Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

The Final, Final, Final Numbers from the Feb. 5 Primary

OK, on Saturday the Secretary of State’s office released the final official canvass of the vote in California.  The statewide numbers are here.  The district-level numbers are here.  A few notes:

• Turns out that, in final balloting, Hillary Clinton surged to 62.88% of the head-to-head vote in CA-51, giving her a 3-1 split in that district.  So the final delegate numbers will be 204-166.  So Clinton got 54.4% of the head-to-head vote against Barack Obama, and 55.14% of the delegates.

• The final percentage spread between Clinton and Obama was 8.3%, noticeably lower than previous reports.

• We had over 5 million voters participate in the California Democratic primary.  That’s 55% of the total votes cast and over SEVENTY-FOUR PERCENT of registered Democratic voters.  Wow.  Those numbers are here.  We also received two million more votes in the Democratic primary than in the Republican primary.  The total turnout was the highest ever by raw numbers, and the highest as a percentage of registered voters since 1980, when some guy named Reagan was on the ballot.

You can get to all the numbers from here, a lot of fun stuff in there.

More Delegate Math

Some folks with eagle eyes have noticed that the AP put out a story stating that the final pledged delegate count in California stands at 204 for Clinton and 166 for Obama.

Also Saturday, California’s Democratic Party finalized the delegate counts from its Feb. 5 primary. Clinton picked up two more pledged delegates, raising her state total to 204; Obama gained five, raising his figure to 166.

Well, the AP made a mistake — but it’s not in the numbers.  The California Democratic Party did not finalize the delegate counts.  The California Secretary of State finalized the election results.  Maybe it’s semantics, but I think it’s an important notation to make.

However, that number is correct.

Last week, David made his calculations and wrote about them based on the March 4 accounting published by the Secretary of State’s office.  Final certification, however, did not take place until March 8, and the final results are scheduled to be announced on Monday, March 17.  But the official Statement of Vote has been posted on the Secretary of State’s website, and the numbers have changed since the March 4 report. Every other district’s delegate count will remain the same as that calculated by David, but in CA-51 (Bob Filner’s district) the change in the final numbers was enough to prompt a delegate shift.

The March 4 numbers showed Clinton with 40,372 votes (59.2%) and Obama with 24,867 votes (36.5%) in CA-51.

But after March 4, even more votes were counted. The final Statement of Vote published by the SoS shows Clinton with 45,598 (60.2%) and Obama with 26,912 (35.6%). That change was enough to take the district from a 2-2 split to a 3-1 split.

And that took the total number of pledged delegates from David’s calculation of 203-167 to the 204-166 reported by the AP.

On a completely different topic…

While we’re discussing delegates, there’s another issue that needs to be addressed.  Before the primary election even occurred, the CDP devised a District Delegate allocation plan to ensure that there was gender balance between the District Delegates who will attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer.  

The method the CDP used was simple. They put the District Delegate slots onto a spreadsheet, Numbers 1 through 241, and assigned the gender on an even-odd basis, e.g., male, female, male, female, etc., all the way from 1 to 241. Then they started at the top of the spreadsheet and entered the delegates for the Congressional Districts in numerical order, CD-01 through CD-53.

So now (and remember, this is pre-February 5) the spreadsheet looked like this:

Delegate 1 Female CD-01
Delegate 2 Male CD-01
Delegate 3 Female CD-01
Delegate 4 Male CD-01
Delegate 5 Female CD-01
Delegate 6 Male CD-02
Delegate 7 Female CD-02
Delegate 8 Male CD-02
Delegate 9 Female CD-02

… all the way on through Delegate 241, Female, CD-53.

So now that the election is over and the results have been certified, the District Delegates assigned to Clinton and Obama will be dropped into the slots in their Congressional Districts. The winning candidate in each CD is entered first.  

So, for instance, in CD-01, Obama received 47.2% of the vote to Clinton’s 44.9% — he will receive three delegates to her two.  So Delegates 1-3 are assigned to Obama; Delegates 4 and 5 are assigned to Clinton. That means that in CD-01’s April 13 delegate caucus, Obama supporters will vote for Delegates 1, 2 and 3, two females and one male; Clinton supporters will choose Delegates 4 and 5, one male and one female.

In CD-02, where Clinton received 46.5% of the vote and Obama received 41.9%, each will receive two delegates.  Clinton’s supporters will choose Delegates 6 and 7, one male and one female, and Obama’s supporters will select Delegates 8 and 9, also one male and one female. I think you probably catch the drift.

However, there’s a rub.  There’s always a rub.

Now that the vote has taken place and the District Delegates have been apportioned, it turns out that there are 13 Congressional Districts where a candidate only received one delegate. And in all 13 of those Congressional Districts, the candidate with just one delegate is Obama. What that means is that the District Delegates elected by the Obama caucuses in these 13 Congressional Districts are going to be restricted on the basis of gender.

