On Open Marriages and Closed Elections

Is Hillary Clinton, or someone on her behalf, cheating in this season’s Democratic primary?

That may depend on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

And also the meaning of the term “Democratic primary.”

Cheating is a word that simply is redefined in an open marriage. Same goes for closed primaries, apparently. Hillary and Bill Clinton have had an open marriage for decades. Most of us don’t know the terms of the arrangement. Nor should we, I suppose. Don’t sleep with my friends or lovers might be one. Who knows? Palling around with Jeffrey Epstein the pedophile?

Fine.

But getting caught in the Monica Lewinsky affair was a “huge personal lapse.”

Bernie is in on the game too. In Arizona and New York he and his inner circle have privately sent clear signals of support for efforts to challenge the integrity of primary results; publicly Sanders expresses outrage at Donald Trump’s nickname for Clinton: “Crooked Hillary.”

Sanders, we must remember, was as surprised as the good folks at FiveThirtyEight that his campaign was anything like competitive. The Senator from Vermont is an incrementalist of a different sort. He has real principles and means what he says when he says it (anyone carrying a torch for Sanders to run as an independent or with Jill Stein is setting themselves up for disappointment). But the way he’s gotten things done for his entire career as a federal politician involves loudly denouncing reactionary Democratic policies and appointments, then going along with them anyway in order to win some lesser prize.

The goal in a closed primary is to get more people registered with your party to vote for you than for the other people. That might mean getting more people who want to vote for you registered and to the polls; it might also mean making sure less people who support the other candidates are actually registered and registered in time. What counts as cheating in achieving those goals? Who knows for sure? It’s a party affair; let the people who throw the party decide.

Are the Democratic primaries democratic? (Hang on for a minute as we enter bizzaro-land; pay attention to the work various words and letters are doing.)

Sure the Democratic primaries are Democratic.

By definition.

If you were a Democrat way back on October 9th and have managed to defend your “D” registration against switching and purging all the way through to voting day, then you were or will be guaranteed the right to help select the next Democratic presidential nominee.

If not, well, you might be allowed to vote, depending on the state you live in. And your vote might even be counted, if enough people think it matters to count it.

Have a problem with all of this? Well, probably like Bernie you aren’t really a Democrat anyway. If you complain about the fact that closed primaries disenfranchise millions of voters state by state, you’re just another part of the sore losers cult that is helping make America ungovernable. The rules may be weird and wrong but Team Bernie and everyone else in the club knew what the rules were way back when.

The idea that independents and young people of all races and ethnicities who have never registered “D” before should be welcomed with open arms into a democratic primary, err Democratic Primary, is cute and quaint. To the extent they can help the Democratic machinery, of course! GIVE US THAT LIST, MR. SANDERS! But there is a reason the public purse pays for elections to the leadership of a private club. If you don’t understand why that’s Democratic, then you probably don’t understand democracy.

There is the idea out there, and here I’ll just be confessional – at various parts of the day I can be captured by it, that if someone could produce enough evidence, if a real independent analysis could be agreed to by all, if a clear and convincing case could be made that Diebold machines are easily hackable and if exit poll patterns and hand-counted versus electronic ballot analysis were attended to and if there were enough proof of actually miscounted votes and surreptitiously switched registrations and if metadata analytics….

STOP!

Let’s talk reality here: thousands upon thousands of Democrats don’t think Hillary Clinton is very honest, but they voted for her anyway. Or at least ballots were cast for her on their behalf. On Tuesday, for instance, 17% of the people in Pennsylvania voting Democrat who told exit pollsters that Clinton wasn’t honest and trustworthy voted for her anyway. In Georgia, where the former Secretary of State outperformed initial exit polls by 12.2%, 33% of Democratic voters who found Clinton untrustworthy cast their ballots for her nonetheless.

For party stalwarts, this is actually something to chuckle about privately whilst winking and nodding publicly.

From the outside, and if you aren’t a Clinton fan you are definitely on the outside, you may think you know what cheating means and why it is wrong. You may think you have to be careful before presenting evidence that something amiss is going down. But you are missing the larger Democratic point.

Hillary Clinton won’t get beat by cheating Republicans because, how to end this politely, she has spent years in close quarters with cheaters and knows how to get what she wants anyway.

Advertisements

To Clear the Air, Bernie Sanders Should Challenge New York Results

In November 2004, the officially announced results of the Ukrainian presidential election differed from exit polling by 12%.

U.S. officials officially cried fraud.

Last Tuesday, the results of the New York primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders differed from exit polling by 12%.

Tim Robbins has cried fraud, and the Washington Post’s most consistent Clinton hack this cycle is leading the charge in mocking him.

A friend of mine, a Sanders supporter who acted as a poll worker in Brooklyn, initially saw nothing wrong, suggesting that a bunch of people, who were ineligible to vote, cast provisional ballots for Sanders and then told exit pollsters that they voted accordingly. My friend, who has not given me specific permission to use their name, worked a precinct in the Greenpoint neighborhood, Sanders’ best in New York City. About one-third of all ballots were cast provisionally in that precinct.

But that would not explain why exit polling has been so bad in fifteen other states, missing consistently to Clinton’s benefit and outside the margin of error in eight states with open or mixed primaries.

When exit polling and final results are substantially off in places where the U.S. doesn’t like the party that wins, U.S. officials and their media partners cry foul. This has been true in recent decades not just in Ukraine, but also in Belarus, Serbia, and Venezuela. Statistically improbable exit polling differences matter everywhere else, it seems, but not here.

