A couple of weeks ago I posted about Gallup's breakdown of candidate support according to red, blue, or battleground state. It was remarkable at that time (using data from Oct. 6 - 12) because, in addition to the expected Obama leads in blue and battleground states, Obama was polling only an average of four points behind McCain in the red states. If Obama was truly so close to McCain in such strong Bush territory, then the likelihood of several of them going to Obama in the end would be pretty great. Was a true landslide victory on the way?

However, since that post my enthusiasm for this prospect waned as I watched McCain's lead expand again to six points, and then further to eight.

Oh well.

A quick check just now, though, has renewed my hope again for a totally satisfying, irrefutable clobbering -- the spread in the red states is down to one point! Of course, included in this figure are states which we already know have been either leaning toward Obama (Virginia), too close to call (Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina), or still leaning slightly to McCain (Georgia, Montana, North Dakota), but this list also includes such "dark" red states like Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.

Just take a good look at the complete list of 25 (!) red states:

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Georgia
Indiana
Idaho
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming

Obama is just 1 point down in these!  This is simply staggering, isn't it? If this translates into even 25 to 30 percent of this list, that will mean Obama could pick up five to eight red states!

I know, I know, this really is probably way too much to hope for, but damn, wouldn't that be absolutely fantastic? :o)

I scrolled down farther than usual on the Gallup site this morning and discovered a wide variety of tabbed results from national polling of which I wasn't previously aware. What got me especially excited is the relative breakdown of support in blue, purple, and red states.

Though it was no surprise to see Obama with an enormous lead in blue states and a substantial lead in battleground states, I didn't expect to see him coming so close on average nationally in what have been traditionally red states.

                    Obama    McCain

Red states       44%        48%
Purple states   55%        38%
Blue states      57%        36%

And this only includes data from the week ending October 12 -- the week before had a spread of eight points in the red states!

If such polling results accurately mirror general voter sentiment in these states, I think we're not only going to be witnessing a big victory for Obama in two weeks, but a seminal shift in the political atmosphere of the nation as a whole.

The full results of this breakdown going back to June are here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108061/Candidate-Support-Red-Purple-Blue-States.aspx

 

****************************************************

Late-night update:

Gallup just published new figures for the week ending October 19, and they have the red-state spread widening slightly again to six points while the purple-state spread takes a fairly large dive to eight points. Obama's advantage in blue states, however, has increased further. It will be interesting to see if the current week's totals will reflect the greater expansion of Obama's lead that we've witnessed over the past couple of days. Here are the latest numbers:

 

                    Obama    McCain

Red states       44%        50%
Purple states   51%        43%
Blue states      59%        33%

I just realized that my CPU maxxes out when I'm on TPM.

Is anyone else having this problem?

As far as I can tell, it seems to occur only on pages with embedded video (for example, on this page everything's fine). Though it's particularly bad when using Firefox 3.0, I've also found that the CPU usage is higher than normal when the same pages are opened with Internet Explorer 7.0. (I've compared similar pages at Huffington Post, and the CPU usage is much lower with both browsers.)

Although there's a chance the problem is due to some isolated incompatibility on my system, I suspect that it might be of a more general nature.

So, if you've recognized a problem using your computer on TPM, then please recommend this. Include your system and browser info in a comment with your own observations if you get a chance.

Thanks!

My system:

OS: Windows XP, SP3
Firefox 3.0.3
Internet Explorer 7.0

Ok, ok, it's not Monty Python, but I'm betting Terry Gilliam was a pretty strong visual inspiration for this:

Time for Some Campaignin'

That's it! Now you can return to your regular programming...

It's way past my bedtime here, but I couldn't let this slip by without an immediate response. Here are the details from firedoglake:

A video has been circulating the internet showing a man, Larry Sinclair, speaking to camera making slanderous claims about Senator Barack Obama. These claims are demonstrably false, and don't bear repeating here, or in any venue. Which is why it is shocking that the National Press Club is offering a him a spot on the national stage on June 18.

