Census population estimates 2011-2019

[Torie]

Cinyc, what odds do you place on NY losing 2 seats rather than 1? Whether NY loses two CD's or one has a big impact on the options for the border of the current NY-19 given NY's funnel shape.  NY clearly has the oddest shape of all 50 states in my opinion.

How accurate is the census when it asks where one lived on April 1 four months later? Is there any data that addresses that issue? I assume there will be more late responses this year than in the past.

Given the COVID-related escape from NYC (especially Manhattan), I think NYC losing 2 seats is a lot more likely than the 2019 estimates and forecasts say. I'd almost bet on it.

There's a thread on the General board about Census' efforts. I haven't updated my interactive map vs 2010 in a while, but areas of NYC - especially on the Upper East Side near Central Park - were really lagging their 2010 response rates in mid-May. Response rates haven't increased much since.

Thank you.  Except isn't most of the great escape from NYC after April 1? Is your opinion in part premised that those who fled will not fill out the form stating that they lived in NY on April 1 even if they did? Due to the great escape the Hudson rental market is doing very well these days. A lot of over priced listings also appeared as property owners try to cash in. Whether or not their pecuniary dreams come true remains to be seen.

[cinyc]

Cinyc, what odds do you place on NY losing 2 seats rather than 1? Whether NY loses two CD's or one has a big impact on the options for the border of the current NY-19 given NY's funnel shape.  NY clearly has the oddest shape of all 50 states in my opinion.

How accurate is the census when it asks where one lived on April 1 four months later? Is there any data that addresses that issue? I assume there will be more late responses this year than in the past.

Given the COVID-related escape from NYC (especially Manhattan), I think NYC losing 2 seats is a lot more likely than the 2019 estimates and forecasts say. I'd almost bet on it.

There's a thread on the General board about Census' efforts. I haven't updated my interactive map vs 2010 in a while, but areas of NYC - especially on the Upper East Side near Central Park - were really lagging their 2010 response rates in mid-May. Response rates haven't increased much since.

Thank you.  Except isn't most of the great escape from NYC after April 1? Is your opinion in part premised that those who fled will not fill out the form stating that they lived in NY on April 1 even if they did? Due to the great escape the Hudson rental market is doing very well these days. A lot of over priced listings also appeared as property owners try to cash in. Whether or not their pecuniary dreams come true remains to be seen.

If people aren't home to get their forms/Internet invitations, how are they going to respond? I suspect many won't.

This map is a little old, but just zoom into NYC here:

https://cinycmaps.com/index.php/20-census/may-response-rate-maps

As of mid-May, response rates in parts of Manhattan were in the blue range, meaning 20-40 points worse than 2010's final self-response rate. Most others were dark green (-15 to -20).  Whether that's due to the virus or people buying trophy properties, I don't know for sure. But compare to the rest of the country, which is usually near - and sometimes above - its 2010 final self-response rate.

Census has some work to do in NYC.

[jimrtex]

The Northeast region as a whole lost population last year.    10 states lost population too,  one higher than last year. 

New York lost almost 77k people, does that mean it'll lose two congressional districts?

Its looking extremely likely at this point.

And one could make the argument that both seats should come at the expense of Upstate New York.

The math doesn’t add up for two upstate losses. The more likely result is that one seat upstate is lost along with one Long Island/East NYC seat.

The math might not add up to 2 lost seats at all. NY-26 is literally on the bubble in many of the analyses I've seen.

I'd bet that it will lose 2, though.

Cinyc, what odds do you place on NY losing 2 seats rather than 1? Whether NY loses two CD's or one has a big impact on the options for the border of the current NY-19 given NY's funnel shape.  NY clearly has the oddest shape of all 50 states in my opinion.

How accurate is the census when it asks where one lived on April 1 four months later? Is there any data that addresses that issue? I assume there will be more late responses this year than in the past.

This is the analysis I made last December:

New York year-to-year change has dropped every year this decade. That is, its second derivative is negative, and its population is in parabolic decline. After the 2011 estimate, it was projected that New York would keep its 27th seat. Since then, smaller increases, which have have become decreases since 2016 put New York at risk of losing two representatives. A projection based on estimates from 2010-2019 would result in a surplus of around 130K. But the average annual gain from 2010 to 2019 was around 6K, while the loss for 2018-2019 was 76K. If we project a loss of 95K for 2020 based on recent trends, that would be a deficit of 100K (75K for nine months) which would eat into more than half of the projected surplus. Much will depend on how accurate the revisions in estimates of international migration were. International emigration is difficult to measure since it depends on measuring persons who no longer exist.

