Census Population Estimates 2020-29

[🇺🇦 Purple 🦄 Unicorn 🇮🇱]

The new abortion restrictions in the US could lead to higher birth rates again this year.

Also, some couples might have delayed kids during Covid and are now "getting serious".

Births could reach 3.7-3.9 million this year.

Weekly death registrations by the CDC suggest that deaths were falling again last year to 3.28 million and will drop further this year, because last Jan.-Apr. deaths were very high, but not this year, suggesting just 3.0-3.2 million deaths this year.

The US will therefore grow by around 0.7 million this year just by natural increase alone, after just 0.1-0.3 million during the Covid years.

Legal immigration will add another 1.3 million or so this year, for a total of 2 million growth (+0.6%) - while there will be another 0.5 million illegals. But nobody knows for sure, because illegals cannot be tracked or estimated by official statistics.

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

[Biden his time]

A statistical look at immigration

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-IMMIGRATION/klvygrkzbvg/index.html

[Vosem]

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

Well, the real date at which growth patterns in the US shifted is 2015-2016.



Also, inasmuch as there's been a rise in fertility levels in the 2020s, it really doesn't seem to have similar patterns to the fall from the 2010s, right? The 2010s decline was concentrated in minority communities which had previously had especially high fertility (like Hispanics) and very religious communities experiencing secularization (like Mormons), whereas the 2020s rise has been described as a "work from home" boost and seems predominantly concentrated among wealthy people first and foremost. (This seems underscored by rises in the fraction of births which are to white mothers -- which hit a trough circa 2015 and have since risen -- and growth in the difference between conservative and liberal fertility.) Even if fertility rates do go back to their mid-2010s levels -- and to be clear there's very little evidence that they'll do so -- the actual people having children are very different ones.

Immigration patterns are really different today too -- a much greater fraction of immigrants are from East Asia or sub-Saharan Africa compared to Latin America.

Idk if this is just me, but these estimates seem to have a pretty universal theme that D communities are shrinking or at least stalling in population relative to previous census, while R areas are doing better. I wonder if there's some sort of reason for this because these estimates aren't politically biased, but if there was truly this theme of folks fleeing "Democratic cities", surely it would've shown up in the 2020 census.

Not if it was outweighed by early 2010s migration patterns (crime didn't hit a trough until 2013-2015, depending on the city -- for most of the Obama years, urban areas in America were still getting safer), and not if cities were generally overestimated on the 2020 Census. It's kind of underrated how much things have shifted over the past decade -- Oregon gaining a seat was fueled by bonkers first-half-of-2010s growth numbers, while their fortunes have shifted so much that it looks plausible they'll lose a seat in 2030. Florida's large COVID-associated gains aren't going to be reflected in the Census until 2030, either.

[Coastal Elitist]

Interesting estimates for cities have been released: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/subcounty-metro-micro-estimates.html

No idea why Santa Cruz, CA is growing so much compared to other cities in California

[Brittain33]

Interesting estimates for cities have been released: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/subcounty-metro-micro-estimates.html

No idea why Santa Cruz, CA is growing so much compared to other cities in California

It has to be the campus reopening.

[Kevinstat]

In the 2020 census, the State House "quotas" of Maine's largest municipalities (those with over 0.9/151 of Maine's population in any one of the three following tables), were as follows (with instances where the "Estimates Base" (EB) used in for the recently released estimates yields a different quota than the official census numbers noted in parentheses):

