Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Count
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.
Tags: presidential election 2008 | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | superdelegates
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (357)
Reader Comments
Not at all likely
I'm disappointed Mr. Barone, usually your analysis is SO on point. For you to merely assert this is an "optimistic, if slightly" scenario for Clinton is an understatement as egregious as your understatement of Obama's likely support. First of all, with the recent bus tour and Casey endorsement I think a 20 point win in PA is HIGHLY unlikely. Secondly, Indiana is largely covered by the Chicago media market and the only public poll, done in February, had Obama 15 ahead. If Clinton wins, it will be by single digits there, while conversely it is conceivable if Obama wins it could be by double digits. Thirdly, with 40% of registered Democrats in NC being African American, your 10% Obama win there is similarly understated. Fourthly, with Daschle's support I would give South Dakota to Obama and by way of anti-Clinton sentiment, Montana to Obama as well. I think rosey scenarios could only get Clinton within 200,000 votes of Obama, not above. Your prediction would assume landslides for Clinton, the kind that have alluded her thus far and momentum just isn't hers right now...so I am unsure what your numbers are based on besides the pursuit of a "catchy headline" or a secret desire for a protracted Democratic fight.
Optimistic? Downright Misleading
You can toss your spreadsheet, it's nonsensical. Obama's support in NC is more solid than Hillary's support in PA, yet you give her a 20 point lead, when the polls show an average of about 12 three weeks out. Yet Obama has polls that show a 20 point lead 5 weeks out, but of course in your calculations he wins by 10 points.
Also Obama will win Indiana, Montana and South Dakota. Red State Democrats do not like Hillary Clinton. Her strength isn't working class whites, (view Wisconsin) it's Appalacian whites. Specifically Appalacian white males. In other words, she'll do well in PA, KY and WV. I don't know why people who have degrees and get paid for this never mention it.
Also Mexicans are not Puerto Ricans. Latinos are not Hispanics. Puerto Rico will be close.
HRC and Popular Vote
The desperate attempts to come up with a formula that makes HRC the leader of the Democratic race are laughable. The Republicans will do anything to avoid facing the certain defeat that will be their fate when the Dems choose Obama. For all the Repubs false bravado about the pastor (What's next - a shocking expose about BHO's lifelong dentist?), the GOP shudders at the thought of putting rapidly aging, wooden McCain up against a figure who has brains, charisma and...a pulse.
Hence all the "Hillary Is Still In It" headlines by the GOP fat cats who own and run big media. Sorry, guys, get used to saying "President Obama."
Clinton Leaving Race
Since 22% of the population (according to the latest Rasmussen poll) believe that Clinton should drop out of the race, I think she should.
Furthermore, since 22% of the population (according to the same poll) believe that Obama should drop out of the race, I think he should, also.
Then the Democrats wouldn't be in this mess!
Are you smoking crack?
Really, how likely is it that Clinton wins most of her states by 20% or more. That means 60-40 for PA, 60-40 for Indiana (next door to Obama's home state) - when she only won Ohio by 10% margin. A 40% margin in WV means a 70-30 split. Come on, even a dead guy would get more than 30% of the vote. Please, just because the spreadsheet doesn't stop you from putting in stupid estimates doesn't mean you have to do it. GIGO (Garbage in, Garbage out). Barone, you best cash those Clinton checks soon, word is that she's stiffing small services providers.
The big push?
The big push is, the longer this thing goes on, the more likely Hillary will be to come out on top. So basically, people tha are bizarrly claiming this needs to be brought to a close are worried about the possibility of Clinton finding a way to come out on top. The way things look now, Obama seems to have won already. This is not exactly the case. The realclearpolitics delegate count is mildly misleading in my opinion.
projections
HRC has no moral standing whatsoever, I believe your projections won't come true.
Mr. Barone, what do you make of this? from a post on the neweditor.com
----------------------------------
The Power of Cook County, Illinois
In the race for the most popular votes in the Democratic Party's presidential primary contests, Sen. Barack Obama's lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton is about 711,000 votes -- not including Florida or Michigan -- according to Real Clear Politics.
Of Sen. Obama's 711,000 popular-vote lead, 650,000 -- or more than 90% of the total margin -- comes from Sen. Obama's home state of Illinois, with 429,000 of that lead coming from his home base of Cook County.
That margin in Cook County represents almost 60% of Obama's total lead nationwide.
Interestingly, Sen. Obama's 429,000-vote margin in Cook County alone is larger than the winning margin of either candidate in any state.
