Who Rigged the Census?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Well, well. Remember how Democrats accused the Trump Administration of trying to rig the 2020 Census? Now a Census Bureau study reveals that Republican-leaning states may have been hurt by mistaken under-counts.
On Thursday the bureau published the results of its post-enumeration analysis, which it does after every Census to identify errors in the count. Its study found that 14 states were over- or under-counted by statistically significant margins. Compare that to 2010 when the bureau's post-hoc analysis found that all the state population counts were more or less accurate.
States with large over-counts include Hawaii (6.8%), Delaware (5.5%), Rhode Island (5.1%), Minnesota (3.8%), New York (3.4%), Utah (2.6%), Massachusetts (2.2%) and Ohio (1.5%). Those under-counted by big margins include Arkansas (5%), Tennessee (4.8%), Mississippi (4.1%), Florida (3.5%), Illinois (2%) and Texas (1.9%).
Texas was under-counted by about 570,000 people while New York was over-counted by 695,000. That’s a lot of people. Yet the findings aren’t shocking. We noted last spring when the results from the reapportionment were announced that the Census counts diverged sharply from the bureau’s 2020 population estimates in many of these states.
The inaccuracies may have cost Florida and Texas an additional House seat and given Rhode Island and Minnesota one they shouldn’t have received. New York might have also lost another House seat if the Census were more accurate. So how did the bureau get the counts so wrong? The bureau blames the pandemic.
But recall that progressives in autumn 2020 sued to kick the reapportionment into the Biden Administration. By law the Census was supposed to be complete by Dec. 31. Yet Democrats claimed that bureaucrats needed more time to do post-survey accuracy checks. They got their way. Whatever accuracy checks the bureau used, they evidently failed.
This week’s report notes that over-counts were partly due to people or census workers filling out duplicate surveys. For households that didn’t respond to the survey, bureaucrats imputed how many people live at an address using other government data such as welfare benefits or literally their best hunch. Surprise—they often guessed wrong.
Progressives say that Democratic states simply worked harder to increase Census response rates. That’s no doubt true. But they also fanned conspiracy theories that the Trump Administration was trying to reduce minority survey responses to deny federal benefits. This may have had a motivating effect as voter suppression accusations sometimes do.
It’s too late to change the reapportionment, but the Administration should take the new data into account in federal funding formulas. If Republicans take control of the House, an oversight investigation into the Census seems warranted.
Tags
Who is online
555 visitors
Another "mistake".....all going in one direction!
Shocked I tell you!!......................../S
They waited for Biden and his handlers. No wonder few people trust government or the media.
So it would seem this country, this 'family' is in dire straits. We simply do not trust each other. We are becoming a proverb: A house divided! And if we do not stop this SHIT we will tank this country once and for all. Once we undermine our own foundation (like it's sport!) we may never ascend to the heights of exceptionalism again.
"Democratic states simply worked harder to increase Census response rates. That’s no doubt true."
Awww, apparently Republicans, especially those with warped views of 'government oversight', underreported. How fucking sad for them.
Another Biden Administration fuck up. Of course it is one that is in their favor; so that is all that will matter to the left.
They really do have the dirty touch.
Keep looking for 'fall-guys and gals" and see where the children of the future end up! It ain't pretty, and when future analysis is done it will point back to "US" as the stupids who did not see it coming one way or the other. We, collectively, rightly or wrongly will be charged for this lunacy of ditching this country over selfish interests and other bull patties.
Good Steve Miller and Boz Scaggs album.
I don't know about that (one) but I can tell you this much. "Mr. one-liner," this stupid shit 'we're' collectively setting up to happen is going to cause this country's reputation big time. And, most of us, will not be around to reap what some stubborn and stupid reprobates insist on letting occur! It took a "h" time build this country's positive brand and now it is being made toxic by somebody who knows (or should know) what that looks and 'lives' like!
Reprobates?
Huh?
This kind of thing can happen when you stop counting 2 months early.
So what populations/demographics were undercounted? Overcounted?
How do you know that the numbers after the delay in the apportionment were purposely manipulated to give some states more or less congressional seats? In the opinion this is a critical piece of information that is not given. I don't think that this evidence exists, but you are more than welcome to try and produce it.
Honestly, I think that you (and the editorial board of the WSJ) are looking for a Boogey-man under every rock and behind any bush. Allusion mixed with illusion can lead to some strange conclusions well departed from reality.
Use the reply button so that I'll know the questions were directed to me.
So what populations/demographics were undercounted? Overcounted?
The article does not contain that breakdown. It seems to be based on the total state tally.
