Census Population Estimates 2020-29

[🇺🇦 Purple 🦄 Unicorn 🇮🇱]

The new Census Bureau estimates for July 1, 2023 (US, states, Puerto Rico and components of change) will be released next Tuesday, December 19.

I predict population growth was about 1.7 to 1.9 million last year, slightly up from the year before, or 0.5% to 0.6% in relative terms.

Natural growth, which is more births than deaths, was around 500.000, and maybe an additional 1.2 to 1.4 million net legal immigrants. There were obviously many illegals too, but they are not estimated into the Census Bureau numbers.

Texas, Florida, Utah, Nevada, Idaho should be the fastest growing states with between 1.6 and 2%.

Texas and Florida alone should be up by 550.000 and 350.000 respectively.

There will be a webinar on Monday, December 18, to discuss methodology changes in the estimates. I am not sure how these changes will effect the estimates.

It is also possible that South Carolina was the fastest growing state in 2022-23, because it was already in the top-3 last year. Arizona is another candidate for the top-5.

And maybe California stopped its loss? It certainly didn't grow by a lot, maybe just by a few thousand people. It is more likely that it still declined though.

"South Carolina and Florida were the two fastest-growing states in the nation, growing by 1.7% and 1.6%, respectively, in 2023."

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/population-trends-return-to-pre-pandemic-norms.html

[🇺🇦 Purple 🦄 Unicorn 🇮🇱]

Anyway, demographic patterns will be back to pre-Covid levels again.

"For Immediate Release: Tuesday, December 19, 2023

U.S. Population Trends Return to Pre-Pandemic Norms as More States Gain Population"

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/population-trends-return-to-pre-pandemic-norms.html

[Gass3268]

After the 2020 Census I take these estimates with a giant grain of salt.

The $1M question is was there a bigger problem with the 2020 census itself or the annual estimates?  Did the census undercount the South or do the estimates systematically overcount the South?  In other words, would we expect the deviation to be a one-time thing or is this a persistent result of the difference in methodology where something about the literal census process/funding favors the North in perpetuity?

There's a good argument that the marginal dollar spent on census outreach went further in 2020 due to the pandemic conditions, and Northern/Dem states were more likely to fund outreach.  However, there's also a good argument that Northern/Dem states accustomed to a larger social services budget will always be willing to spend relatively more on this than Southern/GOP states...

Also its odd that so many Republicans went out of their way to discredit the idea of counting undocumented immigrants, when that would only go to further help in states like Texas and Florida.

[🇺🇦 Purple 🦄 Unicorn 🇮🇱]

The new Census Bureau estimates for July 1, 2023 (US, states, Puerto Rico and components of change) will be released next Tuesday, December 19.

I predict population growth was about 1.7 to 1.9 million last year, slightly up from the year before, or 0.5% to 0.6% in relative terms.

Natural growth, which is more births than deaths, was around 500.000, and maybe an additional 1.2 to 1.4 million net legal immigrants. There were obviously many illegals too, but they are not estimated into the Census Bureau numbers.

Texas, Florida, Utah, Nevada, Idaho should be the fastest growing states with between 1.6 and 2%.

Texas and Florida alone should be up by 550.000 and 350.000 respectively.

"The nation gained more than 1.6 million people this past year, growing by 0.5% to 334,914,895."

"Texas experienced the largest numeric change in the nation, adding 473,453 people, followed by Florida, which added 365,205 residents."

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/population-trends-return-to-pre-pandemic-norms.html

[🇺🇦 Purple 🦄 Unicorn 🇮🇱]

I could see NC and GA almost having the same population. It wouldn’t surprise me if NC surpasses GA

As of last year, NC was still trailing GA by more than 200.000 people.

NC is only growing slightly faster than GA by about 20-40.000 per year, so it will probably take well until Census Day 2030 for it to overtake GA.

Based on the growth of the past year, NC could overtake GA in 9-10 years.

[🇺🇦 Purple 🦄 Unicorn 🇮🇱]

The new mid-2023 state population estimates will be out later today around 11am East Coast.