Chicago Dems still know how to support their candidates better than anyone else in the country...
-------------------------------
Wildly Unrealistic.
I like Clinton. I respect and admire her from the Bill Clinton WH and she has arguably been a better senator than Obama. However, the DNC set the rules of the nominating process and Clinton didn't complain about any of it until she lost. Yes, lost, past tense there is no way for her to win the nomination much less the WH. It is all over but the shouting (there will be about a month of shouting). Obama is more talented, has a better message and will be a better president, plus he played by the rules and won. No convoluted argument can overturn that.
Actually the table you published is "wildly unrealistic". Clinton by 20 in Indiana? I live in Indiana. That is not going to happen. Clinton wins 70%-30% in WV? Keep dreaming. By 20 in Montana? Someone's smoking something. SD rejects Tom Daschle and goes 60-40 to Clinton? Now you are really off the reservation. Obama could get assassinated and his cold, stiff corpse would do better than you are projecting.
Mark May 7th on your calendar. That is when Clinton drops out.
Looking at past results
Clinton has captured at least 60% of the vote in just one (Arkansas) of the 40 something contests held so far. Yet you now predict her to take 60%+ in seven of these remaining 9 contests on your spreadsheet.
This is snark right? (I cannot imagine this is really a serious analysis)
You're projections are off base
Your projects are highly optimistic for Clinton and then you base all sorts of conclusions on these flawed projections. The only poll done in Indiana had Obama far in front, and it's a neighboring state to Illinois (you give her a margin of 150,000+). Recent polls in Pennsylvania have the margin averaging 11% (you say it will be 20%) and recent polls in NC have the margin approaching 20% (you say it will be 10%). So you're way off base for the first three contests alone.
By my projections you're giving Clinton 700,000 more of a margin than she is likely to have IF current projections hold. Thus, an Obama margin of 500,000.
Other than to provide bulletin board material for the Clinton campaign, I'm not sure what your post accomplishes.
I am bewildered
I don't think that the Clinton people have this rosy a scenario. She has not amassed these types of margins in any states except for Arkansas. To say she will win by margins of 20, or even 40 points, is pretty irresponsible from a journalist of your ilk. Your predictions will only come to pass if something comes to pass about Obama that derails his campaign. And you do not posit your comments with such an event.
Clinton will win Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia, in all liklihood. She will lose the other states. P.R., well, who knows. By early June, we will be in the same place we are today: with camp Clinton making strained arguments to justify a game long ago lost.
Ridiculous
You clearly must be one of those folks not leaving on planet earth as Politico's Vandehei would say. You just do not know what the hell you are talking about. How ridiculous! Clinton winning Indiana, Montana, South Dakot by 20 points! I remember you had quite rosy delegate projections for Clinton a while back saying that she is going to blow away Obama in Ohio and Texas and a bunch of other states. Guess what happened!
Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Count
And your point is????
This is a race for delegate so this entire explanation is completely useless.
This article is dumb!
Democrat Problems are of thier own making
It seems to me that all the problems facing the Democrats today are of their own making. Arcane party rules, apportioned delegates, compressed primaries and the Super Delegates have only complicated matters. Add to that the Michigan and Florida fiasco (thank you, Howard Dean) and the primary season is one that will disenfranchise a multitude of democrat voters no matter who wins. The argument that the Super Delegates should not decide the party nominee is ridiculous. The purpose of the Super Delegates is to choose the nominee (in a close race) IN SPITE OF what the popular vote may happen to be. This is to safeguard the Party against a 'popular' choice who may in fact be unelectable in a general election (Can you say, "Obama"?)
If Michael Barone is right, and Hilary can lay claim to the popular vote, while Obama can lay claim to the pledged delegates, there is going to be a showdown in Denver come August.
Caucas
The problem with caucus is that its own inherent setup prevents people who are physically disabled, elderly folks, non-English speaking or very little English, middle or lower class who who have to work during the day, etc. to attend it. Clinton's core group comes from this category. That leaves those who are well heeled who can afford to take a day off and those activitists who are savvy with how it works to attend. Even if the campaign has done its best to get the voters to go to caucus, but if the people canno despite their willingness to participate. Clinton's winning in primaries speaks volume, in comparison to caucus.
Great article. Thank you for the analysis. I am impressed! Fair to both sides.
Dem Nominee
Excellent analysis and clearly one of the reasons Billary is staying in until the bitter end. The Dems have a major quandry before themselves and one in which they created.
