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

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 {{factoring in beauty-contest type results from FL and MI}}.

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.

Tags: 2008, clinton, obama, popular vote (all tags)

Comments

36 Comments

Diary Recommendations will be appreciated

and helpful!

Thanks in advance for helping disseminate this information to dispel  the spins surrounding the popular vote.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-04-24 05:22AM | 0 recs
if you are going to count

obama's potential vote,

then you should count, Hillary potential vote in all the caucus states: shift workers, elderly, etc.

Look at Washington and Texas.

it is clear, that Hillary lost votes due to them having a caucus and not Primaries throught the country.

some people want to vote hillary but are shamed into voting obama in public.

This is not the bradley effect it is, "I want to have peace at home effect".

by yellowdem1129 2008-04-24 05:33AM | 0 recs
Obama didn't create caucuses.

They existed before Obama. Bill Clinton himself ran in those caucuses in 1992.

Dismissing caucuses because they didn't work out well for Clinton is puerile whining.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-04-24 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: if you are going to count

No, you really want to count the total number of X chromosomes voting for each candidate.  That's the only true measure...

by username2 2008-04-24 05:44AM | 0 recs
oh my good you are such an

elitist!!!

Its number of atoms not chromosomes!!!

Ya god man rich, prius driving .... blah, blah ... Obama supporter ;)

by kindthoughts 2008-04-24 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: oh my good you are such an

Right!  Clinton should have encouraged her supporters to eat more cheese steaks! :)

by username2 2008-04-24 08:27AM | 0 recs
Can you explain

How it's not spin to allocate votes to a candidate who no one voted for.?

by Mayor McCheese 2008-04-24 05:33AM | 0 recs
Can you explain

exactly how democratic it is to give ZERO, ZILCH, NADA votes to Obama in MI??

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-04-24 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Can you explain

He gets zero votes in Michigan for the same reason  I get zero: Neither of us were on the ballot.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-04-24 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Can you explain

The difference though is that if we cared about the "will of the people," as it has been chanted here in the past,then you would still have zero and Obama would have considerably more.

by Wes 2008-04-24 06:17AM | 0 recs
FL and MI primaries were invalidated by the party

therefore, it's 0 votes and delegates for Clinton and 0 votes and delegates for Obama, strictly speaking.

Actually, popular vote was never meant to amount to anything. In the current system designed by the Dem party, it's the pledged delegates that reflect the will of the voters. Super delegates should respect that will of the voters except in extra-ordinary situations.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-04-24 06:43AM | 0 recs
Here's the answer

The diarist askss "(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??),"

The answer is simple. In a democracy you have to get on the ballot or convice people to write your name in to actually get votes. Obama was on the ballot and chose to have his name taken off.It's totally consistent with democracy to award votes only to  those who people actually voted for. Obama deserves credit for as many votes in Michigan as I do: Zero

by Mayor McCheese 2008-04-24 05:36AM | 0 recs
Clinton supporters in MI (and FL) created the mess

where MI tried to jump other states instead of following the party's primary schedule. You should ask Granholm and Stabenow why they did that. Had they not gamed it, we would've had proper results and Obama would've done much better than our current best available estimates as presented here.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-04-24 05:44AM | 0 recs
Can you understand why...

...some people think it isn't proper to award Hillary a shutout in MI?  

by Blue Neponset 2008-04-24 07:51AM | 0 recs
It makes just as much sense

to allocate what would have happened in a primary in a caucus state, as it does to allocate votes that never happened in Michigan.

The fact is the system is flawed, and to take one measure and change it , while leaving the rest unchanged just makes it more so.

The votes for Mich. and Flor. are official according to the States' Sec. of STATE.

by yellowdem1129 2008-04-24 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: It makes just as much sense

Exactly... and the DNC is choosing to award no delegates to the national convention based on those votes.

Clinton can claim she has more votes right now; she does.

What she doesn't have is more votes as recognized by the DNC.

Super delegates can definately take the popular vote into consideration, but they are not bound by it.

by dantes 2008-04-24 06:34AM | 0 recs
Why is Obama blocking REVOTES?

