troubling stats from the Census Bureau

Are Blue states getting less Blue ? See what you make of it.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110003942

It will Californianize the rest of the country.

A lot of the people leaving California are "white flight" from places like Orange County and San Diego. When the aerospace sector declined, coupled with the rising Latino population, they left California for places like Idaho and Colorado. Unfortunatley this migration has hurt Democratic prospects in places like Colorado. California's increased Democratic strength has been Colorado's loss.

"This may leave the blue states bluer than ever, but not very pleasant places to live if their most industrious, motivated citizens are loading up one-way U-Hauls."

Who says they are the industrious and motivated and not just fixed-income retirees who don't want to pay taxes? It's not necessarily a great thing for a state to have a huge influx of people whose sole motivation is to avoid paying for schools and other infrastructure.

So many Americans are convinced they can run from their problems and that it's someone else's responsibility to clean up the mess they leave behind.

but either way, oldsters or the young people that it does specifically mention, its dispersing typical Democratic voters into fairly solidly Red states. And further evidense that the Party is losing its new voters for lack of an effective message to them.

They are claiming that about 750,000 more people moved out of California than moved into California from 1995 to 2000. The total population of the state increased from 31,696,582 in 1995 to 33,871,648 in 2000. That would mean that about 3 million more babies were born in California during that period than people who died. That is a very high birth rate in an country, let alone a developed country.



http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/counties/tables/CO-EST2001-12/CO-EST2001-12-06.php?PHPSESSID=da3f34e6f1cf5b7250ee5163c94c630a

if it's low income then perhaps you have more Democratic votes but the tax revenues continue to fall killing the social programs that they crave. Big defecit problems ensue (as we're seeing now) and you have a big mess which generally becomes a huge backlash. Sort of like what put Ronald Reagan in the Governor's Mansion way back when.

Thats big back lashes in traditional Blue States poised for not very far from now. Maybe in about a fourteen months.

From 2000 to 2002 California had a net internal migration of -167,775, a net international migration of 738,015 and a net total migration of 570,240.

In all likely hood, the period from 1995 to 2000 would show the same type of trend. While it is true that more people are moving from California to other states than are moving from other states to California. The net internal migration for the 1995 to 2000 period is probably about -250,000, but the net total migration for that period is probably +750,000, not -750,000.



http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/tables/ST-EST2002-07.php

they come to California, then go to the rest of the country from there.

I didn't read this article, but if he's suggesting that people don't like living in Democratic states he's full of crap.

that people are fleeing them. It is simply not true.

And you are correctly, Califoria is clearly an entrance point for immigrants and this explains the negative internal migration.

people have been moving South and West. That is not new.

they have high taxes and a withering tax base. Bad combination. And California is rather poorly run as well.

That is why they have such a vibrant economy (when Bush and Co are not fucking with it.)

and if the economy is so vibrant, mind you I don't agree with that comment, then why are their tax revenues in the shitter ?

And what does the economy have to do with how the state government is run ? California is a mess and has been for decades.

Despite what the WSJ says California gained a House Seat in the last redistricting.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

From the US Census Bureau the population of California continues to grow.

Gore lost Florida by only a couple hundred votes. Give them 100,000 blue state immigrants per year, and you'll soon have a hefty advantage for Democrats.

However, there are people moving to Florida from all over the country, but more of them are Republicans than Democrats. On the other hand, a almost as many poeple move to Florida from other countries as from other states and these people tend to be Democrats. Florida is turning blue fast.

Right now, Florida's oldest voters are mostly retirees who moved down here in the sixties, seventies and early eighties. The people tend to vote for Democrats, but they are very old and dying off quickly. The younger retirees who have been moving down here in the last 20 years, then to be more conservative. These conservative retirees tend to negate the Democratic immigrees, but they can only offset them for the current generation. The immigrees are young and are having children. The retirees are old and when they die, they are gone.

In 20 to 30 years, the electoral picture in Florida will look competely different. This is a problem that the Republicans are facing in a number of area and they know it. They are trying to work out the electoral math, but it just doesn't add up for them. The Republican party of 2030 will look nothing like the party you see before you today.

the states losing population are very populous (overcrowded?) and mostly northern. People appear to be moving to less urban mostly warmer states. More urban areas tend to be Dem, more rural are more likely to be Repub. If these folks keep voting dem in their new homes, this would be a very good trend.

I was receiving error messages indicating post hadn't gone through. Now I can't even edit them out because the time for revisions has passed. (After how many minutes?!)

I wish the data were more conprehensive

the states losing population are very populous (overcrowded?) and mostly northern. People appear to be moving to less urban mostly warmer states. More urban areas tend to be Dem, more rural are more likely to be Repub. If these folks keep voting dem in their new homes, this would be a very good trend.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

according to the most livable states ranking, from

http://www.morganquitno.com/sr02mlrnk.htm

the 'bad' states were rated:

CA 33
CT 9
IL 31
MA 5
MI 23
NJ 10
NY 37
PA 24

(average = 21.5)

the 'good' states were rated:

AZ 40
CO 7
FL 39
NV 34
NC 36
NC 41
TN 43
TX 29

(average 33.625)

these states are based on 43 different factors, so are probably much better indicators than the wsj article.

btw, top 5 states are: MN, IA, NH, VA, MA
bottom 5 are: MS, LA, AL, AR, NM (is AR the abbreviation for arkansas?)

... expressing their feelings with their feet ? Actually they demonstrate about the same points.

The stats are bullshit. The opinion journal column is based completely on inaccuracies.

it was based on 43 indicators of quality of life.

the wsj journal article was entirely about money - people are forced to go to live in places that suck because they have no money, not because it's they necessary think they're going to a better place as far as quality of life goes. and if they are, they'll probably find out they're sadly mistaken.

as for me, just because i don't live in beverley hills doesn't mean i don't think it'd be better than where i live now, i just can't afford it! (etc)

but here a few things (besides money) that contribute to quality of life:

30. Public High School Graduation Rate (Table 127)

31. Percent of Population Graduated from High School (Table 128)

32. Expenditures for Education as a Percent of All State and Local Government Expenditures (Table 134)

33. Percent of Population with a Bachelor's Degree or More (Table 151)

34. Books in Public Libraries Per Capita (Table 154)

35. Per Capita State Art Agencies’ Legislative Appropriations (Table 155)

so if somebody's chooses to express their feelings with their feet and leave a state that supports libraries and art for one that doesn't, somehow i suspect that says more about the person than about the state.

its not that they have no money, its that they can't afford it. And if taxes continue to rise they can afford it even less.

The opera in North Carolina may not be the Met but at least you can afford to go.

Being from one one of those states that are more affordable I'd argue that in our own way the quality of life is pretty nice.

if you like living among toxic waste dumps, driving over defective bridges while sharing the road with a bunch of drunk teenagers, well then you've found paradise! and if your taxes are low, yippee!

1. Percent Change in Number of Crimes: 1999 to 2000 (Table 27)

2. Crime Rate (Table 28)

3. State Prisoner Incarceration Rate (Table 62)

4. State Cost of Living Index (Table 90)

5. Pupil-Teacher Ratio in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools (Table 122)

6. Unemployment Rate (Table 171)

7. Percent of Nonfarm Employees in Government (Table 182)

8. Electricity Prices (Table 202)

9. Hazardous Waste Sites on the National Priority List per 10,000 Square Miles (Table 213)

10. State & Local Taxes as a Percent of Personal Income (Table 279)

11. Per Capita State and Local Government Debt Outstanding (Table 291)

12. Percent of Population Not Covered by Health Insurance (Table 345)

13. Births of Low Birthweight as a Percent of All Births (Table 361)

14. Teenage Birth Rate (Table 362)

15. Infant Mortality Rate (Table 368)

16. Age-Adjusted Death Rate by Suicide (Table 387)

17. Population per Square Mile (Table 432)

18. Divorce Rate (Table 489)

19. Poverty Rate (Table 500)

20. State and Local Government Spending for Welfare Programs as a Percent of All Spending (Table 507)

21. Percent of Households Receiving Food Stamps (Table 534)

22. Deficient Bridges as a Percent of Total Bridges (Table 550)

23. Highway Fatality Rate (Table 553)

24. Fatalities in Alcohol-Related Crashes as a Percent of All Highway Fatalities (Table 558)