Republicans will keep the chamber.
Secondly: It’s harder to gerrymander congressional districts than state legislative districts, because the former have to have just about equal population. State legislative districts can vary as much as 10% without being grounds for a court challenge. (Here in New York the difference is 9.9% with all the high population districts in New York City, all the low-population ones upstate.)
November 18th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Oh, and PA was as gerrymandered in favor of Republicans as it gets. Murphy’s hilarious find-the-rich-white-people District #18 would be easy to wipe out, and similarly Philly has plenty to spare to whack Gerlach’s #6 and Dent’s #15.
Agree about Murphy and Gerlach. Dent’s district is pretty straightforward - more or less the Lehigh Valley. I suppose you could gerrymander it to help the Dems (although I think it would require some intense gerrymandering) but, really, the district should be winnable as is.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Matt, I think you may be overassuming the Hispanic growth in Arizona & Florida. A lot of the population growth in both states is from retirees from the frozen north - such as MI, OH, PA, NY.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:57 am
These sorts of “analysis” always drives me up the wall. There are 435 House districts. If the voting population is split 50-50 between the Democrats and Republicans, one of the two parties will win a slight and precarious majority, with the minority party still winning over 200 seats. If there are more Republican supporters in the overall population, then of course this will translate into more House seats for the Republicans.
If you just move House seats around the country, without changing the levels of popular support for each party, and maintaining the population to seat ratio, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. It doesn’t matter if there are 50 districts in Texas and 5 in New York, or 50 districts in New York and 5 in Texas. What matters is the level of support each party receives from the overall electorate. With a Democratic leaning national electorate, the district rich state in this instance will either lean Democratic, or the Democrats will sweep the smaller state and come close enough in the bigger one to get an overall majority.
For example, all ten Massachussetts congressmen are Democrats. Massachussetts will lose one House seat, meaning there will definitely be one fewer Democratic seat. However, a new Democratic leaning district will be created in in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, simply because the Democrats only hold one seat there now and there are not enough Republicans in that area (even with gerrymandering) to maintain a 9-1 split in districts. You will find that the eliminated Rust Belt districts turn out either to be Republican districts, or are balanced by Democratic “inroads” in the sunbelt sprawl cities.
Rove’s analysis would apply if states chose their congressional delegations en bloc, so adding districts to a red state really were automatic gains for the majority party in that state. It would apply if you moved the districts but kept the electorate the same. This isn’t the case, and the only effect the decennial redistricting has on partisan balance is through gerrymandering. The state legislative elections in 2010 will be more important in this respect than the census.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:09 am
More specifically, the Republican state legislatures in Texas and Florida will need to add Democratic districts, since the partisan split in these states is not red enough for them to go 19-9 and 25-10 Republican without spreading the Republican advantage really, really thin. Its the same reason the Democratic state legislature in California gave the seat California gained in the last cycle to the Republicans.
For similar reasons, even Republican drawn plans would find it hard to avoid eliminating Republican districts in Michigan and Ohio. On the other hand, Democrats will have to get rid of Democratic controlled districts in Massachussetts and New York (getting rid of King’s districts puts the other three Democratic leaning districts on Long Island in jeopardy, its smarter to pack all LI Republicans in one district). Republicans will gain the extra Georgia seat since the Democrats have maxed out what they can gain from that state with the six districts they now hold, same with Oregon where the Democratic edge is just not great enough to go from 4-1 to 5-1. But these things all balance out.
The Republicans won the 2002 redistricting cycle because they held control of most of the state legislatures, not because of population movement which has been moving to the Sunbelt since World War II pretty steadily despite several back to and forth shifts in partisan advantage.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:06 am
This is the same flawed thinking that gave us “the fastest growing counties in Ameirca are strongly Repblican!” in 2002.
Rural areas are strongly Republican. As they fill up, they turn gradually bluer.
The best way I heard it explained was like this: Republicans are the party of “growth areas.” When things are growing fast, and the areas are *relatively* empty, traffic is low, and land and roads are easy to come by, people vote Republican. When things begin to fill up, infrastructure needs to be tended to, and schools need to be fixed, and opportunities stop seeming so “infinite” because suddenly you have a lot of people competing for land, jobs, and space on the roads, people suddenly do a turnabout and flip to the Democrats.
November 19th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Time for a constitutional amendment to eliminate gerrymandering. Have all districts drawn so that they are as compact as possible. With a mix of people in a district, it will be easier to get rid of the wacky rightwingers who control the GOP grass roots - and nominate wingnuts to run in safe GOP districts. Same for Dems.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Based on the projection od the 2010 census, 9 seats will change hands (according to my calculations) -
Gains - Texas (3), Florida (2), Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Utah
Losses - New York (2), Ohio (2), Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, Pennsylvania
If Texas gets a fourth, it will be at California’s expense.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I think what lots of people don’t understand is that there are two mutually-inconsistent goals in gerrymandering:
1. Maximizing your party’s representation.
2. Protecting incumbents in your party from close races.
The goals are mutually inconsistent because you maximize representation by putting 51% of your party in all of the districts, but you protect incumbents by putting 60%+ of your party in those districts.
As Republicans in Pennsylvania learned, you can maximize your representation in 2002 by creating a lot of barely Republican districts (12-7 Republicans in 2002), but if you do it only takes a very small shift in the electorate to knock out that majority (11-8 Democrats in 2008).
If Pa Republicans had “settled” for a 10-9 Republican split in 2002, they likely could have maintained it better. But the more extreme you make your gerrymander, the more easy it is to lose it in just six years.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
This is sort of true, but it’s of a piece with the demographic changes that flipped Virginia and half of the Southwest, so it’s still not a net gain for Republicans. States, like counties, get bluer as they gain population.
January 18th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 1st, 2009 at 5:43 am
viagra
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:33 pm
cialis
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:11 am
levitraVery interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:40 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 am
Incredible site!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 am
I want to say - thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:04 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra