Your one stop shop for conservative posters!

« Hypocrites in the News | MAIN | Hmmm ... »

12/22/2005

These United States

                 New Population Statistics by State

Red_v_blue 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

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451bab869e200d8349c448169e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference These United States:

Comments

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?

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

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.

Virginia is a turncoat state now. They voted in a Democratic Guhvnah.

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.

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.

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.

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

Back to Top

« Hypocrites in the News | Main | Hmmm ... »

The comments to this entry are closed.