Open Left - popular vote

Which Party Can't Win Elections Again?

Daniel De Groot — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:17:58 GMT

The myth of Democratic electoral troubles was put in serious jeopardy by 2006, and 2008 should put it decisively to bed. It was always a troubled theory since it largely rested on assuming "elections" meant "Presidential elections" but seeing as two co-equal branches of the US government face regular elections, and the first branch has two co-equal chambers, it would be worth seeing how those elections have been doing.

I chose to start with 1988 because you have to start somewhere, and I think 20 years and 6 Presidentials makes for a good enough metric of recent elections. It also includes the 1988 "blowout" because there is a key point to raise about it.

So for Presidentials, we have Democrats winning the popular vote 4 of the 6 times, and the GOP getting a popular majority twice to the Democrats' once. I am a big believer that Ross Perot did not "rob" the elder Bush in 1992, but probably did deny Clinton a popular vote majority. That said, it is what it is and I will deal with the results as is.

The Senate results are particularly interesting when you consider how much of this period had the Republicans in the majority of the chamber. Yet Democrats won the popular vote 8 of the 11 elections, and had a majority 7 of those (D's are over 50% in 1998 if the graph is not clear). This includes Democrats winning the PV three times during the period of Republican control.

For the House, note that Republicans never captured a popular majority, not even in 1994 or 2002, which Democrats have done 4 times since 1988. You have to go back to the first do-nothing Congress of 1946 to find the House Republicans capturing a majority of the votes. Also, you can see the effectiveness of gerrymandering that Democrats did narrowly win the popular vote in 1996 but failed to retake the House.

Summarizing

Treating Presidential, House and Senate as equal, this data represents 28 national elections, in which Democrats win the popular vote 18 times, and a majority of it 12 times. Republicans win 10 times, and majorities 4 times.

If you want to argue that House and Senate are half a national election each, we end up with 17 national elections, Democrats winning 11 of them, and 6.5 with a PV majority. Republicans win 6, with 3 PV majorities.

What you also get from this, is that at no time since probably 1928 has the Republican party won the popular vote at the Presidential, House and Senate at the same time. Just in the data here, Democrats have done it twice, 1992 and 2008. 2008 is even bigger that Democrats captured a popular vote majority in all three, which they did not do in 1992. Barack Obama, meet Carl Yastrzemski because you just won the triple crown.

As for 1988, with Bush Sr's big win over Dukakis, we have the Democrats winning strong majorities of the popular vote in Congress, hence why Bush Sr was not judged to have a mandate.

Republican electoral success, such as it is, has been concentrated at the Presidential level since 1932. They never managed to convert the popularity of their Presidential candidates from Eisenhower onward into true congressional mandates. This speaks to their tactic of turning Presidential elections into mere personality contests. Usually this entails destroying their Democratic opponents on character grounds. In 2006, many of us laughed at their efforts to run against Pelosi since almost no one knew who she was, but looking at it now, it is no surprise they tried: it's all they're really good at. They sure have a tough time persuading voters to vote for them in greater numbers than the Democrats.

I know the above popular vote wins often didn't translate into actual control over Congress or the Presidency for Democrats. Historically the Republicans have proved good at winning power while losing elections (2000 was not unique), but popular will still matters. If it didn't, social security would already be history and Reagan would be on Mount Rushmore. Is it too early to resurrect the phrase "natural governing party" again? Probably. While Democratic claims to that title are debatable, Republican ones are laughable.

Popular v. Electoral College Margins

Paul Rosenberg — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:27:50 GMT

In my diary last weekend, "Swing State Clusters Tell Story of Potential 'Map-Changing' Obama Landslide", I pointed out how the punditalkcrazy has been utterly oblivious to the actual configuration of battleground states as revealed by state-level polling this year. Regardless of what the national polls say, there just doesn't seem to be much chance that, even at his best, McCain could win more than one or two Kerry states, while Obama could easily pick off half a dozen, even a dozen Bush states. As I argued in my previous diary today, "Electoral Map Typology", it is quite likely the map will change in this election for many elections to come.

This week, Mark Nickolas, Managing Editor of Political Base, made a somewhat related argument, that the media doesn't really appreciate how siginificant a seemingly "small" five point lead is when you look at the electoral college. His post, "Popular Vote v. Electoral College (Why The Media Badly Needs A History Lesson)"--republished at Huffington Post here--is refreshingly blunt:

Despite Obama's amazingly consistent lead throughout the general election, the talking heads on cable television returned to their incessant bloviating over whether Obama should be leading by more than just five points over McCain. It's really painful to watch these fools who don't bother to pay attention to history to understand how a five-point popular vote victory translates when it comes to the only metric that matters -- the Electoral College. (Hint: it translates to a landslide)

And his chart of popular vote margins to EV margins is pretty straightforward:

Nickolas also produced a table of the underlying figures, which I've resorted according to popular vote margins:

If we take this table, slice it up, and match the numbers with the electoral college maps, then whole story becomes a bit more vivid. It also throws further light on my earlier discussions of electoral maps over the last century, here and here.

