The US Census Bureau thread

[jtk1519]

Originally Posted by SD_Phil

Should be exciting to see Texas' results. I have a question for Texas forumers though:

We care about the census for two reasons right? 1) We're interested and invested in sustainable growth for the nation so some set of total population numbers (%5-10) would be good AND 2) we care about politics and we want to know about reapportioning of house seats.

So here's my question: how has a population increase affected Texas politically? Is it becoming more liberal (as other southwestern states with increasing populations are trending), is it holding basically stable, or is the increase coming mostly from conservatives?

The state is becoming more conservative, but less Republican in many ways. The only true liberal spots are the cities of Dallas, Houston and Austin and yes they are all liberal though not always the same kind of liberal. The suburbs are very conservative though. But while the liberal areas are pretty contained and not growing as fast as the rest of the state, the conservative Democrat bases are growing largely because of the Hispanic vote.

Spend some time in San Antonio, on the border, El Paso, etc. These places epitomize the term "blue dog". Pretty conservative (especially on fiscal and social issues), but tend to vote Democrat because immigration, labor law issues, etc. But these are votes that could easily go Republican (as they largely did for Bush 43) so they are by no means liberal.

I think Texas is becoming more centrist than perhaps most states. Dallas and maybe Houston are trending more liberal (maybe Austin too, but I think less so than Dallas and Houston) and some areas like Collin County in the Northern part of the Metroplex and maybe Fort Worth are trending more to the right, but most of the state is fairly moderate and can be swayed Democrat or Republican with the right candidate but tend to go Republican because the Democrat party can't field anybody in statewide elections that is worth a damn and the national Democrat party is too far to the left right now.

[LMich]

Ok, the Texas pissing match about who's most liberal/conservative can stop, now.

Back on topic...

Central Iowa records biggest population gains

By JASON PULLIAM and WILLIAM PETROSKI / The Des Moines Register

Feb. 11, 2011

...

Iowa's capital city also saw its population climb above 200,000 for the first time since the 1970 Census. Des Moines had 203,433 residents in 2010, up 4,751 people, or 2.4 percent, over 2000, the Census Bureau reported.

...

Des Moines' gains happened against a backdrop of impressive growth throughout Polk County, where the population was up by 15 percent to 430,640, a gain of 56,039 people. That was the largest population gain of any Iowa county.

Ankeny, in northern Polk County, grew 68 percent from 27,117 in 2000 to 45,582 in 2010, making it Iowa's 11th largest city.

...

Census shows overall state population up 9.1 percent

By Gavin Lesnick / ArkansasOnline.com

LITTLE ROCK — Arkansas' population grew by more than 9 percent between 2000 and 2010, according to census information released Thursday.

The data show declines in a number of counties in southern and eastern parts of the state as well as big gains in Benton and Faulkner counties.

Pine Bluff's ’s population fell below 50,000 (to 49,083) for the first time in decades while Jonesboro — which celebrated reaching the 50,000 mark relatively recently — now has more than 67,000 residents.

...

Little Rock, the state's most populous city with 193,524 residents, grew by 5.7 percent between 2000 and 2010. The next most populous cities in Arkansas were Fort Smith with 86,209 residents, Fayetteville with 73,580, Springdale with 69,797 and Jonesboro with 67,263.

...

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by LMich

Ok, the Texas pissing match about who's most liberal/conservative can stop, now.

Back on topic...

I'm not trying to participate in the pissing match... I promise!! But this needs to be said.

All cities aside, the state's total population is definitely on the increase, and I believe that each of the Texas metros has become slightly more liberal. But I fear the change rate of the population was smaller than some of us would like to assert on here. Texas still has a very heavy conservative bent (State Congress, Governor, etc.) and the conservatives still hold all of the power. So in the re-districting fight, any gains of liberal idea will be overshadowed

That's just the reality of the situation in Texas.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

No you are not. Houston has had plenty of Republican and Conservative mayors including your most famous one, Mayor Holcombe, who served something like a dozen terms from the 20's to the late 50's. Also I could go look it up if you like to give you some name of others as I don't know them off the top of my head but I know for a fact you have had Republican mayors since then. As for Austin, I do not know of any but I am sure there has been a few.