Partisans on either side of the GOP-Democratic divide generally accept that election fraud was engaged in by the likes of Kennedy, Nixon, and possibly George W. Bush. Bloomberg, not exactly a left-wing rag, has very strongly suggested that hacking of U.S. elections has taken place and is taking place in this cycle. Direct testimony from Chicago’s audit of Clinton versus Sanders results says the results were fiddled with in favor of Clinton. There are multiple lawsuits and a federal investigation into voter suppression and potential election fraud in Arizona, with a Federal judge insisting that a hearing on fraudulently switched registrations continue today, against the protestations of Arizona elections officials. A New York Board of Elections official has been scapegoated and suspended without pay for purging more than 126,000 voters in Brooklyn where initial exit polls showed Bernie Sanders doing much better than final results. (This scapegoating and likely firing while perhaps tens of thousands of Brooklyn provisional ballots sit uncounted has caused my friend to re-assess whether anything corrupt may be happening.)

When will we take the possibility that funny business is happening seriously?

There was a glaring error in the chart that Tim Robbins tweeted out yesterday; Wisconsin exit polling at closing time showed an 11 point win for Sanders, not a 27 point win.  The more accurate numbers are here and in the chart above. I’ve also looked up the initial announcements for Iowa, New Hampshire (which I cannot find), Nevada, and South Carolina. I’ll go into the details in another post at goodgawdanotherblog.wordpress.com, to be published by tomorrow morning.

Here’s the bottom line:

In seventeen out of nineteen contests with exit polling since the caucuses in Iowa and Nevada, the exit polls have over-estimated Bernie Sanders’ eventual share of the vote, usually substantially. In nine out of the nineteen contests, the initial exit poll results were outside the margin of error. This is a stunning number of times. There is absolutely no correlation with closed versus open primaries or South versus non-South contests. Translated to a delegate count (not including Arizona because there was no exit polling): Bernie Sanders would have about 58 delegates more and Clinton 58 less. The gap between the two would be about 119 instead of 235. This gap would be closeable, while the actual number is not.

(I have not moved the delegate results for the exit polling in these states because, taken together, the evidence seems to suggest relatively accuracy: Iowa (+6 Sanders versus exit poll at closing), Nevada (-8), New Hampshire (?), Oklahoma (+6), Florida (-3), North Carolina (-2), Wisconsin (+3) for a total of +2 for Sanders in these seven or eight states, about a quarter point deviation from Even when taken in average.)

The only way to begin to clear the air is for the Sanders campaign to use the provisions available via §9–208 of New York’s Board of Election Rules. Those rules allow Sanders to have a representative available while results are reviewed in each election district in the next week.

If there is nothing amiss, let’s put the wild theories to rest immediately with a real review. This, by the way, is what happened in Venezuela in 2004 where the Carter Center negotiated a recount of the vote with both parties present. The recount validated the previous final results. If that happens in New York, Arizona, and Illinois, Sanders fans will just have to admit that Bernie could not get enough traction with Black and Latino voters and re-strategize. Until then, a massive cloud hangs in the air.

Quick Predicts for April 26 Democratic Primaries

At this point, I think it’s a very real possibility that election fraud has seriously depressed Bernie Sanders’ results in a wide variety of states including New York last week. I will presenting the best non-conspiratorial case and the best election fraud case I can present in a post later today or tomorrow morning.

Bottom Line: If exit polling data were anything like accurate on the Democratic side (as it basically is on the GOP side), Sanders would be down only about 120 delegates rather than 235, as he is currently. It’s a very massive difference.

So the following predictions are made with a huge asterisk. They are what I think the results would likely be, based on my modeling, without tampering. I’ve engaged my model less rigorously because busy-ness, the likelihood the race is essentially over, and tampering possibilities that seem real. Another way to put it: this is what I expect the exit polls to look like in each state when polls close.

Rhode Island: Sanders +8.9
Pennsylvania: Sanders +4.4
Connecticut: Clinton +0.2
Delaware: Clinton +5.5
Maryland: Clinton +25.8

The net delegate count for this, if accurate, would be a gain of 10-12 delegates for Clinton. Being down about 130 delegates (if the exit polling were correct), would mean a very competitive race going into the last 8 weeks or so of the contest.

New York Primary: Why Is Exit Poll Data Adjusted to Match Final Voting Results?

Tuesday night CNN projected a 52-48 Clinton win based on exit polling data at 9pm when polls closed in New York. Very similar numbers from ABC at the same time said voters by a 52-47 margin thought Clinton was more inspiring, a number you’d think would closely reflect how people voted. Clinton won the final reported tally by 16%, and by late night and early this morning, exit polling data available at CNN and elsewhere much more closely matched a mid-double digit margin for Clinton. Some of the turn arounds in terms of specific demographics were rather remarkable, especially since just 24 respondents were added to the relevant sample size.

Earlier, Clinton lead Sanders by 14% (57-43%) with Latina and Latino voters as I reported in my exit poll live blog. This was consistent with my 56-44% projection based primarily on the average of a half a dozen polls from the week and a half before New York voted. The final exit poll, however, shows Clinton doubling her lead to a 28% win with hispanic voters. Early reports suggested Sanders was winning 69-31% with voters under 45. Final exit polling shows him winning by just 10%, 55-45%, and included him losing the 30-39 year old demographic by 4%. Sanders has not lost 30-39-year-olds anywhere outside the South, including Ohio where he won with them by 18% but lost the overall vote by 14%.

