In 1950, when I was in kindergarten in Detroit, the city had a population of (rounded off) 1,850,000. Today the latest census estimate for Detroit is 886,000, less than half as many. In 1950, the population of the U.S. was 150 million. Today the latest census estimate for the nation is 301 million, more than twice as many. People in America move around. But not just randomly.

The article goes on to look at “coastal megalopolises,” noting a steady trend of shrinkage (relative to the U.S. as a whole) comprised of lots of natives moving away and somewhat fewer immigrants moving in. People are moving out of California instead of in, and New York, New Jersey, and Illinois are expected to lose seats in the House in 2010. The big growth cities are ‘interior boomtowns’ that are off the coast, but not TOO far of the coast (Orlando, Dallas) and there are a bunch of large cities (Denver among them) whose growth essentially matches up with the country as a whole.

Interesting reading, especially when projecting the impact these shifts will have on the political voting strength of traditionally strong areas.

The missing point in the extrapolation the author draws is who is moving to those interior locations and what political PoV they're going to bring. If people are fleeing Boston for Dallas -- are they dropping their Boston beliefs and going native? Or would we expect Dallas to start voting a bit differently?

From the one example I can speak to, btw -- LA out to the Inland Empire -- the drivers there are economic. You (or, alternately, my brother) can buy a decent house on the Inland Empire and commute in to work. No can do in the closer environs -- things are either priced out of range or immigrant slums. I'm not sure that then speaks to any particular political ideology spreading out one way or the other.