BrendanLoy.com: Homepage | Photoblog | Weatherblog | Photos | Old blog archives

About me


I'm Brendan Loy, a 26-year-old graduate of USC and Notre Dame now living and working in Knoxville, Tennessee. My wife Becky and I are brand-new parents of a beautiful baby girl, born on New Year's Eve.

I'm a big-time sports fan, a politics, media & law junkie, an astronomy buff, a weather nerd, an Apple aficionado, a Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter fanatic, and an all-around dork. My blog is best-known for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina, but I blog about anything and everything that interests me.

You can contact me at irishtrojan [at] gmail.com, or donate to my "tip jar" by clicking the link below:

June 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member

« CNN Breaking News | Main | Tim McDonald wins GOP contest; Loy, Brown battle in Dem, combined contests »

CA delegates: Clinton 207, Obama 163; McCain 155, Romney 6

Looking at the California congressional district results on the Democratic side, it appears Hillary Clinton is going to get a bigger chunk of the delegates in that state than I thought. I had assumed that Obama, because of the urban black vote, would have a better chance of winning the district-level blowouts necessary to make even-numbered districts meaningful. But instead it was Hillary winning rural districts by enormous margins -- ratios of 2-to-1 or more in some cases -- while Obama was unable to do better than 61.5% in any district, and in fact only got majorities in seven of the state's 53 districts (and narrow pluralities in three or maybe four others).

After the jump, I crunch the numbers using the DNC allocation formula. The end result, as I suggest in the title of the post, is a delegate allocation of Clinton 207, Obama 163, give or take two or three delegates.

The Republicans' numbers are much easier to crunch, as they simply award each district's three delegates to the winner of the district. Looking at the GOP district-by-district results, it appears that McCain has won 48 of the 53 districts, with Romney apparently capturing CDs 21 and 52, and CDs 42, 49 and 50 too close to call (though McCain has a slim lead in all three). Romney was achingly close in a number of McCain's districts, but close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and Democratic primaries. So McCain comes away with, at a minimum, a whopping 144 district delegates, plus all 11 at-large delegates. Thus, the totals: McCain 155, Romney 6, with 9 undecided (but leaning McCain).

Again, after the jump, details on the Democratic allocations.

The big unexpected (to me, anyway) boon for Hillary is that it appears she'll beat Obama by the necessary 1.6667-to-1 ratio in at least 10 of the four-delegate districts: CDs 21, 31, 32, 34, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45 and 51. She may also reach the magic number in 16, 26, 40 and 51 -- those are too close to call, as to whether the delegates will be split 2-2 or will go 3-1 for Hillary. Assuming she gets two of those four districts, that's a two-delegate advantage in each of 12 out of the 26 four-delegate districts, for a total count of 64-40 in those districts.

The story is a bit different in the six-delegate districts, of which there are six. Obama does better in those districts, winning four of them -- but only in CD 9 is his margin big enough to surpass the 1.4-to-1 ratio needed to make the delegate breakdown 4-2 instead of 3-3. In the other five districts, it's 3-3. So Obama wins these districts by a combined count of 19-17.

As for the odd-numbered districts... there are two three-delegate districts, which are almost guaranteed to split 2-1 in the delegate unless one candidate fails to meet the 15% threshold. Clinton won both of these districts, CDs 20 and 47, by huge margins, but not huge enough for a 3-0 delegate tally. Instead, she wins each of 'em 2-1, for a 4-2 overall advantage.

That leaves the 19 five-delegate districts. All of these go to the district winner by a 3-2 delegate margin unless the winner beats the loser by a 2.33-to-1 ratio, in which case the delegate tally is 5-1. None of the five-delegate districts were nearly that lopsided; indeed, many of them were quite close. It appears that Clinton will get 3-2 delegate edges in thirteen of them, while Obama will get 3-2 edges of six of them. Two districts in each candidate's column are still quite close and could potentially flip, but assuming  Clinton and Obama both hold on where they're currently leading, the overall delegate count for the five-delegate districts will be 51-44 Clinton.

So, overall, Clinton wins the California congressional district delegates 136 to 105.

As for the statewide at-large delegates, my calculations have Clinton winning those 71 to 58.

Again, that gives us an overall California delegate breakdown of Clinton 207, Obama 163. That's a 44-delegate edge, which is pretty decent sized.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/38891/25858432

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CA delegates: Clinton 207, Obama 163; McCain 155, Romney 6:

Comments

Lower down, you were shocked that only 6% of CA voters were african american. You claimed CA was 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3 on the ethnicity scale... a gross misstatement... http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/research/res/pdf/GENtrends/CA_USpop/CA_USPop2002.pdf

As with many western states, CA has always had a much smaller proportion of african americans than it has had hispanics and asians. African americans didn't start showing up in CA at all pretty much until WWII. Hispanics and Asians are both significantly larger populations than african americans in CA.

You know, I think I was thinking of Los Angeles rather than California at large... or something. I swear I remember reading something about a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 split in the L.A. Times back when I was living out there. And then I Googled and found... what did I find... I forget. I found something, but I obviously must have misread it. Anyway, you're right. An honest but egregious error on my part. I'll go correct it now. Thanks.

Nope. Not LA either. Not by a long shot. You may be thinking of the USC neighborhood. That's only possibility I can think of.

The USC neighborhood is 50% black and 49% hispanic, so that's not right either.

Who knows what I was thinking of. Most likely, I was thinking that it was 4:30 in the morning and I should have been in bed. :) Anyway, it was egregiously wrong, and I've corrected it, and I apologize again for asserting as fact something so ridiculously incorrect. *buries head in shame*

Er, *hangs head in shame*, rather.

I'm mixing up my cranial metaphors, the other behind *buries head in sand*. That, I am not doing. :)

"...the other behind.."

Kicking a man when he's down, I know, but perhaps you mean "...the other being..."? ;)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Friends & family