Isn't the concern dilution. That is 5,000 in this county in AZ or 2000 in that city in CO will overall delute the Democratic power bases? Also, isn't it more of an argument that the face of both parties maybe changing? What is of interest to NE is not of interest to the Pacific NW?

Furthermore, I would argue that an increase in population density in the so-called interior "red states" will favor Democrats over the long haul.  Let's remember that "white flight" is a reason why interior states are gaining population at the expense of the coasts.  Those with greater wealth want to live in less densely populated, culturally homogenous states with lots of pretty green space.  As those states gain population and urbanize, they will start to resemble the more liberal coastal states.  

Barone is an idiot; but we already knew that, didn't we?

I think the phenomenon of liberals locating to rural / middle America is far more likely to turn those places blue. Shit, if 100,000 liberals moved to Wyoming, we would own the state, lock, stock and barrel. Rural states have relatively low populations, compared to the big, coastal states, and therefore they have a demographic countenance that would be much easier to manipulate. Every wingnut in the country would have to move to NYC in order to turn the place red.

We will be moving to West Chester PA this summer and everyone there is telling me that it was a very red area that is rapidly turning blue much to their SURPRISE! The new state senator is a dem and the first one in decades.

Let Barone sit and dream all he wants while we do our work turning the rest of the country blue. We're getting quite a boost in that regard from the Decider Guy.

The one demographic datum in Barone's favor is the rise of the Protestant Evangelical movement, particularly the "prosperity gospel" branch, among Hispanic immigrants.  Studies show that while Catholic Hispanics trend Democratic, Protestant ones trend Republican.

But this trend is swamped by population density:  The bigger a city, the more likely it is to turn blue, regardless of any other factor.  Even Southern cities turn blue if they get big enough.  Republicans are losing the inner-ring suburbs and have to get their votes from the white-flight exurbs.  And even those are turning blue as they grow.

Amen.

The interior West is the broadest example, but really, the same could easily be said for Virginia (and in my opinion, Kentucky and North Carolina are going to be the Virginias of the 2010s). I've been hearing this argument since high school poli-sci classes as if one's political affiliation were tied directly and solely to one's area code. People who move bring their opinions with them, they don't leave them at the alongside the old sets of dinnerware.

Why do we care?

...about refuting Barone, I mean?

As far as I'm concerned, I'm more than happy to feed this false hope on the right.  Let the GOP continue to think that, in time, if they keep trending further and further right - the wins will come.

Meanwhile, former GOP bastions turn purpler and purpler - and eventually become blue bastions.

The Dobsons of the world may not like it - but the fact is, society has historically marched left, at least in regards to cultural issues.   It may be glacial - and we even have those unfortunate instances of one step up, two steps back - but the world is ultimately becoming MORE liberal, not more conservative in regards to religion, ethnicity, sexual equality, etc.  

I'm not saying I/we don't have a place and purpose to continue to push society in that direction, but in the long term - I'm not all that worried.

An oldie- remember the "exurban" counties whose massive (proportionate) growth was going to doom Democrats?

But as Texeiera and Judis noted, reliably Republican exurban counties become far-less reliable as their population increases. If Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Florida become larger and denser, that's a short-term boon to their Republicans, and a long-term setback to Republicans nationally.

It's the same thing we saw in the claim that Republicans were so dominant because so much of the map was red after 2000 and 2004. Some of these people actually seem to believe that there is something magical in red state soil that will turn all who move there into Republicans.

What they forget is that the people who move in are changing the land at the same time the land is changing them.

Massachusetts used to be one of the most conservative states in the nation.

In the 1982 Almanac Of American Politics, he tried to say that New York was becomming a Republican state because of demographic shifts.  He also said that Republicans were in a good position to "increase their numbers in the House and Senate" in 2006 after the 2004 election in the 2006 Almanac.  Barone's projections are based on nothing but what he wants to believe.

Barone should read up on the "Californication" of the interior West, or Mountain, states.  When people have already coined a word for the transformation of entire states by the influx of ex-Californians (many of them liberals), it doesn't take much intelligence to see that states that are Repulicon "today" may weell be Democratic very soon.  In fact, we have already seen electoral results in Montana, Colorado, and elsewhere that suggest the trend will begin to bear Democratic fruit in quantity in the next election.

America hasn't had a true realigning presidential election since 1932.  What defines such elections is that they mark a watershed which, though epitomized by the president, resonates in the House.  Each one sees two consecutive House wave elections go the same way--the only times we ever see this happen.  (This is why none of the post-1932 candidates--1964, 1968, 1974, 1980, 1994--qualifies.)

But if we have another wave election in 2008--which Bush's stubborness on Iraq could very well deliver--then the chances would be good that we'd have a true presidential realigning election as well.  That means winning a good 10 states, minimum, beyond what we've won in the last two elections, with a fair chance of significant trickle-down (just as we saw at the state level last time.)

Not only is that very sweet in itself, but it also means we are in a very strong position come the redistricting for 2012.  It means we're quite likely to control more statehouses and legislatures, so we've got more opportunities to draw lines to our liking, and it means we have less need to do so, because we have more House incumbents in place, who, by 2012, will no longer be relatively-vulnerable freshman, even if their districts do get shifted around a bit.  Plus, of course, fewer strong Reps in the state legislatures looking to challenge them.

In short, if we do win a realigning-style election in 2008, there are multiple mechanisms that kick in to work together and ensure that its results stay pretty much locked into place.  That is, after all, what makes it a realigninig election in the first place: it heralds a fundamental shift that stays in place for a good long time.