Please take a moment to ask the National Press Club to check the facts before giving Larry Sinclair a bully pulpit. Also, if you have a moment please consider calling the National Press Club at 202-662-7500, and politely but firmly petition them verbally.

There's a petition on the site: http://action.firedoglake.com/page/petition/stoppingsinclair

Digging around the NPC site, I also came up with an email address: info@press.org

I urge everyone to let the NPC know what they think about this!

For so many of us at TPM, I'm sure this election not only means the opportunity to select a worthy person for the presidency, but to also take an active part as citizens in the restoration of this shambles our beleaguered republic has become.  If Obama's goals for his first one-hundred days as President are any indication of what we have to expect, I think we will be well on our way to doing just that.


Bush’s laws will be scrutinized if I become president, Obama says
Posted by: Deborah Charles

DENVER - Maybe it’s his background teaching constitutional law.

If elected president, Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama said one of the first things he wants to do is ensure the constitutionality of all the laws and executive orders passed while Republican President George W. Bush has been in office.

Those that don’t pass muster will be overturned, he said.

During a fund-raiser in Denver, Obama — a former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School — was asked what he hoped to accomplish during his first 100 days in office.

“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution,” said Obama.

Other goals for his first 100 days: work out a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq; make progress on alternative energy plans and launch legislation to reform the health care system. source

The rules of the nomination process in the Democratic Party make it very clear that the only measure which counts toward the nomination is the delegate count. Nevertheless, the idea that the so-called "popular vote" still has relevance continues to have traction, with the Clinton campaign and its backers easily, and understandably, the loudest proponents.

At least on this point, however, the Clinton campaign should perhaps be forgiven; afterall, most election sites list these numbers alongside the delegate totals as if they truly represented what they claim to, and pundits never seem to tire of bringing the popular vote up as an important measure of each nominee's prospects. Real Clear Politics even lists popular vote totals including Florida and Michigan which show Clinton ahead, so no wonder so many keep pushing this notion.

The fact is, however, that the "popular vote" in the Democratic nomination is a chimera. It not only is meaningless because of its lack of legitimization in the official selection process, but also because the numbers truly do not represent anything meaningful. Wikipedia explains quite well the intrinsic impossibility of attaining a true popular vote count, but it boils mostly down to the idiosyncracies of the caucus states, since either:

1) official vote totals have not been released (IA, NV, WA, ME) or

2) the time-consuming nature of caucusing lowers relative turnout dramatically compared to standard primaries.

What this means is that, even if all the individual caucusing numbers were there, they still wouldn't in themselves give us a representative popular vote because all of the caucus states would be severely underrepresented in relation to their total voter participation in the general election. Pledged delegates are apportioned relative to population and voting history for this very reason -- to compensate for the resulting disparities in voter turnout due to different selection methods at the state level -- and this is exactly why only the delegates matter.

But would it perhaps still be possible to compensate for a caucus state's lower turnout to get a rough approximation of what a "real" popular vote might be?

Yes!

I decided a good approach would be to compare the ratios of voters to pledged delegates between primary states and caucus states and to use the result to increase the caucus numbers by that factor. Once I've transposed the caucus numbers upwards for each state's adjusted popular vote, I could add all of these to the popular vote from the primary states for the national total.

So essentially it's a three-step process:

I. Calculate the average number of voters per delegate in primary states. (I chose five states from different parts of the country to get this number.)

II. For each caucus state, calculate the same ratio (whether with votes, county delegates, etc.) and modify the caucus numbers by the ratio I/II to get the adjusted popular vote by state.

III. Using the popular vote total without caucus states as a base, add the adjusted state numbers for the adjusted, national popular vote.

And here's what it looks like (scroll to the bottom for the good stuff)...


