California Primary Prediction: Clinton +10

After a long process, the voting primary states have nearly ended. California is not only the  biggest prize in the calendar on June 7th, it is also the largest with 475 pledged delegates. Senator Sanders is hoping a win here will weaken Secretary Clinton’s argument for the nomination while Secretary Clinton is hoping for not only a win but a decisive win that will show she is still widely popular among the Democratic base (as head to head polls currently show) and that she is the clear choice of the Democratic Party.

California has demographics that strongly favor Secretary Clinton. Despite the strong population of young people with California’s many colleges and universities and the strong progressive streak, Secretary Clinton has the strong advantage here. One poll showed Secretary Clinton ahead by only 2 points but it was taken over the span of nine days (generally too long for a poll) with a small sample size compared to another poll (Survey USA) showing her ahead by 18 points. At the same time, polling Latino voters in California has been historically difficult so it remains to be seen who Latino voters will decide to support.

Arizona and Oregon also help predict California’s results as well. Arizona has a large Latino population, mainly Mexican while California’s Latino population is extremely diverse but majority Mexican as well. This leads me to believe Secretary Clinton will win the support of the majority of the California Latinos. Oregon has a smaller percentage of Latinos (10%) but has a large population of progressive white voters in Portland and its surrounding area.

To predict Secretary Clinton’s win in California, I looked at the 2008 map where she won California by 8 points. I predict a roughly 10 point win here in 2016. Secretary Clinton will gain votes with upscale Democrats (West Coast) and with African American and lose votes with rural white voters (the Sierras) and potentially a few points with Latino voters.

This is my prediction for the 2016 Democratic primary.

Dark Blue = Solid Clinton

Light Blue = Lean  Clinton

Grey = Tossup

Light Green = Lean Sanders

Solid Green = Solid Sanders 

2008 Primary Results as Comparison:

Northern California:

Humboldt County:

This county  is a quintessential Bernie County. Not only is it heavily white (78%) and rural, it also has a large number of progressives (they are not as upscale as the Marin County progressives) and has Humboldt State University. I expect Sanders to break +20 here.

Mendocino County:

Mendocino County should vote for Senator Sanders as well but it is less favorable to him than Humboldt County. The reason is that due to the large number of wealthy Bay Area transplants here and the growing influence of the wine country (I expect Napa County which has a large number of Latinos and upscale Democrats to support Secretary Clinton) Secretary Clinton will have a base here. What will allow Senator Sanders to carry Mendocino though is the rural working class voters inland in Ukiah and Wilitis. He will also be helped by longtime residents here as well as baby boomers who settled here in the 1970s. Overall I predict a Sanders +10 here.

Border Counties:

The counties of Del Norte, Siskiyou and Modoc are all heavily white, rural and have large elderly populations (over 20% in many of them). This will allow Secretary Clinton to not face a blowout here (similarly to Oregon’s southern counties) but should not be enough for her to win any of them.

Bay Area:

Alameda County:

This county will narrowly lean Clinton. On one hand, it has heavily African American areas (12% countywide) in Oakland and wealthier areas (Dublin) that will vote strongly for Secretary Clinton. Alameda County also has a 23% Latino and 29% Asian population. At the same time, Alameda County is also home to Berkeley which is probably one of the strongest Bernie cities in the state. It is home to extremely progressive and young Democrats (and I saw Jill Stein at an event there). The southern part of the county is more Latino which should favor Secretary Clinton but Berkeley has high Democratic turnout and the hipsters in Oakland may offset the African American voters there supporting Secretary Clinton. Overall I predict Secretary Clinton +4 due to the southern part of Alameda County saving Secretary Clinton.   

Contra Costa County:

If  any county in the Bay Area were made for Hillary, it would be this one. Not only does Contra Costa have a 10% African American population (it is home to heavily African American city of Richmond), it also has very upscale suburbs similar to the Philadelphia suburbs and the Upper East Side that Hillary won. There are a few working class areas (Martinez) but they should be outvoted by the wealthier areas (Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Danville). I predict a +17 Secretary Clinton win here.

Marin County:

As a resident of Marin County, I am so excited to finally discuss how my county will vote. At a first glance, Marin County appears to be strongly for Bernie. It is 72% White and very progressive (it was the strongest Obama primary county in California in  2008, backing him by 19 points). Environmentalism is the key issue here, we love hiking in the redwoods on Mt. Tam, we love our salmon, we love protecting our unspoiled coastline and we love our four Whole Foods markets. One town, Fairfax is a proud town with many former hippies very proud of its heritage (and West Marin is very similar with many rural progressives). On the other hand, there are some very wealthy areas in Marin County (Tiburon, Ross) which are still Democratic but many of the Dems there are more moderate and similar to upscale Democrats Secretary Clinton won on the East Coast. The average age is also 44 years old. The bellwether here is Mill Valley which is home to many progressives and many upscale Democrats (there are two Whole Foods within a mile of each other). At the same time, Marin County may appear very pro Secretary Clinton on a data model due to demographics similar to Montgomery County, PA, Montgomery County, MD and Westchester County which overwhelmingly backed Hillary, I expect Marin County to be very close due to the strong progressivism and activism many of the Democrats here have. While I expect the West Marin/Fairfax contingent to post a strong showing for Bernie, Marin will support Hillary  thanks to supporters in the southern part of the county. I predict Clinton +4 here.  