=7.6 (8*0.95) "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.5821 (EB 7.5824) (State Senate quota {1.5566, 1.6570 (EB 1.6571), 1.7575} with {31, 33, 35} Senators, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs" for all three sizes allowed under the Maine Constitution)
=7.35 (7*1.05) "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.1144 (EB 4.1151) (State Senate quota {0.8447 (EB 0.8448), 0.8992 (EB 0.8993), 0.9537 (EB 0.9538)} with {31, 33, 35} Senators, below 0.95 "cutoff" with 31 or 33 Senators but between 0.95 "cutoff" and 1.0 mark with the current 35 Senators)
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.5194 (EB 3.5180) (State Senate quota {0.7225 (EB 0.7222), 0.7691 (EB 0.7688), 0.8158 (EB 0.8154)} with {31, 33, 35}, well below 0.95 "cutoff" for all three allowable sizes)
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
South Portland city 2.9370 (EB 2.9368)
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
Auburn city 2.6669 (EB 2.6668)
Biddeford city 2.4996 (EB 2.4997)
Scarborough town 2.4534 (EB 2.4535)
Sanford city 2.4364 (EB 2.4358)
Brunswick town 2.4114 (EB 2.4120)
Westbrook city 2.2611 (EB 2.2616)
Saco city 2.2590
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
Augusta city 2.0947 (EB 2.0944)
Windham town 2.0432 (EB 2.0424)
Gorham town 2.0323 (EB 2.0331)
=2.0 mark=
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Waterville city 1.7543 (EB 1.7541)
York town 1.5210 (EB 1.5211)
Falmouth town 1.3793 (EB 1.3797)
Kennebunk town 1.2786 (EB 1.2787)
Wells town 1.2540 (EB 1.2545)
Orono town 1.2395 (EB 1.2391)
Standish town 1.1354 (EB 1.1341)
Kittery town 1.1161 (EB 1.1163)
Lisbon town 1.0763 (EB 1.0766)
Brewer city 1.0720 (EB 1.0729)
Topsham town 1.0596 (EB 1.0595)
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0568 (EB 1.0572)
=1.05 "cutoff"=
=1.0 mark=
Yarmouth town 0.9964 (EB 0.9974)
Old Orchard Beach town 0.9931
Presque Isle city 0.9750 (EB 0.9742)
Bath city 0.9716 (EB 0.9718)
Freeport town 0.9684 (EB 0.9676)
Skowhegan town 0.9554 (EB 0.9552)
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Cumberland town 0.9391 (EB 0.9394)
Ellsworth city 0.9309 (EB 0.9305)
Buxton town 0.9284 (EB 0.9287)
Gray town 0.9165 (EB 0.9164)
Berwick town 0.8812 (EB 0.8814)
...
Farmington town 0.8415 (EB 0.8410)

The largest municipalities as of and according to the July 1, 2022 estimates and their State House "quotas" are as follows:

=7.6 (8*0.95) "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.4581 (State Senate quota {1.5311, 1.6299, 1.7287} with {31, 33, 35} Senators, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs" for all three sizes allowed under the Maine Constitution)
=7.35 (7*1.05) "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.1957 (State Senate quota {0.8614, 0.9169, 0.9725} with {31, 33, 35} Senators, below 0.95 "cutoff" with 31 or 33 Senators but between 0.95 "cutoff" and 1.0 mark with the current 35 Senators)
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.4430 (State Senate quota {0.7069, 0.7525, 0.7981} with {31, 33, 35} Senators, well below 0.95 "cutoff" for all three allowable sizes)
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
South Portland city 2.9458
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
Auburn city 2.6370
Scarborough town 2.5307
Biddeford city 2.4470
Sanford city 2.4270
Brunswick town 2.3795
Saco city 2.2750
Westbrook city 2.2503
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
Windham town 2.0849
Augusta city 2.0782
=2.0 mark=
Gorham town 1.9385
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Waterville city 1.7252
York town 1.5258
Falmouth town 1.4014
Kennebunk town 1.2815
Wells town 1.2787
Orono town 1.2263
Standish town 1.1811
Kittery town 1.1156
Lisbon town 1.0620
Topsham town 1.0618
Brewer city 1.0536
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0442
Old Orchard Beach town 1.0136
=1.0 mark=
Yarmouth town 0.9909
Bath city 0.9597
Freeport town 0.9574
Ellsworth city 0.9518
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Presque Isle city 0.9459
Skowhegan town 0.9440
Cumberland town 0.9379
Buxton town 0.9276
Gray town 0.9185
Berwick town 0.8931
Farmington town 0.8930

