poll: The 'Kerry' states in 2012

[°Leprechaun]

Suppose 2012 is exactly like 2004 as to the states won.
How much ground, in terms of electoral votes will the Democrats lose?  I predict 6. That means Reps win 292-246.

(In other words the 'Gore' states lost 7; I am asking the same question about the Kerry states)

This does *not* mean a prediction as to results (identical), but rather I (and you) are simply predicting the general trend of all the states in terms of population relative to each other. The results will probably be different. But perhaps they could be similar as 2004 was to 2000. Certainly the swings states will remain about the same and that is what matters.

[muon2]

My current projection is for 10 EV to change in 2010. This includes a net loss of 4 EV from states won by Kerry: CA (+1), IL(-1), MA (-1), NY (-2), PA (-1)

Most of the changes, including half of the losses, are in states Bush won: AZ (+1), FL (+2), GA (+1), IA (-1), LA (-1), MO (-1), NV (+1), OH (-2), TX (+3), UT (+1)

[CARLHAYDEN]

Its clearly a little early to predict the reapportionment which will follow the 2010 census, but it seems to me that if the current trends continue, the "Kerry" states are likely to lose 4-5 (net) congressional districts.

[opebo]

I voted 1-6, though I think that will be made up for by one or two states moving from lean Republican to lean Democrat.  New Hampshire already has, but I think Nevada and Colorado will do so by 2012.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1-6. CA and NY may both be borderline on gaining/losing 1 or 2 seats.

[muon2]

Its clearly a little early to predict the reapportionment which will follow the 2010 census, but it seems to me that if the current trends continue, the "Kerry" states are likely to lose 4-5 (net) congressional districts.

Atually, this is a prediction that's not too early to make. Reasonable estimates of current population exist now four years into this decade. Barring an event that causes unusual relocation in the remaining years, it's hard to move the projections based on the estimated by enough to affect Congressional seats.

It just takes a lot of change compared to the national average to gain or lose seats. The trend for those gains or losses must be sustained for the decade, so they should be present by the first half of the decade. The last two or three seats to be decided can flip, but it is hard to see the kind of changes needed to swap more that 3-4 fro the list I gave.

The estimates allow one to judge the accuracy of the list I gave, so here's the projection of the most likely seats to be wrong in the list above:

CA gains 2 instead of 1
MI loses 1 instead of no change
NY loses 1 instead of 2
AL loses 1 instead of no change
IL loses none instead of 1
MN loses 1 instead of no change

Even if all these came to pass, the net effect would be for Kerry states to lose 3 instead of 4.

[opebo]

I voted 1-6, though I think that will be made up for by one or two states moving from lean Republican to lean Democrat.  New Hampshire already has, but I think Nevada and Colorado will do so by 2012.

I hope you're right. As the South moves to the right it will be important for the Democrats to do better in the West. Arizona could be critical. I think the fact that Goldwater was from that state held it in the Republican column for so long. Now McCain also, but who knows.

Arizona should eventually lean liberal, but later than Colorado and much later than Nevada.  However these fast-growing, state can change so quickly!

[Beet]

I voted 1-6, though I think that will be made up for by one or two states moving from lean Republican to lean Democrat.  New Hampshire already has, but I think Nevada and Colorado will do so by 2012.

I hope you're right. As the South moves to the right it will be important for the Democrats to do better in the West. Arizona could be critical. I think the fact that Goldwater was from that state held it in the Republican column for so long. Now McCain also, but who knows.

Arizona should eventually lean liberal, but later than Colorado and much later than Nevada.  However these fast-growing, state can change so quickly!

Its one thing to hope, its another thing to put someone up to challenge Kyl.

[AkSaber]

I think 1-6. I wonder how long New York will continue to bleed EVs.

[muon2]

I think 1-6. I wonder how long New York will continue to bleed EVs.

As long as thay aren't growing at or near the national average. A big state is more sensitive to slight differences in its rate of growth compared to the nation. A small state generally needs a substantial difference in rate to go up or down.

[Beet]

I think 1-6. I wonder how long New York will continue to bleed EVs.

As long as thay aren't growing at or near the national average. A big state is more sensitive to slight differences in its rate of growth compared to the nation. A small state generally needs a substantial difference in rate to go up or down.

The funny thing is New York City is doing great for itself compared to D.C., Baltimore, Philly, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and all the other cities in the northeast.

