logo
Headlines Scream That Democrats Are Doomed Come 2030—But The Reality Is Murkier

Headlines Scream That Democrats Are Doomed Come 2030—But The Reality Is Murkier

Yahoo13-06-2025
From 30,000 feet, the trendlines for Democrats are cataclysmic: Blue states, particularly the powerhouses of New York and California, are leaching population that's being hoovered up by southern states, particularly Florida and Texas.
Come the 2030 census, those blue states will lose House seats and electoral votes and the southern bloc will gain them, making Democrats' path to the White House and to a House majority impossibly difficult. Stack that new reality on top of Republicans' longtime, baked-in Senate advantage, and the future for the political left is grim.
'Texas and Florida will gain and New York and California will likely lose something — the general trends seem clear even if we don't quite have a magnifying glass or a microscope to see exactly what the future will be yet,' Michael Li, senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, told TPM.
'It's not if it's gonna happen, it's the degree to which it'll happen,' added Ken Martis, a political geographer and professor emeritus at West Virginia University. Various models predict the red states scooping up differing numbers of votes and seats.
The looming problem twists the knife for an already beleaguered Democratic Party, smarting from a defeat in 2024 and confronted with the future of an increasingly authoritarian Donald Trump in the White House, a Congress under unified Republican control and a Supreme Court well stocked with conservatives.
Many news outlets have picked up on the trend, prophesying the Democrats' doom: PBS declared the population shifts to be 'Democrats' future crisis'; the Associated Press underscored that 'Democrats are threatened' by the trend; Newsweek called it a 'problem much bigger than Donald Trump'; the Washington Examiner, perhaps with some glee, urged Democrats to 'come to grips' with the political tsunami rolling their way.
Still, who is leading this domestic migration, the odd conditions of the 2020 census and the 'wildcard' of incoming immigration all significantly muddy the political picture, and invite humility about predictions of how America — and its political makeup — may look by 2030.
'The idea that this is an automatic good for Republicans I don't think is true,' Li said.
Some of the current trendlines stretch back to the mid-20th century, when industrialized states, particularly the rustbelt, started to lose population. In this 'post-industrial era,' molded in large part by globalization, job hubs across the north started to wither.
Within that 'megatrend,' as Martis calls it, are more recent, smaller ones. And a smaller trend that was in full swing at the time of the 2020 census was southern migration, as many jobs went remote during the COVID-19 pandemic and people sought cheaper housing, lower taxes and better climates — to New York and California's detriment and Texas and Florida's gain. Meanwhile, immigration into the United States all but stopped, removing a key means of growth for all of those states, but particularly the ones that weren't benefitting from domestic migration.
In the years since, that rush to the south has slowed. As immigration began to flow into the U.S. again, California and New York recouped some of their losses.
Still, some of the conditions forcing people out of those blue hubs remain; every expert TPM asked cited housing costs and cost of living as a large part of the southward push.
Citing April data, Greg Morrow, a housing and land use policy expert at UCLA, told TPM that California issued 23 permits for new housing per 100,000 people compared to Texas' 71 permits — three times fewer.
A gnarled knot of byzantine zoning codes, NIMBY (not in my backyard) protests, outdated, sometimes counterproductive environmental regulations and astronomical construction costs (at least $1 million per affordable housing unit in Los Angeles, according to Morrow) make it difficult for states like California to nimbly adjust.
But politicians are reacting. Morrow pointed to a more aggressive stance in the last five years by California's state government to take over in the face of local inertia, proposing and passing laws that unwind some of the strict zoning requirements and allow for more building.
'Things are changing — but it's like turning the Titanic,' he said.
But the other side of the ledger isn't stable either. Housing costs in the southern states have started floating up, in part due to the increased demand. Other factors, like skyrocketing home insurance costs in Florida caused by climate change-fueled extreme weather, may dissuade relocation too.
And then there's the immigration 'wildcard,' said Bill Frey, a demographer and senior fellow at the Brookings Institute.
'If the Trump administration cools down and slows immigration, it'll impact negatively not only Florida and Texas, but also New York and California,' he said. 'Especially the latter two because they depend a lot on immigration.'
When you look under the hood at who is moving to the southern states, it further complicates the political ramifications.
'The people who are adding to Texas' population growth and to Florida's and to North Carolina's are very diverse, a lot of people of color,' Brennan's Li said. 'That could change the politics of the states. We've seen that a little bit already in Georgia and North Carolina — they're on the board now for Democrats.'
Li pointed to the Dallas suburbs as some of the fastest growing Black communities in the country.
Still, while the politics of the region are already changing, Republicans have the far superior track record in winning those states. To avoid the catastrophe trumpeted by many other news outlets, Democrats will have to craft an electoral strategy — perhaps aided by the states' evolving political composition — that involves picking off some southern states to remain competitive.
The next five years are as unpredictable a stretch of American history as we've ever seen: 'There were weird things at the beginning of the decade, and there could be weird things at the end,' Li said.
But one thing is certain, he added: 'The party that wins the south wins the future.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sylvester Stallone, Kiss among Kennedy Center honorees, Trump to host ceremony
Sylvester Stallone, Kiss among Kennedy Center honorees, Trump to host ceremony

