California specific discussion of vote share and mathematics behind impact on delegate allocation of its 475 Delegates. This is part of mathematics of delegate allocation notes in the series of Delegate Mathematics stories. This without a doubt juggernaut of delegate heavy state will be important for any campaign that is still running a primary competition. This represents a whopping 11. 7% of all delegates. This is written with the assumption that Bernie Sanders will still be competing. Statewide California Democratic Party is affiliated with and participates in Presidential Nomination with National Democratic Party. Party documents and information are available in English, Chinese and Spanish.
Basic Data: California has 475 delegates available. There are 53 Congressional Districts. So including state-wide allocations PLEO and at-large delegates, there are 55 different delegate allocation units. Delegates allocated to specific congressional district ranges all the way from CD21 with just 4 delegates to to CD12 with 9 delegates.
4 delegates from: CD21,
5 delegates from: CD8, CD10, CD16, CD22, CD23, CD25, CD29, CD31, CD34, CD35, CD36, CD40, CD41, CD42, CD46, CD50
6 delegates from: CD1, CD3, CD4, CD6, CD7, CD9, CD17, CD19, CD20, CD24, CD26, CD27, CD32, CD38, CD39, CD43, CD44, CD45, CD47, CD48, CD49, CD52
7 delegates from: CD5, CD11, CD15, CD14, CD15, CD28, CD30, CD37, CD53
8 delegates from : CD2, CD13, CD18,
9 delegates from: CD12
Additionally 53 PLEOs and 105 At-large delegates allocated from state-wide results. With 26 districts falling in odd number of delegates (5,7,9) allocations, the immediate benefits of crossing 50% threshold in each of those districts are enormous. However given the composition of Democratic Party elelectorate it is likely that different candidates would achieve majority in different districts.
Primary Election Information: Primary ballot/vote is scheduled for 07 June 2016. California operates a closed primary. participation is open only to registered members of the Democratic Party or those without Party Preference.
Same day registration is not available. Last day to register: 23 May 2016 (15 days before election).
More information from the party at http://www.cadem.org/vote/faqs. Incidentally it has a fairly good set of questions and answers. Other links here http://www.cadem.org/vote
State government information about elections herehttp://www.sos.ca.gov/elections
Double Barrel Primary: Presidential Primary coincides with state/local primary elections. Local county elections list here http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/2016-county-administered-elections/
Absentee/Mail ballots: Absentee and vote by mail is available.
Voter ID Laws: Voter ID is not required if suitable ID was provided during registration.
Congressional District Based Delegate Allocation Triggers: (See table below). A total of only 317 delegates are allocated on district basis. Due to proportional representation formula being used to allocate delegates from various districts, the number of delegates each candidate wins changes at certain specific percentage levels. Crossing/going past the vote percentages at those levels triggers a change in number of delegates awarded. The triggers for congressional districts based allocations are listed below. Districts with same number of available delegates are grouped. Due to large number of districts see section after the table for specific district if not listed on table.
Delegates Acquired
Out Of Available
|
4 del
CD21
|
5 DEL
17 UNITS
|
6 DEL
22 units
|
7 DEL
9 Units
|
8 DEL
CD2 CD13 CD18
|
9 DEL
cd12
|
Delegate Allocation Triggers
1 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
2 |
37.5 |
30 |
25 |
21.4 |
18.8 |
16.7 |
3 |
62.5 |
50 |
41.7 |
35.7 |
31.3 |
27.8 |
4 |
85 |
70 |
58.4 |
50 |
43.8 |
38.9 |
5 |
|
85 |
75 |
64.3 |
56.3 |
50 |
6 |
|
|
85 |
78.6 |
68.8 |
61.2 |
7 |
|
|
|
85 |
81.3 |
72.3 |
8 |
|
|
|
|
85 |
83.4 |
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
85 |
For 4 Delegates at CD21 : The first delegate here is available at 15%. Second delegate at 37.5%. Third delegate trigger is high at 62.5%. The whole range from 37.5% to 62.5% will still have delegates split 2-2. To gain a definitive advantage a candidate needs to cross 62.5% trigger resulting in a delegate split of 3-1.