From a statistical standpoint, this intrigued me.

Swings that radical, if the initial sampling is accurate in terms of size and randomness, are unusual but not out of the realm of possibility. My expectation was that those numbers would become more favorable to Sanders, not less. Sanders won rural upstate 58-42. Polls in rural upstate opened at noon, six hours later than polls in Buffalo and downstate, and just a handful of hours before initial exit polling was released. In Wisconsin, where I watched exit polling shifts carefully, younger voters voted later and stretched results more in Sanders favor.

I wanted to see what the initial sample size was. What I found was rather shocking.

As late as between 9-10pm eastern, the exit polls were still reporting similar numbers. John Aravosis wanted to prove that White Bernie-Bros are a real and measurable phenomenon. He took screenshots of CNN exit polling and posted them to his blog at 9:40pm last night. As of then, Clinton was leading Bernie Sanders with Latinos 59-41% with a 1367 sample size, just a 4% swing from earlier reporting. This made sense statistically, even if it wasn’t more favorable to Sanders as I expected.

But what happened next gets really weird. At that point, according not only to Aravosis’ blog, but also according to numbers I reported on my liveblog, CBS numbers still available as of this writing, and various Twitter users, Sanders was winning the 41% of the population 18-44 by a margin of 61-39% and was losing over 45-year-olds by the same 61-39% margin. These numbers are consistent with a 4 to 5 point Clinton win.

Here’s the deal, though. The sample size grew in the last two renditions of the exit polling by just 24 respondents, first from 1367 to 1383 when I took several screen shots for my liveblog just after 11pm eastern and then to 1391 as of Wednesday morning. Over the same period, Clinton’s lead grew by 10% from 18% with Latinos to 28%. Her lead also grew by 10% among those 45 and over and shrunk by 12% with those under 45.  In exit poll version (2), Sanders lead with white people (59% of the vote) by 9%, in exit poll (3) by just 2%, and now with exit poll (4) it is tied.

This would be possible and reasonable with a very large growth in sample size, but, as you might imagine, is mathematically impossible without serious data fiddling in this instance. Sanders lead with the same sampling grown by just 1.8% dropped by 12% overall, by nine percentage points with men, by 12% with young voters, and by 9% with white voters. Meanwhile, Clinton’s lead with Latinx voters grew from 18% to 28% and with black voters by 2%.

Apparently, the last 24 respondents to exit polls yesterday were all Latina or black female Clinton voters over 44, and they were all allowed also to count more than double while replacing more than one male Sanders voters under 45.

To put this plainly: the numbers add up to 341 18-44-year-old voters for Sanders out of 1367 total respondents as of 9pm exit polls, version (2), that said it was a close race. By the next morning, the maximum number of Sanders voters 18-44 in the same data had dropped to just 313. Edison Research removed twenty-eight young white male Sanders respondents and has given no public explanation for the same. The initial overall exit poll, +4 or +5 Clinton, was outside the margin of error for the final result, Clinton +16 with 99.6% reporting.

I have attempted to contact Edison Research for a response. Yesterday afternoon, I was patched through to the voice mail of Joe Lenski, co-founder and Executive Vice-President of Edison. He has not responded and other calls and emails have also gone unanswered. I will update this piece if anyone from Edison responds.

 

 

DeBlasio Rescues Clinton and the Banksters from Bernie Kong

Lost in appropriate outrage over Hillary Clinton and New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio’s “Colored People (or Concerned Politician) Time” skit were the underlying tensions giving rise to the racialized joke. DeBlasio was Clinton’s campaign manager for her successful Senate run in 2000 but waited until mid-Autumn last year to endorse her presidential run. DeBlasio took even longer to begin campaigning on Clinton’s behalf against Bernie Sanders, recently portrayed  on the front page of Tuesday’s New York Post, and elsewhere, as King Kong threatening damsel-in-distress Clinton and the New York skyline.

Bernie KongMy predictive powers for the Democratic primaries have been a mixed-bag, but never have I been so wrong at such an important time as in New York, and especially New York City. My analysis suggested that polling firms basically had New York City right and were severely discounting Sanders’ strength Upstate.

The polls somewhat discounted Sanders strength Upstate and did not foresee Clinton’s huge win in NYC. The average for the seven polling firms that published their regional splits was a 55-38 advantage for Clinton in the City with six or seven percent undecided.

The average of the four pollsters my scorecard expected to be the best (Quinnipiac, Monmouth, Siena, Baruch) was a 51-39 Clinton advantage with 10% undecided. I expected undecideds to go for Sanders, as in the past, about 3-2 and hoped late momentum might even get him from 55-45 to 53-47 in NYC. He lost the five boroughs by an average of 63-37. At least as importantly, Clinton claimed a draw with 25-44-year-olds, a demographic that DeBlasio won by 50% in 2013 and that my model expected to go for Sanders about 2:1. Even as DeBlasio’s political fortunes have waned and waxed, young people and people of color, key demographics in New York City, have kept the putatively progressive mayor afloat above 50% popularity.

By way of comparison, Sanders lost in Chicago by less than 10% and the state of Illinois overall by just one delegate. In Illinois, Sanders won the under 45 set by 40%. In New York, he won it by just 10% even though the racialized demographics of Illinois and New York’s Democratic electorate are nearly identical.