Los Angeles Times

timea few seconds ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Sylvester Stallone, Kiss among Kennedy Center honorees, Trump to host ceremony

President Trump on Wednesday announced his picks for Kennedy Center honorees and said that he will host the ceremony himself — a first for any president. Action star Sylvester Stallone, the glam rock band Kiss, disco singer Gloria Gaynor, country music star George Strait and English actor and comedian Michael Crawford made the list. The Kennedy Center Honors, which recognize lifetime achievement in the performing arts have been given annually since 1978, are the highlight of the center's season each December. The award is considered a career highlight for the performers who receive it. Past honorees have included Leonard Bernstein, Dizzy Gillespie, James Brown and Meryl Streep, among others. 'I want to congratulate all the nominees. They're unbelievable people, and we're going to have a tremendous day in December,' said Trump in a rambling news conference that began with him unveiling five velvet-draped portraits. It went on to include mentions of his recent deployment of the National Guard to Washington, D.C., his contention that the 2020 election was stolen, his disdain for Democrats and his upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump said he was '98% involved' in the selection of the honorees. 'I turned down plenty, this is very different than it used to be, these are great people,' Trump said, before adding that he didn't want to politicize the awards. The Academy Awards went, 'woke' he said, and added that the ceremony's ratings tanked. Some culture watchers might be surprised by Trump's choices, particularly that of KISS. Trump fired bassist Gene Simmons during the first season of 'The Celebrity Apprentice.' Simmons went on to support Trump during his first term, but later spoke out sharply against him in an interview with Spin magazine. Stallone, however, made sense. He's one of the actors, alongside Mel Gibson and Jon Voight, Trump named as 'special ambassadors' to Hollywood. His goal: to bring the film business back to Hollywood, 'which has lost much business over the last four years to Foreign Countries.' Trump's announcement, including his unusual decision to host, capped a tumultuous eight months at the Kennedy Center, beginning in early February when Trump sent the arts world reeling by announcing his intention to appoint himself chairman of the board and terminate members of the board of trustees 'who do not share our Vision for a Golden Age in Arts and Culture.' Trump named a former ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, as interim executive director and the center began rupturing marquee names, including TV producer Shonda Rhimes, musician Ben Folds and opera star Renée Fleming. Trump's takeover of the center came after he actively shunned it during his first term. In 2017, he and First Lady Melania Trump skipped the Kennedy Center Honors after being criticized by honorees, marking only the fourth time in the organization's history that a president was not in attendance. During his first visit to the center as chairman in March, Trump said he didn't like the musical 'Hamilton' and said big Broadway shows were going to be the future of the center. He soon attended a performance of 'Les Miserables,' famously declining to say whether he identified more with more with protagonist Jean Valjean or the cruel police inspector Javert.

Federal authority over DC is nothing new, and it is needed again
Federal authority over DC is nothing new, and it is needed again

