SPONSORED BY:
CENSUS

He’s Out for the Count

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

During his public explanation of why he withdrew from consideration to be President Obama's commerce secretary, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg mentioned a dispute over control of the Census Bureau, which is gearing up for its 2010 decennial head count. But the feud is about how the count is conducted—and not just who controls it.

Democrats, particularly those representing majority minority districts, have long argued that limiting census totals to a tally of every live person who can be found is unfair because it "undercounts" those who might be difficult to interview, such as migrant workers and the homeless. Their solution: "statistical sampling" to adjust the data. The Supreme Court has ruled that estimated census data cannot be used to move congressional seats from one state to another, but according to legal experts, it can be used to redraw congressional districts within a state's borders.

Republicans vehemently oppose statistical sampling. And according to three Democratic congressional sources, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive issue, Gregg has previously used his clout to block census funding—which might explain why House Democrats flooded the White House with angry calls after Obama picked him. To cool them off, said one administration official, who also asked for anonymity, Obama decided that the new census director will work closely with "top echelon" White House staffers, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and political guru David Axelrod. Critics charged that this move would politicize the census. But the official insisted that the White House had assuaged Gregg by assuring him that the top candidate for the census vacancy was Kenneth Prewitt, a respected figure who served under President Bill Clinton. In any case, Obama sympathizers argued, it's already too late to overly influence the 2010 count. (Gregg could not be reached for comment.)

The GOP claims—and some experts agree—that statistical sampling is too primitive to be trusted. According to Berkeley professor Philip Stark, it had to be scrapped for the 1980 and 1990 tallies, and estimates produced for the 2000 census were so far off the mark that it didn't pass the "sniff test."

© 2009

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Gone Rogue
Gone Rogue

How Sarah Palin hurts the GOP … and America.

The Decade's Best Quotes
The Decade's Best Quotes

NEWSWEEK's 20/10 Project recalls the lines we'll never forget.

Best Celebrity Mugshots
Best Celebrity Mugshots

10 unforgettable arrest photos from the 2000s.

An Evolutionary Edge
An Evolutionary Edge

How grandmas may play favorites.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: wnzin @ 02/18/2009 7:53:35 PM

    Journalists are jumping ship and working for the Obama administration in unusually high numbers, I read an article about that today. That would normally imply they will use their old friendships in the media to promote Obama.

    Considering the majorities in Congress and the Democrat President, media needs to be much more wary of Obama and other Democrats now. Of course the idea of continued ranting and blaming towards Republicans may be intended to remove the focus from Democrats, where it should right be now.

  • Posted By: Tabi @ 02/17/2009 9:47:28 PM

    You do not put people in a position where they are liable to have a conflict of interest. It was true with Rove and it is true with Axelrod as well. This is a bare step away from giving Axelrod a cohort of CIA underlings to do his bidding.

    As to statistic sampling, what are the margins of error for both methodologies? It is one thing to tell stories about hard-to-count people, but inaccuracies are inevitable. Unless the margin of error is significantly less, I prefer a headcount. It leaves less room for a person's feelings, guesses or predictions to interfere with the count.

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 02/17/2009 9:11:30 PM

    I know President Obama won't be negatively affected by the 24/7 blogging, and his 13 million + email strong army and his 50 million + voters and his 70% approving rating, why because we Americans will not stand the media trying to spin his achievements and his decision - just so they can help the Republicans bring doubt on his abilities.

    The media, the GOP and the neo-cons - will understand that no amount of money or influence - or media scrutiny will be allowed, or believed.

    You all had free rain when George Bush was in office and you did or didn't do anything to harm the Republicans image, but did all you could to promote it.

    Frankly, I don't think any of that's changed - but what has changed is the American people will not stand for it this time - we will not allow the media pundits, naysayers, so called political minds - convince U.S. of anything

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now