Census puts a hurt on some Democratic strongholds

As expected, the feds announced today that Georgia will add a 14th seat in the U.S. House — and one more vote in the Electoral College — thanks to the 2010 Census. We’ve added 1.5 million residents over the past decade and now have the ninth-most populous state, up from 10th after the 2000 Census.

That’s New Jersey you see in our rear-view mirror. Michigan is up next: The only state to shrink over the past 10 years, it now has just 200,000 more people than Georgia (versus an edge of nearly 1.8 million in 2000).

You may have already read about some of the other trends: The South was the fastest-growing region, and Republican-leaning states by and large gained at the expense of Democratic-leaning states. Most of the growing states remain in the “red” category after this year’s mid-term elections, meaning they are not turning purplish due to their influx of blue-state emigres.

Here are some specifics from those trends that caught my eye:

  • For the first time since it became a state, California will not add a House seat due to reapportionment; it stays at 53.
  • Ohio (16 seats, down from 18) will have its smallest congressional delegation since the 1820s; New York (27 seats, down from 29) its smallest since the 1810s; and Pennsylvania (18, down from 19) its smallest since the 1800s. Pennsylvania peaked at 36 and New York at 45 (in the 1930s and ’40s, when it was the nation’s largest delegation).
  • Florida’s delegation (27, up from 25) is now as large as the Empire State’s, tied for third-largest after California and Texas (36, up from 32).
  • Massachusetts (nine, down from 10) has never had so few members of the U.S. House; it had 14 in the 1st Congress, which began in 1790, and peaked at 20.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook

145 comments Add your comment

HDB

December 21st, 2010
2:22 pm

The question is this: Will reapportionment be skewed towards the GOP to ensure that only Republicans will be elected…or will reapportionment be done so that ALL will have a voice!!?? Looks like the Voting Rights Act will be prominent in the reapportionment, won’t it??

Oh BOO

December 21st, 2010
2:22 pm

Oh this is terrible news! Poor democrats are going to lose congressional seats and gasp… the Messiah is at risk in 2012!

Oh BOO

December 21st, 2010
2:23 pm

The Voting rights act is a relic of the past and should have never been renewed. Shame on the GOP for passing it and signing it into law in 2005.

Retired Soldier

December 21st, 2010
2:24 pm

With the new seat and redrawing the only white democrat’s district into republican Georgia should have two more R’s going to Congress in 2012.

This also bodes ill for Obama in 2012, aw shucks.

Retired Soldier

December 21st, 2010
2:27 pm

HBD-

Was that your viewpoint in 2002 when the Dem’s devised the silly districts we lived with until a federal court threw them out? Just askin…

HDB

December 21st, 2010
2:31 pm

Retired Soldier
December 21st, 2010
2:27 pm

If reapportionment created districts that ensured that ALL voices were heard rather than being gerrymandered to ensure Republican/Democratic control…then I’d have no problem!!

Oh BOO December 21st, 2010
2:23 pm

So you’re against people having reprensentation that THEY duly elected?? You are against minorities having their voices heard?? The Voting Rights Act is needed moreso NOW than before…….

Kyle Wingfield

December 21st, 2010
2:31 pm

HDB: You’re mixing up reapportionment and redistricting…but, yes, I would expect Republicans’ big wins last month to show up prominently in the redistricting process. The changes may be particularly sharp in states where Democrats have been in control of the process in the past and drew the districts in their own favor.

You’re right about the Voting Rights Act also figuring prominently. Amazingly, this will be the first time since the law was passed that a Democrat is in the White House during redistricting. I expect lawsuits in just about every state, and a lot of decisions left to the courts.

StJ

December 21st, 2010
2:32 pm

The data seems to suggest that the most conservative folks in the blue states have seen the writing on the wall and got the hell outta there. Then there are some of us who saw the writing on the wall long ago and never moved there to begin with.

(PS: Snow is fun, but not if you have to drive to work in it.)

King of Sandy Springs

December 21st, 2010
2:35 pm

@HDB
It goes both ways, jerk. John Lewis really represents Sandy Springs doesn’t he?

Retired Soldier

December 21st, 2010
2:44 pm

HDB-

Sanford Bishop better thank his lucky stars, without the Voting Rights Act he would be treated like other democrats and redistricted out of a job.

HDB

December 21st, 2010
2:45 pm

Kyle — thanks for the correction……..

