Yesterday, I took a first crack at trying to figure out if Clinton can win the popular vote. It’s worth investigating because her surrogates keep suggesting that she has a chance to win the popular vote and that that possibility justifies her continued campaigning. Part of the challenge is in predicting turnout in the various states. Yesterday, I used the rather crude method of estimating turnout by comparing states with a similar number of Electoral College votes. Today, I decided I could improve on that methodology by using a different measure. The number of pledged delegates assigned to each state is based on the number of Democratic votes those states provided in the last three presidential elections. Using this measure allows me to differentiate similar sized states based on the differential partisan makeup. For the following chart, I estimated turnout using the following method:
Guam= Virgin Islands, plus 25%
Indiana (72 pledged delegates)= Maryland (70)
North Carolina (115)= Ohio (141), minus 18%
West Virginia (28)= Mississippi (33), minus 15%
Kentucky (51) and Oregon (52)= Alabama (52)
Puerto Rico (55)= Louisiana (56)
Montana (16) and South Dakota (15)= Delaware (15).
This yielded what I consider to be reasonable numbers. If I had to guess, it probably overestimates turnout in North Carolina, West Virginia, Indiana, and Kentucky, but hopefully it’s a wash.
All polling (except Montana and Oregon) is based on the latest Pollster.com polling averages. In all cases I distributed undecided voters in the polls evenly to attain 100%. If there was an odd number of undecideds, I gave the extra percentage point to the candidate that is favored to win in that state. Montana has no polls, so I just gave it the same breakout as South Dakota. Guam has no polls so I left it with a 50-50 split. The Oregon poll is based on the single recent poll, from SurveyUSA.
| State | Date | P. Del | Estimated Turnout | O % | C % | Obama Votes | Clinton Votes | Net Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guam | May 03 | 4 | 2500 | 50% | 50% | 1250 | 1250 | Tie |
| Indiana | May 06 | 72 | 760000 | 47% | 53% | 357200 | 402800 | Clinton +45600 |
| North Carolina | May 06 | 115 | 1800000 | 60% | 40% | 1080000 | 720000 | Obama +360000 |
| West Virginia | May 13 | 28 | 350000 | 39% | 61% | 136500 | 213500 | Clinton +77000 |
| Kentucky | May 20 | 51 | 540000 | 34% | 66% | 183600 | 356400 | Clinton +172800 |
| Oregon | May 20 | 52 | 540000 | 55% | 45% | 297000 | 243000 | Obama +54000 |
| Puerto Rico | Jun 01 | 55 | 360000 | 45% | 55% | 165600 | 194400 | Clinton +28800 |
| Montana | Jun 03 | 16 | 96000 | 57% | 43% | 54720 | 41280 | Obama +13340 |
| South Dakota | Jun 03 | 15 | 96000 | 57% | 43% | 54720 | 41280 | Obama +13340 |
| Total | — | — | — | — | — | 2277990 | 2136510 | Obama +141480 |
Based on current polling averages and my best estimate at likely turnout, Obama stands to increase his popular vote lead by 141,480 votes between now and the end of the nominating process.
It would help Clinton if she could tighten the race in North Carolina or expand her lead in Indiana. For example, if she lost North Carolina by a narrow 53%-47% margin and won Indiana by a healthy 58%-42% margin, she would reduce Obama’s projected lead in the last contests to 22,550.
However, as I noted yesterday, Obama currently enjoys an approximate 250,000 popular vote lead even if you give Clinton all her votes from Florida and the 46% of the Michigan votes that the exit polls suggested she would have earned if everyone’s name had been on the ballot.
If Clinton were to win every undecided vote in the current polls, she would reap about 400,000 net votes. That would be more than enough to erase Obama’s 250,000 lead. Of course, that would require Clinton winning Kentucky 72-28, West Virginia 75-25, and Montana and South Dakota by 54-46. Short of scandal, that is out of reach.
To give you another example, if Clinton were to split the projected Obama states of North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota fifty-fifty, and win her projected victories in Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico with a 60-40 split, she would pick up 272,000 votes. That would be just enough to claim a popular vote victory with Michigan and Florida included in the tally.