What could happen:

CO could overtake WI
NV could overtake IA
KS could overtake MS
ID could overtake NE

Other than that, no big changes in rankings until 2035-38, when Texas will become the largest state - assuming CA doesn't stop their slide.

CO could overtake WI - did not happen
NV could overtake IA - did not happen
KS could overtake MS - did happen
ID could overtake NE - did not happen

[🇺🇦 Purple 🦄 Unicorn 🇮🇱]

Big descrepancies:

The Census Bureau said Washington (state) only grew by 45.000, while Washington state said they grew by 100.000 last year.

Same with Oregon: +15.000 (state, or University of Portland), -16.000 (Census Bureau)

Explanantions?

Once again, huge discrepancies between the Census Bureau numbers today and the state estimates:

Washington: +28.000 (Census Bureau), +87.000 (Washington State government)
Oregon: -6.000 (Census Bureau), +23.000 (Portland University)

How can this be?

[Skill and Chance]

After the 2020 Census I take these estimates with a giant grain of salt.

The $1M question is was there a bigger problem with the 2020 census itself or the annual estimates?  Did the census undercount the South or do the estimates systematically overcount the South?  In other words, would we expect the deviation to be a one-time thing or is this a persistent result of the difference in methodology where something about the literal census process/funding favors the North in perpetuity?

There's a good argument that the marginal dollar spent on census outreach went further in 2020 due to the pandemic conditions, and Northern/Dem states were more likely to fund outreach.  However, there's also a good argument that Northern/Dem states accustomed to a larger social services budget will always be willing to spend relatively more on this than Southern/GOP states...

Also its odd that so many Republicans went out of their way to discredit the idea of counting undocumented immigrants, when that would only go to further help in states like Texas and Florida.

While it marginally helps Reps in the EC, it helps Dems tremendously in the US House.   Any additional districts gained from this would legally have to be drawn as Dem districts in most cases, and with a tiny VAP for a US House district.  

[Gass3268]

After the 2020 Census I take these estimates with a giant grain of salt.

The $1M question is was there a bigger problem with the 2020 census itself or the annual estimates?  Did the census undercount the South or do the estimates systematically overcount the South?  In other words, would we expect the deviation to be a one-time thing or is this a persistent result of the difference in methodology where something about the literal census process/funding favors the North in perpetuity?

There's a good argument that the marginal dollar spent on census outreach went further in 2020 due to the pandemic conditions, and Northern/Dem states were more likely to fund outreach.  However, there's also a good argument that Northern/Dem states accustomed to a larger social services budget will always be willing to spend relatively more on this than Southern/GOP states...

Also its odd that so many Republicans went out of their way to discredit the idea of counting undocumented immigrants, when that would only go to further help in states like Texas and Florida.

While it marginally helps Reps in the EC, it helps Dems tremendously in the US House.   Any additional districts gained from this would legally have to be drawn as Dem districts in most cases, and with a tiny VAP for a US House district.  

Yeah that makes sense.

[Vosem]

After the 2020 Census I take these estimates with a giant grain of salt.

The $1M question is was there a bigger problem with the 2020 census itself or the annual estimates?  Did the census undercount the South or do the estimates systematically overcount the South?  In other words, would we expect the deviation to be a one-time thing or is this a persistent result of the difference in methodology where something about the literal census process/funding favors the North in perpetuity?

There's a good argument that the marginal dollar spent on census outreach went further in 2020 due to the pandemic conditions, and Northern/Dem states were more likely to fund outreach.  However, there's also a good argument that Northern/Dem states accustomed to a larger social services budget will always be willing to spend relatively more on this than Southern/GOP states...

The Census's own estimates are that its 2020 numbers were inaccurate, with CO, MN, and RI all having obtained seats they were not entitled to, and FL and TX each being shorted at least one seat. The last seat is very close between FL being shorted two seats and TN needing to gain a seat. (TN gaining in 2020 would've been an out-of-nowhere event, since none of the ACS estimates had it actually gaining).

After the 2020 Census I take these estimates with a giant grain of salt.

The $1M question is was there a bigger problem with the 2020 census itself or the annual estimates?  Did the census undercount the South or do the estimates systematically overcount the South?  In other words, would we expect the deviation to be a one-time thing or is this a persistent result of the difference in methodology where something about the literal census process/funding favors the North in perpetuity?

