The debate over the "new" electoral map began during the primaries: what it might look like and what red states the Democrats might be able to flip.
Well, we now know what it looked like on November 4th, and it was a whole lot bluer. So, debate over, right?
Not so fast. There will be a new map for 2012, and the Democratic Party needs to be prepared for it.
We became very familiar with the current electoral map this past election. We knew which states were red, which ones were blue, which ones were battlegrounds, how many votes each one had, and what combinations were most likely to result in the necessary 270 electoral votes. In 2010, the United States will conduct its Constitutionally mandated decennial census, and the results will significantly alter the map to which we have all become accustomed.
Yet even though it's still a couple years away, we actually have a pretty good idea how the population of the United States has changed since 2000. The Census Bureau makes a mid-decade estimate of population, and, since we know how the number of electoral votes are determined, we have a good idea how the new electoral college will look, including the winners and losers of Congressional seats.
Here are the Electoral Vote projections for states gaining or losing votes:
State +/- 2012 EV
TX +4 38
AZ +2 12
FL +2 29
GA +1 16
NV +1 6
NC +1 16
OR +1 8
SC +1 9
UT +1 6
NY -2 29
OH -2 18
CA -1 54
IL -1 18
LA -1 8
MA -1 11
MI -1 16
MN -1 9
MO -1 10
NJ -1 14
PA -1 20
IA -1 6
As you can see, the Northeast and the Midwest will lose electoral votes and the South and West will gain votes. As a column of numbers, the changes may not look that significant, so let's look at them in another way.
What does the map for a given election look like when the two parties are given the same states as they actually won, but the electoral vote is recalculated using the new values for the states. Let's start with this year:
2008
Blue: 358 to Red: 180
Not so bad, right? Still a solid win for Obama, but with 7 electoral votes allocated differently, it's like Iowa changing columns.
What about a replay of the Bush/Kerry map:
2004
Red: 295 to Blue: 243
Instead of a 286 to 252 narrow win, it's quite a bit worse. There are 9 votes changing columns. What's more, winning OH no longer tips the election in this scenario. First of all, OH is a state that loses 2 votes, so it's only 18. But even if it were still worth 20 votes, 295 minus 20 is 275. Still enough to win.
What about a Gore vs. Bush map:
2000
Red: 280 to Blue: 258
Still a win for the Red, but instead of a 271 to 267 squeaker, the 9 votes changing columns make it easier for the GOP to find some breathing room.
The lesson here, which will come as no surprise to anyone paying attention to the demographic changes in this country, is that Democrats must become competitive in some of these fast growing states.
Texas will be a real prize in the next few elections, nearly rivaling California. Georgia and North Carolina will be more important, too. Ohio and New York will lose some influence. Unless these trends stabilize or reverse in the medium term, the Democrats must have a strategy to turn these growing states purple.
Obama won in NC and did well in GA. Will that turn out to be a fluke, reflecting his unique strengths as a candidate, or can the Democrats capitalize on his example and make some permanent headway? They certainly cannot afford to be left with the Gore and Kerry maps when the electoral votes are reallocated after the next census.