Vote Model — Kim vs. Allen, November 2026

This model illustrates possible paths to a November victory, based on turnout scenarios and vote-share assumptions across four voter groups. It is not an election forecast — while turnout rates and party IC-ballot participation are grounded in historical CA data, the vote-share estimates among voter groups are illustrative assumptions, not predictions. Use the sliders below to stress-test different scenarios.

Models all use real data. Projections and correlations built with AI, so use with caution.

>50% needed to win
Kim Allen
Kim Nov Votes
Allen Nov Votes
Total IC Voters
50.8%
Nov Turnout
Voter Groups
Group A
Jane Primary Voters
Voted for Kim in the IC primary. GOTV base — hold via turnout operations.
Primary votes
Retention
Kim votes
Nov. return rate 100%
80%100%
Kim retention rate 94%
88%98%
Group B
Orphaned Primary Voters
Voted IC for Korsgaden or 8 others. Candidate not on November ballot — forced new choice.
Orphaned voters
Vote IC in Nov (party-adj)
Kim votes
Allen votes
IC participation rate 100% of base
50%100%
Kim vote share 45%
25%55%
Group C
Primary IC Undervoters
Voted in June primary but skipped the IC race. Lower engagement with this contest.
Est. undervoters
Vote IC in Nov
Kim votes
Allen votes
IC participation rate 82% of base
50%100%
Kim vote share 46%
30%58%
Group D
New November Voters
Did not vote in the June primary. Mobilized by top-of-ticket or GOTV. Lower IC awareness.
Projected new voters
Vote IC in Nov
Kim votes
Allen votes
IC participation rate 87% of base
60%100%
Kim vote share 46%
30%60%

Model Assumptions — adjust to stress-test

50.8 % ≈ 2022 midterm
25%▲ Est. 50.8% (midterm)70%
31.5% Primary 50.8% Midterm '22 58% Optimistic 62% Presidential
In a D vs. D general election, Republicans skip the IC race at higher rates. These rates apply to Groups B, C, D based on their estimated party composition.
Democrats
90%
70%▲ Est. 90%97%
No Party Preference
78%
55%▲ Est. 78%92%
Republicans
52%
25%▲ Est. 52%80%

How IC participation is modeled by party

Party composition uses real Feb 2025 CA SoS registration data per county. In Nov 2022 (D vs. R race), statewide IC participation was 95.1%. In a D vs. D race, Republicans skip at much higher rates — hence the Rep slider defaults to 52%. Group B's mix is weighted toward Republican (Korsgaden's voters ~75% R).

GroupDem (actual reg)NPP (actual reg)Rep (actual reg)Effective IC rate

How Kim's share of each group is estimated

In a D vs. D race (Kim vs. Allen), Kim's share is the fraction of IC voters — by group — who choose her over Allen. Both candidates are assumed 94% retained from their own primary bases. Group D sizing uses actual Nov 2022 county-level turnout from CA SoS, scaled proportionally to the overall turnout slider.

GroupDefaultReasoning
B Orphaned45%Korsgaden's voters (~75% Republican) lean Allen in a D-D race. Other orphaned candidates' voters are more evenly split. Weighted Kim share: ~45%.
C Undervoters46%Skipped IC in June — lower engagement signal. Model applies an 82% IC participation discount in November. Split is modeled near 50/50: no clear advantage for either candidate among previously disengaged voters.
D New Nov46%Did not vote in June. November electorate skews toward high-turnout progressive counties (SF, Alameda, LA). Kim's grassroots base runs slightly stronger with newly mobilized voters.

County-level Kim vs. Allen projections

Top 15 counties by Kim vote volume. Hover any row for group-by-group breakdowns for both Kim and Allen. Red dashed line = 50% threshold.

County breakdown

County Nov '22 T/O Grp A Kim Grp B Kim Grp C Kim Grp D Kim Kim Total Allen Total Kim % Win?