What the heck are they going to do about the Michigan and Florida delegates? Clearly some form of re-vote is going to have to occur as neither nominee will be able to negotiate on this issue. The DNC, in their infite wisdom, not to mention their oligarchial mindset, has decided to "overpunish" these states. In stark contrast to their proportional allocation of delegates during the nomination process (a questionable process, especially when you have 2 or more strong candidates), they institute a "loser loses all" process for these 2 states...will the real DNC please stand up!!!
Wonder if given the opportunity, the Dems would govern this way?
Clinton
Michael:
Sad to think that she may be nominated. We've had 20 years of Bush/Clinton. If she is elected, then we add 8 years for a total of 28 .
Bush 41 said that Jeb would make a good President. Jeb will go for the nomination after Hillary. This will add 8 years for a total of 36 years of Bush/Clinton.
Guess who will turn 45 after Hillary and Jeb serve? Chelsea!
You think I'm wrong? Well gee....we've had 20 years...maybe soon to be 28.
These families want complete control. Just look at the history. You can't argue with my logic.
Can't we find another candidate to move our country forward?
LR Wyatt
The Reality
Thank you, Mr. Barone for reminding readers that this contest is (a) close and (b) that it will not come down to the "numbers."
This race will come down to the politics, which means the legitimacy of the arguments used by both sides and the partisan/personal relationships that will guide and determine each individual superdelegate's evaluation of that moment's circumstances and how those circumstances impact his or her self-interest. In politics, nothing is a given and facts are not necessarily persuasive. Why? Because unlike what occurs in every other sport, politicians not only play the game, but they make the rules and they referee the play.
Hillary
In all honesty, if Hillary Clinton can come back to win the popular vote without Florida and Michigan, then she by far deserves the nomination. I think after Pennsylvania, if you would factor in Michigan and Florida then, she would lead in the popular vote. It's kind of foolish not to include Michigan and Florida - it's going to wreck the general election voting in the future. And I think Barack Obama's blocking of a revote really goes to show how desperate and un-American he is. Last time I checked, this country was built upon the principles of democracy and that every vote counted.
I think the Democrats have created their own problem with their delegate distribution, their creation of superdelegates, running the first black and first female candidates in the same primary etc. Now they are trying to force HRC out as a "solve-all" to their problems. I also think no matter what happens in the remaining primaries, they will give it to Obama because of the issue they are all trying to sweep under the carpet - race.
'Pretend that Clinton has a Realistic Shot' appears to be the intellectual exercise du jour. I suppose that, since Andrew Wiles successfully proved Fermat's Last Theorem, the Mount Everest of mathematical endeavor is constructing the elaborate logical machinery required to claim with a straight face that Hillary Clinton will be able to claim some sort of victory in the Democratic primary.
Personally, I prefer the Scrabble Method:
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON = 33 pts
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA = 32 pts
And the only strained assumptions I'm making involve an extra-large board and no triple-word scores.
Richard
Michael Barone, your scenario is plausible but you seem to be estimating larger victories for Hillary than she will likely get. National polling on the Democratic race has shown Obama edging into a lead of 6 to 8 percent. State polling will probably soon reflect this trend and if it does Hillary's margins of victory in states favorable to her will drop.
David of VA, there is no "rush to kill off Clinton" she will be very much alive, just not President. There is good reason for Democrats to want her out of the race, however. For one, the intraparty fight drains resources that could be used against the Republicans. Second, to the extent the Clinton-Obama fight is negative (as it is increasingly becoming) both candidates are harmed and are weaker general election nominees. Finally, Michael Barone's estimates aside, he is one of the few who thinks she has a realistic chance of winning.
Biased estimates?
You seem to consistently overestimate Clinton's vote in your spreadsheet. Obama is ahead in one of the only polls done in Indiana http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
and Clinton is only 10 and 12 points ahead in the two most recent polls in Pennsylvania.
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Meanwhile, recent polls suggest about a 15 point advantage to Obama in NC.
I don't think the totals would (in any case) budge much in Clintons favor, without considering Puerto Rico. And I'm not convinced you can draw many conclusions about Puerto Rico from latino voters in the mainlaind.
Winning percentages a tad off
If you are going to use Jay Cost's spread sheet, then do the fair balanced homework like Cost does too. For example, you site Clinton's strength in the 1 to 1 districts you compare from Ohio, but I see no counterbalancing consideration for the likely strength of Obama in Allegheny (Pittsburgh) and Eastern PA dominated by Philadelphia, It would also be useful to consider if Obama's strength in these areas may be enhanced by the Wright bashing, not weakened. Further, the recent surge in WV registration is not likely from Clinton supporters. In addition time and time again Obama has shown that as he competes in a state in which he trails in the polls, the state gets tighter.