King of Sandy Springs
December 21st, 2010
2:35 pm

Yes, he does…..as long as Sandy Springs is a part of the 5th Congressional District……

A Hearty Cheese Sauce

December 21st, 2010
2:46 pm

AHH HAHAHAAAA!!! More power for the GOP and less for the idiotic left dingbats. John Lewis is a nothing more than an ignorant fat drunken fool and shouldve been tossed out long ago. He can thank his “blackness” for keeping him in.

Dawg

December 21st, 2010
2:48 pm

What a surprise. The leftist states governed by the Demwits are losing population because those states are broke and there are no jobs. Let’s hope the losers can’t find their way to Interstates leading South.

HDB

December 21st, 2010
2:50 pm

Retired Soldier
December 21st, 2010
2:44 pm

Also think about this: if the Voting Rights Act had not been created/enforced, the “Southern Strategy” would be further enhanced…and minorities would have little or NO electoral impact!! At least, minorities are GUARANTEED a seat at the electoral table!

Jefferson

December 21st, 2010
2:53 pm

More liars to worship for the neo cons. Keep eating crap and barking at the moon, you’ll be lucky to get a table scrap every now & then.

Grasshopper

December 21st, 2010
2:53 pm

‘and Republican-leaning states by and large gained at the expense of Democratic-leaning states.’

Best news I’ve had all day. Now if we could just get a serious challenger to Mr. Irrelevant himself — John Lewis.

A Hearty Cheese Sauce

December 21st, 2010
2:54 pm

“At least, minorities are GUARANTEED a seat at the electoral table!”

Uh no. Everyone is guaranteed the right to vote which may or may not include a seat that caters to the minority.

HDB

December 21st, 2010
3:01 pm

A Hearty Cheese Sauce
December 21st, 2010
2:54 pm

The point is that my right to vote HAS BEEN GUARANTEED!! Remember all of the roadblocks that were placed to keep minorities away from the ballot box?? Poll taxes, disenfranchisement……..

I’m not speaking of a minority seat (although that IS a good thing!) in particular…..but knowing that my representative represents ME…..THAT’S the point!!

Retired Soldier

December 21st, 2010
3:02 pm

HBD-

Which is more than can be said for a non-minority in many states, say Calif. White republicans will really get a fair shake there right buddy? It seems to me we should all play by the same rules, after all it’s the 21st century.

HDB

December 21st, 2010
3:03 pm

Grasshopper

December 21st, 2010
2:53 pm
“‘and Republican-leaning states by and large gained at the expense of Democratic-leaning states.’ Best news I’ve had all day. Now if we could just get a serious challenger to Mr. Irrelevant himself — John Lewis”

If Republicans would QUIT IGNORING minorities as constitutents…if Republicans would CAMPAIGN in the inner cities…if Republicans would address issues in minority neighborhoods…if Republicans would quit denigrating the inner cities……..

Still waiting……..

Retired Soldier

December 21st, 2010
3:04 pm

HBD-

Just like redistricting, you need to read the Voting Rights Act. Before you sing the glories of it you ought to know what it does.

joe

December 21st, 2010
3:05 pm

@ boo hoo- The Messiah was thought to be at great risk, even prior to this being announced. As long as the GOP doesn’t shat themselves over the next 2 years, there should be a republican pres in 2012.

Jefferson

December 21st, 2010
3:10 pm

The GOP will unsuccessfully spend all their capital trying to undo things rather than improve anything, the president has done more than they can handle…and folks who earn income will pay for it, along with the interest on the debt. Dogs chasin’ their tails.

carlosgvv

December 21st, 2010
3:12 pm

A majority of the 1.5 million residents we’ve added over the last ten years are probably illegal aliens. Hard to actually know which way they’ll vote. I guess whoever pays the most will get their votes. Only in America!!!!

HDB

December 21st, 2010
3:19 pm

Retired Soldier
December 21st, 2010
3:02 pm

Problem is this: in the South, the rules were NEVER the same for minorities — particularly black voters!! Look at the historical resistance in the South towards black voters….and the ignoring of black people as constituents by the GOP!! In California, white Republicans ARE represented in Congress (Tom McClintock – CA-4; George P. Radanovich, CA-19; Devin Nunes, CA-21; Walter Herger – CA-2; Daniel Lungren, CA-3; Kevin McCarthy, CA-22….); out of 53 congressional districts in California, 19 Republicans were elected (35%)…….

What would be the possibility that a black Republican would be elected to a statewide office in Georgia!? (Answer: Slim or NONE!) How many black Republicans have been elected to national office in the Modern Era? (Answer: 6)

The more the rules are changed, the more the change favors the FAVORED!!

Grasshopper

December 21st, 2010
3:20 pm

“If Republicans would QUIT IGNORING minorities as constitutents…if Republicans would CAMPAIGN in the inner cities…if Republicans would address issues in minority neighborhoods…if Republicans would quit denigrating the inner cities……..

