California Math (0.00 / 0)

If Obama ran stronger in rural areas in Nevada, and this is replicated in California, might he actually have a shot at doing better in California overall than the 12 point gap might indicate?  Not that he'd win or anything, but that Hillary Clinton's support may be heavily concentrated in Democratic districts.

---

by: LibDem @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:52:22 AM CST

Yes, yes (0.00 / 0)

If Obama runs well outside of SoCal, the Bay Area and the heavily Latino Central Valley....

Let's cut to the chase. If Obama could win with Democrats, he'd be viable.

On a related note, while Bill continues the boxing match with Barack in SC today, Hillary will be in CA - Salinas, this afternoon, one the the funnest places to mine for Dem/Latino votes in the entire state.

This all brings me back to GFR's prescient post months ago about how white male lefties shout down and dismiss women. She might as well have said they shout down and dismiss Democrats.

---

by: Pacific John @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:11:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

One (0.00 / 0)

of the things that has to be hurting Obama more than Clinton in California is that Decline to State voters have to be proactive to be able to vote in the presidential election.  If they simply show up or are vote by mail they will be handing/mailed a ballot that just includes the ballot propositions.  They must request the Democratic presidential ballot and how much this is know depends on the registrar and the poll workers.  Keep in mind that DTS constitutes 19% of all registered voters.  There are good Democrats, true independents and Republicans among those voters.

Most people do not know that they have to request the ballot.  Personally I have had several conversations in the past two days with DTS voters who had no clue.  There is a huge information gap and it is something the campaigns will have to work hard at.

Obama not surprisingly sent an email this weekend with information on this.  I blogged it yesterday on Calitics.  There has been nothing out of the state party on this one, though cstrait in the comments of that post is on staff at the party.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:25:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't have a sense (0.00 / 0)

for how many DTS voters will ask for a party ballot. The trend for years has been that DTS voters are mostly Dems who don't know it, but the also are the least proactive bloc in the electorate.

Getting large numbers of Californians to request ballots has traditionally taken a very large investment. We have done it in the past, training our voters to vote by mail. But, going all the way back to DiFi v Huffington, serious efforts have taken months, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in each CD. If Obama can make a dent, I'll be very impressed.

---

by: Pacific John @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 14:43:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

WTF??? How Many Mistakes Can You Find In This Picture??? (0.00 / 0)

Assinine comments used to be a dime a dozen.  Now, apparently, the price has been slashed to a dime a truckload.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:27:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Paul: (0.00 / 0)

The blogosphere has, at a bare minimum, casual contempt for the regular voters who are poorly represented here: women (per Garance), blue collar workers, Latinos....

Just sayin'

---

by: Pacific John @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 14:46:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A VAST Overgeneralization (0.00 / 0)

Especially given how many of the supposedly-despised are part of the blogosphere.

A lot more than in the traditional media, it goes without saying.  But more than in just about any other forum you can find, either.

Could we do better?  Absolutely!

But single the blogosphere out as particularly bad?

Not so much.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 18:43:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Delegate calculations (4.00 / 6)

So I just did a quick spreadsheet on the delegate situation.  If the undecideds and unviable candidates are taken out, we have a 59/41 allocation of delegates before rounding.

There are 241 district level delegates.  The 53 CDs have the follow number of delegates, followed by the delegate allocation assuming every CD exactly reflects the statewide polling (ha!): 
2 CDs: 3 delegates (that's 2 Clinton, 1 Obama per CD)
26 CDs: 4 delegates (2 Clinton, 2 Obama)
19 CDs: 5 delegates (3 Clinton, 2 Obama)
6 CDs: 6 delegates (4 Clinton, 2 Obama)

That gives us 137 Clinton, 104 Obama for the district delegates.

Now we do the statewide part.  My read of the rules is that all statewide delegates (at-large and PLEO) are apportioned proportionally among the viable candidates.  If I'm wrong about that, please correct me.

81 at-large delegates: 48 Clinton, 33 Obama
48 pledged PLEOs: 28 Clinton, 20 Obama
Total based on statewide vote: 76 Clinton, 53 Obama

Grand total for delegates allocated on Feb. 5:
Clinton 213
Obama 157

Difference: 56 delegates

Now even if the poll today reflects exactly the statewide vote and the undecideds broke like the decides, that's not to say this would be the result.  I have no idea how variations is geography would affect things.  In general, if Obama does better in over-represented CDs (as happened in Nevada, for example), the total could be closer. 

Or he could already be benefiting from favorable rounding enough that this could be close to a ceiling for this statewide breakdown.  He's already evenly splitting the delegates in the 4-delegate CDs.  He has to break 50% to get the fifth delegate in the 5-delegate and 3-delegate CDs.  So, until his total goes to 50%, he 'only' picks up statewide delegates and, at some point, takes the 6th delegate in the 8 6-delegate CDs from Clinton.  The next tipping point to get a lot of delegates is the magic 50%, at which point 21 delegates magically flip.

