by JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:03 A.M. EDT

Time Waits for No One
On Friday we noted that the Census Bureau has released new population projections through 2030, which largely show that states George W. Bush carried in 2000 and 2004 are expected to grow faster than those his opponents won. Blogger Steven Jens has run the numbers and figured out how these estimates, if they prove accurate, will affect the apportionment of congressional seats and electoral votes.

This table shows the effect of the projected change on the first presidential election after the 2010, 2020 and 2030 censuses, assuming that each party's candidate carries the same states as in 2004. The 2004 figure is the total current number of electoral votes, while the figures for other years represent the cumulative change in apportionment. States with no projected change are omitted:

Reader Matthias Shapiro conducted the same calculations for the 2030 projections, with identical results. He writes:

In 2032 the Republicans could lose Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico and still win a presidential election. This makes standing still a perfectly viable long-term political option for the Republicans. And seeing as how the Democrats are the ones struggling just to stand still, I'd say the future looks pretty red from here.

But "standing still" is a good strategy only if the world stands still. It will not.

For one thing, the current red-blue electoral configuration is bound to prove transitory. Many states were competitive in both 2000 and 2004, despite being either won or lost by Bush both times. While only three states voted differently in the two Bush elections, this is about normal for elections in which presidents are re-elected. Only four states switched parties between 1952 and 1956, five between 1980 and 1984, and five between 1992 and 1996. Nixon's re-election in 1972 was an exception, but his opposition was far weaker that year than in 1968, when he carried 17 fewer states.

With two untested candidates on the ballot (barring a highly unlikely Gore or Kerry nomination), 2008's electoral map will probably end up looking quite different from 2004's. Whether it will be redder or bluer, it is too early to say. As for 2032, a lot can change in 28 years; 24 states voted differently in 2004 than they did in 1976 (10 shifted from Republican to Democrat and 14 from Democrat to Republican):

Further, the growth of currently Republican states does not necessarily benefit Republicans, for migration and immigration can change a state's political profile. To take a trivial example, Vermont was long the most Republican state in the union, but an influx from liberal states like Massachusetts and New York made it into one of the most Democratic.

Of particular concern to the GOP should be two states--Arizona and Florida--that together account for 14 of the net 17 electoral votes the "red" states are projected to gain between now and 2032. Neither is solidly in the GOP camp now--Clinton carried both in 1996--and both have large and growing numbers of Hispanics. Cuban-Americans excepted, Hispanics tend to vote Democratic. Bush showed significant improvement in 2004, but if that trend doesn't continue, it's bad news for Republicans--for if, in our scenario, both Arizona and Florida were to flip to the Democrats in 2032, the Republicans would lose, 286-252. Thus Republicans would be well advised to make Hispanic outreach a high priority.

Other events--some predictable, some not--could change voting patterns in significant ways. Thanks to Cuban-Americans' loyalty to the GOP, Bush won a majority of Hispanic votes in Florida (56% to 44%, according to CNN). But that loyalty is based on the GOP's antipathy toward Fidel Castro, who was born in 1927 and will likely die in the foreseeable future. No one knows what Cuba will look like post-Castro, but if the communist regime dies with him, Cuban-Americans' fidelity to the Republican Party could weaken.

On the other hand, if blacks and union members continue declining as a proportion of the total population (as seems likely), or if black voting patterns change (a big if), it would work to the benefit of the GOP. One could come up with any number of other examples. Election outcomes are the result of myriad complicated factors, and it would be foolish to try to predict them all.

One of the most interesting political questions in the coming decades will be the effect of "values" voters, or the so-called religious right. This constituency is riding high at the moment, having been instrumental in Bush's two elections and in electing the most conservative Senate in recent memory. Turnover on the Supreme Court could give these voters a long-sought chance to affect policy on the issues most important to them, above all abortion.

But if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade, it would dramatically change American politics, which in this respect has been stable for a quarter century. We've argued that the absence of Roe would be politically problematic for Republicans, because it could force them to choose between moderate voters and pro-life absolutists, whereas they can appeal to both groups now by favoring the modest restrictions that Roe permits.