Taking the "Estimates base" from April 1, 2020 shown in the same Census Bureau tables showing the above estimates, and adding to it the population gains (negative for losses) from that base to July 1, 2022 multiplied by 10/2.25 (I use a linear progression rather than exponential as it has the benefit of municipal projections being the same as county projections), the following are the projected (April 1,) 2030 State House "quotas" for all municipalities (in descending order) with projected (or 2020) quotas above 0.9000:

=7.35 (7*1.05) "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.0600 (State Senate quota {1.4494, 1.5429, 1.6364} with {31, 33, 35} Senators, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs" for all three sizes allowed under the Maine Constitution)
=7.0 mark=
...
=4.75 (5*0.95) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.4538 (State Senate quota {0.9144, 0.9734, 1.0323} with {31, 33, 35} Senators, below 0.95 "cutoff" with 31 Senators, between 0.95 "cutoff" and 1.0 mark with 33 Senators and between 1.0 mark and 1.05 "cutoff" with the current 35 Senators)
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.2028 (State Senate quota {0.6575, 0.7000, 0.7424} with {31, 33, 35} Senators, well below 0.95 "cutoff" for all three allowable sizes)
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
South Portland city 2.9747
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
Scarborough town 2.7781
Auburn city 2.5416
Sanford city 2.3987
Saco city 2.3263
Biddeford city 2.2781
Brunswick town 2.2757
Windham town 2.2211
Westbrook city 2.2141
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
Augusta city 2.0261
=2.0 mark=
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Gorham town 1.6355
Waterville city 1.6326
York town 1.5405
Falmouth town 1.4708
Wells town 1.3562
Standish town 1.3317
Kennebunk town 1.2903
Orono town 1.1856
Kittery town 1.1135
Old Orchard Beach town 1.0791
Topsham town 1.0690
Farmington town 1.0596
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Ellsworth city 1.0200
Lisbon town 1.0152
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0026
=1.0 mark=
Brewer city 0.9916
Yarmouth town 0.9700
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Cumberland town 0.9334
Berwick town 0.9308
Gray town 0.9253
Freeport town 0.9248
Buxton town 0.9239
Bath city 0.9210
Skowhegan town 0.9082
...
Presque Isle city 0.8553

[Minor grammatical fixes on December 22, 2023]

[Skill and Chance]

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

Well, the real date at which growth patterns in the US shifted is 2015-2016.



Also, inasmuch as there's been a rise in fertility levels in the 2020s, it really doesn't seem to have similar patterns to the fall from the 2010s, right? The 2010s decline was concentrated in minority communities which had previously had especially high fertility (like Hispanics) and very religious communities experiencing secularization (like Mormons), whereas the 2020s rise has been described as a "work from home" boost and seems predominantly concentrated among wealthy people first and foremost. (This seems underscored by rises in the fraction of births which are to white mothers -- which hit a trough circa 2015 and have since risen -- and growth in the difference between conservative and liberal fertility.) Even if fertility rates do go back to their mid-2010s levels -- and to be clear there's very little evidence that they'll do so -- the actual people having children are very different ones.

Immigration patterns are really different today too -- a much greater fraction of immigrants are from East Asia or sub-Saharan Africa compared to Latin America.

Idk if this is just me, but these estimates seem to have a pretty universal theme that D communities are shrinking or at least stalling in population relative to previous census, while R areas are doing better. I wonder if there's some sort of reason for this because these estimates aren't politically biased, but if there was truly this theme of folks fleeing "Democratic cities", surely it would've shown up in the 2020 census.

Not if it was outweighed by early 2010s migration patterns (crime didn't hit a trough until 2013-2015, depending on the city -- for most of the Obama years, urban areas in America were still getting safer), and not if cities were generally overestimated on the 2020 Census. It's kind of underrated how much things have shifted over the past decade -- Oregon gaining a seat was fueled by bonkers first-half-of-2010s growth numbers, while their fortunes have shifted so much that it looks plausible they'll lose a seat in 2030. Florida's large COVID-associated gains aren't going to be reflected in the Census until 2030, either.