As I said above, these turnout estimates are imprecise, and the more they are off, the more these projections are off. But any way you slice it, Clinton’s chances of winning even a disputed claim to the popular vote are more of a pipe dream than a reality. The superdelegates don’t need to wait on the fence to see how this particular measure will turn out.
Update [2008-4-24 19:57:7 by BooMan]: In the 2004 gubernatorial election in Puerto Rico, almost two million voters turned out. That’s half the population of the island (not of registered voters). Based on that, my projection of 360,000 votes in Puerto Rico is probably too low. If one million people vote (using my formula) Obama will see his 140,000 advantage drop to 80,000. If two million people vote, Obama’s advantage will drop to 10,000. In neither case will it put any dent in Obama’s current 250,000 popular vote advantage.
It amazes me that people are even responding to this bullshit argument about how we should decide this on Popular Vote. It is a delegate contest. Otherwise no state would do a caucus. But good analysis of it anyway.
O/T but I was just over at Ben Smith’s Blog and he provides the audio to what is clearly a push-poll by the Clintons in North Carolina and surprisingly, he doesn’t identify it as such. He just points out that it’s interesting to him that the Clintons (or whoever sponsored the “poll”) would ask at the end of the “poll” if Hillary has any chance of winning.
The reason I take it seriously is because it is a vacuous argument that is being used to keep this contest going.
I understand if Jon Corzine thinks the popular vote is a valid measure. I mean, if it were totally tied to the pledged delegates then there would be no need or role for superdelegates at all. They’d would just rubberstamp the outcome in pledged delegates.
The problem is that Clinton has no realistic hope of winning the popular vote.
It’s an argument that will be treated seriously by the press if she does win the popular vote. So, yes, you’re right. It needs to be pointed out that she will not.
Where’s Robert Byrd, by the way? He’s God in West Virginia. If Obama could snag him, he might have a chance to get into the mid- to high-40s there.
So using his estimates and not yours…the 10,000 vote lead turns into a 50,000 vote loss.
For those who want to play with it, it’s below
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html
Using Joy Cost’s calculator, I generated a 215,000 point vote margin for Hillary Clinton…in which I use the last option he has….
Count florida, count the washington primary not the coucus, estimte all the caucus states, and do what Chirs bowers did and give Obama the exit poll percntage of the uncommitted vote.
Disallowing him the Michigan uncommited gives her a 490000 vote lead…but uses all the caucus estimates.
She can win the popular vote.
can you give us the percentages and turnout you used?
And please, don’t start counting meaningless primaries instead of caucuses. I don’t care who it favors. Just stick to the 110,000 estimate from RCP and leave it at that.
Put Florida in if you want, and Michigan based on exit polls if you want.
Although I think the territories, including Puerto Rico, are on iffy ground in the popular vote argument, you can use though too.
I can’t Hillary closer than 10,000 votes using those assumptions. And that’s only if 2 million people vote in PR and she wins it by 10 points.
On the push poll, I think Smith is right to note that with interest, as they might be trying to gauge whether or not her base of support is crumbling at all under the pressure of Obama’s lead. I maintain that the $10m night of fundraising is a complete crock of shit, unless the Clintons decided to lend themselves several million. They may be concerned.
BooMan,
have you read this piece in the WSJ by Karl Rove? (don’t shoot the messenger).
The GOP wants Clinton
Looks like Rove is joining forces with the Clintons to obliterate Obama. But he also let the cat free –
The Clintons are stealing Michigan
and as a trained Latino Americanist I can tell you this : THE POPULAR VOTE FROM PUERTO RICO DOESN’T COUNT.
Puerto Ricans may be able to vote in the primary but you have to invalidate their votes in the final tally because BY THE NATURE OF OUR CONSTITUTION AS A “FREE ASSOCIATED STATE” WE CANNOT VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENCY AND WE HAVE NO VOTING REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS.
