Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Popular Vote: Obama Leads by 1 Million
The Clinton campaign will tell anyone willing to listen that she has amassed more popular votes than Obama, which is true, if you add up and compare the number of votes she and Obama have received in the primaries (whether or not you count Florida). Of course, to accept the Clinton campaign’s assertion one needs to accept their reasoning – caucuses don’t count. Since caucus results only report on how many delegates were chosen for each of the candidates (delegates chosen to represent their candidates at a county and/or state convention), the numeric totals coming out of caucuses are meaningless in terms of actual votes cast.
It’s a really disingenuous argument, since we know real people, individual voters, have turned out for the 13 caucus elections and that far more voters have supported Obama than Clinton in those contests. In most cases we don’t have actual tallies for how many individual votes were cast in the caucuses. Even in cases where we do have actual vote tallies, the numbers are inarguably lower – much lower – than the turnout we would have seen had those caucus states held primaries instead. On this, at least, the Clinton campaign is correct.
So, what would the results have been if the caucus states had run primaries instead? Some, I’m sure, will dismiss this exercise out of hand. Estimating total turnout and allocating popular votes for the caucus states might inherently be considered a fool’s errand. Nevertheless, a good fool has to be especially clever if he hopes to bewitch the king’s court with sophistry.
Let me cut to the spoiler, then review the assumptions and calculations that led to my headline.
Popular vote totals for all primaries through March 4, as reported by Real Clear Politics:
Clinton - 13,452,127 (50.4%)
Obama - 13,222,609 (49.6%)
If the caucus states had held primaries, vote totals based on estimated Dem turnout multiplied by the actual percentage support for each candidate in the caucuses:
Clinton - 1,296,899 (33.4%)
Obama - 2,580,438 (66.6%)
Estimated total popular vote to date, caucuses and primaries combined:
Clinton - 14,863,015 (48.3%)
Obama - 15,668,597 (51.7%)
Obama leads in popular vote by 1,054,021 votes, a 3.4% advantage.
So, why does this exercise matter? My projections are based on a number of estimates and assumptions that can be challenged, but I believe the underlying idea that Obama would have a significant popular vote lead at this point is sound. If the Clinton campaign seeks to accrue superdelegate (SD) support by arguing that she has more popular vote support then Obama, one would have to agree that the caucuses should not be considered, a serious shortcoming for basing a SD vote on behalf of Clinton.
But granting the argument to Clinton, that caucus results can’t be included in a calculus of who received the most popular votes, there’s no reason the SDs should not be open to considering a what-if scenario, to see what the popular vote totals would look like if they agree that caucus delegate votes are irrelevant. Had the caucus states run primaries instead of caucuses, what would the popular vote outcome have been? I believe it is equally legitimate (or illegitimate) to exclude caucus results entirely as it is to project what the popular vote would have been if the caucus states had held primaries. Each analysis relies on a hypothetical.
I expect the chief argument against this analysis to focus on the purported undemocratic nature of the caucuses and that the percentage results from the caucuses can’t be used to project what would have happened in a primary. I concede there is some merit to this argument, but I will stand by my belief that both Clinton and Obama had an equal opportunity to prepare for and compete in the caucus contests and that the percentage difference in their outcome is a result of Clinton’s failure to garner support, not the result of the nature the caucus process itself.
I should point out that it should obvious that my line about “bewitching with sophistry” was in jest. When the SDs review the outcome of this nominating season, they will weigh many factors in determining who received the most support from the Democratic electorate. I don’t advocate bewitching the SDs, but do believe it is fair to consider the popular vote argument from more than one perspective.
Methodology:
- To project how turnout might differ if a caucus state had run a primary, I reviewed general election (GE) votes cast by Dems state by state in the GE contests in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004.
Example: In Iowa, the average number of Dem votes cast in the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 elections was 691,585.
- I isolated the states that ran primaries in 2008 and compared how many total Dem votes were cast in 2008 as compared to the average number of Dem votes cast in the last 4 GEs.
Example: In Missouri, the average number of Dem votes cast in the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 elections was 1,204,520 and total Dem votes cast in the 2008 primary was 800,037, or 34% fewer votes than the average cast in the recent GEs.
- Looking at the states that have run caucuses in 2008, I used the baseline of average votes cast in those states in the recent GEs to estimate how many Dem voters would have voted in a primary, assuming that primary turnout is lower than GE turnout by some percentage.
Example: In Kansas, the average number of Dem votes cast in recent GEs was 453,402. Assuming that turnout for a primary would be 33% lower than in the GE, the projected turnout if Kansas had a run a primary would have been 299,246.
- All 2008 caucus results have been reported in terms of the percentage of support for each of the candidates (I used data from the NY Times). I used those percentages to determine how many actual votes would have been cast for Obama or Clinton if the state had run a primary.