There's a good argument that the marginal dollar spent on census outreach went further in 2020 due to the pandemic conditions, and Northern/Dem states were more likely to fund outreach.  However, there's also a good argument that Northern/Dem states accustomed to a larger social services budget will always be willing to spend relatively more on this than Southern/GOP states...

Also its odd that so many Republicans went out of their way to discredit the idea of counting undocumented immigrants, when that would only go to further help in states like Texas and Florida.

While it marginally helps Reps in the EC, it helps Dems tremendously in the US House.   Any additional districts gained from this would legally have to be drawn as Dem districts in most cases, and with a tiny VAP for a US House district. 

This seems non-obvious to me, since the areas that are likely undercounted are quite red (fast-bluing, but quite red) suburbs, and Allen set a pretty high standard for when minority districts are required to be drawn. Also, if we're discussing the 2030s, then it should be noted that a Republican victory in 2028 (and possibly one with a strong enough trifecta happening in 2024) would push for a Census citizenship question, which would itself enable red states to pursue CVAP redistricting (as in the Evenwel case). Such would constitute a large internal reapportionment in TX and FL (...also CA and NY, I guess, but I doubt this would ever be implemented federally) from urban areas to rural areas.

Also, on your map the easiest additional large state for Biden to carry is GA, right? If FL and TX remain red then GA starts to have enormous importance for the Democratic party.

[Vosem]

After the 2020 Census I take these estimates with a giant grain of salt.

The $1M question is was there a bigger problem with the 2020 census itself or the annual estimates?  Did the census undercount the South or do the estimates systematically overcount the South?  In other words, would we expect the deviation to be a one-time thing or is this a persistent result of the difference in methodology where something about the literal census process/funding favors the North in perpetuity?

There's a good argument that the marginal dollar spent on census outreach went further in 2020 due to the pandemic conditions, and Northern/Dem states were more likely to fund outreach.  However, there's also a good argument that Northern/Dem states accustomed to a larger social services budget will always be willing to spend relatively more on this than Southern/GOP states...

Also its odd that so many Republicans went out of their way to discredit the idea of counting undocumented immigrants, when that would only go to further help in states like Texas and Florida.

Not to put my total-cynicism hat on, but it would help the wrong parts of FL and TX, and if you are a Republican in the FL/TX legislature maintaining control of that is the priority. Off the top of my head, Texas has a congressional seat -- TX-33, covering poor parts of inner-city Dallas and Fort Worth -- which verges on rotten-borough status due to the high non-citizen population, who don't vote, and giving areas like that more representation in state legislatures might allow Democrats to win even if they lose the popular vote (in Texas in particular I think this is a concern, because the rural areas are just so red). You ideally want a count within the state permitting you to draw the lines you want, and for large states this concern is probably more relevant than a single marginal congressional district.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

If this actually played out as Trende modeled with CA going full MI in the 2000's (and making the CO adjustment discussed upthread), the new map would dangerously close to "Dems must win TX or FL to win the presidency."  Needless to say, this would be a future where the South dictates terms to the rest of the country by midcentury.  For example, this would be a Republican EC win:



However, I'm dubious this will actually happen.  Between COVID, WFH, and mortgage rates, I suspect most of the people who were going to move between states this decade already moved, making a straight line projection unrealistic.

I have all 4 of CA/NY/TX/FL becoming swing states by 2040. If we look at current polling, CA and NY seem to be trending dramatically right, while TX and FL trend left.

[Skill and Chance]

If this actually played out as Trende modeled with CA going full MI in the 2000's (and making the CO adjustment discussed upthread), the new map would dangerously close to "Dems must win TX or FL to win the presidency."  Needless to say, this would be a future where the South dictates terms to the rest of the country by midcentury.  For example, this would be a Republican EC win:



However, I'm dubious this will actually happen.  Between COVID, WFH, and mortgage rates, I suspect most of the people who were going to move between states this decade already moved, making a straight line projection unrealistic.

