Can Hillary win the popular vote?

[RecycleMichael]

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/3/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count.html

Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Count
March 28, 2008 02:31 PM ET | Michael Barone | Permanent Link


The Clinton campaign has taken to boasting that its candidate has won states with more electoral votes than has Barack Obama. True. By my count, Clinton has won 14 states with 219 electoral votes (16 states with 263 electoral votes if you include Florida and Michigan) while Obama has won 27 states (I'm counting the District of Columbia as a state, but not the territories) with 202 electoral votes. Eight states with 73 electoral votes have still to vote. In percentage terms, Clinton has won states with 41 percent of the electoral votes (49 percent if you include Florida and Michigan), while Obama has won states with 38 percent of electoral votes. States with 14 percent of the electoral votes have yet to vote.

The Clinton campaign would do even better to use population rather than electoral votes, since smaller states are overrepresented in the Electoral College. By my count, based on the 2007 Census estimates, Clinton's states have 132,214,460 people (160,537,525 if you include Florida and Michigan), and Obama's states have 101,689,480 people. States with 39,394,152 people have yet to vote. In percentage terms this means Clinton's states have 44 percent of the nation's population (53 percent if you include Florida and Michigan) and Obama's states have 34 percent of the nation's population. The yet-to-vote states have 13 percent of the nation's population.

Thus the Clinton campaign could argue that Obama cannot win states with most of the nation's people even if he wins all the remaining eight primaries. Could argue—but I don't think that's going to persuade any superdelegates that Clinton is the real winner.

The Obama campaign has argued on occasion that its primary or caucus victories in Republican states means that Obama has a better chance to carry them in the general election than Clinton. As the Clinton people point out, that's ridiculous in some cases: No one thinks Obama's victories in lightly attended caucuses in Idaho or Wyoming mean that he can win them in November. Even in states like Minnesota and Colorado, Obama's caucus wins are less persuasive evidence than current polls that he can do better there than Clinton in November. Nor are Clinton's primary victories in states like Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Ohio very strong evidence for the proposition that she'd be stronger than Obama. General election polls are better evidence; they buttress Clinton's case in New Jersey and Ohio, and refute it for Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. Interestingly, Clinton won primaries in only five states which went heavily for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004—Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.

This has led me to ask what would have been the result of the Democratic primaries and caucuses if the party's rules tended to allocate delegates by winner-take-all rather than proportional representation. It would be an interesting exercise to apply the Republicans' delegate allocation formulas to the Democratic results. Interesting—but also time consuming, since those formulas tend to allocate many delegates by congressional district (or, in Texas, state Senate districts). So instead, using the realclearpolitics.com summary, I simply assigned all of a state's Democratic delegates to the winner of the Democratic primary or caucus. The result: Hillary Clinton gets 1,430 delegates and Barack Obama 1,237. That's almost the exact opposite of realclearpolitics.com's count of "pledged" (i.e., selected in primaries or caucuses): Obama 1,414, Clinton 1,247. It should be noted that the winner-take-all score would have been reversed if Clinton had lost Texas, which she carried by the narrow margin of 51 percent to 47 percent and which has 193 delegates.

That's an Obama margin of 167 delegates. And most of that margin came from caucus states and territories, where Obama's delegate lead was, by my calculation, 266 to 141—a margin of 125 delegates. (I'm leaving aside the minority of Texas delegates chosen by caucus.) In the primary states Obama's margin was just 1,148 to 1,106, a delegate margin of only 42.

It's at least theoretically possible for Clinton to overcome this lead in primary-chosen delegates in the eight remaining primaries. That would give the Clinton campaign another basis for arguing that their candidate is really the choice of the people. But the fact is that the Clinton campaign has only itself to blame for its weakness in caucus-chosen delegates. The caucuses were there on the schedule all along, and the Clinton campaign had as much time and about as much money to prepare for them as the Obama campaign did. The Clintonites simply did not prepare as well as I am sure they now wish they had. I suspect that some of the anger we see from Clinton backers comes from their own reflection that if they had planned and executed better they would be ahead in delegates now rather than behind. You get really angry when you have no one to blame but yourself.