Election Margins -0.5% to 2.4%

The first slice contains two slices within it - first from -0.5% to 0.7%, second from 2.1% to 2.4%. The reason for putting these two slices together will become obvious from the associated maps:

There are obviously two distinct slices here. 1960, 1968 and 2000 are truly close, close elections. So close that loser "won" in 2000. In contrast to these elections, margins of 2 points or more seem quite comfortable-especially after the fact. But if we look at both slices together, we find that we have all the electoral maps in two separate groups that I described in my last diary, "Electoral Map Typology". Bush's two elections comprise their own group, which is an offshoot from the main sequence of Republican-dominated maps. The main sequence moves from Republican landslides with a sprinkling of Democratic states (1972, 1980, 1984, 1988) to Republican dominance over a Southern-centered Democratic Party, with the Democratic base growing stronger until it finally becomes a majority. Bush's two victories form an offshoot that's unique, since it centers on the South, previously the Democrats' base.

The other three maps here are from another anomalous group-at least it was anomalous at one time. There really was no precedent for Kennedy's 1960 victory map, but Humphrey in 1968 and Carter in 1976 both came up with geographically quite similar maps, and Clinton latter consolidated the patchwork into his own distinct map type, winning a very similar pattern of states in both his elections. So what we have here, in these two slices of close and super-close elections, are distinctive configurations that first appeared in 1960 and 2000. The first recurred again in 1968 and 1976, the second recurred in 2004. That's three of five elections from 1960 to 1976 (interspersed with two landslides, one Democratic, one Republican) and two of two elections from 2000 to 2004.

These are what truly close elections look like, and it certainly is conceivable that John McCain could win such an election this year, with a map very similar to 2000 and 20004. But right now, that is not what the polls are showing. They are showing something closer to an Obama victory that generally falls into the next category.

Election Margins 4.5% to 8.5%

Here, again we combine two slices to give a little bigger picture. Here we see one pattern that crosses over the divide-Clinton's two geographically similar vicotries. But we also see significant differences in crossing the divide.

The first slice, Truman's 1948 election and Clinton's 1992 election, is the one that Nickolas cites as most directly comparable. The dominance of tighter polls from Gallup and Rasmussen may make his ballpark of a 5-point Obama lead seem a bit high, but with Obama putting states like Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota and Montana into play, there does seem to be good reason to see the maps for these two quite different elections as broadly indicative of what we might see come November. These are very comfortable Electoral College victories-landslides, if you will. But they are not geographical landslides, landslides that isolate the states supporting the losing candidates into a few small islands of support.

Crossing over into the second slive, we start to see signs of geographical, as well as Electoral College landslides. In 1988, Democrat states were limited to four small enclaves-one of them a single small state. In 1944, the Great Plains were the only geographical region that the Republicans held. In 1996, the Republicans carried a significant number of states, but they were divided from each other into three blocks-and again, one of those was just a single small state. The divide between Truman's 1948 victory and Roosevelt's 1944 victory is where I earlier drew the line over what I was willing to call a landslide. That divide shows up here as well, and it seems well justified in terms of geography, and the electoral vote margin. However, there is no doubt that Truman's victory was a very solid one.

In contrast, from here on out, we're only talking further degrees of landslide, and the elections fall fairly neatly into three clumped groups.

Election Margins 9.7% to 10.9%

Empirically, this is the minimal level for an unambiguous landslide.

The three elections in this slice are widely separate in time and flavor. Roosevelt's 1940 margin was a decline from even more overwhelming margins in the two previous elections. Eisenhower and Reagan were both elected in repudiation of their predecessors' difficulties, particularly with foreign affairs.

Election Margins 15.4% to 18.2%

This is where crushing landslides begin.

Two of these elections were re-elections, and two were first term. Interestingly, the first term landslides were back-to-back-Hoover in 1928, FDR in 1932.

Election Margins 22.6% to 24.3%

These landslides only exist to make those above look puny.

Conclusion

Now, no one's saying this is going to be 1936. But it could be something close to 1932 or 1956 if McCain has a total meltdown at the debates. But even without that, something in the 4.5-8.5% range is quite doable, and would result in an Electoral College landslide of something like 200 votes. Right now, a total blowout for Obama is just as likely as a squeaker victory for McCain-if not moreso.

Obama Wins The National Popular Vote (I Think)

Chris Bowers — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:19:58 GMT

Entering tonight's voting, according to my tabulations, Barack Obama held a 357 vote lead in the national popular vote, with a 24,000 vote margin of error.

With ~~97%~~ 99% reporting in South Dakota, Clinton holds a ~~10,204~~ 10,516 vote lead.

With ~~30%~~ 56% reporting in Montana, Obama holds a ~~15,840~~ 20,827 vote lead.

Add it altogether, and Obama is headed for a victory in the national popular vote. While it remains to be seen if he will move beyond the "margin of error" in my tabulations, I also freely admit that there are numerous other possible tabulations other than my own. For example, Poblano has a popular vote counter with at least 972 possible totals. So, there probably won't ever be a final, consensus total on this matter. Overall, most of the totals favor Obama.

No matter what you think of the popular vote totals, and no matter which popular vote total you subscribe to, I think we can all agree that the nomination process requires significant reform. If you had absolute power over the nomination process, what changes would you make?

