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. 

Leticia Perez and Democratic Turnout in Senate District 16

On May 21st, the voters of California's 16th Senate District nearly voted to elect a Republican even though President Obama won the district handily in 2012. This district is a 71% Hispanic district representing all of Kings County and heavily Hispanic parts of Fresno, Tulare and Kern Counties. This was a special election for the seat that State Sen. Michael Rubio (D) vacated in order to serve as a lobbyist for Chevron. The rules for this special election are that all candidates will run in an all party primary and if no candidate receives the 50.1% majority or more, there will be a runoff on July 23rd. The main Democratic candidate is Leticia Perez (D), a young Kern County Supervisor and the Republican candidate is Andy Vidak (R), the 2010 candidate for the 20th Congressional district representing parts of Fresno, Kings and Kern Counties. Perez campaigned on the high speed rail, raising the minimum wage to $9 and not raising taxes on working families. The CA Democratic Party also encouraged Democratic organizations (including the USC Democrats which I am a proud member of,) to campaign for Perez. Despite the hard work, Perez fell short on election night with Vidak winning 51.9% on the morning of May 22nd. Provisional ballots are being counted and have brought Vidak's numbers down to 49.8% and Perez's up from 41% to 43.8% (the other 8% went to less advertised Democratic candidates.) The race will now probably go to a July 23rd runoff because no candidate won 50.1% of the vote or more. There are almost no ballots in Fresno and Kern Counties but there are 135 left in Kings County and 170 left in Tulare County. Vidak needs to get a 211 vote margin from these 305 votes which means 85% of the remaining ballots must break for him which is unlikely. Many Republicans however are touting Vidak's numbers as a resurgence for Republicans in California and evidence that Republican candidates can win Hispanics. No exit polls were conducted on this race but this race should be seen not as a sign of Republican resurgence in California or with Hispanics. This race should be seen as a sign of low turnout especially with Hispanic voters which is typical in off year California elections, especially in the Central Valley.

(map of the 2014 version of the State Senate district, mpi maps.) 

(note: while I am a member of the USC Democrats and campaigned for Leticia Perez, the views espoused in this article do not represent the views of the Perez campaign, the CA Democratic Party or the USC Democrats. This article only represents my opinion.)

Turnout: 

In 2010, turnout in this area was low. The Democratic base in this district is Hispanics and the white voters in this district are mostly Republicans. Rep. Jim Costa (D) who represented the 20th Congressional district which overlaps much of the 16th State Senate district barely won in 2010, winning 51% of the vote. The reason is probably low turnout. Many of the Hispanics counted here in the 2010 census may be undocumented residents who cannot vote or documented residents who are not citizens yet and cannot vote. Also, some may be migrant farmworkers who do not have a permanent residence and travel around the valley depending on the harvest. The 2012 June primary is a bigger example of low turnout. Dianne Feinstein (D) only won 49% of the vote in the primary statewide. While she slightly underperformed in the Bay Area, she performed poorly in Los Angeles and other heavily Hispanic areas. She won 62% of the vote statewide in November and performed well in heavily Hispanic areas so Feinstein's problem was not that Hispanics preferred her opponent, it was that many of them were not voting. Therefore, it appears that Hispanics in these off year elections, especially special elections and primaries, have lower turnout rates. 

Turnout rates: 

Here are the turnout rates by county for each candidate compared with the 2008 Presidential election totals (2012 results are not available.) 

Senate District 16

               Obama  McCain

Fresno    50,332   25,618 

Kern      26,400    13,955 

Kings     14,747    19,710

Tulare     9,389     8,166
Totals     100,868  67,449

Percent 58.3% 39.8%  

Source:

            Perez     Vidak

Fresno 13,336   10,997

Kern    8,563     5,215

Kings   3,286     11,104

Tulare  2,079     3,677

Total:   27,264   30,993
Percent  43.8%     49.8%
Source: 

As shown, while Kern County had higher turnout than Kings County in 2012, it was the opposite in the State Senate election where Kings County had higher turnout. The Kern County portion of the 16th district is heavily Hispanic, and contains east Bakersfield which is heavily Hispanic. Kings County is roughly split between Hispanics and Whites but most of the Kings County Hispanics do not vote, either due to being below 18, not having permanent residence and not having citizenship. Therefore, Kings County is extremely Republican (and it is Vidak's home base.) Even President Obama in 2012 only won 40% of the vote there.

The Republicans' main response to this argument is CA-21 where David Valadao (R) won a 54% Obama district in 2012 with 58% of the vote. For CA-21, it has similar lines to SD-16. The reason for Valadao's win is not that Hispanics in the valley are trending Republican, it is that Valadao faced a poor Democratic candidate. John Hernandez (D), Valadao's challenger was poorly funded (the DCCC's preferred candidate Fresno City Councilman Blong Xiong (D) lost in the June 2012 primary,) and ran a poor campaign. For example, he spelled Karl Rove as "Carl Rove" in one of his ads. Democrats should nominate a candidate such as Perez for this seat and then they can win. Perez has a solid base in Kern County as a Supervisor, she can raise money and she is very likable. She needs to run in 2014 or 2016 though when Hispanic turnout will be higher than in the special election.

