Article after article like this has ranted about how the 2010 census is bad for Democrats:
Republican-leaning states will gain at least a half dozen House seats thanks to the 2010 census, which found the nation's population growing more slowly than in past decades but still shifting to the South and West.
In 2008, President Barack Obama lost in Texas and most of the other states that are gaining House seats. He carried most of the states that are losing House seats, including Ohio and New York.
Let's look at the numbers:
Obama 365-McCain 173
Texas will gain four new House seats, and Florida will gain two. Gaining one each are Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington. Ohio and New York will lose two House seats each. Losing one House seat are Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
New number: Obama 359-McCain 179
Wow, I'm not saying Obama would win reelection by that in 2012, but if that was the case, the news shouldn't be like "OMG, voters are protesting Obama by moving out of states he won in 2008", but they are making it seem like that. As for the new districts in Republican states, there is no guarantee they will go Republican unless they are gerrymandered that way. With the exception of Massachusetts, there is no guarantee every "blue" state will lose a Democratic representative. But also, there's a reason why certain states like Texas, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah are picking up seats, they have large Hispanic populations and they are the fastest growing group and guess who they are voting for? Democrats and after the killing of the Dream Act and other racist measures by Republicans, that number will only grow to vote for Democrats. I predict in a few years Texas will be a solid blue state.
So the news is not as bad for Democrats as you think. By the way, the census was something conservatives opposed, so I find the spinning of data to be ironic.