NY Exit Poll Age Splits via CNN

NY Age Splits via CNN

IL Exit Poll Age Splits via CNN

IL Exit Poll Age Splits via CNN

In Chicago, Clinton was supported quietly by Rahm Emanuel, whose popularity is at the bottom of the tank. Sanders enjoyed very public and enthusiastic support from Emanuel’s surprisingly strong Latino challenger last Fall, Chuy Garcia. While there are other differences that matter between Chicago and New York, this seems to me by far the most important.

Absent double digit wins in Pennsylvania and Indiana the next two Tuesdays, outcomes neither polling or my Bernie-biased modeling predict, there is absolutely no path for Sanders to win the nomination. There will be a lot of praise for an insurgent campaign that even Bernie originally thought to be nothing more than an issues or protest candidacy and an equal or greater share of blame to go around.

Some of us have counted Democratic politicians such as Elizabeth Warren and DeBlasio as allies in the struggle against Wall Street monstrosity. Their neutrality or active campaigning for the banksters’ favorite candidate bar-none, however, means a significant share of the disappointment and frustration will reasonably be sent their way. Given the outcome however, it’s unlikely to cause Warren and DeBlasio much concern as politicians.

A final note of gratitude for all of you who have read my columns here regularly. I apologize for the false hopes I have created. It’s time to eat my Bernie math and move on.

New York Exit Poll Fun Time

11:35: Final update for me tonight. Doesn’t look like anymore delegates will change hands. Clinton +31. Worse than I expected possible in terms of percentage points (15.2% with 94% reporting); almost the worst I expected in terms of delegate loss. Looking at the calendar going forward, I don’t see how Sanders can make it up absent something completely unexpected over the next two weeks in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, and Indiana.

It was good run, Bernie Sanders. Millions upon millions of us agree with you that the United States is morally bankrupt economically and that Henry Kissinger is a war criminal, not someone to cherish. Millions more, unfortunately want these jokers running things:
Trump Clinton
The revolution will not be voted into office.

11:05: According to the final exit polling, white people and 25-39-year-olds voted for Clinton at a far far higher rate than expected. Clinton almost won both of those demographics. She tied the 30-39 year old demographic 50-50, and Sanders had just a 10 point advantage with 25-29-year-olds. Sanders won with white people in NY just 51-49.

NY Age Splits

NY Age Splits per exit polling at CNN

Here are Illinois’ age splits, by contrast (where Sanders and Clinton split delegates and the non-white share of the vote and how much Clinton won it by was virtually equal, slight edge to Illinois with 42% non-white voters versus 41% in New York):

Illinois Age Splits 2

10:30: My worst case likely scenario was Clinton winning by 35 delegates. According to the Green Papers, she’s up 33 delegates right now. When Nassau County starts coming in, that should stretch to 35. However, Nate Cohn projects the final spread to be 13% at this point (seems likely, could, at very best, go just under 10% in my view). Likely, then, Sanders would lose by about 25-28 delegates, which effectively ends any realistic chance to win the most pledged delegates. Very best scenario, he closes to under 10% and loses just 12-15 delegates. Highly unlikely. Absent a miracle next Tuesday, Clinton is your Democratic nominee.

10:08: Clinton is winning in New York City 63.5% – 36.5% with about 85% reporting. My projection was 53-47 for Clinton. The exit polls initially said 62-38. This is where I was way off, clearly.

9:30: I’ll try to write an update here every half hour. Initial results Upstate are as good or better than I expected, even in Erie (Buffalo). Initial results in New York City are mixed from very good for my projection on Staten Island to where I expected things in Manhattan to almost as good as I hoped in Brooklyn. It’s a bit worse than I hoped so far in Queens and much worse in The Bronx. These are early numbers and could change. I do think a 0-5 point Clinton win is likely at this point, closer to the 5 point range. Still possible Sanders could eek it out.

8:58: My initial instinct on whether African American share of the vote has gone up in any races other than South Carolina was wrong. In about half the states for which we have exit polls (10/21), the African American share of the vote has increased. 6 of these states were in the South (MS, SC, TN, FL, AL, AR) and we all know how those states turned out. Outside the South, black voters share increased in Ohio from 17% to 20%. Sanders did quite badly there, of course. But two of his better states with African Americans so far have been Oklahoma (where the vote share jumped from 7% to 15% for African Americans) and Missouri where it increased slightly. Wisconsin’s African American share of the vote went from 8% to 10%.

8:55: Nervous time. Polls close in 5 minutes.

6:35: more via @bnyaosi. 74-26 African American vote currently for Clinton. Math in my head says if these numbers all say the same, Bernie loses double digits absent gains elsewhere (21% African American vote going 74-26 for Clinton; 18-29 years olds at 16% going for Sanders 69-31). Young voters, at least where I’ve paid attention, vote later. Upstate numbers still coming in; so I expect all of these numbers to end up more favorable to Sanders. In fact, the 69-31 number for 18-29-year-olds in NYC is not bad considering those that are in Manhattan and that these are slightly better numbers than his overall percentage with non-white millennials overall.

6:54: just before I stepped out, @bnyaosi on twitter brought this article to my attention. 57-43 for Clinton with Latina and Latino voters. Matches my 56-44 forecast almost precisely. Voters under 30 going for Sanders only 69-31. If that number doesn’t rise, he’ll need to do better somewhere else.

6:54: I’m going through African American share of vote 2008 versus 2016 for each state now, but have to step out for a bit. So far. SC increased by 6%, GA stayed the same. IL and MI dropped. OH increased by 3% from 17% to 20%. More in a 1/2 hour or so.