[muon2]

I think 1-6. I wonder how long New York will continue to bleed EVs.

As long as thay aren't growing at or near the national average. A big state is more sensitive to slight differences in its rate of growth compared to the nation. A small state generally needs a substantial difference in rate to go up or down.

The funny thing is New York City is doing great for itself compared to D.C., Baltimore, Philly, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and all the other cities in the northeast.

NYC did do well as an eastern city, but still didn't match the national average in the 1990's. Its big suburban counties, Nassau and Westchester, were quite a bit below the national average. The other major population centers saw little or no growth at all - Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany/Schenectady/Troy.

The net affect was that NY grew at less than half the national average during the 90s. Current Census estimates have it growing at about 1/3 the national average. Bad signs for reapportionment.

[The Vorlon]

Based upn the US Census Burea projections for 2010 population, when the next census will be done....

State   CDs    EVs    EV now Gain/loss
AK   1      3      3      0
AL   6      8      9      -1
AR   4      6      6      0
AZ   9      11     10     +1
CA   54     56     55     +1
CO   7      9      9      0
CT   5      7      7      0
DE   1      3      3      0
FL   26     28     27     +1
GA   14     16     15     +1
HI   2      4      4      0
IA   4      6      7      -1
ID   2      4      4      0
IL   18     20     21     -1
IN   9      11     11     0
KS   4      6      6      0
KY   6      8      8      0
LA   7      9      9      0
MA   9      11     12     -1
MD   8      10     10     0
ME   2      4      4      0
MI   15     17     17     0
MN   8      10     10     0
MO   8      10     11     -1
MS   4      6      6      0
MT   1      3      3      0
NC   13     15     15     0
ND   1      3      3      0
NE   3      5      5      0
NH   2      4      4      0
NJ   13     15     15     0
NM   3      5      5      0
NV   4      6      5      +1
NY   28     30     31     -1
OH   16     18     20     -2
OK   5      7      7      0
OR   5      7      7      0
PA   18     20     21     -1
RI   2      4      4      0
SC   6      8      8      0
SD   1      3      3      0
TN   9      11     11     0
TX   35     37     34     +3
UT   4      6      5      +1
VA   11     13     13     0
VT   1      3      3      0
WA   9      11     11     0
WI   8      10     10     0
WV   3      5      5      0
WY   1      3      3      0

Bottom Line - Red states are +3

For those into math, this is how it is done...

http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/apportionment/computing.html

[CARLHAYDEN]

Nice to see you posting again.

As I said earlier, I think its a little premature to project the 2010 population with too much accuracy.

I am skeptical of the growth of California continuing,

Also the projected loss in Alabama seems to me to be doubtful.

[King]

New Hampshire already has, but I think Nevada and Colorado will do so by 2012.

New Hampshire didn't move all...Nader just did poorly in 04.

[muon2]

I assume we used the same census estimates, but we have slight differences. I'm curious what you used for the projections.

Based upn the US Census Burea projections for 2010 population, when the next census will be done....

State   CDs    EVs    EV now Gain/loss
AK   1      3      3      0
AL   6      8      9      -1 (I have no change, AL gets seat 433.)
AR   4      6      6      0
AZ   9      11     10     +1
CA   54     56     55     +1
CO   7      9      9      0
CT   5      7      7      0
DE   1      3      3      0
FL   26     28     27     +1 (I have FL +2, and would get +3 with seat 438)
GA   14     16     15     +1
HI   2      4      4      0
IA   4      6      7      -1
ID   2      4      4      0
IL   18     20     21     -1
IN   9      11     11     0
KS   4      6      6      0
KY   6      8      8      0
LA   7      9      9      0 (I have LA -1, and only get the next seat at 440)
MA   9      11     12     -1
MD   8      10     10     0
ME   2      4      4      0
MI   15     17     17     0
MN   8      10     10     0
MO   8      10     11     -1
MS   4      6      6      0
MT   1      3      3      0
NC   13     15     15     0
ND   1      3      3      0
NE   3      5      5      0
NH   2      4      4      0
NJ   13     15     15     0
NM   3      5      5      0
NV   4      6      5      +1
NY   28     30     31     -1 (I have NY -2, they get their next seat at 437)
OH   16     18     20     -2
OK   5      7      7      0
OR   5      7      7      0
PA   18     20     21     -1
RI   2      4      4      0
SC   6      8      8      0
SD   1      3      3      0
TN   9      11     11     0
TX   35     37     34     +3
UT   4      6      5      +1
VA   11     13     13     0
VT   1      3      3      0
WA   9      11     11     0
WI   8      10     10     0
WV   3      5      5      0
WY   1      3      3      0

Bottom Line - Red states are +3 (so, I get red +4)

For those into math, this is how it is done...

http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/apportionment/computing.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

When do they come out with the July 1 2004 estimates? They're a little slow with that.