I'm not sure what to make of this part.  If the post-COVID lockdown fertility boost is driven by WFH (and I think there's strong evidence to believe it is at this point), yes, it's very disproportionately people with 6 figure family incomes who can WFH, but it also cuts out the most reliably conservative slice of them (plumbers, factory managers, pilots, surgeons, non-IT small business owners, etc.- none of these can realistically WFH).  There is also less WFH in the South than in other regions.  The profile of WFH jobs in 2022 after all COVID mandates were lifted was clearly left-leaning despite being wealthier than average (federal employees, software engineers, accountants, some lawyers, etc.), quite possibly as left-leaning as Hispanic people were in 2012.

However, pre-COVID WFH was clearly right-leaning and was often seen as a halfway point to being a stay-at-home parent, so it's always possible things shift back as COVID disappears into the rear-view mirror.  A lot of the core Northeast industries are starting to get antsy about bringing people back, and a lot of the companies that moved south or into the exurbs have gotten more flexible.  For the time being, though, I would clearly expect a WFH driven baby boom to disproportionately impact left-leaning households.

[jimrtex]

Interesting estimates for cities have been released: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/subcounty-metro-micro-estimates.html

No idea why Santa Cruz, CA is growing so much compared to other cities in California

It has to be the campus reopening.

Yes:

2020: 62,885
2021: 54,941
2022: 61,800

Whitman County, WA was the fastest growing county between 2021 and 2022. Whitman County is home of Pullman and Washington State.

Other cities in California with a decline of 3% from 2020 to 2021, and a 3% increase from 2021 to 2022 are:

Arcata (Cal Poly Humboldt)
Avenal (large prison with about 1/3 of population)
Berkeley (UC-Berkeley)

[Biden his time]

Now that the 2020 United States Census's Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC) has been released providing detailed figures for female population by age, geography, and race, this means that the Total Fertility Rate of the United States in 2020 (previously expected to be 1.641) can be recalculated and determined to be 1.635 based on the new population denominators.

While this is a very minor difference, the variation in census overperformances and underperformances among different geographies and different subgroups was immense, leading there to be significant implications for what the Census results tell us on how we can interpret Vital Statistics data.

NOTE: All tables below are sorted in descending order by number of states in 2020


First of all, the actual Total Fertility Rates of each state and D.C. in 2020 based on the U.S. Census results and how it compares with the estimated Total Fertility Rate based on the 2020 Vintage population estimates:

Image Link

Some of the most notable upward adjustments can be seen in Arizona, which actually still has a TFR above the nationwide average, the Carolinas, both at around 1.70, and other upward adjustments can be found throughout many heavily rural states such as Mississippi (with a TFR that actually is one of the country's highest), Wyoming, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and many more states. Among the country's largest states, Texas and Florida both watched their TFRs adjusted upwards slightly.

On the other hand, some of the most notable downward adjustments come in from states with large urban areas, particularly in the Northeast and in New England. For example, we see New York state in reality had a TFR of 1.46 in 2020 (and it was expected to have a TFR at the same level of Florida's before the census). Meanwhile, New Jersey's TFR was adjusted downward from 1.74 to 1.61. Although this number is now below the national average, it remains the highest figure in the Northeast by a significant margin. Other states which saw downward adjustments were Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Connecticut.


Now, a table comparing the Total Fertility Rate of each state in 2010 (adjusted for 2010 census results) and the Total Fertility Rate of each state in 2020 (adjusted for 2020 census results):

Image Link

The Total Fertility Rate of the country declined from 1.93 to 1.63 over the decade, a decline of -0.30. Nine states were above replacement in 2010 (TX, OK, UT, KS, NE, ID, HI, SD, AK), but none were in 2020. South Dakota was the closest with its TFR being 2.00, with a significant gap between it and second-place and third-place Nebraska and Utah.

On the other end of the spectrum, the District of Columbia had the country's lowest Total Fertility Rate in 2020 at 1.26, taking the throne from Massachusetts (which had declined from 1.55 to 1.36). Vermont's TFR also had fallen below Massachusetts'. Meanwhile, among larger states, California and New York both found themselves having TFRs significantly below the national average, at 1.51 and 1.46 respectively.