Still waiting……..”

You mean white conservatives need to ride to the rescue of the minorities in the inner cities? Here’s an idea…why don’t minorities realize that the libs have been duping them and become conservative and save themselves? Oh wait…that would mean ending food stamp and cell phone subsidies. When Hades freezes over, right?

Steve

December 21st, 2010
3:21 pm

You Conservatives never get enough money, power, bribes, congressional seats etc do you? How much is enough?? John Lewis is very relevant and have serve this state well compared to the conservatives who have stole and divided us as a people.
Well Conservatives don’t celebrate too soon because the hispanic population is the fastest growing group in GA and in long term they are going to vote for Democrats especially in states like Texas where they are a major part of the population. And if you loose TX you will have no chance of ever winning the white house…lol So enjoy it now Conservatives and continue to bash Obama, John lewis because in the end we will have the last laugh…LOL

BlahBlahBlah

December 21st, 2010
3:28 pm

NY’s lost seats will likely be moderate upstate Republicans. There won’t be any “D” seats going away.

Retired Soldier

December 21st, 2010
3:29 pm

HBD-

Again you have your “facts” incorrect. There has only been one miniority elected to “national” office, that’s Obama. I assume the others you mean are black senators, that is not national office.

Do you think only 35% of calif wants republican congressmen? Of course not, that was done by the democratic legislature during redistricting. The difference is, no voting rights act in Calif to protect the rights of people like me. Fair? You make the call.

HDB

December 21st, 2010
3:29 pm

Grasshopper
December 21st, 2010
3:20 pm

“You mean white conservatives need to ride to the rescue of the minorities in the inner cities?”

That’s evident of the condescention that alienates the GOP in the black community! Note what I said: 1) See black people in the inner cities AS constituents; 2) CAMPAIGN in the inner cities; 3) Address important issues of the inner cities!!

That is NOT rescuing….
You’d be surprised as to how many black people would vote Republican IF they would address us as CONSTITUENTS!! Lest many forget – prior to 1964, the preponderance of black people VOTED Republican…..but when Barry Goldwater, Jesse Helms, Ronald Reagan and the racist side of conservatism came forth, the voting patterns shifted!!

Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it!!!!

HDB

December 21st, 2010
3:36 pm

Retired Soldier
December 21st, 2010
3:29 pm

When I speak of “national” office….that’s also Congress. Granted, it’s a state election, but that representative speaks for us on the national platform, i.e., Congress! There’ve only been two black Senators and 4 black Congressmen who were elected Republicans in the modern era.

BTW: California IS covered by the Voting Rights Act……(Counties
California: Kings, Merced, Monterey, Yuba)…..

Kyle Wingfield

December 21st, 2010
3:43 pm

Steve @ 3:21: See if you can answer this without the aid of Google:

According to national exit polls for U.S. House races in the 2010 midterm elections, which was greater?
a) the percentage of white voters choosing Democrat candidates, or
b) the percentage of Hispanic voters choosing Republican candidates

Grasshopper

December 21st, 2010
3:44 pm

‘You’d be surprised as to how many black people would vote Republican IF they would address us as CONSTITUENTS!!’

— Exactly how does a conservative go about doing this?
— CAMPAIGN for what?
— What important issues are you talking about?

Specifics would be helpful.

rdh

December 21st, 2010
3:55 pm

The data seems to suggest that the most conservative folks in the blue states have seen the writing on the wall and got the hell outta there.

These certainly seems true. Additionally, there has been an exodus of wealth from states such as NY and CA to Conservative states, which implies that many of those who left were wealthy. If they weren’t conservative when they lived there, they certainly were when they left.

What, exactly, do blue state Democrats think will happen when they demonize (as evil, selfish, lazy people) those who worked hard to become wealthy. Why is it that Democrats always believe that they can persuade people to their side by insulting them?

This bodes well in another ways. Example: when the blue states come begging for state bailouts, they have a rude awakening. The rich blue states of California/Connecticut/Massachusetts/Illinois/Nevada/NY will not be getting a bailout. Screw ‘em. They can cut state services and funding to the bone in the same way that the red states have.

HDB

December 21st, 2010
3:56 pm

Grasshopper December 21st, 2010
3:44 pm

— Exactly how does a conservative go about doing this?
Quite easily: COME INTO THE INNER CITIES AND ASK FOR THE VOTE! Campaign in West End, Admasville, Collier Heights, College Park, Vine City in the same way that’s done in Gwinnett, Cobb, and South Georgia!! Open campaign offices in the INNER CITY…and address issues that are important in the community!!

