Jeremy Haber is amusing and clever. I vote for him as the new pundit.

The numbers don't look good for the Dems because they are proving to be terrible at governing. In reality they are doing just fine as far as their corporate masters are concerned. But as far as the people they represent, they are doing a terrible job and will likely lose to Republicans regardless of the demographics. Then the Republicans can represent the corporate interests and 'we the people' will be left out in the cold once again.

An interesting and controversial premise. Most "experts" fear that the census will create more districts were the majority of voters are the accidental US citizen children of illegal immigrants. There is an assumption that most will be voting Democratic.

Not my favorite of the entries

I have to agree with many of the others: Haber's off base here. The movement of people to the Sunbelt used to be viewed as a huge boon to the GOP back in the 80s and early 90s. But clearly now it's a dual-edged sword, as red state after red state becomes purple, and then trends blue, as northerners and easterners bring their moderate and liberal values to their new homes. Clearly places like Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Arizona, Florida and Virginia are less reliably Republican than once upon a time. Texas and Georgia aren't far behind. Anyway, a shift of twelve electoral votes to the McCain states isn't that big a deal, in the scheme of things, given the fact that Obama won by nearly 200 electoral votes. Anything's possible, of course, but if the economy really did start growing again in the summer of 2009 as has been reported, Obama will end up facing the voters some 40 months into an expansion. And that almost always translates into an unassailably strong position for an incumbent president. Palin or Pawlenty or Romney or Huckabee are going to need more than a census-provided gift of twelve electoral votes to prevail.

Nice to here from someone intelligent and thought-provoking, full of interesting original (I hope) ideas.

I am skeptical of the attribution to "census estimates." The 2010 census is not complete, and unpublished. What is the source of "census estimates?" Is there a leak?

And if there were some migration of northern voters to southern cities, what evidence is there that presumably, left-leaning voters would morp into self-righteous voters?

Myopia usually affects wanna-be pundits.

This one is no different, since the magnitude
of the shift over to independent conservative voting patterns, now so dominant in Canada and much of Europe wasn't recognized.

Sarah Palin has a million dollars in the bank; over a 1,000 high paid speaking engagements, and an evolving independence that is driving both Republicans and Democrats crazy with envy.

Euroconservatives, flush with major victories in Great Britain and Germany, are quietly making inroads using social networking that isn't in the msm radar.

And who knows what other 'trends' are being tweeted and facebooked around?

This pretender is out of touch with these trends and his POV is narrow and somewhat elitist. The least he could have done with his fabled degrees is dissect several bellwether districts that are undergoing change and tell us who and what they will vote for in the future.....OR dissect how the ruling government class is using tax dollars to beat down any challenge to their unrestrained strangle hold on tax and other revenues; i.e. anti-TABOR coalitions.

The combo of SEIU/NEA/AFL-CIO/AFT & entrenched Democratic regimes may have reached the tipping point where people who benefit from government can now control any attempt to limit what it does. ....is real grassroots democracy really over? a real pundit would tell us!

movement from the northeast to texas will never turn texas blue. texas will not be blue for the next 20 years, at least. while some states - like New Mexico are becoming more liberal (or the conservatives are leaving places like that behind) - place like Texas have way too heavy a republican majority to go blue in a national election. he has a point, and the fact that you all are debating it and disagreeing with him demonstrates that this is a solid piece. in fact, it is not a red - leaning piece - he points out the irony in the republican policies - though I don't know the extent to which illegals will be counted in the census and then in the electoral college. what's also interesting, which he doesn't touch on here - is redistricting...
my only criticism is that this is not timely.

Arlingtonresident: How does the author's piece have a red state tilt? His piece is about objective data, not opinion. The author has received well-deserved criticism for a basic analytical flaw: his assumption that, as a state grows in population due to emigration from more liberal states, its voting pattern will remain unchanged. As many readers have pointed out, there is much reason to doubt this assumption. As voters move from the northeast and Great Lakes states, the populations of those states will decrease and they will lose electoral votes. That works to the disadvantage of Democracts. And as those voters move to traditionally Republican southern and southwestern states, those states will gain electoral votes, which works to the advantage of Republicans. But the process can not continue unabated. Eventually, all those new voters will flip a state, as we have already seen with Virginia and North Carolina. They may even flip a state that has gained electoral votes as a result of their migration, as we have seen with Nevada, and will likely soon see with Arizona. But to make the assumptions that the author did or to properly analyze the trend is not to be pro Republican or pro Democrat, Arlingtonresident. There are actually some things which don't have to be viewed through the prism of partisanship. Sometimes there are just facts.

Nice try, Mr. Haber, and kudos on your other accomplishments, but 2004 called. They want their analysis back.

Haber's comments starts off with a wrong premise. If people move from the Northeast to the South/Southwest, why will they suddenly change their voting preference from Democrats to Republicans? Sure, the Hispanic population is primed to grow, but a vast majority of them vote Democrats (Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, et al.) than Republicans (except in a few cases like George W Bush, who helped Hispanic owned small-businesses as the Governor of Texas). Not to speak that illegal immigrants don't have the right to vote - how will they propel the Republicans (or Democrats) into power. Faulty logic from start to end. Even more surprising is how the WaPo editors selected it as a top 10 entry!

I second the motion. Blah Blah Blah. Boring. Same - oh. I really want something new from the new pundit.

I simply do not accept this commentator's faulted premise.

As left-leaners migrate from their rust belt states to southern and southwestern states they will bring with them their voting tendencies and patterns. They will make their new states look more like them; not vice versa.

This is already the case in purple NM and CA. It's happening under your nose to CO. Thanks to its northern counties, its happening also to VA; and with migration into Research Triangle: NC.

The incredible wrong-ness of this commentator's pov does not lend much endoresement to the Kennedy School or Harvard.

This post has been split into 5 segments and is directed at all the finalists. If you want to find the other 4, check the other comment streams. They are all written by me, MsJS, and will all have approximately the same date/time stamp. This is segment #3.

OK, assuming you survive the popularity contest round, what happens next? Well, if I were WaPo, and I’m not nor do I have any connection to WaPo other than being an occasional online reader and puzzle enthusiast, I’d want to see whether you have the ability to attract the eyeballs of readers recruited by finalists who don’t make it to the next round. And that means you might want to consider how your punditry appeals to those outside your network base.

This does not mean these readers have to agree with you. It does mean they have to WANT to read what you have to say. You have to demonstrate you have the ability to attract and hold eyeballs for WaPo during the entire 13-week gig.

For my personal thoughts on that subject, please head to segment #4. This ends segment #3.

Some people are overlooking an important point about Arizona, Texas and Florida. Most Hispanics are Catholic. Not only are they the biggest Catholic block but they are also VERY CATHOLIC, not the pick and choose Catholics.

Given the stand on abortion rights that the democrats have taken, having a greater Hispanic vote is not going to help the democrats. All the self congratulations on appointing an Hispanic to the supreme court isn't going to change the traditional Hispanic family values.

Interesting column. Thx for writing it as I wasn't aware of this. Apparently it does take 3 Harvard degrees to understand the implications of this, since most of the comments have missed the point that these people have already moved. The census merely catches the electoral reality up to the demographic one. This will now simply shift the electoral votes such that the shifts in population that have already taken place will in fact count in elections, which means that these Red States that have already gained people will now gain in impact proportionally as well (and the reverse for the Blue States losing people). Now of course voting habits could change over the next decade, but that's a separate point.

Very good column, good points.

Obama should be popular and safe in 2012, so that leaves just one election before the next census in 2020.

By then, with Hispanic growth and migration from the East and Midwest, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida might be light blue or blue. And California may gain electoral votes. By 2030 even Texas might be only light red or even purple.

This is a strange editorial. Several other readers have identified a flaw in Mr. Haber's logic, so I will be brief.

Over the years hundred of thousands of people have moved from New York to Florida, but only a few people have moved from New York to Alabama. In light of this fact, which state voted overwhelmingly for McCain in last year's election and which voted for Obama? The influx of people from the Northeast to the South and Southwest not only will cause, but already has caused, the states thus affected to turn increasingly blue, not increasingly red.

Mr. Haber as pundit? I'm not so sure.

blah, blah, blah, more of the same. We already get this type of commentary everywhere we turn. Unoriginal.

Well you picked an interesting topic with the census, but your conclusion that (South=Red) and (more people in south=more delegates) concluding (trend=Red) is not sustained by the rest of the piece. You see the left is pandering to the poor with handounts in exchange for votes, and massive waves of illegal immigration into the Southwest will likely turn those states into Blue states. Bush the Second went out of his way to court that vote, and the statistics show that hispanic vote is tending Blue.

When you state an opinion that is not supported by the body, you will get a lot of responses to your column because many will be compelled to correct your flawed reasoning. The problem with making that a habit is that over time people will discount your column as being irrelevant.

Your last paragraph is by far the worst in the entire piece, and had you just omitted it entirely, the piece would have improved.

I would suggest you do a bit more research (for instance on this one, hit the Pew research center for statistics on the Hispanic vote) and post a little less unfounded opinion.

You commenters amuse me. Mr. Haber should have known better than to submit anything with a red-state tilt to a WaPo contest because you "progressive" idiots would never vote for something like that.

I wonder how this got through. I don't have much new to add to the points made, but should some of the judges be roated?

As I read this I tried to imagine if the Broder or Krauthammer could have wrote the same concern trolling words. Yes the could have. You will go far with this tripe.

It's a pundit they are seeking; not some one to pontificate. Pass -- come back when you've grown up.

Author did not mention that Republican bashing of Mexicans will cause the Southwest to become totally Democrat as California went from a strong Republican state to a Democrat state after Governor Pete Wilson demonized Mexicans who are 31% of California voters. Republicans are so suicidal following Bush over the cliff and now demonizing Mexicans who gave Republicans 45% of their votes in 2004 but much less in 2008. Maybe 26%

"That more red states are turning blue than blue statres [sic] turning red."

No kidding and this shallow analysis misses the point like the rest of these winners do. My God. They move to sunshine and go native? Hello, they still vote Democratic. "As Stephen King said of of drunks, in Duma Key, "You put a drunk on a plane in Boston and a drunk gets off the plane in Seattle." This also holds true for A-holes. People don't change much after a certain age.

congrats on being top 10. I say two thumbs down. Although I liked the writing, I have read a similar post (I think Politico) on this topic. The inaccuracies pointed out on a prior comment are inexcusable. Next.

Harvard, huh?
Haber shouldn't give up his day job, whatever it is. He has no future in political consulting. Terrible analysis and very poor understanding of demographic shifts in voting patterns.

The Washington Post has become laughably despicable. It's like a villain with a bad, obvious moustache, twirling it maniacally.

This gets into Harvard Law? Good grief.

Good article. Informative without being biased. How refreshing!

It reminds me of what investigative journalism used to be...and perhaps, its ideal.

Two thumbs up.

This guy needs to learn how to count and do basic arithmetic. Consider:

"According to Census Bureau estimates, eight states (Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania) will lose one congressional seat."

Iowa + Louisiana + Massachusetts + Michigan + Nevada + New Jersey + New York + Ohio + Pennsylvania = 9 states

Humorously enough, Nevada is mentioned again among the states projected to gain a seat.

"Five states (Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and Utah) stand to gain one seat and Texas will add three. This population shift from the Northeast to the South and Southwest has enduring political implications. Six of the eight states slated to gain congressional seats were won by John McCain."

Did this goofball even read his own piece to himself before submitting it? How could McCain win six of the eight states slated to gain congressional seats when you just said only five states are going to gain congressional seats?

Obviously, it's possible to deduce what this guy was actually trying to say. But come on, if you can't count on the author nor the editors of this "newspaper" to catch really egregious errors, what's the point of pretending like you're a legitimate news organization? Of course, what he meant to express was really simplistic, trivial and inaccurate anyway, so I suppose it doesn't matter.

These days, Harvard must be teaching the "You know what I meant" school of writing to all of its incoming brats.

I eagerly await Master Haber's next entry: "Unicorns - They're Here To Stay!"

Yes, concern trolling the Democrats and specious analysis like this will fit right into the WaPo's editorial motif. David Broder's replacement has been found.

The other comments do a good job of showing how facile and cherry picked this analysis is. The Republicans have mined the white straight Christian male demographic to the maximum, and come up short. They seem incapable of reaching beyond that. A few extra seats in Texas isn't really going to fix things.

Please! No more horse-race editorials. I am so sick of the who's ahead this five minutes and who's ahead the next five minutes. I want to read something of substance and this ain't it.

Political analysis to fit one's own views are a dime-a-dozen and it is mostly made up. Just look at George Will and Charles Krauthammer. I could make up an analysis off the top of my head that says just the opposite but would sound fine and mean absolutely nothing. I don't want to read this stuff even when it is for "my team."

This columnist celebrates law-breakers and criticizes those who ask that people that follow the law.

Many folks want to come to the US, but they should do so through the proper channels. I am in favor of expanding legal immigration (especially for the highly-skilled and trained).

I expect that there is a lot of opportunity to argue over the accuracy and wisdom of this analysis, and whether the changing demographics of various states make them more or less secure and shift the electoral college -- or not. Fundamentally, however, doesn't this just constitute more horse-race analysis of politics? I would rather read someone who can cogently analyze the issues of the day and form some actual conclusion about whether a political proposition is right or wrong, effective or ineffective. Horse-race analysis may be necessary to determine the probable outcome of politics, but the truth is that we already have far too much of that. What we need is analysis to determine desirable outcome.

The problem with Mr. Haber's analysis is that he's missing the fact that mere population migration from "blue" states to "red" states is hardly indicative of a shift politically in the way he thinks. I mean just look at Virginia for instance. Fairfax County and the greater Richmond area used to be quite safe GOP areas but due to an influx of people coming in from up north they're now decidedly less so. And it pains me to say this as I generally support the GOP.

Population migration doesn't make Republican voters out of former Democrats. The country has shifted rightward since the 70's but there are a lot of aging boomers like me who vote for moderates. The Republican party's ideological purity is self-limiting. Limbaugh and Beck don't represent majorities. An alliance of the young and boomer voters will create a moderate progressive majority.

An interesting premise, as far as it goes. I agree with others than it's a simplistic analysis for the reasons already mentioned. If Mr. Haber is as dedicated to service as he would have us believe, why did he enter such as self-serving contest as this one? Sorry, there's too much of a disconnect between his bio and his column for him to be believeable as a pundit.

The author is assuming that these elections districts are not going to be redrawn in a way that benefits the current Administration. If there is one thing we know about Obama it is that he will win at all costs. Look at the disenfranchisement of the voters in Florida and Michigan from the last Primary.

Most of "redness" is the result of irrational following of a few political ideas the core of which is that "government" - a creature of others, not us - is evil and harms more than it can possibly help. This is offered by people who self-employ through election to self-sufficient loners. So image is a key part of the whole concept that states or even regions can be so different that polar opposite philosophies serve the people of one or another better.

Perhaps it may be more true that economic strata in the society have more or less to gain from one or another political philosophy holding sway. But I think enough average middle and lower income people have been hurt enough by unregulated market economics that the swing in political power is more related to what does more good for more people. Well, it's a thought.

Republicans don't demonize illegal immigrants. We just don't want to pay for them via the United States' welfare plan.
This argument is unlikely because hardcore liberals are unable to admit they might have erred in electing an elitist when it "was so sexy", i.e., according to another pundit. It's too soon to tell what the future holds for red and blue states. I still hold hope that the romantic types will stop deceiving themselves and get real.

I'm gonna chalk up the "red to blue" statement in the teaser to a typo.... HOWEVER, the remainder of this column's failures are Mr. Haber's responsibility. This was hardly a credible analysis of political demographics. Rather, it was a classic example of a wishful thinker in search of a eureka moment - and then (surprise!) finding it in the first place he looked.

I'm a bit confused. The demographic shift this young chap talks about would seem to be acting counterintuitive to the areas from which they are migrating. Those migrating from a blue state to a red state are likely doing so for a variety of reasons. But, I seriously doubt that just by dint of moving into a red state they automatically take on the ideologies that are normally associalted with a red state--namely a more conservative outlook.

Not only that, there are other demographic trends taking place that act as a countervailing influence. Most demographic experts have been telling us just the opposite of what this young fellow's conclusions are. That more red states are turning blue than blue statres turning red.

The synopsis of your column says that critical electoral votes will shift "from red to blue." Red being Republican and Blue being Democrat, wouldn't that be good for the Democrats? You seem to spend the entire column contradicting, rather than supporting, your original premise. Confusing!

This column could have been written twenty years go, predicting how the 1990 census was going to doom Democrats forever. All you have to do is refer to a few different states and it would fit perfectly.

Remember that the first Republican president to be elected without winning California was George W. Bush. With population shifts bring demographic change. Remember that.

Interesting. I'm not necessarily convinced. I like ckenjones comment.

That same demographic shift that is incresing the popultation of those states also makes it increasingly difficult for republicons to keep those states "safe." It is those very immigrants, legal and illegal, that are part of the broader demographic shift that puts the republicons party in the unhappy place of representing and ever tinier portion of the United States population.

This analysis is very shortsighted and does not even address long term demographic changes happening in the country because of Hispanic immigration and the stupidity of the Republican Party which gives a significant long term edge to the Democrats.

Actually, my history was a little off in my previous comment. 1916 wouldn't have been affected by a +/- of 6 electoral votes. Other than 2000, you'd have to go back to 1876 for an election like that.

This analysis is a little superficial. First of all, 10 years ago, I'm sure some pundit wrote that since North Carolina was gaining one electoral vote as a result of redistricting, Republicans were sure to benefit. We saw how that turned out in 2008. A lot can happen in 10 years.

Second, one cannot refer to Nevada as a purple state when President Obama won it by 12.5% without, at the same time, considering Georgia to be even more of a toss-up state. Sen. McCain only won Georgia by 5.3%.

Third, a net shift of even the magnitude claimed by the author (12 votes) would have only effected 2 presidential elections in the last century: 1916 and 2000. This is simply not the big deal it's made out to be.

The truth doesn't really matter. The right wingers create their own truth.

Why does the author assume that, when northerners move, they start voting like the natives? Sure, Ohio, New York and New Jersey may lose an electoral vote or two. And those votes will be picked up by states like Florida, Arizona and Nevada. But last time I checked, two of those states voted for the Democrat in 2008, and had McCain not been on the other ticket, Arizona likely would have as well. As northerners move elsewhere, they bring their voting sensibilities with them. It doesn't take three Harvard degrees to figure that out- it just requires a quick glance at an electoral map.