While we're talking numbers, here are a couple of interesting charts. First, from the Democratic MyDD website, here is a projection of Pennsylvania voting based on the results in demographically similar counties in Ohio. It projects a 57 percent to 43 percent Clinton win. (Hat tip, Jim Geraghty.) And at realclearpolitics.com, Jay Cost has prepared a spreadsheet on which you can put your own projections of the popular vote in the eight remaining primaries.

I couldn't resist using Jay Cost's spreadsheet to calculate the popular votes in the remaining primaries and my own old-fashioned legal pads to calculate delegate results. I used Cost's default turnout numbers and estimates of the two-candidate percentages which I consider optimistic from the Clinton point of view but not wildly unrealistic.

STATEWIDE PREDICTIONS
State Eligibility Kerry Votes Expected Margin Expected Margin Clinton Votes Net Clinton Margin
Pennsylvania Closed 2,938,095 63.0% 1,851,000 20.0% 370,200
Indiana Open 969,011 82.0% 794,589 20.0% 158,918
North Carolina Open 1,525,849 82.0% 1,251,196  -10.0%  -125,120
West Virginia Open 326,541 82.0% 267,764 40.0% 107,105
Kentucky Closed 712,733 63.0% 449,022 30.0% 134,707
Oregon Closed 943,163 63.0% 594,193 -10.0% -59,419
Puerto Rico Open N/A N/A 1,000,000 30.0% 300,000
Montana Open 173,710 82.0% 142,442 20.0% 28,488
South Dakota Closed 149,244 63.0% 94,024 20.0% 18,805
   Total Net Clinton Votes 933,684      



This would eliminate Obama's current popular vote margin, without including Florida and Michigan totals and even if you use imputed vote totals for the four caucus states (Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington) where Democrats did not disclose vote totals. The current popular vote margin for Obama on realclearpolitics.com is, under those favorable assumptions, 827,498. My spreadsheet numbers would give Clinton a 106,186 margin. The Obama margin if you don't give him his imputed margin in those four caucus states is 717,276. My results would convert that to a Clinton popular vote margin of 216,408.

But note a couple of other things. One is that this popular vote margin is exceedingly small when measured in percentage terms. With my estimate of 6,444,230 turnout in the remaining primaries, that yields a total Clinton-Obama turnout (with the four imputed caucus states included) of 32,995,378. The Clinton popular vote margin with the imputed caucus result was, as noted, 106,186, which is 0.32% of the total.

The other thing to note is that all of Clinton's popular vote margin and more comes from Puerto Rico. The turnout in other extraterritorial jurisdictions was very small: 1,921 in the Virgin Islands, 22,715 among Democrats Abroad and 284 [sic] in American Samoa. I'm projecting a turnout of 1 million in Puerto Rico, which has a population of 4 million. Turnout in Puerto Rican elections is, as a percentage of those eligible, higher than anywhere on the Mainland, something on the order of 80 percent as compared with 61 percent in the 2004 presidential general election. But Puerto Rico has not had a presidential primary before, so no one knows what turnout will be like. Puerto Rico will also be a challenge for the candidates. How do you campaign for the June 1 primary there and also campaign for the June 3 primaries in South Dakota and Montana?