The winning margin you predict for Clinton in the 7 remaining contests you think she might win is nearly 26%. Year-to-date her winning percentage has averaged 16% (using results posted on Real Clear Politics.com), even when including Florida and MI. Without those two, it is closer to 14%. For Obama the winning percentage you predict is 10%, while year-to-date his winning percentage is closer to 30%! Your predicted margins of victory assume Clinton will do 50% better than she has shown capable of so far, and that Obama will do 67% worse. That kind of cataclysmic shift is not a likely political bet. The race if anything has become tighter between the two, and the margins for both are likely to be smaller than their y-t-d results. Clinton is not likely to win by as much nor as often as you predict and Obama will likely win by more and more often than you predict. When you further refine your thinking and look at like states to like states (Ohio for PA and IN for example) Clinton's margins are likely to be much smaller than your guesses. Puerto Rico of course is a wild card amongst wild cards, and how will Richardson's voice resonate there?
Your assumptions are, I suppose within the realm of possiblity, just not in the realm of a likely reality.
false hope; misleading propagana
well and who is going to read this long, long and boring article....
this is more propaganda; Clinton will not win: she has no money to go on with her campain.
In NC she will lose big, real big.
I stopped reading after the first three paragraphs, so moronic is the logic of this article
Primary wins have NOTHING to do with general election wins. So the first two arguments that Hillary is ahead are preposterous and intellectually dishonest.
For an interesting and meaningful analysis, check out SurveyUSA's polls a few weeks ago. They conducted head-to-head polls in all 50 states against McCain, and then made states red or blue depending on who won. They did it for both Obama and Clinton.
When the added up electoral votes, Obama won different states than Clinton for sure, but also did better, gitting 17 more electoral votes in the GENERAL ELECTION than Hillary.
You suck, Barone
Problems with projection
If you're basing those predictions on demographics and single congressional districts, you're likely going too far. Hillary Clinton has only won two states by +20, Arkansas and Rhode Island. She didn't even win New York by those margins.
Furthermore, the only Indiana poll taken had Clinton down 15 points. She was only leading among white women, and winning them by a mere two points. Granted this was during mid-February when Obama was riding high and there was a big undecided, but those fundamentals don't look great.
Also, Marc Ambinder asked Steve Hildebrand about Clinton winning SD, and he was quite skeptical. Montana is also particularly anti-war.
Too optimistic?
Expecting 20% anywhere is silly..40% is absurd... You should have led with the table so readers could have avoided wasting their time.
Hillary To Win Popular Vote
I absolutely believe Clinton will win the popular vote in the end and this is precisely why those in the Obama camp wants to end this thing now...they are running very scared. Not only does Obama have voters with buyer's remorse from the previous primaries but they have to deal with the Wright un-known...especially with "typical white" voters, independents and those Whispering Republicans who are laughing all the way to McCain.
Good effort
Michael, you've put a lot of effort considering alternative scenarios and I appreciate that. I'm sure the Clinton campaign will use some of your arguments. But that's ultimately a delegate race, and nothing can change that. The idea that superdelegates will be convinced by such cumbersome measures seems a little farfetch to me. I find your point with the popular vote surprising, but if Clinton has not managed so far to get this kind of numbers I wonder how is she is going to do it now. You seem to concede Obama will win the pledged delegate fight but Clinton will win the consolation price and thus convince superdelegates. Hard to believe, but anyway we will see...
Strange
I find it strange that Hillary Clinton only has 2 wins with margins of 20 points or more (Arkansas and Oklahoma), and yet you are predicting that she does so in 7 of the next 10 primaries. Journalists don't seem to understand the incredible grassroots network that are needed to pull off a route like this. It's one thing to win by 10-15 points but in order to go to the next level you need EVERYONE registered and turned out who supports your candidate, and the Clinton campaign has shown no inclination that they have the organization, enthusiasm or money to do so. Rather than sitting and writing articles you should spend some time with the two campaigns to see the difference in the organizing skills of each. Even in bad states, Obama will not lose by more than 20 points, which will make it impossible for Clinton to catch him.
a little optimistic
Are my projections for Clinton's share of the vote too optimistic?
Do you think?
This article is pretty ridiculous. It's a perfect example of the media making this more competitive than it actually is, just to create interest (in this case, interest in this particular article). I'm actually a little ashamed that I spent 10 minutes reading it and commenting on it, but not as ashamed as this media hack should be with his scientific looking spreadsheet and "old-fashioned legal pads."
just to clear away the rhetoric and get to what he is saying, here are his predictions, which yes are to say the least "a little optimistic"
1. 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.
