Does Clinton have a chance to win the popular vote? Let’s find out. But first, let’s deal with some preliminaries. Real Clear Politics (RCP) has six ways of counting the popular vote, none of which are entirely fair. 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.
Looking forward to the upcoming contests, I have used the following methodology. To determine turnout, I have looked at other states with similar populations. For example, North Carolina and Georgia each have 15 electoral college votes, and Kentucky and South Carolina each have eight. I then used either the most recent polling averages (where available) or extrapolated from similar contests in nearby states. I split undecides evenly, giving the edge to the candidate that is favored for odd numbered splits.
So, here goes (I’ll leave Guam and Puerto Rico for last).
North Carolina
Expected vote: 1,035,000
Pollster Avg.: Obama 55% Clinton 36%
Projected to: Obama 60% Clinton 40%
Popular Vote: Obama 621,000, Clinton 414,000
Net Advantage: Obama +207,000
Overall: Obama +458,000
Indiana
Expected vote: 930,000
Pollster Avg.: Obama 43% Clinton 49%
Projected to: Obama 47% Clinton 53%
Popular Vote: Obama 437,100, Clinton 492,900
Net Advantage: Clinton +55,800
Overall: Obama +402,200
West Virginia
Expected vote: 250,000
Pollster Avg.: Obama 25% Clinton 46%
Projected to: Obama 39% Clinton 61%
Popular Vote: Obama 97,500 Clinton 152,500
Net Advantage: Clinton +55,000
Overall: Obama +347,200
Kentucky
Expected vote: 540,000
Pollster Avg.: Obama 28% Clinton 60%
Projected to: Obama 34% Clinton 66%
Popular Vote: Obama 183,600, Clinton 356,400
Net Advantage: Clinton +172,800
Overall: Obama +174,400
Oregon
Expected vote: 350,000
Survery USA: Obama 52% Clinton 42%
Projected to: Obama 55% Clinton 45%
Popular Vote: Obama 192,500, Clinton 157,500
Net Advantage: Obama +35,000
Overall: Obama +209,400
South Dakota
Expected vote: 25,000
Pollster Avg.: Obama 46% Clinton 34%
Projected to: Obama 57% Clinton 43%
Popular Vote: Obama 14,250, Clinton 10,750
Net Advantage: Obama +3,500
Overall: Obama +212,900
Montana
Expected vote: 30,000
Pollster Avg.: no polls
Projected to: (based on Wyoming/Idaho) Obama 66% Clinton 34%
Popular Vote: Obama 19,800, Clinton 10,200
Net Advantage: Obama +9,700
Overall: Obama +222,600
So, based on reasonable projections of turnout and outcomes, Obama looks to end this contest with a lead of approximately 225,000 popular votes, excluding Guam and Puerto Rico.
I don’t think Guam has enough votes to matter (I understand it is a caucus). So let’s focus on Puerto Rico. I have no data to estimate turnout, but I do have a poll.
Puerto Rico
Expected vote: Unknown
Pollster Avg.: Obama 42% Clinton 50%
Projected to: Obama 46% Clinton 54%
If a million people vote, Clinton will get 120,000 net votes (540,000-460,000) out of Puerto Rico. To win the popular vote she would need 2 million people to vote and that would give her a victory of approximately 15,000 votes.
The total population of Puerto Rico is approximately 4 million. And that includes children and felons and people that align with the Republican Party. It seems out of the realm of possibility that 2 million people will vote in the Democratic primary.
But, based on this analysis, that’s what Clinton would need to even pull even in the popular vote.
So…no…Hillary Clinton cannot win the popular vote even by winning Indiana, and West Virginia and Kentucky in blowouts. She would have to do all that and significantly outperform in Oregon and North Carolina, and win very big in a very high turnout Puerto Rico primary, to even have a chance at tying the popular vote. It’s over.
Is it “over” in the same sense that last night was gonna be a “nail biter”?
Maybe. You do the math.
so let me ask a few stupid ones.
My first stupid; are you alone in doing the math?
I think not b/c Other progressive blogs are on the same page – maybe some superDs too.
to my second stupid, actually not just me but Matt Yglesias and Megan McArdle The Atlantic:
Why are the remaining Super delegates afraid?
Ya think the media is all-powerful and will band together?
That’ll be the day pigs fly. First the media chortled, prayed that these primaries will never end. Follow the money…ratings.
There’s a diary up over on Big Orange arguing that Obama needs commitments from only 43 currently uncommitted superdelegates to clinch (or in his terminology, “cinch”) the nomination. The diary makes certain highly pessimistic assumptions about the outcome of the last few contests, but if Obama performs better than this guy’s projections, the number of supers needed goes down. His math is on the page so you can play with it to fit your own projections.
Of course I would like to see a lot more than that. I would like to see 143. I’d like to see 243. I would like to see enough that, in the words of the master, there is no manner of doubt, no probable, possible, shadow of doubt, no possible doubt whatever.
They need the Clintons to fundraise for the general
yeah, cause everybody needs someone whose campaign is $10 million in debt to fundraise for them.
go figure.