That makes absolutely no sense at all and it invalidates your ridiculous argument as well.

by architek 2008-04-24 10:00AM | 0 recs
Except, it's not.

Feel free to check out the actual numbers. Feel free to discount or include votes in MI and FL per your preference.

Unlike this diary's attempts to manipulate numbers, the actual relevant numbers can be found on
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l

I personally think you shouldn't include Michigan numbers, but others do. If you do, even with caucuses, Hillary's ahead. If you don't Obama's ahead by only 0.7%. Will this change after NC & IN? Sure. Will it change back? Maybe, maybe not.

by VAAlex 2008-04-24 05:46AM | 0 recs
Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI

And it isn't Obama fault for refusing to bow to the primary games played by Clinton supporters in FL and MI that messed around with party sanctioned primaries.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-04-24 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI

I'll correct one inaccurate statement -- Florida Democrats had nothing to do with the primary date as the Florida legislature is overwhelmingly Republican. They couldn't block it if they wanted to.

by VAAlex 2008-04-24 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI

"I'll correct one inaccurate statement -- Florida Democrats had nothing to do with the primary date as the Florida legislature is overwhelmingly Republican. They couldn't block it if they wanted to."

Florida Democrat voted with the Republicans to move the primary; only two in the FL legislature voted against that bill, and those two were Republicans.

Sen. Geller's video makes it amply clear that FL Dem leaders were playing the game and never opposed the shifting of the primary: I have embedded the video in my diary now.

Thanks.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-04-24 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI

I'm glad you posted that video as it shows how frustrated the Democrats in the Florida Senate were. His whole point -- which you somehow twisted into something else -- was that there was nothing they could do about it. Ahem, he WAS the minority leader. He was making the point that no matter what they voted for, it wouldn't matter.

Thanks.

by VAAlex 2008-04-24 08:12AM | 0 recs
ALL of the FL Dems voted in favor of shifting

FL's primary. When you combine that fact with the video, it's clear that elected FL Dems colluded with the Republicans to create the mess, hurting the Democratic party, while the Republicans were helping their party.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-04-24 08:24AM | 0 recs
Don't you understand?
Doesn't matter.
Nothing matters.
Nothing matters to Clinton other than that she win.
Caucuses don't matter, since they're "unfair".
Idaho, Delaware, Maine and Alaska don't matter, since they're "too small".
Alabama, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi don't matter, since they're "too black".
Oregon, Connecticut Washington and Maryland don't matter, since they're "too elitist".
Missouri doesn't matter, since by all rights it should have gone for Clinton, but those asshole voters, they chose Obama instead.
Illinois doesn't matter, since it's his home state.
Hawaii doesn't matter, since he was born there.
Kansas doesn't matter, since his mother was from there.
You do know which states matter, don't you? The ones Clinton wins. They're "important". They're the ones we "need to win" in the fall.
It doesn't matter that Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan; he took his name off himself, right? It's his own fault. Doesn't matter that Clinton said she would take her name off, too, and then went back on her word. That's just smart politics.
I say we only count states Clinton has won.
Even better, let's count the states Obama won as having gone for Clinton! After all, if she'd gotten more votes there, then she'd have won, right? so let's just make believe she did! Everybody wins.
Well, in truth, Obama loses. So does the Democratic Party.
But who cares? Clinton wins, and that's all that matters!
by Mumphrey 2008-04-24 06:06AM | 0 recs
Didn't the exit polls say...

Obama was going to win New Hampshire?  I'm pretty sure they did.  Stop relying on the exit polls and look at the real numbers.  Obama wasn't on the ballot because he voluntarily removed his name.  Therefore, he doesn't deserve the votes.

by unabashed dem 2008-04-24 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Didn't the exit polls say...

"Obama was going to win New Hampshire?  I'm pretty sure they did."

Updated exit polls showed Clinton winning NH (she only NH by 3% and so it was close anyway).

"Stop relying on the exit polls and look at the real numbers."