Popular Vote Update

Chris Bowers — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 04:00:00 GMT

Early this morning, I wrote that Clinton currently leads in the popular vote by 19,899 votes. This figure is based upon the bottom line in the current Real Clear Politics count, minus 64,504 uncommited votes in Michigan that, according to exit polls, came from people who indicated they would have supported either John Edwards or Bill Richardson, had those candidates been on the ballot.

However, I now realize that those totals were incorrect. This is because, in Michigan, 27,694 votes were not counted because they wrote in a candidate. When, in accordance with exit polls, 72.9167% of those votes are allocated to Obama, that puts another 20,194 votes in his column. According to the broadest possible definition of one-person, one-vote, this gives Obama an almost comically narrow lead of 357 votes heading into tomorrow's primaries.

Of course, since we are dealing with estimates on the Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington vote totals, and since we are also dealing with estimates on the Michigan uncommitted and discarded vote totals, there is a margin of error in these estimates. Specifically, there is about a 3% margin of error in either direction among the estimated votes, since we are dealing with exit polls and the vagaries of the delegate selection process in the four caucus states. A 3% margin of error on the estimated 750,000 votes from these states gives a margin of error range of 22,500 votes in either direction. So, in order for there to be no doubt as to who won the popular vote, it will be necessary for Obama to win tomorrow's primaries by 22,143 votes.

For the sake of rounding, let's say 25,000 is the ultimate, "no doubt" popular victory threshold. This means that Obama needs to win tomorrow's primaries by 24,643 votes in order to definitively declare that he is the popular vote winner. Tomorrow night, while live-blogging returns, I'll provide updates on whether or not Obama will reach that threshold. No matter what happens, there is no definitive way to prove that Clinton won the popular vote. Also, as I indicated last night, the difficulty in determining the popular vote winner speaks to a lack of democracy in the process that needs to be reformed in advance of 2012 and other upcoming nomination campaigns.

What sort of reforms do we need? I say we go with the California Plan, abolish caucuses, and increase the number of delegates to about 6,000. Altogether, these reforms would be the most democratic system possible that still maintains a staggered primary calendar and a delegate-based convention. I'll have more on reforming the process soon.

The Popular Vote Argument

Chris Bowers — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:45:07 GMT

There are innumerable caveats to any popular vote total in the nomination campaign. Some states held primaries, while other held caucuses. Some primaries were open to all registered voters, others to only Democrats and Independents, and still others to only Democrats. The staggered primary calendar is another major issue, which resulted in many states having different candidates on the ballot, and voters with varying knowledge of results. Some states did not even keep popular vote totals. Michigan and Florida are also obviously major caveats. No campaigning took place in those states before the voting began, many voters stayed home because they were told the elections wouldn't count, and Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Further, a nomination campaign is not about the popular vote, and there wasn't a single campaign that used the popular vote as a metric before the voting caucusing began. So, the popular vote is a contentious metric in the nomination campaign, to say the least.

However, whatever the difficulties of applying the value to the specific "election" that is the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination campaign, there is also an obvious value to the principle that the individual with the most support of the electorate should win any given election. Governing power should always derive from the popular will, and we should always work to make our system of government more democratic. The lack of a clear, consistent definition of the popular vote in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign speaks of the serious flaws in the process itself. For all of the reasons listed in the first paragraph, not only is there no universally accepted definition of the popular vote, but as a party we are also a long way from instituting a democratic form of intra-party governance. Major changes need to be made in advance of the 2012 nomination contest, and all future nomination contests, so that our election process better adheres to democratic principles.

As I have argued in the past, within the context of the 2008 Democratic nomination contest, any attempt to determine who won the "popular vote" should adhere to democratic principles itself, as best as can be done. This is because the "popular vote" is not a legal argument, and not specific to any campaign, but instead a moral one based on abstract principles of democracy. As such, popular vote totals should do the following:

Include the will of all those who participated in delegate selection contests for the Democratic National Convention.
Allocate only one vote to each participant in those contests.
In cases where participants did not have their preferences recorded, do everything possible to estimate those preferences.

Failure to do this is to engage in the "popular vote" argument in bad faith, since it turns a moral argument about democratic principles into a selective, partisan argument about power. And yes, one side is more guilty of the other on this front. However, that does not lessen the principles involved--it lessens those who twist those values.

According to the above principles, with South Dakota and Montana left to vote, Hillary Clinton currently holds an extremely narrow 19,899-vote lead over Barack Obama in the popular vote. Here are the current totals:

Clinton: 17,916,763
Obama: 17,896,864

These totals include Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington, even though no official popular vote numbers were kept. They also include Florida, even though there was only minimal campaigning in the state before the primary took place and even though many people thought it wouldn't count. These totals also include Michigan, even though Obama's name was not on the ballot. They do, however, also allocate 72.91% of the "uncommitted" vote to Obama, which is the amount of the uncommitted vote exit polls indicate he would have received in the state had his name been on the ballot. In short, these numbers are the final line from the Real Clear Politics popular vote count, minus 64,504 votes in Michigan that came from people who indicated they would have supported either John Edwards or Bill Richardson, had they been on the ballot.

