The ever interesting and erudite Michael Barone posted [1] about what the 2010 census is looking like right now in terms of shuffling the electoral votes by adding or subtracting congressional districts due to population changes. The long and the short of it is 14 EV will get moved around with those states going for Bush in 2004 getting +8 and those states going for Kerry getting -8.
But there is more to the story. If you further refine the data for states that went strongly for Bush (>5% margin), weakly for Bush (<=5% margin), weakly for Kerry (5% margin), you find that the switch is even more pronounced.
The states that went strongly for Bush are likely to gain 10 EV (Arizona +2, Florida +2, Georgia +1, Louisiana -1, Missouri -1, North Carolina+1, South Carolina +1, Texas +4 and Utah +1). Those that went weakly for Bush are likely to lose 2 EV (Iowa -1, Nevada +1, Ohio -2). The states that went weakly for Kerry are likely to lose 2 EV (Michigan -1, Minn. -1, Oregon +1, Penn. -1). Those that went strongly for Kerry are likely to lose 6 EV (California -1, Illinois -1, Mass. -1, New Jersey -1, New York -2).
This means that in the 2012 match up, the democrats will start 16 EV behind where they lost in 2004. That’s more EV than if they lost a democratic stalwart like New Jersey (currently 15EV, going to 14EV). I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to ponder on why states that trend republican are on net gaining population while states that trend democratic are losing population.
Addendum: (Bit)
Bitsblog readers, please welcome YetAnotherJohn. John agreed to start writing with us a short time ago. I’ve liked John’s style for a long while, now, and I’m sure you will, as well. I was going to make an announcement but decided it’d be more fun this way. Welcome YAJ!