Example: In Maine, average Dem turnout in recent GEs has been 359,849. Assuming the a primary would bring out 1/3 fewer voters, I estimated primary turnout would have been 236,075 and allocated those popular votes to the candidates based on actual percentage support in the 2008 caucus -- 59.5% for Obama and 39.9% for Clinton, in this case. The estimated popular vote totals would be 141,313 for Obama and 94,763 for Clinton.
- Reviewing average Dem GE turnout in the states that ran primaries in 2008 and comparing the GE turnout averages to the actual Dem turnout in thosee primaries, I arrived at an average of how much lower Dem turnout has been in the 2008 elections when compared to historical GE turnout. The range of turnout difference was between -59% in Louisiana (where an average of 880,959 Dems have voted in the GE between 1992 and 2004, but only 357,557 Dem votes were cast in the 2008 LA primary) to +4% turnout this year in the Texas primary (where recent Dem GE turnout has been 2.7 million compared to 2.8 million Dem votes cast in the 2008 primary). The average difference in turnout was 33%, i.e., about 2/3 of the number of GE Dems are voting in the 2008 primaries. The standard deviation from the 33% average was .16, or +- 16%. Clearly, the Louisiana and Texas figures are outliers.
Assumptions:
- Votes for Edwards and other candidates in the caucuses were not a consideration. I limited the analysis to the actual percentage of reported delegates captured by Obama and Clinton in each caucus. Almost none of the combined percentages of Obama and Clinton totaled 100%, reflecting a proportion of local delegates awarded to Edwards or another candidate. E.g., in Iowa Obama received the support of 37.6% of Dems while Clinton received 29.5%. In allocating popular votes, the actual reported percentages were multiplied against estimated Dem turnout as indicated by the average number of Dems voting in recent GEs.
- I have not included Florida or Michigan vote tallies in presenting the existing or projected total number of popular votes cast. It would not be difficult to run the analysis with those states included, but the conclusion that Obama is far ahead in popular vote projections would not change.
- In recording Dem turnout in the 1992 and 1996 elections, I assumed turnout was non-representative of Dem voting patterns because of the large number of total votes cast for Ross Perot. To compensate for lower than normal turnout, I divided votes cast for Perot in half, assigning half of the votes Perot received in each state to Clinton’s total Dem votes received in those states.
- In calculating Dem turnout in the 2000 and 2004 I did not allocate out votes for Ralph Nader to Al Gore or John Kerry, but simply used total Dem vote counts.
- While the methodology of adding 50% of Perot votes to Clinton, but not allocating Nader votes to the Gore or Kerry Dem totals certainly affects the dependability of the derived average figure for Dem votes, it should be noted that the totals were averaged to provide a best estimate of how many Dem votes would be cast and that if the average number were higher or lower, it would not be significant with respect to how those Dem voter totals were divided between Obama and Clinton in projected turnout. The projected votes were allocated to Obama and Clinton based on their percentage support in the caucuses, so the percentage difference would not change, nor, I submit, would the magnitude of difference have a significant affect on the conclusion that Obama would receive substantially more popular votes than Clinton.
- I did not attempt to distinguish votes cast by Independents or cross-over Republicans in the 2008 contests in my calculations. When looking at voter turnout in GEs, one can’t determine how many self-identified independents voted since they must vote for one of the parties whose candidate is on the ballot. Additionally, I don’t believe cross-over Republican votes in the 2008 nominating season have been in sufficient number to have a significant effect on my conclusions.
Comments (53)
Quick update... in re-reading I realized I pasted in an incorrect total from Excel. The projected total should read:
Estimated total popular vote to date, caucuses and primaries combined:
Clinton - 14,749,026 (48.3%)
Obama - 15,803,047 (51.7%)
The percentages were accurately reported as was the difference in votes -- 1,054,021. But I made a last minute update to the my caucus result percentages to increase their accuracy and failed to update the resulting totals. Apologies for any confusion.
March 9, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's great...thanks for doing that, I had been wondering about this.
March 9, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is worse than stupid.
You only have to look at Texas where Clinton won the primary easily (not handily I'll grant), but lost the caucuses, and Washington state where Obama won the caucuses by more than 2-1, but the primary was virtually tied.
March 9, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would hardly describe a 51/46 split in the Washington primary a virtual tie. It's not a survey with a margin of error. That's an actual result.
And sure it's ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as HRC saying she really has a popular vote lead. Bah!
We can crunch the numbers another way, if you like. Let's just take the estimated turnout and multiply by Obama's record of percentage wins for all the primaries he's won. Overall, where O has won primaries, he's won by a 62/38 margin. Multiply that by estimated turnout and O still leads in popular votes by 15,747,703 to 14,999,765, a ~750K popular vote lead.
You may not like it, but any way you slice the data, O has a significant popular vote lead if you base the votes on primaries instead of caucuses.
