I saw, and wish I saved, a study, based on racial data from the census and projections thereof, stating that the Democrats would have safe majorities in most/all states in fifty years (assuming the way that various races vote doesn't change, which won't happen).  The only state that was trending the Republicans' way was Hawaii, due to increased numbers of Asians (who tend to vote Republican; similiar to whites).

Of course, this is in the long term; but what you are referring to is medium to long term, too.

One thing we have to pay special attention to is the rates of increase of Hispanic evangelical Christians and Mormans. When Hispanics convert to these faiths,  We lose them. The way we deal with this issue is target increased funding to education in Hispanic areas. This neds to be a priority. Provided we get back in power, this should be no problem.

Not to be too harsh but I think Chris's short-term approach represents a typical Democratic knee-jerk reaction: Treating the symptons rather than addressing the disease. If anything, this development absolutely screams for election reform.

The Sierra Club recently unveiled a long-term ten step program that not only addresses these concerns but moves our election process forward in a manner than will insure a more representative government for all Americans. A comprehensive list of its provisions include:  

Utilizing Chris's original premise, this could be sold in states like Montana, Iowa, Maine and Kentucky, states whose relative power will be threatened by future migration patterns. While there's something in here for everybody, the key is to utilize this opportunity to push through the entire program in order to maximize future returns and permanently diminish the current theocon stranglehold on our federal government.  

A good example of this was the American midwest during the 19th century.  The northern parts of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois were settled from New England and New York.  They were, by mid-century, "red-hot" abolitionists/Republicans.  The southern parts of those states were settled by the same peoplewho settled the other bank of the Ohio River.  They were Whigs and, eventually, Constitutional Unionists (Bell( and National Democrats (Douglas) in 1860.

More recently, as city folks (Democrats) spread into the nearer suburbs, they are turning Democratic.  I've noticed that in my neighborhood, the "old-timers" are solidly Republican but newer residents tend to trend Democratic.

Thus if Arizona, for example is "settled" by exurban Californians, it will remain Republican.  If more coastal Californians make the move, it will become a Democratic bastion.

The democrats must, repeat must present an ambitious social safety net agenda for the working class which would trump any cultural issues the Republicans might try to leverage.

At one point, 10,000 people per +day+ were moving
into florida. I kid you not.

This trend will continue for the next few
years or so until global warming kicks
in, or florida is blown away by
a hurrican and everyone moves to a suburb
of Atlanta.

>:)

All politics is local and it is time for the Democratic Party to think ahead in a local fashion.

But remember some of those population gains are probably due to baby boomers retiring to warm climates.

"First, the nation's ongoing population shift from its Northeast and Midwest "Snow Belt" regions to its South and West "Sun Belt" will continue at a torrid pace."

So we're talking less about acutal regions and more about some broader political ideology? But if that's the case, then what do all these projected statistics really mean?  If Sun-Belt and Snow-Belt aren  are politcal terms and not actual regions or areas of similar lattitude, then a study of population migration and age is being mixed-up - it's seems like we're looking at how people with democratic leanings are moving to places with Republican leanings.  I would think that means Texas and Florida and Arizona will be turing Bright Blue.

It would be way more usefull if this analysis showed the population migration into and out of cities and rural aras (at least in  way these areas represent differeing politcal needs...so therefore differeing politcal leanings.)

But I suppose in the end, it's all about the Purple states anyway.  Now the cool thing would be to end the Winner take all system.  

They can depopulate the North to some degree but the Senators stay behind.

The historic realignment of the parties is pretty much complete and in the process we had some Senate setbacks, but you know we also lost all the Lester Maddox types. If you are an intolerant, under-educated, white-power all around asshole the chances are excellent that you are a Republican. That wasn't true when I was a kid. And a lot of people North and South, particularly North are going to see that and head for the exits of the Republican Party.

We don't know what the long-range impact of the Triple Debacle of Delay, Iraq and Social Security will have on the 2006 mid-terms. Personally I believe the chance of framing the debate in a positive way for Democrats is excellent. Despite all the distractions thrown up by Tweety, Bo Bo and Howie Putz, the facts still ultimately get out.

1. Most are not pro-illegal immigration. I have yet to meet one who wants more open borders. Some right-wing Bill O'Reilly strategy for policing the border would be all wrong, but we would pick up votes across the board if we just stood up for increased funding for border-patrol.

2. Most Latin American countries have bans on abortion. Granted, most of the people who come here are probably more liberal, but, because they don't have strong roots in an area, they tend to go to church a lot (if only to see other people from their country, area, etc.), so we had better nominate people who are at least moderate on social issues if we want to win their votes.

I do not agree with Frey however that Arizona, Texas, and Florida will be those states. Each of those states is seeing internal migration from one state to another, complimented by new immigrants to America flowing there to do lots of low skilled labor positions. Now, the reason for this in the case of Arizona or Florida is that much of the internal migration there is old people. By 2030, lots of these old people are going to be dead.

The better question is what are the migration trends for the younger generations of America. I'll pick 3 states I think which are crucial: Colorado, Wisconsin, and North Carolina.

Colorado promises to see growth for various reasons. It has a diverse economy and enough water to support more growth. It's clean, and "new".

Wisconsin probably looks like an abberation: but it's fairly close to Chicago while maintaining a diverse job base as well as not compromising itself full of huge cities. Many younger people only know sprawl, gridlock, and appreciate smaller cities where it takes less than 20 mins to drive somewhere.

And then there's North Carolina. Also disparate in population centers there's a mix of coastal and upcountry geography as well as wide range of employment and a softer climate than states higher up the I-95.

But I know, people are saying even if the population stayed constant aren't Texas and Florida huge in terms of electoral presence? Well I humbly submit Florida may yet see a decline in population for coastal regions outside the hurricane belt in Mississippi, South Carolina, and Georgia. And Texas is likely to become much more Democratic: the part of the state growing most furiously it's most liberal: the area near San Antonio and Austin.

While it's true Colorado and Wisconsin's population pale to Texas or Florida currently...they are very close to Arizona in size. Add in torrid growth in North Carolina and the map looks a tad different.