Now, with about 275,000 votes left to go in South Dakota and Montana, and with Obama holding double-digit leads in both states, it would be pretty surprising if Obama did not end up as the winner of the popular vote. Of course, since these are estimates, there is also a small margin of error in this count that might throw the outcome of the "popular vote" into question. Undoubtedly, supporters of both sides will also continue to push different totals, for all of the reasons listed above. However, this count is really the only popular vote total worth making, because it is the one that most closely adheres to the democratic principle of one person, one vote. It is, course, still imperfect.

Unless something surprising happens on Tuesday, Barack Obama will narrowly win the popular vote. Despite all of the imperfections in the system, that should still matter to anyone who holds democratic principles and intra-party democracy as valuable. Just as importantly, it should also make plain the need reform the process in determining our nominee, so that a disaster like this never happens again. While it is unlikely anyone reading his will ever live to see another nomination campaign this close, it isn't only close elections where adhering to democratic principles matter. We need to do everything we can to make sure that the system is as fair as possible to all of the people participating in the process, and about upholding our own values in the process, not just about electing the cult of personality of the month. That is a perspective that I think has been largely forgotten in this nomination campaign on both sides, and needs to be regained as quickly as possible.

Why Bill Clinton is Wrong (Although He Spins Well)

tremayne — Fri, 30 May 2008 14:27:06 GMT

Bill Clinton is once again pushing the "popular vote" angle on his wife's race against Barack Obama. As most know, the popular vote claim for Hillary Clinton is predicated on counting Michigan and Florida where the candidates didn't campaign or run ads (and in MI Obama's name wasn't on the ballots). Without those two states Obama is ahead in total votes and will finish June 3 ahead in total votes.

But I'd like to offer something new about this popular vote argument because it is clear we will be hearing more about it in the days to come. It has to do with a point made by the Obama campaign about the validity of the popular vote metric. Their point is that, given that the whole contest is predicated on winning delegates, their strategy was focused on winning delegates and not on maximizing total votes.

In the proportionally-allotted delegate system used in the Democratic praimaries it is most efficient in terms of advertising dollars and candidate time (UPDATE: and organizing time/money) to "buy" the cheapest delegates. Each delegate vote is worth "1" but the cost of acquiring each delegate vote varies. A simple way to see this, for example, is to divide each state's population by the total delegates it will have. You'll find that each delegate in Vermont represents about 40-thousand people and each delegate in Texas represents more than 100-thousand. If you're a smart campaign and you're looking for one extra delegate, better to spend your time and money in places where, say, reaching a million people translates into 25 potential delegates instead of just 10 potential delegates. Is this what the Obama campaign did? The table below sure makes that case. The 15 "cheapest" states/contests are listed along with the winner and the delegate margin the candidate won. Obama won 12 of these contests and his total pledged delegate margin among these 15 is 42 (so far, WY and SD may pad that).

LOCATION	POP.	DELE- GATES	POP./DEL.	VOTE WINNER (DEL.MARGIN)
Dem.Abroad	100,000 (est.)	7	14,286	Obama +2
Amer.Samoa*	57,291	3	19,097	Clinton +1
D.C.	572,059	15	38,137	Obama +11
Guam*	154,623	4	38,656	Obama +0
Vermont	608,827	15	40,588	Obama +3
Wyoming*	493,782	12	41,148	Obama +2
Alaska*	626,932	13	48,226	Obama +7
N. Dakota*	642,200	13	49,400	Obama +3
Rhode Island	1,048,319	21	49,920	Clinton +5
S. Dakota	754,844	15	50,323	Obama**
Delaware	783,600	15	52,240	Obama +3
Maine*	1,274,923	24	53,122	Obama +6
New Hampsh.	1,235,786	22	56,172	Clinton -3
Montana	902,195	16	56,387	Obama**
Hawaii*	1,211,537	20	60,577	Obama +8

*Caucuses

**Candidate significantly ahead in most recent poll

If you continue down beyond the 15 listed here you'll start finding more Clinton victories. At the very bottom of the list, where reaching the large numbers of people required to achieve an extra is expensive, you'll find that Clinton wins 4 out of 6 states. These victories come at great expense and after doing this math I am not surprised the Clinton campaign is in debt.

Now, the flip side to this argument is that, therefore, each pledged delegate that Clinton won should be "worth more." And that is Bill Clinton's argument, although he bases it on the fact that Obama did well in caucus states (which I've designated above with an asterisk) where each "vote" is, in his opinion, disproportionally powerful. But the table above shows that it's not just caucus states where "cheaper" delegates could be pursued.

The Obama campaign had the best strategy for the system we have in place. In the general election do we want the candidate who will maximize the popular vote or the one who will work to maximize the electoral vote? Remember, Al Gore would have won with any other low population state. He wouldn't have needed Florida. And remember, he won the popular vote, for what that's worth.

The Popular Vote Is A Moral Argument

Chris Bowers — Thu, 15 May 2008 00:30:00 GMT

Clinton's enormous victory in West Virginia last night will invariably bring arguments over the "popular vote" in the Democratic nomination campaign back into the discussion. Even before West Virginia, which Clinton won by around 137,500 votes, the Clinton campaign was arguing that it was "in striking distance" of the popular vote lead. In fact, according to counts that do not (fixed) include participants in the delegate selection events in Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington, but do include the non-delegate selection events in Florida and Michigan, and also do not include the preferences of the "uncommitted" participants in Michigan, the Clinton campaign is indeed ahead. And so, right on cue, the Clinton campaign is now claiming they lead in the popular vote.