March 9, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This supposed "analysis" is severely flawed, and pretty much meaningless. The best (only!) example of how primaries and caucuses reflect the will of the voters is in Texas, where both were held.
Hillary won the Texas primary by 100,000 votes (50.9-47.4%), in which 2.9 million people voted.
Votes in the Caucus are difficult to determine, but according to the NYT with 41% of precincts reporting, 42,582 votes were cast with Barack ahead 56.2-43.7. Extrapolating, this implies that only around 100,000 people voted in the caucus - not sure if there's more accurate info than this available.
So, in an election in the same state on the same day, Hillary won the primary by 3.5%, but lost the caucus by 12.5%. This means that caucuses, undemocratic beasts that they are, result in a *16%* swing to Obama.
This means that, to the best of our knowledge, caucus states should be given a 16% swing towards Hillary, so any attempts to count their votes in a "primary-style" manner should reflect this.
Finally, why is it that caucuses such poor reflections of voters will? Is it the increased opportunity for intimidation or pressure? Is it the small window in which people are actually able to vote? Is it the degree to which the caucus co-ordinator can sway the result? Who knows - the only thing we do know is that it's much less democratic than a closed ballot system, in which voters have all day to caast their vote.
March 10, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that no one on the Obama side seems to want to reply to your argument.
As you said, both in TX and WA, the discrepancy between the primary result and the caucus result shows how absurd this "analysis" is, and how much it depends on the anti-democratic process of a caucus.
As you point out, in TX, the swing toward Obama in the caucus as opposed to the election, it was 16%. In Washington State, Obama won the primary by only 5%, but won the caucuses by 36% -- a swing of 31%.
You simply can't take the caucus results and project them like this -- they are simply skewed absurdly in Obama's favor, and one doesn't have any good idea just how much.
What's particularly crazy about this argument is that it is now, in effect, claiming that voters have been "disenfranchised" in caucus states because they weren't allowed a normal vote. Yet wasn't it just yesterday that these same Obama supporters were claiming how arguments of "disenfranchisement" were absurd and disgusting, and that everyone who wanted to participate could, so that there should be no problem with the result? Now, suddenly, voters are being disenfranchised?
Look, the best way to handle this was always to use a primary, so we'd have a real, believable reflection of the popular will. Given that that hasn't happened, the only reasonable way to take the "popular vote" is to base it on the people who actually showed up to caucus -- projections will only introduce absurd distortions.
Sorry Obama people, if you had a problem with caucuses, you should have raised it before, when you'd have some credibility.
March 10, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it's probably unfair to take the percentage vote differences from the caucus wins and apply those directly to the projected popular vote turnout. But I took another tact in looking at Obama's percentage when he wins in primaries. Overall, he wins 62-38. So, is it a bit more acceptable to apply a 62-38 split? After all, Obama won all but one caucus, so why isn't it fair to assume he would have won the caucus states by 62/38 if they had been primaries?
I never mentioned disenfranchisement. I agree with those who say the caucus process is fair because all the candidates have an equal opportunity to compete. Heck you could argue that weather is disenfranchising. There are many reasons people do and don't come to caucuses, and there's just no way to measure and prove that caucuses are disenfranchising. Remember, employers are obliged under law to allow workers to take time off to vote. So it's not a matter of timing, but motivation.
March 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post - you answered my questions. The thorn in the side of Clinton's argument that the popular vote matters is that caucuses don't fully represent the true number of voters. So if she were to disregard them, that would be incredibly injurious to our chances in the GE. I think its disingenuous of the MSM sites to state the popular vote if it does not account for caucuses.
Thanks again for posting this up - and maybe we should forward to the Obama campaign to make sure they know to get ahead of the popular vote argument. Maybe they should just start saying - look we're 1 million plus votes ahead.
March 9, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, neo. Dunno that I'd suggest the O campaign dish an argument like this to the MSM. I'll fully admit the case I've come up with is a stretch, but certainly an interesting exercise. But when it comes to making the case to SDs, I think it's fair game to put forward equally unfair arguments. ;~)
March 9, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their arguments are like drive-by shootings: by the time you prove it's a lie, they're long gone and the damage is done. In other words: the people are the remote control.
This is very good analysis; however, The Manufacture Of Consent does not suffer analysis.
March 9, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew I would hear the Wa thing come up. Let me let you in on a little secret. I live in Washington, and I personally know at least 10 Obama supporters who didn't send in there ballot because guess what, our candidate already one and we really didn't give a shit about a beauty contest afterward.
I am sure those 10 aren't the only ones.
March 10, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is terrific and it shows the unfairness of counting raw popular votes at the end of the process. The Democratic party has set up a hybrid system under which delgates are all that matters. There is no actual raw vote tally that can fairly account for the expected low turn out in caucus states without discounting them altogether. No matter how much Clinton supporters would like to argue raw votes (in the event she closes that gap) the argument would be specious.
