Novak: Clinton CA lead is mirage

[Sam Spade]

There aren't very many blacks in CA anymore... 

There aren't many blacks in NV relative to Hispanics yet each comprised 15% of the Democratic vote in the caucuses. Incidentally, Obama performed somewhat better among Hispanics (26%) than Hillary did among blacks (14%)

That said, I do expect Hispanics to be much more sizeable constituency in CA's Democratic primary

Dave

Problem, Dave:

Nevada:  Blacks 6.6%, Hispanics 19.7%
California:  Blacks 6.4%, Hispanics 32.4%, Asians 10.8%

Same amount of blacks, nearly twice as many Hispanics, and the Asian vote to throw in.

Also, those numbers are probably more for Hispanics and Asians and less for blacks than when they were conducted in 2000/2004.

sh**t, more Hispanics than I thought

Dave

Oddly enough, Obama probably stands a better chance in Arizona, because even though the geezer vote is larger and the Hispanics are about the same, and there are no blacks - the Hispanics tend to vote more Republican (go figure).

[gmo]

But the media will definitely be looking at Calif as the big prize.

I am not sure about this.  In fact I am not sure how the media itself will play the results if they are tight in a way open for interpretation.  Of particular interest is if the number of states split nearly evenly, though with Clinton winning the more delegate-rich ones.  The proportional scheme for the Dems makes it easier to call that a toss-up since Clinton is not able to completely run away with the lead.

The northeast and CA prizes bookend the evening.  What would the narrative be from early Clinton wins followed by a string of Obama victories then a Clinton win?  The media may like to proclaim a winner, but they also like a fight.

I would not say Obama has to win CA and immediately takeover as frontrunner.  He can gain incrementally and build with time.  In practice however indeed it may not be possible to make up enough ground on ST without a CA win.  Maybe very close in CA, more states won, and about even in delegates.  Not sure offhand if there is a path to that either though.

[Democratic Hawk]

Well, if it's of any interest, CA's racial demographics in the 2004 Democratic primary were as follows:

White (68%) African-American (8%) Latino (16%) Asian (4%) Other (5%)

Dave

[Verily]

Something that interests me: in national elections, exit polls may not be released until all polls have closed. Will we have to wait for the close of polls in California for exit polls and results to be released from other states? (I don't know when the Alaska caucus is, but it probably ends before California stops voting.)

This was not the case on "Nevada-South Carolina Day", but that was small-scale.

[Torie]

The revulsion of higher income Dem whites and independents (and California has more of them than most places) against Clinton will have to be very decisive to sink Hillary in California. My higher income Dem brother in the Bay area is voting for Edwards however because he is in the anger mode, and his wife is  voting for Hillary. The other Dem brother is indeed voting for Obama, but then he will be voting probably for McCain if Hillary gets the nomination, so he may not be that representative of anything. It may be tough for Obama to detach feminist  types from Hillary, and California has more of those than most places.

One other thing: Asians are 14% of the vote in the California Dem primary per SurveyUSA, and Clinton is carrying them by about 22 points (Obama is down 37 points with Hispanics who make up 29% of the Dem electorate). I think they pose another barrier to Obama in California.

[agcatter]

My wife and I talked about crossing over to vote for Obama if the Republican race looks settled.  In fact, we probably will since she's for Romney, I'm for McCain.  All we'd do is cancel each other's vote out anyway and we both hate Hillary.  Hmmm.  now that i think about it, count two Texas votes for Obama.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Obama can perform well in Texas because Indys can vote there, but he must get them to show.  Otherwise, the Hispanics will do to him what they've been doing in CA.

OH and PA, I agree.

But will Hispanics show up?  Jay Cost: "The Nevada entrance poll found that African Americans and Hispanics each comprised 15% of the total electorate. But Nevada as a whole is 6.6% African American, and 19.7% Hispanic."

If that pattern repeats itself in TX, Obama has a strong shot. Would you agree that Obama will win in Austin and Houston?