San Mateo County:

The key to determining how San Mateo County votes is by looking at the divide between the areas along the Bay which are full of young tech workers. The upper parts of the county though are more older (Hillsborough, Woodside) and more wealthy which would imply a win for Secretary Clinton. San Mateo County is currently labeled as “too close to call” thanks to the large numbers of tech workers here (and Senator Sanders is also helped by the working class residents of South San Francisco). Secretary Clinton also won here in 2008 by six points despite losses among the young tech workers (although provided there are more now than in 2008). Overall, I give this county Clinton +1 but with the potential closeness it is marked as “too close to call” on the map.

Santa Clara County:

At a first glance, Santa Clara County may appear to be a swing county due to the large number of young people working in Silicon Valley. Once one leaves the valley however and heads to the mountains, the demographics change and become more upscale (Campbell, Saratoga, Mountain View etc), which favors Secretary Clinton. As shown in Oregon, Sanders won wealthy suburban areas in Portland (Clackamas County) by three points (I am using it to compare upscale Democrats on the West Coast) but Clackamas County is not as wealthy as parts of Santa Clara County and it does not have the minority population Santa Clara has. Also, Santa Clara County has a significant Latino population (26%) which is the largest in the Bay Area. The Asian population here is 35% and while there is little data on how Asian Democrats vote in the primary (especially Vietnamese due to the large Vietnamese population here), the best data we have is the NY primary results where Secretary Clinton won 60%-65% in heavily Asian neighborhoods. While Santa Clara County and San Mateo County are similar demographically in some ways, what gives Secretary Clinton a higher percentage here than in San Mateo is the higher Latino population. Also, Secretary Clinton won by 13 points here in 2008 despite President Obama winning  among the young tech workers. In terms of polls, the best data here is a Clinton +13 poll here which is a bit out of line with our Secretary Clinton +5 win here.

San Francisco County:

While demographics of many California counties may appear obscure, what is not obscure is the San Francisco demographics. With a large population of progressive voters and young voters, San Francisco is prime territory for Senator Sanders. At the same time here, he will not win a blowout here that he will need to counterbalance Secretary Clinton’s wins in SoCal. The reason is that many of the wealthy voters in the Pacific Heights will favor Secretary Clinton. The Asian voters in the Sunset District will probably favor Secretary Clinton (but as shown by heavily Asian areas in NY, probably not by large margins). Overall, I predict a +7 Sanders win here, thanks to margins from young voters and from progressives.

Central Coast:

This region contains Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties.

Santa Cruz County:

Santa Cruz county is similar demographically to Marin County. There are many environmental progressive voters here as well as UC Santa Cruz and Watsonville which is heavily Latino (Santa Cruz County is 30% Latino). While Watsonville should lean Secretary Clinton, it should be outvoted by the rest of Santa Cruz County which I expect to heavily back Bernie. I expect Sanders +7 here.

Monterey County:

Monterey County similarly to 2008 will mostly likely go for Hillary. Not only is it 57% Latino, it also has a large upscale white voter population. At the same time, it is important to note that due to the low turnout rates of Latinos, a 57% Latino population does not guarantee a Latino majority in voting, even in a Democratic primary (in a general election a 65% Latino area may have a majority Latino vote) due to the age of many of the voters. While many of these voters are strong environmentalists similarly to Santa Cruz and Marin Counties, many of these voters are very upscale and may not be progressive activists the way voters in Marin and Santa Cruz Counties are. I expect Secretary Clinton to win here by roughly 10%.

San Luis Obispo County:

With Cal Poly, a smaller Latino percentage than nearby counties (and the smallest percentage in a coastal county south of the Bay Area) and a large number of rural progressives, San Luis Obispo County should vote strongly for Senator Sanders. I predict Sanders +10 here.

Central Valley:

Sacramento County:

Sacramento County will probably vote for Secretary Clinton but not by a large margin. The reason is that there is a large young population here in Downtown Sacramento. At the same time, this is the state capitol with political people who would be more likely to support Secretary Clinton. Not to mention the African American population here is 11%  and the Latino population is 23%. Compared to Marion County in Oregon with Oregon’s state capital which narrowly backed Bernie and had a similar Latino population, Sacramento County should back Secretary Clinton by roughly 12% thanks to the additions of the African American and Asian populations.

Stanislaus County:

If there is one farming county Senator Sanders wins, it will be this one. As shown in the 2012 election results, President Obama won here despite Stanislaus County having a 44% Latino population here (counties in the southern Central Valley with Latino populations in the 50s voted for Romney). This shows that there is a contingent of white Democrats here that may be much smaller in southern Central Valley counties. Also, many of the white Democrats here are working class, giving Senator Sanders an opening. I still expect a Secretary Clinton win but it could be close.

Merced County:

Despite the 58% Latino population here, this is a county where Senator Sanders may make a close race. The reason is that UC Merced is here and Senator Sanders performs very well with college students. I predict a +10 win for Secretary Clinton with the large Latino population carrying her to victory.

Kern County:

This county is heavily Latino with a large young population as well (30% of the population is under 18). At the same time, many of the Latinos here are involved in the farmworking industry which favors Secretary Clinton due to the strong support she received there. Also, the white population here is strongly Republican, preventing Senator Sanders from narrowing the margin here with white working class voters. I predict a +20 Secretary Clinton win here.

Southern California:

Santa Barbara County:

In California elections, Santa Barbara County is a bellwether. It is a good representation of the state. It has a liberal university, it has wealthy liberal voters, it has heavily Latino communities in an urban area (East Santa Barbara), it has heavily Latino communities in an agricultural area (Lompoc, Santa Maria), it has upscale Republicans (Montecito), and rural Republicans (Santa Ynez). Therefore, I expect Santa Barbara to represent the state of California and have the Latinos and the wealthy voters carry Secretary Clinton to victory. My prediction is Secretary Clinton + 2.

Ventura county:

As recently as 10 years ago, Ventura County leaned Republican but demographic changes have changed that. Not only has the Latino population grown to 42%, the formerly heavily Republican suburban areas such as Thousand Oaks have become more purple instead of solidly red (although Simi Valley is still solidly red). I expect Clinton to win here  by +12.

Los Angeles County:

If Secretary Clinton wants a large margin out of California, Los Angeles will be the county where she needs it and she will get it. Besides Silver Lake and other young areas in LA County, there are few opportunities for Senator Sanders. There are upscale wealthy areas but they are unlikely to back Bernie (except maybe Santa Monica) due to not being as “anti establishment” as the progressive areas in Marin and Santa Cruz Counties. Not to mention Los Angeles County has a 48% Latino population and a 9% African American population that is very politically active. In 2008, Secretary Clinton won California by 12, I expect her to keep her 2008 voters (the groups she lost in 2016 compared to 2008 are working class white voters and there are few in LA County) and she will gain among African American voters and upscale white voters. Therefore, I predict a +16 win for Secretary Clinton here.

Orange County

This is a difficult county to predict. Orange County on one hand is home to a large Latino population (34%) and Asian population (16%) and also has many wealthy coastal areas as well that should favor Secretary Clinton. Secretary Clinton should be able to at least receive a +10 margin here thanks to margins from the coastal areas and from Latinos (although her margins among Latinos here may be smaller than in other areas thanks to the Latino population being younger here than in other parts of California).

San Diego County:

With San Diego being much whiter and younger, this is the SoCal county Sanders has the best chance to win (although I highly doubt he does). San Diego County has a large college aged population and has a larger white percentage than other SoCal counties (at 47% which also means that not a single county in SoCal is majority non Hispanic White). The 33% Latino population though is very helpful to Secretary Clinton and the 6% African American and 12% Asian do not hurt either here. Overall, Secretary Clinton should aim for a +8 win here.

Imperial County:

Predicting how Latinos will vote in California is difficult with Latinos having different voting patterns across the U.S. In Illinois, Sanders won the 75% Latino 4th district (but most of the Latino population was not Mexican) and Secretary Clinton won in heavily Latino parts of Florida and Texas (and probably won in Nevada but others debate that and that is another discussion for another article). I settled on Arizona, due to the similarities in the Latino population and the fact that both states are not caucus states (Nevada is). Yuma County and Santa Cruz County, the two heavily Latino counties in Arizona supported Secretary Clinton +29 and +32 respectively (similar to their 2008 primary results). While Senator Sanders has a chance to make inroads among urban Latinos, he has not shown this ability with rural ones. This is important in a 82% Latino county such as Imperial County. Therefore, I am predicting a +40 margin here for Secretary Clinton (similar to her +44 margin in 2008).

Conclusion:

Overall, Secretary Clinton should expect a +10 win statewide. She will sweep every county in SoCal with the closest being San Diego and Santa Barbara Counties. She will win the cities in the Central Valley (with the potential exception of Stanislaus County (Modesto) and while she will lose the Sierra rural areas, she may not lose by the large margins she lost by in rural western caucus states thanks to the large elderly population in these areas.

In NorCal, the race will be more split with Secretary Clinton winning the East Bay in the Bay Area, losing San Francisco and keeping it close in Santa Clara, San Mateo and Marin Counties.

In Coastal California, Bernie will win most of the counties except for Monterey.

California will be a gripping end to the primary season and while we may not know the final tallies for over a month (California takes about a month to finalize the provisional ballots and counts absentee ballots first which should favor Secretary Clinton in the early count), the absentee ballots and the Election Day votes should be enough to allow Secretary Clinton to declare victory.

Overall, the main reason I believe Secretary Clinton will win by 10 points in California is that in 2008, she won by eight points showing that she has a strong base here and Senator Sanders would need to make inroads among one of her demographics. I have not seen how Senator Sanders can do it.

Who won Nevada's Hispanic Vote?

After the Nevada caucus, Bernie and Hillary supporters are up in arms debating it. There is the debate over whether people were yelling  "English only" at Dolores Huerta. There is the debate over who has the most momentum but most importantly there is the debate over who won the Hispanic vote. The Sanders camp has long contended that they can win over voters of color and that Sanders is not simply a "candidate for white voters." 