For the same reason, the media coverage of Nevada and Texas have been utterly irresponsible. In Nevada, Obama won the delegates, the only goal of the caucus system. In Texas, the system was a hybrid, with Clinton winning the the primary and Obama overwhelimingly winning the caucus. Overall, Obama won Texas because he got more delegates in the overall hybrid system. Reporting Texas as a Clinton win simply ignores the system in place and shows bias toward Clinton.
In sum, the only measure that is valid for assessing success at the end of the primary/caucus season, is the total pledged delegates. While the superdelegates have the power to snatch this victory from Obama, they would certainly deliver the election to McCain.
March 10, 2008 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ed Rendell just soiled himself (again).
March 10, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's got be be near impossible to try to add up popular votes when some of these states are holding caucuses. It's like comparing apples and oranges. (But thanks for trying).
If only there was some other common measure of success....hhmmmm....what could they do?
Perhaps in some way they could allocate "delegates" based on population and the results of the primary and/or caucus. These "delegates" would represent support from voters in both primary states and caucus states. By comaring these "delegate" numbers, we could have a clear indication of voter support for a candidate. Then we could easily compare the delegate numbers and come up with the person who has more support of voters.
March 10, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love what you did here, although as you and several commenters mentioned there is no perfect way to model this due to too many "what-if" factors. Certainly, the exact numbers that you came up with cannot be taken for gospel.
However, I think you made a really key point.
The "popular vote" that we keep hearing about does NOT include about 1/4 of the states. Also, it so happens that Barack Obama won all but one of the states that aren't included in that vote. The mathematical modeling is fun to do but the overall point is, I think, more important - the "popular vote" excludes 1/4 of the states.
On a different note, I have a question about your starting point, i.e. the popular vote through March 4th. You said:
"Clinton - 13,452,127 (50.4%)
Obama - 13,222,609 (49.6%)"
I am looking at Real Clear Politics right now and see:
Popular Vote:
Obama 13,007,968
Clinton 12,415,286
Popular Vote (w/ FL):
Obama 13,584,182
Clinton 13,286,272
Obama is WINNING the popular vote even if you include Florida. The only measure where I've seen Obama losing the popular vote at this point is if you include MI (where Obama was not on the ballot).
This doesn't change your point - but instead of flipping the popular vote from Clinton to Obama, I think your conclusion should be "Hey, Obama is winning but if you include caucus states he's winning by even MORE."
March 10, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good catch, the totals reflect the pop vote count including FL and MI, a sum that HRC would be using to suggest she leads in the popular vote. As you point out, without those, O leads by nearly 400K:
w/ FL & MI, Obama - 13,222,609 - Clinton - 13,452,127
w/o FL & MI, Obama - 12,646,395 - Clinton 12,252,832
I should have pointed that out in my assumptions, so thanks for raising it. Below is the raw data, which you can paste into Notepad and save as *.CSV to open it in Excel. The state by state totals should match those given by RCP.
State,Obama,Clinton,Total Dem
Alabama,"300,143","222,897","523,040"
Arizona,"193,126","229,501","422,627"
Arkansas,"82,476","220,136","302,612"
California,"2,126,600","2,553,784","4,680,384"
Connecticut,"179,720","165,406","345,126"
Delaware,"50,467","39,984","90,451"
District of Columbia,"93,386","29,470","122,856"
Florida,"576,214","870,986","1,447,200"
Georgia,"704,247","330,026","1,034,273"
Illinois,"1,301,954","662,845","1,964,799"
Louisiana,"220,632","136,925","357,557"
Maryland,"532,665","314,211","846,876"
Massachusetts,"511,887","704,591","1,216,478"
Michigan,,"328,309",
Missouri,"405,637","394,400","800,037"
New Hampshire,"104,815","112,404","217,219"
New Jersey,"487,046","597,329","1,084,375"
New Mexico,"71,396","73,105","144,501"
New York,"751,019","1,068,496","1,819,515"
Ohio,"982,489","1,212,362","2,194,851"
Oklahoma,"130,130","228,480","358,610"
Rhode Island,"75,115","108,750","183,865"
South Carolina,"294,898","140,990","435,888"
Tennessee,"251,692","335,745","587,437"
Texas,"1,358,785","1,459,814","2,818,599"
Utah,"70,414","48,766","119,180"
Vermont,"91,829","59,854","151,683"
Virginia,"627,820","349,766","977,586"
Wisconsin,"646,007","452,795","1,098,802"
Totals,"13,222,609","13,452,127","26,346,427"
March 10, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are your blinders comforting?
March 10, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is flawed.