While you raise the question of mayors of the cities it does help my point though. My point was that Houston and Dallas have become more liberal, and recently Houston has been electing liberal mayors, and although Dallas has had a few their current mayor is a Republican.

Oddly enough anyone care to guess when New York City last had a Democrat as a mayor?

Okay, but don't try to pass off Austin as the only liberal area in Texas until recently. And I was wrong on the mayors. It was Houston hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1996, so I was off on that one. Though, I'm not sure how it proves your point, considering Austin's mayor history is the same way. I'm not even sure if Austin has elected a minority mayor yet, but you can correct me on that one.

Originally Posted by jtk1519

The state is becoming more conservative, but less Republican in many ways. The only true liberal spots are the cities of Dallas, Houston and Austin and yes they are all liberal though not always the same kind of liberal. The suburbs are very conservative though. But while the liberal areas are pretty contained and not growing as fast as the rest of the state, the conservative Democrat bases are growing largely because of the Hispanic vote.

Spend some time in San Antonio, on the border, El Paso, etc. These places epitomize the term "blue dog". Pretty conservative (especially on fiscal and social issues), but tend to vote Democrat because immigration, labor law issues, etc. But these are votes that could easily go Republican (as they largely did for Bush 43) so they are by no means liberal.

I think Texas is becoming more centrist than perhaps most states. Dallas and maybe Houston are trending more liberal (maybe Austin too, but I think less so than Dallas and Houston) and some areas like Collin County in the Northern part of the Metroplex and maybe Fort Worth are trending more to the right, but most of the state is fairly moderate and can be swayed Democrat or Republican with the right candidate but tend to go Republican because the Democrat party can't field anybody in statewide elections that is worth a damn and the national Democrat party is too far to the left right now.

Yeah, this is correct. Fort Worth still leans to the right, despite the growth going on there. It's the only major Texas city that does that.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Trae

Okay, but don't try to pass off Austin as the only liberal area in Texas until recently. And I was wrong on the mayors. It was Houston hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1996, so I was off on that one. Though, I'm not sure how it proves your point, considering Austin's mayor history is the same way. I'm not even sure if Austin has elected a minority mayor yet, but you can correct me on that one.

Yeah, this is correct. Fort Worth still leans to the right, despite the growth going on there. It's the only major Texas city that does that.

Fort Worth is very similar in many ways to the two major cities in Oklahoma, Oklahoma City and Tulsa. All three have more liberal inner city areas but are overshadowed in elections by the more conservative, Republican 'suburban' type areas that are still within the large (size-wise) city limits of each city, especially Oklahoma City. The demographics and incomes are also similar, whereas Dallas, Houston and Austin are quite a bit different and also attract more transplants from northern/western states than do Ft Worth, OKC or Tulsa.

As for the rural areas in Oklahoma, they are nearly identical to those in Texas: very conservative. Rural conservatives still maintain a lot of legislative power in the state despite most of the rural counties losing population except for those with military bases like Ft Sill in Lawton, large immigrant labor centers like Guymon in the Panhandle, and retirement havens in the northeast corner. The northeast counties have also benefitted from the high growth in the adjacent counties in NW Arkansas (see Post #262).

[ChiSoxRox]

The Des Moines Register has an interactive map of the Census results for Iowa at http://data.desmoinesregister.com/dm...stricting-map/.

Zoom in and the data switches to census tracts.

[jtk1519]

Originally Posted by Trae

Yeah, this is correct. Fort Worth still leans to the right, despite the growth going on there. It's the only major Texas city that does that.

