
In the previous five states where I released projections, I felt pretty darn comfortable with them. They happened to closely track the polling averages in four of five cases, and while they didn't in North Carolina, I had plenty of reasons to believe that my numbers were solid.
But this projection in Kentucky -- I'm not so certain about. If I were a betting man, I'd certainly take the over on Clinton's margin. With that said, Kentucky shouldn't be that bad for Obama. Approximately 8 percent of the population is black, and the black vote will make up a higher share than that in a closed Democratic primary. West Virginia had no real urban areas to speak of. But Kentucky has Louisville, as well as Lexington, which is a big university town, and a few pockets of wealth in the Cincinnati suburbs around Covington. Obama has actually outfundraised Clinton in Kentucky -- that very much wasn't the case in West Virginia -- although almost all of that advantage has come from the city of Louisville. He has the endorsement of the state's largest newspaper and one of its most popular politicians in Ben Chandler.
So, let's run the numbers and see if we can't get lucky.
One more thing first, though, and I think it's the one decent reason why the pollsters might be overestimating Clinton's margin in Kentucky. John Edwards is on the ballot in Kentucky, as is an uncommitted option. I looked at the nature of the Edwards/other vote in the states since he dropped out of the race and found that it was significantly higher in white, rural areas with low education levels, and particularly in the Appalachians. In other words Kentucky, as West Virginia, ought to turn out a pretty high Edwards vote. Moreover, I found that those Edwards votes tend to come more at Clinton's expense rather than Obama's. Frankly, I think the Edwards votes are coming mostly from voters who have no affection for Hillary Clinton but aren't ready to vote for Barack Obama because (i) he hasn't made much of an effort to win their states, or (ii) he's black.
Suffolk, which was the only pollster to mention Edwards by name, found 6 percent support for Edwards and 5 percent support for Uncommitted. And Suffolk also happened to show Kentucky slightly closer than some other pollsters. So, I think this is a factor that might knock a few points off Clinton's ability to run up the score, particularly given that Edwards has endorsed Obama.

KY-1 (West/Murray): This district is not technically Appalachian, but that doesn't mean that Barack Obama has a whole lot going for him there. It's education and income levels each fall within the bottom 10 percent of the nation, and it has the highest elderly population in Kentucky. The only positives for Obama are that the district has a decent-sized African-American population, and Clinton's fundraising has been terrible there (although, so has Obama's). These things will perhaps be enough to hold Clinton to a 3-2 delegate victory, but it will be pretty close. Projection: Clinton 63.1, Obama 28.2, Other 8.7; Clinton 3-2 Delegate Win.
KY-2 (Northwest/Owensboro): The second district is similar to the first in most respects, very white and very rural, but has some pockets where it is middle class and, as PsiFighter points out, has the college town of Bowling Green. It is almost certain to produce a 3-2 delegate split. Projection: Clinton 59.0, Obama 32.9, Other 8.2; Clinton 3-2 Delegate Win.
KY-3 (North / Louisville): The third district occupies pretty much the entirety of Louisville, and pretty much nothing outside of Louisville. Obama is actually the favorite to win here. It's one of just two Kentucky districts that he's visited, it's the only Kentucky district that leans Democratic, it's tolerant enough to maintain a decent-sized gay community. Perhaps one-third of its turnout will be black, and Obama has raised about five times as many dollars as Clinton has here. We have Obama earning just enough votes to garner a 5-3 delegate win. It should also have the highest turnout in the state, which might help Obama to preserve some dignity in his statewide popular vote margin. Projection: Obama 53.9, Clinton 41.6, Other 4.5; Obama 5-3 Delegate Win.
KY-4 (North / Covington): This is the only district in Kentucky where income levels approach the national average, although that income is not evenly distributed. Covington, a suburb of Cincinnati, is quite wealthy (although also very strongly Republican, which will limit its influence) whereas the Eastern reaches of the district are poor and Appalachian. The two subregions should balance out in such a way as to almost certainly produce a 3-2 delegate split in Clinton's favor. Projection: Clinton 56.7, Obama 36.4, Other 6.9; Clinton 3-2 Delegate Win.