The debate starts here: roughly 70% of Nevadans live in Clark County, the most urban and Democratic part of the state (Obama won 58% there in 2008 and 56% in 2012) and Clark County has the bulk of Nevada's Hispanics (30% of Clark County is Hispanic, 45% of Clark County is non Hispanic White). The other 30% of Nevada includes Washoe County with Reno and the rural counties are nicknamed the "Cow Counties." The U.S. Census quick facts website shows that the Hispanic population percentage is lower in these counties than Clark County. Sanders narrowly carried Washoe County and the "Cow Counties." Clinton however won Clark County by 10 points which was the entire winning margin for Nevada by 5-6 points. This would suggest that Clinton won the Hispanic vote but some Sanders supporters are saying that the entrance polls show Sanders leading with Hispanics which means he won Hispanics. Heavily Hispanic precincts voted for Clinton but Sanders supporters say Sanders won Hispanics in precincts with lower Hispanic populations. 

This article's goal is to not to prove that Hillary Clinton won Nevada's Hispanic voters but to show why exit/entrance poll crosstabs should not always be trusted, especially when judging the Hispanic vote.

We will examine this by looking at a few areas:
1. Clark County Voter Math
2. Why Exit Polls are not always reliable
3. Precincts with Medium Hispanic Populations

1. Clark County Voter Math

This point has been repeated thoroughly but in 22 heavily Hispanic majority  precincts, Hillary Clinton won the majority of the delegates. The Hillary campaign used these numbers to estimate that they won 61% of the Hispanic votes. She also overwhelmingly won the casino caucus sites which have high Hispanic populations. She did not win by narrow margins either, one precinct I had a friend awarded 28 delegates to Hillary and 12 to Sanders. This map below shows East Las Vegas which is heavily Hispanic.


Map of Las Vegas the red indicates white and green indicates Hispanic. As shown the large bulk of the Hispanic population is in East Las Vegas.

Map of East Las Vegas heavily Hispanic precincts and their primary results (map is from New York Times' writer Nate Cohn's Twitter)

African Americans were probably 14% of Clark County votes due to being 12% in the exit polls and the fact that outside of Clark County the African American population was low in Nevada. If the African Americans voted 76%-22% for Clinton (as shown by the exit polls) this means that Hillary Clinton won other voters by about three points. With heavily Hispanic East Las Vegas precincts voting for Clinton, it is safe to assume that the pockets of Sanders support came from areas with a higher White population.  

2. Why exit polls are not always reliable

Exit polls  have made mistakes with Hispanic votes previously. In 2004, they said Bush won 49% of Hispanic vote in Texas in 2004 and 56% in Florida in 2004. Results from heavily Cuban congressional districts and heavily Hispanic Osceola County seemed to confirm a result close to that, at least within a few points. When looking at Texas however, the heavily Hispanic counties suggest that Texas Hispanics voted more than 50% for Kerry.

(map courtesy of the New York Times of the Rio Grande Valley with the Democratic counties in 2004).

Take Webb County as an example in the Rio Grande Valley. The population of Webb County is 94% Hispanic which means it can show us how Texas Hispanics voted without other demographics changing the county results. Webb is also the most populated heavily Hispanic County in Texas above 90% Hispanic. Webb County voted 57% for Kerry. Other Rio Grande counties which were heavily Hispanic also backed Kerry, mostly by similar margins. One argument was that Bush performed better among Hispanics not in the Rio Grande Valley. The heavily Hispanic congressional districts outside of the Rio Grande Valley in San Antonio of TX-20 and TX-29 voted 55% and 56% respectively for Kerry according to the Almanac of American Politics 2006. Those numbers are lower than normal but still show that Hispanics voted more Democratic than 50%. 

3. Using precincts with medium Hispanic populations

I have heard the argument that Sanders performed better with Hispanics in precincts with 20%-40% Hispanics because he won some in Clark County. He also won a few in Washoe County as well which does not have as large or as dense Hispanic population. This brings me to California's 21st Congressional District located in Bakersfield and some rural agricultural communities in the southern Central Valley. The district voted 52%-45% for Obama in 2008 even though it was 70% Hispanic. This created the misconception that Hispanics in the Central Valley were more conservative. In 2013 and 2014, Democrats lost SD-16, a State Senate seat there and Republican touted this by saying that Hispanics could vote Republican. At a closer examination, the data showed that Hispanics mainly voted Democratic. I examined precincts such as Lost Hills, CA which were 96% Hispanic and showed that Hispanics voted heavily Democratic. At the same time, many precincts that were 90%+ White voted 80% for McCain.

Another example is Tulare County. It is 63% Hispanic but voted 41% for President Obama. It was not  however because Hispanics voted Republican but because Hispanic turnout was low in Tulare County. A few 90%+ Hispanic precincts were examined and while they backed Obama heavily (precincts in the southwest corner and in Orisi had 70%-80% margins for Obama), they had much lower turnout than surrounding whiter and conservative precincts. This shows that Hispanics in the Central Valley were not necessarily more conservative than Hispanics in Los Angeles. It shows that Hispanic turnout was low and the turnout from White voters was higher and most likely outnumbered Hispanics despite the higher Hispanic population. Reasons for the lower Hispanic turnout include that Hispanics are generally younger which means many are under 18 and many are not citizens and cannot vote. This is why it is important to use precincts to analyze Hispanics that are nearly 100% Hispanic because Hispanic turnout rates are generally lower than that of other demographic groups.