On Tuesday, Obama requested his at home phone bankers to swing to GOTV for MS-01 candidate Childers, that the race there was also important, not just focus on PA.
spineless critters. No wonder we face such challenges with legislators.
that figure, does not include her self loan of $5 million
hurting for cash – $10.3 million as at March 30 plus the PA primary expenditures in April.
at link provided, scroll past all the other tid bits on McCain, Pelosi, Obama.
I don’t think anyone should even be entertaining the possibility of counting Michigan. Even Rendell let that one go.
Beyond that, this sounds about right, give or take a bit.
well, if there is an argument to be made that Clinton won the popular vote, it is going to include Michigan and Florida, but it’s also got to include the caucus states that didn’t report a popular vote number.
As for it being fair, of course it’s not fair. Caucuses diminish turnout, which hurt Obama’s numbers.
I know. The whole thing is silly. I’ll stand by my prediction, though: She’ll go all the way to the convention. I maintain that she’d rather destroy Obama’s shot in November, and take her chances with Dems in 2012, than concede. I’m not even sure the superdelegates moving against her could change that, as she might well go and try to flip pledged delegates.
she’s certainly tenacious. She doesn’t have any reputation left though.
When has a destroyed reputation ever stopped a Clinton?
NYT, Thursday April 24, 2008
Again Patrick Healy, NY Times, the paper that endorsed Clinton and, then after PA results, unendorsed her takes another shot…this time at HRC’s crowing over her PA win: (via The Hatman)
NOTE TO HILLARY: Stop the Crowing and Struting
Again it’s a Hillary over-reach.
Say Clinton doesn’t get the nomination and all this drama is for 2012. Who’s gonna want to go through this shit again? Not me, that’s for damn sure.
Yes, but she knows that if the vote is overturned to give her the nod this year, she’ll lose in November, and possibly in a landslide. She’d be unlikely to win the nod in 2012 if she destroyed Obama, but she’d at least have a shot at it, so I think she’d take her chances.
Here’s my solution for Michigan. Run another primary election there, with only Obama’s name on the ballot this time.
Whaddya say, Hillary?
well, my point is that it doesn’t really matter whether we give her Michigan or not.
I listened in on an interview with certain officials Police and city people getting organized for the Democratic Party Convention in Denver – crowd control and protesters, just in case shades of 1968 become real.
they won’t. People are apathetic.
memories of the chicago convention, circa 68 is driving some pretty strange activities …it’s becoming a bone of contention here:
and denver’s mayor, as well as colo’s gov are demoRATs…give’s one pause, eh.
l was contemplating applying for media credentials as a photog… if hillary gets the SD, smoke filled room anointment, which is not beyond the realm of possibilites given the general direction of the primaries, it could very well get ugly.
l’m taking a pass on the gig…the mtns are nice in august.
that interview I mentioned upthread..protesters will not be allowed within 3 miles of the Convention site.
Yeah, as you noted, it’s quite the contriversy.
First off, thank you for your great work in PA. Many good things came out of it. The media is useless is the biggest thing I learned.
But, I would have anyway, but you charged me up for working in Indiana.
Don’t doubt your polling, but Obama will win Indiana. He will carry middle to the top and Hillary will get her KKK vote in Southern Indiana.
The vote will be big enough in Indianapolis, they don’t ask for street money, combined with the college towns and bigger town in the north, it will be enough.
Southern Indiana should just join Kentucky.
is it like a rule that everyone hates the southern part of their state? Or the northern? Whatever.
It seems the only thing Bay Area and LA can agree upon is that San Diego and Sacramento “don’t really count” and the eastern parts of the state (that would be almost anything 40 minutes east of LA or SF is filled with scary one-toothed survivalist types. Except Palm Springs. They have more teeth. ;P
I think every state is like that to one degree or another, although eastern Cal has, I’ve heard, a special species of winger. It also seems to be the case that the rural survivalist types are especially bad when they’re in the shadow of one of the massive cities.
This reminds me of fans of the losing team in a football game counting offensive production in total yards. As I’ve said before, unless you’re specifically trying to insult the states who use caucuses, it’s absurd to cite a popular vote figure as if we have a national primary.
There was a study by a professor recently which showed that Obama’s strength is underestimated because of his superior performance in caucus states. The logic is simple — the higher participation that comes with primaries would have translated into a greater margin of victory, as measured in total votes.
Many people have erroneously assumed that the type of election process used was the sole reason for Obama’s victories over Clinton rather than Clinton’s weakness in states that use caucuses.
She can win. Not the popular vote, but the nomination. The string of victories Ohio,Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia will create the momentum arguement. “People were favoring Obama but the momentum has changed to Clinton. The earlier voters would vote Clinton now if they could do over.” This might sway enough super-delegates along with seating MI and FL to give her the nomination.
Of course, by winning this way ahe loses the black vote in November. A black friend estimates no more than 30% for Hillary. McCain becomes the next President along with a “consensus” majority in the House and Senate.