I would argue that San Antonio is ideologically a pretty right-leaning city that tends to vote Democrat. Consider that in '08, San Antonio (Bexar County) went for Obama in the general election but favored the less liberal Clinton in the primary. Bexar County went pretty heavily to Bush in '00 and '04 because of his strong appeal to the Hispanic community but before that Clinton won Bexar County twice.

The city will sway from one party to the other, but never too much. When Bush received 54% of Bexar County's votes in '04, that was the largest percentage since Reagan pulled 59% in '84 and that was the most since LBJ pulled the biggest swing in '64 when he got almost 67% of Bexar County's votes. The city stays pretty close to the center.

I think the massive military presence in San Antonio keeps it from going too blue while the very large Hispanic population keeps the city from going too red, but both components are conservative in nature. So is it fair to label San Antonio a "conservative city"? Maybe not, but it sure as hell aint liberal.

[Samwill89]

Originally Posted by SD_Phil

Should be exciting to see Texas' results. I have a question for Texas forumers though:

We care about the census for two reasons right? 1) We're interested and invested in sustainable growth for the nation so some set of total population numbers (%5-10) would be good AND 2) we care about politics and we want to know about reapportioning of house seats.

So here's my question: how has a population increase affected Texas politically? Is it becoming more liberal (as other southwestern states with increasing populations are trending), is it holding basically stable, or is the increase coming mostly from conservatives?

Ignoring the aforementioned pissing match, I will say that the answer isn't very clear. Around 80% of Texas' growth came from ethnic minorities, who lean Democratic. To call them "liberal" or "conservative" is another debate with no single answer. Since 2005, Texas has been a majority-minority state, joining California, Hawaii, and New Mexico. However, this has yet to translate into visible gains for state Democrats. Without a doubt, the few White transplants were attracted to the low taxes and cheap suburban land costs, so I can predict how they would vote generally.

As for the individual cities, Austin, Houston and Dallas are incomparable considering size and demographic differences. It would be a foolish effort to compare how liberal or conservative they are relative to one another. They are just too different for the comparisons to mean anything.

Some of the notable differences which make comparing difficult:

-Houston has a lot of blue collar Democrats and very few social progressives outside of the Loop and Fort Bend County. It is less racially segregated than Austin, but the white enclaves are very Republican. And Annise Parker is as fiscally conservative and corporatist as they come. That is why she won her election, not because of her sexual orientation. It makes little sense for Houstonians to use Annise Parker as an example of Houston's progressivism when her win against a Liberal Black Democrat with 16% turnout suggests otherwise. You also have to consider that Houston is four times the size of Austin, so I would imagine it is just more politically diverse no matter how you draw the lines.

-Austin has plenty of social progressives but is generally wealthier. Even its wealthy majority White neighborhoods in the suburbs vote Democratic and support things like gay marriage. Austin certainly is a political anomaly in Texas as far as progressivism goes. But the city still has a lot of issues with race and increasing wealth gaps.

-I can't really speak for Dallas though I know Fort Worth is one of those places moving quickly to the left socially.

-Using extreme comparisons, Houston's Democratic base is more like Detroit than San Francisco, while Austin is more San Francisco than Detroit. In reality, they are both closer to the middle overall.

Someone in another thread mentioned a DIY redistricting map. The information for each tract is very telling, giving updated racial, ethnic data as well as the voting patterns from 2008 and income level. This should essentially answer all questions about the political leanings of individual cities for those who insist on using irrelevant anecdotal evidence to prove their points.

http://gardow.com/davebradlee/redist...icting2.0.aspx

I am looking forward to the additional debate that will come from the figures to be released this week. I also want to look at Florida and Georgia's numbers as soon as they are released.

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by Samwill89

As for the individual cities, Austin, Houston and Dallas are incomparable considering size and demographic differences. It would be a foolish effort to compare how liberal or conservative they are relative to one another. They are just too different for the comparisons to mean anything.

