wow (0.00 / 0)

wow, it's clear put a lot of work into this diary. Grat job!

---

by: boomersun @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 20:23:12 PM CDT

fantastic! (4.00 / 1)

belongs on the front page....

---

by: aiko @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 20:51:46 PM CDT

Nice! (0.00 / 0)

Very comprehensive.

If we reach that point, there is no doubt that all sorts of different combinations for figuring out the popular vote will float around.  I have my doubts about how much mainstream media traction an approach that involves estimating the caucus votes will ever gain.  I guess we'll see.  I also think that turnout is likely to be higher in the remaining states.  PA for sure will have a turnout rate at least as high as Ohio after six weeks of buildup and campaigning.  I would not be surprised to see 2.5 million there.

In any event, Clinton has her work cut out for her.  

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

---

by: FuzzyDunlop @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 21:56:52 PM CDT

we're on the same mission. However,... (0.00 / 0)

giving any credence to the popular vote argument is risky because as we sit here on March 9, it is the only plausible indication of the will of the voters that HRC has a realistic shot at overtaking Obama.    

In Denver, when they call on each State, they will not ask for the results of the popular vote, they will ask for the delegate count.  The game was set up as delegates from day one and trying to change the metric when you are losing is - well, you fill in the word.  I hope enough (50% is all that it will take) superdelegates can see that.

One quibble, I think you've underestimating the Pennsylvania turnout by about a million.  Four to five weeks of intensive, near Iowa like campaigning and media attention is going to drive turnout and the media narrative sky high.  This is unfortunate, because at the end of the day, Pennsylvania is really just 158 delegates out of 3,254.  No more, no less (apologies to Mr. Bowers).    

---

by: Michael Boehm @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 22:17:00 PM CDT

I agree (0.00 / 0)

While i agree that the delegates metric is suppose to be the one metric that is used to see who gets the nomination , i still think Obama has to make sure he goes into the convention with the popular vote in his pocket.

The last thing you want is for Clinton to be screaming that she won the head count...It will also make it harder for Obama to get her supporters on board if they feel she won the popular vote but still lost the election.

If i'm the Obama campaign , i would get the states who didnt release their vote count to do so because the popular vote will be a big deal for the Clinton , and since Obama gets a net gain of 100k once those votes are counted , he'll be foolish not to get those states and the media to recognize those votes and add them into the current popular vote count.

---

by: maria25rodriguez @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 00:02:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Since this whole popular vote (0.00 / 0)

deal is a bit of a hastily hobbled together construction from the beginning, it's nice to see that someone has done the research necessary to get these numbers right.

Unfortunately, the MSM is lazy and HRC and her supporters are unlikely to use these numbers without resistance. It's going to take a lot of work to get the MSM to use intellectually honest popular vote totals like these. This is one of their biggest advantages to date: having gotten the meme-up on popular votes as some kind of end-all be-all of a nominating contest (as opposed to, say, DELEGATES) and then gotten the MSM to use their Clinton-friendly formulations.

---

by: Matt H @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 23:32:18 PM CDT

popular vote (0.00 / 0)

Max,

Thanks a lot for the number crunching.  I've been thinking about all those Obama voters who attended a caucus, and wondering how we might include them in the popular vote total.  Now we've got to find a way to get this information to the superdelegates.

---

by: global yokel @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 00:27:50 AM CDT

Caucus voters (0.00 / 0)

The only states where caucus voters have not been tallied are NV, IA, ME and WA.  In WA, there is a primary election result with about 3 times the number of participants as the caucus.  In NV, IA, and ME, the swing is not more than 10-15000 for Obama, combined.

---

by: DaveOinSF @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:28:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Washington State had a primary (0.00 / 0)

In their primary there is no estimated turnout numbers but real turnout numbers...in that one Obama still won but by only by 30,000 votes....not almost 100,000 votes in the causcus.   Indeed he only won by 5% in a total vote of almost 700,000.  That is a much more legitimate number to use. Why ...because 700,000 people voted and not less that 20% of that number....Primaries are inherently  fairer because more people get to vote.  No point in arguing because no one who's not biased will agree with you. ...so I think you have to cut his intial 113,000 lead that your estimates gave him by 70,000 votes.

That puts a big dent in your argument....a very big dent in terms of going forward.

Secondly even that 53% number is doable for her if people start having second thought.  But since I'm right about Washington state that 53% is more like 51-2%.  I have it on good information from an old Kossack frontpager from Puerto Rico that she will win the primary there in massive numbers...could be wrong on that but she could easily beat him on popular vote.