Precinct map of Tulare County's population (red is primarily white, green is primarily Hispanic, a district with both is a mix)

Map of Tulare County's votes in 2008: (courtesy of Dave's Redistricting App)

Some analyses have pointed to precincts with sizable but not majority Hispanic populations to show areas where Bernie performed well. However it is unclear whether that Bernie  support came from white voters or if it came from Hispanics. By looking at Tulare County though as an example, it appears that the White voters are overrepresented.

This explains my problem with justifying the Sanders win by looking at districts with medium sized Hispanic populations. As shown by Tulare County, Hispanics can be  underrepresented in precincts with lower Hispanic populations. That is why I want to only look at East Las Vegas precincts because the precincts have such a high Hispanic population so other demographic groups cannot dilute their votes. 

Conclusion: 

Overall, is Hillary or Bernie more popular with Hispanics? That question will only be fully answered when we see Texas vote on March 1st and see their exit polls. We can also examine the exit polls and see how closely they match Webb County and other heavily Hispanic counties in the Rio Grande Valley. So far, a YouGov poll shows Hillary with a 23 point lead among Texan Hispanics but as stated earlier, crosstabs are not always completely accurate. 

My educated guess though is that Hillary probably won Hispanics (although we do not know the margin) because poll crosstabs are known to be extremely inaccurate but actual precinct results from heavily Hispanic precincts which are not diluted are not. I will not however be 100% in any camp until Texas votes. 

California Redistricting: What Could Have Happened

In late June of 2015, the marriage equality case was the Supreme Court case received the most attention. At the same time, the Supreme Court ruled that redistricting commissions (non elected people who are Democrats, Republicans and Independents) can draw redistricting maps. This works out well for Democrats because Republicans have recently drawn convoluted maps across the country including a map with 12-4 Republican districts in Ohio even though President Obama won Ohio in 2012. One district in Florida (drawn by Republicans) represents parts of Orlando and Jacksonville that are almost 200 miles away from each other. Also, if the Supreme Court ruled against the commission, Arizona which has a commission would have redrawn its map and given two seats to the Republicans. In California though, the Democrats would have had to do a mid decade redistricting.

My map shows what the Democrats could do if the Supreme Court ruled the commission unconstitutional and the Democrats performed mid decade redistricting. This map shores up many of their vulnerable incumbents who won close races in 2014. It is a 43-10 Democratic map. While the Democrats could try to draw a 45-8 map, that would cause them to create more convoluted lines and if "good Government groups" lobbied against a strong gerrymander, many Democrats  may decide to go for a map that does not have convoluted lines and mostly respects communities of interest while still increasing Democratic chances in four Republican held districts. Also, many Democratic incumbents will not want drastic changes in their district lines so I did not make major changes to Bay Area seats and many LA ones. I also followed the Voting Rights Act which requires districts to be drawn to elect Hispanic, African American and Asian representatives.

Overall, the map I drew aims to add four new Democratic seats without strongly violating communities of interest and having convoluted lines.

The current map is here and here

The current data is here:

Unless the district is listed below, there were no changes made.

New Map Data:

 (Northern California) 

New Data: (the new data is not as accurate for larger counties such as Los Angeles unless it is the 2008 election. Also, all percentages are based on the two party vote).

Sacramento Area: 

District 3: John Garamendi (D) Likely Democratic Purple
Political Data: (2012): Obama 56.5% (2008): Obama 57.1% (2010 Gubernatorial): Brown 54.4%
Demographics 18+: W 54%, AA 6%, Asian 11%, H 24%

The 3rd district becomes a point more Democratic by losing all of Sacramento County and gaining part of Democratic leaning West Sacramento. Garamendi has successfully held this district in 2014 and should continue to represent it.

District 6 Doris Matsui (D) Safe Democratic Teal
Political Data: (2012): Obama 62.9% (2008) Obama 62.9% (2010 Gubernatorial): Brown 63.3%
Demographics 18+: W 54%, AA 9%, Asian 12%, H 20%

The 6th district increases from 30% R to 37% R by adding the Citrus Heights area but remains safely Democratic.

District 7 Ami Bera (D) Likely Democratic Grey
Political Data: (2012): Obama 57.4% (2008): Obama 57.3%, (2010 Gubernatorial): Brown 56.9%
Demographics 18+: W 51%, AA 10%, Asian 18%, H 16%

The 7th district becomes more Democratic by removing the Citrus Heights area and adding southern Sacramento. The 2008 Obama percentage increases from 52.7% to 57.3%, meaning Rep. Bera would have won by nine points in 2014. With the higher Democratic percentages, after 2016, the 7th district will no longer hold the title of the district with the most expensive congressional race.