KY-5 (East / Corbin): This is arguably the worst Congressional District in the entire country for Barack Obama, and is almost certainly the worst outside of Arkansas. The percentage of voters who identify their ancestry as "American" on census forms is the best proxy we have found for Appalachian status, and 37.3 percent of the population identified themselves that way here -- by some margin the highest proportion in the country. KY-5 is also exceptionally poor, and was one of Obama's five worst fundraising districts. Things are so bad, in fact, that Obama has to be worried about not garnering the 15 percent he'll need to avoid missing the delegate viability threshold. There should also be a fairly large Edwards/uncommitted turnout, which helps Obama to the extent that it takes votes away from Clinton, but might make it harder for him to reach that 15 percent number. There's even an outside chance that Edwards could pick up a delegate in this district. Projection: Clinton 71.4, Obama 16.4, Other 12.1; Clinton 4-1 Delegate Win.
KY-6 (Central / Lexington): Comprising both Lexington and Frankfort, this is the other 'urban' Kentucky district (though still very rural in places), and one of two that Obama has visited. Note the relatively high youth population, which reflects the University of Kentucky; it also has the second-highest black population in the state. If Obama can do a reasonable job of turning out his base, he should manage a 3-3 delegate split. Projection: Clinton 50.5, Obama 43.2, Other 6.4; 3-3 Delegate Split.
Our model is projecting a 19-point popular vote win for Clinton, with about 7 percent of the vote going to Edwards and uncommitted. That would be worth a net gain of about 95,000 popular votes for her, which would closely match Obama's projected margin in Oregon. (Keep in mind that Kentucky should have smaller turnout than Oregon, as both states hold closed primaries but Oregon has more Democrats). We show the delegate count at Clinton 30, Obama 21, but Obama is picking up an extra delegate by small margins in a couple of cases, so 31-20 or perhaps 32-19 may be more likely.
Can Obama actually keep the popular vote margin within 20? I still wouldn't bet on it, but in addition to the Edwards factor, there is also the consideration that the polls have tended to underestimate Barack Obama's margin in Southern states. (Granted, that effect tended to be concentrated in Southern states with relatively large black populations, which Kentucky does not have.) Obama has also had a couple of pretty good news cycles, with the endorsement of Sens. Edwards and Byrd, and his ability to engage George W. Bush. Still, Clinton has campaigned hard in the state, and to my eyes her locally-targeted messaging has been effective. I can see Obama keeping things within 25 points, but 20 seems like a stretch.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Kentucky Projection: Clinton by 19
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments
just wanted to say there seems to be a problem with the RSS feed. Love the blog!
Clinton will win Kentucky by 20-30 points in popular votes and Obama to win Oregon by 10-20 points in popular votes.
At the end of the day, Clinton will grab a couple more pledged delegates than Obama.
If Obama can actually win Oregon by more popular votes than Clinton wins Kentucky by, and therefore actually accumulate more votes today than Hillary, he should be in good shape.
It's nice to see the "Uncommitted" option working against Clinton for a change!
Won't most of those college students have gone home by now? I'd expect the end of the academic calendar to depress student turnout.
I also wanted to make a comment about the RSS feed.
I really think 19% is wishful thinking. I say 30%, using the model I recently pulled out of my rectum. :)
Say, Poblano, what you may want to do is re-term your "predictions" to "projections." "Prediction" implies that it's ultimately your guess as to what the outcome is, taking into account whatever factors seem relevant.
"Projections" implies that it's a mathematical model and as such, is subject to unexpected occurrences that may not be reflected in the data.
Dude, I love your analysis and all, but take a look at the map Sean Oxendine from race42008 made a month or two ago and combine it with his and Jay Cost's analysis. There's no way Clinton wins Kentucky by less than 25 (and I'd bet on about 32% or so). However, if you're right about this and everyone else is wrong, you'll get pretty serious credibility.
