Census population estimates 2011-2019 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:58:28 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Census population estimates 2011-2019 (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Census population estimates 2011-2019  (Read 180280 times)
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« on: December 20, 2012, 08:44:54 PM »

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2012 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 2 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. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

CA +1
CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
VA +1
WV -1

None of these have changed since the 2011 estimates were released last year. There is some shuffling in the bubble seats. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are VA-12, CO-8, AL-7, TX-39, and CA-54 (#435).
The next five in line are NY-27, WV-3, OR-6, MN-8, AZ-10.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2012, 08:05:19 AM »

Anyone know where I could find county by county loss/gain margins from '10 - '12?

I remember the census released data for change from 2010-2011. Is this going to be released at a later date?

County estimates for 2012, including change data, are scheduled for June 2013.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2013, 11:11:17 AM »

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2013 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 3 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. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NC +1
OH -1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
VA +1
WV -1

The only change since my projections last year is that CA and NY both hold even. They continue to be the most likely to change, and there is some shifting in the other bubble seats. Perhaps the most surprising is to see MT now appear on the bubble for a second seat. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are FL-28, VA-12, AL-7, TX-39, and NY-27 (#435).
The next five in line are CA-54, MT-2, WV-3, OR-6, MN-8.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2013, 11:29:01 AM »
« Edited: December 30, 2013, 11:32:57 AM by muon2 »

As of right now NC has taken a 14th seat from Minnesota per this link

The link gives some sort of error message for me. You may need to go back to the calculator and enter new numbers. I think the result you cite comes from assuming that the apportionment is done with the 2013 estimate, though it is generally more useful to project forward to 2020 when the next reapportionment will take place.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2013, 12:48:40 PM »

A couple more charts for easier viewing:

Sorted by numerical change




Over 17% over the growth in the US is in TX.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2013, 03:21:36 PM »


CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NC +1
OH -1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
VA +1
WV -1

Sean Trende has:

2020:CO+1 seat, FL+1, MT+1 (!!), NC+1, TX+2, VA+1, IL-1, MI-1, NY-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1 (!!), WV-1

His Twitter feed doesn't give any sense of the model he's using. I pulled up his RCP article to get a better idea. He uses a linear projection instead of a compounding formula which puts large high-growth states like TX at a disadvantage and partially explains why he only gets TX+2. The list quoted above is not his initial analysis, but is based on adding the growth in 2012 plus twice the growth in 2013 so it is very sensitive to fluctuations in the 2013 numbers just released. His basic linear projection gives: CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, TX+3, VA+1, IL-1, MI-1, MN-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1, WV-1, and is the same as the list I get.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2014, 11:13:12 AM »

Some states, such as WA, OR, CA, WI, FL and GA (Atlanta Metro) release their own annual estimates - independently to the Census Bureau numbers (which means they often differ from those).

There are indications that the population growth in WA, OR and GA has picked up in the past year between July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014.

CA's growth rate is steady at around 0.9% and FL has picked up 250.000 people, which means it has overtaken NY for sure in the new estimates out tomorrow.

The state estimates often differ substantially from the CB. On top of that, the methodology from the states varies from state to state. The CB uses the same methodology for all states, so it's the best measure to compare growth rates from state to state.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2014, 10:35:10 AM »

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2014 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 3 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. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

CA +1
CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
VA +1
WV -1

The only change since my projections last year is that CA is back to +1 and NY is back to -1 as they were after the 2012 estimate instead of even last year. They continue to be the most likely to change, and there is some shifting in the other bubble seats. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are CO-8, TX-39, VA-12, CA-54, and AL-7 (#435).
The next five in line are NY-27, OR-6, AZ-10, MT-2, MN-8.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2014, 11:09:16 AM »

Since the 2010 Census happened during the housing downturn of the Great Recession, I thought it would be worth testing the model if the growth was based off the last two years of estimates. That means that I use the 2014 and 2012 estimates and use them to extract a compounding rate of population growth.  I apply that to the 2014 estimate and adjust for the April to July difference, then add the overseas population difference increased by the state's growth rate. The result assumes that recent growth is more indicative of how that state will grow for the rest of the decade.

Using this model, I get the following projected changes, using bold to show the differences compared to my full decade projection.
AL -1
AZ +1

CA +1
CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
VA +0
WV -1

The changes are all bubble states. The West shows more increase in growth recently, and if it holds to that growth the West could see extra seats as a benefit.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2015, 08:36:40 PM »

Top Migration Gains(International and Domestic Combined.) (2010-2014)

Florida 917,135
Texas 905,754
California 459,574
North Carolina 233,880
Colorado 183,324
Washington 179,873
Arizona 172,848
Georgia 151,661
Virginia 145,072
South Carolina 139,545

Top Migration Losses(International and Domestic Combined.)

Illinois -190,144
Michigan -72,674
Ohio -50,959
New Mexico -18,886
Mississippi -16,999
Kansas -15,299
Wisconsin -11,288
Missouri -8,048
Connecticut -5,861
Alaska -4,700

We're #1! Cheesy

So are we. Sad
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2015, 03:14:48 PM »

Yeah, it would be quite an upset if anyone could compete with WV as biggest loser.