The caucuses are undemocratic and disenfranchise millions of voters who cannot, will not, spend hours arguing. It's kind of like the Communist system, with active party members deciding.
This is an idiotic way to pick a president.
The popular vote minus the caucuses should rule. This is what democracy is all about.
It's a simple priciple which partisans keep trying to refute to help one candidate or another.
March 10, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really get insulted by statements that "Caucusing is like Communism."
Most Caucuses require you to sign in when you arrive. THAT's your vote. It takes a couple of minutes to do.
You can leave most caucuses after you've signed in, and your vote will count. The people who DO stick around actually vote for delegates to represent them in the next stage of the caucus.
The advantage of the Caucus is that people can actually participate in the convention, the downside is that you have to be present at a specific time to sign in, and that does disenfranchise some people who can't take time off work, who's children are sick, are out of town, etc.
But to say that Caucus = some kind of communist plot: That's just wrong.
March 10, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not here to defend caucuses, and I think we're all familiar with the various shortcomings of either process... but *communism*? Really? Is that an argument?
March 10, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm...primary states give the same weight to opinions of dedicated, active, politically informed citizens as they do to the opinions of under-informed and poorly-educated voters who can't be bothered to spend an hour defending their views. You think this is not idiotic?
Clinton's whole point is that the superdelegates are more "in touch" with political realities than the masses, and that therefore their opinions should be allowed to run counter to those of the "dirty masses". Well, isn't it equally true that, since the caucuses tap more of the intelligent, committed and informed citizens, their opinions should be worth more than the masses as well?
March 10, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pass whatever you're smoking...sort of like I've just visited Amsterdam after reading this lame argument.
"If the caucus states had held primaries, vote totals based on estimated Dem turnout multiplied by the actual percentage support for each candidate in the caucuses:
Clinton - 1,296,899 (33.4%)
Obama - 2,580,438 (66.6%)"
Caucus states are not democratic votes vs. voting booths where votes are both private and not at a single designated hour. In fact, more older Americans, working Americans, those with children will actually show up to vote in November or they can vote absentee. In USA general elections, voting is allowed most all of the day (7Am-8PM generally). If caucus states held primaries, Obama loses some he won, and the vote margins are significantly smaller. Using logic that simply expands caucus numbers (as if there would be a universal voting percentage equal to a caucus vote) is at minimum 9th grade Public High School math, not much more.
March 10, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, "democratic" is whatever the Party members and candidates agree is democratic. If HRC thought caucuses were fundamentally undemocratic, maybe she and Bill should have spent the last 7 years trying to change the system. HRC has competed on the same playing field as Obama. Notwithstanding your question of whether or not caucuses are democratic, HRC has lost all but one of those races. Again, she had an equal opportunity to campaign and bring out voters. It's not Obama's problem, in establishing the validity of caucuses in the context of elections, that more elderly voters favor HRC. They're separate issues. You can't say your candidate has been cheated simply because she has a different base than the other candidate.
March 10, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
GMan,
This particular comment of yours sums up my thoughts on this subject.
At this stage in the race, why bend over backwards to analyze caucus results within the new Clinton-logic frame? They won't be satisfied with ANY attempts to do so because the results, obviously, don't provide the same measure of popular vote as an election. (Caucuses don't measure just popular vote--they serve other analytical and party-building purposes too.) It's impossible to get that measure without scrapping the caucus results and holding elections instead. And that's not going to happen.
I'd say the only goal the Clinton campaign has with these arguments is to forward a perception of non-legitimacy of caucus results, and to give an unsupportable, unproveable perception of having the lead in popular votes.
However, I admire you for all the effort you put forth to accommodate the argument--as you said in a comment downthread: "The other element is to consider the what-if, how do caucuses and primaries differ in overall turnout, and what might O have received if ALL the caucuses had been primaries? To me, that's not a particularly "stupid" hypothetical."
Even after going to all the trouble to seriously entertain the Clintons' complaints, after trying to use a fair and reasonable method to compare incompatible data, you reached the conclusion that Hillary can't reasonably claim to have the most popular votes. And typically, pro-Hillary (or anti-Obama) folks find flaws in your methods.
You're a very smart guy. And based on the recent ways I've seen you try to be fair and accommodating these last couple of weeks, I'd say you're probably a very, very nice guy too.
I appreciate your contributions. :-)
March 10, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your support and kind words, Laura. It's nice to see recognition that while I'm essentially proferring an unfair argument, at least I'm going about assembling the argument fairly. As to nice... hehe. I'd love to verbally smack some of those who let fly rude remarks, but instead I just disregard their POV entirely, believing that one's tone and approach are integral to one's integrity and credibility. I definitely enjoy reading your comments, Laura, as they are always well thought out, thought-provoking and genuine.
