Growth in the Nation’s Largest Counties Rebounds in 2022

[C.]

NYC is getting slaughtered. I still think it’s bad Census data.

[Vlajos]

Not in Cook County.

https://abc7chicago.com/cook-county-...ates/13056466/

[theOGalexd]

Originally Posted by austlar1

The link below has very good overview of population patterns in Texas counties. All the major big urban counties (Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar, and Travis) posted solid gains, but the suburban counties around DFW, Houston, and Austin are truly on fire. If you scroll down far enough in this link, there is a neat interactive map that tracks population changes between 2021 and 2022 in all Texas counties. Worth a look.
https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/new-...-most-in-2022/

Comal and Hays are growing like wildfire. I'm really interested to see how this pans out when the next census rolls around. "San Austonio" seems to be full steam ahead.

[C.]

Originally Posted by theOGalexd

Comal and Hays are growing like wildfire. I'm really interested to see how this pans out when the next census rolls around. "San Austonio" seems to be full steam ahead.

I bet Texas will be a blue state within a decade.

[theOGalexd]

Originally Posted by C.

I bet Texas will be a blue state within a decade.

Ehhh I doubt it. A lot of the people, if not most moving here from blue states aren't liberals. I have a hard time imagining that hardcore Bay Area/LA leftist types see Texas as a desirable place to live (save for maybe Austin lol)

Most of the high-growth counties are historically red as well. Comal, Kendall, Tarrant, Williamson, Collin, Montgomery, etc. Maybe the city propers will become more blue but even then who knows considering how the Hispanic vote has been trending Republican recently.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by Obadno

They wont, and there isnt a reason too frankly. The Census is one of the few things actually laid out in the constitution and it doesn't stipulate to "correct" for strange situations.

The goal is just to snapshot the population not to have a constant accurate count.

The reason for the census is not just to have a snapshot of the population, it is for accurate representation in congress. it was never meant to be the repository of all statistical information about the population.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

They wont, and there isnt a reason too frankly. The Census is one of the few things actually laid out in the constitution and it doesn't stipulate to "correct" for strange situations.

The goal is just to snapshot the population not to have a constant accurate count.

The census is used to allocate federal funding as well. I think a decennial census is too long of a gap between population captures. The government thinks this too, which is why they came up with this estimate methodology that is prone to significant error.

The solution could be an interim mid-decade census that does not affect apportionment but can be used to update official population stats and funding allocation. I think something like this could be done through an act of Congress without requiring a constitutional amendment. But even a constitutional amendment to update the census frequency would probably be one of the least controversial updates.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by R1070

Poorer families may be moving out and they could have more heads per household than a condo or townhome with 1-2 people living in them. That happens with gentrification.

There's nowhere to go. No construction in the Philadelphia burbs and what is on the market is getting more and more expensive. It would be counterintuitive to think the poorest people in Philadelphia are somehow able to move to a suburb where you increasingly can't find a home below $400K (if not $500K) and homes are still routinely selling for $100K over ask.

On top of that, there are 26,000 units of housing under construction in Philadelphia. 26,000.

The city didn't shrink last year. There is building literally everywhere.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by theOGalexd

Most of the high-growth counties are historically red as well. Comal, Kendall, Tarrant, Williamson, Collin, Montgomery, etc. Maybe the city propers will become more blue but even then who knows considering how the Hispanic vote has been trending Republican recently.

I mostly agree with you, but Collin, Tarrant, Denton and Fort Bend Counties will be solidly blue in a decade. Williamson outside of Austin will trend blue as well and Dallas will get more and more liberal. Austin will stay as is but continue to grow explosively.

In theory that should be enough to flip Texas given most of the people live in those places but if Texas doesn't turn blue I would say it has more to do with voter apathy, which is for some reason more typical in the South, conservative migration into the state, and migration of Hispanics in the Rio Grande to Republicans to potentially offset any gains in and around the big cities.

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by C.

I bet Texas will be a blue state within a decade.

I don't know about that. People who I know who are very conservative have moved to Texas, Tennessee and Florida because they wanted to live in states with more people like them than stay up north where they are increasingly becoming the minority.

I'd say a large percentage of those moving north to south are conservative looking to live a "red state lifestyle".

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by PhillyRising

I don't know about that. People who I know who are very conservative have moved to Texas, Tennessee and Florida because they wanted to live in states with more people like them than stay up north where they are increasingly becoming the minority.

I'd say a large percentage of those moving north to south are conservative looking to live a "red state lifestyle".

Texas does not seem to be changing in politics anytime soon. I don't think the majority of people move for politics - if conservative people were really serious about moving to a red state, they should be moving in droves to states like Mississippi, Alabama, and West Virginia but they are not.

[theOGalexd]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

I mostly agree with you, but Collin, Tarrant, Denton and Fort Bend Counties will be solidly blue in a decade. Williamson outside of Austin will trend blue as well and Dallas will get more and more liberal. Austin will stay as is but continue to grow explosively.

In theory that should be enough to flip Texas given most of the people live in those places but if Texas doesn't turn blue I would say it has more to do with voter apathy, which is for some reason more typical in the South, conservative migration into the state, and migration of Hispanics in the Rio Grande to Republicans to potentially offset any gains in and around the big cities.

That's an interesting take with Collin/Tarrant. Fort Bend and Denton I can see becoming swing counties or blue. I really wonder how much how the recent change is because of Trump. I know a decent amount of "establishment Republican" types who either didn't vote or voted for Biden because they didn't like Trump. '24 and '28 will be more telling as far as how it will trend in the future IMO. Politics in general are way too polarizing right now.

Originally Posted by PhillyRising

I don't know about that. People who I know who are very conservative have moved to Texas, Tennessee and Florida because they wanted to live in states with more people like them than stay up north where they are increasingly becoming the minority.

I'd say a large percentage of those moving north to south are conservative looking to live a "red state lifestyle".

That's been my experience with people who have moved here and from seeing studies as well. Austin proper seems to be the exception to the rule here with tech but WilCo is getting its share of conservative transplants. Dallas proper to a degree too maybe, but even then Dallas doesn't seem like a place that hard left leaning coastal people would aspire to live in.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by C.

I bet Texas will be a blue state within a decade.

No way. It will become a purple/ swing state. The metro areas are already blueish but not enough to tilt entire state in that direction.

[wwmiv]

Delete

[wwmiv]

Future scenario:

A. Hispanic turnout parity.
B. Continued selection of some Hispanics into “whiteness” via intermarriage and redefinition of what it means to be “white”—similar to Italians, Irish, etc.
C. Continued increase in minority populations.
D. Asian boost, as high income second generation children begin voting.
E. Continued change within the “white” population with regard to religion and place of origin.

Caveat: Democrats hold onto their margins among Hispanics.

15% evangelical white (90/10 Republican)
10% non-evangelical white, southern (70/30 Republican)
10% non-evangelical white, non-southern (50/50 Split)
10% hispanic, white (60/40 Democratic)
25% hispanic, non-white (70/30 Democratic)
10% black (90/10 Democratic)
10% asian (60/40 Democratic)
5% other (60/40 Democratic)
5% multiracial (80/20 Democratic)

55.0% two party vote for Democrats.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Future scenario:

A. Hispanic turnout parity.
B. Continued selection of some Hispanics into “whiteness” via intermarriage and redefinition of what it means to be “white”—similar to Italians, Irish, etc.
C. Continued increase in minority populations.
D. Asian boost, as high income second generation children begin voting.
E. Continued change within the “white” population with regard to religion and place of origin.

Caveat: Democrats hold onto their margins among Hispanics.

15% evangelical white (90/10 Republican)
10% non-evangelical white, southern (70/30 Republican)
10% non-evangelical white, non-southern (50/50 Split)
10% hispanic, white (60/40 Democratic)
25% hispanic, non-white (70/30 Democratic)
10% black (90/10 Democratic)
10% asian (60/40 Democratic)
5% other (60/40 Democratic)
5% multiracial (80/20 Democratic)

55.0% two party vote for Democrats.

The way our political system is currently set up and differing demographics of states, Republicans will remain very competitive and may even win many elections in the federal and state level even if they keep losing the total popular vote.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Texas does not seem to be changing in politics anytime soon. I don't think the majority of people move for politics - if conservative people were really serious about moving to a red state, they should be moving in droves to states like Mississippi, Alabama, and West Virginia but they are not.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Conservatives, like any individual of any political persuasion, still prioritize states with a lot of economic opportunity and amenities (even if they'll never admit that a "red" state can be economically destitute).

Although there's plenty to criticize about them, it's obvious that high-profile and populous states like Florida and Texas clearly got to where they are today because of a historically more conservative or a hyper-capitalistic libertarian bent, and "red" voters across the country are very cognizant of those states being political "refuges" for them. A state like Tennessee is also in the running.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

Although there's plenty to criticize about them, it's obvious that high-profile and populous states like Florida and Texas clearly got to where they are today because of a historically more conservative or a hyper-capitalistic libertarian bent, and "red" voters across the country are very cognizant of those states being political "refuges" for them. A state like Tennessee is also in the running.

Weather and land to develop.