And she has already beat him among Democrats by hundreds of thousands of votes.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 00:35:38 AM CDT

Why should a non-binding primary count? (0.00 / 0)

When the voters had already expressed their opinion in the caucus, and everyone knew the primary didn't count?  Just because more voters participated in the primary doesn't mean it is a more accurate representation of the state.  Both sample sizes are still a minority of the total party registered voters in the state.

The whole popular vote argument is flawed to begin with, based on the fact that nearly a quarter of states select delegates based on a caucus. Caucuses do have lower vote totals, and it's very possible that Obama could have a significantly wider popular vote lead if all of the caucus states he won had been primaries -- or it could be the same. You are comparing apples and oranges though, which is why we have delegates to begin with.  

---

by: jasonvwells @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 13:33:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

results of WA primary (0.00 / 0)

The results of the WA (non-binding) primary are here: http://vote.wa.gov/elections/w...

Debcoop is rounding numbers selectively. Obama's margin in the primary is 38,368. His margin in the caucus numbers used by Max is 90,449. The amount Obama's lead would need to be reduced is thus 52,081, not 70,000.

I agree with Deb that it makes sense to count the primary here. The purpose of this exercise is not to find the result that is fair; it is to test Clinton's "moral argument" based on having won the popular vote, regardless of whether that popular vote should really count. That being the case, I think it's only logical to include this vote, in spite of the objections that it was just a beauty contest.

In any case, it doesn't change the math much. Knocking 52,000 votes off Obama's totals doesn't significantly change the logic.

To JasonVWells, I really don't think it's true that "everyone knew the primary didn't count". You may recall the news stories: a whole lot of voters who aren't political junkies like us had no idea that the caucus was even happening and were irked when they found out their primary vote didn't count like they thought it would. The state did a poor job of publicizing this. Snohomish County does all voting by mail, and the primary ballots went out with no indication whatsoever that the result was meaningless. (My mother's ballot had no local issues, so it showed the presidential choice and nothing else.) I wouldn't be at all surprised if voters who thought the primary would count outnumber those who attended the caucus.

Even among those of us who were familiar with all the rules, we knew full well that the primary vote might be used in some sort of campaign effort or as an argument to try to persuade superdelegates. I know I advised several people to vote based on that.

---

by: markdlew @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 16:14:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I rounded you're right, I did it from memory (0.00 / 0)

But what the Washington caucus v primary does show is how much less representative and democratic a caucus is compared to a primary.

The reason to have them is cost...not fairness.  Caucuses are premised on low turnouts and insider only participation. When they get to higher numbers they are even less representove because it triggers the question selelctive rather than full particpation.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 23:14:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Popular vote (0.00 / 0)

Popular vote without counting FL, MI, WA, ME, NV, and IA:

Obama +572631

Add in actual result of primary election in Washington (Obama +38000):

Obama +610846

Estimate ME, NV and IA votes by multiplying the turnout to the % of state delegates awarded:
ME = Obama +8700; NV = Clinton +6700; IA = Obama +10000
Overall: Obama +622750

For the remaining state contests, assume turnout similar to Ohio, that is, 80% of the 2004 Kerry vote.  This is less than in Texas, where it was about 100% of the Kerry vote.  For Puerto Rico, assume 60% of the 2004 vote for the PPD candidate for Governor.  For the Guam caucus, assume 150% the turnout of the Virgin Islands caucus, the approximate ratio in each territory's population.

Give Obama 20-point wins in Mississippi, Montana and South Dakota and 15-points in North Carolina and 10-points in Oregon.

Give Hillary 20-point wins in West Virginia,  Kentucky, Puerto Rico and Guam and 15-point wins in Florida (revote) and Pennsylvania.

Give Obama a 4-point win in Indiana and Hillary a 4-point win in Michigan (revote).

The tally in this scenario is Hillary by about 100,000.  Switch the Washington result to use the caucus result (240000 participatns) instead of the primary (690,000 participants) and it's Hillary by about 50,000

---

by: DaveOinSF @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:20:28 AM CDT

Re: (0.00 / 0)

This is a very impressive piece of work.  One quibble, I do not believe it makes sense to estimate WA caucus results as the primary gives us a direct indication of the popular vote.  Just like in Florida, there's a popular vote result even if there are no delegates.

---

by: Steve M @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:22:20 AM CDT

Texas (0.00 / 0)

If we're going to count caucuses -- and obviously we should -- then we should count the Texas caucus as well. Add it in along with the primary. Since 1.1 million people participated and Obama won it by about 56% to 44%, that should add around 130,000 to Obama's lead when those votes are counted in.

And those arguing for counting the Washington State primary are omitting the fact that it was a beauty contest that had no effect on delegate allocation. Lots of people are not going to come out for a contest that's meaningless, so it doesn't make sense to count those numbers.

---

by: KCinDC @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:39:26 AM CDT

Texas (0.00 / 0)

Every single one of those texas caucusers voted in the primary.  What is the purpose of counting those voters twice, other than to pad Obama's total?