How do you know that the numbers after the delay in the apportionment were purposely manipulated to give some states more or less congressional seats?
We only know that, as I noted, the mistakes tend to go in one direction.
Honestly, I think that you (and the editorial board of the WSJ) are looking for a Boogey-man under every rock and behind any bush.
It seems that we never have to look very far.
Next
Thank you for the basic instruction. If I had meant for it to be solely directed at you I would have hit the "reply" button.
So, if you have no real evidence of actual malfeasance, aren't they and you just stirring the pot to rile up the base?
Next.
Good to know. In the future I won't waste my time.
Swoosh!
You almost had that one. Maybe if you direct your energies at truly answering my questions in good faith we can actually have a productive conversation.
Talk about wasting time....
I second that!
You are correct sir!
Of course you do without looking at Vic's actual response and seeing he provided answers to the questions posed. That the recipient didn't like the answers is the true waste of time.
The bureau’s Post-Enumeration Survey estimates the Black and Hispanic populations were undercounted, while Asian and non-Hispanic white populations were overcounted.
The largest noted discrepancy for any racial group was for American Indian and Alaska Native populations living on reservations, with an estimated undercount of 5.64%. It’s been a persistent issue, as the same group was undercounted by 4.88% in the 2010 Census.
If this census count was rigged then almost every census before this once was as well.../s
Based on the Census department formula for determining race, none of it makes any sense.
White is white, not that difficult.
I did look at the response. I read it and replied. His flippant tone and dismissive attitude meant (to me) that he was not interested in determining the truthfulness of his (et al) assertions, but was merely trying to make it appear as if the "Deep State" was aligned for blue and against red states. If someone really cares about an allegation, I should think that they would put forth more effort in proving the allegation than to say "The article does not contain that breakdown. It seems to be based on the total state tally." This noted lack of effort means he was only preaching to the choir.
Sen Ted Cruz and his family are not considered white by the US Census
OMG, so he can claim minority status now. How about his wife, is she a white minority?
I'm considered Native American by the US census, also my parents/grandparents and all relatives going back 100 generations consider me NA. So I don't have a problem with not knowing what I am. How about you, Vic what are you considered?
Curious. What 'standard' or method is the bureau using to determine Cruz's race?
My census form asked me what my race was. How did Cruz answer his?
I don’t know, how did you answer yours?
Why wouldn’t they let him self-identify like everyone else?
White Christian conservative without a doubt. Do they have a box for Cuban, Irish, Italian born in Canada?
Show us his census form please?
Theodore Raphael Cruz can certainly claim he's Hispanic, in fact it's required by law.
Since Heidi claims to be Danish-Irish she's white by any Census definition,
as are her two daughters.
How Teddy self-identifies is what’s important.
"The Census did this really big, comprehensive project where they sent out 17 different alternative questionnaires of the 2010 Census. And some of those were a combined question, where they actually put Hispanic or Latino in there, alongside racial groups. So they had more than 750 households involved in this, and they went back and they interviewed about one in six of those individuals who filled out that form. They got a telephone re-interview, where they got called back.
"You checked white for your race. Is that how you identify in your daily life? Is that how other people see you?"
They found that for Latinos, those who checked white did not identify with the term. So about half of Latinos who checked white on the Census, when they called them back, a very nominal amount of them thought of themselves as white. [The interviewers] asked them, "So why did you check this?" And they said, "Because there was nothing else. I don't fit anywhere else. There's nothing else to put. "
The combined question model doesn't actually call Latino a race. The question asks about a person's race or origin, so they just put them together. It has white and black and it has an option for Hispanic or Latino origin, and it says "check all that apply." And that's an important component because for some people it's a race and for others it may be an origin. Somebody may think of themselves as racially black and ethnically Hispanic. This gives them the option so they can mark, "I am black and I am Hispanic." If they feel like Hispanic/Latino is their sole identification in those categories, they can just mark that.
And so it worked really, really well for them: about 80 percent of Latinos put just Hispanic or Latino for the combined model, and the number of people who checked white went from being half to between 9 and 16 percent, depending on which of the questionnaires they were using. It dramatically decreased the number of Latinos who checked white."
That's why it was done when the left had power
As for Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. He shouldn't have to check a Hispanic box.
So what box should he check, the ''wannabe white'' box?
That's one hell of a non sequitur. Kind of like posting a pie recipe and then saying," that's why I tie my shoes."
So I will ask what, precisely, does the phrasing of the question of the race of the individuals surveyed have to do with
???
There is NO 'Census department formula' Vic. In the census, race is self-determined.
You seem to recognize that fact in your comments. So WHY do you claim that none of it makes any sense.