Here’s how it will break down:

CD-18 Cardoza Male
CD-20 Costa Female
CD-21 Nunes Female
CD-31 Becerra Male
CD-32 Solis Male
CD-34 Roybal-Allard Female
CD-38 Napolitano Male
CD-39 Sanchez, Linda Male
CD-41 Lewis Male
CD-43 Baca Male
CD-45 Bono Male
CD-47 Sanchez, Loretta Female
CD-51 Filner Male

Only one person of the gender listed above will be elected at those April 13 District Delegate caucus. So, for instance, a woman cannot be elected as a District Delegate in CD-18; a man cannot be elected in CD-47.

And here’s the deal. We know that there are people who really worked their hearts out for Obama and that some people will feel disenfranchised by the system that’s been put into place. That’s why we wanted to explain this early and as fully as possible. Trust me, we feel their pain. And we sincerely hope that once folks have gotten over their initial disappointment, they don’t let this deter them from jumping in and working hard in future Democratic campaigns.

In the meantime, people can always apply to be At-Large Delegates using the Form B application. The deadline to apply to be an At-Large Delegate is April 23, at 5:00 p.m.

Penny

Online Organizing Director

California Democratic Party

San Jose – Superdelegate Ground Zero?

Everybody should get out their Bob Mulholland novelty masks, just for the party access possibilities:

The road to the Democratic National Convention in Denver may go through San Jose.

The state Democratic Party is holding its annual meeting here the final weekend in March, and party officials are awaiting word on whether Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will accept invitations to appear.

Why would the dueling Democrats come when Pennsylvania holds the next crucial primary April 22?

One word: superdelegates. And perhaps a chance to throw in a megabuck fundraiser or two.

“There will more politicking going on at this convention than in decades,” predicted Bob Mulholland, adviser to the state party. Mulholland would know. He’s one of about 20 uncommitted superdelegates in California whom the campaigns are heavily wooing in their quest to secure their party’s nomination.

The convention is right in the sweet spot, a few weeks before Pennsylvania.  And the fundraising opportunities in the Bay Area are numerous.  I don’t think there’s any question that Obama and Clinton will be on hand.  But will there be chocolate fountain parties for uncommitted superdelegates only?

Why Are Women A Declining Resource in California Politics?

When did it become politically incorrect for women candidates to be passionate about running for public office?  As I sit here reading the events surrounding the resignation of the Obama campaign’s foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, I can’t help but feel this strikes yet another blow for fight for equal representation for women.  Yes, Ms. Power’s remarks crossed a political boundary, but even more disturbing is her reasoning for using the word she did.  Ms. Power twisted Senator Clinton’s passion, drive, ambition and commitment to her presidential bid with a negative spin comparable to that of little children on a playground.  Is this typical of how the average woman views female candidates?  

Unfortunately, I am finding through my work as Founder of the CALIFORNIA LIST that Ms. Power is not the exception to the rule.  Women elected officials are in decline in California and female candidates are becoming more and more a tough sell – even to their fellow women.  Why?  Recent focus groups of women voters moderated by pollsters at Fairbank, Maslin, and Maullin found that those traits that make a woman inherently feminine are sometimes the biggest obstacles.  Women candidates who are passionate about the issues are instantly labeled in the media as emotional or wimpy and those who are too restrained are cold and un-nurturing.

I don’t know about you, but compassion and strength are high on my list of must haves for those I want representing me.   After all, insatiable passion has been the catalyst to some of American’s greatest heroines.  Cady Elizabeth Stanton’s passion for equality drove her to spearhead the American women’s movement securing a women’s right to right.  Rosa Parks’ passion against racial inequality drove her to sit in the “white section” of that Alabama bus.  Passion is essential and ambition is the breeding ground for all positive change. Research indicates that women electeds consistently champion those issues women voters number as a top priority such as education, health care, the environment, and reproductive choice.  It follows that women need to equal the playing field in the male dominated political arena to have our voices heard.  Electing women matters and supporting viable women candidates give that us the voices that represent our choices.

The mission of the CALIFORNIA LIST is to augment the pipeline of Democratic women candidates and elected officials in statewide offices. Our goal is to create a future generation of progressive female leaders while strengthening the bond between informed voters, statewide representatives, and political activists in California.  Visit our website and let us know why you think women are a declining resource in the California political landscape.

Bettina Duval is the founder of the California List, a political fundraising network that helps elect Democratic women to all branches of California state government.

Chuck Todd Lies On National Television

So I’m watching Countdown, and Olbermann brings up the delegate math in the wake of Barack Obama’s victory in Mississippi.  He teases a discussion with Chuck Todd about “changes in the delegates in Texas, one week after the voting, and changes in the delegates in California, one MONTH later!”