Some of the notable differences which make comparing difficult:

-Houston has a lot of blue collar Democrats and very few social progressives outside of the Loop and Fort Bend County. It is less racially segregated than Austin, but the white enclaves are very Republican. And Annise Parker is as fiscally conservative and corporatist as they come. That is why she won her election, not because of her sexual orientation. It makes little sense for Houstonians to use Annise Parker as an example of Houston's progressivism when her win against a Liberal Black Democrat with 16% turnout suggests otherwise. You also have to consider that Houston is four times the size of Austin, so I would imagine it is just more politically diverse no matter how you draw the lines.

-Austin has plenty of social progressives but is generally wealthier. Even its wealthy majority White neighborhoods in the suburbs vote Democratic and support things like gay marriage. Austin certainly is a political anomaly in Texas as far as progressivism goes. But the city still has a lot of issues with race and increasing wealth gaps.

-I can't really speak for Dallas though I know Fort Worth is one of those places moving quickly to the left socially.

I'm the last one to try and defend any of the Texas cities as being a beacon of progressivism, but I do think there were some unique circumstances surrounding the Annise Parker campaign. She is fiscally conservative, and somewhat business friendly, but "corporatist" is far too strong, and would actually apply better to Bill White. This is Texas afterall... social Democrats don't get elected here outside of a very homogenous voting block. Also, it's her first term and we're in a difficult economy. Social issues and goals have taken a backseat to the employment rate. However if she gets reelected, I suspect we will start to see more social change coming from the Mayor's office. As much money and power as the Conservative forces have around Texas, I find it very peculiar that they were so late to mobilize and prevent the Mayor from winning. In most areas of the country (even some that proclaim to be more "liberal than here") I doubt it could have happened. Again, I agree that one action does not change the city overnight, but it was a big step for this area of the country.

[ChiSoxRox]

From the Census Bureau's news release:

Today, the Census Bureau shipped local 2010 Census data to the governor and leadership of the state legislature in Illinois. After confirmation of receipt, usually within 24 hours of shipment, the Census Bureau will issue a news release with five custom tables of data for the state. Tuesday's release is expected around 3 p.m. EST. At that time, the full set of data will also be available via FTP download at http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/0...le--PL_94-171/.

So tomorrow afternoon, we'll learn Chicago's 2010 population, along with several suburbs and downstate cities.

Oklahoma also comes out tomorrow.

[bnk]

our

cant wait to see who is proven wrong or right. But in the end with the state of Illinois failure to keep the rate of growth as strong as the rest of that nation, well like in the past it is downstate that will be running counties that lose population while the collar counties grew by a good margin. The city limits? Like I said before a slight loss and even smaller loss in Cook County.

Even with one of the smallest percentage state growths in the midwest based upon puren head count numbers Illinois added more people than any other midwestern state. Correct me if I am wrong. But again it is not the percentage that I am looking at but pure numbers.

Hopfully with a Dem gov [ Thanks you tea bagers by putting up the most conservitve person, one that is a birther and belives that abortion is an abortion.]

Otherwise PQ would have lost in a close election where AG lost to the moderate or liberal by national standards Kirk. AG did not get the numbers out of Cook and the Collar counies like Kirk did.

Our current govenor won about 2 to 4 counties in the state where as AG won only 2 and lost enough in the burbs to keep him just below Kirk.

Quin won for the simple reason that his opponent was the most right wing of the primary winners of the gop field.

Both elections were close but Quinn had the more tea bager competion to deal with. It helped him and hopfully when the new congressional districts are refigured that they will [ the democratic controlled senate, house and gov] to eliminate a gop down state seat. Illinois was close to not losing a seat a few years ago. It is quite possible that they may not lose a seat again in 2020. Of course that is 10 years out but I would take a bet now that Illinois will keep all of its current [newly readjusted steats] as they will be in 2012.

[Rail Claimore]

On the issue of political shifts among the population in Texas, you people talk about liberalism and conservatism as if there is no middle ground: either you're one or the other. I disagree with all these assessments.