For 5 Delegates at CD8, CD10, CD16, CD22, CD23, CD25, CD29, CD31, CD34, CD35, CD36, CD40, CD41, CD42, CD46, CD50, CD52: First delegate acquired at 15%, second delegate at 30.%. Third delegate trigger is nicely balanced at 50%. Fourth delegate costs a whopping 70%. This 70% votes are needed to get a 4-1 split might be a bit too demanding. These district become very crucial as they break just with small % hovering at 50%, a whole delegate is available. Goal for any Campaign is to cross the 50% and obtain a 3-2 split in their favour. Successfully breaking these districts will give a delegate advantage straight away. These 17 districts awarding 5 delegates each will be contributing to delegate advantages. Campaign activity might be a bit more heavy here.
For 6 Delegates at CD1, CD3, CD4, CD6, CD7, CD9, CD17, CD19, CD20, CD24, CD26, CD27, CD32, CD38, CD39, CD43, CD44, CD45, CD47, CD48, CD49, CD52: Within the whole range of 41.7 — 58.3 the delegate split will be straight 3-3. Interesting points are at 41.7%. and 58.3%, if candidates are hovering around either of these mark, then some extra effort would break the district 4-2 split. For an advantage a candidate has all the incentive to break it 4-2split with 58.3% votes. Otherwise we are looking at a straight 3-3 split. There are 22 districts in this category. Big advantages can only be made at 58.3% or higher levels.
For 7 Delegates at CD5, CD11, CD14, CD15, CD28, CD30, CD33, CD37, CD53 : Within the range of 35.7% — 50% the 3 delegates each will be allocated. The fight for the 7th delegate is again precariously balanced at 50% marker to make the overall break 4-3 split. To achieve a 5-2 split votes need to be at 64.3% or higher. There are 9 of these districts.
For 8 Delegates at CD2 CD13 CD18: First two delegates are cheap at 15% and 18.8%. Any vote share between 43.8% and 56.3% will result in a 4-4 delegate split. Crossing a threshold trigger 56.3% results in two delegate advantage 5-3. The next trigger at 68.8% for 6-2 split. Unless there is some major event 68.8% is quite a huge barrier. 7-1 split is just extremely improbable it needs 81.3%. Aim here would be to attempt for 56.3% or better vote share and grab the 2 delegate advantage of 5-3 split.
For 9 Delegates at CD12: First delegate acquired at 15%, second at 16.7%, third at 27.8% and fourth at 38.9%. Each delegate needs roughly 11% shift in support. The tipping point is again at 50% for the advantageous break with 5-4 split. Additional delegates acquired at 61.2% and 72.3%. For a campaign a smaller movement in these districts could still trigger an extra delegate.
Delegate Allocations Based On State-Wide Results: Statewide results work towards two different category of delegates; 105 At-Large delegates and 53 pledged PLEO delegates. Statewide winner will get at least 2 delegate advantage in PLEO category. Due to very large number of delegates small changes are enough to trigger additional delegate allocations.
The four tables below show triggers in specific ranges together with corresponding delegate numbers in each category. { I think these might be interesting range. If anyone wants to see the numbers for different range either post a comment or send me a kosmail and I will add new tables or columns}
Vote Share% |
15 |
15.8 |
16.1 |
38.6 |
38.7 |
39.6 |
40.5 |
40.6 |
41.5 |
42.4 |
42.5 |
Triggers and State-wide Delegates for Vote% Share
PLEOs (53) |
8 |
8 |
9 |
20 |
21 |
21 |
21 |
22 |
22 |
22 |
23 |
At-Large Del(105)
|
16 |
17 |
17 |
41 |
41 |
42 |
43 |
43 |
44 |
45 |
45 |
Vote Share% |
43.4 |
44.3 |
44.4 |
45.3 |
46.2 |
46.3 |
47.2 |
48.1 |
48.2 |
49.1 |
50 |
Triggers and State-wide Delegates for Vote% Share
PLEOs (53) |
24 |
23 |
24 |
24 |
24 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
26 |
26 |
27 |
At-Large Del(105)
|
46 |
47 |
47 |
48 |
49 |
49 |
50 |
51 |
51 |
52 |
53 |
Vote Share% |
51 |
51.9 |
52 |
52.9 |
53.8 |
53.9 |
54.8 |
55.7 |
55.8 |
56.7 |
57.6 |
Triggers and State-wide Delegates for Vote% Share
PLEOs (53) |
27 |
28 |
28 |
28 |
29 |
29 |
29 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
31 |
At-Large Del(105)
|
54 |
54 |
55 |
56 |
56 |
57 |
58 |
58 |
59 |
60 |
60 |
Vote Share% |
57.7 |
58.6 |
59.5 |
59.6 |
60.5 |
61.4 |
61.5 |
62.4 |
63.3 |
63.4 |
64.3 |
Triggers and State-wide Delegates for Vote% Share
PLEOs (53) |
31 |
31 |
32 |
32 |
32 |
33 |
33 |
33 |
34 |
34 |
34 |
At-Large Del(105)
|
61 |
62 |
62 |
63 |
64 |
64 |
65 |
66 |
66 |
67 |
68 |
For 53 Pledged PLEOs: Roughly 1.9% votes translate to 1 delegate. At the viability 15% vote share 8 Delegates are acquired. ninth at 16.1%. Each subsequent delegate from then on at 1.9% increments. Just under half (26) delegates between 48.2% and 50%, with the trigger at 50% awarding a delegate advantage split of (27-26). The corresponding number of At-Large delegates are the number that would be awarded at that specific PLEO triggers. Additionally 50% trigger also happens to provide a delegate advantage in at-large category. So with just crossing 50%, we would end up with 27 delegates in PLEO and 53 in At-Large categories.