Central California

District 10 Jeff Denham (R) Safe Republican Pink
Political Data: (2012): Obama 43.4%, (2008): Obama 43.1%, (2010 Gubernatorial): Brown 37.8%
Demographics 18+: W 60%, AA 3%, Asian 12%, Hispanic 27%

The 10th district becomes more Republican at it loses  Democratic parts of Stanislaus County (Modesto) and gains heavily  Republican parts of Merced, Madera and Fresno Counties (including Clovis). Denham will have no trouble here.

District 16 Jim Costa (D) Likely Democratic Green
Political Data: (2012): Obama 61.2% (2008): Obama 60.9% (2010 Gubernatorial): Brown 56.2%
Demographics 18+: W 35%, AA 4%, H 52%, Asian 7%

The 16th district undergoes major changes. It loses all of Fresno, parts of Merced County and gains Democratic leaning Tracy in San Joaquin County, Democratic leaning parts of Stanislaus County, Gilroy in Santa Clara County, San Benito County and heavily Hispanic parts of Monterey County. The 16th district is rated as "Likely Democratic" because Costa had a close race in a similar district in 2014 but the addition of Tracy (it has higher turnout) and Monterey County should  help protect Costa. Also, there is a chance State Sen. Anthony Cannella (R) who represents a district with similar lines may run but the district he represents is more Republican, making  the 16th district easier for Democrats to win.

Sidenote: Merced County is split under this map and Section 5 of the VRA prevents that but in 2013, Section 5 was found unconstitutional so I chose to split Merced County.

District 20 Sam Farr (D) Safe Democratic Pink
Political Data: (2012) Obama 70.0%, (2008): Obama 70.4%, (2010 Gubernatorial): Brown 64.9%
Demographics 18+: W 47%, AA 3%, H 41%, Asian 6%

The 20th district undergoes a major change as it loses some heavily Hispanic parts of the Salinas Valley to the 16th district which has similar lines to SD-12. The 20th district then gains heavily Republican Kings County but remains strongly Democratic.

District 21 David Valadao (R) Tilt Democratic Dark Brown
Political Data: (2012) Obama 55.0%, (2008): Obama 54.8%, (2010 Gubernatorial): Brown 53.4%
Demographics 18+: W 22%, AA 5%, H 67%, Asian 4%

The current 21st district voted for President Obama but is represented by a Republican because the Republican has a strong base in Kings County which has high turnout. Also, many of the rural Hispanic voters (especially in Fresno County) are swing voters. The Kern County part votes strongly Democratic however. The new 21st district removes all of Kings and western Fresno Counties and instead adds heavily Hispanic parts of Tulare county where Rep. Valadao does not have a base. Without his base in the district, Valadao may attract a strong challenger such as Assm. Salas who represents Democratic parts of Kern County. Also, the real Obama 2012 percentage is probably close to 57% due to the heavily Hispanic parts of the Central Valley swinging further to Obama than the rest of the counties it represents did.

District 22 Kevin McCarthy (R) vs. Devin Nunes (R) Safe Republican Brown
Political Data: (2012) Obama 35.4%, (2008): Obama 35.4%, (2010 Gubernatorial): Obama 34.0%
Demographics 18+ W 62%, AA 3%, H 28%, Asian 4%

The 22nd district gains heavily Republican parts of San Luis Obispo County and parts of Tulare County. By being the Majority Leader, McCarthy should be safe from a primary challenge from Rep. Nunes. Nunes may run in the 21st district but probably would lose to Valadao in a primary.

District 23 Open Likely Democratic
Political Data: (2012) Obama 59.5% (2008) Obama 59.8%, (2010 Gubernatorial): Brown 55.3%
Demographics 18+: W 28%, AA 6%, H 55%, Asian 9%

This new district represents heavily Hispanic parts of Fresno (city) as well as western Fresno County. With the strong anchor of Fresno City and more straight ticket urban Democrats, Democrats should be extremely favored here. If Rep. Costa stays in the 16th, Assm. Perea or Assembly candidate Arambula may consider this seat.

Southern California: 

District 24 Open Likely Democratic Dark Purple
Political Data: (2012) Obama 58.3%, (2008) Obama 60.6%, (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 52.7%
Demographics 18+: W 62%, A 2%, H 30%, Asian 5%

The 24th district loses Republican parts of San Luis Obispo County and gains Ventura in Ventura County, increasing the Democratic percentage by a few points. With a competitive congressional race brewing here, this change should make the district much more Democratic.

District 25 Steve Knight (R) Likely Democratic Tan/Pink
Political Data: (2008) Obama 56.7%, (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 50.3%
Demographics 18+: W 49%, AA 9%, H 32%, Asian 8%

The 25th district loses heavily Republican Simi Valley and Santa Clarita and instead traverses the San Gabriel Mountains and gains Burbank and part of Glendale. This area has high turnout even during midterms and I find it hard to see Burbank/Glendale voters ticket splitting for Knight, an Antelope Valley Republican.

LA Metropolitan Area

District 26 Julia Brownley (D) Likely Democratic
Political Data: (2008) Obama 57.7% (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 49.5%
Demographics 18+: W 48%, AA 2%, H 39%, Asian 8%

The 26th district's partisanship stays stable as it loses Thousand Oaks and gains Simi Valley and Democratic leaning parts of the San Fernando Valley west of the 22. Brownley may want more Democratic votes but she won in 2014, a horrible year for Democrats against the Republican "dream" candidate. The district will only continue to trend Democratic as the Hispanic population increases. Brownley can continue to send her weekly fundraising emails.