Cheers,
Gary
March 10, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is amazing that the "undemocratic" caucuses went unchallenged through the beginning of this primary, that was until the culinary union whose backing Hillary was hoping for went for Obama. That is when all of the "undemocratic" screaming started.
Kinda makes you wonder what Hillary's responses would have been had she actually been leading in the caucus states. I am sure you would never hear how "undemocratic" the caucus rules were from the Obama camp. The rules have been this way for a very long time now. Everybody agreed. This is the way it was.
The whining and foot stomping from the Clinton campaign "its not fair" reminds me of a 4 year old. They had plenty of time to changes this process had they really felt it was unfair and undemocratic. They did not, in fact due to the inevitability factor, they thought they would sweep the game.
Maybe when she goes back to the sentate she can revamp the rules for the next election.
March 10, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why the popular vote will never work as a way of determining the winner. I've been saying this for months. The only way is to look at the pledged delegates. I'm confident most superdelegates will do that.
March 10, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have any confidence in how you are turning caucus votes into "primary" votes.
I realize Obama does significantly better than Clinton in caucuses, probably due to superior organization and management of the campaign. It is also true that voter turnout is much lower for a caucus than a primary since it tends to measure the opinion of more committed members of the public. However it isn't at all clear how to convert one into the other.
Clearly the popular vote numbers don't do justice to Obama's general level of support as it underestimates it in many of the states he won due to them being caucuses. Your numbers might be more accurate that the "real" numbers but I wouldn't use the term "popular vote" as that kind of implies real people showing up and voting not some hypothetical people hypothetically voting had it been a primary not a caucus.
To hear some people talk you would think Clinton would have won all those states if they hadn't had a caucus.
March 10, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
To an extent, that's the point I'm trying to make. Since HRC is proclaiming she has more "real" votes, while discounting the real people who caucused, she invalidates her own argument. The projected turnout of voters I've assembled also doesn't reflect real voters, but at least it suggests what might happen should you attempt to assess how many voters are represented by the caucus participants. So, it's both a what-if-they-had-run primaries hypothetical, and an attempt to project how many popular votes the caucus states actually represent. Call it a best guess to fight the absurd with the absurd. ;~)
March 10, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great job on the number crunching. Its an interesting question with, as you pointed out, no perfect solution.
Ignore the haters, they just don't like the results. :)
I am wondering about the Popular Vote thing. I've also seen it posted that Obama has the lead in popular vote. Your post saying he didn't was the first time I'd heard that. I like to think that I don't live under a rock, but I am a bit confused on how other sites have Obama with a popular vote lead... or was that only before March 4th primaries?
March 10, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, just include FL and MI votes and voila, EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!! It's all the more heinous for HRC to tout a lead when she counts 328,000 votes from MI, to zero for Obama.
March 10, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'd suggest TX (and WA, as JSmith0316 pointed out) are poor examples, for the exact reason JSmith mentioned. I think most voters filled out a ballot in the primary and considered their participation done. In pure caucus states, there is no other way to vote, so the results are as representative as they're going to get. It's just a testament to to the level of voter engagement that people would do both.
Isn't it also interesting that the percentage support for the candidates was much closer in the TX and WA caucuses than it was for 12 of the other 13? The numbers tell you that something about the WA and TX caucuses is unusual.
March 10, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
WA is a very, very poor example of the caucus/primary discussion. I definitely didn't bother going to vote in a primary that didn't count but you'd better believe I went and spent a couple hours at the caucus for my man.
Decisions are made by the people who show up. And if anyone (the Clinton campaign) had a problem with caucuses, the time for discussion is long since past.
Maybe you don't like pitching around a hitter to walk him. Maybe you don't like players initiating fouls to get the ball back. Maybe you don't the call a ref makes. You know what? Civilized people have agreed that those are the rules and we all abide by them.
The will of the voters is determined by each state as represented by their pledged delegates. Those are the rules. ...no matter who is in the lead.
March 10, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gary is wrong on so many levels.
I just visited Real Clear Politics and the vote totals are this:
Clinton - 13,620,611
Obama - 13,601,217
They also state this includes ALL the caucuses _except_ for Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine.
March 10, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, and I'll take another look and report back. But you should know that it is not 100% clear whether RCP is using actual voter turnout for the caucuses. As an example, check the Kansas report from RCP as opposed to the way the NY Times reports how the total of 36,634 was derived: "Vote totals are the presidential preferences of those elected to the state convention."
March 10, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, below are numbers using the actual votes as you've suggested (excluding IA, ME, NV & WE), for which I used projected totals. However, I will stand by using projections for ALL caucuses as a way to suggest what would have happened if the caucus states had run primaries. I and I do believe that is quite instructive in addressing the "non-democratic caucuses" argument.
