The US Census Bureau thread

[seaskyfan]

Originally Posted by Onn

The Midwest lost more house seats than the Northeast did, reasonable to assume it's suffering more.

Still no. House seats are related to population but population is a better indicator.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by seaskyfan

Still no. House seats are related to population but population is a better indicator.

The Midwest population is sagging more than the Northeast's is, it's losing more house seats, that's 100% true. The Midwest is also home to the only state not growing, that's also true. It's reasonable to assume then the Midwest's population is sagging further than the Northeast's is. The Midwest population is suffering more than the Northeast's population is. I didn't say anything about growth rates.

[seaskyfan]

Originally Posted by Onn

The Midwest population is sagging more than the Northeast's is, it's losing more house seats, that's 100% true. The Midwest is also home to the only state not growing, that's also true. It's reasonable to assume then the Midwest's population is sagging further than the Northeast's is. The Midwest population is suffering more than the Northeast's population is. I didn't say anything about growth rates.

Midwest gain: 3.9%
Northeast gain: 3.2%

Your conclusion is absurd.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by seaskyfan

Midwest gain: 3.9%
Northeast gain: 3.2%

Your conclusion is absurd.

House Seats

Midwest - 6
Northeast - 5

Midwest also has a state that is losing population. Not one bit absurd. Just because the Midwest is gaining more poupation doesn't mean that population isn't under more stress.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Onn

House Seats

Midwest - 6
Northeast - 5

Midwest also has a state that is losing population. Not one bit absurd. Just because one area is gaining more poupation doesn't mean that population isn't under more stress/

The Midwest has more people, and therefore more house seats, than the northeast, that's why it lost an additional seat, it had more to lose. The truth is that both the northeast and midwest are losing big time to the other two regions. However, in terms of population growth, both percentage and raw numbers, the Midwest is growing faster than the northeast. Those are the facts, regardless of whether you choose to accept them or not.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The Midwest has more people, and therefore more house seats, than the northeast, that's why it lost an additional seat, it had more to lose. The truth is that both the northeast and midwest are losing big time to the other two regions. However, in terms of population growth, both percentage and raw numbers, the Midwest is growing faster than the northeast. Those are the facts, regardless of whether you choose to accept them or not.

House seats are facts too, its math! That's true! Popultion growth (which in Michigan is negative) and raw numbers (which in Michigan is negative) don't tell the whole story.

[Steely Dan]

^ why are you so obsessed with just michigan? Michigan is but one small corner of the Midwest, and while it is suffering far more than any other state right now, it's not large enough relative to the rest of the Midwest to drag the overall numbers for the Midwest down enough to make the population growth rate for the region lower than the northeast.

Anyway, it's clear to me that you don't want to accept the facts, so I will be moving on.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by Onn

House seats are facts too, its math!

Well considering that the number of seats are based on population, the fact that the Midwest with about 67 million people lost 6 seats, while the Northeast with about 55 million people lost 5 seats means that the loss for each region was proportional. Each region basically lost 1 seat for every 11 million residents... In fact, the loss was marginally "harder" on the Northeast, when you account for total population...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Onn

House seats are facts too, its math! That's true! Popultion growth (which in Michigan is negative) and raw numbers (which in Michigan is negative) don't tell the whole story.

The definition of insanity applied in these forums. Despite being presented with clear evidence to the contrary, a forumer remains hard-headedly fixated on his conclusion in perpetuity,

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Onn

House Seats

Midwest - 6
Northeast - 5

Midwest also has a state that is losing population. Not one bit absurd. Just because the Midwest is gaining more poupation doesn't mean that population isn't under more stress.

So now you are changing your argument. This is the original statement by to which we are all responding:

Originally Posted by Onn

The Midwest is sagging behind everyone else in growth, probably something that won't change by 2050, at least not in the heart of the rust belt.

After being shown evidence to the contrary, you changed your point to focus entirely on House seats (as well as on Michigan--judging a vast region on the performance of one State). Looks like your personal biases have won you over more than logic, so no point arguing any further.