— CAMPAIGN for what?
Another easy answer: Jobs, education, equal opportunity/protection, anti-discrimination, transportation…….quit pressing the mantra of lower taxes; we are willing to put our tax money towards those points that are important in the community. The persistent “cut taxes” mantra reinforces the fact that conservatives think that government isn’t required….but it’s more evident that government needs to be more EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT!! You campaign to represent an community and note the issues that are important to that area!! How can you say you represent a population when you WON’T GO MEET with that population!!???

— What important issues are you talking about? — Note above!!

Simple……

StJ

December 21st, 2010
3:59 pm

The downside to gaining districts is that we’ll have to wait for Hank “The island will capsize!” Johnson to retire or commit some heinous crime before we’re rid of him. Most kids in the third grade know that islands don’t capsize, but somehow this clown won in a landslide.

Maybe IQ tests for voting purposes are illegal, but requiring an IQ test to run for office would be a good start.

HDB

December 21st, 2010
4:02 pm

Kyle Wingfield
December 21st, 2010
3:43 pm

The question is Texas…..

from the Washington Post:
Much of the population spike in states that gained congressional districts, such as Texas and Arizona, is due to an influx of Hispanics, who tend to vote Democratic.

Since the Republican legislature will redraw the districts, will the Hispanic vote be marginalized in a similar manner as black people have been?? As we agree, the Voting Rights Act will be CRUCIAL in the new determination!!

HDB

December 21st, 2010
4:05 pm

rdh
December 21st, 2010
3:55 pm
“Why is it that Democrats always believe that they can persuade people to their side by insulting them?”

Question: Why is it that Republicans always believe that they can persuade black people to their side by insulting them?

Same question, different audience!!

Kyle Wingfield

December 21st, 2010
4:21 pm

HDB @ 4:02: What I’m trying to point out is that the Hispanic vote wasn’t as lopsided as lines like that one from WaPo would lead you to believe.

Nationally, Dems won 60% of the Hispanic vote and the GOP got 38%. That actually represents a move in Republicans’ favor compared with the past couple of election cycles. And it happened in spite of things like the Arizona election law — which, conventional wisdom held, was going to cost the GOP votes among Hispanics everywhere.

The percentages in Texas were almost identical — and almost identical to that state’s Senate race in 2006, when the Dems ran a Hispanic candidate.

It was worse for the GOP in Arizona this year than in 2008, but about the same as in 2006.

All this to say, I think it’s still very much TBD whether they will continue to “tend to vote Democratic.”

StJ

December 21st, 2010
4:28 pm

HDB: Wondering why Republican Senate candidates don’t spend time in the inner city campaigning? Take a look at the House results in past elections in the Atlanta urban areas (for example).

The Republicans running in those districts couldn’t even break 30% of the vote in the past 4 elections. Now, if I’m a Repubican Senate candidate with limited funding and limited time for campaigning, do you really think I’m going to waste a lot of my time and money there? Absolutely not. The majority of my time will be spent in contested districts where I at least have a chance of winning, even if it’s only 51% of the vote.

It’s about getting the most positive results for the time and money spent. I’m sure if you write to Johnny or Saxby, you will at least get a response back (which is more than I can say for Max Cleland).

get out much?

December 21st, 2010
4:31 pm

rdh@3:55 – If the conservative red states would stop milking the “rich” blue states for federal dollars, they would not need bailing out: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

Michael H. Smith

December 21st, 2010
4:47 pm

How will reapportionment play out considering the gains Republicans made in State legislatures and Governorships last election? New York and Ohio lost two House seats, will those seats now change Party hands as Texas picked-up five House seats and Georgia picked-up one? Notwithstanding all the Donkeys that have now donned Elephant suits?

Does the word DEVASTATING enter the mind?

Don’t blow your golden opportunity Republicans, 2012 could be a grand slam year.

rdh

December 21st, 2010
5:04 pm

getoutmuch @4:31 – if you pull those dollars from Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, who do you think in those states will be hurting the most? You basically have rich blue states propping up poor red states ( and tell us about the demographics of the poor in those states….) through federal legislation. But is is a false assertion to suggest that the richest states bailing out the poorest states through federal dollars is the cause for the rich state’s downfall. That would suggest that the states have claim to those federal tax dollars… that not allowing the federal government to take it would allow the states to take it, and that would solve their budget problems. That is nowhere near the truth.