There is no spin at all whatsoever here. The fact of the matter is that the Puerto Rican popular vote DOESN’T COUNT.
When I left the University of Puerto Rico’s Politics Department in the 1980s, Guam was in the middle of a preparations for a referendum. They have a commonwealth setup similar to Puerto Rico’s but they do have voting representation in Congress.
Someone has to check on this, but I am pretty sure they cannot vote for the President either, hence, the popular vote of Guam wouldn’t count either.
For the purposes of judging electability you are correct. Puerto Rico and Guam’s preferences in the primary should be respected, but they tell us nothing about who will be the stronger candidate in the fall because they will not be participants in that vote.
Only their delegates should inform the superdelegates.
That’s big of you, liza, but the truth is that Puerto Rico will be included in the final vote tally. GOTV!
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rq.html
Suffrage
18 years of age; universal; island residents are US citizens but do not vote in US presidential elections
Oh, I know Puerto Rico doesn’t vote in the presidential. I’m just saying that, if Clinton wins it, its tally will be included in the overall tally.
CIA FACTBOOK
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gq.html
Suffrage:
18 years of age; universal; US citizens, but do not vote in US presidential elections
So take the popular vote out for both Guam and Puerto Rico. Constitutionally, they can’t be counted.
Hmmm. Apparently some people think she’s winning.
Booman,
Thanks for all the number-crunching. The only suggestion I would make is that I think it’s a tactical error to even mention Michigan and Florida in your speculations. It’s way too generous, and only opens the door to the Clinton spin. Those were bullshit, bogus elections, and if the shoe was on the other foot there is no way that the Clinton campaign would be giving Obama the benefit of the doubt by including those states in the calculations, even on a theoretical basis. Her supporters and surrogates are out there doing their best to alter the dynamics of this race. Let’s not help them. Take MI and FL out of the equation and post a bigass number for Obama’s popular vote lead.
Whoa. I think your method of estimating turnout is flawed, unless you have taken into account the bonus delegates awarded to states based on how late in the cycle they schedule their First Determining Step of the delegate allocation process, compared to when their contest occurred in 2004.
You can check it all out at The Green Papers:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml
The upshot is that each state’s final pledged delegate count might be inflated.
An even better, more inclusive metric for you to use is each state’s BASE vote, listed here:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml
The Base vote is the calculation you want.
So for example, North Carolina has 115 pledged delegates, but it starts out at only 79.
Ohio, the state you compare it to, has a base of 123.
Massachusetts (81) or Georgia (76) would be the closest analogs.
Here are the base votes and closest choices for the other remaining contests:
(NB: there’s no explanation of how the base votes for Guam and Puerto Rico have been determined.)
Guam 3 — Am. Samoa 3 (or) Virgin Islands 3
Indiana 57 — Tennessee 59
West Virginia 23 — New Mexico 23
Kentucky 41 — Connecticut 42
Oregon 42 — Connecticut 42
Puerto Rico 44 — Alabama 45 (although PR is a wild card for the reasons you’ve discovered)
Montana 13 — Delaware, DC, or Vermont, all 13
South Dakota 12 — Vermont 13 (numbers seem closer to that than North Dakota at 11)
thanks, I’ll look into this tomorrow. The North Carolina numbers are inflated. But so are the numbers out of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Indiana.
I say that based on looking at the votes for Kerry in 2004. However, it’s very tricky to estimate primary turnout. It matters whether a state has a true primary, whether it has an open or closed primary, whether it has same day registration, etc.
Even so, I want to hone my estimates as best I can, using all available information.
…extrapolated votes from the caucus states? Because if this is supposed to be convincing to people on the Hillary side (not that I imagine any level of argument would do the job for that matter), you have to take into consideration that when they put her popular vote figures over Obama, not only are they including the totals from FL and MI, but they’re also skipping the caucus states entirely.
Right, wrong, fair or not, you’re playing on different fields in that scenario and basically preaching to the choir here. Not that I mind; I could use the occasional cheering up after a full day’s cycle of Clintonball spinning.