I have all 4 of CA/NY/TX/FL becoming swing states by 2040. If we look at current polling, CA and NY seem to be trending dramatically right, while TX and FL trend left.

Hmmm... IDK how CA gets to swing state status without Hispanic voters becoming part of the GOP base and voting 2:1 R.  That's actually not a crazy story to tell for the 2030's, but wouldn't it also imply TX and FL would be landslides for the GOP to the same degree CA/NY are Dem landslides today?  NY progressing to swing state status is a lot easier to see because the white Catholic/ex-Catholic post-1900 immigrant block is so large there and could reasonably be expected to follow the Hispanic trend. 

[Skill and Chance]

After the 2020 Census I take these estimates with a giant grain of salt.

The $1M question is was there a bigger problem with the 2020 census itself or the annual estimates?  Did the census undercount the South or do the estimates systematically overcount the South?  In other words, would we expect the deviation to be a one-time thing or is this a persistent result of the difference in methodology where something about the literal census process/funding favors the North in perpetuity?

There's a good argument that the marginal dollar spent on census outreach went further in 2020 due to the pandemic conditions, and Northern/Dem states were more likely to fund outreach.  However, there's also a good argument that Northern/Dem states accustomed to a larger social services budget will always be willing to spend relatively more on this than Southern/GOP states...

The Census's own estimates are that its 2020 numbers were inaccurate, with CO, MN, and RI all having obtained seats they were not entitled to, and FL and TX each being shorted at least one seat. The last seat is very close between FL being shorted two seats and TN needing to gain a seat. (TN gaining in 2020 would've been an out-of-nowhere event, since none of the ACS estimates had it actually gaining).

After the 2020 Census I take these estimates with a giant grain of salt.

The $1M question is was there a bigger problem with the 2020 census itself or the annual estimates?  Did the census undercount the South or do the estimates systematically overcount the South?  In other words, would we expect the deviation to be a one-time thing or is this a persistent result of the difference in methodology where something about the literal census process/funding favors the North in perpetuity?

There's a good argument that the marginal dollar spent on census outreach went further in 2020 due to the pandemic conditions, and Northern/Dem states were more likely to fund outreach.  However, there's also a good argument that Northern/Dem states accustomed to a larger social services budget will always be willing to spend relatively more on this than Southern/GOP states...

Also its odd that so many Republicans went out of their way to discredit the idea of counting undocumented immigrants, when that would only go to further help in states like Texas and Florida.

While it marginally helps Reps in the EC, it helps Dems tremendously in the US House.   Any additional districts gained from this would legally have to be drawn as Dem districts in most cases, and with a tiny VAP for a US House district. 

This seems non-obvious to me, since the areas that are likely undercounted are quite red (fast-bluing, but quite red) suburbs, and Allen set a pretty high standard for when minority districts are required to be drawn. Also, if we're discussing the 2030s, then it should be noted that a Republican victory in 2028 (and possibly one with a strong enough trifecta happening in 2024) would push for a Census citizenship question, which would itself enable red states to pursue CVAP redistricting (as in the Evenwel case). Such would constitute a large internal reapportionment in TX and FL (...also CA and NY, I guess, but I doubt this would ever be implemented federally) from urban areas to rural areas.

Also, on your map the easiest additional large state for Biden to carry is GA, right? If FL and TX remain red then GA starts to have enormous importance for the Democratic party.

Yes, however the assumption of Dems sweeping PA/MI/WI is also generous.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

If this actually played out as Trende modeled with CA going full MI in the 2000's (and making the CO adjustment discussed upthread), the new map would dangerously close to "Dems must win TX or FL to win the presidency."  Needless to say, this would be a future where the South dictates terms to the rest of the country by midcentury.  For example, this would be a Republican EC win:



However, I'm dubious this will actually happen.  Between COVID, WFH, and mortgage rates, I suspect most of the people who were going to move between states this decade already moved, making a straight line projection unrealistic.

I have all 4 of CA/NY/TX/FL becoming swing states by 2040. If we look at current polling, CA and NY seem to be trending dramatically right, while TX and FL trend left.