For 105 Delegates State-wide (at-large): (See tables above.) Because of a high number of available delegates, the incremental steps are fairly small. Results should reflect the similar percentages. The some of the extra delegates achieving triggers are listed below. Roughly 1% votes translates to 1 delegate. crossing 15% threshold gives a starting point of 16 delegates. Seventeenth delegate is cheap at 15.8%. Subsequently every 1% gives an extra delegate. Between 49.1%-50% just under half (52) delegates awarded. Crossing the 50% votes statewide awarding (53-52)split.
Taking all the triggers combined, there are lots of percentage points which award extra delegates. Some are separated by just 0.1%. See 44%, 46%, 48% regions for illustration. Most have 1% or less gaps. Thus the margin of statewide votes will have a very definitive advantages in delegate numbers. Just crossing 50% (resulting in 27-26 and 53-52 split) compared with 5% extra votes at 55% (trigger 54.8% awarding 29-24 and 58-47).
Next (Rest of) bit is my personal opinion:
Due to large number of districts, I will not go through all of them. A small sample for district by district thoughts detailing demographics (where it might be pertinent) are at the end of the story. And even now I feel that this is going to be overtly long section. A more detailed look is perhaps appropriate in terms of how Kossacks from both sides of presidential campaigns/support claim that they will win plenty delegates in California.
Lets look at the quick numbers first to see how much advantages can be gained.
4 delegate districts: The single 4 delegate district (CD21), safely republican has nevertheless a persistent organizational presence of Democratic Party. The party structural advantages of footprint would give Clinton advantage here. However delegate advantage break of (3-1) needs 62.5%. Same stable bank of people voting same people to always suffer loss. More detailed district by district further below.
5 Delegate Districts: Most of the 5 delegate districts are where republicans are pre-dominant and have rural look. . Many of them very safe Republican districts for US House. There are 17 of these. Political activity and combination of electorate in all of these are more favourable towards Sanders. Sanders should be able to easily grab delegate advantages in these (2-3) in favour with just 50% votes. In a couple of them Sanders might be able to cross 70% trigger to get a (1-4) advantage. Overall I expect Sanders to build advantage of at least 17 and maybe up to 21 with a few extras with the group splitting in favour, with this group total in Sanders favour (32-53).
6 Delegate Districts: This is where most of the fight will be. While some of these districts are safe for Democrats many are competitive. Competition in these 22 districts that award 6 delegates will be mostly for vote share % of statewide vote. District based advantage requires 58.4% votes, which quite likely both candidates will achieve in their appropriate supporting groups. However the bulk of the influence here will be for margins that award PLEOs and At-Large category from statewide results.
Due to different electorate base of competing Democratic Party factions and interests prevalent in these districts, the same conflicts will be heightened at the Presidential primary. Most of these districts would be expected to split evenly (3-3). However there will be a substantial number of districts falling to Clinton with delegate advantages at (4-2) with 58.4%. This is mostly due to the fact that the two Clintons personally have been campaigning in California for local democrats constantly in the last 20 years. Overall in this group I expect Clinton to accumulate 20 delegate advantage (76-56). The delegate advantages coming from (4-2) splits.
