Obama's popular vote lead: 600K w/o FL+MI | 250K w/ FL+MI

by: NeuvoLiberal

Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:22


That's right.

1. Excluding Michigan and Florida, Obama has a popular vote lead of 610,000 votes.

2. Including FL's beauty-contest result and an exit poll based estimate in MI (which improves it from a non-contest where Obama wasn't on the ballot to sort of a FL-type beauty contest where no one could campaign), Obama currently has a 251,000 lead in the popular vote.

NeuvoLiberal :: Obama's popular vote lead: 600K w/o FL+MI | 250K w/ FL+MI
I posted about this at DK yesterday.

Booman's provided excellent analysis last night:


Can Clinton Win the Popular Vote?
by BooMan23
Wed Apr 23, 2008

But, then, the popular vote isn't a fair measure in any case.  If it were, Obama would have spent all his time in cities (where the votes are) rather than campaigning in Alaska and Idaho.  RCP has the announced popular vote from every state that has provided those numbers.  Obama leads by this measure by 500,000 votes.  RCP also estimates that Obama won the combined contests in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington by about 110,000 votes.  So, excluding Michigan and Florida, Obama has a popular vote lead of 610,000 votes.

It's not really fair to assume that Obama would have only received 35% of the vote in Florida if he had been permitted to campaign there, but for simplicity we'll give Clinton her full measure of votes from the Sunshine State.  That leaves her with a deficit of 316,000 popular votes.  What can we do about Michigan?

Clinton received 55% of the vote in Michigan and 'uncommitted' received 40%.  But according to the exit polls, the people, if given the option, would have voted:

     Clinton 46%
     Obama 35%
     Edwards 12%

There's no perfect solution for counting the popular vote in Michigan, but the exit polls give us something to work with.  With 594,000 votes cast, the exit polls project:

     Clinton 273,146
     Obama 207,900
     Edwards 71,280

This gives Clinton another 65,000 votes.  So, based on the best available evidence and a fair determination of the rules, Obama currently has a 251,000 lead in the popular vote.

Booman then goes on to estimate that Obama is likely to remain the popular vote leader at the end of all contests even after we factor in FL and MI.

Here is my MI math with relevant links:

MI Exit Poll
If these had been the candidates on the ballot today, for whom would you have voted in the Democratic presidential primary?

Category	% Total	Clinton	Dodd	Gravel	Kucinich Unc.

Hillary Clinton	46	97	-	0	0	 3
John Edwards	12	30	2	-	11	 57
Dennis Kucinich	2	-	-	-	-	 -
Barack Obama	35	18	0	1	2	 79
Bill Richardson	1	-	-	-	-	 -

MI (non-contest) turn out: 594,398

Vote breakdown based on the exit poll:
HRC: 46% x 594,398 = 273 423
Obama: 35% x 594,398 = 208 039

HRC-Obama = 65,383 according to the exit poll.

Therefore, it's not a 328K edge for HRC (as in the uncontested result where Obama wasn't on the ballot. Let's ask the Clinton camp exactly how democratic it is to give ZERO, ZILCH, NADA votes to Obama in MI??), but it's 65K (according to the exit poll) if we're going to count MI pop. vote at all.

Apparently, MI Clinton supporters such as Sen. Stabenow and Gov. Granholm etal helped orchestrate the mess in MI and seemingly something similar happened in FL as well. See Sen. Geller mocking the DNC:

Had the leaders in those states (Democratic leaders included) played by the rules and allowed the regularly scheduled primaries to play out, their states would've played a constructively pivotal role in this presidential contest, instead of being turned into divisive wedge factors.

But, even after we include them in the popular vote (at a beauty contest level; Obama would've done much better had the DNC scheduled primaries taken place and Obama had campaigned there), using the best available estimates, we still have Obama leading the popular vote by 250K votes.

Please help disseminate these facts.  


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
MyDD (0.00 / 0)
Go post this diary for the idiots at MyDD... a certain idiot doesn't seem to get this and makes up his own numbers... par for the course for him from what I have heard.

There is no metric derivable as 'popular vote' (4.00 / 1)
I am respectfully asking everyone when talking about the popular vote to mention that it isn't a valid metric and can't be made one without contortions that themselves give the aura of invalidation. There are four states that do not contribute to popular vote totals (besides Florida and Michigan). They only give delegate totals, which is by the actual rules the only metric that counts. These four states are caucus states and I live in one of them.
Washington, Nevada, Maine and Iowa give results only in delegates.

There is no national popular vote, it is simply not a metric of the primary process, it never was and therefore isn't even findable as a statistic.

There could be a negotiation for how to arrive at a perception of national support based on disparate factors, but by definition statistics are facts and not arrived at by negotiation. There is no statistic of a 'popular vote', only a vote that counts all states except Washington, Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and then according to perspective does something with Florida and Michigan.

So it helps the discourse if this is brought into every discussion of 'popular vote'. Something that doesn't exist is getting way too legitimized in this process.

I have seen dialog at TPM and even at Kos mostly ignore this.  Even though the estimates of over 200,000 net votes for Obama suggest that most people posting are not trying to ignore these states for any partisan reasons.  It just hasn't been sufficiently brought up to gain traction.    


Like Howard Cosell used to say... (0.00 / 0)
...about the "time of possession statistic in football; "It's not how long you have the ball, its what you do with it when you have it".  I have seen 10 different popular vote scenarios layout out in the last two weeks with 10 different results.  This alone is a reason that the popular vote is not an absolute but a subjective metric.  If a Super delegate wants to use this as a metric for their choice then fine, but it should not be touted as a metric that should be applied unless it is standardized.   Funny that the Clinton caamp is the one pushing to popular vote scenario because they cannot do so with the delegate count which is they have clearly lost.  The reason they push the PV is because the can cherry pick to scenario to make them look good.  The media may be stupid but I don't think the SD's will fall for such nonsense (in general).

[ Parent ]





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search