Of course, the actual results don't work like that, since the vote breakdown will certainly not be uniform statewide.  But it's useful to see where the magic numbers are in each CD.

---

by: tilthouse @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:23:18 AM CST

Great numbers! (0.00 / 0)

that certainly improves on my crude math. Thanks!

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:33:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So (0.00 / 0)

Unless Obama can come even with Clinton, he's looking at a almost 60 delegate gap between him and Clinton coming out of California no matter how much ground he closes?

At this point, the importance of California becomes the populr vote, not the overall delegate count.

---

by: LibDem @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:38:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not quite (4.00 / 2)

It's that rounding makes these things not perfectly proportional.

Even in this simplistic model, he would pick up statewide delegates as he approaches 50%.  These account for 23 of Obama's 56 delegate deficit in this little model.  There are so many of these delegates that rounding has little effect here.

Rounding means that in the CDs with an odd number of delegates and two candidates splitting them, 50% is the magic number.

Conversely, in the CDs with an even number of delegates, you have to win by a sizable margin to avoid splitting the delegates evenly.

This, along with the fact that rural districts tend to have more representation that they are due (just like the electoral college), has actually helped Obama in NH and NV, and helped Hillary and Edwards in IA.

I ran this same spreadsheet for NY and IL with the latest polls from those states.  NY would give Clinton 65 more delegates than Obama.  IL would give Obama 59 more delegates than Clinton.

People forget that this proportional allocation of delegates means that, as long as voters don't quickly coalesce around a candidate, the nomination fight will drag on a while.

---

by: tilthouse @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:09:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To answer your question (4.00 / 1)

I wasn't clear on the actual question.

At 49.9% Obama/50.1% Clinton (in this simplistic modeling), Clinton would have a 21 delegate advantage due to rounding in the CDs.  Of course, if it's really that close, the actual CD results would be randomized and would largely mitigate this.

---

by: tilthouse @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:12:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The problem for Obama is... (0.00 / 0)

He needs to win California, not do better than Chris originally projected.  I think he'll win South Carolina, but the Clinton camp will peddle that as an African-American victory and not representative of the overall voting populace.  Hell, Hillary is already showing that it's not that important by campaigning in California instead of SC and leaving Bill and the hedge fund manager in the Palmetto state.  Then, with a January 22nd ARG poll showing Hillary up by 28 points in Florida, any momentum Obama gets out of South Carolina will be checked by Florida (I know their votes don't count for the time being, but the Florida results will be reported and even if Hillary only wins by 10 or 15 instead of 28 it will be seen as a big win in a big state).  On Feb 5th everything points to Obama barely staying alive.  I wish it weren't so, but if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

---

by: historyrocks @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:59:03 AM CST

Keeping it close (0.00 / 0)

On Feb. 5, Obama has to keep the difference in pledged delegates close and surmountable.  The nominee will be chose at the convention in Denver, it is still possible to sew up enough delegates before the convention that we will know the winner in advance.  Obama will do well in several states and he will fight to keep it close or gain an advantage in several others.  On Feb. 5th and 6th we will all have to do a lot of math to see how the dust clears.

My guess is that Obama will be behind by a few delegates but be able to make that up in the following contests.  Folks in the Obama camp have been looking ahead at this possibility for a while now.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:29:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My Bad (0.00 / 0)

Actually, the January 22nd ARG Florida poll has Clinton up by 38 points!  This makes things even worse for Obama.

---

by: historyrocks @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 13:59:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And another 'dig' at Obama from the Pro-Israel field before CA (0.00 / 0)

Group's internal memo points to Obama's struggle with Jewish voteMichael Roston
Published: Tuesday January 22, 2008
http://rawstory.com/...

---

by: SandThroughTheEyeGlass @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:18:49 PM CST

Winning SC (0.00 / 0)

Chris:

It appears from all of the polling and that Clinton leaving SC for 2-3 day's that they are sceding SC to Obama.

My question is what does a double digit win for Obama DO TO THE RACE?

It seems to me when their is a winner, each candidate get's a bumb. Obama after IA, Clinton after NH and NV.

hOWEVER THOSE WIN'S WERE NARROW 5 PTS OR LESS.

I predict that if Obama get's close to a 15pt win in SC. THIS WILL FURTHER SCRAMBLE THE RACE ON SUPER TUESDAY.

What are your thoughts?

---

by: BDM @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 13:09:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Super Delegates... (0.00 / 0)

I know you asked Chris the question...

However, I would also like him or the other dude(s) here to comment on the Super Delegate dynamic...

