Census?
 

They're fucking it up aren't they? I say this as someone who received no mailing from the Fed Gov.

I received two within 4 days of each other after I had responded online.

JR

Same here, mailing, responded online, another mailing, but this second one said if I didn't respond online I'd get yet another mailing with the option of responding by mail.

Someone who applied to work for the census told me they were being hired to go to any address that didn't respond online or by mail.

Replied online, three postal pieces arrived, that seems standard.

https://2020census.gov/en/response-rates.html

I wonder what the story is in Peurto Rico? I know they are in bad shape but an under 1% response rate seems like there is a problem with getting mailings out.

This Census is going to be a inaccurate clusterƒuck. Count the ways-- 1) we have an inept, "ant-Government" executive branch in office, 2) a global pandemic in full swing, and 3) a Latinx population that has been mortally terrified for the last four years. In my wildest imagination I can't see a way for it to go smoothly.

Smooth is relative. If it's not part of "The Narrative" from President Trump it's not likely to be noticed - - smooth.

Accuracy is not subjective, and I feel certain the census will be pretty inaccurate.

I live right in the middle of a downright thick on the ground Hispanic population: local observation over four years shows "mortally terrified" does not describe them. There *are* those who insist you believe they're in a state of mortal terror -- but these people are very blockheaded and psychotically tendentious. Yet... look at you, believing their every superstitious word. Critical thinking, mister Flint??

Critical thinking is why I've stopped voting Democratic. Critical thinking is valuable. The Donkey Party, not so much.

Nine questions on the 2020 Census took rather less than nine minutes to answer online. 'Cluster' is not the word I'd use.

Can't argue with anecdotal evidence, amirite?

I know a guy and he knows some guys.

Not when there are enough anecdotes to run statistical analyses on.

It's shaky ground, trying to apply medical-science protocols to social science questions. If you were borne out, I'd see a lot more nervous Californians than I do. And tell me -- have we seen Mexicans and Other Than Mexicans fleeing south of the Rio Grande in their tens of millions? -- we have not.

"Social Science" is a questionable term; other phrasings may be more accurate.

Uh, yes. Even then. The plural of anecdote is not data.

What part of "run statistical analysis" did you not internalise?

I'm on-scene. You are not. Am I going to believe some last-ditch anticonservative fanatic, or dismiss him as being nutty as a PayDay bar? -- or on the gripping hand believe my own unimpaired eyes and ears?

Spoken like a true-blue Statist. The Nazis were such, and the Stalinists, all the Marxist-Leninists, the Maoists, far and away the Juche North Koreans, the Senderistas, the Maduristas... all the followers of the lesser ways.

It is not necessary that you keep company with the likes of these. I am proud that I do not, having self-respect.

You don't run statistical analysis on anecdotes, because they are self-selecting. You run statistical analysis on surveys that deliberately get a wide variety of responses.