Hmmm... IDK how CA gets to swing state status without Hispanic voters becoming part of the GOP base and voting 2:1 R.  That's actually not a crazy story to tell for the 2030's, but wouldn't it also imply TX and FL would be landslides for the GOP to the same degree CA/NY are Dem landslides today?  NY progressing to swing state status is a lot easier to see because the white Catholic/ex-Catholic post-1900 immigrant block is so large there and could reasonably be expected to follow the Hispanic trend. 

Asians and white voters in California also shift right due to the economy. In TX and FL the Hispanics could behave differently and/or migration is different. TX/FL also have room for Rs to fall with white voters.

Already in 2024 I could believe R +5 TX/FL and D +10 NY/D +15 CA.

[Agafin]

If this actually played out as Trende modeled with CA going full MI in the 2000's (and making the CO adjustment discussed upthread), the new map would dangerously close to "Dems must win TX or FL to win the presidency."  Needless to say, this would be a future where the South dictates terms to the rest of the country by midcentury.  For example, this would be a Republican EC win:



However, I'm dubious this will actually happen.  Between COVID, WFH, and mortgage rates, I suspect most of the people who were going to move between states this decade already moved, making a straight line projection unrealistic.

I have all 4 of CA/NY/TX/FL becoming swing states by 2040. If we look at current polling, CA and NY seem to be trending dramatically right, while TX and FL trend left.

Man, the four biggest states being competitve would make campaigning so unbelievably draining and even more expensive than it already is (though it would make things much more spicy for election junkies like us, lol). When's the last time the biggest state in the Union was a swing state? Was California considered a swing state during the post-VRA era?

[Vosem]

If this actually played out as Trende modeled with CA going full MI in the 2000's (and making the CO adjustment discussed upthread), the new map would dangerously close to "Dems must win TX or FL to win the presidency."  Needless to say, this would be a future where the South dictates terms to the rest of the country by midcentury.  For example, this would be a Republican EC win:



However, I'm dubious this will actually happen.  Between COVID, WFH, and mortgage rates, I suspect most of the people who were going to move between states this decade already moved, making a straight line projection unrealistic.

I have all 4 of CA/NY/TX/FL becoming swing states by 2040. If we look at current polling, CA and NY seem to be trending dramatically right, while TX and FL trend left.

Man, the four biggest states being competitve would make campaigning so unbelievably draining and even more expensive than it already is (though it would make things much more spicy for election junkies like us, lol). When's the last time the biggest state in the Union was a swing state? Was California considered a swing state during the post-VRA era?

New York single-handedly determined three consecutive elections in the 1880s (1880/1884/1888), with other swing states existing but being irrelevant. It was also a swing state during the 1940s, but after that tended to be at least Leans D.

California only became the largest state after the 1970 Census, but there was never really an election at which it was one of the central swing states. It was pretty clearly more Republican than the nation at the 1972-1980 set of elections (although McGovern demonstrated Democrats had a high floor there), and already more Democratic than the nation, and a sine qua non for Democrats, by 1988. It would've been a swing state if 1984 were closely contested, I guess.

Elections decided by a single state (if that state flips, it delivers the election by itself; all states closer than it together fail to flip the election):
1796: New York
1800: New York
1844: New York
1848: Pennsylvania
1876: South Carolina
1880: New York
1884: New York
1888: New York
1916: California
2000: Florida
2004: Ohio

New York was the ultimate swing state under multiple different party systems in the 19th century.

[Starpaul20]

Like I did in previous years, I decided to see what a Wyoming Rule house size would look like with the new population estimates. The house membership would expand to 572 seats, an increase of 137 over its current size:

(States in red gain 1 seat, blue gains 2 seats, green gains 3 seats, yellow gains 4 seats, brown gains 5 seats, orange gains 6 or more, and gray means no change)

Relative to last year, the house would stay the same size, with Florida and North Carolina each gaining a seat and New York and Illinois losing a seat each.

[🇺🇦 Purple 🦄 Unicorn 🇮🇱]

Big descrepancies:

The Census Bureau said Washington (state) only grew by 45.000, while Washington state said they grew by 100.000 last year.

Same with Oregon: +15.000 (state, or University of Portland), -16.000 (Census Bureau)

Explanantions?

