Cross-posted at The Rockoff Rag
From The Hill: A study has been released by Election Data Services that attempts to incorporate new data from the US Census Bureau in order to project how the results of the 2010 census will change the electoral college for the 2012 Presidential Election:
http://www.electiondataservices.com/...
As The Hill describes, most of the projected shifts benefit southern and western states in the Sunbelt at the expense of the industrial Midwest and Northeast. As these areas projected to lose electoral votes are essentially the core of any Democratic presidential candidate’s electoral strategy, this shift deserves attention. A quick look at the numbers shows the challenges ahead, not only for Barack Obama in 2012 but for future Democratic presidential candidates (remember, these numbers will affect whoever the nominees are in 2016 and 2020 as well).
The report this diary links to contains five separate trends, or rates of population change. The first projects a long term model based on the rate of population change for the last 8 years. That is, it looks at how population has shifted since 2000 and projects that rate to create an estimate for 2010 data. The next three trends take rates from slightly smaller periods of time, although the time periods begin closer to the present year. These are the shifts in population from 2004 to 2008, 2005 to 2008, and 2006 to 2008. The last trend looks at how populations have changed from 2007 to 2008 and projects an estimate based on that rate to 2010.
The three different rates lead to different electoral outcomes, making it difficult to assess the exact number of electoral votes each state will have in 2012. The long term rate that includes data since 2000 affects 12 congressional seats and 18 states, with 11 states losing votes and 7 gaining. The middle rates affect 13 congressional seats and either 20 or 21 states, and the shorter rate impacts 12 congressional seats and 19 states. For those interested in a state by state analysis using the different trend lines, Table D on the report charts which states gain or lose seat under the different rates.
For the purposes of this diary, we’ll look more closely at the recent short term rate from just 2007 to 2008. As Kimball Brace, President of Election Data Services, Inc., pointed out, this trend line represents possibly the most accurate rate as a result of changes in the housing market in the last two years, the 2008 recession and diminishing time until the next Census begins.
Under the short term trend, the following states gain electoral votes:
Arizona (2)
Florida (1)
Georgia (1)
Nevada (1)
Oregon (1)
South Carolina (1)
Texas (4)
Utah (1)
And these states lose electoral votes:
Illinois (-1)
Iowa (-1)
Louisiana (-1)
Massachusetts (-1)
Michigan (-1)
Minnesota (-1)
Missouri (-1)
New Jersey (-1)
New York (-1)
Ohio (-2)
Pennsylvania (-1)
Longer term rates, for those curious, conclude that in addition to these numbers, California may lose 1 electoral vote, North Carolina may gain 1, and Florida may gain 2.
However, sticking with the data from the short term rate, let us now turn to what the Electoral College would look like if the results from 2008 hold until 2012. Obama defeated McCain by 365 electoral votes to 173, for a total of 538 electoral votes, using the 2000 census numbers. However, with these population shifts, Obama loses 10 electoral votes from IL, IA, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NY, OH, and PA. He gains just 3 electoral votes from FL, NV and OR, for a net loss of 7 electoral votes. McCain, on the other hand, would lose 2 electoral votes and pick up 9, for a net gain of 7 electoral votes. The new electoral vote under this scenario would thus be 358 for Obama to 180 for McCain.
Hardly a tragedy, yes. But consider how that same shift of 7 electoral votes would have affected the 2000 presidential election if Al Gore had been the beneficiary. A shift of 7 electoral votes is a very big deal.
This study just gives further credence to the idea that Democrats need to compete nationwide, in all 50 states. With people literally moving out of our base, we need to compete everywhere. Something to consider: Barack Obama took approximately 45% of the vote in Arizona against a home state candidate, and Arizona is projected to increase from 10 electoral votes to 12. If Obama could take that state in 2012, all else being equal, he would make up for the loss of 7 net electoral votes.
So happy holidays, everyone, but when you come back, use that fact as a motivation to work a little harder for the causes you care about. The 2012 presidential election is closer than you think. If you want proof, here it is:
Des Moines Register
They're already in Iowa.
--
On a side note, I've just begun a new blog, The Rockoff Rag, so if you liked this political analysis check it out as I'll be updating it regularly with all the top political news from around the web. Thanks for reading.