2. Those results have also influenced my projections of even bigger percentage margins for Clinton in Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. My projection for Puerto Rico is a guess, nothing more
While you're at it, perhaps you would like to predict that Iraq will suddenly stabilize, Dick Cheney will visit Iran and worship at a mosque, the insurance companies will get together and come up with a plan for guaranteed universal health care, and it will start softly raining 100 dollar bills in New Orleans so people can move out of their trailer parks?
No...
Do the caucus states not matter? They have NO SAY in the popular vote tally according to you. If you allocate the general number of people represented at caucuses and then their votes to each candidate, based on obviously percentages, Obama wins still. You cannot pick and choose what states "count" in the total.
Predictions
I think your biggest error in allocation will be in Indiana. This should be looked at more like a farm state, like Iowa, or Wisconsin. The area around the Ohio river does look like Southern Ohio, but then Gary is black and Chicago market. I would predict an Obama win here. The only existing poll result I can find seems to support that - http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/indiana.html
South Dakota and Montana are Obama territory. Look at how much stronger he is than Clinton in the SUSA poll http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/page/3/ He does better against McCain than Clinton by 7% and by 12% in those states. It is a mistake to think that ONLY the caucus process is what helped Obama in the West. He is also helped by the fact that these states prefer him. In large part these were settled by New Englanders, and bring with some of their values. Obama leads in New England (minus Catholic areas like MA).
PR is a big unknown, but it wouldn't surprise me if they behave more like other territories, and less like the mainland Hispanic population.
And finally, even in states like NC and PA, where the direction is correct, it does seem rather generous to Clinton, although, as you say, not outside of reasonable possibility.
So again, I think your biggest miss is Indiana.
Caucuses are undemocratic.
While I almost totally agree with your article, I personally think the caucus is undemocratic. These caucuses are mostly held at night. Old people cant be there. Shipyard workers who work the night shift can't be there. They do not represent the will of the people and should be done away with. Also something Clinton needs to talk about, is the fact that on Obama's income tax, he gave $27,500 to the rev Wright's church, since he started running for president. He gave very little to charity before this. Of course we all know why he did this. He not only allows his children to be mentally abused, with the GD America rhetoric, but he still embraces Wright with his presence, and his wallet. What is really comical, is he took a vacation to the Virgin Islands, to get away from the heat, when it also is kind of hot down there. I also think he was there, so he would not have to go to Wright's church on Easter. Ha Ha.
Poor Assumptions
You have a few assumptions in your work that lead me to question its accuracy. Why use a primary in Washington state that has absolutely nothing to do in the primary season. Instead you ignore a much more pro-Obama result that actually means something. You have Clinton winning states by as much as 40 in reality she has almost never won a state by a 20% MOV (She has only accomplished the feat of 20% MOV in Arkansas). Meanwhile Obama has been able to win states by a MOV over 20% with some consistency (Virginia, Maryland, Washington DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, South Carolina, Kansas, and a few others) . It is unrealistic to assume that she will take most of the remaining states by a MOV that is significantly greater then 20 %. In reality she has almost no chance of winning the popular vote and absolutely no chance of winning the pledged delegate count. This article greatly misrepresents the true picture as it makes assumptions that simply will not come to fruition.
Absurd.
Contests that Hillary has won by 20%+, throughout this entire process: 1 (Arkansas).
Contests that you give to Hillary by 20%+, out of the final 9: 7.
Bwahahahahaah!!! Get a day job, man.
You consider these "optimistic from the Clinton point of view but not wildly unrealistic"?
Hillary didn't get 60% in New York!!! How would she possibly get 60% in Indiana, which is currently a nail-biter?!
Really?
Michael, you've been in the business quite a lot longer than I I'm sure, but I cannot help but point out that your predictions are not only optimistic, they imply almost an entire meltdown of Obama with his underperforming the polls, and a significant Clinton surge with her winning South Dakota and Montana, and Indiana with an even larger margin than Pennsylvania. Don't you feel like you need evidence of Clinton momentum to defend numbers like these - and don't you agree that currently, Obama is the one with momentum? I think the real title of this story is, "Prediction: Obama suffers campaign disaster; Clinton all but sweeps remaining primaries."