MI and FL primaries were not sanctioned by the Democratic party. Either we throw the therefore flawed results, or we make best effort to factor in people's will. The analysis here is a good faith estimate of that will.

"Obama wasn't on the ballot because he voluntarily removed his name.  Therefore, he doesn't deserve the votes."

No, it's the Clinton supporters in MI that tried to game the party and messed things up for the party's chances in the GE by doing so. Obama refused to bow to their games and he followed the rules set by the party. It's the Clinton side that's trying to bend and twist everything to favor Clinton.

Why do you support her anyway? She's not going to be able to overcome her Tuzla lie to win the general election. Republicans will make sure that all voters would go to the polls remembering that lie at the forefront of their minds.

I don't understand what ardent Clinton supporters see in her in any event given how she hawked the war and voted for Kyl-Lieberman knowing exactly how Iraq panned out and the Clintons have ALWAYS put themselves ahead of the party.

Why do you want to go to extra ordinary lengths to support her even at the expense of the Democratic party (and progressive goals such as not waging or supporting unnecessary wars)? That I sincerely fail to understand.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-04-24 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Didn't the exit polls say...

I'll let the commenter defend himself but the "why do you support her anyway" line is, again, typical of Obama supporteritis to the extreme. Obama can do no wrong and Clinton can do no right. Instead of insulting Clinton and her supporters, you should stick to making accurate arguments about numbers.

by VAAlex 2008-04-24 07:52AM | 0 recs
You're the one giving an ad-hominem response

to reasonable and specific questions, instead of giving proper answers.

There were NO insults made of Clinton supporters in my comment above.

Criticism of the Clintons, yes, but of course: that's warranted in their case as stated and it is normal in the political process to critique candidates, and it is legitimate if such critique is facts-based as I think my comment is.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-04-24 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: You're the one giving an ad-hominem response

The critique was anything but fact-based and the insinuation from 'why are you supporting her' is that she is unworthy of support. This is insulting to anyone who does support her.

You attack her for her your opinions of things, nothing fact based. Let's recount:

She's not going to be able to overcome her Tuzla lie to win the general election.

Please show me your 'facts' where she is going to lose a general election based solely on this.  

I don't understand what ardent Clinton supporters see in her in any event given how she hawked the war and voted for Kyl-Lieberman knowing exactly how Iraq panned out and the Clintons have ALWAYS put themselves ahead of the party.

"You don't understand" is not a 'fact'. And everything else in that sentence is your opinion.

Why do you want to go to extra ordinary lengths to support her even at the expense of the Democratic party (and progressive goals such as not waging or supporting unnecessary wars)? That I sincerely fail to understand.

Why do YOU support your candidate? Give me a break. We all have reasons to support her. Everything else on there is your opinion.

So, who's arguing from facts?

by VAAlex 2008-04-24 08:08AM | 0 recs
That she lied about Tuzla is a fact.

That she voted for the war is a fact.

That she voted for Kyl-Lieberman is a fact.

The question of electability derived from Tuzla is a reasonable question: people that're caught on tape telling a significant lie (significant because HRC was fibbing to make a specious case that she's passes the "commander in chief threshold" (a bogus concept by itself) and that Obama didn't) don't usually get elected President, esp. if they're Democrats. The GOP and the rightwing will almost certainly flood the airways with all of Clintons' baggage (which is considerable even outside of the Tuzla lie; on both sex scandal and money matters) and most certainly the instance where HRC was caught red-handed telling a bald-faced lie.

The "I sincerely understand" bit was an expression of puzzlement, given that Democrats are supposed to be against dumb and nonsensical wars; if they aren't so, who will be? It's an opinion, but nevertheless a well-founded one, and hence not an "insult" as you claimed.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-04-24 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: That she lied about Tuzla is a fact.

Lie means telling a fib with intent, she's already disproven that. But even if you want to think that, fine.

She voted for the war and she voted for Kyl-Lieberman. Again, everything else you say is opinion.

And yeah, Tuzla might be a reasonable question for you, but it might not be a reasonable question for others. It's your opinion.

