Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Gains
Texas 4
Florida 2
Arizona 1
Georgia 1
Nevada 1
South Carolina 1
Utah 1
Washington 1

Losses
Ohio 2
New York 2
Massachusetts 1
Illinois 1
Iowa 1
Louisiana 1
Michigan 1
Missouri 1
New Jersey 1
Pennsylvania 1

If Puerto Rico were a state it would have 5 congressmen.

I believe I heard that this was the first census since California statehood that the state did not add a house seat.

Minnesota got the 435th seat. North Carolina would have gotten the next if there were more than 435.

Whichever state get's Iowa's lost seat can take Leonard Boswell with them. Or Bruce Braley. Or Dave Loebsack.

Whew, glad we didn't lose one.

UNHWildCats wrote:If Puerto Rico were a state it would have 5 congressmen.

Point? It's not like they have been clammoring for statehood. But if they did decide to come fully aboard, we'd have a better baseball team for the international competitions.

Most likely good for a 6-8 seat average net gain over the next decade for Repubs in the House, and even more net electoral college votes. The 2008 red states gained 7 electoral votes, while the 2008 blue states lost 7 electoral votes, a net gain for Repubs of 14 electoral votes.

GannonFan wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote:If Puerto Rico were a state it would have 5 congressmen.

Point? It's not like they have been clammoring for statehood. But if they did decide to come fully aboard, we'd have a better baseball team for the international competitions.

no point. the census bureau tweeted Puerto Rico's population and I thought it would be interesting to point out what they would have if they were a state...

GannonFan wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote:If Puerto Rico were a state it would have 5 congressmen.

Point? It's not like they have been clammoring for statehood. But if they did decide to come fully aboard, we'd have a better baseball team for the international competitions.

Statehood has earned 39% or more of the popular vote in the most recent three Puerto Rican referenda which included statehood on the ballot, in which 2/3 or more of the electorate participated:

1967: 39%
1993: 46.3%
1998: 46.5%

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Political_status_of_Puerto_Rico" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

native wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Point? It's not like they have been clammoring for statehood. But if they did decide to come fully aboard, we'd have a better baseball team for the international competitions.

Statehood has earned 39% or more of the popular vote in the most recent three Puerto Rican referenda which included statehood on the ballot, in which 2/3 or more of the electorate participated:

1967: 39%
1993: 46.3%
1998: 46.5%

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Political_status_of_Puerto_Rico" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, so over the last 40 years a majority of Puerto Ricans have said on three separate occassions that they don't favor statehood. Thanks.

GannonFan wrote:

native wrote:
Statehood has earned 39% or more of the popular vote in the most recent three Puerto Rican referenda which included statehood on the ballot, in which 2/3 or more of the electorate participated:

1967: 39%
1993: 46.3%
1998: 46.5%

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Political_status_of_Puerto_Rico" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, so over the last 40 years a majority of Puerto Ricans have said on three separate occassions that they don't favor statehood. Thanks.

No. in 1967 a substantial 60.4% majority favored retention of Commonwealth status, in 1993 a tiny plurality (NOT a majority) of 48.6% favored Commonwealth status, and in 1998 a tiny majority of 50.3% favored "none of the above."

native wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Yes, so over the last 40 years a majority of Puerto Ricans have said on three separate occassions that they don't favor statehood. Thanks.

No. in 1967 a substantial 60.4% majority favored retention of Commonwealth status, in 1993 a tiny plurality (NOT a majority) of 48.6% favored Commonwealth status, and in 1998 a tiny majority of 50.3% favored "none of the above."

Doesn't change the fact that a majority voted for something other than statehood every time. Heck, by the time they voted none of the above in '98 maybe they were just tired of being asked - "are you sure you don't want to be a state?" - "no, really, are you really sure?" - "okay, we really mean it this time so let's take this seriously, are you sure you don't want to be a state?".

GannonFan wrote:

native wrote:
No. in 1967 a substantial 60.4% majority favored retention of Commonwealth status, in 1993 a tiny plurality (NOT a majority) of 48.6% favored Commonwealth status, and in 1998 a tiny majority of 50.3% favored "none of the above."

Doesn't change the fact that a majority voted for something other than statehood every time. Heck, by the time they voted none of the above in '98 maybe they were just tired of being asked - "are you sure you don't want to be a state?" - "no, really, are you really sure?" - "okay, we really mean it this time so let's take this seriously, are you sure you don't want to be a state?".

If the numbers in favor of statehood were down a lot lower, I would agree with you that UNH's point is irrelevant, but I do not consider 40%+ to be irrelevant.

native wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Doesn't change the fact that a majority voted for something other than statehood every time. Heck, by the time they voted none of the above in '98 maybe they were just tired of being asked - "are you sure you don't want to be a state?" - "no, really, are you really sure?" - "okay, we really mean it this time so let's take this seriously, are you sure you don't want to be a state?".

If the numbers in favor of statehood were down a lot lower, I would agree with you that UNH's point is irrelevant, but I do not consider 40%+ to be irrelevant.

I'm not saying they are irrelevant, I'm just saying it's less than half of those who voted. If they were really clammoring for statehood, they'll have to do it with more than 40%. I'm sure if they keep running plebisites I'm sure they can get that number eventually.

GannonFan wrote:

native wrote:
No. in 1967 a substantial 60.4% majority favored retention of Commonwealth status, in 1993 a tiny plurality (NOT a majority) of 48.6% favored Commonwealth status, and in 1998 a tiny majority of 50.3% favored "none of the above."

Doesn't change the fact that a majority voted for something other than statehood every time. Heck, by the time they voted none of the above in '98 maybe they were just tired of being asked - "are you sure you don't want to be a state?" - "no, really, are you really sure?" - "okay, we really mean it this time so let's take this seriously, are you sure you don't want to be a state?".

