[flagged]
Also, the report says that both red and blue states had both overcounts and undercounts, which is a different picture than "over counts in blue states". It is accurate that more blue states had overcounts and more red states had undercounts.
I realise your question is rhetorical, but the report does offer a possible answer: "The 2020 Census faced many challenges such as conducting fieldwork during the COVID-19 pandemic. Other challenges to the 2020 Census included con- troversy around a proposed citizenship question and changes in the duration of the Nonresponse Followup operation." It's plausible that those "challenges" could have been experienced unevenly by state, particularly with how politicised the pandemic and its mitigations were in the US.
So it's useful to identify this as not something a journalist or credible outlet would actually put their name to.
Why? And is the bottom line point wrong?
Gemini, citing a Pew Research study, seems to agree that Republicans lost 3-5 seats due to apportionment errors: https://share.google/aimode/9yPrkEU1U08abPWzF
> An independent analysis by the Pew Research Center and election data experts calculated exactly how those specific errors altered the final map. If the census had perfectly matched the PES estimates, the seats would have shifted as follows: [table showing apportionment errors cost Texas and Florida 1 seat each, and gave Minnesota, Rhode Island, and New York 1 undeserved seat each.
Fucking up 5 House seats for a decade seems like a firing-worthy offense.
That seems to be what you believe happened, but it's not.
News hot off the press: people bred from day one to be militantly antagonistic of the federal government end up undercounted when federal government comes to do counting.
Reminds me of the domestic terrorists who were threatening FEMA workers during Helene and then acting surprised when FEMA workers weren't scrambling to walk up to Trump-flagged homes.
They can both be a problem, it doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive. I’m sure in all the turnover Trump removed some incompetent people. He also probably removed quite a few competent people. The ratio is what matters.
Although, the guy at the top sure runs his place like a TV show, where all the stuntmen really do die for real.
Except that you can look at all of the firings the current administration has been behind and the pattern does not suggest that they are intended to remove people who were incompetent.
To the contrary, the large number of reductions (and forced retirements) suggests that the administration is trying to remove political opponents and people who are "disloyal" to it, and to generally weaken institutions that the administration doesn't like or feels threatened by.
This is especially visible in the military:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/military-leaders-fired-forced-o...
Ohio and Utah were overcounted, Illinois was undercounted, and the remaining 37 states plus DC had no statistically significant error either way. Some of the significant results are also marginal: Delaware's estimate of 5.45% has a standard error of 2.82, so the 90% confidence interval barely clears zero.
Linked article is by kook right-wing Breitbart alum Kristin Tate, whitewashed through a relatively non-biased news source (thehill.com) by way of being an opinion piece (for which The Hill explicitly disavows agreement with any presented views).