Birth records are accurate. Death records are accurate. Estimates of domestic migration based on IRS and SSA records may be reasonably accurate. If New York keeps a 26th representative it may be lost before the 2020 census results are announced. New York is projected to lose 1.634 representatives (from 27.243 to 25.609). They are in a favorable position for rounding.

Our estimates of seats lost or gained are based on projections of the census estimates. Assuming that census estimates are accurate, our projections become more accurate as the decade wears on because we are projecting over a shorter period of time, in this case for the 9 months between July 2019 and April 2020.

But our projections are simple-minded. We assume that the trend from 2010-2019 will continue. Or we assume the trend from 2017-2019 will continue. But in New York, the estimated loss from 2018-2019 was greater than for 2017-2018, and in the early part of the decade, New York was gaining. Cities in general were gaining population post recession, as people were having to defer retirement or a move to the suburbs. Some were having to remain at their parents house, or stay coupled, even if not married.

The census estimates have to account for emigration. While immigration to NYC is very high, emigration is also high. Someone who is overstaying their visa might be included in an estimate. But if they move back to Tajikistan will it be noticed? Refinements of census estimates had a particular effect on New York. It has lots of immigrants from lots of places,  but they may return to those places as well. The effect was smaller in California and Texas because immigrants from Latin America are less likely to return.

And finally, apportionment of representatives is among the states. For New York to lose a second seat, another state has to gain it. There are eight states vying for the final four seats.

NY(26) 1.004
TX(39) 1.003
FL(29) 1.002
MT(2) 1.001
----------------
AL(6) 0.998
MN(7) 0.997
CA (52) 0.995
OH(15) 0.994

New York has been faltering as has California. Texas has been OK, not as strong as earlier but not slowing to a halt. Florida has been strengthening since recovering from the housing bubble, and is gaining Puerto Ricans, as well as Venezuelans who can escape.

That leaves perhaps New York, Montana, Alabama, and Minnesota competing for the last two. None are really grabbing those last two.

As you probably know, half the New York population is insular: Long, Staten, and Manhattan; and half on the mainland Bronx, Westchester and points north and west. If there an odd number of districts, then you will have a district spanning from either Manhattan or Queens to the Bronx, with 5-1/2 districts south of the 19th. If there is an even number, then there will be 5 districts south of the 19th, which will yank the district south.

Assuming that the new districts will be drawn by a federal judge, or the redistricting commission produces something reasonable, NY-23 is the odd man out.

You aren't going to push districts out of Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany or the North Country. NY-23 and NY-27 might seem to be available but that can only be done with adding fingers into their territory.

So NY-27 slides east taking Binghamton, perhaps losing Chautauqua. It will be quite vulnerable in 2030 as the four districts to the north will need to expand. NY-24 shifts eastward while remaining anchored in Syracuse (Wayne is a better fit with Rochester anyway). NY-21 will take Utica, becoming less and less a North Country district, but still identified as such. NY-19 may push a bit west.

Delays due to COVID-19 have pushed the announcement of congressional apportionment to March 2021, and release of the block-level number to June 2021 (this is not official because the deadlines are set in statute, but there is zero chance of this not happening).

In New York, there is also the prison-adjustment. This will make it almost impossible to re-ward Hudson before the July 2021 primary. Perhaps partisan primaries can be eliminated and go with a non-partisan general election in November, with a runoff if necessary.

[Oryxslayer]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/08/study-in-a-first-california-poised-to-lose-house-seats/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=social&utm_content=tw-mercnews

It smells like clickbait, but at the same time California has a large number of 'hard to count' census regions, mostly areas in the valley with Rural Hispanic populations. The article mostly talks about the effects and why it might happen, corona and ensuing response rates, rather than the math behind it - typical of puff pieces. So, could our resident calculators like Jimrtex and Cinyc voice in on the scenario outlined about California losing two seats.

[Cokeland Saxton]

That would likely guarantee Montana a seat and save either Minnesota or Alabama's seat.

