It isn't available anywhere online yet, but I heard on CNBC that Michigan was the only state to actually lose population since 2000.
It isn't available anywhere online yet, but I heard on CNBC that Michigan was the only state to actually lose population since 2000.
Last edited by BrushStart; December-21-10 at 11:39 AM.
I'm sure that's all Detroit's fault...
www.census.gov
info released 11 am EST
Anyone want to guess what Detroit's population will be? My guess is 890,000.
I'll say 890,001, Drew.
which Detroit District should be eliminated? I hope for Conyers.
My guess 905,001
Well, the news of interest from this ex-DTW now in LAS is.......
-------------------------------------------------------------
BREAKING NEWS: Nevada Gains Congressional Seat
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAS VEGAS -- U.S. Census Bureau says Nevada will get fourth congressional
seat due to population growth.
[[That's due thanks to all the Michiganians moving to Nevada.)
It is very clear that the Midwest and Northeast are losing their clout. The new power-brokers will be Texas, Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina.... Geeze I hate the south.
2009 population estimate for Michigan was 9.97 million. Census was nearly 100,000 off of that estimate. I'll say Detroit is at 880,001.
I'm also curious to see how the population moved around the five-county area.
I second the hope that CONyers seat is the one lost.
According to that Freep article, MI is still the eighth largest state in the nation. That's still something right? Eighth largest in terms of population, not land mass, right?
I don't understand the disdain for Conyers, I must say.
Sad thing, Detroit gets vastly undercounted.
Had to fill out the form for an ailing friend. He had 7 relatives mooching off of him. Could not get last names, ages for anyone. Doubt they got counted.
I left MI in 2009. Had to. Couldn't find work. Now I live in North Carolina, which the census shows increased in population 18%.
My guess for Detroit's population is 901,451.
... Texas is gaining 4 House seats.....
Seconded. My best guess is that it has to do with his "wife," with whom the congressman has minimal involvement.
In any case, if Detroit is to lose a district or most of a district [[and it may not), it seems to me that the one most likely to go is the one with the newly elected guy in it, rather than the powerful 35 years + veteran, unless Conyers himself indicates he's ready to retire. I'd think that even Republicans wouldn't want to undo the kind of clout that seniority brings to Michigan, especially since that area and the surrounding area there is likely to vote strongly Democratic under any circumstances. Much more likely, it seems to me, is a scenario where they cut out a more marginal Democratic district [[so, likely not Clarke's district either) that the Republicans believe they can then take over by the shifting of the lines.
There is something to be said for Mr.Conyers longevity in congress. He is the head of a judicial committee and to put it crudely knows his shit......he does not represent me but to those he does I would hope that you all would appreciate his encyclopedic knowledge of the machinations of congress; that equals power.Seconded. My best guess is that it has to do with his "wife," with whom the congressman has minimal involvement.
In any case, if Detroit is to lose a district or most of a district [[and it may not), it seems to me that the one most likely to go is the one with the newly elected guy in it, rather than the powerful 35 years + veteran, unless Conyers himself indicates he's ready to retire. I'd think that even Republicans wouldn't want to undo the kind of clout that seniority brings to Michigan, especially since that area and the surrounding area there is likely to vote strongly Democratic under any circumstances. Much more likely, it seems to me, is a scenario where they cut out a more marginal Democratic district [[so, likely not Clarke's district either) that the Republicans believe they can then take over by the shifting of the lines.
My guess for Detroit: 780,250
cross post to "suburbs are unsustainable" thread
From Nate Silver at http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Essentially all of the fastest-growing districts are in inland areas south of the Mason-Dixon line, or are west of the Continental Divide. Many are in areas that demographers describe as ‘exurbs’: newly developing areas that are located relatively far — perhaps a 30- or 60-minute drive — from cities like Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Charlotte or Atlanta, and that attract an upscale mix of commuters, families and retirees. Although most major American cities are no longer losing population — on the contrary, at least 20 of the 25 largest cities are likely to have gained population in the 2010 Census compared with 2000 — they are not growing as fast as the exurbs, and therefore stand to lose proportionally, because the number of seats in Congress is fixed.
|
Bookmarks