So I think to myself, “Self, are you about to be mentioned on Countdown?”  Because, as has been well-documented, it was changes originated on this website that led to the national media meekly changing their delegate totals to reflect reality.

So Chuck Todd comes on the show, and Olbermann asks him about California, and Todd hems and haws about there being “a lot of absentee and provisional ballots counted late” in the state, which is true, and about how some 3-1 delegate splits in various districts changed to 2-2, which is also true.  Then he said, “and so when all the votes came in, it turns out Obama netted four delegates out of these districts in the last week.” (rough transcript)

Yeah, that’s actually kind of a lie.  There has been no movement in the delegate count since CA-53 flipped to Obama on February 15.  Most of the delegate changes happened very early.  MSNBC just turned away from the counting, neglected to pay attention, and now makes the demonstrably false statement that Obama netted delegates “in the last week.”

What actually happened was that my post about the real delegate counts got picked up by the Wall Street Journal and shamed the entire national media into getting it right.  But I guess that wouldn’t sound too good on Countdown.

It’ll sound good in my email to Keith.

WSJ on the National Media’s CA Delegate Problem

The Wall Street Journal has a writeup on my findings of the discrepancy between the national media’s California delegate counts and, you know, the actual count.  

A California politics blogger has argued that Sen. Clinton won 36 more pledged delegates in the state than Sen. Obama, rather than the 44-delegate margin that has long been included in the news organizations’ tallies. A spokesman for the state party confirms the blogger’s numbers.

The shift, if validated once the state certifies its election results this week and the party chooses its delegates, is a reminder that the commonly reported delegate totals are mere estimates, subject to change as states finalize election results. It also highlights how a blogger with intense focus on the numbers may be faster than the established delegate counters.

David Dayden, who blogs at the site Calitics and serves on its editorial board, wrote last week that Sen. Clinton won 203 of the state’s 370 pledged delegates – and not the commonly reported total of 207. He relied on updated vote totals from the state, based on late counts of absentee and provisional ballots. Later, when he noticed that several major news organizations still were showing Sen. Clinton with 207 delegates, he wrote a follow-up post explaining his calculation and exhorting, “I know math is hard and everything, but get out your calculators, people.”

I’ve long since given up on trying to correct the misspelling of my name, the most misspelled five-letter word in the English language.  But the author did a good job describing the situation.  The “delegate counters” at the media outlets have pretty much ignored these states once Election Day ends.  As Bob Mulholland rightly points out in the piece, this count has been this way for at least two weeks.  There was ample time to catch up.  But it took public pressure to get them to do it:

The New York Times’s page for California results shows the 207-163 result, but a page listing delegate totals for each state showed the 203-167 margin. NBC and CBS still showed the 207-163 margin. An inquiry to New York Times polling editor Janet Elder wasn’t returned. An NBC spokesman told me, “Apparently, there are discrepancies between the state count and the individual county tallies.” Kathy Frankovic, director of surveys for CBS News, told me, “delegate allocation is a work in progress.” (UPDATE: Ms. Frankovic told me later Monday that CBS would update its totals to reflect the 203-167 margin. “Thanks for alerting us to the problem,” she said.)

NBC is spinning madly.  They just stopped paying attention.

The official canvass will be done on March 15, and we’ll know at that point what the final number is.  Until then, I wouldn’t trust anything on those “delegate scoreboards”.

More on the Delegate Count

The best thing in the world about CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen is that the best way to reach her is through her Facebook page.  So she got back to me pretty quickly when I asked about this delegate situation.  I was wrong about a couple things.  The vote has not been certified, although I was led to believe that the counting had to stop within 30 days of the voting, which would have been March 4.  In fact, that may be true; but the county registrars have a few days left to report their results.  Also, it’s up to the state Democratic Party to award the delegates, but that’s based on the certified vote count in the respective districts.  The upshot is that the counties have to report by March 11, and Secretary of State Bowen will certify the vote by March 15.  Then the CDP will award delegates based on that.

So the numbers are still subject to change slightly.  But none of this should obscure the fact that, based on the current numbers, the delegate count is 203-167.  And the zombie lie that it’s different has spread to the pages of the Washington Post:

To be sure, Team Obama’s small-state strategy may have been the candidate’s only option against a far-better-known opponent, and it has worked. In the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests that Obama’s campaign staff had hoped to merely survive, Obama and Clinton just about broke even. He won more delegates in Kansas and Idaho than she won in New Jersey. Her big win in California — with its net gain of 41 delegates — was negated by his wins in Georgia and Nebraska.

Except the net gain is currently 36 delegates, but what the hell do I know, I’m not some big-city editor.

Not Even A Thank You?