The only large contiguous areas of Texas that strike me as truly conservative (in other words, of the type you find in the rural South) are rural east Texas, the Panhandle, and the suburbs of the Metroplex. The only sizable concentration of true liberals (like those found in San Francisco or Seattle) in the entire state is in Austin.

The rest of the state, basically everywhere along I-10 and South, including Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso, is pretty nuts-and-bolts moderate overall: It might as well be downstate Illinois, only with a lot more hispanics.

And that's probably why that's the half of Texas I LIKE.

[photoLith]

Im glad to see Little Rocks population grew so much, that means theres lots of potential for new development downtown and restorations along Main Street. Its amazing the differences between western and eastern Arkansas. Arkansas overall is very poverty stricken but driving around the small towns in eastern Arkansas is about the most depressing thing ever. Theres basically no industry in the eastern section of the state and I dont see anything anytime soon becoming more prosperous east of Little Rock, save Jonesboro, and thats just because its a college town. Its crazy that in just 10 years, some of those eastern Arkansas counties have lost nearly 20% of their populations.

[Urbanguy]

Here are some figures using official U.S. Census counts with estimates for Canadian Provinces, Territories, etc from April 1, 2000 to April 1, 2010 as a little comparison for the amount of growth over the same ten year period between the two nations. Keep in mind the Canadian figures are estimates as their official census counts are not held the same year as the United States.

States, Provinces, D.C., etc ranked April 1, 2010.

1 California: 37,253,956
2 Texas: 25,145,561
3 New York: 19,378,102
4 Florida: 18,801,310
5 Ontario: 13,167,894
6 Illinois: 12,830,632
7 Pennsylvania: 12,702,379
8 Ohio: 11,536,504
9 Michigan: 9,883,640
10 Georgia: 9,687,653
11 North Carolina: 9,535,483
12 New Jersey: 8,791,894
13 Virginia: 8,001,024
14 Quebec: 7,886,108
15 Washington: 6,724,540
16 Massachusetts: 6,547,629
17 Indiana: 6,483,802
18 Arizona: 6,392,017
19 Tennessee: 6,346,105
20 Missouri: 5,988,927
21 Maryland: 5,773,552
22 Wisconsin: 5,686,986
23 Minnesota: 5,303,925
24 Colorado: 5,029,196
25 Alabama: 4,779,736
26 South Carolina: 4,625,364
27 Louisiana: 4,533,372
28 British Columbia: 4,510,858
29 Kentucky: 4,339,367
30 Oregon: 3,831,074
31 Oklahoma: 3,751,351
32 Alberta: 3,724,832
33 Connecticut: 3,574,097
34 Iowa: 3,046,355
35 Mississippi: 2,967,297
36 Arkansas: 2,915,918
37 Kansas: 2,853,118
38 Utah: 2,763,885
39 Nevada: 2,700,551
40 New Mexico: 2,059,179
41 West Virginia: 1,852,994
42 Nebraska: 1,826,341
43 Idaho: 1,567,582
44 Hawaii: 1,360,301
45 Maine: 1,328,361
46 New Hampshire: 1,316,470
47 Manitoba: 1,232,654
48 Rhode Island: 1,052,567
49 Saskatchewan: 1,041,729
50 Montana: 989,415
51 Nova Scotia: 940,482
52 Delaware: 897,934
53 South Dakota: 814,180
54 New Brunswick: 751,273
55 Alaska: 710,231
56 North Dakota: 672,591
57 Vermont: 625,741
58 District of Columbia: 601,723
59 Wyoming: 563,626
60 Newfoundland and Labrador: 510,901
61 Prince Edward Island: 141,551
62 Northwest Territories: 43,529
63 Yukon: 34,246
64 Nunavut: 32,900

Growth from April 1, 2000 to April 1, 2010:

