With the census wrapping up, the EV count of some states will change in accordance with population changes over the last decade. It seems that the states that will (likely) gain EVs tend to have shifted blue while those that will (likely) lose EVs have shifted red. TX, AZ, NC, and possibly VA all stand to gain EVs. MI, WI, PA, and OH all stand to lose EVs. There seems to be a strong correlation between gaining population / becoming more blue and losing population / becoming more red.
My hypothesis is that this has to do with economic conditions, job loss, loss of industry, and so on. Those on the losing end seem to become more Republican.
Here is the gotcha. I don’t get why the people who have lost in the last decade’s economic changes tend to support Republicans. Democrats are the party that want to modernize the economy and help out the people in these struggling states. What’s going on with this? Also, if you disagree with my overall take on the situation, please feel free to point out where you think I went wrong.
I don’t think you’re wrong at all, the demographic changes – the Sun Belt states becoming bigger and bluer and the Rust Belt states proportionately smaller and redder – must be scaring the living crap out of the Republican party. Young, educated people are flocking to the south for opportunities that didn’t exist there before, coupled with a generally lower cost of living (this could change as those states become more urbanized).
Charlotte, the Triangle, Atlanta and the big Texas metros are becoming the new drivers of future elections. Maybe we should add in the Florida metros as well. Maricopa County (Phoenix) has become a must win for any statewide candidate in Arizona.
It’s pretty obvious to me why the economic and political power is shifting to the Sun Belt. What’s not obvious to me, something I’d love to hear opinions about, is why the older northern cities are struggling so much to adapt to the new information economies, Pittsburgh seemingly the lone exception. Maybe Columbus, too, I guess.
This is a fascinating subject and one of the most important determinants of the country’s future, imho.
While I don’t really disagree with your point, it’s not as simple as “blue states are growing, red states are shrinking.” All of the states that you listed as potentially losing EVs are actually growing. They’re just not growing as fast as other states, and since the number of Representatives is fixed that means they lose out in reapportionment. And some of the other states that are most likely to be losing seats (CA, NY, IL) are deep blue.
But it’s undeniable that the trend for decades has been a population shift from the Northeast and Midwest to the Sunbelt. More highly educated people tend to be more mobile and more liberal, so the states they move to tend to get bluer while the states they left behind become redder.
Agree with the posters up above as to demographics. Can’t add much.
I’d emphasize this one small point though:
This is true. And it’s true even if none of the people staying behind change their attitudes.
When you take (some of) the blue out of purple, what’s left behind is red(der).
The stay-behinds aren’t necessarily getting any redder as individuals, nor are they necessarily recruiting others to their side. They’re just no longer diluted as much as they were.
As a separate matter, the loss of blue dilution may well trigger a redward shift in individual and community attitudes. But that’s a bonus add-on to the basic arithmetic.
Many of these left-behinds don’t want to be helped into the future. They want the past to be restored. The R’s promise that in very simple language.
The D’s promise to try to help the same folks adapt to a new and as yet indeterminate future that itself is constantly changing. Couple that with an inherent suspicion (strongly fomented by Rs) that somehow the Ds will raise taxes yet fail to deliver the goods, at least to ordinary God Fearin’ WHITE people who’re second class citizens in their own gol darn country dammit! and the outcome seems pretty predictable.
Using Texas as an example, a lot of liberal New Yorkers have moved to Texas for jobs, and brought their liberal views with them. That’s why Texas is turning blue yet still growing.
So it doesn’t mean red = economically bad, blue = economically good. If anything, it’s the opposite. The red states are luring blue workers over.
I don’t disagree with anything LSLGuy just wrote. I would add that some number, maybe a large one, of Rust Belters are prey to simplistic solutions posed predominantly by Republicans. Put a stop to immigration so low wage foreigners stop taking our jobs. Step on China’s dick so manufacturing jobs can rebound. Subsidize fossil fuels for the jobs we’re used to doing.
None of those solutions holds up to nuanced scrutiny but the traditional conservative demographic in those steps is not by nature interested in nuanced solutions.
And before I go any further into the weeds on this subject, I would like to advance the idea that expansion of the House of Representatives, via something like the Wyoming Rule, would do both Rust Belt and Sun Belt states a world of good.
And those states like Texas will evolve economically as well as politically and culturally as these demographic changes continue. The new blue citizens of the Sun Belt will demand better educational institutions and infrastructure improvements, among other things, that will require higher taxes. Which will pressure the existing economies which are currently luring jobs with low taxes and costs of living. It’s evolution and it’s fascinating to watch.
I think that you’re mostly measuring increasing urbanization. The parties split pretty strongly urban/rural. And there aren’t any rural areas that are gaining population. All the population growth is in cities.
When people move from a rural area to a city (which is on-net happening), those people are both more likely to agree with Democratic politics and more likely to become more aligned with Democrats as they realize that the issues that urban people care about are now the issues that they, as an urban person, care about. The same happens in reverse for people who move from urban areas to rural, but there are fewer of those.
If all of that happened within states, you’d see small changes. But when people move between states, the more urban states have faster population growth and turn blue faster, and the more rural ones have lower population growth and turn red.
A lot of this is that blue states have just terrible housing policy and red states have pretty good housing policy (in the sense that they allow homes to be built). It’s not so much jobs (there are lots of jobs in New York City!) it’s that starter homes don’t cost $1+ million.
In the case of Illinois, the state is really only “deep blue” only on statewide votes (President, U.S. Senate, some state offices), and that’s due to the Chicago area, and Cook County in particular (which has 40% of the state’s residents). The “collar counties” have mostly been more Republican-leaning, though large portions of them seem to now be more “purple.” The rest of the state is pretty much deep red.
That’s every blue state, though. California as a whole is super blue. But if you look at the counties that don’t have cities in them, they’re quite red.
And these good points taken together say that the current situation where all-but unoccupied rural dirt has more voting power in Congress than vital future economy cities like Dallas, Los Angeles, and Atlanta will only get worse.
Yep, the inbuilt Senate, HoR, and EC advantages for the Rs only get bigger as the country’s populace turns farther away from them. Holy perverse outcomes, Batman!