Are my projections for Clinton's share of the vote too optimistic? Quite possibly. But I think they're at least defensible. I have her carrying Pennsylvania by 20 percent--a 60 percent to 40 percent margin of the two-candidate (Clinton and Obama) vote. That's better than she did in Ohio, where she won 55 percent of the two-candidate vote. But her showings there in the 6th congressional district (70 percent to 27 percent), the 17th congressional district (63 percent to 35percent) and the 18th congressional district (66 percent to 31percent) have influenced me; those areas are a lot like most of western and central Pennsylvania, where you also find very few blacks and upscale whites. Those results have also influenced my projections of even bigger percentage margins for Clinton in Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky. I projected a 10 percent margin for Obama in North Carolina; the realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls has him ahead 57 percent to 43 percent in the two-candidate vote. I have Clinton losing also by 10 percent in Oregon. That's roughly comparable to her showing in the nonbinding February 19 primary in next-door Washington, where she got 47 percent of the two-candidate vote. I have Clinton winning Montana and South Dakota by 20 percent margins, when the conventional wisdom seems to be that these states lean to Obama. It's true that Obama did very well in caucuses in Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, and Wyoming. But my hunch is that the wider primary electorate will go the other way. The closest comparable I can come up with is the nonbinding primary in Washington, where the vote in eastern Washington, the heavily Republican area east of the Cascades, went 50.3 percent to 49.7 percent for Obama. I don't think he'll do as well in Montana or South Dakota as he did in his halcyon days in February in this nonbinding contest. In any case, the popular vote margins in Montana and South Dakota are so small that they're unlikely to make much difference in the bottom line. My projection for Puerto Rico is a guess, nothing more. Clinton has done well with Latinos in other states, but they're a diverse group and voters in Puerto Rico may be different. Governor Anibal Acevedo, who has endorsed Obama, has just been indicted; other leaders of the two major Puerto Rico parties, the Popular Democrats (PPD) and New Progressives (PNP), are, according to this post, for Clinton.

My projections on Jay Cost's spreadsheet put Clinton ahead in popular votes, however they're measured. But my projections on my legal pads leave her behind in delegates. Each of these contests allocates most of a state's delegates by congressional districts, except for South Dakota which has only one congressional district; Montana also has only one congressional district, but it allocates most of its delegates in the two congressional districts it had in 1980, before the apportionment following the 1980 Census reduced its number of House seats to one. I give Obama small delegate edges in North Carolina (5) and Oregon (6), and Clinton relatively small edges in Pennsylvania (22), Indiana (12), West Virginia (10), Kentucky (17), Montana (3) and South Dakota (3) and a relatively big edge in Puerto Rico (20). Even so, that reduces Obama's current lead among "pledged" delegates (those selected in primaries and caucuses) from 1,414-1,247 to 1,655-1,565.

These two projections, if they come to pass, seem likely to cause maximum pain among the superdelegates. Clinton will be able to claim a lead in popular vote. But only because of Puerto Rico—and because Puerto Rico this month replaced its caucus with a primary. Obama will be able to claim a lead in pledged delegates. But only because he gamed the caucuses better. His lead in caucus-selected delegates is currently 125, as best I can calculate it; that would mean Clinton would have a 35-delegate lead among delegates chosen in primaries. Both sides will be able to make plausible claims to be the people's choice.

Let me add that my projections don't leave much room for a cascade of superdelegates to Obama. On each day's contests I have Clinton leading Obama both in delegates and popular votes (because North Carolina would be outvoted by Indiana on May 6 and Oregon outvoted by Kentucky on May 20). She would be getting closer to the nomination, not farther away.

Of course my projections could just be plain wrong. Clinton could win Pennsylvania by an unimpressive margin on April 22 and get clocked in Indiana as well as North Carolina on May 6. Then you might see a cascade of superdelegates toward Obama, and the race might effectively be over. But if all those three things don't happen, then I am sure the contest will go on through June 3. And in that case I think my projections are within the realm of possibility.

[rwarn17588]

No.

Next question.

[FOTD]

Ya gotta love the Moe unless your moniker is RM....
Op-Ed Columnist
Surrender Already, Dorothy
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: March 30, 2008
WASHINGTON


Maureen Dowd

"It's all about the magic, really.

And whether we can take a flier on this skinny guy with the strange name and braided ancestry to help us get it back.

Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister of France and a strong supporter of the United States, recently observed that President Bush has done such a number on our image in the world that no one will be able to restore the luster.

"I think the magic is over," he said.