6:43: Clinton only winning 52-47 with who inspires you in this election. I expect the final outcome of that number to be close to final results. Once Upstate is included, I expect Sanders to be over 50% almost certainly (unless my entire analysis of Upstate is wrong).

6:42: forgot to add that 64% think Wall Street is bad for the U.S. economy. That is a very very good number for Sanders.

6:31 Eastern: My analysis so far. The 16% 18-29yo voting block so far is better than I expected. It was 16% in the early Wisconsin exit polling and rose to 19% as students tend to vote later.

31% or 34% identifying as “very liberal” is good news for Sanders, that’s better than in Illinois, where Clinton squeaked out a victory.

These exit polls include very few upstate voters as the polls there didn’t open until noon. The numbers will only look better for Sanders as the evening goes on.

538 and Nate Cohn (Upshot NYT’s) are very excited about the 21% African American share of the exit polls so far. I actually think that 6% increase from 2008 would be glorious news for Sanders. African American voting share, so far as I know, has not gone up in any state except South Carolina (I need to check), and it wasn’t by that much. I think if 40% more African Americans are turning out, it’s because they’ve decided they like Sanders and are basically newish voters. The better explanation is the Upstate phenomenon. As Upstate figures are included in the polling, I think that number will drop to 14% or 15%.

48% want to continue Obama’s policies. This is less than Michigan’s final number or Wisconsin’s number in the 5pm eastern exits.

The honest and trustworthy numbers are again very favorable to Sanders. More to follow.

INITIAL POST (minus countdown clock):
I’ll add a few comments over the course of the evening and attempt to respond to any comments/questions in a timely manner.

I expect the first exit poll data on Twitter at around 5:15pm eastern, but will have guests at that time.

 

Projection for Clinton Versus Sanders in New York’s Primary

Since Wisconsin’s Democratic primary between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders, I have 1) published a mid-term scorecard for polling firms and forecasters with multiple published state polls or forecasts, 2) argued accordingly for Why the Polling in New York for Clinton Versus Sanders Is Mostly Garbage, and 3) put up a county by county chart into which I have been collecting various data (this includes a projection or call for each county in New York). It’s now time to make my overall projection.

Bernie Sanders to scratch out a 0.2% victory in the popular vote; Clinton to win the delegate count 126-121.

This projection, if accurate, would keep Sanders on Another Path to Victory in terms of the pledged delegate race as I see it. The polls close tonight at 9pm eastern. By about 10pm, we should now whether I have stumbled upon a way to more accurately forecast Democratic primaries or whether I’ve been doing math to make myself feel better as a Sandernista.
NY Projected Delegate Final

The chart to the left here is my projection for each Congressional District, as this is how delegates are actually awarded in Democratic primaries and caucuses. You can keep track, if you like, CD by CD with the help of the Green Papers tonight once the results start pouring in.

In the chart, I’ve put a question mark next in the far left column for CD’s I think could give another delegate (or more at the overall level represented in PLEO and At-large categories) to Clinton and one or more question marks in the far right column for CD’s where I think Sanders could do better than the projection here.

At the bottom of the chart, I’ve totaled the question marks and assumed worst and best case scenario for each candidate according to my models. Plus 10.1% is my maximum range for Clinton, in which case she would win the delegate count by perhaps as many as 35. Absent a turnout landslide significantly bigger than for Obama versus Clinton in 2008 (which was the record for New York by a substantial margin), Bernie Sanders’ maximum according to my modeling is a 5% victory. He might, however, only win the pledged delegate count by less than 10 in that scenario.

At the bottom of this article, I’ve included a map showing the congressional districts in New York. I’ve cribbed the map from Subir at Daily Kos. Reading the details of his projected 5% win for Clinton suggests he may have gathered a bit or two from me as well. Here’s hoping we are somewhat accurate between the two of us.

In Wisconsin, exit polls released at 5 pm eastern showed several things. Most importantly for my projections, it put the 18-29-year-old vote at 16% of the overall share. Lines were long at Universities, though, and by the final count, 18-29-year-olds made up 19% of the exit polling data. I will be looking to see the 18-29 year old vote in the 13-17% range in first exit polling if my projection is to be anything like on target. Initial exit polling, I also expect, could be a bit skewed by the fact that polls Upstate (as always for primaries in New York) do not open until noon. As this is Sanders’ strongest region by my accounting, some of the other questions released like “Should the next President continue Obama’s policies?” may look worse for Sanders than they will in the the final exit poll numbers.

Given my argument that the polling has been just miserable in predicting the likely Democratic electorate in New York, here is my projection for what relevant demographics will look like if my forecast is reasonably accurate.
NY Projected Exit Final

And that’s about all folks.

If I’ve made a fool of myself with all of this (see my projections for Arizona, South Carolina, and, to a lesser extent, four out of five March 15th contests), I’ll have a final post acknowledging the fact and turn my attention elsewhere. If I’m right (as in Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and the state of Washington), I think I will have earned significant boasting rights, but will do my Mennonite best to hold such instincts in check.

 

County by County Data and My Call for the Democratic #NYPrimary

Below is the chart I’ve used as part of my New York projection. It includes per capita income data per county, Facebook Primary data (not adjusted to USPD here) from February 29 and as updated, the number of registered Democrats per county along with how many voted in 2008 for Obama versus Clinton, and racialized data from the U.S. Census by county.