I can't remember the radio host... but I thought it interesting that they said a mentor/close political CA ally of Pelosi had come out 'early' for Obama.  As yet, I don't think Pelosi has come out for either candidate?

Things are so volatile at the moment. 

I'm wondering, just wondering if many SD's think that Hillary (and Bill) 'might' be self-destructing...  at times almost un-hinged -- remember Bill was supposed to be the composed stateman//  Just look what's happening on the TV now.  They are certainly giving the conservatives plenty of ammo for the GE...

For those SD's who have had threats from the Clintons (remembering Geffen's comments) will they look at the best nominee for the job, or will they use fear (of the Clinton's) as the the deciding factor...  Nasty business politics...

---

by: SandThroughTheEyeGlass @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 13:33:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That CA (0.00 / 0)

close Pelosi ally was George Miller.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 14:02:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think you guys are dreaming (0.00 / 0)

There won't be much of a bump coming out of South Carolina because the Clintons, and likely the MSM, will portray it as an African-American vote and not a vote that can be duplicated in other states.  Then Florida comes along and  as of today Clinton has a 38 point lead in the ARG poll.  Do you think, even though the delegates won't count for the time being, that the press won't report on Florida?  Everyone is on the ballot in Florida.  It won't be like Michigan.  That will work against any South Carolina bump.  The Super Delegates will fall in line behind the candidate that racks up the most delegates in the primaries, and that is looking an awful lot like Clinton.

---

by: historyrocks @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 14:10:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Na (0.00 / 0)

They wouldn't need to say the SC vote was the "black vote", cause the media has that meme echoed throughout each news outlet reporting on the race.

---

by: BlueLake @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 15:06:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Florida and California (0.00 / 0)

If Clinton does well in Florida (and she's poised right now to do very well if polls are to be believed) and then wins a majority of the big states on Feb. 5, most notably California, I think regardless of delegate count, pressure will start to build on Obama to drop out of the race.  The popular vote will clearly favor Clinton at that point.  While the official delegate count might be fairly close, Clinton will have an argument that her count should realistically include Florida and Michigan, two additional big states (of course, this depends on her winning Florida convincingly). 

Obama won't be out of it in the sense that he couldn't come back and win on delegates if things broke his way, but I think there will be party pressure to end what is becoming an increasingly bitter primary. 

If that happens, I think it will be hard for Obama to resist the pressure.  He's only 46-years-old and, short of being the nominee and then losing in November, the worst thing for him is to lose the nomination in a way that is seen as weakening Clinton for the GE.  If Clinton loses the GE, Obama is going to want to be able to make the argument that he would've won, not to have to listen to the argument that he cost her the race. 

---

by: BDB @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 14:19:52 PM CST

He still has to (0.00 / 0)

Win South Carolina. I wonder how Obama can make inroads with liberals in a way that Hillary can't. He hasn't focused on issues of war and peace like I'd like, so that's probably out. Maybe his tougher demeanor is too little, too late. (Reminds me of Kerry v. Bush sadly)

---

by: BlueLake @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 15:04:15 PM CST

a tweak on tilthouse's math (4.00 / 1)

Nice work, TH.

I think there is an advantage for Clinton, with her strong Hispanic support, vs. Obama's strong black support, both of which is geographically concentrated.

Just to illustrate, I'll use the four-del. CDs:
26 CDs: 4 delegates (2 Clinton, 2 Obama) = 52 + 52 each

Let's assume that nine of them are heavily ethnic districts: six Hispanic and three black. Then assume in all nine, that support skews the results up to a 3-1 split. This gives us

17 split = 34 + 34
  6 Hisp. = 18 + 6
  3 Black = 3 + 9
26 TOTAL = 55 + 49

Again, my math is arbitrary, but I think the geo. concentration of ethnic supporters works to Hillary's advantage, because the variation in results will not break evenly.

I'll state this another way: To the extent we see CDs with big majorities that disrupt your model (and we will), those will tend to favor Clinton by approx 2:1, because of ethnic pockets.

I'm an Obama supporter, BTW.

---

by: commissar @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 15:15:51 PM CST

yes (0.00 / 0)

Agreed that California (and probably most states) is not homogeneous enough (with respect to which candidate is supported where) to have the CDs break uniformly.  Somebody will benefit from the geography and that may well be Hillary in CA (just as it was Obama in NV).

Not that it will matter, but Edwards will probably wins a few delegates by breaking 15% is a few places.  He will not get anywhere near his share of popular vote in delegates.

I'm an Edwards supporter, BTW.  :)

(Though I just gave Obama some money to get some decorations for my Super Tuesday party.  Have to order from Hillary and Edwards online as Obama has the only campaign office in San Diego.)

---

by: tilthouse @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 18:11:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]