USA 2020 Census Results Thread (Release: Today, 26 April)

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it does look more likely now that NY loses a district upstate rather than in NYC itself. (Or were we thinking that would happen already?)

The district is going to be lost upstate. NYC grew way more than expected. The upstate cities also grew, but that was counteracted by the losses in upstate rural areas. Seems like the best case scenario if Dems want to get aggressive in redistricting.

[Vosem]

So what effects will this have on redistricting, broadly?

Broadly, the GOP is not going to gain as many seats from redistricting as they’d hoped.

It's really difficult to point to a specific seat the GOP thought they'd gain that they won't now, right? TX and FL don't have rural under-performance that's that bad, and in a lot of northern cities that over-performed the Democrats are already packed and can't very easily use this to gain seats.

The most obvious Democrat this looks like good news for is Angie Craig; her seat probably went from Tossup to Likely D or so. I guess Cooper is likelier to get a sink rather than be split up four ways? (But he's still probably split four ways. Looks like Nashville specifically hugely over-performed, though.) Might be easier to save Underwood if Cook is bigger than was previously thought.

California remains a black box but it doesn't seem like the main urban counties there were particularly overestimated? And Republicans were getting screwed in NY down to 3-4 seats anyway, with the exact number depending more on Albany politics than anything else. That hasn't changed.

For Republicans to get screwed Sun Belt cities would've had to over-perform, but it looks like they mostly didn't, with the bizarre and extremely prominent exception of Nashville.

[Ebsy]

Census 2020: The Bell tolls for John Katko/Claudia Tenney.

[Oryxslayer]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it does look more likely now that NY loses a district upstate rather than in NYC itself. (Or were we thinking that would happen already?)

The district is going to be lost upstate. NYC grew way more than expected. The upstate cities also grew, but that was counteracted by the losses in upstate rural areas. Seems like the best case scenario if Dems want to get aggressive in redistricting.

It was also always going to be lost Upstate. Back when we were just using the ACS projections the conclusion was Upstate was a comparative loser whereas NYC was comparatively stagnant, with certain neighborhoods growing and others shrinking. It was the second, now hypothetical, loss which would come from Downstate.

[soundchaser]

So what effects will this have on redistricting, broadly?

Broadly, the GOP is not going to gain as many seats from redistricting as they’d hoped.

It's really difficult to point to a specific seat the GOP thought they'd gain that they won't now, right?...

I take your point, but I still think NY, IL, and CA in particular have to be disappointing for Republicans. TX could also be interesting.

I still expect the Republicans will net a seat or two, but I know some were planning to take the House on redistricting alone, and that's not going to happen based on these numbers.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

Census 2020: The Bell tolls for John Katko.

I think a Syracuse+Utica district will be bluer than previously expected given the changes upstate. Double bunk Katko and Tenney, Tenney wins the primary because Katko is a ‘traitor’ now, Tenney loses due to partisanship.

I can dream.

[Thunder98]

Any thoughts on what the census data would affect Georgia redistricting?

[Vosem]

(Thanks to cynic for the map).

This is the map comparing the estimate to the actual Census, so for "what just changed with redistricting" this is the relevant map. (Although even better would be a state-normed version.)

Bexar, Travis, Dallas, and Tarrant are all blue. So is Mecklenburg NC. Maricopa is a darker blue!

I think this information makes Democratic maps easier in some places where Democrats have control -- IL/NJ/NY -- and there are a few scattered places where neutral maps should be more Democratic-favorable, like MN. (Perhaps WI as well? Virtually the whole state red except Waukesha and a few of the most Republican rural counties is kind of rough.) But on the whole most of the Republican gains were in the bottom half of the country, and I don't think any of them have really disappeared, certainly not from TX/FL/NC/AZ.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Whether estimates were right or wrong. Republicans still face the problem of population delineation, population shift, and political trends going into this redistricting cycle. Republican incumbents will now have to pick up more Democratic trending areas or forfeit a seat. Especially if they want to avoid another Texas or Atlanta hiccup again.

[Vosem]

Whether estimates were right or wrong. Republicans still face the problem of population delineation, population shift, and political trends going into this redistricting cycle. Republican incumbents will now have to pick up more Democratic trending areas or forfeit a seat. Especially if they want to avoid another Texas or Atlanta hiccup again.