40 years ago if we polled Americans asking if they wanted gays in the military a overwhelming majority would have said no. Last month a CNN poll showed 7 in 10 favored allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve.

40 years ago if polled a overwhelming majority would have been opposed to same sex marriage. In August a CNN poll showed 52% support it.

Guess what... THINGS CHANGE OVER TIME.

The problem with polls, UNH, is that they are easily skewed by various things such as sample size, where the poll is taken, etc. The more reputable outfits have a large population over a large area, but these news reports typically just report the numbers, and there's often no way to know how viable they are. For purposes of DADT, for example, results will drastically vary if the population is restricted to SF (overwhelmingly for) or SD (overwhelmingly against). The Sac-Joaquin Valley would be dead set against it, while certain areas of the Northeast would be for it. Outside of SD, big cities would likely be for it, while rural areas would likely be against it.

DADT aside, this is exactly what happened in the 2010 election. SD and the Valley voted overwhelmingly for Whitman, but the vote was SERIOUSLY skewed by SF and LA, thereby handing the governor's and leftenant governor's seats to the Democrats. The Bay Area voters also affected the House race in our horrendously gerrymandered district (not the incumbent's fault, BTW), allowing Jerry McNerney to keep it in a close race with David Harmer. The recent passage of a bi-partisan district-drawing commission will likely fix that. Folk in the Valley are sick and tired of the Bay Area determining our representation.

With the Republicans winning a sizable share of the competed state houses and legislatures this past year, especially in the red states, this news is especially bad for Democratic attempts to regain the House and keep the Senate in 2012...

Redrawing the new districts will be interesting...

Col Hogan wrote:With the Republicans winning a sizable share of the competed state houses and legislatures this past year, especially in the red states, this news is especially bad for Democratic attempts to regain the House and keep the Senate in 2012...

Redrawing the new districts will be interesting...

wont have any effect on the Senate...

native wrote:Most likely good for a 6-8 seat average net gain over the next decade for Repubs in the House, and even more net electoral college votes. The 2008 red states gained 7 electoral votes, while the 2008 blue states lost 7 electoral votes, a net gain for Repubs of 14 electoral votes.

Great, more power to retarded, racist, violent, gun-toting misogynist conk fucks in the South.

native wrote:Most likely good for a 6-8 seat average net gain over the next decade for Repubs in the House, and even more net electoral college votes. The 2008 red states gained 7 electoral votes, while the 2008 blue states lost 7 electoral votes, a net gain for Repubs of 14 electoral votes.

GOP Red States actually gains 6 and Dems Blue States lose 6

The GOP Red States added 8 (Texas 4, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah) And lost 2 (Missouri, Louisiana)

The Dem Blue States added 4 (Florida 2, Washington, Nevada) And lost 10 (New York 2, Ohio 2, Massachusetts, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania)

So its a net gain of 12 electoral votes for the GOP, so McCain only lost 353 to 185

UNHWildCats wrote:

native wrote:Most likely good for a 6-8 seat average net gain over the next decade for Repubs in the House, and even more net electoral college votes. The 2008 red states gained 7 electoral votes, while the 2008 blue states lost 7 electoral votes, a net gain for Repubs of 14 electoral votes.

GOP Red States actually gains 6 and Dems Blue States lose 6

The GOP Red States added 8 (Texas 4, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah) And lost 2 (Missouri, Louisiana)

The Dem Blue States added 4 (Florida 2, Washington, Nevada) And lost 10 (New York 2, Ohio 2, Massachusetts, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania)

So its a net gain of 12 electoral votes for the GOP, so McCain only lost 353 to 185

Your math is good!

Do you really think that Nevada, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Virgina, North Carolina, Wisonsin, Indiana, and Pennsylvania will all go for Obama again in 2012? Even the President knows that the 2008 electoral results will not be the most appropriate overlay for the electoral map of 2012. His political team has already given up on Indiana, for instance.

The 2012 map is more likely to resemble 2004 or 2000.

native wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote: GOP Red States actually gains 6 and Dems Blue States lose 6

The GOP Red States added 8 (Texas 4, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah) And lost 2 (Missouri, Louisiana)

The Dem Blue States added 4 (Florida 2, Washington, Nevada) And lost 10 (New York 2, Ohio 2, Massachusetts, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania)

So its a net gain of 12 electoral votes for the GOP, so McCain only lost 353 to 185

Your math is good!

Do you really think that Nevada, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Virgina, North Carolina, Wisonsin, Indiana, and Pennsylvania will all go for Obama again in 2012? Even the President knows that the 2008 electoral results will not be the most appropriate overlay for the electoral map of 2012. His political team has already given up on Indiana, for instance.

The 2012 map is more likely to resemble 2004 or 2000.

too early to tell what the map will look like. If Palin is the nominee for the GOP I can see most of those states going for Obama again. Anyway your original post specifically used 2008 for the basis of the math, as did my response.

The Republicans control the governorship and both legislative chambers in the following states which gained or lost a Congressional seat as a result of the 2010 Census:

Florida
Georgia
Michigan
Utah
Texas
Ohio

UNHWildCats wrote:

native wrote:
Your math is good!

Do you really think that Nevada, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Virgina, North Carolina, Wisonsin, Indiana, and Pennsylvania will all go for Obama again in 2012? Even the President knows that the 2008 electoral results will not be the most appropriate overlay for the electoral map of 2012. His political team has already given up on Indiana, for instance.

The 2012 map is more likely to resemble 2004 or 2000.

too early to tell what the map will look like. If Palin is the nominee for the GOP I can see most of those states going for Obama again. Anyway your original post specifically used 2008 for the basis of the math, as did my response.

Of course, but that does not really explain all the rolling-on-the-floor-laughing smilies.