I. Calculation of average number of voters per delegate in primary states (5 states as representative)

Voters per delegate IN
1274993/72 = 17708.24

Voters per delegate PA
2307759/158 = 14606.07

Voters per delegate AZ
455635/56 = 8136.34

Voters per delegate MS
434152/33 = 13156.12

Voters per delegate MD
878141/70 = 12544.87

Average voters per delegate = 13230.33


II. Calculation of voter/delegate ratios in caucus states and the resulting adjusted popular vote (by interpolation)

Precinct delegates per delegate IA
2501/45 = 55.58

Transposed popular vote IA
13230.33/55.58 x 940 = 223759 (O)
13230.33/55.58 x 737 = 175436 (C)

County delegates per delegate NV
10742/25 = 429.68

Transposed popular vote NV
13230.33/429.68 x 4844 = 149152 (O)
13230.33/429.68 x 5459 = 168088 (C)

Votes per delegate AL
8880/13 = 683.08

Transposed popular vote AL
13230.33/683.08 x 6674 = 129266 (O)
13230.33/683.08 x 2194 = 42495 (C)

Votes per delegate Am. Samoa
285/3 = 95.00

Transposed popular vote Am. Samoa
13230.33/95.00 x 121 = 16851 (O)
13230.33/95.00 x 163 = 22700 (C)

Precinct delegates per delegate CO
120971/55 = 2199.47

Transposed popular vote CO
13230.33/2199.47 x 80113 = 481899 (O)
13230.33/2199.47 x 38839 = 233626 (C)

Votes per delegate ID
21224/18 = 1179.11

Transposed popular vote ID
13230.33/1179.11 x 16880 = 189404 (O)
13230.33/1179.11 x 3655 = 41011 (C)

Votes per delegate KS
36723/32 = 1147.59

Transposed popular vote KS
13230.33/1147.59 x 27172 = 313260 (O)
13230.33/1147.59 x 9462 = 109085 (C)

Votes per delegate MN
214066/72 = 2979.14

Transposed popular vote MN
13230.33/2979.14 x 142109 = 631105 (O)
13230.33/2979.14 x 68994 = 306402 (C)

Precinct delegates per delegate ND
19012/13 = 1462.46

Transposed popular vote ND
13230.33/1462.46 x 11625 = 105167 (O)
13230.33/1462.46 x 6948 = 62856 (C)

Votes per delegate NE
38670/24 = 1611.25

Transposed popular vote NE
13230.33/1611.25 x 26126 = 214526 (O)
13230.33/1611.25 x 12445 = 102189 (C)

Votes per delegate WA
31984/78 = 410.05

Transposed popular vote WA
13230.33/410.05 x 21629 = 697863 (O)
13230.33/410.05 x 9992 = 322394 (C)

State delegates per delegate ME
3498/24 = 145.75

Transposed popular vote ME
13230.33/145.75 x 2079 = 188719 (O)
13230.33/145.75 x 1397 = 126811 (C)

Votes per delegate HI
37426/20 = 1871.30

Transposed popular vote HI
13230.33/1871.30 x 28347 = 200417 (O)
13230.33/1871.30 x 8835 = 62465 (C)

Votes per delegate WY
8753/12 = 729.42

Transposed popular vote WY
13230.33/729.42 x 5378 = 97547 (O)
13230.33/729.42 x 3311 = 60055 (C)

Votes per delegate Guam
4521/4 = 1130.25

Transposed popular vote Guam
13230.33/1130.25 x 2264 = 26502 (O)
13230.33/1130.25 x 2257 = 26420 (C)


III. Calculation of the adjusted popular vote totals using the weighted vote results from the caucus states

Popular vote totals w/o caucuses (from RCP)
Obama = 16,319,472
Clinton = 16,059,692

Total transposed popular vote of caucus states (from II)
Obama = 3,665,437
Clinton = 1,862,033


ADJUSTED "REAL" POPULAR VOTE (with transposed caucus totals)
Obama = 19,984,909
Clinton = 17,921,725

------> Obama +2,000,000

ADJUSTED "REAL" POPULAR VOTE + FL and MI (even assuming Obama gets no votes in MI)
Obama = 20,561,123
Clinton = 19,121,020

------> Obama +1,400,000


So what this shows is obvious: that Obama is clear and away the nominee and that only our poor math comprehension is blinding us from that fact.

