Election Looking Better for California Democrats

The early VBM returns were so bad for California Democrats that it had to get better. Will it get better enough for them to take GOP districts? Probably 2-3 but not 6-7.

Keep in mind that even if I don't post every day the spreadsheet is updated daily. And you don't my analysis when you can analyze the numbers yourself.

Nate Cohn and others have speculated that the more ballots that come in the worse it is for Republicans. They’ve voted heavier and Democrats are ones that are left.

There’s logic in that. However, we should keep in mind that while the 2.5 million ballots in now is much larger than the 1.7 million in at the same point in 2014, there were only 9 million ballots mailed that year and 13 million this year. The percentage of ballots returned to this point is actually comparable to 2014. So there’s just as much room for both Republicans and Democrats to return ballots this year.

Turn out this year should be up in overall percentage of ballots over 2014 but it won’t be up to the extent that almost everyone will vote. Even in high turnout you probably won’t have more than half of registered voters voting.

CA-7: At D+2 this one remains tight.

CA-10: There have been 16,293 Democratic ballots and 16,294 Republican ballots. This is still better for Jeff Denham than he’s had it before but the district remains a toss up.

CA-16: Major influx of Democratic ballots. This one likely isn’t worth watching.

CA-21: We had more Republican ballots than Democratic ballots yesterday. It seems a shame for Republicans that the congressman with the best VBM returns is the one who is in the least trouble.

CA-25: Another good day for Democrats. The VBMs are now down to R+5.5. It’s a danger zone for Steve Knight but not one that has him at a disadvantage.

CA-39: Yesterday was only R+1, excellent for Democrats. The VBMs are still at R+13, well ahead of the primary. I don’t think the GOP is in real danger at this point.

CA-45: The VBMs were R+14 yesterday, the same as they were before. It’s a surprise considering how bad Republicans have done the last few days. I know there’s a lot of controversy about this district but R+14 is a good place for Mimi Walters.

CA-48: An R+10 day leaves the district at R+14. Still safe for Dana Rohrabacher.

CA-49: An R+4 day drops the VBMs to R+8. Darrell Issa nearly lost with R+8 two years ago. So the district is definitely in the danger zone, although not one that Diane Harkey is sure to lose.

As of now, I see CA-7, 10, 25, and 49 as nail biters, while CA-39, 45, and 48 look good for the GOP.

Are They All Just Voting Democratic?

Finally, a lot of the people who think the numbers are great for Republicans in FL/CA are focusing on GOP registration advantages. But that's not the same as vote choice; Dems have wide advantages among 'other' voters, per our data, and in Orange County they have significant R vt

— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) October 28, 2018

I know I've written about this before but Nate Cohn is getting questions about who is voting. So I'm going to address it again. Cohn is running the New York Times/Siena polls that have shown Democrats doing well in California. They just finished a poll in CA-25 that had Republican Steve Knight winning by 4. So they're not all great for the Democrats.

The VBM numbers in California, especially Orange County, contradict the narrative of a big blue wave. Nate Cohn's contention is that it doesn't matter if the VBM numbers are more Republican than expected because some Republicans are voting for Democrats and NPP voters are voting overwhelmingly Democratic. This is possible and I can't dispute that their poll numbers are saying this.

I'm skeptical because that hasn't happened in the past to the extent that he's indicating. We certainly saw some Democratic skew in the primary. With an R+12 VBM electorate Republicans only won by 8 points in CA-39. With an R+15 electorate Republicans won by only 6 points in CA-45. Cohn's numbers indicate even more Republican and Republican leaning independents voting Democratic, even though it didn't happen in 2016, when some voted for Clinton or in the primary. Hillary Clinton won California by 30 points but only won NPP voters by 13. She likely lost NPP voters in districts she won by under 15 points like those in Orange County. The idea that NPP voters would go Democratic by 45 points, as they have in CA-49, defies belief. Candidates who win in landslides don't win independent voters by 45 points.

Cohn mentioned that the primary electorate for CA-25 was R+5. The VBM electorate was R+8. I don't have final electorate numbers but R+5 is possible. Cohn said that he was using an R+0 electorate for this election. The VBMs are R+7, so it's likely that the final electorate won't be R+0.

Cohn is using the data he's getting from his surveys. I'm using the actual voters from the California Secretary of State. These two sources may lead to contradictory conclusions. I'll stick with this data. If you're interested in who has actually voted, keep reading this blog. If not, go elsewhere.

Spreadsheet Addition

I've made an addition to the spreadsheet. The right hand column which shows you the difference between the partisan VBM advantage and the final result. Some districts are more consistent in some and others. I've added a number on the left shaded in green that is the 2018 result if Democrats do as well as they have in their best election. The number on the right in orange is the result if Republicans beat the VBM by as much as they did in their best election.

In CA-25 this VBM return would result in a 2 point Republican win if the Democrats do as well as they did in their best election and a 10 point Republican win if the Republicans do as well as they did in their best election. Those numbers suggest that Republicans are guaranteed a win. That would be the case if people voted the same way they've voted in past elections. Many districts will but some won't.

What these numbers tell us is that it wouldn't be that much better than the best Democratic result if Democrats win the district this year. So if NPP or Republican voters vote a little more Democratic than they have in the past then the Democrats will win. On the other hand the VBMs for CA-48 suggest a Republican win of 13-20 points. If the VBMs stay where they are a Democratic win looks pretty much impossible.

A District to Watch

Most counties didn’t report VBMs, but Orange County does so every day. And the Orange County numbers have been consistently good for the GOP.

CA-24: One non-Orange County district that showed new VBM returns was CA-24. And there was a massive surge in Republican ballots. The day was 35%D/43%R and there are now 8 more Republican ballots in than Democratic ballots. In the past Democrats have beaten VBMs by 1-5 points, so this still looks like a narrow Democratic victory.

This is the highest return district of all the ones I’m monitoring and it’s at 21%. Anyone who thinks CA-24 isn’t worth watching is going to be in for a surprise on election night.

CA-25: Good news here for Democrats. It was an R+1 day, reducing VBMs from R+8 to R+7. I don’t know what the electorate has to be for Katie Hill to win but she’ll get into that range with more days like this.

CA-39: A 33%D/44%R day reduced the Republican advantage from R+18 to R+17. While an R+1 day is very helpful to Katie Hill, an R+11 day is probably a day Gil Cisneros loses more ground.

CA-45: A 30%D/47%R day keeps the district at R+17%

CA-48: This district is still R+16%

CA-49: Any day with only Orange County ballots is good for Diane Harkey. A whopping 52% of the ballots were Republican. The district is R+24 in Orange County but only R+4 in San Diego County. Overall, it’s R+10 right now and that should be Republican enough for Harkey to win. But if the GOP advantage shrinks quite a bit with the next San Diego addition the district goes to Levin.

I’ve written this earlier and I’ll write it again. You can make one of two assumptions. The first is Republicans, Democrats, and NPP voters will for each party similar to the way they have in the last four elections. There’s some variance here. In some elections Republicans beat the VBM return margin and in others the Democrats beat it.

The second assumption is that enough Republican and NPP voters vote Democratic that these there’s no ballot return advantage that means Republicans win. This is possible, although I think less likely. Historical voting patterns tell how people vote. But if this is true, there’s no point in even looking at these numbers. Democrats win everywhere! If you were 100% sold on this assumption you wouldn’t be reading this.

Some Good News for Each Side

One more huge thank you to Political Data for providing that data in a fun easy to access manner. The spreadsheet where I organize all that data is here.

We had another 256k VBM returns statewide bumping the overall return rate from 10.2% to 12.3%. Overall, Democrats have returned 10.5% of their ballots, while Republicans have returned 18.6% of theirs. NPP voters have only returned 8.8% of theirs. They always are lower propensity voters.