Once again, huge discrepancies between the Census Bureau numbers today and the state estimates:

Washington: +28.000 (Census Bureau), +87.000 (Washington State government)
Oregon: -6.000 (Census Bureau), +23.000 (Portland University)

How can this be?

The discrepancy between the Census Bureau and state officials estimates is also very obvious in Arizona:

Census Bureau: +65.000
AZ Commerce Agency: +116.000

For California, it's not so big:

Census Bureau: -75.000
CA Dept. of Finance: -30.000

[🇺🇦 Purple 🦄 Unicorn 🇮🇱]

In Texas, the TX Demographics Center estimated +560.000 for last year, the Census Bureau only +470.000

https://demographics.texas.gov/

[muon2]

I'm back to making my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2023 estimates and the April 2020 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 2020 reapportionment population to get the 2030 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting.

AZ +1
CA -4
DE +1
FL +3
GA +1
ID +1
IL -2
MN -1
NY -3
NC +1
OR -1
PA -1
RI -1
TN +1
TX +4
UT +1
WI -1

The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are LA-6, TN-10, MI-13, CA-48, and DE-2 (#435).
The next five in line are SC-8, FL-32, WI-8, TX-43, and PA-17.

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 should reduce the impact of the pandemic. The differences are DE stays even, FL gains 4, LA loses 1, MI loses 1, SC gains 1, and WI stays even.

I expect that these projections will shift as the decade progresses.

[🇺🇦 Purple 🦄 Unicorn 🇮🇱]

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 should reduce the impact of the pandemic. The differences are DE stays even, FL gains 4, LA loses 1, MI loses 1, SC gains 1, and WI stays even.

I expect that these projections will shift as the decade progresses.

Growth is picking up speed, leaving Covid behind.

US deaths are down to 3 million this year, from weekly CDC data.

Births are at 3.65 million

The US gains 0.65 million from a birth surplus alone (or 0.2%) and legal immigration is well over a million this year.

With the Mexican border surge, I expect an acceleration in population growth to 2 million with the next set of estimates in one year. Or +0.6%.

[muon2]

With the Mexican border surge, I expect an acceleration in population growth to 2 million with the next set of estimates in one year. Or +0.6%.

How much of that increase from 1 Jul 2023 to 30 Jun 2024 do you expect from immigration? In 2023 the estimate was 0.5 million from natural change and 1.1 million from immigration.

[🇺🇦 Purple 🦄 Unicorn 🇮🇱]

With the Mexican border surge, I expect an acceleration in population growth to 2 million with the next set of estimates in one year. Or +0.6%.

How much of that increase from 1 Jul 2023 to 30 Jun 2024 do you expect from immigration? In 2023 the estimate was 0.5 million from natural change and 1.1 million from immigration.

Muon,

I expect 3.7 million births and 3.05 million deaths in between this next Census Bureau year.

That's +0.65 million in natural change + maybe 1.2 to 1.4 million in legal immigration surplus.

(Illegal immigrants crossing the Mexico border are NOT estimated by the Census Bureau in their annual estimates.)

[muon2]

With the Mexican border surge, I expect an acceleration in population growth to 2 million with the next set of estimates in one year. Or +0.6%.

How much of that increase from 1 Jul 2023 to 30 Jun 2024 do you expect from immigration? In 2023 the estimate was 0.5 million from natural change and 1.1 million from immigration.

Muon,

I expect 3.7 million births and 3.05 million deaths in between this next Census Bureau year.

That's +0.65 million in natural change + maybe 1.2 to 1.4 million in legal immigration surplus.

(Illegal immigrants crossing the Mexico border are NOT estimated by the Census Bureau in their annual estimates.)

The 2021 faq about counting foreign-born persons included this:

Do the data on the foreign born collected by the Census Bureau include unauthorized immigrants?

Yes. The U.S. Census Bureau collects data from all foreign born who participate in its censuses and surveys, regardless of legal status. Thus, unauthorized migrants are implicitly included in the Census Bureau estimates of the total foreign-born population.

That seems to say that illegal immigrants (unauthorized migrants to the CB) are included in their estimates.