Possibly this problem could be avoided by a return to the status quo ante Roe--that is, for Congress to refrain from passing sweeping legislation on abortion and leave its regulation to the states. It's conceivable that practical-minded pro-lifers would pursue such a strategy on the ground that it is easier to get things done in the state capitals than in Washington. Yet in this case, just as the end of the Cold War diminished national security as an issue pre-9/11, at the expense of the party that led America to victory the Cold War, the overturning of Roe would diminish abortion, depriving the GOP of its current advantage.

If the Republicans' goal today is to reverse Roe, they need to be prepared in the event of success. Standing still is an option only if the GOP doesn't expect to accomplish anything with its power.

Too Dumb to Be Free?
"Survey Finds Many Have Poor Grasp of Basic Economics," reads a New York Times headline. No doubt many do, but reporter Mary Williams Walsh immediately draws policy implications that suggest she has a poor grasp of how a free society works:

With Washington considering whether to strengthen Social Security by giving Americans more responsibility for their own retirements, a survey released yesterday suggested that the typical American does not know enough about economics to prosper in such a system. . . .

Other analysts said they thought that the findings added to a growing body of evidence that the typical American is poorly equipped to take advantage of what proponents call the ownership society: a future in which individuals are free to invest their own retirement money, rather than having to accept the returns offered by the Social Security program or a group retirement program at work, like a pension plan. . . .

"It is abundantly clear that there are a large number of Americans who are completely unprepared to make these decisions," said Steve Blakely, the [Employee Benefits Research Institute]'s editor and communications director.

To see why this argument is faulty, consider an analogous one: Most Americans don't know much about medicine, therefore the government should control health care. Or: Most Americans don't know much about journalism, therefore the government should control the press.

Americans who don't understand economics don't need the government to make their decisions for them. There are people in the private sector with the expertise to help them make their decisions. But apparently Mary Williams Walsh has never heard of accountants or financial planners.

What's the Matter With the Charleston Gazette?
Today's edition of the ultraliberal Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette has one of the (unwittingly) funniest editorials ever:

Several times, we have posed this question for political experts: Why did West Virginia--long a Roosevelt-and-Kennedy Democratic "blue state"--become a Republican "red state" in the past two presidential elections, despite 2-to-1 Democratic registration?

Why did this low-income state vote for the party of the rich--a party openly slashing help for common Americans and giving huge rewards to the wealthy?

We never received an explanation from any of the state's political professors or other societal analysts. But an answer was offered by one of the world's premier journals, Le Monde of Paris.

In a long report titled "What's the matter with West Virginia?" the French newspaper said the Mountain State has been pulled to the right by exaggerated patriotism, love of guns, Bible Belt fundamentalism, resentment of liberal intellectuals, and defense of the coal industry against environmentalism.

Maybe the reason West Virginia turned red is that its liberal elites, such as the editorialists at the Gazette, are so out of touch that they have to rely on Le Monde to explain the state's politics.

AP: Assault = Abortion
"The House passed a bill Wednesday that would make it illegal to dodge parental-consent laws by taking minors across state lines for abortions, the latest effort to chip away at abortion rights after Republican gains in the November elections," reports the Associated Press.

"Chip away at abortion rights"? That's editorializing, isn't it? Since a pregnant minor is, by definition, a victim of statutory rape, one could just as easily characterize this as an effort to prevent the destruction of criminal evidence.

Then there's this, from another AP dispatch on the same subject:

Four bills aimed at reducing the number of abortion [sic] have been enacted since Bush won the White House in 2001:

Last year, Congress made it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman. . . .

So according to the AP, assaulting a pregnant woman and harming her "fetus" constitutes abortion. Do "pro-choice" advocates want to keep violence against pregnant women safe and legal?