7 Delegate Districts: All of 7 delegate districts are predominantly Democratic leaning and very safe for Democrats. There are nine of these. Some are fairly activist and college dominated while others have firm footprint of establishment politicians in Democratic Party. Some districts are definitely pro Sanders (egCD28) while most are decidedly pro Clinton (egCD37). However overall they fairly fall towards Clinton Camp. Overall in this group Clinton advantage of 11 delegates (37-26).
8 Delegate Districts: All of these 8 delegate districts are completely Democratic electorate dominated districts. There are three of these. Due to combination of the electorate and local allies, two of them will be for Sanders at (2-6) advantage. Only 1 district will fall to Clinton at (6-2) Total for these group, Sanders accumulating 4 delegate advantage with (10-14) split. More detailed district by district further below.
9 Delegate Districts: The single 9 delegate district home of Pelosi falling to Clinton at (7-2). More detailed district by district further below.
Totals: All combined district based allocations (Clinton +2+32+76+37+10+7 =164 and - Sanders 2+53+56+26+14=141). For the PLEOs and at-large candidates, I am expecting overall Clinton votes to be about 54% resulting in (29-24)PLEO and (57-48) at large. Total for state (Clinton 250 — Sanders 225)
Some Casual Scenarios:
I would like to present a scenario where we look at overall statewide result and see how much delegate advantages are achieved. I am assuming that amongst the 53 districts, pockets of once candidate support are counter balanced by other candidate support in appropriate proportions of their statewide results. Irrespective of statewide results I expect Sanders to win all 5 delegate districts (2-3) in favour due to the district details and have a starting 17 delegate advantage. (See explanations given previously).
The numbers listed to determine/discover where Sanders advantages might lie,
Clinton
Here just noting where and what the advantages are coming from.
Statewide Clinton just above 50% → -17 (from 5 delegate CDs lost to Sanders), +0 (6delegate districts everything breaks even), +9 del (from 7delegate CDs), +0 (8delegate cds break even), +1 (from 9 delegate CD) +1 PLEO, +1 At-large, : Total -5. (Sanders ahead by 5).
Numbers.. Clinton delegates, from districts (1x2 + 17x2 + 22x3 + 9x4 + 3x4 + 1x5 = 155), from statewide (27+53=80). Total 235 vs 240 for Sanders.
Votes share at Statewide Clinton 51% → No Changes in districts allocations. With1 Delegates switch in At Large only. Resulting in 236vs239 (Still Sanders ahead by 3 delegates).
At Statewide Clinton 52% → Only changes are extra 1 PLEO switch, 1 delegate switch in at large. Resulting in 238 vs 237 (Clinton ahead by 1 delegate)
At Statewide Clinton 53% → Only changes are extra 1 At Large delegate switch. Resulting in 239 vs 236 (Clinton ahead by 1 delegate)
Any vote share higher than 52% will have Clinton ahead.
Sanders: (Note: These numbers are generically valid for whoever is the front runner without assumption of +17 for sanders in 5 delegate districts.)
Now looking at Sanders numbers (they will be slightly different from Clinton numbers above since we penalized Clinton in 5 delegate districts and assumed advantages in 5 delegate districts for Sanders mentioned before):
Sanders just past 50% → 0 (4del CDs break even), Advantages +17 del (from 5 delegate CDs), 0 (6 delegate CDs break even), +9 del (from 7delegate CDs), 0 (8 delegate CDs break even), +1 (from 9 delegate CD) +1 PLEO, +1 At-large: Total +29. (Sanders ahead by 29).
numbers.. Sanders delegates, from districts (1x2 + 17x3 + 22x3 + 9x4 + 3x4 + 1x5 = 172), from statewide (27+53=80). Total Sanders 252 vs 223 for Clinton.
At statewide Sanders 51% → no changes in districts, +1 delegate switch in At-large: Total Sanders 253 vs 222 for Clinton. (Sanders ahead by 31).
Sanders 52% → Only changes are +1 delegate switch in PLEO and 1 delegate switch in at large: Total Sanders 255 vs 220 for Clinton. (Sanders ahead by 35).
Sanders 53% → One extra at-large delegate: Total Sanders 256 vs 219 for Clinton. (Sanders ahead by 37).