I don't have a problem with you raising your opinions -- I have a problem with you raising them and masquerading them as fact.

And what I had a problem with was "how can you supporter her, anyway", which you never did address.

by VAAlex 2008-04-24 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: That she lied about Tuzla is a fact.

"Lie means telling a fib with intent, she's already disproven that."

No, she hasn't. Her excuse "sleep deprivation" was a silly one because:

  1. she told the same lie/fib many times earlier
  2. if campaign-based "sleep deprivation" makes her tell what was a blantantly false story, then what does that say about her preparedness for the presidency (she was preaching a couple days ago that the presidency is a lot harder than campaigning).

"And yeah, Tuzla might be a reasonable question for you, but it might not be a reasonable question for others. It's your opinion."

99.9% of what's written at this or any other blog IS opinion. I never meant/claimed/implied (it's a strawman for you to say that I did) that my question about electability because of Tuzla was by itself a fact: it was an opinion based on a fact.

BTW, it is a fact that her "trustworthy/honest" numbers have fallen dramatically since the Tuzla footage came to light. And, I think her GE favorables have dropped sharply after that, as well.

"I don't have a problem with you raising your opinions -- I have a problem with you raising them and masquerading them as fact."

Sorry, you created your own strawman (and tried to beat me with it :)).

"And what I had a problem with was "how can you supporter her, anyway", which you never did address."

You mean you have never pondered why some people certain things? Why do  you have some much of a problem with someone pondering (while giving a basis for that qaundary). It's fine, people can disagree with the underlying POV of the quandary, but why does it have to bother you so much when so many actually mean-spirited things get said around here.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-04-24 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: That she lied about Tuzla is a fact.

Again you argue an opinion based on fact, but it's based on your OPINION that you don't like Hillary. It's OK to admit! That's what this blog is all about, different opinions.

And there's no straw-man argument here, buddy. You argue that her trustworthy/honest numbers have fallen dramatically since Tuzla, but this was based on one Washington Post poll. That's not exactly fact, is it? It's based on a single poll. Selective poll quoting is not being great.

Your tone in the comment was insulting, and wasn't merely meant as a 'hey, why do you support x', at least be honest about that. It was followed by a number of reasons -- your opinions -- as to why you don't like her.

And the original point still stands -- you have every right to your opinions, but please don't masquerade them as 'fact'.

by VAAlex 2008-04-24 10:11AM | 0 recs
I follow a number of polls

her favorable HAVE dropped in many since Tuzlagate. On "Trustworthy", we have that abc/wapo poll AND 40% in PA exit polls saying she isn't honest/trustworthy, and I may have seen a Rasmussen poll about it (vague recollection).

As for "tone", that's very subjective. I am not interested in having a wasteful discussion with you on dissecting what was a normal comment. One could turn that around and make it a discussion about the "tone" of your commentary.

"you have every right to your opinions, but please don't masquerade them as 'fact'."

That, eg, is an arrogant "tone" from you, one could argue. Be that as it may, no, it's your false interpretation as to what I referred as fact that you want to beat to death. Fortunately, to other readers it should be clear what I was claiming as fact and what I wasn't.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-04-24 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I follow a number of polls

Agree to disagree then. I will continue pointing out where your 'facts-based critiques' don't hold up. That is the crux here, and something that's purposely misleading and which happens way too often. Arguments are fine, but spinning opinion as fact is not.

by VAAlex 2008-04-24 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's popular vote lead: 600K w/o FL+MI || 2

The DNC does not recognize those contests.  The Clinton crowd gets upset about the "will of the voters" not being recognized, then chooses to believe no one in Michigan wanted to vote for Obama.

Either you believe in the rules (in which case no one gets any votes from Michigan), or you don't believe in the rules (in which case Obama deserves the vast majority of the uncommitted ballots, you know, respecting the will of the voters).  The idea that Obama gets nothing from Michigan was laughable when it was first thought up, and it's laughable now.

by Skaje 2008-04-24 02:49PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads