Finally was able to watch the argument in the 9th Circuit, and I think I can prove that they will hold against a postponement until March.
Not one judge asked any questions regarding the letters from the Sacramento and Los Angeles County Registrars, which separately stated that they would be very hard pressed to hold a combined election in March. If there were even a tiny interest in forcing a postponement until March, certainly the hardship issue would have to be addressed. It wasn't, so a March recall -- never mind everything else, seems highly unlikely.
Note that this does not mean the propositions cannot be postponed -- there's a big difference between 2 questions, and 135+1, being added to the March primary.
Nor does it mean that the recall couldn't be postponed a few weeks, although listening to the debate, I think it unlikely its postponed at all. But the propositions might well go to March.
UPDATE: Eugene Volokh says that I'm reading too much into the argument.
"Oral argument time is limited; some judges aren't inclined to ask many questions even setting aside the time limits, especially when they're on a panel of 11; some arguments may be clear enough, and the counterarguments clear enough, that judges don't particularly feel the need to probe them further, even if they find them quite persuasive. For all these reasons, it's often (not always, but often) very hard to accurately infer how judges will vote based on what they say in oral argument; it's even harder to draw such inferences based on what they will say."