Sanders 54% → One extra PLEO and one extra at-large: Total Sanders 258 vs 217 for Clinton. (Sanders ahead by 41).
Sanders 55% → One extra at-large delegate: Total Sanders 259 vs 216 for Clinton. (Sanders ahead by 43).
Sanders 56% → One extra PLEO and one extra at-large: Total Sanders 261 vs 214 for Clinton. (Sanders ahead by 47).
At 56.4%: At this point the three districts which award 8 delegates cross over to (5-3) split giving a total 3 delegate boost. { Note that this calculation is based on uniform performance. However performance will not be uniform. So the actual advantages in number of delegates will be lower than three delegates unless it is crossed in all districts. The cross in all districts will probably stretch out a bit over different range}
Sanders 57% → 3 delegates switch (from 8 del districts) and one extra at-large: Total Sanders 265 vs 210 for Clinton. (Sanders ahead by 55).
Sanders 58% → one extra PLEO and one extra at-large: Total Sanders 263 vs 212 for Clinton. (Sanders ahead by 59).
At 58.4%: At this point the 22 districts which award 6 delegates cross over to (4-2) split giving a total 22 delegate boost. { Note that this calculation is based on uniform performance. However performance will not be uniform. So the actual advantages in number of delegates will be lower than twenty-two delegates unless it is crossed in all districts. The cross in all districts will probably stretch out a bit over different statewide range of votes}
Sanders 59% → switching of 22 (from 6 delegate districts) and one extra PLEO and one extra at-large: Total Sanders 287 vs 188 for Clinton. (Sanders ahead by 107).
We creep through each percentages acquiring maybe one extra PLEO or at-large. Roughly every 2% giving 3 extra delegates. The bulky change in delegate numbers are accumulated from District allocations and crossing the triggers.
Vice-Versa: Although the numbers above are displayed with Sanders advantage calculated, they are same for either candidate who achieves the list percentages.
Big Changes Only Happen At Districts Delegate Flipping Triggers:
Next big change happens at 64.3% where the nine districts awarding 7 delegates cross over to 5-2 split. Other change is at 70% where the seventeen of 5 delegate awarding districts switch to (4-1) split. This is followed by the big one at 75% where 6 delegate awarding districts split (5-1).
There is a minor change at 68.8% corresponding with the 3 districts that award 8 delegates flipping to (6-2) split.
Once Again the reminder: Note that this calculation is based on uniform performance. However performance will not be uniform. So the actual advantages in number of delegates will be lower than number of districts that would flip in a uniform performance. The cross in all districts will probably stretch out a bit over different statewide range of votes starting with a bit less than trigger percentages in some instances and stretching to fairly higher which covers all districts}
Lets look at the numbers around these triggers.
64.3%:: just under 64.3%: from districts (1x3 + 17x3 + 22x4 + 9x4 + 3x5 + 1x6 = 186), from statewide (34+67=101). Total 287 vs 188 ( Giving 99 delegate advantage)
just over 64.3%: from districts (1x3 + 17x3 + 22x4 + 9x5 + 3x5 + 1x6 = 195), from statewide (34+67=101). Total 296 vs 179 ( Giving 117 delegate advantage)
68.8%::just under 68.8%: from districts (1x3 + 17x3 + 22x4 + 9x5 + 3x5 + 1x6 = 195), from statewide (36+72=108). Total 303 vs 172 ( Giving 131 delegate advantage)
just over 68.8%: from districts (1x3 + 17x3 + 22x4 + 9x5 + 3x6 + 1x6 = 198), from statewide (36+72=108). Total 306 vs 169 ( Giving 137 delegate advantage)
70.0%:: just under 70%: from districts (1x3 + 17x3 + 22x4 + 9x5 + 3x6 + 1x6 = 198), from statewide (37+73=110). Total 308 vs 167 ( Giving 141 delegate advantage)
just over 70%: from districts (1x3 + 17x4 + 22x4 + 9x5 + 3x6 + 1x6 = 215), from statewide (37+74=111). Total 326 vs 149 ( Giving 177 delegate advantage)
75.0%:: just under 75%: from districts (1x3 + 17x4 + 22x4 + 9x5 + 3x6 + 1x6 = 215), from statewide (40+79=119). Total 334 vs 141 ( Giving 193 delegate advantage)
just over 75%: from districts (1x3 + 17x4 + 22x5 + 9x5 + 3x6 + 1x6 = 237), from statewide (40+79=119). Total 356 vs 119 ( Giving 237 delegate advantage)
Compared to 59% results, at just under 70% we will have some more 20 extra delegates. Crossing the vital triggers on individual district by district basis will be a lot more important. Crossing 70% will give the winner, in a uniform performance, 177 more delegates than the runner up. However due to performance not being uniform, each district which is over performed without gaining anything extra for that additional over performance means that there will be other districts where the target/trigger was under performed, thus missing the bonus splits there.