...this is mostly not true, and especially not true in TX, where Republicans will probably be getting redder seats than anticipated as a result of the differences between the Census and the estimates. Otherwise a statement like this needs more geographic specificity.

[soundchaser]

WI is a surprise - MI and PA are too. And MI has an independent commission drawing its maps this time around.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

New York City gained 629,057 people. New York State gained 823,147 people, so 76% of the state's growth occurred in the city.

44% of NY state residents now live in New York City.

Can we retire the death of the American city meme already?

[Skill and Chance]

Any thoughts on what the census data would affect Georgia redistricting?

Likely helps Dems in Georgia.  GA-07 needs to get much smaller and basically all the rural districts are underpopulated.  I don't know if it will be possible for R's to reclaim an Atlanta seat with those numbers.  GA-02 does need to get much bigger, though, so they could try to pull it into Atlanta to keep it majority-black.  Either way, this makes a 9/5 map more likely.

[Thunder98]

Any thoughts on what the census data would affect Georgia redistricting?

Likely helps Dems in Georgia.  GA-07 needs to get much smaller and basically all the rural districts are underpopulated.  I don't know if it will be possible for R's to reclaim an Atlanta seat with those numbers.  GA-02 does need to get much bigger, though, so they could try to pull it into Atlanta to keep it majority-black.  Either way, this makes a 9/5 map more likely.

The dems only losing 1 seat in GA is not bad for them. Could be easily worse.

[Skill and Chance]

Rural mid-South (OK/TX/LA/AR/MS/Southern MO) really took a hit vs. estimates.  The Carolina's also look disappointing overall. 

[Roronoa D. Law]

Whether estimates were right or wrong. Republicans still face the problem of population delineation, population shift, and political trends going into this redistricting cycle. Republican incumbents will now have to pick up more Democratic trending areas or forfeit a seat. Especially if they want to avoid another Texas or Atlanta hiccup again.

...this is mostly not true, and especially not true in TX, where Republicans will probably be getting redder seats than anticipated as a result of the differences between the Census and the estimates. Otherwise a statement like this needs more geographic specificity.

 

I would argue that those spots in blue are not places where Republicans want to be losing population.

[Vosem]

Whether estimates were right or wrong. Republicans still face the problem of population delineation, population shift, and political trends going into this redistricting cycle. Republican incumbents will now have to pick up more Democratic trending areas or forfeit a seat. Especially if they want to avoid another Texas or Atlanta hiccup again.

...this is mostly not true, and especially not true in TX, where Republicans will probably be getting redder seats than anticipated as a result of the differences between the Census and the estimates. Otherwise a statement like this needs more geographic specificity.

 

I would argue that those spots in blue are not places where Republicans want to be losing population.

Sure, but most of this is stuff we already knew: the estimates weren't that far off the actual Census numbers. We already know Republicans tend to improve in areas losing population and Democrats tend to improve in areas gaining population. The GOP is staying afloat because, over time, more and more places are losing population.

Relative to the estimates, this is a good update for the Democrats but not overwhelmingly so, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. (And, weirdly, Tennessee more than anywhere else). Throughout the Sun Belt, this is mostly a good update for Republicans. San Antonio, Charlotte, Phoenix, and Dallas are not growing quite as fast as was thought.

You can actually characterize this as a pro-gerrymandering update, almost: anywhere Democrats have total control, like Illinois and New York, their task just got easier. Anywhere Republicans have total control, like Florida, North Carolina, and Texas, their task got easier too. And for the most part places with independent commissions, like California, aren't seeing numbers that different from what the estimate showed.

[Vern]

Is there a link to the data. I want to look at NC.

[Skill and Chance]

Whether estimates were right or wrong. Republicans still face the problem of population delineation, population shift, and political trends going into this redistricting cycle. Republican incumbents will now have to pick up more Democratic trending areas or forfeit a seat. Especially if they want to avoid another Texas or Atlanta hiccup again.

...this is mostly not true, and especially not true in TX, where Republicans will probably be getting redder seats than anticipated as a result of the differences between the Census and the estimates. Otherwise a statement like this needs more geographic specificity.