---

by: DaveOinSF @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 14:45:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It doesn't matter (0.00 / 0)

Trying to calculate the popular vote is to buy into the notion that the rules should be changed three-quarters of the way through the process.

The Texas State Democratic party determined long ago how they would apportion their delegates to the candidates. The basis of the contest was public and agreed to by all candidates well in advance of last week.

Obama won the state by virtue of winning the most delegates.

You can't pick and choose the rules after the fact, based on whether they favor your candidate or not.

---

by: JLTTravis @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 15:30:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hold on a minute. (0.00 / 0)

Although I understand that at this point the only way for Hillary Clinton to win is to change the rules. As Democrats dedicated to justice and fairness we shouldn't allow this to happen.

There's simply no need for Obama - or anyone else for that matter - to try and calculate the popular vote. Because that's not the rules, nor the system that was set-up in advance and agreed to by EVERY candidate. Including Senator Clinton.

The fact is the primary is based on states allocating their delegates - NOT on nationwide popular vote. Each state was given a choice on what type of contest they would sanction in order to allocate their delegates. 15 states and territories chose caucuses.

Now to change the rules and say the "popular vote" is what matters is to undermine every single caucus state - not just the one's that haven't reported the popular vote. Because caucuses have much lower turnout than primaries you've just undercounted every caucus state because you've changed how we're going to keep score.

Caucuses not as democratic as primaries? Sure a convincing case can be made. But changing the rules midstream is just as undemocratic and unfair. The simple matter is, had states been told it wasn't about delegates but about the popular vote many would have chosen to hold a different type of contest. So simply asserting that the popular vote now matters is unfair, unjust and yes, undemocratic.

---

by: JLTTravis @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:18:49 PM CDT

Exactly right (0.00 / 0)

If the intent was to choose a candidate based on the greatest number of total popular votes, no state would hold a caucus because the turnout rates are significantly lower.  

As I said in another reply, this is why we have delgates to begin with.  

---

by: jasonvwells @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 13:52:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Another thing... (0.00 / 0)

Not to mention had the candidates agreed that the nationwide popular vote was the most important measuring stick, each might have employed different strategies. As it were, they each knew the rules. Understood them to be fair and developed their strategies based on them. Clinton's strategy has failed her so she's trying to change how we keep score in order to game the system to her advantage.

Next thing you know, Patriots fans will assert that they should be Super Bowl Champions because they won more games than the Giants.

Either scenario is total bunk.
 

---

by: JLTTravis @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 15:24:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Conceding a point (4.00 / 1)

I agree. In primaries that don't count, Hillary Clinton has a substantial lead. In primaries and caucuses that do count, Barack Obama has a substantial lead.

---

by: JLTTravis @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:21:04 PM CDT

Michigan (0.00 / 0)

Another thing to keep in mind when you hear people talking about the "popular vote" is that when people like Real Clear Politics and the MSM quote numbers that include Michigan, they may well be giving votes to Clinton ONLY and not Obama.

If you look at the RCP numbers, when you include Florida but NOT Michigan, the numbers are:

Clinton - 13,292,302
Obama - 13,601,217

but then when they include the Michigan vote, the numbers become:

Clinton - 13,620,611
Obama - 13,601,217

So, they're crediting Clinton with 328,309 votes from MI but they're crediting Obama with none.  This is because Obama followed the DNC rules and took his name off the ballot, therefore all Obama supporters had to vote "uncommitted".

According to the Green Papers, the Michigan numbers are as follows:

Clinton 327,419
uncommitted 236,955

So, if one is going to include Michigan numbers for Clinton, in the interest of fairness, you need to include the uncommitted numbers for Obama.

---

by: The Robman @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 13:31:13 PM CDT

Pennsylvania: Overestimating, not Underestimating (0.00 / 0)

I suspect you're dramatically overestimating, rather than underestimating, Pennsylvania turnout, because it's a closed primary. There are only 3.9 million registered Dems in the state. 52% turnout in a primary just doesn't happen.

In 2004, turnout in the Pennsylvania primary was 770,000. Ohio went from 1.4 million in 2004 to 2.1 million this year -- take that 50% increase, and bump it up a little more, and 1.2-1.3 million seems more likely for Pennsylvania. At that level, Clinton has to win 59% to close her popular vote gap by 200,000. If she doesn't get 200,000 there, she's not going to get it anywhere else.

---

by: Mark Schmitt @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:52:24 AM CDT

Very useful. (0.00 / 0)

I'd add that Obama ought to win more than 56.7% of the vote in Mississippi.  The primary electorate is likely to be 60% Black.

---

by: jlkenney @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:39:58 AM CDT