We had another big add for CA-10. It’s gone from being one of the lowest rates of return to one of the highest. The return differential was R+1, enough to bump the overall numbers from even to R+1 due to rounding. Jeff Denham won in 2016 with a D+1 VBM return.

CA-16 moved from D+7 to D+8. It was D+11 in 2014 when it was close so the district is still in the watch mode.

CA-21 went the other way, from D+7 to D+6. David Valadao won by 13 points with a D+11 VBM electorate in 2016. It’s hard to see the electorate becoming anything that’ll endanger him.

CA-39 had returns that were R+20 yesterday and remains an R+18 VBM electorate. It was R+12 in June. I don’t care what the polls say, an electorate like this should give Young Kim at least the 8 point win she had in June.

CA-45 had returns that were R+18 and this district remains R+17. With an R+15 electorate she won by 6 points. That was a rather dramatic advantage for the Democrats but if she won with an R+15 VBM electorate an R+17 should be safe.

CA-48 moved in the other direction from R+17 to R+16. An R+10 VBM electorate gave Republicans a 7 point win in June.

CA-49 had an enormous San Diego VBM dump. The district went from 11% of VBM ballots returned to 16%. There’s good news for both sides here. The ballots were R+4, lowering the overall VBMs from R+13 to R+10. This is good news for Democrat Mike Levin because that’s a significant move. If he keeps getting moves like that he’ll win.

On the other hand, the day was R+4 overall. In the primary the VBM electorate was R+1, better than even the best Democratic day. And that led to a 3 point Democratic win. If the general electorate votes the same way an R+4 day would be even. If Diane Harkey’s worst day is treading water when she’s in the lead she should win.

On the other hand, in 2016 the margin was less than a point with an R+8 VBM electorate. It’s conceivable that VBMs could get into that range again. That said, the national narrative is that Diane Harkey is toast. These VBM numbers indicate she may have a decent chance.

Democrats have blanketed the airwaves with ads. Democrats always say money shouldn’t buy elections but they’re trying to do just that. Michael Bloomberg’s dark money PAC is coming in with a huge buy for the last two weeks. The problem with that is that many Californians will have voted long before he tries to buy the election for Democrats.

California VBM Ballot Update

Before I give you an update, I'll attempt to reconcile the rosy GOP numbers with Nate Cohn's New York Times/Siena Poll. The latest poll has Mike Levin leading Diane Harkey in CA-49 53%-39%.

The NYT/Siena poll has Levin winning 10% of registered Republicans with Harkey winning only 3% of registered Democrats. This is certainly possible but I think it's unlikely. Republican approval of Donald Trump and congressional Republicans is very high. So many California Republicans have left the party to become NPP that those left are dedicated Republicans.

The NYT/Siena poll has Levin winning NPP voters 69%-21%. I've never seen a margin anywhere near 48% in any election. I'm sure it's possible to find a few but I can't think of any. Donald Trump lost California by 30 points and still only lost independents by 13%. Chuck Schmuer won re-election by 44% and he won independents by 39%. In a new PPIC poll California Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox is beating Democrat Gavin Newsom with independents 43%-38%. Independents statewide are more likely to lean left than independents in a Republican district.

They use a 34% Democrat/39% Republican electorate. That electorate is possible in this district but VBMs are 32% Democrat/45% Republican. It's possible that electorate could move a little more Democratic when all VBM ballots are in and even more Democratic when all the ballots come in but that's a heavy lift. The final electorate is going to be between R+9 and R+18 and they're using R+5.

I'm not saying their results are wrong. I believe that based on everything I see in polls that they could be right. What I am saying is that the data of who is actually voting doesn't support this poll.

There were 228,884 added and that’s 18% of all ballots recorded so far. Overall, 10% of all VBM voters have voted and VBMs are 66% of all voters. So the numbers are starting to get a bit more significant.

CA-7: It was a decent D+4 day for Democrats. It’s still a D+2 electorate, but this is a nail biter of a district so every little bit helps.

