This is one of several pieces I've read recently that have some bad news for people like me and Mr. Schaller, as we argue for the "new coalition" of states and seats that will bring Democratic majorities to Congress:

The new Census Bureau 2006 state population estimates are out and the numbers offer some insight into the post-2010 Census reapportionment of congressional seats. While it’s still too early to predict exactly which states are gainers and losers, a few things are already clear.

According to an analysis by Polidata, a political data consulting firm, seven states are all but certain to lose at least one seat: Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Another six states are all but certain to gain at least one seat: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Texas and Utah.

A few other interesting projections from Polidata: Texas could pick up as many as 4 congressional seats; New York and Ohio could lose 2 seats. California, for the first time since statehood, may not pick up any seats.

Polidata’s Clark Bensen also observes that Florida (currently with 25 seats) is now poised to replace New York (29 seats) as the third most populous state – and that both states might end up with 27-member delegations when the dust settles after reapportionment.

The continuing flow of Americans to the South and West has been going on for a while now, and I just heard an NPR piece about the shrinking population in New England, where apparently only New Hampshire has seen any population growth. The bottom line seems to be that young people are leaving the North, mainly because economic opportunity is better in booming Southern and Western cities. I'm sure that fact has something to do with decades of pork directed to Southern and Western states at the expense of states in the North and Midwest. My understanding is that for at least the last few years, those regions have been "paying in" to the Federal pot at a greater rate than states in the South, while Southern states receive "back" more Federal taxmonies than they "put in."

News like this makes me believe a couple of things. It's not so much that I'm revising my opinion of Schaller's thesis, but that I think it becomes that much more important for Democrats to shore up their control over Northern and Midwestern districts, and show a willingness to take advantage of the Congressional power they have now, indeed even unto redistricting a la the Texan example, to ensure that Democrats hold on the the power they have. It also means that at the same time Southern Democrats have to do everything they can to make sure that the transplant communties are brought into the Democratic Southern fold. Outreach, GOTV efforts, tracking...I'm sure there is a long list of things Republicans would do, and are doing, to make sure this population shift benefits them. Are the Democrats doing the same?