WSJ: Census makes Obama’s re-election more difficult
Here’s an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal detailing why 2010 Census results may make re-election more difficult for President Obama:
President George W. Bush would not have won the 2000 election had the 1960 map been in use. But the population movement that occurred over 40 years shifted enough electoral votes from states Democrat Al Gore won to states that Mr. Bush won to make the difference. And for that matter, President John F. Kennedy would not have won the White House had the 2000 Electoral College numbers been in place in 1960.
The best guess – and it is more than a guess since reasonably accurate population projections for the states are no secret – is that the following states are likely to gain one seat in Congress and one electoral vote: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington. Texas will gain at least two and probably three. One other state is likely to gain a seat, but it is not clear at this point which one it will be.
Five of those states, including Texas, went for Republican John McCain in 2008, but all except Washington backed Mr. Bush in the close 2000 and 2004 elections – an indication that if 2012 is as close as it was in those two years, this year’s census could give the GOP nine of the 10 votes.
Tags: Arizona, float, Florida, Georgia, McCain, Nevada, reapportionment, South Carolina, Utah, Wall Street Journal, WSJ
June 22nd, 2010 at 4:09 am
Why in the hell is there an apostrophe in “makes” in the headline?
June 22nd, 2010 at 8:27 am
Obama is making Obama’s re-election more difficult.
June 22nd, 2010 at 11:50 am
But… I thought that this was “Obama’s Census”. If he & his liberal socialist buddies are falsifying forms and manipulating data, why are they making it so that they lose representation?
June 22nd, 2010 at 5:51 pm
The census will have nothing to do with his defeat. His incompetance will see to that.
June 22nd, 2010 at 8:48 pm
I am a Democrat surrounded by Republicans and Tea Party Conservatives. I voted for President Obama. However, I will NOT vote for him again. I will vote for CHANGE!
June 23rd, 2010 at 8:56 pm
One of the effects of interstate migration is to turn red states more purple or even blue. It is more likely that the net GOP gain the in EC would be 7 of the 10. And when you look at a short list of possible GOP candidates so far, I’m not so sure they can count on much outside of Dixie and Militia-Land.
June 24th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
The hope is that by not checking voter ID, or by granting amnesty, enough new immigrant Texans will swing the state blue. However, one could argue that Mexican Americans have more in common with Republicans than Democrats (importance of family, religious beliefs, strong work ethic as opposed to dependence on gov’t, etc.)