Btw, hedgehog report had the Survey USA veep polls for New Mexico you were waiting for. Don't know if you grabbed them yet or not. How will those figure into your calculations?
Houston - did those account for both Edwards and Uncmommitted appearing on the ballot? Add those to Clinton's sum and you get the margin you're predicting.
But they aren't for Clinton.
538/poblano,
Are you sure about the registered Dems #? I read that Kentucky had 1.6 million registered Dems while Oregon had 800,000.
No, it was a demographic model 10:02 AM. He's been pretty dead on using the demographic model (except Indiana was a very poor prediction):
http://race42008.com/2008/04/01/no-really-hillary-has-a-decent-shot/
http://race42008.com/2008/04/22/res-ipsa-loquitor/
Joe,
I do see that 1.6 million number now that I googled it. On the other hand, Oregon has 943,000 Kerry voters to Kentucky's 713,000.
If registration numbers were standardized across different states, I would use those in some way -- and undoubtedly would have superior projections to show for it. Unfortunately they are not.
Perhaps the best comparison point is turnout in the 2004 primaries. Oregon had 369,000 voters to Kentucky 230,000.
The one thing that differs about Kentucky compared to West Virginia is that it shares a border with southern Illinois. It wouldn't surprise me if KY1 does a bit better for Obama than expected due to spillover effects from positive media coverage of Obama from 2004-present. Paducah borders Illinois and we get a reasonable amount of Obama and Illinois coverage. Sort of like what happened in Indiana. I think Obama has appeared to blow off the state in the national media, but in reality will do a bit better because of home state borders, and impressive state organization (he has had offices, ads, etc. there for months now).
@paul -
I thought the same thing in early January for Iowa - that students weren't back to school yet from Winter Break. Yet, Obama won Iowa. So, I wouldn't underestimate the college vote.
"The one thing that differs about Kentucky compared to West Virginia is that it shares a border with southern Illinois."
Obama did poorly in southern Illinois. I think being close to Kentucky sank him there. :p
Hope that the 6%-7% Edwards voters and 5% uncommitted voters keep the margin within 20-25 pts and also that overall turnout is low to blunt the Clinton so-called (bogus) 'popular-vote' argument.
In Oregon, I'd love to see 80% turnout, but it doesn't look like the numbers support it thus far.
Anyone wants to hear my KY and OR predictions?
KY Clinton by 30,3%
OR Obama by 12,2%
PS: You need to take a look at the Win %- in some states it´s not the Win% (relative), but the absolute number in the moment.
Just to let you know, Rasmus, I think that that Oregon prediction is probably your best of late, but that isn't saying much. I think that your predictions have become Clinton biased.
My Predictions:
KY Clinton by 22,8
OR Obama by 15,7
Just to let you know, Rasmus, I think that that Oregon prediction is probably your best of late, but that isn't saying much. I think that your predictions have become Clinton biased.
My Predictions:
KY Clinton by 22,8
OR Obama by 15,7
Any chance you'll do a county by county prediction for either KY or OR? I realize that presents lots of room for error in any one county, but it was a fantastic aid for election night scorekeeping. Most of us have no way of knowing what the reults from any one county "should" look like and whether the return is good or bad news for our candidate.. Your projections gave me a pretty good rough guide.
jp, I am certainly not Clinton biased, for I am an Obama supporter.
Here are so many predictions posted, maybe you think of some wrong ones?
I did not post a West Virginia Prediction ( I was away the last 6 days before the primary ), my Indiana prediction of Obama +3,8 was 4,9 points off (but Obama biased, if any), my North Carolina prediction of Obama +14,6 was 0,2 points off and my Pennsylvania prediction of Clinton +9,6% was 0,3% off.
So I think my NC prediction is my best of late, and my IN prediction was with a difference of 5 points the worst I predicted.
I think that will change today in at least one of the states, but who knows.
Before all the numbers apepar I'm in with Clinton around 60. Those eastern spots aren't going to give Obama any respect. Because of his policies on the economy, right?
Just looking briefly at the numbers, but it looks like Obama may not meet the 15% threshold in CD-5
Post a Comment