Pas si vite, mon vieux. In terms of style, the Obamas could give Carla Bruni-Sarkozy a run for her euros. And at least Obama is not in a fantasy world on Iraq, as W. and John McCain are, insisting it's improving while we see it exploding.

Many voters decided last week to stick with Obama despite his less-than-convincing explanations about the Rev. Wright — even as many soured on Hillary, casting her as Lady Voldemort.

Democrats are coming around to the point Jay Rockefeller made 10 days ago after introducing Obama in West Virginia: "Democrats always make a mistake by nominating people who know everything on earth there is to know about public policy. I introduced both Al Gore and John Kerry at their rallies. They knew all the policies, but people didn't connect with them. You don't get elected president if people don't like you."

Despite Bill Clinton's saying it was "a bunch of bull" that his wife should drop out, Democrats are trying to sneak up on Hillary, throw a burlap sack over her head, carry her off the field and stick her in a Saddam spider hole until after the Denver convention.

One Obama adviser moaned that the race was "beginning to feel like a hostage crisis" and would probably go on for another month to six weeks. And Obama said that the "God, when will this be over?" primary season was like "a good movie that lasted about a half an hour too long."

Hillary sunnily riposted that she likes long movies. Her favorite as a girl was "The Wizard of Oz," so surely she spots the "Surrender Dorothy" sign in the sky and the bad portent of the ladies of "The View" burbling to Obama about how sexy he is.

But who knows? Obama and Bob Casey talking March Madness to the patrons of Sharky's sports cafe in Latrobe, Pa., on Friday night seemed demographically clever. But it is always when Hillary is pushed back by the boys that women help hoist her up.

Obama, like the preternaturally gifted young heroes in mythical tales, is still learning to channel his force. He can ensorcell when he has to, and he has viral appeal. Who else could alchemize a nuanced 40-minute speech on race into must-see YouTube viewing for 20-year-olds?

But at several crucial points in the last year, he held back when he should have poured on, leaving his nemesis around to damage him further.

Obama has social engineering plans as ambitious, in their own way, as the Bush administration's failed social engineering plans to change the psyche of America and the Middle East.

"I think the president needs to use the bully pulpit to change our culture," he said Thursday, talking energy at a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser in Manhattan. "We are a wasteful culture. It's always been that way because of our history. We do everything big."

He wants to make government "cool" again. He wants to banish the red-blue culture of conflict on TV and in Washington. And he wants to make the country healthier, thinner and smarter. "I want our students learning art and music and science and poetry," he says, in a crowd-pleasing line.

Using his preacher voice, he urged a black audience in Beaumont, Tex., to be better parents, to put away chips and cold Popeyes for breakfast, and to turn off the TV and video games. "Buy a little desk or put that child at the kitchen table," he instructed. "Watch them do their homework."

It's not certain that Obama could bring about an American renaissance. As the L.A. entertainment lawyer Nancy McCullough, who was on the Harvard Law Review with Obama, told Vanity Fair's Todd Purdum, he tended to wallow in words. She said he was so intent on letting everyone have a say that "I actually would have been happier for him to say sometimes, 'This is how we're doing this, and shut up!' "

The pollster Peter Hart says the central questions are: "Is Hillary honest?" and "Is Obama safe?"

Her foreign affairs plumping-up has hurt her, while his exotic and unorthodox narrative stirs doubt.

"If I were to produce a spot for Obama," Hart said, "I would take 100 photographs of everything that he does with his children and wife — that could range from Halloween to a picnic to everything we identify with as part of American life — so people could say, 'I relate to that, I understand it.' "

But, for now, Obama might want to leave the Trinity church photos out of the montage."

Thought I pass this along.....

[RecycleMichael]

Maureen Dowd has written nothing but attack articles on Hillary for weeks now.

It's a wonder she still has a career.

[we vs us]

Don't know if this has been posted elsewhere, but thought it might be handy here.  Slate's Delegate Calculator.

