These United States
New Population Statistics by State
The population figures for 2005 are out and they show just why the liberals are being so intransigent and vociferous of late.
Examine the satistics below. You will find that red states experienced growth and blue states either lost ground or gained very little.
The next nationwide census is to be taken in 2010. Based on those figures will the next decade's Congress be apportioned. According to these mid-decade figures - the Left has good reason to worry.
Liberals are slowly, but surely, becoming EXTINCT.
.
State Population Estimates in 2005
| Population estimates in 2005 and percent change from 2004 in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the entire United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau: |
| --- |
| State 2005 Population Percent Change |
| Ala. 4,557,808 0.7 |
| Alaska 663,661 0.9 |
| Ariz. 5,939,292 3.5 |
| Ark. 2,779,154 1.1 |
| Calif. 36,132,147 0.8 |
| Colo. 4,665,177 1.4 |
| Conn. 3,510,297 0.3 |
| Del. 843,524 1.6 |
| D.C. 550,521 -0.7 |
| Fla. 17,789,864 2.3 |
| Ga. 9,072,576 1.7 |
| Hawaii 1,275,194 1.0 |
| Idaho 1,429,096 2.4 |
| Ill. 12,763,371 0.4 |
| Ind. 6,271,973 0.7 |
| Iowa 2,966,334 0.5 |
| Kan. 2,744,687 0.4 |
| Ky. 4,173,405 0.8 |
| La. 4,523,628 0.4 |
| Maine 1,321,505 0.5 |
| Md. 5,600,388 0.7 |
| Mass. 6,398,743 -0.1 |
| Mich. 10,120,860 0.2 |
| Minn. 5,132,799 0.7 |
| Miss. 2,921,088 0.7 |
| Mo. 5,800,310 0.7 |
| Mont. 935,670 0.9 |
| Neb. 1,758,787 0.6 |
| Nev. 2,414,807 3.5 |
| N.H. 1,309,940 0.8 |
| N.J. 8,717,925 0.4 |
| N.M. 1,928,384 1.3 |
| N.Y. 19,254,630 -0.1 |
| N.C. 8,683,242 1.7 |
| N.D. 636,677 0.1 |
| Ohio 11,464,042 0.1 |
| Okla. 3,547,884 0.7 |
| Ore. 3,641,056 1.4 |
| Pa. 12,429,616 0.3 |
| R.I. 1,076,189 -0.3 |
| S.C. 4,255,083 1.4 |
| S.D. 775,933 0.7 |
| Tenn. 5,962,959 1.2 |
| Texas 22,859,968 1.7 |
| Utah 2,469,585 2.0 |
| Vt. 623,050 0.3 |
| Va. 7,567,465 1.2 |
| Wash. 6,287,759 1.3 |
| W.Va. 1,816,856 0.2 |
| Wis. 5,536,201 0.6 |
| Wyo. 509,294 0.7 |
| Nation 296,410,404 0.9 |
| --- |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau |
Steel, I find it interesting that you have the portion of the word Democrats that is in red (the colour signifying Republican states) spelling out rats! I will be moving to Ohio soon, so I'd better be quiet eh?
Posted by: Mouse | 12/22/2005 at 07:26 AM
Must be that abortion thing ...
In other news ... did you know that the 'official' color of the Democrats used to be red but asked to switch with the GOP because they did not want to be associated with Communism? Funny, no? Okay, that's a fabrication. It switches every so often
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:U.S._presidential_election,_1996#Color
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005157.php
Posted by: mdmhvonpa | 12/22/2005 at 08:30 AM
Mouse ...
A friend sent that logo to me and I loved it.
Take no offense - it pertains only to those Dems that are undermining the nation. NOT true blue Americans who happen to live in a Blue or Red state.
Mark ... I thought it was because the Dems got tired of being RED-FACED, RED-HANDED and RED MEAT.
Posted by: Steel | 12/22/2005 at 08:37 AM
Virginia is a turncoat state now. They voted in a Democratic Guhvnah.
Posted by: Phoenix | 12/22/2005 at 07:50 PM
Dense urban environments are breeding grounds for Democrats. If in fact people move to red states AND into such areas, you may find politics in some states changing. Also: I take issue with the term 'liberal'. I believe what you really mean is 'leftist'. I have seen many arguments (Dean's World does this poignantly) that today's leftists are NOT really liberal at all (even if they claim that). Nor for that matter are the demonstrably 'progressive' or 'reality-based'.
Just two cents from me.
Posted by: Mister Snitch! | 12/24/2005 at 11:38 PM
You are correct about the term 'liberal'.
There's some migration from Blue to Red but for the most part, it is those who do not want to be in Blue states anymore because they are not leftists.
Therefore a double whammy. The Blue states lose population and mitigating votes. They concentrate their Blueness. Titrate it. The Blue inbreeds itself out of existence.
Soory ... just dreaming is all.
Posted by: Steel | 12/25/2005 at 12:00 AM
Hawaii was carried by Kerry, not Bush.
Otherwise, interesting chart, with hard numbers backing up data I have seen mentioned in passing elsewhere.
I live close enough to a Democratic stranglehold (Seattle) to see the dynamic at work. Seattle's "progressive" citizens are spend so much time on acting smug about their values that they don't have time to raise children (or to make them, for that matter). The fastest growing areas in Seattle are the east side suburbs (and the exurban areas in neighboring counties) which are beginning to trend Republican.
Posted by: timekeeper | 12/25/2005 at 11:38 PM
I've always wondered about these "Red States gaining population" stories. If blue states are loosing population and red states are gaining, then obviously indivuduals are moving from the former to the latter (I don't believe the very minor birthrate disparities can cause the large population changes we're seeing). So, if denizens of the blue states are moving to red states, wouldn't that serve to make the red states LESS red, by dilution? For example, here in FL almost all of our immigrants (US citizens moving in from other states; I'm discounting FL's illegal non-citizen immigration problem) -- are from the northeast or the rust belt. That is, if the entire population of leftwing New York moved to Orlando, wouldn't that simply make FL a 21+ delegate BLUE state?
Or do leftist retirees self-select to STAY in the frigid north, and only conservative retirees buy retirement homes in sunny south Florida? Somehow, I doubt that.
P.S. about the red/blue thing: I think this guy has it right.
believe the colors USED to switch, where red == incumbent, blue == challenger.
However, they got locked into red == republican some time ago, when people started talking about
Posted by: Chuck | 12/26/2005 at 01:55 PM