District 28 Adam Schiff (D) Safe Democratic Pink Gray (representing Beverly Hills)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 75.6% (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 70.6%
Demographics 18+: W 60%, AA 3%, H 20%, Asian 14%

The 28th district loses most of Burbank/Glendale and goes as far west as the 405 in the Westside. Schiff should be safe from a primary challenge but when he retires, I expect a major Westside battle for this seat.

District 29 Tony Cardenas (D) Safe Democratic Green/Gray (representing San Fernando Valley)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 75.9% (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 72.6%
Demographics 18+: W 22%, AA 4%, H 63%, Asian 9%

A few minor changes. None of them should affect Cardenas.

District 30 Brad Sherman (D) Safe Democratic Orange/Pink (representing San Fernando Valley)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 62.9%, (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 55.1%
Demographics 18+: W 55%, AA 4%, H 26%, Asian 13%

Sherman helps the team out by gaining Republican leaning Santa Clarita. Sherman however should be safe with his San Fernando Valley base anchoring his district.

District 31 Pete Aguilar (D) Likely Democratic Light Yellow (representing San Bernardino)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 58.3%, (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 54.4%
Demographics 18+: W 34%, AA 11%, H 46%, Asian 8%

The 31st district mostly remains the same. It still leans Democratic and should continue to trend Democratic as the Hispanic population grows. Aguilar won here in 2014 so as long as two Republicans and another Democrat challenge him at the same time, he should be safe.

LA County 
District 33 Ted Lieu (D) Safe Democratic (Blue, representing LA Coast)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 63.0%, (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 53.8%
Demographics 18+: W 73%, AA 3%, H 11%, Asian 11%

If one Democrat is not happy with the map, Lieu might be that Democrat. The 33rd district loses all of the Westisde east of the 405 and gains Thousand Oaks which narrowly leans Republican. At the same time, the 33rd district gains all of Westchester. Seeing how Lieu won by 16 points in 2014, a Republican year, he should be safe but may have to campaign a little bit in Republican years.

District 35 Norma Torres (D) Safe Democratic Purple (representing San Bernardino County)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 65.9%, (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 62.9%
Demographics 18+: W 20%, AA 7%, H 64%, Asian 8%

Besides a few minor changes, the district remains similar. Torres should be safe.

District 36 Raul Ruiz (D) Likely Democratic Orange (representing Riverside County)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 53.8%, (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 48.8%
Demographics 18+: W 48%, AA 5%, H 41%, Asian 4%

Ruiz's district becomes two points more Democratic as it loses part of Hemet and gains part of Moreno Valley. I decided not to trade more of Hemet and Moreno Valley in order to prevent the 41st from being too convoluted. Anyway, Ruiz won by 8 points in 2014, a Republican year against a strong candidate (Assm. Nestande) showing that Ruiz is popular. Also, Brown in 2014 overperformed Obama in 2012, the only district where he did so in the Inland Empire, showing the 36th is trending Democratic very quickly.

District 37 Karen Bass (D) Safe Democratic Light Blue (representing Central LA)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 87.2%, (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 84.1%
Demographics 18+: W 26%, AA 26%, H 35%, Asian 10%

There are a few small changes but Bass's district remains one of the most Democratic in California and the country.

District 38 Linda Sanchez (D) Safe Democratic Turquoise (representing southeast LA County)
Political Data (2008) Obama 63.3% (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 60.6%
Demographics 18+: W 22%, AA 3%, H 57%, Asian 17%

The 38th district gains heavily Hispanic precincts in La Habra and a few near Long Beach. Otherwise, it does not change and remains heavily Hispanic and Democratic.

Orange County/Inland Empire
District 39 Ed Royce (R) Safe Republican Light Tan (representing Orange County)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 44.2%, (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 34.2%
Demographics 18+: W 54%, AA 2%, H 18%, Asian 23%

The 39th district becomes more Republican. It loses Democratic leaning Buena Park and southern Fullerton. It gains heavily Republican parts of southern Orange County. Royce should not have major problems.

District 41 Mark Takano (D) Safe Democratic Grey (representing Inland Empire)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 58.5%, (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 54.6%
Demographics 18+: W 33%, AA 8%, H 50%, Asian 7%

The 41st district becomes a point more Republican as it loses part of Moreno Valley to the 36th but the 58.5% Obama number should be enough to protect Takano.

District  42 Ken Calvert (R) Safe Republican Green (representing Inland Empire)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 43.9%, (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 37.5%
Demographics 18+: W 53%, AA 5%, H 30%, Asian 9%

The 42nd district gains part of Hemet and loses heavily Hispanic parts of Corona. It remains Republican by representing conservative parts of southern Riverside County.

District 43 Maxine Waters (D) Safe Democratic Light Pink (representing South LA area)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 75.6%, (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 71.8%
Demographics 18+: W 17%, AA 23%, H 42%, Asian 15%

The 43rd district gains a few Republican leaning precincts in Torrance to strengthen the 33rd but remains strongly Democratic.