The federal portion of Mississippi’s state budget is $5.9 billion. If only paying their fair share, they would return $3billion to the Feds. California’s budget DEFICIT is $25 billion If ALL of the poorest southern red states returned their “overage” of Federal dollars, it would not cover California’s deficit or prevent California’s default. It would, however, plunge the minority constituents of those states into even worse poverty.

So for all you who believe ” the conservative red states are milking the “rich” blue states for federal dollars”, do the research and the math instead of sticking up links to websites that don’t tell the whole story. The budgets, income, and spending of the rich blue states FAR outweigh those of red states even when Federal dollar “parity” is taken into consideration.

Retired Soldier

December 21st, 2010
5:04 pm

Kyle-

I agree with you about the hispanic vote, it is very much open for republicans. That said, republicans shouldn’t scarifice principal or pander in order to get the hispanic vote or any other vote. Hispanics are culturally conservative which makes them receptive to the republican message.

Once we seal the border and establish a reasonable guest worker program I think republicans will do much better.

Road Scholar

December 21st, 2010
5:06 pm

From the info presented there has been a migration from northern states to the south. But I do not see the data that all these who migrated are conservatives. Maybe they are undercover liberals/independants that want to “balance” the red states into something more liberal? Or they are tired of the cold and snow? Or they are looking for JOBS? Yeah, that’s it they are MIGRANT WORKERS! ( Pause. Waiting for the conserves to have a hissy fit and infer that they are really illegal!)

I haven’t seen so much excitement concerning YANKEES coming to the south since the War of the Northern Agression! Besides, I wouldn’t think that the conserves would stoop to the level of Barnes (King Rat to the mannerless) in “fixing” the congressional district boundaries. Yeah, right. If a liberal does it, it’s wrong. If a conservative does the same thing, it’s ok. Isn’t that the mantra?

Michael H. Smith

December 21st, 2010
5:07 pm

Kyle Wingfield

December 21st, 2010
4:21 pm

A couple of things Kyle, on this little bigoted ethnocentric game the Democrats play by grouping voters into a lump. The people in your discussion who are U.S. Citizens are not monolithic, they do think independently and individually for themselves on the issues when they vote. They are by majority politically, socially and economically Conservative, which best fits the Republican Party. Lastly, not all of them are sympathetic to illegal immigration or desire to see amnesty given to illegal aliens because of their ancestry and heritage.

snarf

December 21st, 2010
5:17 pm

gtovernor barbour is a typical southern racist.

Kyle Wingfield

December 21st, 2010
5:20 pm

Michael H. Smith @ 5:07: Agree, which is why I was trying to show how un-monolithic (word?) they are, according to the exit polls.

HDB

December 21st, 2010
5:30 pm

StJ December 21st, 2010
4:28 pm

“HDB: Wondering why Republican Senate candidates don’t spend time in the inner city campaigning? Take a look at the House results in past elections in the Atlanta urban areas (for example). The Republicans running in those districts couldn’t even break 30% of the vote in the past 4 elections.”

They couldn’t break 30% because they didn’t CAMPAIGN in the city! How can you state that you represent me…if you don’t even take the time to come ASK me for my vote!! By ignoring…you LOSE possible voters!!

“It’s about getting the most positive results for the time and money spent. I’m sure if you write to Johnny or Saxby, you will at least get a response back (which is more than I can say for Max Cleland).”

Haven’t heard from Johnny or Saxby…but I could ALWAYS get to Max when I needed him!! Can also give perspectives from living in Minnesota; when I needed Congressional assistance with the Department of Education, I went to both Senators in Minnesota (where I went to grad school)….the Republican didn’t even take the time to make a call; the Democrat not only went to work on he problem, he SOLVED the problem withing 24 hours!!!

IGNORING a CONSTITUENT WILL NEVER GET ONE VOTES!!

HDB

December 21st, 2010
5:39 pm

Michael H. Smith
December 21st, 2010
5:07 pm

“A couple of things Kyle, on this little bigoted ethnocentric game the Republicans play by grouping voters into a lump. The people in your discussion who are U.S. Citizens are not monolithic, they do think independently and individually for themselves on the issues when they vote. By ignoring a constituency and not deeming them worthy forces voters to ignore the GOP. By being socially conservative, they ignore the fact that conservatism has a racist tinge that has yet to be fully addressed; by being fiscally conservative, they wish to deny access to programs that lead towards progress; by being politically conservative, they ignore and marginalize possible constituents in order to pander to those with means. Lastly, they deny the fact that the design of their corporate mentors is to depress the wage scale by importing cheap labor, marginalize the American worker, taking jobs offshore, while simultaneously profiting from the misfortunes of others.”

This would be an accurate statement also…….