FiveThirtyEight’s Facebook Primary was updated today (April 18). My Facebook Primary (USPD Adjusted) model, calculates the percentage difference between the percentage of Clinton’s and Sanders’ average “likes” nation wide and their average “likes” in a particular county. USPD stands for United States Percentage Difference.

So for the first entry, New York (Manhattan), Clinton held down 24% of the “likes” there as of February 29, or 200% above her average “likes” at that point in The Facebook Primary across the United States. Sanders was at +15%, but since as of February 29 he was averaging 23% of “likes” nationwide, this is just a 62% gain. Clinton 200 USPD – Sanders 62 USPD suggests a significant Clinton victory. The April 18 update now has Clinton at 9% nationwide and 27% in Manhattan for a +18 increase over her national average, keeping her at a 200 USPD score. Sanders now has a raw +17 in New York County for a 68% increase over his nationwide 25% share of the likes. A small increase over his February 29th score, but not enough to flip it into his favor or into the even column, especially since African Americans make up 18% of Manhattan and have consistently voted for Clinton as a block by 30% or more. As Sanders’ share of the “likes” gets up into the 50% or 60% range in some cities, counties, and zip-codes, a strict comparison with Clinton’s USPD is less helpful since her starting point is 9% rather than 25%.

As can be seen, and as with Manhattan, there has been relatively little movement in any of the suburbs or Upstate counties. Most of what little movement there has been is probably explainable by the shift up in nationwide scores for Clinton and Sanders by +1 and +2 respectively. I have only slightly changed my call for very few of them accordingly. Sanders, however, appears to have gained significant ground in the other four boroughs, particularly in Kings (Brooklyn). I have moved Richmond (Staten Island) and Brooklyn into Edge Clinton range. This means that I think a small win for Clinton is likely (five points or less), but an upset by Sanders is also possible, as is a more decisive win by Clinton.

In previous races, I have found that where there are fewer than 2,500 votes in a county, especially less than 1,000, the model is somewhat less accurate.

Key:

C = Clinton
S = Sanders
E = Even
EC = Even, Edge Clinton
ES = Even, Edge Sanders

(The bolded EC, ES, or E’s in the “Call” column are where I have downgraded Sanders’ chances somewhat because of a percentage of African Americans over 10 in a particular county. The italicized EC’s and the like are where I have downgraded Clinton or Sanders chances after the April 18th update. That involves just a very few counties already likely to be somewhat close.)

B = Black
A = Asian
L = Latino
W = White
I = Indigenous

vt = states touching Vermont
~vt = states near Vermont

Adapted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_locations_by_per_capita_income

Econ

Rank/

Call

County Per capita
income
FB Prmry

2/29–4/18

C/S C/S

Registered Dems ~Total Votes 2008 Racialized

B/A/L/W/I

1 C New York County

(Manhattan)

$111,386 16/15 18/17 710068 286000 18/13/26/47/1
2 C Westchester $73,159 9/8 10/7 290416 105000 16/6/24/55/1
3 C Nassau $41,387 3/0 3/0 383709 108000 13/9/16/62/1
4 E Putnam $37,915 0/1 -1/-1 19232 5500 3/2/13/81
5 EC Suffolk

(Long Island)

$35,755 1/0 1/0 325059 87000 8/4/18/69/1
6 C Rockland $34,304 3/2 3/2 90793 30000 13/7/17/63/1
7 S Saratoga ~vt $32,186 -1/8 -1/7 42037 13000 2/2/3/91
8 S Columbia vt $31,844 0/13 0/12 14278 5300 5/2/5/87
9 ES Dutchess vt $31,642 0/8 0/8 64458 20500 11/4/12/73/1
New York State $30,948 6/9 6/9 19795791 18/9/19/57/1
10 ES Albany $30,863 4/17 3/16 99353 38000 14/6/6/74
11 EC Richmond

(Staten Island)

$30,843 1/-5 2/-1 127575 30000 12/8/16/63/1
12 S Hamilton $29,965 -2/0 -2/0 988 350 1/1/1/96
13 S Ulster ~vt $28,954 -1/20 -1/19 43589 15500 7/2/10/80
14 S Ontario $28,950 -1/6 -1/6 20272 7200 3/1/4/90
15 C Orange $28,944 -1/0 0/0 82092 23000 12/3/19/66/1
16 S Warren ~vt $27,744 -2/12 -3/10 11256 3500 1/1/2/94
17 E Schenectady $27,500 1/9 1/8 38183 12000 11/5/7/75
18 S Rensselaer vt $27,457 0/11 0/11 30605 9400 7/3/5/84
United States $27,334 0/0 321418820 13/5/17/62/1
19 ES Onondaga $27,037 2/10 2/9 112045 38000 12/4/5/78/1
20 EC Monroe $26,999 2/11 2/11 190297 64000 16/4/8/72
21 EC Erie $26,378 2/9 1/8 298511 104,00 14/3/5/76/1
22 S Tompkins $25,737 5/35 4/35 29517 12200 4/10/5/78
23 C Queens $25,553 15/7 14/11 722740 205000 20/26/28/26/1
24 S Schoharie $25,105 -3/2 -4/3 5342 1600 2/1/3/94
25 S Tioga $24,596 -3/1 -4/1 14389 3000 1/1/2/96
26 S Essex vt $24,390 -4/22 -4/20 7035 2200 3/1/3/92
27 ES Genesee $24,323 -3/-4 -4/-6 9563 2800 3/1/2/91/1
28 S Broome $24,314 0/9 -1/9 46281 16000 6/4/4/84
29 S Madison $24,311 -1/6 -2/5 12110 4000 2/1/2/93/1
30 ES Niagara $24,224 -2/0 -2/-1 53532 19000 7/1/3/86/1
31 ES Wayne $24,092 -3/-3 -3/-3 14068 3300 3/1/4/90
32 EC Kings