Chances are slim and getting slimmer for Hillary.

[RecycleMichael]

That calculator shows Obama will fall short of the delegates needed by over 300.

He should drop out now.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

That calculator shows Obama will fall short of the delegates needed by over 300.

He should drop out now.

lol.  He will fall short, and Clinton will fall shorter.

And the article is a total farce.  Clinton will not win the popular vote - if you take the states that Clinton won and assume all the people voted for Clinton and do the same for Obama... she gets more votes.  Unfortunately for her, that is not the definition of "popular vote."  

Generally, you take the votes cast for each candidate and compare them.  Which means in the real world Clinton is down by most of 1,000,000 popular votes.
Obama / Clinton
13,355,437   49.5%   / 12,638,175   46.9%   

You might be desperate if you not only advocate re-writing the rules, but re-write definitions too.  Probably just misspeaking on what the definition of "is" is.  But hey, if you want to run with that definition at least the complaints about Bush stealing the Whitehouse can go away as under this new method he dominated the "popular vote" even though he got less votes.


Clinton speak:

"Bullets whizzing by" - calm landing, joyful greeting, and no bullets.

"Sexual relations" - does not include sex or oral sex

"Popular Vote" - Does not equal actual popular votes cast

[pmcalk]

There is a good cite that looks at the estimated popular vote finals here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html

All of the numbers are extremely generous to Hillary, but even then there are only certain scenarios that would give her the popular vote.  Most include giving her the Michigan votes and not giving any from that state to Obama.  Highly unlikely considering the Michigan Supreme court determined the whole election unconstitutional.

The problem with using the popular vote, as opposed to pledged delegates, is that there is a lot of subjectivity in determine what is the popular vote.  For example, both Texas & Washington have a caucus and a primary.  So which do you count?  Do you count them both?  And for a caucus, do you go with an estimate?  The point of the caucus is to select delegates to the next level--the total "votes" are difficult to determine.  It will ignore "votes" in certain precincts if there weren't sufficient numbers to proceed.  That's why we use delegates, not votes.

It's quite clear that Obama will have the most pledged delegates under any scenerio.  You can calculate that here:  http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/.  Even giving Clinton by generous margins Pennsylvania (10), Indiana (10), Kentucky(10), West Virginia(, and Puerto Rico (6), and counting Florida, and giving Obama slightly less leads in the other states (I think he will do really well in Oregon and North Carolina), Obama will be ahead by almost 200 delegates.

[cannon_fodder]

Hillary can win the popular vote, if she can overcome 850,000 actual votes and the 10% Obama lead in the polls.

[FOTD]

The flood of superdeligates for Obama has commenced.

The nomination will be clenched by North Carolina's primary.

One of the most impressive campaigns in our history.

God Speed Mr. Incumbant. Let's hope the republican's give him support come 1-20-09.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder



Hillary can win the popular vote, if she can overcome 850,000 actual votes and the 10% Obama lead in the polls.

I think your poll is old--the latest from Gallup has Obama up by ten, 52 to 42--the first double digit lead that Gallup has shown since Hillary had that lead back before SuperTuesday.

On those "daily tracking polls," I can't help but wonder do they keep calling the same guy everyday, and ask him, "what are you thinking about Obama today? Any changes?"

[cannon_fodder]

Heh, good catch.  This was the poll linked in that exact article, but it excludes the last 3 days.  Oh well, you get the general idea.  The popular vote nor the popular poll is going her way, unless you use Clintonian definitions and redefine popular vote to mean "summarily adding up all available votes in a given state won by a candidate and not actually counting the popular vote cast in favor of said candidate."  

Which, oddly enough, is basically the delegate system used by the Republicans.  So she wants the Democratic party system for counting super delegates combined with the Republican system for giving out delegates on the popular vote while also changing the rules on Michigan and Florida.  Assuming those three rule changes, she wins the popular vote and can win the delegate count as well.

Of course, with the right rule changes I could win the nomination.