[cinyc]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/08/study-in-a-first-california-poised-to-lose-house-seats/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=social&utm_content=tw-mercnews

It smells like clickbait, but at the same time California has a large number of 'hard to count' census regions, mostly areas in the valley with Rural Hispanic populations. The article mostly talks about the effects and why it might happen, corona and ensuing response rates, rather than the math behind it - typical of puff pieces. So, could our resident calculators like Jimrtex and Cinyc voice in on the scenario outlined about California losing two seats.

It's certainly possible. There are areas near downtown and Westside LA that are currently severely under-reporting compared to 2010, though. Like worse than Upper East Side Manhattan levels of bad. I have no clue why. In Manhattan, it's likely due to the virus exodus. OC is in much better shape - and there's a stark divide that nearly mirrors the county line.

I tried to find the relevant study mentioned in the article and came up with nothing more substantive than the article. I can't find any more recent ESRI report than what was put out last year.

[jimrtex]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/08/study-in-a-first-california-poised-to-lose-house-seats/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=social&utm_content=tw-mercnews

It smells like clickbait, but at the same time California has a large number of 'hard to count' census regions, mostly areas in the valley with Rural Hispanic populations. The article mostly talks about the effects and why it might happen, corona and ensuing response rates, rather than the math behind it - typical of puff pieces. So, could our resident calculators like Jimrtex and Cinyc voice in on the scenario outlined about California losing two seats.

It was questionable whether California would lose one seat, but that was largely confirmed if you took into account the declining rate of growth toward the end of the decade.

Here is the news release that the article is based on.

Southern California Faces Loss of One Congressional District, May narrowly hold on to second

Note that like the news article bungles Southern California and California together.

This may be the report underlying the news release. Note if you click on Download you can get the report in PDF format.

Winners and Losers: The 2020 Census and California's 2021 Redistricting

The underlying estimates are based on the 2017 one-year estimates projected forward to 2020. They make a small error by not accounting for estimates being based on July 1, and the census occurring on April 1. The ACS is a year-round collection, with July 1 being midpoint of the year.

A better projection would use the 2019 county estimates dividing by 9.25 and projecting forward by adding 0.75 per year.

They divide Los Angeles into 5 regions. You could make projections based on the 2018 ACS, project forward to 2020, and then control the regional populations to the countywide projection.

Their estimates for congressional representation take into account a loss of one representative for California, but due to rounding to 0.1 districts, the 2010 counts total 52.8, leaving the loss of 0.2 districts unaccounted for.

The only ESRI report suggesting a loss of another seat that I could find was based on a supposition of 4 seats being apportioned to a state of Puerto Rico.

Apportionment for California is kind of weird. It gains/loses a seat for about every 2% gain or loss relative to the US (1/52 = 1.92%). But apportionment is among all 50 states, so while the quotients for California are evenly spaced, that of the collective 50 states is not. So on the priority list California might be 435th, 431st, and 419th, rather than a regular spacing of every 8th or 9th seat.

The story is naive about losing a particular district. Imagine that if in 2010, California had been informed they only had 52 seats, but had already completed their 53-district plan.

Every district would have to gain about 15,000 persons. So you start working south from the Golden Gate bridge, and Oregon and converging around Stockton. The first district nibbles 15,000 from a neighbor, which takes 30,000 from its neighbor and so on. By the time you get to Bakersfield, Palmdale, Apple Valley, you are shifting half a district around, pairing incumbents, and creating open seats.

[jimrtex]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/08/study-in-a-first-california-poised-to-lose-house-seats/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=social&utm_content=tw-mercnews

It smells like clickbait, but at the same time California has a large number of 'hard to count' census regions, mostly areas in the valley with Rural Hispanic populations. The article mostly talks about the effects and why it might happen, corona and ensuing response rates, rather than the math behind it - typical of puff pieces. So, could our resident calculators like Jimrtex and Cinyc voice in on the scenario outlined about California losing two seats.

It was questionable whether California would lose one seat, but that was largely confirmed if you took into account the declining rate of growth toward the end of the decade.

Here is the news release that the article is based on.


Southern California Faces Loss of One Congressional District, May narrowly hold on to second

while narrowly holding onto the 52nd district by only 1,324 people over Arizona and 3,248 over Minnesota.

I think what they have done here is used the quotient for the 51st seat. For example, my projections show that California is 222,000 below the number needed to keep a 53rd seat, but the quotient would be 4,228 below that needed. The report would lead you to believe that California would only need to lose 1,324 persons, but it would actually be 51.497 (sqrt(51*52) times that. My estimate assumes continuation of the average 2010-2019 rate for the last 3/4 of a year before the census. This is not likely given the slowdown in California growth/increase in domestic outflow. But it is over a short period. As we approach the census, errors in projection become less significant (and we don't really have the capability to make better estimates than the census bureau). I still, assuming the 2019 estimate is reasonably accurate, believe California will have 52 seats, but this assumes an error of less than 1% in the Census estimate.

Note that like the news article bungles Southern California and California together.

This may be the report underlying the news release. Note if you click on Download you can get the report in PDF format.

Winners and Losers: The 2020 Census and California's 2021 Redistricting

The underlying estimates are based on the 2017 one-year estimates projected forward to 2020. They make a small error by not accounting for estimates being based on July 1, and the census occurring on April 1. The ACS is a year-round collection, with July 1 being midpoint of the year.

A better projection would use the 2019 county estimates dividing by 9.25 and projecting forward by adding 0.75 per year.

They divide Los Angeles into 5 regions. You could make projections based on the 2018 ACS, project forward to 2020, and then control the regional populations to the countywide projection.

Their estimates for congressional representation take into account a loss of one representative for California, but due to rounding to 0.1 districts, the 2010 counts total 52.8, leaving the loss of 0.2 districts unaccounted for.

The only ESRI report suggesting a loss of another seat that I could find was based on a supposition of 4 seats being apportioned to a state of Puerto Rico.

Apportionment for California is kind of weird. It gains/loses a seat for about every 2% gain or loss relative to the US (1/52 = 1.92%). But apportionment is among all 50 states, so while the quotients for California are evenly spaced, that of the collective 50 states is not. So on the priority list California might be 435th, 431st, and 419th, rather than a regular spacing of every 8th or 9th seat.

The story is naive about losing a particular district. Imagine that if in 2010, California had been informed they only had 52 seats, but had already completed their 53-district plan.

Every district would have to gain about 15,000 persons. So you start working south from the Golden Gate bridge, and Oregon and converging around Stockton. The first district nibbles 15,000 from a neighbor, which takes 30,000 from its neighbor and so on. By the time you get to Bakersfield, Palmdale, Apple Valley, you are shifting half a district around, pairing incumbents, and creating open seats.

I reworked the estimates in the report, using the 2019 county estimates, linearly projected forward. The reports districts within Los Angeles county are based on assembly districts. I used the 2012 and 2018 5-year ACS which are used as approximations of the July 2010 and July 2016 populations. which were projected forward to 2020, and then controlled to the Los Angeles county estimate. 6 assembly districts cross county lines, and the report gave a 2010 estimate of their population in Los Angeles County. I prorated the 2020 projections on that basis. The projections of the areas in Los Angeles County are a bit dicey, but don't really effect the overall distribution.

Area	2010 (53)	2020 (52)	Change
North	2.514	2.418	-0.096
San Francisco Bay	10.547	10.560	0.013
Central Coast	2.827	2.724	-0.103
Central Valley	8.198	8.171	-0.027
Southern	14.943	14.952	0.009
Los Angeles	13.970	13.174	-0.796
Westside	2.681	2.479	-0.202
Downtown/Gateway	4.626	4.360	-0.266
San Gabriel	2.953	2.758	-0.195
San Fernando/Antelope	3.710	3.577	-0.133

So 8/10 of the loss of the 53rd district is accounted for in Los Angeles county, and the other 2/10 in the northern part of the state (Ventura, Kern, Inyo and other points north).

The 24 northern districts can be retained with a shift of about 100,000 out of western Los Angeles, or northern Los Angeles, or northwestern San Bernardino.

Riverside is the only county in southern California that has increased in district share, but San Diego and Imperial are basically static and on the edge of the state. There would be no reason to change those districts unless the commission decided to do a wholesale reshuffle (it is a legal requirement to not take into consideration existing districts or incumbents, but if the demographic facts are about the same, it is not unreasonable to come to the same conclusions).

I assume the commission will not cross the mountains between Orange and Riverside, particularly to grab a small bit on the other side of the mountains. So the Orange districts will add a bit from Los Angeles, Los Angeles will take some from San Bernardino, and Riverside will move some into San Bernardino. (these adjustment are relative small, around 100K).

The loss of a seat in Los Angeles is distributed throughout the county, which will force the district that disappears to be in the center among (CA-34, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44). In 2011, there were not Section 2 VRA seats drawn for a black district (i.e. black voters participate in greater numbers than non-citizen Hispanic voters). In 2021, there may be an emphasis on creating a districts that would be by a Hispanic candidate, essentially pairing Karen Bass and Maxine Waters.

[Brittain33]

In 2021, there may be an emphasis on creating a districts that would be by a Hispanic candidate, essentially pairing Karen Bass and Maxine Waters.

By which we mean a candidate of the Hispanic community's choice, not necessarily a Hispanic candidate.

[Oryxslayer]

In 2021, there may be an emphasis on creating a districts that would be by a Hispanic candidate, essentially pairing Karen Bass and Maxine Waters.

By which we mean a candidate of the Hispanic community's choice, not necessarily a Hispanic candidate.

Unfortunately, the commission having three AA commissioners make such action unlikely. We have discussed this at length in the CA thread. However, I thank jimrtex for doing the math regarding the article in question.

[jimrtex]

In 2021, there may be an emphasis on creating a districts that would be by a Hispanic candidate, essentially pairing Karen Bass and Maxine Waters.

By which we mean a candidate of the Hispanic community's choice, not necessarily a Hispanic candidate.

Certainly.

The California Constitution says: "communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates" For example, a claim that Hispanic voters in a particular area happen to prefer Maxine Waters is irrelevant. It might not even be possible to use endogenous congressional results to determine the candidate of choice for a particular racial or ethnic group. Instead you might have to use an election such as Feinstein-DeLeon to determine if the group prefers different candidates. You might also use county supervisor or city elections. California Top 2 and non-partisan elections may be particularly useful in this regard.

The first step in a VRA analysis is to determine compact areas where a group constitutes a majority of the CVAP. If the 2020 census shows an expanded footprint for Hispanic voters, which it almost certainly will, it may be necessary to maintain 5 Hispanic districts to the east of one Black plurality district.

The reason that the redistricting commission is being organized earlier is to help define and delineate communities of interest prior to the line drawing process. The delay in the census data should help even more.

In 2011, the lawyers for the commission advised that the commission should take the word of local experts or advocates, since the commission did not have the time to do this. Many of these advocates may have been political plants, who were suggesting communities of interest where they wanted lines drawn or not drawn.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Any updated estimates on the electoral reappointments? So far, the only things that seem set in stone are that OR, AZ, CO, NC will gain 1, FL will gain at least 1, and TX will gain at least 2 while, While NY loses at least 1, PA, IL, RI, WV, MI all lose 1. The big question marks seem to be CA, MT, AL, OH, MN, VA, NY (2nd district), FL (2nd district), TX (3rd district). Is this an accurate summary of where things stand?

[Coastal Elitist]

Any updated estimates on the electoral reappointments? So far, the only things that seem set in stone are that OR, AZ, CO, NC will gain 1, FL will gain at least 1, and TX will gain at least 2 while, While NY loses at least 1, PA, IL, RI, WV, MI all lose 1. The big question marks seem to be CA, MT, AL, OH, MN, VA, NY (2nd district), FL (2nd district), TX (3rd district). Is this an accurate summary of where things stand?

From what I've seen California is definitely losing a seat.

[Non Swing Voter]

Any updated estimates on the electoral reappointments? So far, the only things that seem set in stone are that OR, AZ, CO, NC will gain 1, FL will gain at least 1, and TX will gain at least 2 while, While NY loses at least 1, PA, IL, RI, WV, MI all lose 1. The big question marks seem to be CA, MT, AL, OH, MN, VA, NY (2nd district), FL (2nd district), TX (3rd district). Is this an accurate summary of where things stand?

I wasn't aware that Virginia is on the cusp... hasn't population growth in VA slowed substantially.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Any updated estimates on the electoral reappointments? So far, the only things that seem set in stone are that OR, AZ, CO, NC will gain 1, FL will gain at least 1, and TX will gain at least 2 while, While NY loses at least 1, PA, IL, RI, WV, MI all lose 1. The big question marks seem to be CA, MT, AL, OH, MN, VA, NY (2nd district), FL (2nd district), TX (3rd district). Is this an accurate summary of where things stand?

I wasn't aware that Virginia is on the cusp... hasn't population growth in VA slowed substantially.

I think at the start of the decade it seemed well on track to gain a 12th district but population growth has slowed a bit since then. With that being said, NOVA is historically undercounted so there's still a small chance it gains, but more likely than not it just stays at 11 for now.

[muon2]

Any updated estimates on the electoral reappointments? So far, the only things that seem set in stone are that OR, AZ, CO, NC will gain 1, FL will gain at least 1, and TX will gain at least 2 while, While NY loses at least 1, PA, IL, RI, WV, MI all lose 1. The big question marks seem to be CA, MT, AL, OH, MN, VA, NY (2nd district), FL (2nd district), TX (3rd district). Is this an accurate summary of where things stand?

There are no new estimates from the Census Bureau. Here's my post from last year after the 2019 estimates were released.

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2019 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 9 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting (It doesn't adjust for the new distinction between deployed vs stationed).

AL -1
AZ +1
CA -1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
MT +1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

These projections are unchanged from last year. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are AL-7, MN-8, CA-53, OH-16, and RI-2.

I also make an alternate projection based on just the prior two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth. It's more sensitive to recent growth trends, and matches the full decade projection.

[Tender Branson]

So, Trump states would gain a net of 4 EV, Biden states would lose 4.

[Biden his time]

Does anyone want to take any guesses as to what the biggest and most surprising differences will be between the 2019 Population Estimates (or the way things are headed based on those) and the 2020 Census Results? Such as perhaps a state with a far higher or lower population than projected in the several hundreds of thousands?

Like happened with Georgia between 2009 and 2010:

At the time of the 2000 Census (April 1, 2010), Georgia had a population of 8,186,453.

The U.S. Census Bureau projected that Georgia had a population of 9,829,211 on July 1, 2009.

The 2010 Census (April 1, 2010) showed that Georgia actually had a population of 9,687,653.

It isn't likely that Georgia actually lost 150,000 people between 2009 and 2010, and when the Census Bureau released its final intercensal tables (showing their population estimates of every state between 2000 and 2010), they estimated Georgia's actual population in 2009 was 9,620,846 (208,365 lower than the initial 2009 estimate released before the census).

What are the chances these estimates turn out to miss the mark by such high amounts?

[Sol]

Does anyone want to take any guesses as to what the biggest and most surprising differences will be between the 2019 Population Estimates (or the way things are headed based on those) and the 2020 Census Results? Such as perhaps a state with a far higher or lower population than projected in the several hundreds of thousands?

Like happened with Georgia between 2009 and 2010:

At the time of the 2000 Census (April 1, 2010), Georgia had a population of 8,186,453.

The U.S. Census Bureau projected that Georgia had a population of 9,829,211 on July 1, 2019.

The 2010 Census (April 1, 2010) showed that Georgia actually had a population of 9,687,653.

It isn't likely that Georgia actually lost 150,000 people between 2009 and 2010, and when the Census Bureau released its final intercensal tables (showing their population estimates of every state between 2000 and 2010), they estimated Georgia's actual population in 2009 was 9,620,846 (208,365 lower than the initial 2009 estimate released before the census).

What are the chances these estimates turn out to miss the mark by such high amounts?

New York probably will be lower than estimated, due to Covid/rich people filling out the census in the places they fled to.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

What are the chances these estimates turn out to miss the mark by such high amounts?

Not exactly answering your question, but I do know of two big Census estimate misses regarding Chicago:

The 2000 Census showed Chicago's population at 2.896 million, while in the run-up to the 2010 Census, estimates predicted a small decline to 2.853 million (so loss of just 43,000) people. When the actual numbers came out, it was...2.695 million, a loss of 201,000 people. I distinctly remember the media storm in Chicago-area media about this.

But it wasn't the first time they missed so badly regarding Chicago. In 1950, Chicago's population was 3.620 million, and in 1960, it was 3.550 million, a loss of just 70,000 people. Estimates between 1966 and 1969 predicted it would fall to close to 3.520 million, since they thought that the urban renewal projects would help stem some losses while the Great Migration Part II continued to bring in new residents, but the official numbers from the 1970 Census showed the population had dropped to 3.366 million, a loss of 184,000 people.

So I think these happen quite often, actually. I just know these two examples, however. 

[Biden his time]

Does anyone want to take any guesses as to what the biggest and most surprising differences will be between the 2019 Population Estimates (or the way things are headed based on those) and the 2020 Census Results? Such as perhaps a state with a far higher or lower population than projected in the several hundreds of thousands?

Like happened with Georgia between 2009 and 2010:

At the time of the 2000 Census (April 1, 2010), Georgia had a population of 8,186,453.

The U.S. Census Bureau projected that Georgia had a population of 9,829,211 on July 1, 2019.

The 2010 Census (April 1, 2010) showed that Georgia actually had a population of 9,687,653.

It isn't likely that Georgia actually lost 150,000 people between 2009 and 2010, and when the Census Bureau released its final intercensal tables (showing their population estimates of every state between 2000 and 2010), they estimated Georgia's actual population in 2009 was 9,620,846 (208,365 lower than the initial 2009 estimate released before the census).

What are the chances these estimates turn out to miss the mark by such high amounts?

New York probably will be lower than estimated, due to Covid/rich people filling out the census in the places they fled to.

So our 29th congressional seat is a lock, eh? Maybe even 30th?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Does anyone want to take any guesses as to what the biggest and most surprising differences will be between the 2019 Population Estimates (or the way things are headed based on those) and the 2020 Census Results? Such as perhaps a state with a far higher or lower population than projected in the several hundreds of thousands?

Like happened with Georgia between 2009 and 2010:

At the time of the 2000 Census (April 1, 2010), Georgia had a population of 8,186,453.

The U.S. Census Bureau projected that Georgia had a population of 9,829,211 on July 1, 2019.

The 2010 Census (April 1, 2010) showed that Georgia actually had a population of 9,687,653.

It isn't likely that Georgia actually lost 150,000 people between 2009 and 2010, and when the Census Bureau released its final intercensal tables (showing their population estimates of every state between 2000 and 2010), they estimated Georgia's actual population in 2009 was 9,620,846 (208,365 lower than the initial 2009 estimate released before the census).

What are the chances these estimates turn out to miss the mark by such high amounts?

New York probably will be lower than estimated, due to Covid/rich people filling out the census in the places they fled to.

I think you a) overestimate how many people left the city and b) overestimate how many left the state as opposed to going upstate/to Long Island.

NY could lose 2 districts, but I doubt a massive share of the variance is covid-related.

[Sol]

Does anyone want to take any guesses as to what the biggest and most surprising differences will be between the 2019 Population Estimates (or the way things are headed based on those) and the 2020 Census Results? Such as perhaps a state with a far higher or lower population than projected in the several hundreds of thousands?

Like happened with Georgia between 2009 and 2010:

At the time of the 2000 Census (April 1, 2010), Georgia had a population of 8,186,453.

The U.S. Census Bureau projected that Georgia had a population of 9,829,211 on July 1, 2019.

The 2010 Census (April 1, 2010) showed that Georgia actually had a population of 9,687,653.

It isn't likely that Georgia actually lost 150,000 people between 2009 and 2010, and when the Census Bureau released its final intercensal tables (showing their population estimates of every state between 2000 and 2010), they estimated Georgia's actual population in 2009 was 9,620,846 (208,365 lower than the initial 2009 estimate released before the census).

What are the chances these estimates turn out to miss the mark by such high amounts?

New York probably will be lower than estimated, due to Covid/rich people filling out the census in the places they fled to.

I think you a) overestimate how many people left the city and b) overestimate how many left the state as opposed to going upstate/to Long Island.

NY could lose 2 districts, but I doubt a massive share of the variance is covid-related.

Well that was also meant to include people dying.

[ultraviolet]

Remember at the beginning of the decade, NY was projected to hold on to all its districts for the first time since like 1940? It’s honestly a little disheartening, all the slowing growth and whatnot

Also, muon’s predictions look accurate, that’s what I think will happen too

[Coastal Elitist]

What does everyone think the latest estimate for California means:
https://twitter.com/akoseff/status/1339271527930286080

Are these estimates usually accurate?