(Brooklyn)

$23,605 13/13 13/21 945648 257000 35/12/20/36/1
33 S Greene $23,461 -3/0 -3/0 7647 2300 7/1/6/86
34 ES Oneida $23,458 -2/0 -2/-1 47598 14500 7/4/5/83
35 E Chemung $23,457 -2/-1 -2/-2 16872 6000 7/1/3/87
36 ES Sullivan $23,422 -1/4 -2/4 20181 5000 10/2/15/73
37 S Steuben $23,279 -3/-3 -4/-4 15277 4500 2/2/2/94
38 S Yates $23,255 -1/1 -2/3 3429 1400 1/0/2/95
39 S Fulton $23,147 -4/-4 -4/-4 8091 2400 2/1/3/93
40 S Cayuga $22,959 -2/3 -2/2 16086 6000 4/1/3/90
41 S Delaware $22,928 -4/6 -4/4 7930 2700 2/1/4/92
42 S Livingston $22,923 -3/6 -3/6 10788 3800 3/1/3/90
43 S Otsego $22,902 -2/14 -2/14 11419 4000 2/1/4/92
44 S Clinton vt $22,660 -2/27 -3/25 18232 4700 5/1/3/90
45 E Montgomery $22,347 -2/-3 -2/-2 9897 3200 3/1/13/83
46 S Washington vt $22,347 -3/9 -4/7 9323 2900 3/1/3/93
47 S Schuyler $22,123 -3/4 -4/3 3501 1200 1/0/2/95
48 S Cortland $22,078 -2/9 -2/7 9640 3400 2/1/3/93
49 S Chenango $22,036 -4/0 -4/-1 13043 2600 1/0/2/95
50 ES Herkimer $21,908 -3/-2 -3/-3 10848 63100 1/1/2/95
51 S Jefferson $21,823 -3/-1 -4/-2 17853 5000 7/2/7/82/1
52 S Seneca $21,818 -2/6 -2/5 6402 2500 5/1/3/90
53 S Oswego $21,604 -3/3 -3/2 18796 5800 1/1/2/94/1
54 S Chautauqua $21,033 -2/3 -3/2 27999 9400 3/1/7/88/1
55 S Lewis $20,970 -4/-3 -5/-3 4490 1175 1/0/2/96
56 S Cattaraugus $20,824 -4/-3 -4/-3 16488 5000 2/1/2/91/3
57 C Orleans $20,812 1/-7 2/-7 5848 1600 7/1/5/86
58 ES Wyoming $20,605 -3/-8 -5/-8 5803 1500 6/1/3/90
59 S St. Lawrence ~vt $20,143 -1/16 -2/14 23027 7000 3/1/2/91/1
60 S Allegany $20,058 -4/0 -5/-1 6270 2100 1/1/2/95
61 S Franklin ~vt $19,807 -3/20 -4/20 10434 3200 6/1/3/82/8
62 C Bronx $17,575 16/3 18/10 565128 157000 *44/4/55/10/3

*The percentages here add up to 116%. This is as they are found at http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/map/INC110213/36005

NY Voter Data
http://www.elections.ny.gov/EnrollmentCounty.html

Polling for Clinton Versus Sanders In New York Is Mostly Gargabe

A wedding ring or a regularly used set of keys or other items of more-than-marginally-important value have found their way to the bottom of the kitchen garbage. There really isn’t much choice but to plug your nose best you can, plunge your hand into the gross, and sift around for the items that matter. As in Michigan, the polls showing Hillary Clinton with a huge 10-20 point lead versus Bernie Sanders are sloppy, slimy, and smell like a month worth of leftovers finally rubbished.

Previously, I’ve published a scorecard showing just how ridiculously bad most pollster and forecasters have been, especially outside the South this cycle.  The polling in New York, as is so often the case, is prone to 1) radically underestimate likely voter turnout for 18-44-year-olds, especially those in the 18-29-year-old demographic 2) pretty clearly misreading the electorate outside of major urban centers (in this case New York City and its suburbs) and 3) sometimes make rather glaring errors for which almost no one of any influence is willing to call out.

All nine pollsters active in New York on the Democrat have run badly afoul in one or more of these three areas. Rather than sorting through all of the ugliness in front of you, let’s drag out representative examples from each area.

Bad Age Splits
I’ve previously discussed the infamous Emerson poll from several weeks ago showing Sanders down 48 in New York. Things are somewhat better in more recent polling, but still clearly wide of the mark. My pollster scorecard suggests that in-state or in-region university pollsters have fared much better than commercial outfits. Siena College has a good rating from FiveThirtyEight for previous cycles and has released one of the more Sanders friendly polls. It shows him down just ten points.

But what are the age splits for the Siena poll?

15% 18-34-year-olds
31% 35-54-year-olds
50% 55+

The problem is this: those numbers are far lower for millennials then the 18-34-year-old vote was in 2008 in New York for Obama versus Clinton. In virtually every contest to date in 2016, the share of young people voting has increased measurably and dramatically for Sanders versus Clinton. (Meaning, by default, that the share of older people has decreased.) In 2008, 18-34-year-olds were 22-23% of the Democratic electorate in New York versus just 15% in Siena’s offering. While 18-44-year-olds would make up only around 30-31% of of the Siena poll, they made up 37% for Clinton versus Obama 2008.