 

I would argue that those spots in blue are not places where Republicans want to be losing population.

Sure, but most of this is stuff we already knew: the estimates weren't that far off the actual Census numbers. We already know Republicans tend to improve in areas losing population and Democrats tend to improve in areas gaining population. The GOP is staying afloat because, over time, more and more places are losing population.

Relative to the estimates, this is a good update for the Democrats but not overwhelmingly so, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. (And, weirdly, Tennessee more than anywhere else). Throughout the Sun Belt, this is mostly a good update for Republicans. San Antonio, Charlotte, Phoenix, and Dallas are not growing quite as fast as was thought.

You can actually characterize this as a pro-gerrymandering update, almost: anywhere Democrats have total control, like Illinois and New York, their task just got easier. Anywhere Republicans have total control, like Florida, North Carolina, and Texas, their task got easier too. And for the most part places with independent commissions, like California, aren't seeing numbers that different from what the estimate showed.

Serious Atlanta potential in Nashville this decade.  I don't know if it could ever be enough to flip the state, but R's would be crazy to go forward with cracking TN-05 after this data.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Is there a link to the data. I want to look at NC.

Population data

https://mtgis-portal.geo.census.gov/arcgis/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=2566121a73de463995ed2b2fd7ff6eb7

Demographic data

https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/racial-and-ethnic-diversity-in-the-united-states-2010-and-2020-census.html

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

Utica grows for the second census in a row, up 4.9% to 65,283. Unless I’ve made a mistake, that’s an overperformance of 10% on the estimates. The last time Utica had two censuses of growth in a row was 1920/30. White population down to 55%, Black population up to 17.3%, Asian population is up to 12.7%, 2 or More population up to 8.1%.

[danny]

As has been mentioned, the differences are far too large for Orthodox Jews to be a significant explanation. However, I am expecting some Orthodox areas to see significant adjustments once the full results are in as some of the estimates look low to me.

Lakewood somehow went from 53.8% growth last census to just 14.5% in the 9 years since. Kaser went from 42.5% to just 13.6%. New Square went from 50.2% to 26.2%. Kiryas Joel is the most reasonable going from 53.6% to 32.9%.

Some slowdown isn't unreasonable because some Orthodox moved to nearby towns and villages, but this shouldn't be anywhere near enough to explain the low estimates, especially when you consider the school enrolment numbers.

Then there is the case of Bloomingburg, where 10 years ago there were no Hasidic Jews, but in the last few years Hasidic Jews have been moving in to a new development, and the village now has enough Hasidim that they voted out the entire incumbent village board and mayor. Despite this new population, the estimates went from 420 in 2010 to 412 in 2019.

Time to check if I were correct.

Lakewood grew 45.6%, almost as much as the previous decade, and tripled the estimated growth.

Kaser grew 16.2%, so the census was actually quite good here. Kaser is very small and might be getting built out, so people might be moving to the surrounding areas which are also Haredi.

New Square grew 39.4%. Not as fast as last decade, but significantly above the estimates.

Kiryas Joel grew 63.3%, so not only did it not slow down like the estimates said, it actually grew faster than last decade.

Overall I think I was right and the census clearly got the orthodox towns wrong.

Not sure how to check Bloomingburg though, the place I was checking for numbers only had localities with over 5,000 people.

[Nyvin]

Clark County NV actually ended up a bit below 73% of the state, bleh.    Looks like one of the congressional districts actually does have to take in a good chunk of the rurals.

[danny]

Do you have the New York state data downloaded?
I'd be curious to see the populations of Borough Park and South Williamsburg.

I got my data from the quickFacts page, haven't seen anything about neighbourhoods within NYC.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Massive overperformances in Hasidic areas:

Kiryas Joel, New York

20,365 - 2010 Final Census Result
28,426 - 2020 Original Estimate
32,954 - 2020 Final Census Result

New Square, New York

6,944 - 2010 Final Census Result
8,956 - 2020 Original Estimate
9,679 - 2020 Final Census Result

Lakewood Township, New Jersey

92,799 - 2010 Final Census Result
107,169 - 2020 Original Estimate
135,158 - 2020 Final Census Result

I guess it's obvious who New York has to credit for coming so close to keeping all its CDs...