I predict he will, but I won't predict he'll win Texas. We have to see how Super Tuesday turns out. Keep in mind though, that the Texas Democratic Party (or what's left of it) basically has 4 factions, in order of size:

1. Latinos
2. Blacks
3. White latte liberals (mostly transplants from other parts of the country, plus UT Austin students)
4. Conservative Democrats (long the dominant faction, they defected to the GOP en masse during the 70s, 80s, and 90s, and now comprise a small remenant)

Houston, Dallas, Galveston, and some small pockets in East Texas will go for Obama because of blacks. He'll also win Austin because it's generally a very liberal city, plus it has UT-Austin, a very liberal campus. The other UTs are either apathetic or Republican, and Texas A&M, SMU, and Baylor have a reputations for being conservative. In the Houston area, you have University of Houston, which has lots of Hispanics, blacks, and Asians, so it'll be interesting to see how they vote... or if they vote at all. btw, Ron Paul seems to be hugely popular at Rice, but Rice students tend to be the computer nerd types who form the base of his support. Also it just might be the least politically active campus in the country.

But I digress. Clinton will do well  among Latinos in San Antonio, the Rio Grande Valley, and El Paso, racking up margins that will be difficult to overcome. The Houston area has far more Latinos than blacks, but blacks have much higher turnout, plus a very large % of latinos are underage or non-citizens. Edwards might be a factor in East Texas, and he'll definately reach 15% in a few congressional districts, though I doubt he will do so statewide.

[Mr. Morden]

Something that interests me: in national elections, exit polls may not be released until all polls have closed. Will we have to wait for the close of polls in California for exit polls and results to be released from other states?

No, I'm not sure what you mean by "in national elections, exit polls may not be released until all polls have closed".  Once all the polls close in a particular state, they release exit polls for that state, in some cases calling the state based on the exit poll, even while other states are still voting.  That's the way it's always been, even after the post-2000 election fiasco reforms, AFAIK.

[Verily]

Something that interests me: in national elections, exit polls may not be released until all polls have closed. Will we have to wait for the close of polls in California for exit polls and results to be released from other states?

No, I'm not sure what you mean by "in national elections, exit polls may not be released until all polls have closed".  Once all the polls close in a particular state, they release exit polls for that state, in some cases calling the state based on the exit poll, even while other states are still voting.  That's the way it's always been, even after the post-2000 election fiasco reforms, AFAIK.

I'm pretty certain that they do not release exit polls until after Hawaii finishes voting, though they often call states beforehand. Perhaps I'm just delusional.

[Mr. Morden]

Is there a delegate advantage to smaller states; that is, like the electoral college, are a few goven to each state and then the rest added based on population, or is it totally based on population?

There is a bonus for smaller states like in the electoral college, plus a bonus for "party strength" in the state, based on how the state voted in the last three presidential election.  Basically, for the Democrats, the number of delegates going to a state is something like this:

(proportionality constant) x (# of electoral votes the state has)  +  (bonus based on how heavily Democratic the state is, as judged by the last 3 presidential elections)

Also, in response to what some of you guys are saying about how the fact that the Dems assign delegates based on PR means that Obama can't really fall that far behind.....you're forgetting that that also means that it would be harder for him to catch up, because all the states that vote after Super Tuesday have the same PR rule.

So, for example, after Super Tuesday, about half the delegates will have been decided.  If those delegates are split 55% for Clinton and 45% for Obama, then Obama is in a world of hurt, because to catch back up, he not only has to win most of the remaining primaries, he has to win the remaining primaries by an average 55% to 45% margin, which is *extremely* difficult.  He couldn't just count on a few narrow victories to launch his comeback.  (My hypothetical is somewhat complicated by the fact that Edwards is also in the mix, but I think you get my drift.)

[Eraserhead]

I really think SUSA is overestimating hispanic and asian turnout.

[Michael Z]

I no longer trust any poll after what happened in New Hampshire...

[WalterMitty]

it isnt like novak hates the clintons or anything...

[Franzl]

I'm not really sure. While I don't believe that Obama will lose by double digits, I can't really imagine him beating Clinton in California. But then again, this is a crazy year. I sure hope he can pull it off.

[MODU]

If Obama were to win in California, it definitely puts additional pressure on Killary's campaign to come up with a key victory somewhere in a delegate-heavy state outside of New York.  At the moment, however, I don't think Obama has enough to carry the state, so he needs to come within 5-7% to keep the delegate count close.