District 44 Open (Nanette Barragan (D) vs. Isadore Hall (D)) Safe Democratic Dark Pink (representing Compton)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 81.7% (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 80.3%
Demographics 18+: W 11%, AA 17%, H  63%, Asian 7%

The 44th district becomes a point more Republican by gaining marginal precincts in Long Beach to shore up the 47th district.

District 45 John Campbell (R)? Leans Democratic Light Blue (representing Orange County)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 56.6% (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 46.1%
Demographics 18+: W 45%, AA 2%, H 30%, Asian 21%

The 45th district is the 2nd Democratic district in Orange County. It is a combination of Rohrabacher and Campbell's seats. It represents half of heavily Hispanic Santa Ana, Democratic leaning parts of Costa Mesa, Democratic leaning Irvine and Laguna Beach. Some may argue that this seat leans Republican due to Brown receiving 46% here in 2010. Part of that can be attributed to Whitman performing extremely well with high income voters (it is unknown but likely that Brown won this district in 2014). The major ticket splitters in Orange County are the Vietnamese voters mainly located in Garden Grove and Westminister  which are in the Republican 48th district. The Asian voters in Irvine and the  Hispanic voters in Santa Ana are less likely to ticket split, therefore preventing a scenario similar to SD-34 where the Vietnamese voters overwhelmingly supported Janet Nguyen (R) even though many of them backed President Obama in 2012 as shown by data from Garden Grove, a heavily Vietnamese community in SD-34 but not in the 45th district. Former Irvine Mayor Sukhee Kang could be a strong fit for this district. Also, with Democrats winning narrowly Democratic leaning districts with high  numbers of upscale White voters in CA-26 and CA-52, it shows that these voters who voted Republican in the early 2000s are open to voting for Democrats on a congressional as well as Presidential level.

District 46 Open Safe Democratic Brown (representing Central Orange County)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 58.7% (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 53.6%
Demographics 18+ W 25%, AA 2%, H 56%, Asian 15%

The 46th district becomes more Republican as it loses part of heavily Democratic Santa Ana and gains less Democratic southern Fullerton and Buena Park. While Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D) may not run for House because she is running for Senate (even after he "wha wha wha wha" moment where she "mimicked" Native Americans). Lou Correa (D) has expressed interest in this seat. The 15% Asian population is primarily Vietnamese but it is not large enough to make an impact even with ticket splitting as the 2010 race showed.

District 47 Alan Lowenthal (D) Likely Democratic Light Grey (representing Long Beach)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 58.9% (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 49.8%
Demographics 18+: W 50%, AA 8%, H 26%, Asian 13%

The 47th district loses Garden Grove and gains most of Huntington and Newport Beaches which are Republican. At  the same time, the 47th district gains some heavily Hispanic areas in western Long Beach. The Orange County portion of the district is Republican but the addition of the Hispanic precincts in Long Beach should help counterbalance it. Also, Lowenthal won the 47th district in 2014 by 12 points, showing he can win this district even in a Republican year.

District 48 Vacant Dana Rohrabacher (R)? Safe Republican Orange/Brown (representing Orange County)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 45.9% (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 39.9%
Demographics 18+: W 42%,  AA 2%, H 23%, Asian 31%

Do not be fooled by the high percentage of minorities in the 48th district. This district is solidly Republican by combining heavily Republican parts of Fullerton with heavily Republican parts of Huntington Beach and heavily Vietnamese Garden Grove. Rohrabacher would probably prefer to run here instead of the 47th which has much of his current territory. The 48th district is much more Republican than the 47th and does not have an incumbent.

District 49 Darrell Issa (R) Safe Republican Brown (representing North County)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 47.6%, (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 37.6%
Demographics 18+: W 65%, AA 3%, H 22%, Asian 8%

Issa's district becomes a few points more Republican. The former car thief will be safe.

San Diego:

District 50 Duncan Hunter Jr. (R) Safe Republican (light blue)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 40.3%,(2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 33.7%
Demographics 18+: W 63%, AA 2%, H 26%, Asian 6%

A few minor tweaks but the district remains one of the most Republican in California.

District 51 Juan Vargas (D) Safe Democratic (brown)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 65.1%, (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 62.0%
Demographics 18+: W 20%, AA 7%, H 62%, Asian 9%

A few tweaks here too. The district remains heavily Hispanic and Democratic.

District 52 Scott Peters (D) Safe Democratic (green)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 60.8%, (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 50.3%
Demographics 18+: W 65%, AA 3%, H 12%, Asian 17%

The 52nd district becomes more Democratic as it loses Republican leaning areas in northern San Diego and gains neighborhoods near Downtown. These changes would meant that Peters would have won in 2014 by double digits. He should be fine with the 60.8% Obama numbers and this should deter major Republican challengers.

District 53 Susan Davis (D) Safe Democratic (white)
Political Data: (2008) Obama 61.6% (2010 Gubernatorial) Brown 55.5%
Demographics 18+: W 46%, AA 8%, H 29%, Asian 14%

The district becomes a few points more Republican but should remain strongly Democratic and safe for Rep. Davis.