To be valid, Hillary would have to win Puerto Rico by a huge margin - almost as much as she wins Pennsylvania by. That won't happen. I think it is probably based on the ffact that she has done well with Hispanics in Texas and California. Well, your reasoning is flawed. All Hispanics are not alike. I used to live in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans are a Caribbean people (Antillanos). Most Puerto Ricans either look like Barack Obama or have a relative who does. Obama has the support of the governor (who's indicted but still in office). The Obama team is also well-organized. He is likely to do extremely well, if not win. So, since your argument is based on a false assumption, it is wrong.
Nice fantasy
Michael, Clinton has one, what, one or two states so far by over twenty points? That makes your projections very, very unlikely. My guess is that she wins Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia by around ten points and loses the rest of them -- a few by 20+ points. That would make more sense, and is more in line with what the vast majority of political pundits are projecting.
The rush to kill off Clinton is due to her having established herself as a pathological liar who couldn't pull 35% in the fall. Sniper Fire! Sniper Fire! Oops, my bad, it was girl scout meet and greet. All her past lies (particularly about her support for NAFTA) will come back to haunt her, but the "sniper fire" lie makes her the butt of jokes. That is pure poison to a campaign. Hopefully, we can scrape the Lying Clintons off our shoes in the very near future.
Florida
The DNC can elect to not seat the Florida delegates because of their rules, but they can't make the people's votes go away.
Why aren't Florida's votes being counted in the analysis? They were both on the ballot and Clinton won by about 300,000 votes.
Florida voted and a record number of people turned out. Seating delegates and counting all the actual votes are two different things.
Why are so many analysts assuming they are the same?
VOTE IN EVERY STATE NOT ONLY 48!
We need very state to vote. That includes Flordia and Michigan.
Obama does not want to count Florida and Michigan. That will and should haunt him.
I am thankful I live in Kentucky and I will gladly vote for Hillary Clinton. She is a winner.
vote projections
I have to say, your vote projections are almost certainly "wildly" optimistic for Clinton. The latest polling for W.V. shows Clinton with a lead of 28%. Indiana has no reliable polling recently, but the most recent polling (from mid-February) showed Obama up 40-25%; granted, a lot has changed since then, but expecting a Clinton win by 20% is asking a lot. Expecting a Clinton win by 20% in Montana, when Obama has dominated all of the neighboring states. Pennsylvania and North Carolina could be accurate, but we barely know anything about how Puerto Rico would vote except that there will be huge turnout.
This article is thus extremely misleading - it is labeled as a "projection" but is barely based on any conception of how these states are really going to vote - just total speculation. Of course it is "possible" that Clinton could win these states by these margins and thus win the popular vote, but that possibility is way beyond the realm of likelihood.
Why do you predict "Obama will be seen as by far the most underhanded player"?
Just wondering what he has done/what you suspect will come out about that would support your claim.. As an Independent, I've been impressed with Obama's ability to stay about the fray. It's completely image driven (trying to run as a candidate that transcends the bitter bickering of partisan politics), nonetheless, he's very good at doing it.
of course
It's been obvious to me that the caucuses are a bogus way to announce or try to validate any "wins." Thanks for actually proving it on paper.
Not only are they not representative of the will of the people, they alienate the majority of the voters who will actually vote come election time:
Single parents
Hard working people who do not have the luxury to get off work
Families who have children to tend to with homework and full rest before another school/workday
The elderly who cannot withstand or endure such childish procedures
The handicapped
etc...
Caucuses are an exercise in bullying and bribing at inopportune and unfair hours, for hours and hours on end. How much more anti-democratic can the "Democratic Party" get?
Changing the goal post, again...
I don't understand why pundits such as the author of this article continue to engage in widespread speculation about how, by some new Invented rubric, the Clinton campaign could be seen as winning the Democrat primary. She entered the competition knowing that the winner would be decided by the delegate count, and further signed a document that acknowledged her understanding that the Michigan and Florida primaries would not count. The total populations of the states in question are not, and were not, at issue in the Democratic primaries and caucuses; moreover, the fact Clinton won Texas in a Democrat primary does NOT imply she could win Texas in the national election. Nor, for that matter, does it imply that in a race between Obama and McCain, it would be impossible for Obama to carry the state.
Superdelegates
Thank you for taking the time to put this out there. Now lets talk superdelegates.
Superdelegates were intended to act as a counterweight to a system which might allow someone (like McGovern) to win lots of caucuses in red states and thus overproduce a delegate count which did not match his/her electability. They were not meant to rubber-stamp the pledged delegates. If all the superdelegates were supposed to do was vote exactly in keeping with the pledged delegates, the whole concept of superdelegates would be a joke.
