If the census was taken July 1st, 2003

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Changes:

Texas +1
Ohio -1
Iowa -1
Utah +1
All Bush states

2010 prediction (total change since 2000)
California +1
Texas +3
New York -1
Florida +2
Illinois -1
Pennsylvania -1
Ohio -2
Georgia +1
Massachusetts -1
Missouri -1
Arizona +1
Alabama -1
Louisiana -1
Iowa -1
Utah +1
Nevada +1

Change by type
Strong Kerry (CA, NY, IL,MA) -2
Weak Kerry  (PA) -1
Weak Bush (FL, OH, IA, NV,MO,AZ)  0
Strong Bush (TX,GA,AL,LA,UT) +3

[Hitchabrut]

IL was closer than AZ and CA was in the same range.

[King]

My projection for 2010, big pickups in the Southwest/Florida and losses in the Midwest/Northeast:

California +2
Texas +4
New Mexico +1
Arizona +2
Nevada +1
Utah +1
Colorado +1
Florida +4
Iowa -1
Illinois -2
Michigan -3
Ohio -2
Pennslyvania -2
New York -3
Massachusetts -1
Connecticut -2

2004 election with these changes:
Bush 297 (+11)
Kerry 241 (-11)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

IL was closer than AZ and CA was in the same range.

It was a completely objective prediction.
The most likely change would be CA gaining another district at NY's expense.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

My projection for 2010, big pickups in the Southwest/Florida and losses in the Midwest/Northeast:

California +2
Texas +4
New Mexico +1
Arizona +2
Nevada +1
Utah +1
Colorado +1
Florida +4
Iowa -1
Illinois -2
Michigan -3
Ohio -2
Pennslyvania -2
New York -3
Massachusetts -1
Connecticut -2

2004 election with these changes:
Bush 297 (+11)
Kerry 241 (-11)

How do you get Connecticut -2?

[King]

My projection for 2010, big pickups in the Southwest/Florida and losses in the Midwest/Northeast:

California +2
Texas +4
New Mexico +1
Arizona +2
Nevada +1
Utah +1
Colorado +1
Florida +4
Iowa -1
Illinois -2
Michigan -3
Ohio -2
Pennslyvania -2
New York -3
Massachusetts -1
Connecticut -2

2004 election with these changes:
Bush 297 (+11)
Kerry 241 (-11)

How do you get Connecticut -2?

With Bush's free for all immigration policy, the amount of people per CD required get larger which causes the implosion of New England.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

My projection for 2010, big pickups in the Southwest/Florida and losses in the Midwest/Northeast:

California +2
Texas +4
New Mexico +1
Arizona +2
Nevada +1
Utah +1
Colorado +1
Florida +4
Iowa -1
Illinois -2
Michigan -3
Ohio -2
Pennslyvania -2
New York -3
Massachusetts -1
Connecticut -2

2004 election with these changes:
Bush 297 (+11)
Kerry 241 (-11)

How do you get Connecticut -2?

With Bush's free for all immigration policy, the amount of people per CD required get larger which causes the implosion of New England.

Listen, I hate Bush as much as anyone, but there's no way CT is losing even one district in 2010.

[muon2]

CT is unlikely to lose a seat in 2010. It had a 0.7% annual growth rate from 4/00 to 7/03, which is below the national average of 1.0%/year. However, many other small multi-seat states (AL, AR, IA, LA, NE, WV) have lower growth rates putting them (particularly AL, IA, LA) at greater risk of losing seats in 2010.

[Josh/Devilman88]

North Carolina will gain a seat in 2010. We are growing at a 22% rate or around there.

[muon2]

North Carolina will gain a seat in 2010. We are growing at a 22% rate or around there.

In 2000 the census reported 8.068 M people in NC, and they estimate that in 2003 the population of NC was 8.407 M. The annual growth rate in NC from those figures is 1.3% per year. That's not likely to be enough to add a seat, especially since NC got a seat in 2000.

[Gustaf]

The states that are marginal Bush and losing EVs are trending Republican while those that are gaining are trending Dem, generally speaking.