The Pro-Cancer Left
Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, on whose show we've appeared several times, has just had surgery for breast cancer. We wish her the best. So does Elizabeth Edwards, wife of the former North Carolina senator and Democratic vice presidential nominee, who herself has been suffering from breast cancer. Mrs. Edwards is an occasional contributor to the Angry Left Web site DemocraticUnderground.com, where she posted on a thread about Ingraham's ailment:

I have been a Democrat for a long time, and part of the Democratic principles that attracted me as a young person and kept me a Democrat all these years is our compassion. Democrats are simply good and decent people. And good and decent people want everyone to do well--those who agree with them and those who do not. We fight for the right of voices with which we disagree to speak out, for the right of people to say things we don't believe to be true, even for the right to be malicious and mean-spirited. If we fight for the right for LI to say what she says, how in the world can we use our disagreement with those words as an excuse not to be compassionate in her fight with cancer. Being willing to have her voice muted by illness is the same thing as not wanting her voice to be heard. It is not Democratic or democratic.

But as blogress Michelle Malkin points out, not all DU denizens are as charitable. "She Probably Gave it to Herself," says one, with "All that Hate, Lies, Anger." Another: "I don't pray for Nazis or other Totalitarian Scum." Malkin quotes a third, which includes an obscenity, but it has now been deleted, as have at least 17 others in the thread. Who says conservatives are mean-spirited?

A Slide for Soar Eyes

"Oil Prices Slide More Than $2.50 a Barrel"--headline, Associated Press, April 27, 3:25 p.m. EDT

"Bush Lays Out Energy Plan As Prices Soar"--headline, Associated Press, April 27, 5 p.m. EDT

Leno's Job Is Safe
"First Lady Rules Out Run on 'Tonight Show' "--headline, CNN.com, April 27

Euphemism Watch
"We're not firing anybody. This is a reduction in force that required some people to lose their jobs."--Larry Jones, interim executive director of the Durham, N.C., Housing Authority, describing a plan to terminate between 16 and 27 employees, quoted in the News & Observer, April 27

You Don't Say
"Court TV Argues for Cameras in Court"--headline, Associated Press, April 27

A Belated Concern for Product Safety
"Ukrainians Recall Chernobyl"--headline, Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune, April 27

You Know You've Chosen the Wrong Career When . . .
"Burglar With Conscience Returns Items"--headline, Associated Press, April 28

Life Imitates Art

O! too much folly is it, well I wot,
To hazard all our lives in one small boat!
If I to-day die not with Frenchmen's rage,
To-morrow I shall die with mickle age:
By me they nothing gain an if I stay;
'Tis but the short'ning of my life one day

--"Henry VI, Part I," Act IV, Scene 6     

"Shakespeare Dies After Getting Blown Off Boat"

--headline, FoxSports.com, April 27     

Weasel Watch
"A Greek island suffering under the heel of a brutal invasion could be the first mission for a yet untried regiment of German Special Forces," reports Deutsche Welle, the German radio network:

The inhabitants of the island of Lemnos, which has been under siege for some time, are considering sending out a distress call for the crack German troops in a bid to end the occupation which is threatening their livelihoods.

In an operation which could well be code-named "Kill Bugs," German weasels could be flown in to rid the island of a plague of wild rabbits.

"There are thousands of them," Lemnos deputy prefect Thodoris Baveas told AFP recently. "Just by driving at night you can hit a couple each time, there's that many." . . .

Enter the Weasel Squad . . . or at least this is where they would enter if they weren't just so expensive to hire. "I've heard that each one costs about 4,400 euros ($5706)," Baveas sighed. "We would need at least 10 weasels," he dejectedly added.

Unconfirmed rumors of shady deals involving less well-trained but equally ruthless Austrian mercenary weasels were allegedly circulating in some desperate corners of Lemnos.

Where were these weasels when Jimmy Carter needed them?

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Michael Segal, Arnold Schulberg, Chris Costello, Jeremiah James, Ewa Kubalska, Andy Hefty, Jim Poje, Darin Hauser, Mark Murray, Jim Bryan, Nathan Whitlock, Nevet Basker, Dennis Powell, James Eggert, Mordecai Bobrowsky, John Vecchione and Buddy Smith. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: Who's afraid of John Bolton?
• Peggy Noonan: John Bolton is blunt where others would be self-protective. This is bad?
• Jill Stewart: Meet Los Angeles's Ted Hayes. He's black, dreadlocked--and Republican.
• Martha Bayles: Attacks on rap now come from within.