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. 

Iowa Election Night Guide, Key Counties and County Benchmarks

After months of traversing the state, arguing about poll numbers and fighting for Iowan voters, the Iowa caucuses are in one week. The race started off with Clinton in a nearly insurmountable lead. Then in the summer, Bernie Sanders started to gain strength. By October, Sanders was nearly tied in Iowa but after the 1st debate and Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi smackdown, Clinton regained a lead. In January though, polls released after Christmas showed a narrow race and the polls have continued to show a close race. The RCP average as of Sunday January 24th show Clinton with a seven point lead but as history shows, the polls can shift within a week and some observers believe the polls are skewed.

This post will show what counties to watch in Iowa on Election night. The post will have an explanation of the three regions of Iowa and show county benchmarks for counties Sanders and Clinton need to win in order to win the caucus.

Notes:

1. It should be noted that unless one is privey to the Clinton or Sanders data, it will be nearly impossible to make an accurate prediction as to who will win which counties. I calculated it by giving Sanders all of the Obama 2008 voters, giving Hillary all of the Hillary 2008 voters and splitting the Edwards voters between them until Hillary received 50%. These benchmarks assume Sanders will keep the Obama voters (younger, urban and college educated) and Hillary will keep her voters.

2.  I would like the comments on the diary to be as civil as possible, yes from both sides.

3. Polls show the Iowa caucuses are hard to predict. Some polls predict massive voting turnout and a Sanders win (CNN Sanders +9) and other polls predict smaller turnout (around the low 100s) and a Clinton win (KBUR Clinton +9). The number Sanders needs to win of new voters is between 25%-30%, higher and he wins, lower and he loses.

4. It should be noted that the way caucuses work for Democrats is that they are voting for precinct representatives who are already allocated proportionally so if turnout is concentrated (for example in college towns which should support Sanders), it  may be difficult for Sanders to win especially with Hillary’s support more spread across the more moderate rural areas. Also, the percentages may be changed if actual votes are not reported but instead delegates are.

5. Martin O’Malley is not included and it should be noted the percentages listed are only for Hillary and Sanders.

County Benchmarks:

Dark Yellow: Hillary 55%+

Light Yellow: Hillary 50%-54%

Light Green: Sanders 50%-54%

Dark Green: Sanders 55%+

Google doc with full county percentages:

Link to 2008 Iowa Caucus results:

Eastern Iowa

A few counties here went narrowly for Clinton but eastern Iowa is where Sanders must run up numbers in order to win. There are large numbers of Progressives and college towns here. There are rural voters too but this is a less rural part of Iowa. Here are a few key counties:

Johnson County is Sanders’ best county and he needs it to be. Johnson County is home to the University of Iowa (which Carly Fiorina famously supported in hopes it would win her votes but instead won her the title of a flip flopper and slayed her polling numbers). Iowa polls on average show a mid single digit Clinton lead but a few such as CNN/ORC show a Sanders lead. Those polls show a Sanders lead because they predict an Iowa caucus turnout higher than in 2008. In order for Sanders to win the Iowa caucus, he needs to run up the score in college counties such as Johnson. Sanders can attract crowds but he needs them to turnout, especially in the snow which is predicted for Monday.

Linn County (Cedar Rapids) is the 2nd largest city in Iowa and has a Progressive history as well requiring Sanders to perform well there.

Winneshiek County may not be as populated as the other two but it is important because Sanders had a rally with 2,000 people there in a town of 8,000 a week before the caucus. While those attendees may be from different towns as well and some may be swing voters, it could indicate that Sanders support is strong here.

Eastern Iowa is also more populated than the other two regions which is why this map is 50-50, even most counties supporting Clinton because the Sanders counties are urban counties.

Counties to watch:

Johnson: Sanders 62.2%

Linn: Sanders 53.4%

Winneshiek: Sanders 56.7%

Central Iowa:

It appears the election can be won or lost in Central Iowa. It is a mixture of both urban and rural areas with Des Moines, the capital of Iowa mixed in with Story County, another college town and many rural counties predicted to strongly support Hillary which are mainly sparsely populated. Here are the key counties:

Polk County:

Des Moines, the Iowan Capital is here and 16% of the state’s Democratic votes were cast here, cementing its status as a strong factor in the Iowa caucuses. Historically, Polk County casts more votes than a large number of the Clinton heavy counties on Iowa’s southern border combined. While many of the White Progressives in Polk are expected to support Sanders, Clinton may be able to narrow the margin (but not enough to win Polk in a 50-50 race) by winning large margins among the voters of color (Polk County has a 21% voters of color population which is larger than other Iowan counties). Sanders needs four or more points here to win.

Story County:

Story County is another college town and Iowa state is located here. It is also the location of the famous Iowa straw poll. Sanders also needs heavy turnout here in order to win.

Wayne County:

While Wayne County is not a densely populated county such as Polk County (2,900 votes were cast in 2012 there, compared to 228,000 for Polk), it is a barometer for Hillary Clinton and how well she is performing with rural voters.

Polk County: Sanders 51.7%

Story County: Sanders 54.6%

Wayne County: Clinton 64.3%

Western Iowa

Western Iowa is much different from eastern Iowa. It is less populated and has more Republicans, meaning there are less potential caucus goers here. It is also home of Rep. Steve King (R) who  make immigration comments that would make Donald Trump appear xenophobic. At the same time, a large number of western Iowans do not  share these views and 45% in 2012 backed his opponent. There are few college towns here so this is where Hillary will need a strong showing. Almost all counties are shown as Hillary counties but President Obama won in Sioux County which is the most conservative county in Iowa by winning over disaffected Republicans. Should Bernie have a great night he could surprise observers by winning either Sioux or Plymouth Counties.

Sioux County:

Romney won 83% of the vote here in 2012, making it the most Republican county in Iowa. President Obama won it by winning over disaffected Independents and Republicans, it remains to be seen if Sanders can exert the same pull here.

Pottawattamie County:

One of Western Iowa’s larger cities, Council Bluffs is located here. This is part of Hillary’s base if the benchmarks prove correct and she will need a strong margin from here. The problem for her though is that there are less Democratic voters here than in similarly populated counties in eastern Iowa.

Dickinson County:

Dickinson County is one of the few western Iowa counties where Sanders is leading with the benchmarks. It also voted 50.9% for Sanders so Dickinson could be viewed as a bellwether.

Sioux County: Clinton 51.3%

Pottawattamie County: Clinton 59.6%

Dickinson County: Sanders 50.9%

Overall, while watching election night, keep a few points in mind.

1. Is Bernie Sanders turning out voters in the urban and college counties such as Polk, Johnson and Linn?

2. Is Hillary Clinton turning out the vote in rural counties in western Iowa, making inroads in rural eastern Iowa counties and are the voters of color in Polk County making Polk a close county?

3. Most importantly, are these benchmarks consistently holding muster? Do not watch just one county early in the night and predict a Clinton or Sanders win if one candidate overperforms in one or two counties.