Allow me your honor:
"But the census doesn't just study race in America—the terminology used in census forms can also define it."
It took decades for the census to reflect Hispanic and Latino cultures. One of the most startling inconsistencies within census race categories is the word "Mexican," which was introduced in 1930, eliminated in 1940 and did not appear again until 1970. Mexican-Americans, Hispanics and Latinos were officially considered "white" until the change was made, which coincided with the Chicano civil rights movement .
The changes reflect growing awareness of racial and ethnic diversity, but also show the ways in which government endorses the language of race. In 1930, "Black" was changed to "Negro" on census forms. Forty years later, during a period of fierce public debate , the Census Bureau changed the category to "Negro or Black." In 2000, the census began listing "Black, African-American or Negro" instead—and for the first time, people could report more than one race."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-us-census-defines-race-america-180957189/#:~:text=In%201930%2C%20%22Black%22%20was%20changed%20to%20%22Negro%22%20on,time%2C%20people%20could%20report%20more%20than%20one%20race.
The Defense rests.
As is your MO, you failed to address my comment or answer my question Vic.
Your 'defense' fails.
Your own linked article mentions NOTHING about a 'formula for determining race' which YOU claim exists.
In short, just another deflection on your part and an utter failure to support your statement.
Why did you disappear?
I wasn't talking to you or Vic
WTF are you babbling about now Vic?
I note that Thomas hit the reply button and you STILL failed to answer his question.
I'll ask another:
WHY do you continue to post links to articles that fail to address the comment and/or question you are pretending to replying to?
you're quitting NT???
No chance. It is one of those things where given a voice means more than what any singular voice may hope to offer. On that opportunity we can all agree.
He was Hispanic when it's convenient.
Now he seems to be "post Hispanic".
Cuban American descendant.
We are for self-identification are we not?
Apparently not or Rachel Dolezal would still be a president of an NAACP chapter,
lol.
Anyhow, for the census, it's nice to have extra data but the only thing that counts
are the total number of living/breathing humans in a household on a particular day.
As evidenced by Vic's excerpt from the Smithsonian, the government has changed
designations way too many times for it to be meaningful other than to people
emotionally invested in certain identifiers or retarded by politics and conspiracies.
Only with gender pronouns.
He, she, zie, sie, it, etc, etc ......
He found it? God Bless him. I knew he could do it!
WHY do you continue to post links to articles that fail to address the comment and/or question you are pretending to replying to?
That sounds backwards. I posted this seed to demonstrate liberal projection.
What part are you confused about Vic?
Then you failed miserably to meet your goal.
Yet the seeder invariably chooses seeds with that very agenda.
Opinions on that do vary ..... greatly in this case
Thank you for another one of your redundant 'rinse and repeat' replies.
You are most welcome.
Your comments usually need all the help they can get.
tsk, tsk, tsk. victims of another unproven conspiracy...
gee, when was the census taken and who pressured the census bureau to complete the count?
Starting with the Russia hoax
All they got.
Like video and pictures with Russian Hookers?
what does melania have to do with the census?
kamala harris actually come to mind.
Democrats theme song:
I thought it was this
Lol .... I’m not familiar with that one but I’m sure it applies to a few of them. Even a couple here
Republicans theme song...
A better look a the Democratic Party model of life: Rather than any twisted
perspective: (Pushing back against the noise!)
Meditate America: Sting and Angelique Kidjo - "One World"
Enjoy peace (and quiet inside) for once in a while.
No link, no reference. NADA.
The Census WAS complete by Dec. 31, 2020.
Utter bullshit. First of all, the WSJ conflated the statutory Dec. 31 completion date with the release of the post-survey analysis, which has NO statutory release deadline. Secondly, the release of the survey delays was announced by TRUMP'S Census Bureau.
Again, the TRUMP Census Bureau announced release dates in Dec. 2020, long before Biden took office.
That documented FACT is available for anyone curious enough to review their website for themselves, rather than swilling the BS from a bias editorial board.
Democrats had NOTHING to do with delaying data. NOTHING.
BTFW, it's pretty hypocritical to claim that 'they evidently failed' while simultaneously citing the resulting data as fact.
It'd be great if the WSJ Editorial Board would plant their feet and make a stand.
Again, no link, no reference. NADA.
Just another proclamation. I'd love to know exactly how the fuck the WSJ thinks 'Democratic states' accomplished that and perhaps explain why 'Republican states' didn't?
No doubt?
Actually, since there is NO evidence in the article to support that statement, there is plenty of doubt.
Trump issued a Presidential memo to do just that. It isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a fucking FACT.
Now THAT is a conspiracy theory.