The problem with this popular vote total is that it is a moral argument about the will of the participants in the Democratic nomination campaign, not a legal argument over the definition of the winner of the nomination campaign. Legally, the Democratic nominee is determined by delegates, not by popular vote totals. For a moral argument about the popular vote--a.k.a. the will of the nomination campaign electorate--to carry weight, it needs to be as inclusive as possible in its vote totals. Instead, this vote total pretends that the over 550,000 caucus goers in Washington, Nevada, Maine and Iowa, not to mention the quarter of a million uncommitted voters in Michigan, didn't actually have candidate preferences in the nomination campaign just because those candidate preferences weren't recorded. Excluding those 800,000 participants in the nomination campaign from a popular vote toal, especially when exit polls and turnout numbers make close estimates on those preferences quite simple, renders that popular total pointless. Since popular vote totals are statements of moral value, mass exclusions of this sort drains any popular total of all its moral force.

The popular vote total in the nomination campaign is a moral argument about fairness, intra-party democracy, and legitimacy. It isn't even a moral argument that many people accept, given, among other issues, the variances in voter eligibility from state to state, the various "legitimacy" of the nomination events used in the totals, and the staggered primary calendar itself. Still, as an argument over moral legitimacy to the Democratic presidential nomination, it should not be used lightly and arbitrarily. Certainly, it should not exclude hundreds of thousands of people who tried to participate in the nomination campaign by means of the only event offered to them. When all of the people who attempted to participate in their state's only delegate selection event (or their state's only potential delegate selection event, as is the case in Florida and Michigan) are included, Barack Obama still leads by just under 260,000 votes even after Clinton's 137,500 vote victory in West Virginia. Barring some pretty shocking results in the remaining five contests, Obama will still hold that lead after all the voting is complete on June 3rd.

Of all the remaining arguments the Clinton campaign will probably make over the next three or four weeks, the popular vote argument will disgust me the most. They will claim the moral high ground by supposedly having the most support from participants in the nomination campaign, when in reality such a claim can only be made by ignoring the 800,000 participants in the nomination campaign whose candidate preferences were not recorded (but whose preferences can be closely estimated). Making a moral argument that involves shutting voters out of the process is very disturbing, and gives me bad memories of the Florida recount. Remember, if there was a review of all statewide ballots in Florida, Gore would have won according to any vote counting standard. Excluding voters from popular vote counts, and then claiming legitimacy based on fraudulent counts, does not have a positive track record in America.

Final Popular Vote Projection

boomersun — Sun, 11 May 2008 22:42:52 GMT

Here's my prediction. Clinton will unfairly claim a popular vote win.

This is based on three assumptions, (by the way, I included the new 26,000 votes recently awarded Obama from the provisional ballots in Ohio)

#1: FL & Michigan are counted

#2: Obama receives all of the "uncommitted votes" out of Michigan, while Hillary gets her votes out of Michigan

#3: The numbers include "estimates" from caucus states.

Now here's how I came up with my numbers. Please feel free to double-check my math if you think it is incorrect and I'll change it. Lastly, I do not agree that Michigan should be counted at all, nor Puerto Rico. However, the Clinton campaign will, so we might as well figure out how they're gonna look at this. And yes, I know the popular vote doesn't matter. But it matters to the Clinton campaign (and some super delegates), so we're gonna be hearing abou it. The margins out of Kentucky and West Virginia are generous to Clinton, but not inconceivable.
Including FL, MI (obama gets uncommitted votes) and estimates from caucus states, Obama currently has a 461,888 popular vote lead. This will be the baseline number.

First, we have West Virginia. To allocate turnout, I will just say 42% of voters will turnout since that is the average of all the primaries thus far. There are 821,433 total Dem & Unaffilated voters in West Virginia. West Virginia allows Dems & unaffiliated voters to vote. Assuming 42% of them show up, we'll have 345,001 total votes. Let's say Clinton wins 70-30 in West Virginia, a generous margin to Clinton but one not impossible, as polls have shown Obama receiving only 27% of the vote. This would give Clinton a netgain of 138,000 votes.

So after West Virginia, Obama's popular vote lead is down to 323,888

Next, we have Kentucky. Again, let's be generous to Clinton and give her another 70-30 win. This is possible, with several polls showing Obama in the high 20s. Kentucky has 1,629,845 registered Democratic voters (http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/393155.html) . Let's assume 42% turnout, this would mean 684,534 voters vote. From a 70-30 victory, Clinton would net 273,814 votes.

So after Kentucky & West Virginia, Obama would lead in the popular vote by 50,074 votes.

Next we have Oregon, where Obama should do well in. Let's assume Obama wins by 56-44%, which is about what the latest Rasmussen poll shows him winning by. Oregon has 803,042 registered Democrats. Let's again assume 42% vote. This would mean 337,277 votes vote. Assuming Obama wins by 12%, he would net 40,474 votes.