Yesterday I wrote a diary proving that the national media had their delegate counts completely wrong for weeks.  I sent an email to the AP referencing this and asking them to change their counts.  

Well, here’s where we are after Day 1.  Real Clear Politics changed their count.  The New York Times changed their count.  CBS has not.  MSNBC has not.  CNN still has it at 204-161 with five delegates undecided.

To the Times and RCP: you’re welcome.  To the others: get with the damn program.

I have calls and emails in to the Secretary of State’s office to confirm this, but I’m going by their own numbers.

Hey, Catch Up, National Media

Being that I kind of don’t pay attention to the national media’s delegate counts, I hadn’t realized that they were all getting California so very, very wrong, and in fact are about 800,000 votes off from the official tally.  Apparently many news organizations predict that Clinton will reap 207 delegates from California, and Obama 163.  MSNBC has this.  Real Clear Politics has this.  CBS has this.  The New York Times has this.  CNN has it as 204-161 with 5 to be decided.  They’re all simply wrong, and I know math is hard and everything, but get out your calculators, people.

Here’s an example at MSNBC’s site.  They list 2,144,251 votes for Clinton and 1,746,013 for Obama, which was right… about two weeks ago.  The actual official returns, readily available at the Secretary of State’s website, are 2,553,784 for Clinton and 2,126,600 for Obama.  That’s really, really off.  The final percentage is 8.7% and MSNBC lists it as 10%.  And that translates to a 70-59 split in delegates statewide.  They’re probably getting that wrong, too, not recognizing that there are two kinds of statewide delegates which are calculated separately.  When you add in the district-level delegate allocation (and I could list them all, but trust me on this), you get 203-167.  It takes about 10 minutes to come up with this and it’s completely irresponsible for the national media to have this wrong for over two weeks, and to relentlessly show a graphic of delegate counts with bad, outdated information.  In fact, it calls into question ALL of their other counts.

MSNBC, The New York Times, CBS, CNN and RCP need to get this right, today.  They’re screwing up and hurting America (again).  What a bunch of incompetents.

UPDATE: Just to embarrass the national media further, I’m going to show my work on the flip.

I noted the popular vote totals before: 2,553,784 for Clinton and 2,126,600 for Obama.  All other candidate totals drop out because they’re under 15%, so the statewide delegates are factored by proportion of the head-to-head vote.  There are 81 at-large delegates and 48 PLEO (Party Leader/Elected Official) delegates.  If you do the math, Hillary got 54.56% of the head-to-head, and that factors to a 44-37 split on at-large and a 26-22 split on PLEOs.

So we’re at 70-59.  The delegate allocations for each of the 53 districts are here.  The district-wide returns are here.  The key numbers are:

It takes 62.5001% of the head-to-head vote for a 3-1 split in a 4-delegate district.

It takes 58.3301% of the head-to-head vote for a 4-2 split in a 6-delegate district.

In the 21 CDs with an odd number of delegates, the presidential candidate with the most votes gets the most delegates in each of those CDs.

So, and you can do this math yourself given all the parameters outlined for you:

District   Delegates  Obama   Clinton

CA-01           5               3             2

CA-02           4               2             2

CA-03           4               2             2

CA-04           5               2             3

CA-05           5               3             2

CA-06           6               3             3

CA-07           5               2             3

CA-08           6               3             3

CA-09           6               4             2

CA-10           5               2             3

CA-11           4               2             2

CA-12           6               3             3

CA-13           5               2             3

CA-14           6               3             3

CA-15           5               2             3

CA-16           4               2             2  (this one is really close, but she has 62.47% of that vote)

CA-17           5               2             3

CA-18           4               1             3

CA-19           4               2             2

CA-20           3               1             2

CA-21           4               1             3

CA-22           4               2             2

CA-23           5               3             2

CA-24           5               2             3

CA-25           4               2             2

CA-26           4               2             2

CA-27           5               2             3

CA-28           5               2             3

CA-29           5               2             3

CA-30           6               3             3

CA-31           4               1             3

CA-32           4               1             3

CA-33           5               3             2

CA-34           4               1             3

CA-35           5               3             2

CA-36           5               2             3

CA-37           5               3             2

CA-38           4               1             3

CA-39           4               1             3

CA-40           4               2             2

CA-41           4               1             3

CA-42           4               2             2

CA-43           4               1             3

CA-44           4               2             2

CA-45           4               1             3

CA-46           4               2             2

CA-47           3               1             2

CA-48           4               2             2

CA-49           4               2             2

CA-50           5               2             3

CA-51           4               2             2

CA-52           4               2             2

CA-53           5               3             2

If you add that all up, the district totals are 133 for Clinton and 108 for Obama.  Add that to the 70-59 statewide split, and it’s 203-167.

Nice job, national media.