Did some math: TX Caucuses and overall results prediction (campaign, thought, legal)

[atxcio]

Well, I officially have to much time on my hands, but...

After getting tired of seeing CNN show the TX caucus at 41% reporting, 56-44 in Obama's favor, I decided to try to do my own predicting. I wanted to mirror somewhat the process used by CNN and other networks (at least the non-secret parts) to see if I could "call" the TX caucus.

In the interest of full disclosure, if you didn't already know, I'm an Obama supporter. So it can be said that I was hoping I could put the checkmark on his side, and that's what I ended up doing. But I'm presenting the data and process with complete transparency (you can view a screenshot of the spreadsheet, hopefully the calculation fields are obvious enough) -- please feel free to criticize the work... or ignore it, as you've probably got something better to do!

So here is the call:

* Obama wins TX caucuses

also,

* Obama likely wins more TX delegates overall, but by only 1-3 delegates

== ONLY READ ON IF YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO : YOU'VE BEEN WARNED ==

I searched for the best source "original" data source I could find. It turns out the Texas Democratic party site has a running total by senate district, which is regularly updated, here: Texas Democrats - Moving Texas Forward . It currently has 44% reporting, better than CNN's 41.

Using just the data from the above site, and extrapolating it based on the existing data from each senate district, the delegate split for the 67 that will be awarded from the caucuses works out to -

Obama 37, Clinton 30

That makes TX overall: Obama 98, Clinton 95.

Now, I ran a couple of other scenarios, less favorable for Obama. First off, there are 4 senate districts that had less than 30% of the precincts reporting. Those are highlighted in yellow on the spreadsheet. Out of them, 2 are currently Obama leads and 2 are currently Hillary leads... so they should cancel out. But, to test a negative scenario I gave all 4 of those districts to Hillary, 70% to 30%. The results were:

Caucus: Obama 36, Clinton 31. Overall Obama 97, Clinton 96.

Second scenario: What if Obama's districts have reported a higher percentage, and Clinton's are taking much longer to report? Well, I've highlighted the ones Clinton is winning with green on her column, and Obama's with green on his column. So I bumped every one of the districts she is leading in, even by a couple of points, to 70% Clinton 30% Obama. The results were unchanged -- Obama with 37, Clinton with 30.


Interesting fact:

The second scenario seemed a bit odd -- if Clinton did hugely well in all of the districts that were leaning her way, she'd still not even pick up a single one of the 67 caucus delegates. but when you look at the list of districts, the ones she won in have some of the fewest total delegates to give. I double checked the districts Clinton was winning against the district map here: Texas Democrats - Moving Texas Forward ... and sure enough, they are the border and rural districts.

I wondered if they had similar populations. It turns out the senate districts in Texas all range in about the 650K-700K in population; so they are drawn such that they are about the same population.

This illustrated to me exactly what some of the news organizations were talking about, how certain districts are given more weight; presumably by their democratic history. It also shows what could probably be the basis of a legal argument by Clinton.

If you look at the list of senate districts, they range from 1323 convention delegates (district 31) to a whopping 5466 delegates (district 14). Guess where the district 14 with it's huge number of delegates is?

Travis County, which encompasses the city of Austin.

District 31 is a mostly rural part of the panhandle (multiple counties), including the city of Amarillo.

Second lowest delegate district is district 27, multiple counties, which includes Brownsville and is a border district.

==

So, *whew*, that's it. My prediction based on my (fuzzy?) math. If I get it right, you heard it here first. If not, y'all feed free to call me on it.

[LexusNexus]

Thanks for that analysis. You need to be working for CNN or heading up the DNC.

I say Obama did very well in Texas, far better than people expected. Hillary tries to put a different spin on it, but Obama continues to roll.

[jwb123]

You did so much work on this, I thought it deserved to be at the top of the forum again

[jojo7]

WOW. I agree too Jenbar. That was a great post by atxcio. I look at it as a win for Obama in Texas too! If you take away the caucus, she won by such a tiny margin which still doesn't help her math problem that the Hillary campaign and supporters can't seem to grasp.

[Old Gringo]

Hillary's "big wins" on Tuesday netted her a gain of what? 4 delegates? She's still trailing by over 100, even though she has more supers. And if she wins big in PA next month, she'll get a net gain of something like 10 - 12. No way she goes to Denver with the lead. Her only hope is to game the system through legal challenges. But that will simply ensure a President McCain, and she'll go down in history as the candidate who wrecked her party. Even worse, she'll have undone all the damage to the Republicans that Bush has caused over the past 8 years.

But let's see if any of that deters her from her personal ambition. It seems to me that the Clintons don't care much about anything or anyone but themselves.