So after Kentucky, West Virginia, and Oregon, Obama would be leading by 90,548 votes.

Next we have Puerto Rico. There are 2,000,000 registered Democrats. While 80% did turnout for that gubernatorial election, let's assume again that it goes with the national average and 42% turnout. In this instance, 840,000 democrats would turn out to vote. And let's assume that Clinton wins by 13%, which the latest and only poll shows. Therefore, Clinton would net 109,620 votes

So after Kentucky, West Virgina, Oregon and Puerto Rico, Clinton would be ahead by 19,072 votes.

Next we have Montana. Montana has 519,000 registered Democrats. Assuming 42% turnout, we have 217,980 votes. The only poll ever done by Montana showed Clinton with 10% lead, but that was way back in December. Let's give Obama a 6% win in Montana. He may win by more, but it's conceivable that it could be 5%. In this instance, he would net 12,989 votes.

So after Kentucky, West Virginia, Oregon and Puerto Rico, Clinton would be ahead by 6,083 votes.

Lastly, South Dakota. The only poll of that state had obama winning by 12%, so let's go with that number. South Dakota only has 190,421 registered Democrats. Assuming 42% turnout, we'll have 79,976 votes. If Obama does win by 12%, which would be 56-44%, he would net 9,598 votes.

So our grand total, including Michigan, FL & estimates from caucus states, would be Obama winning the popular vote by 3,515 votes.

Without Michigan counted, Obama would win by 93,656.

Now this projection is a very rough estimate. It really depends on how much Clinton wins Kentucky, West Virgina and Puerto Rico by since they are the biggest 3 primaries left to go. If Obama can close the margin just a little bit, or if the turnout is low, then Obama will likely be ahead in the popular vote in the end. Closing the margins in those states is more important than increasing his margins in Montana or South Dakota. Even if Obama wins Montana and South Dakota by more than expected, he will likely only increase his margins slightly since those states don't have many voters.

Can Clinton Still Win The Popular Vote? No.

Chris Bowers — Sun, 11 May 2008 19:24:21 GMT

While the nomination campaign might very well be effectively over, especially given the vast, pro-Obama superdelegate movement over the past week, it remains possible that at some point between now and June 3rd, the Clinton campaign will argue that it leads in the popular vote. It needs to be pointed out now that in the broadest possible count of the popular vote, the count that includes all people who participated in the nomination process, that such a claim will simply be false. As I argued back on April 23rd:

In keeping with the principle of one person, one vote, the only good metrics to use are the ones with the broadest popular participation. As such, when measuring the popular vote, it is best to throw the widest possible net. This means to include Florida. It also means to include the estimates from caucus states that did not release popular totals, which stand at Obama 334,084--223,862 Clinton. Finally, it means to include Michigan, but also to allocate Obama 72.91%, or 173,368 of the uncommitted vote. This number is derived by dividing Obama's exit poll support in Michigan by the combined exit poll support of Obama, Edwards and Richardson, and then multiplying that number with the total uncommitted vote.

A second look at the official Michigan results indicates that the Obama uncommitted vote estimation should actually be 173,664. My earlier estimation was slightly lower because it did not use the official Michigan results.

Any popular vote count that does not allocate the Michigan uncommitted is invalid, because it is based on the rather absurd notion that the over 238,000 Michiganders who selected the "uncommitted" choice weren't actually supporting any candidate. In truth, several campaigns existed that pushed Obama and Edwards supporters to choose uncommitted, as even the Clinton campaign has argued on numerous occasions. For example, from the Fact Hub:

Second, the Obama campaign's allies in Michigan organized an effort to get people in Michigan to vote for "uncommitted" in the Democratic primary, helping to bring the uncommitted share of vote to 40 percent. So the Obama camp can't reasonably argue supporters participated in the GOP primary and didn't vote in the Democratic contest.

Either some of those uncommitted votes were for Obama, or none of them were. In this passage, the Clinton campaign states that at least some of the uncommitted votes were for for Obama. To then argue that Obama gets zero votes in a popular vote count that includes Michigan just isn't "reasonable," in the Clinton campasign's own phrasing.

At the same time, it would be inaccurate to re-allocate the entire Michigan vote based on exit polls, since it retroactively takes votes that were in fact cast for Clinton and shifts them to other candidates. The only fair and democratic way is to give Clinton all of her Michigan votes, and then to allocate the uncommitted votes based on exit polls of Obama, Edwards and Richardson support, as those were the three candidates who removed their names from the ballot. So, 173,664 is the total for Obama from Michigan.

Overall, this means the best one-person, one-vote popular vote total is the bottom most total from Real Clear Politics, plus 173,664 for Obama. This leads to the following current, grand totals:

Obama: 17,087,483
Clinton: 16,690,099

This gives Obama a current margin of 397,384, which Clinton is very unlikely to erase during the final six contests. There is talk of up to two million people voting in the Puerto Rico primary, considering that there was 80% turnout in their last gubernatorial election. However, that was a general election, not a primary. Also, the local gubernatorial election is bound to draw way more voters than a Democratic primary, given the lower level of campaigning that has taken place and the more indirect impact it will have on Puerto Rican affairs.