While every state saw fewer births and a lower Total Fertility Rate in 2020 than in 2010, the extent of decline varied widely. States with large Mexican populations had especially large drops in their TFRs, but Utah led the pack with its TFR falling from 2.45 (the highest in the nation by a significant margin) to 1.92. All in all, every state in the Western United States saw a TFR decline faster than the nationwide average.

Meanwhile, the TFR decline was tempered, especially in certain parts of the Midwest and South with large rural populations. The lowest TFR decline was found not in North Dakota (as had been expected previously), but in Mississippi, the archetype of the Deep South. Here, the TFR fell by -0.10, from 1.96 to 1.86, and the state went from having a TFR only slightly above average, now to being the sixth-highest in the country. Its neighbor Alabama follows, with a TFR decline of -0.12, and North Dakota with its oil boom in the earlier part of the decade also saw a relatively modest TFR decline.

The pattern in the extent of decline can be seen more clearly in the map below:

Image Link

[Biden his time]

A similar analysis, being adjusting the Total Fertility Rate of subgroups using the new 2020 census results, can also be done on the level of race and ethnicity. Perhaps here come some of the most interesting revelations, as they go quite contrary to prior expectations.

They can be seen here:

Image Link

The reality is that the Total Fertility Rate of Hispanic Americans declined massively over the last decade, much more than even was expected. Now it has reached the point where Hispanic Americans and African Americans (Non-Hispanic) have roughly the same Total Fertility Rates. African Americans themselves are notable since their TFR was so much higher than expected.

The Total Fertility Rate of Americans who are Non-Hispanic White also has not declined as much as expected, and in fact, it is now nearing the national average. This national average has strong negative pulls, however, from two relatively low-fertility subgroups: Asians and Multiracial Americans.

Theorizing here: The ultra-low levels of TFR found among American women who are multiracial may be explained by their tendency to be found in urban areas and them disproportionately being affected by certain liberal subcultures that, in general, do not bode high TFR numbers. The anti-natal pull is very strong on women of two or more races, but this does not necessarily mean that multiracial population growth is in danger of ceasing.

The Multiracial population continues to grow, not due to multiracial women themselves giving birth, but rather because of interracial marriage among women of one race. As of 2020, 7.4% of the nation's population under the age of five were Non-Hispanic and multiracial, up from 4.6% in 2010. In the foreseeable future, low TFRs among this group are only a slight drag on their rapid growth.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

[🇺🇦 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.

[🇺🇦 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.

[🇺🇦 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.

[Vern]

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

[🇺🇦 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.

[🇺🇦 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.

[Roll Roons]

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.

How about city/county estimates?

[🇺🇦 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.

How about city/county estimates?

They will be released in March:

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/schedule.html

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1737128021138550975


https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1737130423409344604

2030 reapportionment will be insane in CA if numbers continue like this.

[Vosem]

It looks like Trende has added an extra seat? I'm trying to compare his numbers to Leon Sit's linear extrapolation from a year ago, and it looks like he's exactly the same, except that he has MI losing a seat and CO and SC gaining.

By the Census Bureau's own estimates, CO only gained a seat in 2020 in error, so it gaining another seat in 2030 would be the equivalent of it gaining two seats in a world where the 2020 Census wasn't plagued by errors, which would just be an absolutely insane outcome for such a small state.

We're also still on track for the "epic" results in other ways (among states gaining or losing more than 1 seat, California is projected to lose 5, New York 3, and Illinois 2; and Florida and Texas are projected to gain 4 seats each).

[Gass3268]

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

[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...

[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.

[Minnesota Mike]

https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1737130423409344604

2030 reapportionment will be insane in CA if numbers continue like this.

I wouldn't count on it. California is continuing to lose population but the rate has slowed significantly.

Apr 1, 2020 to July 1, 2020: -35,012
July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021: -358,140
July 1,2021 to July 1, 2022: -104,444
July 1, 2022 to July 1,2023: -75,523

My guess is California will lose seats but more likely 2-3 than 4-5.