[muon2]

When do they come out with the July 1 2004 estimates? They're a little slow with that.

The Census released the state-level estimates from July 1, 2004 on December 22, 2004. This is the data I used to make my projection to 2010 for reapportionment.

The Census just released the county-level estimates on April 14, 2005. The data is consistent with the state results, but breaks down each state to the level of their counties.

[The Vorlon]

I assume we used the same census estimates, but we have slight differences. I'm curious what you used for the projections.

Based upn the US Census Burea projections for 2010 population, when the next census will be done....

State   CDs    EVs    EV now Gain/loss
AK   1      3      3      0
AL   6      8      9      -1 (I have no change, AL gets seat 433.)
AR   4      6      6      0
AZ   9      11     10     +1
CA   54     56     55     +1
CO   7      9      9      0
CT   5      7      7      0
DE   1      3      3      0
FL   26     28     27     +1 (I have FL +2, and would get +3 with seat 438)
GA   14     16     15     +1
HI   2      4      4      0
IA   4      6      7      -1
ID   2      4      4      0
IL   18     20     21     -1
IN   9      11     11     0
KS   4      6      6      0
KY   6      8      8      0
LA   7      9      9      0 (I have LA -1, and only get the next seat at 440)
MA   9      11     12     -1
MD   8      10     10     0
ME   2      4      4      0
MI   15     17     17     0
MN   8      10     10     0
MO   8      10     11     -1
MS   4      6      6      0
MT   1      3      3      0
NC   13     15     15     0
ND   1      3      3      0
NE   3      5      5      0
NH   2      4      4      0
NJ   13     15     15     0
NM   3      5      5      0
NV   4      6      5      +1
NY   28     30     31     -1 (I have NY -2, they get their next seat at 437)
OH   16     18     20     -2
OK   5      7      7      0
OR   5      7      7      0
PA   18     20     21     -1
RI   2      4      4      0
SC   6      8      8      0
SD   1      3      3      0
TN   9      11     11     0
TX   35     37     34     +3
UT   4      6      5      +1
VA   11     13     13     0
VT   1      3      3      0
WA   9      11     11     0
WI   8      10     10     0
WV   3      5      5      0
WY   1      3      3      0

Bottom Line - Red states are +3 (so, I get red +4)

For those into math, this is how it is done...

http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/apportionment/computing.html

I did it fairly fast, I'll recheck my math...

[CARLHAYDEN]

I assume we used the same census estimates, but we have slight differences. I'm curious what you used for the projections.

Based upn the US Census Burea projections for 2010 population, when the next census will be done....

State   CDs    EVs    EV now Gain/loss
AK   1      3      3      0
AL   6      8      9      -1 (I have no change, AL gets seat 433.)
AR   4      6      6      0
AZ   9      11     10     +1
CA   54     56     55     +1
CO   7      9      9      0
CT   5      7      7      0
DE   1      3      3      0
FL   26     28     27     +1 (I have FL +2, and would get +3 with seat 438)
GA   14     16     15     +1
HI   2      4      4      0
IA   4      6      7      -1
ID   2      4      4      0
IL   18     20     21     -1
IN   9      11     11     0
KS   4      6      6      0
KY   6      8      8      0
LA   7      9      9      0 (I have LA -1, and only get the next seat at 440)
MA   9      11     12     -1
MD   8      10     10     0
ME   2      4      4      0
MI   15     17     17     0
MN   8      10     10     0
MO   8      10     11     -1
MS   4      6      6      0
MT   1      3      3      0
NC   13     15     15     0
ND   1      3      3      0
NE   3      5      5      0
NH   2      4      4      0
NJ   13     15     15     0
NM   3      5      5      0
NV   4      6      5      +1
NY   28     30     31     -1 (I have NY -2, they get their next seat at 437)
OH   16     18     20     -2
OK   5      7      7      0
OR   5      7      7      0
PA   18     20     21     -1
RI   2      4      4      0
SC   6      8      8      0
SD   1      3      3      0
TN   9      11     11     0
TX   35     37     34     +3
UT   4      6      5      +1
VA   11     13     13     0
VT   1      3      3      0
WA   9      11     11     0
WI   8      10     10     0
WV   3      5      5      0
WY   1      3      3      0

Bottom Line - Red states are +3 (so, I get red +4)

For those into math, this is how it is done...

http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/apportionment/computing.html

I did it fairly fast, I'll recheck my math...

While I generally agree with you, I suspect that Alabama will NOT lose a seat and California will NOT gain a seat.

My reason for this difference is that I am not using straight line projections, but rather changes in rate of growth.  The California net rate of growth is declining and will not continue at the present rate through 2010 while I expect the Alabama rate to slightly increase (basically, California is becoming too expensive and Alabama will increasingly become a retirement mecca due to lost cost of living).

[jimrtex]

I assume we used the same census estimates, but we have slight differences. I'm curious what you used for the projections.

On April 21, the Census Bureau released what it is calling an "interim projection", which includes annual projections from 2004 through 2010.

Using the projections, I get the same results as Vorlon, other than an increase of 2 for Florida, and a decrease of 2 for New York.   The Florida value is very solid, with a population projected to be greater than 27 seats (i.e. it's not somewhere between 26 and 27).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

436th.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed, as noted Florida is projected to be pushing towards 28.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Georgia is 435, with a gap of about 0.22% over Alabama (this is equivalent to 10 to 20 people).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

433.  Economy apprently improving enough to squeeze by.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also 437 based on projections.

I went through the projections year by year.  If seats were apportioned annually, the following changes would occur:

2000-2004 AZ+1 TX+1 UT+1 IA-1 OH-1 PA-1
2005 FL+1 TX+2 (i.e. 2nd Texas gain) MO-1 NY-1
2006 NV+1 IL-1
2007
2008 FL+2 MA-1
2009 CA+1 OH-2
2010 GA+1 TX+3 AL-1 NY-2 (this is Georgia's only gain through 2030).
2011 AZ+2 LA-1 (FL becomes 3rd most populous state)
2012 FL+3 PA-2
2013
2014 NC+1 TX+4 MI-1 NE-1 (893,000 in each Ne CD).
2015 FL+4 NY-3
2016 VA+1 WV-1 (MT goes past 1 million in CD, and not getting closer to 2nd)
2017 WA+1 NJ-1
2018 AZ+3 FL+5 TX+5 IL-2 OH-3 VA-1

A real curious phenomenon.  VA keeps gaining and losing the extra seat, as it gains population faster than the US as whole, but population for 435 keeps increasing faster.  Virginia gains the seat as a laggard drops below it, but then a speed merchant like AZ, FL, or TX zooms past.

2019 OR+1 NY-4 (AK larger than average CD).
2020 VA+1 PA-2
2021 NV +1 IN-1
2022 FL+1 VA-1
2023 VA+1 NY-1 (CA fails to gain 55th seat with population greater than 55/435).
2024 AZ+4 TX+6 NY-5 OH-4
2025 FL+7 IL-3
2026 CA+2 WI-1 (CA population equivalent to 55.313 before gaining 55th seat)
2027 FL+8 TX+7 MA-2 RI-1 (RI becomes largest CD at 1.156M).
2028
2029 AZ+5 FL+9 NC+2 TX+8 CT-1 KY-1 NY-6 PA-4
2030
2030+ In danger zone (IA-2 KS-1 MN-1 (only 1 to 2% margin entire period) NM-1

SC still at 6 (right in the middle too 6.167).
MD not yet quite to 9th seat.  Will they regret not accepting the DC deal 25 years earlier?  By 2030, CD would be about 50:50 split between DC and Maryland.

[muon2]

Thanks, I had missed the 4/21/05 release. The most interesting feature of the projections is that they show a slowing of the rate of population increase throughout the country. The annual rate has been estimated at 1.0% per year so far this decade, but these new projections drop it to 0.9% per year.

Almost all states are slowing in their growth rates here. Some of the rapidly growing states are now estimated to substantially slow their rate of growth, though remain above the national average. This includes CA, CO, GA, NV. The only states that are projected with higher growth rates than before are IA, LA, MA, MI, MT, ND, VT. This uptick helps LA at the expense of AL.