Before posting the raw data, here's how the scenario plays out as you've asked. Indeed, the lead is not one million, excluding FL & MI, it's 325K, a far cry from the "lead" HRC would suggest.
w/ FL & MI O-14,541,901 C-14,216,413 Diff-325,487
w/ FL only O-14,541,901 C-13,888,104 Diff-653,796
w/o FL & MI O-13,965,687 C-13,017,118 Diff 948,568
Following are new numbers (ready for CSV import to Excel), using RCP totals and projected "primary" totals for IA, ME, NV & WE:
State,Obama,Clinton,Projected
Alabama,"300,143","222,897",
Alaska,"6,674","2,194",NO
Arizona,"193,126","229,501",
Arkansas,"82,476","220,136",
California,"2,126,600","2,553,784",
Colorado,"80,113","38,839",NO
Connecticut,"179,720","165,406",
District of Columbia,"93,386","29,470",
Delaware,"50,467","39,984",
Florida,"576,214","870,986",
Georgia,"704,247","330,026",
Hawaii,"28,347","8,835",NO
Idaho,"7,310","16,880",
Illinois,"1,301,954","662,845",
Indiana ,0,0,
Iowa ,"171,624","134,652",YES
Kansas,"27,172","9,462",
Kentucky ,0,0,
Louisiana,"220,632","136,925",
Maine ,"141,313","94,763",YES
Maryland,"532,665","314,211",
Massachusetts,"511,887","704,591",
Michigan*,0,"328,309",
Minnesota,"142,109","68,994",
Mississippi ,0,0,
Missouri,"405,637","394,400",
Montana ,0,0,
Nebraska,"26,126","12,445",
Nevada,"86,406","96,920",YES
New Hampshire,"104,815","112,404",
New Jersey,"487,046","597,329",
New Mexico,"71,396","73,105"
New York,"751,019","1,068,496"
North Carolina ,0,0
North Dakota,"11,625","6,948"
Ohio,"982,489","1,212,362"
Oklahoma,"130,130","228,480"
Oregon ,0,0
Pennsylvania ,0,0
Rhode Island,"75,115","108,750"
South Carolina,"294,898","140,990"
South Dakota ,0,0
Tennessee,"251,692","335,745"
Texas,"1,358,785","1,459,814"
Utah,"70,414","48,766"
Vermont,"91,829","59,854"
Virginia,"627,820","349,766"
Washington,"585,095","270,044",YES
West Virginia ,0,0,
Wisconsin,"646,007","452,795",
Wyoming,"5,378","3,311",
Total,"14,541,901","14,216,413",
March 10, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did you fond those numbers?
Al I could find was this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Popular Vote
Obama 13,025,003
Clinton 12,421,316
Popular Vote (w/FL)
Obama 13,601,217
Clinton 13,292,302
March 10, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Those are the numbers I posted in comma-separated format for mooshinator, above.
March 10, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more note... I have no interest in trying to deceive or manipulate you. I'd like to get as close a projection as I can to make the most compelling and interesting analysis. It wouldn't do me any good to intentionally skew the raw data.
That said, thanks for the push to look at the numbers again. I discovered that I was counting Idaho as a caucus state and assigned projected numbers for Idaho instead of the actual primary count. That itself changes my initial projected difference from a 1,054,021 vote Obama lead to a 993,373 vote Obama lead, from 3.4% to 3.3%.
March 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the post. I was looking for an analysis of the issue. Unfortunately, I think that what your analysis demonstrates is that combining the popular vote for primary and caucus states is virtually impossible. The Clinton supporters have a legitimate point about Texas as a demonstration of the possibility that the popular vote and the caucuses would not equate.
The upshot is that any reference to the "popular" vote on an overall basis simply is meaningless. At the same time, any complaints by the Clinton campaign about the caucus system is whining at its worst. Where were their efforts to abolish caucuses BEFORE Obama started winning them by landslides? And since they didn't complain about them prior DNC establishing the primary schedule and process (sounds like the whining over Florida and Michigan...you can be sure the Clintons wouldn't be complaining about disenfranchisement if Obama had received more votes in Florida!!), why didn't the Clinton campaign establish the organization needed to win the caucuses? It's another example of the Clinton's poor preparation for the Primary process...which doesn't bode well for her running an administration.
The fact is, they delegate system was created for a reason, and it's the only meaningful guage of where the race is.
March 10, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your analysis on a supposed Obama advantage, as spun by HRC, but I'm not convinced that delegate allocations are a better way to assess candidate support than state popular vote. It's similar to the problem with the electoral college, which can produce a result like Gore's (alleged) loss in 2000.
As an example, here in Nevada, lightly populated counties are given a minimum number of delegates for the state convention, in disproportion to the number of voters in the county. In theory, the only way these voters can have an effective voice at the state convention is if they have a disproportionately large number of delegates relative to the size of the constituency. So they get X delegates for a small number of votes, while that same number of votes in a densely populated area yield far fewer delegates to the state convention while the dense counties themselves send a higher overall number of delegates to the convention. That can certainly skew the overall state outcome, as it indeed did in Nevada. The rural areas received a disproportionately large number of delegates which translated to a higher overall delegate count for Obama, even though Clinton amassed many more votes in Las Vegas.