Again thank you for your work.
Throw Out The Charts
The question for the Super Dooper Delegates boils down to this:
Do they want the blacks to stay home because they're angry that Clinton hijacked the election or do they want the blue-collar ethnics crossing over and voting for McLame because of Obama's ties to black radicals? The Clintons calling Gov Richardson 'Judas' points to the fact that if they win there will be reprisals for anyone in the party who crossed them. I think the Super-Dooper Dems are getting tired of the Clintons lies and threats and are looking forward to seeing them gone. Now with her campaign broke and the knives out in the party I think we will see the demise of HRC's candidacy sooner than you think.
skewed analysis
Your data is skewed to justify why Clinton should stay in the race. Clinton will lose both the pledged delegate and the popular vote.
Washington State Results are published.
The Washington State results are known and published. It was a PRIMARY. Do you really think that a state government would keep the results of a primary secret? I have repeatedly informed both RealClearPolitics and Jay Cost. Which margin did you include in your totals, the 10,000 vote Obama caucus victory or the 30,000 vote Obama primary victory?
Primary: http://vote.wa.gov/elections/wei/results.aspx?ElectionID=3
Hillary Clinton 315,744 45.67 %
Barack Obama 354,112 51.22 %
Caucus: http://www.wa-democrats.org/index.php?page=display&id=272
Obama 67.51% 21,629
Clinton 31.2% 9992
Can't imagine Obama as President
I can't imagine Obama as President. He has lied by ommission and he has lied by lying. And I'm black. Clinton has the intelligence, the training and yes, the experience to become one of America's greatest Presidents!
Plain wrong
It isn't just that your projections "may be plain wrong". They are plain wrong. For instance, there is no way that Clinton wins Puerto Rico with a 20 delegate margin. That's absolutely nuts. Jesse Jackson carried Puerto Rico in 1988 after coming second in the Texas primary (which he then narrowly won through caucus determined delegates). Same picture with Obama Clinton in 2008, with Obama not merely narrowly winning, but in fact clearly winning Texas through caucus determined delegates. The one thing you're right on is that Latinos are a diverse group, and Puerto Rico is not Texas. Everyone seems to forget that Obama lost New Mexico (42% Hispanic) by less than a percentage point. New Mexico has a 2.9% Black population while Puerto Rico has a combined Black and mulatto population of 18%. Go figure.
And what's with placing pledged under quotes? That seems to imply support for the emerging Clinton ploy of suggesting that pledged delegates are "free" to back whomever they want in spite of their pledge. You know, this practice of suggesting that it is ok to break pledges, whether it is over Michigan and Florida, or with delegate commitment, is sick. How can this country trust a candidate whose whole approach to politics is that it's ok to break pledges, commitments, and promises?
and your point is....
Use your time on something that is real and not imaginary. This is a failed task in relevance. We count votes that are cast, not the census of a state to attribute vote totals.
boring
This kind of election calculus is pointless. There's a primary. There are rules for the primary. The candidates play to the rules. If the rules were different, e.g., popular vote, no caucuses, whatever, the candidates would campaign differently.
You miss also the point of a primary. It's not to simulate the general election. It's not even to chose the candidate most likely to win the most electoral votes. The point of the primary is for the people to chose the candidate. That's why Puerto Rico gets delegates and a primary. They don't vote for the president, but the Democratic Party has decided that people all around the country get to weigh in on who they would prefer to be the nominee. That's why primaries in strong "Red" states participate. They get a say in who they would like to be the nominee, even if their vote won't help the Dem in the general election.
The nomination process is designed to let party members (and in some states, crossovers) participate in picking a candidate. If I live in Mississippi and my state is going to vote for McCain in Nov., it's nonetheless the policy of the Dem. Party that I am to have a say in who the candidate will be. That's why delegates are apportioned.
Also there's a flaw in your analysis. There is no popular vote. Some states have caucuses. Them's the rules. If you are going to tally a popular vote, the caucus results should not be just added to the poplular tally. They should first be weighted by the overall state population (or registered Dems).
Look at Iowa. Omama and Romney got similar percentages of votes (37% and 34%). But Romney got 40,000 votes because the Republicans have a primary. Obama got 900 votes because the Dems have a caucus.
It's called game theory. People adapt their behavior to the rules of the game. In this case, the Democratic candidates adapt their campaign behavior ot the rules of the nomination game. Your hypothesizing above is purely academic.
HOLY COW - What a piece of mathematically garbage
I am not even going to go into the wrong delegate count if this was a winner take all system.