The Hill

timea few seconds ago

  • The Hill

Federal authority over DC is nothing new, and it is needed again

President Trump this week moved from rhetoric to action in his push for more federal control of Washington, D.C. Citing a ' public safety emergency,' he is deploying National Guard troops to support federal officers already in place, taking direct control of the city's police department under a provision of the 1973 Home Rule Act, and pledging to 'get rid of the slums.' Democrats' reaction has been swift and condemnatory. They cast the move as the latest instance of his authoritarian overreach. 'This is what dictators do,' California Gov. Gavin Newsom proclaimed on X. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the move had ' no basis in law.' The New York Times ran the headline: 'Trump threatens federal takeover of Washington after Member of DOGE is Assaulted.' In reality, the Constitution not only allows this but anticipates federal intervention in the capital's affairs, at least in some circumstances. That's because the District of Columbia was created precisely so that the seat of government would not depend on any state for its security, funding or order. Washington is not a state and never has been. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to 'exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever' over the District. This is a sweeping authority that has been used repeatedly. Local self-government in D.C. is a modern experiment, not an inalienable right. Until the 1973 District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the city was run directly by federally appointed officials. The 1801 Organic Act placed Washington under congressional control; in the 1870s, Congress briefly allowed a territorial-style government, but after mismanagement and debt spiraled, it reimposed direct federal rule. Even under home rule, Congress has retained authority to override local laws, control the District's budget, and, in emergencies, reassert direct control, as it did from 1995 to 2001 through a Financial Control Board during a local fiscal crisis. A president cannot unilaterally abolish home rule, but he can press Congress to act, and he can invoke his existing emergency powers. Trump's actions pursue those avenues and certainly don't defy the Constitution. For example, the Home Rule Act explicitly allows the president to assume control of the police if 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' Trump's order triggers that provision. Although Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser argues those conditions do not exist, the statute leaves it to the federal government's discretion. The case for intervention is straightforward: D.C. has an image problem utterly unfit for its role as the nation's capital. It consistently ranks among the most dangerous cities in America. Annual homicides were just under 200 last year and more than twice their level in 2012, despite Bowser's rote claims of 'declining crime.' What decline there is mostly reflects the nationwide post-COVID drop in crime rather than any uniquely successful policy. High-profile incidents underscore the issue. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) was carjacked at gunpoint near Capitol Hill. Around the same time, the Secret Service vehicle assigned to Naomi Biden — the granddaughter of the then-president — was broken into in Georgetown, which is arguably the nicest part of the city. Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) was assaulted by a homeless man in the elevator of her apartment building. Federal employees, foreign diplomats and tourists face the same risks as residents. Many residents and much of the press speak as if the city belongs exclusively to its 700,000 inhabitants and their mayor. But the capital was never meant to be insulated from national accountability. Congress intended the District to be a showcase of national governance, and the question is whether the current model of home rule without meaningful federal oversight is meeting that standard. Such disorder compels one to ask whether Congress's responsibility to 'exercise exclusive legislation' has been neglected. Precedent shows that when D.C. cannot ensure stability against, as Trump described Monday, 'crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse,' federal reengagement is both lawful and at times necessary. If opponents reject Trump's vision for federal involvement, they should make the substantive case for how home rule can be reformed to meet the moment. But it is disingenuous to suggest the Constitution forbids such intervention. If Congress refuses to act, the city's fate will rest on whatever limited tools the executive already possesses. As for Newsom's lecture on 'what dictators do,' perhaps the first governor to lock down his state during COVID and the last to reopen schools — the man who turned the nation's largest state into a poster child for woke dysfunction — should sit this one out. Trump has answered the question of whether he'll use his constitutional tools. The progressive left must now decide whether to produce a plan for home rule that works or just keep shouting 'authoritarian' while the capital continues to decline.

Trump looks to extend DC police takeover beyond 30 days
Trump looks to extend DC police takeover beyond 30 days

The Hill

timea few seconds ago

  • The Hill

Trump looks to extend DC police takeover beyond 30 days

President Trump on Wednesday said he'll seek 'long-term extensions' from Congress to extend his federal takeover of the Washington, D.C., police amid his crackdown on crime in the nation's capital, declining to rule out the possibility of a national emergency. 'Well, if it's a national emergency, we can do it without Congress,' Trump said, when asked about whether he's talked to the House and Senate about extending the takeover. He added that he expects to be before Congress 'very quickly' and snag Republican support. Trump on Monday put the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) under federal control and activated National Guard troops, painting the district as being ravaged by violent crime. To do so, he invoked an emergency provision of the Home Rule Act, which lets the president take temporary control of the District's police in emergency conditions. Congress must pass a joint resolution to extend it beyond 30 days. Speaking to reporters at the Kennedy Center on Wednesday, Trump said he's aiming to go before Congress with a crime bill that will 'pertain initially to D.C.' but serve as a 'very positive example' for elsewhere. 'And we're going to be asking for an extension on that, long-term extensions, because you can't have 30 days. Thirty days is, that's, by the time you do it — we're going to have this in good shape. … We're going to do this very quickly, but we're going to want extensions,' Trump said. 'I don't want to call a national emergency. If I have to, I will. But I think the Republicans in Congress will approve this pretty much unanimously.' D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) has hit back at Trump's move, calling it an 'authoritarian push' by the administration. The Democratic Mayors Association called it a 'political charade' that doesn't match up with the actual crime statistics in the District.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store