If you have trouble with the electoral college on the national level, you should have trouble with the delegate system in the nominating process. Honestly, I don't know which system to prefer, but would be interested in hearing ideas to overcome the weaknesses of both type of elections.
March 10, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just visited Real Clear Politics and the vote totals are this:
Clinton - 13,620,611
Obama - 13,601,217
Where are you looking? Here are the totals copy-and-pasted straight off the realclearpolitics.com front page:
Popular Vote 13,025,003 12,421,316
Popular Vote (w/FL) 13,601,217 13,292,302
Ah, never mind. I see where you got those numbers. If you click through to the full results you get the numbers you posted for the vote totals including Michigan, where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. Nice try.
March 10, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, that's what I say to HRC... nice try.
March 10, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to slap this down on DKos - this is just silly and it makes Obama look stupid if they use such extrapolations. I say that as an Obama supporter and one who I would say from the traffic on DKos might be in the majority (and you know we are rabid over there).
Perhaps I can be clearer - It is Clintonian to make this argument. A vote is a vote and we follow the rules of reporting that the states follow. If they do not report votes in a caucus, they do not report votes in a caucus. Case closed.
March 10, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Perhaps I can be clearer - It is Clintonian to make this argument."
Exactly. My bottom line is that it is both inaccurate and deceptive for HRC to claim a popular vote lead. Neither campaign knows the exact popular vote count, but there's no question Obama has received more votes than HRC to date.
The other element is to consider the what-if, how do caucuses and primaries differ in overall turnout, and what might O have received if ALL the caucuses had been primaries? To me, that's not a particularly "stupid" hypothetical.
March 10, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what is the point about being Clintonian for Obama? Does it gain him anything?
Obama is not going to sway over the media and superdelegates by playing Clintonian games like this. We have to step outside our passionate support for our candidate and ask how this sounds to the public and supers and to the media. And frankly it sounds preposterous to make this argument, imo and will then be mercilessly attacked in the press, urged on by Clinton.
March 10, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I agree with that analysis. I suppose you could suggest it's irresponsible for me, as an O supporter, to float this publicly, but I have no illusions that posting to a blog on TPM is likely to catch the attention or interest of the MSM. ;~)
However, as the campaigns work the SDs in private I think it would be helpful to have a talking point that counter-balances HRC's assertion that she is the popular vote leader. If an SD is susceptible to HRC's twisted reasoning, then they should be asked to consider another (admittedly, equally specious) bit of propoganda in the interest of fairness.
March 10, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to take exception to this common mistake.
85,076 precinct delegates were elected by 1.1 million caucusers. saying there were only 100,000 votes is just incorrect.
March 10, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Storm, I really appreciate your hitting on this so consistently. You are absolutely right that people miquote this number (intentionally or not) and that it makes for a completely misleading argument when looking at the TX prima-caucus.
If you can manage to put links in your posts, you can link to this page as a fairly definitive source: Dallas Morning News, March 6 -- "A projected 1.1 million Texans attended precinct conventions, shattering turnout records."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-conventions_06pol.ART0.State.Edition2.460528c.html
March 10, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the register democratic voter count? Not popular vote that includes independents and republican cross over.
March 10, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
These numbers are just wrong, and they're wrong against Obama. The New York Times has a graphic (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/10/us/0310-nat-CAUCUS.jpg) (and realclearpolitics numbers show) that Obama is leading in the popular vote, without rescaling for caucuses -- even without including caucuses. See http://janakdaniel.blogspot.com/2008/03/counting-game-part-i.html for more.
March 11, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The numbers aren't wrong, they're just different than your source. I wrote this up in attempt to counter HRC's argument that she leads the pop vote. It wouldn't be as effective if I went out of my way to find a count where O leads HRC. I didn't shop the numbers, just picked the RCP numbers, which happen to support what HRC has been claiming (when you include FL & MI, or just include MI, but not FL), looking only at primaries.
March 11, 2008 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that buying into this, even for a hypothetical, is dangerous unless you state it clearly. When you start your post, you don't give a direct link to your numbers, or mention explicitly that Florida and Michigan are being counted. I would have been fine with it as an exercise if you made it very clear at the beginning that this is under the highly dubious counting that Clinton is trying to do. I agree that these types of things are worth doing, even on Clinton's terms -- I just did one at http://janakdaniel.blogspot.com/2008/03/counting-game-part-ii.html
re Clinton's attempt to redefine "Democratic voters," but I think it's important to make it clear that the popular vote on its own does not support Clinton.
March 11, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment