poll: The 'Kerry' states in 2012

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.