CA-10: There was a significant ballot addition here. They only had 7,327 ballots in before yesterday and they added 11,098. Yeah. A lot. And there were 4,607 Republican ballots compared to 4,551 Democratic ballots. So with 7.7% of all ballots in there are 76 more Republican ballots than Democratic ones. I was asked whether Jeff Denham can win with this electorate. The question should be whether he could lose. This electorate is more Republican than the 2016 primary, 2016 general, and 2018 primary. He won all of those. Yes, he could lose if enough Republicans vote for Democrats and independents vote heavier for his opponent.

CA-16: This district is D+7 on VBMs. In 2014, when Jim Costa barely hung on the VBMs were D+11. I'm not saying that Jim Costa is in trouble. I'm saying that the electorate is more Republican than it was in 2014 when he almost lost. It's not hard to draw a conclusion that he is in trouble, but the question again is what the voting patterns are for Republicans and independents.

CA-21: This district is also D+7. That’s less Democratic than the 2014 or 2016 electorates when David Valadao won by double digits.

CA-24: There are 48,8413 VBMs in here,18% of the total. Both of those are the highest among competitive districts. There are 11 more Democratic ballots than Republican ballots. It’s seriously that close. And the election could be that close.

CA-25: It was a very good day for Democrats. VBMs were only R+2, lowering the overall VBM number from R+9 to R+8. The primary was also R+8. Steve Knight was barely ahead there and he probably won’t win if the VBM returns are in the R+4-5 range. Based on VBMs Steve Knight is in the most trouble of any Republican.

CA-39: There were 2,512 Republican ballots added and1,655 Democratic ones. The VBMs remain at R+18, still excellent for Young Kim.

CA-45: The VBMs were R+16, moving the overall number from R+18 to R+17. Mimi Walters wins with an electorate like that.

CA-48: The VBMs were R+13, moving the overall number from R+18 to R+17, still fine for Dana Rohrabacher.

CA-49: There were only Orange County VBMs added. Those were R+19. So the electorate moves to R+13. That should go down when the next San Diego county VBMs are added but we’re at 10.5% of all VBMs right now, plenty of which are from San Diego. The primary electorate was R+1. The expert opinion is that Diane Harkey has no shot. I can’t see how that’s the case with an R+13 VBM return.

California VBM Ballots Still Great for GOP

PDI has updated the VBM ballots returned so my spreadsheet is updated. Thank you, PDI. You make a numbers geek like me happy.

Statewide the total number of VBMs increased by 41%. The returns went from 3.4% of all VBM ballots mailed to 4.8%. Day to day statewide changes aren’t that telling because some days more Democratic or more Republican counties might be reporting. Ballots returned were only D+5, 41%D/36%R, decreasing the returned from D+8 to D+7. Since the statewide Democratic ballot advantage is D+19 you’d normally expect it to move in the other direction when it’s only D+8. That hasn’t been the case so far.

CA-10 went from D+1 to E
CA-16 went from R+1 to D+6
CA-21 went from D+17 to D+12

There’s a lot of change here, because these are districts that, for the most part, haven’t reported a lot of returns and they can be heavily influenced by Republican leaning counties reporting but not Democratic leaning counties and vice-versa. All these numbers are good for the GOP, however, if they want to win these three districts.

Of the remaining competitive districts, the only change was CA-48 going from R+19 to R+18 and CA-49 going from R+14 to R+12. Both of these movements are relatively small and don’t really impact the Republican advantage.

CA-49 was R+1 in the primary and R+8 in 2016, so it should definitely move toward the Democrats as more San Diego County ballots come in. The VBM return percentage went from 5.0% to 9.3% in this district, so that’s not a lot of movement considering they nearly doubled the ballots. Even with so many San Diego county ballots added the ballot differential was still R+9.

Based on what we’re seeing so far, I still don’t see Democrats flipping any districts, although there aren’t enough CA-10 ballots in to make a strong judgment.

CA-7, 16, and 24 should be close with the ballot return differentials they currently have, although CA-16, like CA-10 has a low return rate. CA-24, on the other hand, has already seen 11% of their ballots returned, with almost an equal number of Republican and Democratic ballots.

The only data I have for time is from the 2018 primary. Fortunately, it’s the election that best approximates environment. Go to the right side of the spreadsheet and you can compare 15 days out from the primary and general elections. Republicans did better after the 15 day out date than before. So if that’s any indication these return differentials shouldn’t move toward the Democrats.Of course, the numbers are so bad for Democrats you’d think they really would have to.

I continue to believe that Democrats will beat the ballot return differential by winning NPP voters in most districts. So Republicans will need to beat the differential by at least 5 points outside the Central Valley.

This is a Democratic Year, Isn't It?

If you look at the VBM margins in California, you see that the margins are almost universally more Republican than the 2016 primary, 2016 general, and 2018 primary. They are closer to the 2014 general, a very Republican year in California.

That leads to the question, “What f*&# is going on?” The fundamentals (Republican President) suggest a Democratic year. Election results and polling have been pretty Democratic. I say pretty Democratic but nothing other than the generic congressional vote points to a blue wave. And even that’s been up and down.

Explanation #1: It won’t be a blue wave, at least in California. The only vote that counts is the one that includes actual ballots and the actual ballots are Republican. I go with Occam’s Razor in that the answer supported by the most evidence is the answer.

Explanation #2: But this doesn’t jibe with other things we know. So even though Republicans are turning in ballots they’re really voting for Democrats. I find this one hard to believe. I covered it in a previous post.

NPPs are going to lean Democratic. Evidence supports this. In CA-25 VBMs in the 2016 general were R+4 and the Republican won by 6.2. In the 2018 primary VBMs were $+8.4 but the Republican only won by 3.6. In most of the Southern California districts Democrats did 4-6 points better than VBMs. While that was historically better than they’ve done, this is also a different environment. The primary and general election should follow similar patterns.

But, and this is a big but, if you do 4-6 points better than the VBMs your ballot margin deficit better be at least in the R+4-6 range. Right now CA-39 is R+20 and CA-48 is R+19. Democrats aren’t winning NPP voters by enough votes to overcome those ballot deficits.

Explanation #3: Republicans just vote early. Before 2016 this was true. Republicans voted overwhelmingly in VBM ballots and Democrats caught up later. Democrats realized that they were wasting their resources. Republicans didn’t have to knock on doors or call people who already voted. And they knew these people had voted.

I wanted to check this against actual data. I have 18 days out for the primary. Granted, it’s only one data set but it’s also the only data set in the current environment. So I compared the ballot differential for the primary and general 18 days out and looked to see how the 18 days out numbers compared to the final numbers. Scroll to the right on the Google spreadsheet to see it. (Note; I included only the districts I’m tracking that I’m confident have results that reflect that whole district)

I found that the ballot differential in 12 of the 13 districts is more Republican 18 days out and the 13th, CA-31, was D+6 then and D+6 in this election. What’s more, 8 of the 13 districts actually had differentials that became more Republican by the final tally. Of the other 5, 3 remained the same and 2 became more Democratic. Twelve of the 13 districts moved 3 points or less and the 13th, became 4 points more Republican.

If the pattern holds, CA-39 isn’t going from R+20 to R+5. It might go from R+20 to R+17.

It could be different this time but there’s no evidence to support that. And if you’re someone who clings to a belief without evidence, why read this whole post? I’m looking at the numbers to try to figure out what they mean. If the numbers don’t correlate to final result, then there’s no point in looking at them. Just look elsewhere and come back after election day.

California VBM Returns Tell Us What?

I haven't posted in a while. I've largely abandoned blogging because I haven't had the time. I have some insight you won't read anywhere else. So read on. We all want to know to be able to read the tea leaves and know what the election results are going to be in advance. California allows us to do a little bit of reading, because a lot of votes are VBM. When they arrive at a county registrar, the counties transmit that a voter has voted to the state. Political Data gets all that information and lists the party affiliation of the voters by congressional district. I've compiled their information by congressional district here.

The linked chart gives you the data for the last four elections, the 2018 primary, 2016 general election, 2016 primary, and 2014 general election. The first column is difference in VBM returns between the parties. The second column is the final vote margin, for all votes, not just VBMs. The third column is the difference. If the number is positive it's for the Democrats and negative for Republicans. In CA-3 Democratic ballots were returned +3, 44% of them were Democratic and 41% Republican, and the Democrat won by 5 points.

There isn't a one to one correlation between the two numbers and it isn't constant. But the ranges have been pretty steady. CA-7 has usually had a very close relationship. Raul Ruiz has greatly outproduced the VBM returns in CA-36.

I make an assumption that Democrats vote for the Democrat and Republicans vote for the Republican. If the difference between VBM ballots and the final result don't match, then one of two things happened. The election day ballots were a bit different than the VBM ballots and NPP voters favored one candidate. Look at CA-39. In the 2014 general, 2016 primary, and 2016 general Ed Royce outperformed VBM returns. NPP voters likely favored him. That wasn't the case in the 2018 primary. Democrats did 3.6% better than ballot returns.

That leads to my next assumption. Let's look at CA-49. In 2014, Darrell Issa did 2.4% better than the VBMs. In the three subsequent elections Democrats did 2.7% better, 7.4% better, and 4.0% better. I'm assuming that the results will be between the top and bottom numbers. The past numbers are probably indicative of the future and we have no reason to think either party will do better. The 2016 primary numbers are ones I'd emphasize since they are most indicative of the environment we're in. The numbers of the 2016 primary and general elections are closest to each other in many districts.

So Gil Cisneros is unlikely to win the election if the VBMs are more Republican than R+3.6. Democrats really outperformed the VBM margin in CA-45, so Mimi Walters is in serious trouble if the returns are less than R+9.6.

Are my assumptions faulty? Are yours better? Great. The data is the data. Read the data and use your assumptions.

The numbers on the right tell us the return rate so far. In CA-3, Democrats have returned 3.2% of their VBM ballots, Republicans have returned 4.0% of theirs and NPP voters have returned 2.2%. Some districts have very low return rates listed. This may not be because people haven't returned their ballots but because all the counties in the district haven't reported or have reported little. These district results should be ignored until there's more data.

One of the most notable things we can see is that Republicans are returning their ballots in greater numbers. The average in the districts listed is that Democrats have returned 4.8% of their ballots, while Republicans have returned 6.4% of theirs. Republicans in these districts are returning them at a rate that's 35% higher than Democrats. The number is 85% higher in CA-16 but only 4% higher in CA-21. As I said above, these districts should be disregarded. The more Republican counties in CA-16 have probably reported while the more Democratic counties in CA-21 have.

The return differentials in many of these districts are close to the 2014 election than any other election. It's possible some of these Republicans are voting Democratic. That seems unlikely because:

1. Republicans have been abandoning the Republican party in California. Those left are likely committed to the GOP.
2. Republicans have given Donald Trump very high approval ratings.
3. They didn't in previous elections.
4. If you're a Republican voting Democratic, it's probably something you're wrestling with. You're not rushing to get your ballot in early.

Regardless of who they are voting for that Republicans are voting at much higher rates than Democrats goes completely against conventional wisdom that suggests Republicans aren't enthusiastic and Democrats are. Many of the districts Democrats are looking to flip have more Republicans in them than Democrats so Democrats need to do vote at a much higher rate than Republicans and get NPP and some Republican voters to pick them. So far they aren't doing the former and we don't know for sure they are doing the latter. The primary suggests Democrats have some advantage with these voters, but when you're dealing with a district that has significantly more Republicans than Democrats they'll need to do more than that.

If this type of turn out continues it seems unlikely Democrats will flip Republican districts and several Democratic districts (CA-3, 16, and 24, for example) that have been close in past elections could be close in this one. So watch PDIs numbers and my spreadsheet and make your own judgment.