The US Census / Citizenship Question

[tragabigzanda]

MT may actually gain a seat if the turnout in TX is depressed because of this. Also CA may lose one because of mass exodus.

[Green Habit]

MT may actually gain a seat if the turnout in TX is depressed because of this. Also CA may lose one because of mass exodus.

I've been reading that MT is projected to gain a seat regardless. Still surprised that ID still isn't projected to get 3 yet despite how fast this state's been growing.

But I think this does illustrate that House enumeration isn't the most deleterious effect of this effort. States unfavorable to the Republicans like CA and NY will be hurt by this, but so will states more favorable to them like TX and perhaps FL.

[tragabigzanda]

Yep. Worth pointing out that the difference with MT is that much of the growth is in deep blue urban pockets. If we pick it up another seat, I imagine it will be a red one, but probably not for very long. It will all depend on how the districts get drawn of course, but most likely we’d grow into a red seat representing the eastern mining and fracking interested, and a blue one representing the state university set.

[tragabigzanda]

Also GH (or anyone else), what are the exact rules about who gets the next seat? Would MT get one before ID because you already have two?

[Green Habit]

Yep. Worth pointing out that the difference with MT is that much of the growth is in deep blue urban pockets. If we pick it up another seat, I imagine it will be a red one, but probably not for very long. It will all depend on how the districts get drawn of course, but most likely we’d grow into a red seat representing the eastern mining and fracking interested, and a blue one representing the state university set.

As I understand it, MT's metro areas aren't that big, though. I just looked up the largest one, Billings, and it's still under 200,000. Boise proper alone is more than that. You can gerrymander to whatever goal you want, but on pure geometry it seems easier to spread out and dilute the urban areas.

Also GH (or anyone else), what are the exact rules about who gets the next seat? Would MT get one before ID because you already have two?

It's a complicated formula. I downloaded an Excel sheet with it many years ago, and I'm sure it's still lurking on my computer somewhere if you're that interested.

[digster]

But I think this does illustrate that House enumeration isn't the most deleterious effect of this effort. States unfavorable to the Republicans like CA and NY will be hurt by this, but so will states more favorable to them like TX and perhaps FL.

Yeah, there are ways in which this could end up boomeranging for Republicans. I forget where I saw this, but it's a point to consider; progressive states like CA and NY will likely see efforts at outreach and education to try to help not depress turnout; it'll still likely be lower than it would be without the question, but a conservative state like Texas and others that don't bother with that kind of outreach may see their House numbers dwindle further in comparison to high-population blue states.

[tragabigzanda]

GH, I agree that the metro area are relatively small, but that’s where all the growth has been:

(From 2002 census to 2012 census):

Billings +15.9%
Bozeman +35.5%
Missoula +17.1%
Great Falls +3.2%

I’d actually love that formula, I’d use it directly for my job

[Green Habit]

GH, I agree that the metro area are relatively small, but that’s where all the growth has been:

(From 2002 census to 2012 census):

Billings +15.9%
Bozeman +35.5%
Missoula +17.1%
Great Falls +3.2%

I’d actually love that formula, I’d use it directly for my job

That doesn't surprise me at all. The main point I was making is that most states in the West have one major metro area (Boise, Seattle, Portland, SLC, Denver) that rural folk have to gang up against. It seems like it's more spread out in MT, so I worry about divide and conquer tactics.

I'll see what I can find and PM something over to you if I do.

[tragabigzanda]

GH, I agree that the metro area are relatively small, but that’s where all the growth has been:

(From 2002 census to 2012 census):

Billings +15.9%
Bozeman +35.5%
Missoula +17.1%
Great Falls +3.2%

I’d actually love that formula, I’d use it directly for my job

That doesn't surprise me at all. The main point I was making is that most states in the West have one major metro area (Boise, Seattle, Portland, SLC, Denver) that rural folk have to gang up against. It seems like it's more spread out in MT, so I worry about divide and conquer tactics.

I'll see what I can find and PM something over to you if I do.

The nice thing about divide-and-conquer here in MT is that the eastern part of the state just has Billings, which is economically tied to the mining and fracking that exists in the eastern part. All the other cities -- including universities and tourist draws -- are all in the west. It's both culturally and environmentally almost two states in one, so any weird gerrymandering that somehow includes Butte (also red) and Billings, but not Bozeman, would be so obviously political in design AND would have to include a fair amount of public-land-loving people.

I imagine a simple north-south split either just to the east or west of Bozeman would make the most sense.

[Bi_3]

How did I not know this thread existed?

[Monkey_Driven]

You didn't look.

[epilogue]

You were spending too much time on Drudge?

[B]

I'm actually surprised that they didn't just say that the executive branch can ask whatever they want.

[Bi_3]

I'm actually surprised that they didn't just say that the executive branch can ask whatever they want.

I think they did, right? Only that in this particular instance the motive was suspect

[Green Habit]

[epilogue]

[tragabigzanda]

(From The Trump thread)

:lol:

Of all the bullshit spaghetti strands this administration has thrown at the wall, this is one of the more confusing. A citizenship question could very well backfire by depressing turnout in TX and GOP districts in CA...and yet despite the very idea of a citizenship question being totally reasonable by virtue of its immediate impact on economic data, their blatant politicization of the issue has resulted in them not obtaining the easy get.

I’m reminded of the final scene of Burn After Reading, in which the CIA director realizes the preceding events were a bunch of nonsense amounting to nothing.

Last edited by tragabigzanda on Wed July 03, 2019 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[LoathedVermin72]

The ending of Burn After Reading is truly evergreen

[tragabigzanda]

And it’s back on the table apparently

[epilogue]