This statement seems to be rather presumptive by Mr. Christopher
"The loss of a congressional seat is also likely to fuel a narrative peddled by conservatives that Californians are fleeing an expensive Democratic-governed state in search of cheaper, less regulated climes."

Could he provide an explanation as to why a seat would be lost other than a reduction of population?

I was wondering the same thing as Atherton Resident. I suppose by his phrasing that it is likely to "fuel a narrative peddled by conservatives" he doesn't actually say it is an untrue narrative, he just implies it. But I find it almost amusing that he makes this claim only a few paragraphs after he states: "Maybe the hardest news to take of all: While California is seeing its national stature shrink ever-so-slightly, that power is being shunted to our faster-growing rivals, Texas (which adds two seats) and Florida (which gets one)."

I thought his choice of words incredibly odd. What makes one state a rival to another? We don't compete with Texas and Florida for the same exports. They're not major sport franchise rivals. They don't border us. As far as I can see, there are three items that make those two states stand out as a possible "rival" to California: (1) They are politically conservative, vs California liberal, (2) Their response to Covid was based more in individual responsibility and less on top-down government edict, and (3) their population is growing, (with many, many new residents from California) vs California, who is shrinking. As someone who left California in the middle of the pandemic, mostly because the government's response and the "blow-the-whistle-on-your-neighbor" attitude of its citizens underscored why I was unhappy living there, I can't help but see the correlation between the above three points.

In fact, I can't help but wonder what the results would have been had the pandemic hit one month earlier, or the census done one year (or even nine months) later. Our household completed the census paperwork in April, before the due date, but decided to move three weeks later. And we were some of the first "pandemic refugees".

Typo above: I meant if the pandemic had hit one YEAR earlier, not one month.

Atherton Res and Menlo Mom may get a chuckle from the byline

"CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California's policies and politics."

MP Resident: I was going to comment on that, but decided my post went on long enough! I’ve noticed at least one other article in the Almanac recently from CalMaters, although there may have been more. It also seemed to be more of an opinion piece than straight facts. I don’t have a problem with the Almanac supplementing their content, particularly in today’s world where local news is struggling, but I wish they would state the source at the BEGINNING of the article, rather than the end. (OK, scrolling back up, I can see it’s part of the by-line but, unless you know to look for it, you’d miss it.) But I guess I should have picked up on this, as the entire tone of the piece was so unlike the Almanac.

@Atherton Resident: If you read through the article you'll see that California's population hasn't actually decreased over the past decade, it's just that it hasn't grown as quickly as some other states, such as Texas and Florida. Also, it's unclear whether this census was as accurate as in the past in counting non-citizen residents due to Trump's rhetoric and initial attempts to include a citizenship question on the census(the census isn't just meant to count citizens).

@Menlo Mom: Texas, and to some degree Florida, are considered rivals to California in terms of attracting companies to base their headquarters. When this movement occurs the tax base decreases. This has been an issue for a while now.

Florida and Texas both have more Covid cases per million and more deaths per thousand than does California.

Web Link

And California's current case rate is 4 per 100,000 vs Texas's 11 per 100, 000 and Florida's 25 per 100,000.

Web Link

@Peter Carpenter
You are correct in relation to deaths. Per the link you provided, as of today, California ranks #29 in deaths per million at 1567, vs Florida at #28 at 1642 and Texas #23 at 1743. So that is a difference of 75 people, per ONE MILLION (FL) and 176 people per ONE MILLION (TX). California and Florida are neck and neck, which is shocking, especially considering that Florida has one of the oldest population with a median age of 42.4, while California has one of the youngest, at 37. (And I'm sure you are correct about the case rate. I personally no longer find that stat useful, but rely more on hospitalizations for a snapshot in time, and deaths for overall figures.) As a side note, since I moved out of state, I've dined out, attended the gym, and gone to Sunday worship (all with restrictions of course) and my state's ranks in the top ten lowest in deaths per million.

But I think we can all agree that while these figures are immediately available now, other important statistics won't be clear for quite a while, such as youth suicide. I heard yet another story from friends of a daughter who was recently hospitalized after having a reaction to new anti-depressants that resulted in self harm. Thank God tragedy was averted, but a second plea for prayers went out that a bed could be found in an adolescent facility because the hospital was ready to discharge her, but all beds were full, and she was still having suicidal thoughts. This young girl is 13. Anyone with teens are aware of many similar stories.

The crisis of teen mental health predated Covid, and is related to many factors, not the least of which is social media. But I find it unconscionable that, knowing this, in many, many parts of our country, we took away their social interaction, athletic pursuits (through PE, sports, or a local gym), and faith based activities, all experiences that strengthen mental health, and expected them to be ok. I don't see California ranking high in this stat

@menlo mom nailed it - mic drop.