It is now virtually guaranteed that Obama will win a narrow plurality of the popular vote / participation in the Democratic nomination campaign. Neither candidate will have won a majority, but the "will of the electorate" will still have been served by the outcome. That is a very good thing, since I know that I would not have been the only person extremely uncomfortable with nominating a candidate who did not receive the most popular support in the process. The day we nominate a candidate who did not receive the most popular support / participation will be a dark day for the party.

Clinton's popular vote argument still alive?

boomersun — Sat, 10 May 2008 01:38:43 GMT

First remember the rule. If HRC can do it, she will, no matter how ridiculous it may seem.
Just when you think HRC has no remote chance on earth to catch obama in popular vote, some pundits are saying that she actually has one. Of course, they rely on the ridiculous idea that you count Florida & Michigan's popular vote. Here's how the theory goes, as put by one commentary for real clear politics.

"However, it is possible that she could counter Tuesday's blowout with two big blowouts of her own in the next two weeks. This could undo most of the damage done by her big loss in North Carolina, and put her back on track."

First, you start with West virginia. Rasmussen put her up by 29% with 17% undecided, ARG has her up 40%. Assuming 50% of the 660,000 registered Dems vote (26% turned out in 2004), and Hillary wins by 30%, you could see her net around 214,500 votes. Including the FL & MI popular vote, along with the "estimated" cacus turnout done by real clear politics, Obama currently leads by 197,698 votes. If HRC does get 214,5000 out of West Virginia, and Obama gets 116,000 votes, Obama will have a lead of 11,024 votes.

Then we have Oregon & Kentucky. Obama will definitely beat her in Oregon, and most likely by 15% or so. Unfortunately, according to pollster.com, HRC is beating Obama in Kentucky by 35%-40%, thus she'll likely net more votes on that night. Next we have Puerto Rico, where the last poll had Clinton up by 13%. Assuming there's a high turnout (the last election there had 70% turnout), she'll likely net some, and maybe a lot, votes out of there. Lastly, we have South Dakota and Montana, both states which Obama should win, but these states do not have many people and thus may not be enough to match the votes Clinton got out of Puerto Rico.

So where does this lead us in the in? It'll may mean HRC will claim a popular vote win, solely relying on FL & MI.

What Would it Take in NC to Erase Clinton's PA Pop Vote?

PocketNines — Mon, 05 May 2008 18:40:29 GMT

Cross posted at Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

The popular vote is a fallacy, as I've written before. A brief recap: 1) Candidates would camp out in large urban areas like LA and Brooklyn and never spend so many millions trying to split 200,000 votes in the whole state of NH; 2) No state would rationally hold a caucus, thereby disenfranchising its say in the nomination selection; and 3) unlike the general election concept of one person, one vote, allowing independents or Republicans to vote in some states but not others badly skews the simplistic moral argument underpinning popular vote.

Tuesday night, I am watching two numbers. First, if Obama takes down a combined 98 pledged delegates then pledged delegate checkmate can officially be declared, with the remaining 37 proportional races guaranteed to give Obama at least a minimum 1 vote and thus put him over the top on the minimum viability alone.

Second, I want to see Obama erase Clinton's PA popular vote gain, which would finally drive a stake into that argument.

This diary is a straightforward analysis of what it will take to regain 214,224 votes.
There are still numbers trickling in, but right now there are about 3,877,000 registered eligible voters in NC. The big question is what will overall turnout be. Many want to peg this turnout to a percentage of Kerry vote in 2004. I have been more persuaded by comparisons to this particular primary season and the data points that have come before.

One thing that seems true, generally speaking, is that turnout has gained as the nomination battle has moved forward, particularly after Super Tuesday. There are some obvious reasons. One, the high visibility of the story has reminded many voters who vote in later states to get registered in time for their primaries. Two, the Republican battle was over after Super Tuesday and so semi-open and open primaries did not force anyone to choose which side to vote on (as happened in NH). Three, after Super Tuesday, the campaigns could focus more concentrated on-ground organizing and voter registration in states by ones and twos instead of 22 at a time.

PA was a closed primary and set the record, at a whopping 55%. If Dems turn out at 55% in NC and make up 80% of the turnout, Dem turnout will be at around 1.45M and overall turnout will be around 1.81M. That would be 46.7% of the overall eligible voters for this election.

By how many points would Obama need to win NC, in order to erase Clinton's PA popular vote gain and shut everyone up?

Eligible voters: 3,877,000.
30% turnout: Obama by 18.4%
31% turnout: Obama by 17.8%
32% turnout: Obama by 17.3%
33% turnout: Obama by 16.7%
34% turnout: Obama by 16.3%
35% turnout: Obama by 15.8%
36% turnout: Obama by 15.3%
37% turnout: Obama by 14.9%
38% turnout: Obama by 14.5%
39% turnout: Obama by 14.2%
40% turnout: Obama by 13.8%
41% turnout: Obama by 13.5%
42% turnout: Obama by 13.2%
43% turnout: Obama by 12.9%
44% turnout: Obama by 12.6%
45% turnout: Obama by 12.3%
46% turnout: Obama by 12.0%
47% turnout: Obama by 11.8%
48% turnout: Obama by 11.5%
49% turnout: Obama by 11.3%
50% turnout: Obama by 11.1%

If black voters make up 36% of the overall vote, and they split 90-10 Obama, what percent of the white + other vote does Obama need to win in order to achieve this PA erasure?

30% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 41.9%
31% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 41.4%
32% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 41.0%
33% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 40.6%
34% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 40.2%
35% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 39.8%
36% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 39.5%
37% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 39.2%
38% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 38.9%
39% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 38.6%
40% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 38.3%
41% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 38.0%
42% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 37.8%
43% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 37.5%
44% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 37.3%
45% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 37.1%
46% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 36.9%
47% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 36.7%
48% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 36.5%
49% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 36.3%
50% turnout: Obama white+other vote percentage needed 36.1%

"Other" is about 5 or 6 percent of the overall total, maybe 10% of the combined white+other. Polling shows Obama is attracting roughly 37% of the white vote statewide, so if he is splitting "other" 50/50, that bumps 37 up to 38.3, which is exactly what he would need to erase PA if overall turnout is 40%.

Now, the numbers can be toggled with, adjusting AA share of the overall vote slightly upward or downward, adjusting the 90-10 win slightly downward. But in this diary I've given you a baseline and also a goal for the number watching. In particular tomorrow, pay attention to the predictions of overall turnout. During the day, PA was predicted at 52% and wound up being 55%. Bigger turnout is better. Higher share of AA turnout is much better.

If 387,049 have already voted, that is 10.0% of overall turnout already. If blacks made up 40% of that vote, and 40% overall winds up being the turnout number (around 1,550,800), then election day share of the AA vote needs to be 34.7% in order to hit the assumption scenario played with above of 36%.

Put another way, if early voting was almost exactly one-quarter of the eventual vote, and black voting on election day comprises 34.7%, and black votes split 90-10 for Obama, then in order to erase Clinton's popular vote gain in PA, Obama needs 37% of the white vote and 50% of the "other" vote.

North Carolina polls close at 7:30 eastern. Indiana polls close mostly at 6pm eastern, but the NW and SW parts of the state close at 7pm eastern. Indiana should be very close, inside of 50,000 votes, or 5% (my guess).

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

NeuvoLiberal — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:22:34 GMT

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.
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.

Popular Vote Counts, February 13th

Chris Bowers — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:02:07 GMT

After last night's results, here is an updated PDF showing the various popular vote counts that are possible right now:

Democratic Presidential Nomination Campaign Popular Vote Counts

Obama now leads in all five counts that I am tracking:

Straight and Narrow Count: Popular votes plus state delegates, no Michigan or Florida
Obama: 9,284,899
Clinton: 8,568,941

Best Possible Obama Count: Popular votes plus estimated popular support from caucus attendees in states that only counted delegates. No Michigan or Florida
Obama: 9,560,675
Clinton: 8,761,747

Best Possible Clinton Count: Popular votes plus state delegates plus Michigan and Florida
Obama: 9,853,940
Clinton: 9,754,300B

Broadest Possible Count: Popular votes plus estimated popular caucus support plus Florida plus estimated Michigan support with Obama on ballot
Obama: 10,349,066
Clinton: 9,885,732

Mixed Broad Count: Popular votes plus Michigan and Florida plus estimated caucus popular support
Obama: 10,129,716
Clinton: 9,947,106

Combined with the pledged delegate counts, numbers like these indicate that if Obama sweeps the next six states through March 4th, then the campaign is over. Clinton needs wins in at least some of the following: Hawaii, Wisconsin, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont. If she fails to win at least some of those states, she can take it to the convention and argue about super delegates, Michigan and Florida all she wants, but it won't matter. At that point, super delegates will defect en masse, and the credentials committee will belong to Obama. In fact, Obama would probably lead even with Michigan, Florida and super delegates factored in. If Clinton does manage to win some of those states, then we are heading into the Pennsylvania Interval.

Update: In the interests of pointing out something more substantive, once Obama takes a lead of 202 in pledged delegates (currently 135 by my count), and is ahead in all of these different counts, then we will have a presumptive nominee.

Popular Vote Counts

Chris Bowers — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:37:50 GMT

Here are four different ways to count the current popular vote in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign. All of the data used to compile these numbers can be found in a document created for Open Left here:

1. Straight And Narrow Count
Popular votes plus state delegates, FL and MI not included
Obama: 8,119,171
Clinton: 7,916,422

2. Broadest Possible Count
Popular votes, plus Florida, plus estimated popular support in state delegate states, plus estimated Michigan results with Obama on ballot
Clinton: 9,233,213
Obama: 9,183,338

3. Best Obama Count
Popular votes plus estimated popular support in state delegate states
Obama: 8,394,947
Clinton: 8,109,228

4. Best Clinton Count
Popular votes plus state delegates plus Florida plus Michigan with zero for Obama
Clinton: 9,101,781
Obama: 8,688,212

I will update these numbers as the process moves forward. Other combination are possible, but these are the four where I will focus.

Diarist Tim Sackton, has compiled numbers as well.
Resource for turnout in state delegate states.
Source for Michigan exit polls with Obama and Edwards on ballot.

Update: Thanks to everyone who pointed out flaws in the comments. The post and document have both been updated to take those corrections into account.