By comparison, even in other closed primaries or places where Sanders has done quite badly, young people have turned out in droves. The 18-29-year-old share of the vote in Florida rose from just 9% in 2008 to 15% in 2016, more than 30% higher than where Siena pegs things at for New York. In Ohio, where the biggest schools were on Spring Break for the March 15 election, 15% 18-29-year-olds still turned out. The Siena numbers suggest they’ll be around 10%. Re-weighting Siena’s topline for age splits that look like Ohio’s, makes for a race too close to call, with a small Clinton edge. If the age splits look more like Wisconsin’s or Michigan’s, Clinton is in real danger of a significant loss. My final pick will likely split the difference between Ohio and Michigan numbers, similar to Illinois.

Misreading Voting Intentions Outside Major Urban Centers
Then there are the geographical issues. My friend Stuart Parker early on pointed out that pollsters were all over the place this cycle because they seem unable to read voter intentions outside major urban centers both in the South and outside the South. In the South, this meant badly calculating how rural and small to mid-sized city black voters intended to mark their ballots. Outside the South this has meant, for instance, badly estimating how people outside the Detroit-Flint corridor would vote in Michigan or how people outside of Milwaukee would vote in Wisconsin. My Facebook Primary (Adjusted) model has nailed those places where other polling has been badly wrong. Marquette University said the Madison area would go for Sanders by just 10%. The counties in the Madison media market almost all went for Sanders by 20-25% or more. Marquette suggested Clinton would eek out a narrow two point win in the Green Bay area. She lost it by an average of fifteen percent and Marquette’s overall pick for Wisconsin wrong by double digits even though they nailed what was happening in and around Milwaukee.

Once again, my model is showing that Upstate New York will go for Sanders quite big (I will be pegging his share of the vote north and west of Rockland and Westchester counties somewhere between 57 and 60%). Other than Emerson, which came closest to getting something right for a change in their 2nd most recent poll, every other polling firm showing its geographical splits has suggested that the race in Upstate is a virtual tie or, even, that Clinton has a modest lead. Maybe this will be the time my model is way off base. If so, Sanders is in real trouble.

Glaring Errors
So far, the pollster with the most consistently reasonable age splits is CBS/YouGov. CBS’s polling practice is to take the age splits from 2008 and use them exactly to weight its polling outcomes. This means that they are off compared to where exit polling shows age splits to actually occur, but often not nearly as bad as other pollsters. So CBS has 15% 18-29-year-olds for New York, 22% 35-44-year-olds, etcetera. But in their polling from two Sundays ago, they made what seems to be a glaring error as caught by Bugei Nyaosi. Against the outcomes in every contest to date and every other polling firm in New York, CBS suggested that Clinton had a more than 30% lead with 30-44-year-olds. This was a stronger preference for Clinton, if this is even possible, than the 65+ crowd that CBS interviewed for the same poll. Did CBS fix this problem for their poll yesterday?

Nope.

They interviewed 60% the same people and, once again, are suggesting that New Yorkers in the thirty to forty-four age bracket will go for Clinton over Sanders even more so than retirees. In both instances, CBS also had Sanders down just 10%. Once again, if you fix that glaring error by, say, forecasting that Sanders will garner about the same or a little worse share of the 30-44-year-old vote that he has in previous contests, the race is suddenly a dead heat.

Fixed CBS

What Then?
I think the race is actually extremely close. I arrive at the conclusion from a number of different routes but will not publicly sort through the trash from the other five or six polling firms active in New York on the Dem side. There are hidden gems in them, particularly when various sub-groupings are averaged across polls. In my final forecast tomorrow morning, which hopefully won’t be a similarly fetid mess, I’ll publish what I take to be a reasonably likely model for what exit polling will look like when the dust settles in the Empire State.

Are Two Polls Showing Sanders Winning with Latino Voters in New York Correct?

Two polls released this week from NBC/WSJ/Marist and NY1/Baruch College show Bernie Sanders leading with Latina and Latino voters ahead of next week’s Big Apple showdown. NBC has Sanders with a narrow 51-47% edge among hispanic voters; NY1 has Sanders with a more substantial 55-38% lead. In lockstep with the major media narrative of Clinton versus Sanders to-date, neither NBC or NY1 released those figures in their stories accompanying the polls. NBC first buried the numbers at the bottom of another story about how Sanders does badly with non-white voters, then captured those numbers, which would appear to be similar, in a general non-white voter category in updated poll numbers out Thursday evening. NY1‘s numbers are available in raw form only.

These figures appear to confirm two national polls and a Field Poll of California where Sanders is pulling even or has taken a substantial lead with likely Latinx voters. I discussed those polls in my article last week on Latino millennials in California.

Still, caution should be exercised with these figures. Projecting who will win the Latino vote, or even who has won it according to results versus exit polling, has been one of the most contentious issues this Democratic election cycle. In an under-covered story, Bernie Sanders won the Latino vote in Illinois – narrowly according to exit polls, more decisively if majority Latina and Latino wards in Chicago and nearby suburbs are indicative. NBC, however, had projected a much larger thirty-four point win for Sanders with Latinos in Illinois. In Florida, which voted the same day, NBC projected just a five point loss with hispanic voters for Sanders; he lost by thirty-six according to exit polling.

Read More