However - he says on the popular vote count that he estimates "optimistically" but not "wildly unrealistic" ... Please, it's pure fantasy:
1) Clinton wins Indiana and Pennsylvania each by 20%? Except for her "home state of Arkansas" and Oklahoma, in contested races she hasn't broken the 20% mark. And Indiana is a 50/50 state ... so even being optimistic, no one would make it more than 10%.
2) Loses North Carolina by 10% - I'll give you that one ... barely. Look at the two states that border NC - SC & VA - what did Obama win those two states by? Now, I am not saying that it will be repeated, but those two states should be taken into account when predicting.
3) West Virginia by 40% and Kentucky by 30% - I assume you are giving the benefit of a doubt because of the win in Indiana that the momentum would switch - because, again -- look at past performance to predict her performances in those states - Kentucky will follow Tennessee and Ohio trends.
4) Oregon and SD are Clinton victories?? Again, I guess based upon the flawed start of this data - you could end up with this result.
Honestly, this is Garbage In, Garbage Out scenarios. I cannot believe this article was even allowed to be published. And I am not saying this as a supporter of either candidate - I am stating this as a mathematician, statistician and realist.
What if ...
It's true that Hillary has a chance to convince party automatic delegates if she pulls off a remarkable run. If she were my candidate, I would hold out hope for such an improbable run - a media frenzy and a narrow victory at the convention muscled through by credentials challenges on the committee - she'll have a chance at having the majority on the committee, I would think ... and presumably she'd seat Florida and Michigan delegates to vote on their own eligibility. She could win.
But the problem is with the premise. She's not doing that well. She's not positioned to take off with a remarkable winning streak. In that list above, she's proected to win South Dakota and Montana by 60-40. She'll lose both states and by big margins. It's not just caucus-going Democrats who like Obama out here west of the Mississippi. It's everyone. Obama is speaking at the North Dakota state convention in the midst of the PA primary and people with no previous political interest are frantic for tickets.
More importantly, because they're bigger states, Hillary's lead in PA is shrinking, not growing, she trails very badly in NC, is tied in IN, and will get clobbered in Oregon. Nationally, all the surveys show Obama favored outside the margin of error. And, in the figure that should be most important to super delegates, he out-performs her in almost every state-by-state matchup with McCain. Supers will make their decisions based on their own state matchups, not the national chances. All politics is local.
Clinton's very anemic campaign team has borrowed money, is now not returning the calls and emails of creditors in Ohio, and shows no signs of new momentum. This thing has been over for some time.
Mmm Kool Aid
It's also within the "realm of possibility" that the tooth fairy, peter pan, and santa claus will invite you to a Kool Aid brunch with Hillary.
Don't hold your breath Baroney....you might suffocate.
vote
As a long time clinton supporter, and lifelong democrat, who has voted every election cycle since i was 18, I can say for the first time in my life, if Hillary is not the nominee, I will be voting for John McCain, and most Hillary suppoerters i have spoken to have said they would, to. They have also said they would never tell a pollster this if asked. Obamas, words may very well inspire many people, but his words to me are just the opposite of that, it is very un inspiring to hear them with no solution of how we are going to acheive all this hope, it is the most Rhetoric i have ever heard from a candidate on either side, in any election cycle of my life, it utterly disturbs me!
Hillary Clinton-Barry Obama
Hillary's better performance in primaries shows that she is the stronger candidate b/c more people support her.
Caucuses are discriminating b/c not everyone can spend two hours to cast a vote from 7-9 p.m., as evidenced by the significantly lower voter turnout in caucuses. That's why the general election is a primary and not a caucus.
Primary voting
Why should HRC stop now? Texas is still voting but Michigan and Florida voters which make up 8-9 % of the Nations population and delegates can't vote because of Party Rules? Nonsense. Senator Obama's campaign proved it can win Caucasas. The young super energetic activists litterely took them over. Older voters were out talked and wore down in many States the Dems won't carry in November anyway. I prefer the winner take all approach the Republicans use. At least it looks like an election.
The DNC set the primaries this early so it has the responsibility for the time between the start and the convention.
I cannot understand the rush to kill off Clinton. It seems to me that both Clinton and Obamma would be better off campaigning to the end.
When the story of the 2008 election comes out I predict Obama will be seen as by far the most underhanded player.
On another matter:
I heard a Democrat operative say that the Democratic Convention is no longer used to establish who the delegate is. If this is true, why should the taxpayer pay any of the tab.
Mar 28, 2008 17:49:04 PM [permalink] [report comment]