Overall, as of Sunday, May 26th, the provisional ballots are being counted and the counting will finish on Friday May 31st. Vidak currently has 49.8% of the vote and it is surprising that the pundits did not see his 51.9% lead from the morning of Wednesday May 22nd declining because provisional ballots favor Democrats in California and make a difference in close races. In 2010, CA Attorney General Kamala Harris (D) was behind and her opponent declared victory but when the provisional ballots finished reporting, she won. Even more importantly, Costa in 2010 was behind but won when all the provisional ballots reported. Even in 2012 the provisional ballots changed results transforming a 2 point Romney lead in Fresno County into a 2 point Obama lead. Perez is ready for the runoff but no matter what happens with this race or the runoff, it should not be an indicator for Republicans that Hispanics are winnable, it should be an indicator to the Democrats that the turnout rates for Hispanics are lower in special elections.

How will the housekeeper scandal affect Whitman?

 The California Governorship is one of those races where the leader keeps changing. In early 2009, former Governor Jerry Brown (D) led former ebay CEO Meg Whitman (R) by double digits. In late 2009 when she started spending her money in the primary, she strongly cut Brown's lead and the lead stayed that way throughout early 2010. Close to the June 8th primary though, Brown pulled ahead again by a few points. His lead of about 5 points stayed intact throughout most of the summer until August came along. I have frequently mentioned in other posts that August is a bad month for Democrats. This fact was no exception for Brown who saw Whitman's $104 million at that time work on voters. In early September, Whitman was leading but that was before Brown decided to campaign. Before September, Brown had barely campaigned. A month ago, I was seeing Brown become the next Phil Angelides (D) who ran against Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) in 2006. Angelides barely campaigned at all and lost by 17 points.

Fortunately, Brown realized he could not become the next Angelides so he began to campaign. He ran ads like a funny one with Meg Whitman's nose growing longer after he clearly showed how she lied. These ads helped him get a lead of 5 points and in the last week, the outlook is getting better and better for Brown. In a debate last week, Whitman appeared over rehearsed while Brown was personable but also knew his issues. Unless a candidate makes a major gaffe in a debate, bounces from debates do not last forever. I expected Brown to continue to have a five point lead. This was before the housekeeper Nicky Diaz Santiallo came onto the scene. Whitman was discovered firing her undocumented housekeeper who was like family for nine years. The news story is everywhere and if you are in California, I do not know how you have NOT heard about it. It makes Whitman hypocritical when she said people need to crack on illegal immigrants. The media is saying how dangerous the story is for Whitman because it will send Hispanics flying away from her. My question is, will it hurt her with everyone?

One group it will certainly hurt Whitman with is Hispanics. Before the scandal broke, Whitman was poised to make strong inroads among Hispanics. She has been courting this group and many polls showed Brown leading because he was pulling it close with whites and not because of margins among Hispanics. Whitman said she treated Santiallo like part of her family until Whitman learned that Santiallo was undocumented. Then Whitman fired her and tore herself away from Santiallo. Many Hispanics found Whitman unsympathetic and I know someone who told me "I have a Hispanic friend who generally votes Republican but after the housekeeper scandal, she is fully behind Brown." Now that Whitman lost her inroads among Hispanics, what normally Democratic group can Whitman win now? Winning middle class whites in the Central Valley/Inland Empire is not enough to win.

No one has mentioned this but the housekeeper scandal can give Whitman an opening with one group. She could pick up upper class white voters who may feel the same way she does with hiring undocumented immigrants. Many of them may have Hispanic housekeepers and worry that they could be undocumented. Also, upper class white voters may feel worried they will hire undocumented workers s so they understand how Whitman feels. Whitman cannot use this issue to make inroads among all white voters because many of the liberals will dislike Whitman's firing of Santiallo. The more moderate whites Whitman could try to pick up are the upper class white voters in the southern Bay Area, Santa Barbara and the LA coast south of Venice. Still, whatever gains Whitman makes among these voters will be offset by Hispanic losses. If Whitman wants to win though, she has to take control of the issue and try to appeal to upper class white moderates.

Another group that will be affected by the housekeeper scandal is the teabagger supporting middle class whites in Inland California. Some of them may hire housekeepers but most of the voters want undocumented immigrants to leave and they will be unable to help contribute to the economy and take jobs no one else wants in California. Some of those voters will see Whitman as not tough enough on Santiallo while many of the Hispanics will. The Inland conservatives may think that once Whitman knew Santiallo was illegal, Whitman should have called the Border Patrol in 2009 or in 2003 when her husband received the letter. Still, will this story sway voters because are the Inland conservatives going to vote for Brown? Now with Jill Armstrong, Whitman's ex-nanny backing up Santiallo, the story should stay for a longer time. With the story still dominating the headlines, it may convince those conservatives to leave the Governor's race blank. Whitman cannot win without the big conservative turnout in the Central Valley (for more info on where Whitman needs to win, check my post California Baselines )

Overall, the housekeeper scandal is definitely affecting Whitman with every demographic. More Hispanic voters dislike her, richer whites may understand her and the Inland conservatives are less enthusiastic about her. Still, many pundits are overestimating the damage of the story. Unless the story gets very large, the Inland conservatives will probably not sit out the election as a protest vote. Yes, the story will move Hispanics toward Brown but it might shift a few rich white voters who associate Brown with the unions and see identifying with Whitman on the immigration issue as the final reason to move toward her. Overall, this story definitely hurts Whitman but not as much as the pundits say, unless the story grows and stays.