OK, I really want to know from those of you who still firmly support Clinton's nomination over Obama's: 

What feasible scenarios do you see for her not only winning the nomination, but also winning enough support in the general election to defeat McCain?

To me it seems like any strategy for her to win the nomination would subvert any chance she would have in the general election by alienating large segments of the Democratic electorate.  Just consider these facts:

1) Obama has won 30 of the 46 contests (65%).

2) He leads Clinton by 13% in pledged delegates, 9% including superdelegates.

3) A prime Democratic voting block, African-Americans, have voted for Obama in unprecedented numbers.

4) An overwhelming number of young voters have been motivated to become politically active for the first time in support of Obama.

If there were some feasible scenario for getting her to the White House (though I doubt there is one), I could understand why she and her supporters want her to remain in the race.  If, on the other hand, her insistence to stay in the race and the negative campaign tactics she uses not only destroy her own chances, but, as a consequence, also diminish Obama's chances in the general, how can her presence in the nominating process continue to be justified?

So come on, get posting, Clinton supporters -- I'm all eyes...

or Why the Pledged Delegate Count Is the 'Real' Popular Vote

When confronted with the facts of Obama's now large and insurmountable lead in pledged delegates or his victories in the vast majority of contests, Clinton supporters and even (especially?) news commentators often point to the relatively close popular vote totals as an important justification why Clinton should stay in the race. More importantly, the closeness of the popular vote is being used to encourage superdelegates to commit their vote to her. And indeed, whereas Obama is winning the pledged delegate count 52% to 46%, the stated popular vote on the RCP page still shows a fairly tight race with Obama ahead just 49.5% to 46.9%.

But is the popular vote really a useful indicator of overall candidate preference in the Democratic nomination process?

No, it is not.

The reason is simple:  the nomination is a heterogeneous amalgam of various selection methods by the different states. Caucuses, due to the far greater time commitment involved, are never going to enjoy the kind of participation that primaries do. The states select delegates for this very reason, so that whatever system each state uses, their voting results are given the proper weight in proportion to their relative number of Democratic voters.

The delegate totals are actually the "popular" vote, or at least as close as we're ever going to get.

So if Clinton is down by 6% in the popular vote, why is she still around?

For my first blog entry, I'll begin modestly with a link to a wonderful George Carlin interview at Huffington Post.

In typical Carlin fashion, he gives a blistering appraisal of the American experience:

I think that human beings were given great gifts and had great potential and they squandered it all on goods, possession, power, territory and on a superstitious God that watches everything and controls. These things, I think, crippled the human animal to the extend that we never lived up to their potential. The same thing happened in this country. We were given great potential. We were given this great system of self-government, the best one that had been devised so far. And we've given it all up for gizmos, and goods, and toys and possessions, and - in this country - God, overlooking everything and spoiling everything.

He proceeds with his take on the rise of Obama:

So... there have been moments in this country when people have, leaders have emerged who were inspirational, and who could carry the people with them because — in order to effect change in their lives and experience as a group, they need to be led, and they need to believe in something and they need to believe in themselves, and they need to believe that they can change things. And they way that happens is through an inspirational leader. FDR was that, Franklin Roosevelt - he gave people something to believe in, and mainly it was themselves, that they could weather the storm, and he got them through the Depression and a fuckin' World War. So, these things happen and they're interesting to notice - I don't know how much overall meaning it has, I do respect what's going on as a true American phenomenon, this rising up of someone who - maybe, I don't know - has the quality to inspire people.

And amidst his razor-sharp yet compassionate critique of our wacky species, he namedrops TPM as one of his regular blog reads!

Thank God for this lovable fool who keeps us all sane!