Last year IL lost more in total pop than WV.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2015, 07:45:06 AM »


Net domestic migration remains negative with foreign migration slightly more than replacing the domestic outflow. They largely cancel, and the growth is mostly natural growth from births minus deaths.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2015, 09:55:04 AM »
« Edited: December 22, 2015, 09:49:08 PM by muon2 »

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2015 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 5 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. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

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

There a number of changes since my projections last year. AL is down, AZ is up, OR is up and VA isn't up. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are CA-53, TX-39, OR-6, CA-54, and AZ-10 (#435).
The next five in line are FL-29, AL-7, VA-12, NY-27, MT-2.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2015, 10:32:27 AM »

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2015 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 3 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate.

4-1/4 ?

fixed: 5 1/4
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2015, 10:37:41 AM »

How close is NY to the cusp given your latest projections? I ask, because my little CD will have a very new design given the shape of the state and where I am, if it loses a CD. It will become a much more suburban CD. And Nolan in MN-08 will be happy if MN loses a CD. His CD per your rules is slated to become more Dem as it loses Pub areas on its south end.

NY would need about 300K more people than it is currently on track for by 2020. Alternatively there needs t be a significant slow down in the fast growing states, much like the Great Recession kept AZ from going to 10 last time.

BTW if I only use the last two years to make my projection, CA won't gain but FL will gain 2.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2015, 01:05:39 PM »

Yeah, it would be quite an upset if anyone could compete with WV as biggest loser.

Last year IL lost more in total pop than WV.

Not percentage wise, and no matter what travails Illinois may be facing they don't come anywhere close to the demographic and public health problems WV  has.

IL lost more this year than last, though WV slightly edges IL in percent loss.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2015, 04:00:28 PM »

Also, does anyone know why VA turned from a magnet for US citizens from other states between 2000-2010 to being in the top-10 of states with the most Americans leaving to other states ?

During the Great Recession the government sector was one of the few growth areas, particularly as driven by the stimulus. That may be a factor in VA. As the rest of the economy has picked up, VA doesn't stand out anymore. It would be consistent with my projection making a seat gain less likely than last year.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2015, 09:51:32 PM »

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2015 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 5 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. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

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

There a number of changes since my projections last year. AL is down, AZ is up, OR is up and VA isn't up. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are CA-53, TX-39, OR-6, CA-54, and AZ-10 (#435).
The next five in line are FL-29, AL-7, VA-12, NY-27, MT-3.

Do you mean MT-2 here?  Or WV-3?

MT-2. Fixed.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2016, 01:02:10 PM »

If the growth rates for each state over the past two years, continue at that rate for the balance of the census period, what would be the CD allocation for each state? That might be an interesting projection.

I looked at that when the numbers came out. Compared to the five-year data the only change I project is that CA stays the same and FL gets +2 instead of +1. AZ 10 was the last seat in that projection and CA 54 is the next.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #19 on: December 20, 2016, 11:10:19 AM »

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2016 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 6 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. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

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

There is only one change since my projections last year. CA stays unchanged at 53 instead of adding a seat and FL gains 2 instead of 1 up to 29. 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, TX-39, CA-53, AZ-10, and FL-29 (#435).
The next five in line are MT-2, AL-7, CA-54, VA-12, and MN-8.

An alternate projection could use just the last two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth for the rest of the decade. That model gives the same projection as the one above, with changes only in the order of the bubble seats.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #20 on: December 20, 2016, 02:58:46 PM »

Is there any set date when the county estimates come out?

They come out in March, I don't know if there's a public date yet.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2016, 04:48:32 PM »

NY losing population? Sad!

Any reason why, though?

Here are the relevant components:
Births +237K
Deaths -161K
Natural increase +76K

International migration +118K
Domestic migration -191K
Net migration -73K

Total population change -2K

Note that's the sum of natural change and migration is a 3K increase not the -2K decrease that's being reported. According to the CB the change "includes a residual. This residual represents the change in population that cannot be attributed to any specific demographic component. See Population Estimates Terms and Definitions at http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/glossary.html."

In any case the largest factor in the decline in NY is the net migration to other states.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2016, 07:28:59 PM »

Illinois losing 2 Congressional districts could put a damper on the ruthless gerrymander.

The county estimates will be interesting in that regard. Probably an odd mix of downstate and downscale Chicago suburbs

IL would have to lose at least 200K through the rest of the decade to lose a second CD. That's a much faster pace than losses have occurred so far, and short of stopping legal immigration (not just illegal immigration), it's hard to see IL lose that much in the next 3+ years.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #23 on: December 24, 2016, 04:29:22 AM »

Question:

The 2020 Census is done on April 1, 2020 (and slightly before and after that).

But the results + apportionment of CD's and EV's are only announced in December 2020.

So, are the new EV numbers already used for the 2020 Presidential election, or only for 2024 ?

The next apportionment comes out after the 2020 election, so it will first be used in the 2022 off-year election and the presidential election of 2024.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #24 on: December 24, 2016, 05:26:42 AM »

Question:

The 2020 Census is done on April 1, 2020 (and slightly before and after that).

But the results + apportionment of CD's and EV's are only announced in December 2020.

So, are the new EV numbers already used for the 2020 Presidential election, or only for 2024 ?

The next apportionment comes out after the 2020 election, so it will first be used in the 2022 off-year election and the presidential election of 2024.

Interesting, thanks.

If they'd release the numbers 2 months earlier, they could already use the newly apportioned EV for the 2020 Presidential Election, instead of waiting 4 years.

But I guess calculating the results from the Census takes some time ...

They'd need the numbers well before that. The electors are selected at state party conventions before the national conventions. The follow up Census for those who didn't respond isn't done until the summer, but by then state conventions have already occurred.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 12 queries.