Even with the massive California delegate numbers, hypothetically crossing 70% statewide would still be giving probably just 120 delegate difference. This is primarily due to the different pockets of districts breaking in different percentage levels.
Every extra delegate for Sanders is one less for Clinton. It also helps catchup with the delegates. For a substantial performance, those 5 delegate and 7 delegate districts become very important.
{Hmm i think now i understand one of the reasons why California cannot be bothered about when they vote. It costs a freaking lot of tax money}
Previously covered states are all listed with the individual state links in this single document. I will be updating it as and when new states get done: All-Links-Collection-Delegate-Mathematics-Series-2016-Democratic-Primary
Enjoy and hopefully you will have spotted where you might tip the balance personally and like to campaign or make that extra push for your preferred candidate.
Some More Blurb From Me about California
Electorate and Population Disparities.
Firstly I think we should be clearer on who exactly votes. The state/district demography is not necessarily same as Democratic Party electorate demographics. The percentage impact of minorities voting blocks/groups is amplified in Democratic Party. Concurrently however a substantial portion of voting age population do not register to vote, added to that in terms of Democratic electorate, large Hispanic population does not automatically correlate. Hispanic ethnicity designation covers a wide spectrum from Spain, variously politically divided Caribbeans, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Central Americas, Mexico, Philippines. Hispanics is not one monolithic voting block. For voting blocks a more localised analysis needs to take place. Otherwise they would have handily beaten some of the Republicans for US House especially when Democratic ticket was Hispanic. Latino is not synonymous with Hispanics. There might be some sub-groups where they overlap however treating both as identical is inappropriate. If we do not take into account the age group data then the basic population data is misleading.
For example, while general population data for a district might indicate 40% Hispanic, but in terms of voting age population, given younger families, higher mortality rates, it would be lower than 40%. The population proportions of consecutive age groups would be lower. In terms of actual citizens as opposed to residents, it would be even lower. The difference between residents and citizens is stark. This is compounded by effectively overall lower percentage of voter registration/access even amongst the voting age population. “Latino Decisions” advocacy group has been active to try and get more people interested in politics, registering to vote and voting. While this has been successful compared to previous levels of participations (Cubans in Florida and east coast on the other hand have been politically engaged/active for long enough time to be fully participating).
Similar issues within the Asian identifiers in census data, which covers just about everywhere and every group from, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Philippines, Vietnamese, and so on and on and on.
Add to this amongst the more politically engaged the tendency for the “home” (in loose terms, country ancestors) country political influences and political divisions are reciprocated and aligned within the USA amongst the USA political divisions. This is more visible in cases with origins from countries where USA has conducted military interventions and subsequent relocation of allies to USA in cases of failures.
Voter Identifier Disparity
Other discrepancy in voter registration data and actual votes and turn outs seem to be that while a chunk of voters identify as “No Party Preference”, the number of voters identifying as “Democrats” compared to “Republican” is substantially higher across most of the congressional districts across the California. However looking at the election data, it does not translate into the kind of electoral gains that would be expected. Electoral machine, fund raising, voter networks, voter percentages advantages are on the Democratic Party side. I suspect many conservative/republican oriented politicians have opted to join the ranks of Democratic Party to take advantage of the machinery for self promotion and progress in political terms. . Lax attitudes towards voting and abysmal failure of Democratic Party “Get Out The Vote” operations perhaps might explain some of the Republican gains in US House and state house/senate, but that by itself should not have been enough to get the number of Republicans elected. This leads me to infer that, in many districts, there are plenty of Democrats who vote for Republican candidates.
Sanders And Clinton Both Have Pockets of Support.
Prevalence of overall progressivism and social liberalism in California even within some of the Republican leaning electorate and some, as Jon Stewart used to call it, “educated idiocy” within liberal electorate has the hallmarks of more fertile ground for Bernie Sanders. However there are plentiful of Bible-thumping portions of the electorate as well who have on many occasions successfully influenced and dominated state and local ballot measures.
At the same time, the Democratic party machinery is functioning at least as a potential money tree in some parts of the state. Hillary Clinton has the advantages of being supported and championed by plenty local politicians.
To Big To Be Reviewed Like Smaller States.
Given the size of the state (population, economy, demographic distribution and all the ittle wittle bits that go into making it a state), it cannot be viewed in simple terms. It needs its own separate localized detailed and divisional look. A better qualified analysis can be made by looking at electoral patterns and tendencies based on California State House and State Senate districts and comparing them with US House districts. As an aside note: California State Senator represents more people that US House representative from California.
Some of the electorate data from California is here http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration/voter-registration-statistics/ Be warned there are heaps and heaps of documents. For historical data, even numbered year documents are grouped together and odd numbered together. Depending on individual interest data is available at every level (some of the more commonly requested/accessed data is available in XLS format too). As mentioned in previously in this section, do not be surprised that the electorate data wildly mismatches the general population data.
Comparison of State Demographics and Democratic Electorate:
Democratic Party electorate data: African Americans 7.6%, Hispanaic/Latino 29.4%, Asian/pacific Islanders 7.6%, (LGBT 11%, Disabled 10%, Youth 15.2%)
However statewide data (not all available): 73.7% White, 13.9% Asian, 6.6% African American, 1.7% Native American, (39.4% Hispanic)
The figures that are immediately jump out are Hispanic and the Asian proportions disparity in electorate.
Okay now that I got that blurrbrbberye out of the the way, lets move onto simpler districts first. I can feel this is going to be one very long personal opinion section. If you are interested just in a particular district I suggest waiting for a more detailed district by district story later on.
I have covered a small sample of districts in the next section as an example. The list is organized in sequence based on number of delegates. 4 delegates first, then 9 delegates then 8 delegates, a couple from 5 delegate district after that.
Be Warned, Next Section Will Be Glassy And Sleep Inducing:
For 4 delegate at CD21: It is a very safe republican district for US House, containing Kings County and bits of Fresno, Tulare and Kern Counties. It has very low college graduation 9%. Demography 69.5% White, 4.0% Black, 2.9% Asian, 1.4% Native American. (72.1% Hispanic). The district requires 62.5% votes or higher for advantage (3-1) split. Most likely split (3-1) in Clinton favour.
For 9 Delegates at CD12: District consisting of a portion of San Francisco county. Demographics of district: 52%White 31%Asian, 6%AA, (15%Hispanic). This is Nancy Pelosi’s own district. That probably influences the comparatively high number of Democratic Party voters which in turn explains the 9 delegate awarding. This is likely to be very much Clinton territory. Sanders will have hard time competing against the Pelosi election engine in her own home district. Expecting delegate splits (7-2) in Clinton favour which needs 72.3%.
For 8 Delegates at CD2 CD13 CD18:
CD2 (8 Delegates): District 2 is another democrat safe haven consisting of Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, Sonoma and Marin counties. Population centre Eureka city. Demographics 80.8% White, 3.6% Asian, 2.3% Native Am., 1.8% Black (17.0% Hispanic). The district should be a bit more favourable to Sanders. The representative from District 2, Jared Huffman is on record as officially “feeling the Bern, but endorsing Clinton”. His addendum that “my endorsement of Clinton is by no means a vote against Sanders” speaks volumes.
I would venture that Bernie Sanders will comfortably cross 56.3% to break it in own favour (3-5) delegate split. Next up-tick is at 68.8% (2-6), which is within easy reach for Sanders.
CD13 (8 Delegates): Another Democrats safe haven. Weird map consisting of a little bit of Oakland and a little bit of San Francisco and the bay in between. Demographics 47% White, 21% Asian, 20% African American, (20%Hispanic). House Representative Barbara Lee has pointedly not endorsed Clinton and continues to stay on the fence. Lee has additionally made many positive statements about Sanders. At the same time Lee has not been critical of Clinton. Much of that might just be related to the upcoming election for Vice Chair of House Democratic Caucus for which Lee is a possible contender.
While we might expect district to be fairly competitive given the very progressive liberal leaning (advantage Sanders) of district combined with large African American (advantage Clinton) share. Two different competing trends favouring different candidates. However due to larger share of Democratic electorate being African American and Asian, I am estimating an overall Clinton break (6-2).
CD18 (8 Delegates): Another Democrats/progressives safe haven consisting of Santa Cruz and a bit of Santa Clara. Demographics: 68.3% White, 20.0% Asian, 1.9% Black (16.6% Hispanic). Popular House Representative Anna Eshoo has endorsed Clinton. Although attempts by Eshoo with help from Pelosi to Jump committee ranking did not go down well with the many members of House Democratic Caucus. District itself however is very much on the forefront of liberalism, progressivism and anti corporate tendencies. Sanders should be able to capture most of that easily. Expecting sanders to easily achieve (2-6) in favour which takes 68.8%.
The district by district for others will have to go onto a separate story.
Now onto 5 delegate districts.
For 5 Delegates Districts:
These districts, inherently providing delegate advantages, will be fought over hard. (Reminder about trigger percentages numbers, 15, 30, 50, 70, 85). The crossing that 50% will be an imperative. These districts have lower number of Democratic electorate by numbers. Hence their 5 delegate status. Higher number of Democratic electorate would have pushed them into higher delegate number category. It is worth bearing in mind that general demographics is not the same thing as electorate demographics which again is very different from Democratic Party electorate demographics. Voting age population is very different kettle of fish from Registered voters.
CD8: Safe republican district consisting of rural eastern California counties of Mono, Inyo and San Bernardino. Demographics: 70.1% White, 7.7% Black, 3.4% Asian, 1.3% Native Am. (35.9% Hispanic). Current republican representative Cook is not on the extreme side (i probably should say compared to others). Sanders crossover appeal while very good will still be hampered by party registration deadlines. Expecting a comfortable win for Sanders (2-3).
CD10: Somewhat competitive district but consistently incumbent Republican representative, consisting of Stalislaus and portions of San Joaquin counties. Demographics: 75.2% White, 6.3% Asian, 3.9% Black, 1.0% Native Am. (40.0% Hispanic). Crossover appeal good prospects for Sanders as a substantial chunk of voters as “no party preference”. Probably not enough to push Sanders into (1-4) region. Expecting Sanders to comfortably win this (2-3).
CD16: Very competitive district bordering CD10, consisting of Mercedes County and bits of Madera county, Population centre Fresno. Demographics: 58.6% White, 9.3% Asian, 5.9% Black, 1.1% Native Am. (58.1% Hispanic). The Hispanic population is mostly Mexican. Voter turnout based on anti-Trump should be high. Fertile district for progressive causes and plenty of young people and plenty of students given so many colleges but have they registered to vote and will they turn out, the permanent worry. Adding to that plenty of “no party preference” electorate, Sanders should be able to carry the district comfortable (2-3). (1-4) will need 75% which probably will depend on turnout.
CD22: Safely Republican district consisting of leftover parts of Fresno and some bits of Tulare. Demographics 71.6% White, 7.2% Asian, 3.1% Black (45.9% Hispanic). The mismatch between population data and electorate data is stark here with less than 15% Hispanic electorate. Once again should be fairly friendly and receptive to Sanders. Expecting Sanders to break is (2-3) in favour comfortably.
CD23: Another safe Republican district consisting of bits of Los Angeles, Kern and bits of Tulare. This is the home district of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Republican). Demographics 75.8% White, 6.8% Black, 5.2% Asian, 1.4% Native Am. (35.4% Hispanic). McCarthy bashing anti-republicans (or even just anti-McCarthy Republicans) should be prime target for boosting Sanders. Expecting Sanders to break is (2-3) in favour comfortably.
CD25: Another safe Republican district consisting of bits of Los Angeles. 63.7% White, 8.0% Asian, 7.7% Black (37.9% Hispanic) . Democratic Party turn out and organization presence is abysmally low here. Should be a very receptive ground for Sanders.
These are just some sample districts. There will be a district by district detailed junk covering each district if there is enough interest.
Previously covered states are all listed with the individual state links in this single document. I will be updating it as and when new states get done: All-Links-Collection-Delegate-Mathematics-Series-2016-Democratic-Primary
Enjoy and hopefully you will have spotted where you might tip the balance personally and like to campaign or make that extra push for your preferred candidate.
Todays shout outs to http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Satyameva Jayate I invite you to visit.