RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
So I saw this article in the dispatch
WASHINGTONâ€â€If a state's congressional clout lies at least partially in its numbers, then Ohio's power in Washington is about to shrink - again.The state's 18-seat U.S. House delegation will be slashed by two after the 2010 census, according to a study by Election Data Services, a Virginia-based consulting company that does congressional reapportionment analyses.
That means that no matter who wins U.S. House races in Ohio in November, two incumbents won't have seats to run for in 2012.
And this bit in particular:
Ohio lost one seat after the 2000 census and two seats after the 1990 census. The state had 23 seats in 1980 but lost two after that census.
Got me thinking about longer term trends.
The NY Times also covers the decline of midwest political influence:
Whatever the outcome of the fall elections, one political loser this year seems certain: the Midwest.
...
Even amid the partisan positioning, fear of diminishing political clout for the region cuts across party lines. Leaders worry that issues like protecting the Great Lakes, providing winter heat assistance for struggling families, and cleaning up old industrial sites will eventually be pushed aside, overtaken by the expanding Sun Belt’s clout and its unique worries. They fret about less influence in future presidential elections; fewer Congressional seats means fewer electoral votes. And, at its simplest level, these leaders worry that fewer federal dollars will find their way to the nation’s middle.
...
By the time a new Congress arrives in 2013, the Midwest is expected to hold a little more than one-fifth of the seats, according to an analysis by Eric J. Ostermeier of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. (That compares with estimates of 24.4 percent of seats held by the West, 35.9 by the South, and just 18.2 percent by the Northeast.)
...
Still, some of the broad trends are clear, the experts say. The expected winners: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington. The likely losers: Louisiana; East Coast states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania; and a chunk across the Midwest. (Ohio, in fact, is predicted by two analysts to lose two House seats.)
Mother Jones is focused on the political implications:
The bottom line is that the results aren't good for Barack Obama and the Democrats. Solid blue states New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Jerseyâ€â€states that have gone for the Democrat in every presidential election since 1992â€â€are set to lose seven electoral votes. Washington is the only reliably Democratic state that is poised to gain a seat. Meanwhile, solid red states Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah are set to gain a net seven electoral votes. Louisiana, which Bill Clinton won twice but has been a solid red state since Katrina, will lose a seat. There are changes going on in key swing states, too. Arizona and Nevada are both set to gain a seat, and Florida will gain two. Iowa and Missouri, meanwhile, will lose a seat eachâ€â€and Ohio, long a national bellwether, will lose two.
MJ seems focused on the redistricting possibilities:
A party with full control of a state's legislative and executive branches will have the ability to run wild with redistricting. Right now, the GOP is threatening to do just that in a number of key midwestern states.Republicans have a real shot of controlling the entire redistricting process in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. If the GOP can sweep those contests, Republicans can cut the heart out of any potential Democratic House majority going forward.
And Politico has this to say about redistricting in Ohio specifically:
In Ohio, where GOP challenger John Kasich leads Democratic incumbent Ted Strickland in the contest for governor, Republicans have a good shot to take over the legislature. With GOP control of redistricting, Democrats would face a risk of major losses in the congressional delegation, which they now control 10-to-8. But several House Democrats could be defeated in November, which would affect the redistricting calculus. Population losses have been most striking in Democratic-dominated northeast Ohio.
Seems like since at least 1980 population as been declining in Ohio and rising in Red states. That seems to imply, at the least, that Ohio residents aren't taking their party affiliation with them. In other words, places that have gained population haven't gained democrats.
The redistricting angle is interesting as well. While Strickland's numbers are improving ( and as a RKBA voter I'm supporting him ) I wonder if the Ohio house will go GOP.
Long term though, it appears the midwest as a whole and Ohio in particular are of declining importance.
People seem to be flocking to Red states in the south and southwest; with that population influx, those states also don't appear to be becoming more Blue.
Thoughts?
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.