1 Texas: 4,293,741
2 California: 3,382,308
3 Florida: 2,818,932
4 Ontario: 1,554,218
5 Georgia: 1,501,200
6 North Carolina: 1,486,170
7 Arizona: 1,261,385
8 Virginia: 922,509
9 Washington: 830,419
10 Alberta: 740,167
11 Colorado: 727,935
12 Nevada: 702,294
13 Tennessee: 656,822
14 South Carolina: 613,352
15 Utah: 530,716
16 Quebec: 520,550
17 Maryland: 477,066
18 British Columbia: 455,088
19 Pennsylvania: 421,325
20 Illinois: 411,339
21 Oregon: 409,675
22 Indiana: 403,317
23 New York: 401,645
24 Missouri: 393,716
25 Minnesota: 384,446
26 New Jersey: 377,544
27 Alabama: 332,636
28 Wisconsin: 323,311
29 Oklahoma: 300,697
30 Kentucky: 297,598
31 Idaho: 273,629
32 Arkansas: 242,518
33 New Mexico: 240,133
34 Massachusetts: 198,532
35 Ohio: 183,364
36 Connecticut: 168,532
37 Kansas: 164,700
38 Hawaii: 148,764
39 Mississippi: 122,639
40 Iowa: 120,031
41 Nebraska: 115,078
42 Delaware: 114,334
43 Montana: 87,220
44 Manitoba: 86,320
45 Alaska: 83,299
46 New Hampshire: 80,684
47 Wyoming: 69,844
48 Louisiana: 64,396
49 South Dakota: 59,336
50 Maine: 53,438
51 West Virginia: 44,650
52 North Dakota: 30,391
53 District of Columbia: 29,664
54 Saskatchewan: 17,922
55 Vermont: 16,914
56 Nunavut: 5,505
57 Rhode Island: 4,248
58 Yukon: 3,652
59 Prince Edward Island: 3,101
60 Northwest Territories: 1,804
61 Nova Scotia: -591
62 New Brunswick: -4,694
63 Newfoundland and Labrador: -28,815
64 Michigan: -54,804

Rank by percentage change from April 1, 2000 to April 1, 2010.

1 Nevada: 35.15%
2 Alberta: 24.80%
3 Arizona: 24.59%
4 Utah: 23.77%
5 Idaho: 21.15%
6 Texas: 20.59%
7 Nunavut: 20.09%
8 North Carolina: 18.46%
9 Georgia: 18.34%
10 Florida: 17.64%
11 Colorado: 16.92%
12 South Carolina: 15.29%
13 Delaware: 14.59%
14 Wyoming: 14.14%
15 Washington: 14.09%
16 Ontario: 13.38%
17 Alaska: 13.29%
18 New Mexico: 13.20%
19 Virginia: 13.03%
20 Hawaii: 12.28%
21 Oregon: 11.97%
22 Yukon: 11.94%
23 Tennessee: 11.54%
24 British Columbia: 11.22%
25 California: 9.99%
26 Montana: 9.67%
27 Arkansas: 9.07%
28 Maryland: 9.01%
29 Oklahoma: 8.71%
30 South Dakota: 7.86%
31 Minnesota: 7.81%
32 Manitoba: 7.53%
33 Alabama: 7.48%
34 Kentucky: 7.36%
35 Quebec: 7.07%
36 Missouri: 7.04%
37 Nebraska: 6.72%
38 Indiana: 6.63%
39 New Hampshire: 6.53%
40 Kansas: 6.13%
41 Wisconsin: 6.03%
42 District of Columbia: 5.19%
43 Connecticut: 4.95%
44 North Dakota: 4.73%
45 New Jersey: 4.49%
46 Northwest Territories: 4.32%
47 Mississippi: 4.31%
48 Maine: 4.19%
49 Iowa: 4.10%
50 Pennsylvania: 3.43%
51 Illinois: 3.31%
52 Massachusetts: 3.13%
53 Vermont: 2.78%
54 West Virginia: 2.47%
55 Prince Edward Island: 2.24%
56 New York: 2.12%
57 Saskatchewan: 1.75%
58 Ohio: 1.62%
59 Louisiana: 1.44%
60 Rhode Island: 0.41%
61 Nova Scotia: -0.06%
62 Michigan: -0.55%
63 New Brunswick: -0.62%
64 Newfoundland and Labrador: -5.34%


Sources:

US Census 2010 XLS
Statscan, April 1, 2010 Estimates
Statscan, April 1, 2000 Estimates

[BG918]

Originally Posted by photolitherland

Im glad to see Little Rocks population grew so much, that means theres lots of potential for new development downtown and restorations along Main Street. Its amazing the differences between western and eastern Arkansas. Arkansas overall is very poverty stricken but driving around the small towns in eastern Arkansas is about the most depressing thing ever. Theres basically no industry in the eastern section of the state and I dont see anything anytime soon becoming more prosperous east of Little Rock, save Jonesboro, and thats just because its a college town. Its crazy that in just 10 years, some of those eastern Arkansas counties have lost nearly 20% of their populations.

Basically everywhere in Arkansas except the Little Rock metro, the far northwest counties and Jonesboro's county either lost population or barely grew over the past decade. I think you will continue to see Arkansas' rural population move to Little Rock, the I-540 corridor in NWA, or bigger cities in surrounding states. What is driving the population growth in Jonesboro, Arkansas State University? I know the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, along with Wal-Mart, Tyson, and JB Hunt, really drive the economy in the northwest and have brought lots of jobs over the past two decade; the area also attracts a good number of retirees. That metro was around 250,000 in 1990 and is now nearing 500,000.

[photoLith]

^
that's not entirely true, the Podunk I live in grew from 24000 in 2000 to 28000 now and its in central arkansas far away from nw arkansas amd the little rock metro area. Most towns in Arkansas have grown except for in eastern Arkansas. It's mainly do to an influx of Latino migrants seeking work at Tyson plants and other similar industry. The small town of dardanelle just south of russellville has a population of around 3000 and it's now 40% Latino. That's the only reason, outside of North west Arkansas and little rock, small towns are growing in population. And yeah, I think jonesboro is growing due to asu. But I'm sure there's other stuff going on there too for it to be growing so rapidly.

[bnk]

Nothing we aready did not know.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,1239673.story

Census estimates show more US blacks moving South

By HOPE YEN

Associated Press

9:40 AM CST, February 15, 2011

WASHINGTON


Census estimates show the nation's blacks are leaving big cities in the Northeast and Midwest at the highest levels in decades. They are returning to fast-growing states in the once-segregated South ...

The South -- places such as Atlanta, Dallas and Houston -- accounted for roughly 75 percent of the population gains among blacks since 2000. The gains came at the expense of Northern metro areas such as New York and Chicago, which posted their first declines in black population since at least 1980.

In all, about 57 percent of U.S. blacks now live in the South, a jump from the 53 percent share in the 1970s.

....

[TexasBoi]

Broken down by state, Georgia was tops in the total number of African Americans, edging out New York state. It was followed by Texas, Florida and California.

Georgia jumped from 4th to 1st in 10 years. For the longest this past decade it was NY, Florida, Texas, GA, and Cali in that order.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

From the Census Bureau's news release:



So tomorrow afternoon, we'll learn Chicago's 2010 population, along with several suburbs and downstate cities.

Oklahoma also comes out tomorrow.

2.695 million.

Largely due to black flight.

Ouch. Chicago took a big hit...

[TexasBoi]

Wow. Chicago took a huge hit.

Data for Illinois show that the five most populous incorporated places and their 2010 Census counts are Chicago, 2,695,598; Aurora, 197,899; Rockford, 152,871; Joliet, 147,433; and Naperville, 141,853. Chicago decreased by 6.9 percent since the 2000 Census. Aurora grew by 38.4 percent, Rockford grew by 1.8 percent, Joliet grew by 38.8 percent, and Naperville grew by 10.5 percent.