Pennsylvania Results Mean Clinton Could Win the Popular Vote and Obama the Pledged Delegate Count
Finally, six weeks after the last primary, Pennsylvania has voted. Polls taken just before the race showed Hillary Clinton ahead of Barack Obama by 49.5 percent to 43.4 percent. The actual vote was 55 percent to 45 percent with Clinton winning (official county results here).
Some interesting patterns here. As I noted in a previous blog post, Obama carries blacks, academics, and state capitals—and not much else. He carried seven of Pennsylvania's 67 counties: Philadelphia County (44 percent black in 2000, by 65 percent to 35 percent), Delaware County (suburban Philadelphia, 15 percent black in 2000 and probably higher today, by 55 percent to 45 percent), Chester County (historically Republican, affluent suburban and exurban, by 55 percent to 45 percent), Lancaster County (heavily Republican, Pennsylvania Dutch country and exurban, by 64 percent to 36 percent), Dauphin County (state capital, 18 percent black in 2000, second-highest percentage in state, by 58 percent to 42 percent), Union County (Bucknell University, by 52 percent to 48 percent), and Centre County (Penn State University, by 60 percent to 40 percent).
And, as I noted in the same column, Clinton carries Jacksonians—the descendants of those Scots-Irish, Scots Lowlanders, and northern Englishmen who settled the Appalachian chain starting in Pennsylvania in the 18th century and heading southwest, ultimately to Texas, in the 19th. Clinton won 70 percent or more of the vote in 15 counties in the mountains, including the old anthracite country in the east and the bituminous coal country in the west. She won 74 percent in Lackawanna County (Scranton), the home base of Sen. Bob Casey, who endorsed Obama, and she won 79 percent in Fayette County (Monongahela Valley south of Pittsburgh). The latter is on the border of West Virginia, and the results here, as well as in earlier primaries in Ohio, Maryland, and Virginia counties adjacent to West Virginia, suggest that Clinton will win more than 70 percent of the vote in the primary there May 13. Sean Oxendine's excellent map makes this point graphically.
Here's another graphic from blogger Soren Dayton showing the black percentage by census tract in Philadelphia and the voting results by ward there. There's obviously a huge correlation between race and voting, with heavily white wards casting big margins against Obama. Note also that the most heavily Hispanic wards voted heavily for Clinton: ward 7 (70 percent to 30 percent) and ward 19 (65 percent to 35 percent). Hispanic voters may have contributed to Clinton's 60 percent in Lehigh County (Allentown) and 58 percent in Berks County (Reading); those counties were 10 percent Hispanic in 2000, the highest percentages in the state. As I noted in a previous blog post, Latinos, like Jacksonians, have proved a heavily pro-Clinton (anti-Obama?) constituency.
Is Pennsylvania a game-changer, as some Clinton backers proclaim? On the one hand, you could argue that it is just a duplication of the result in Ohio. In my March 28 post projecting the results in a way optimistic to Clinton, I projected a 60 percent to 40 percent margin for her in Pennsylvania and only a 55 percent to 45 percent margin for Obama in North Carolina. Now we know that Clinton's margin in Pennsylvania was only 55 percent to 45 percent, while recent polls show Obama with 59 percent of the two-candidate vote in North Carolina. Moreover, polling in the other May 6 state, Indiana, shows Clinton with nothing like the 60 percent to 40 percent lead I projected there (though the firms showing Obama ahead are unknown to me, so I am not convinced of their results).
My March 28 projections showed Clinton ending up, after the June 3 contests, with fewer pledged delegates (elected in primaries and caucuses) than Obama but more popular votes—whether or not you include the Florida and Michigan primary results (which the Democratic National Committee has ruled don't count because they were too early) and whether or not you include the imputed totals for the Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine caucuses (where the state Democratic parties provided no count of those who participated). In Pennsylvania, Clinton fell short of the trajectory that would take her there.
Even so, Clinton now leads in the popular vote, if you include the Florida and Michigan results, by 121,943 votes. And even if you include the imputed totals for the Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine caucuses, she's ahead by 11,721 votes. It seems to me that this provides the Clinton campaign with an important talking point, though one they're probably reluctant to use over the next two weeks. Reluctant, because the likely Obama victory in North Carolina could erase this popular-vote lead, and) an offsetting Clinton margin in Indiana seems unlikely (or at least risky to project from current polling). But looking ahead from May 6, Clinton is likely to regain that popular-vote lead (including Florida and Michigan) and quite possibly could gain a popular-vote lead counting just Florida and not the more problematic (because Obama was not on the ballot there) Michigan. She'll get big margins in West Virginia on May 13 and Kentucky on May 20, and it's not clear Obama will get a big margin in Oregon on May 20; Obama won the nonbinding February 19 primary in Washington only narrowly. If Clinton wins big in Puerto Rico on June 1, as the one poll I've seen there suggests, that will far outshadow in popular votes any Obama margins in South Dakota and Montana on June 3.
The Obama campaign has had much success selling the press and some superdelegates on the notion that the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates has some moral entitlement to superdelegates' votes. The idea is that the unelected superdelegates should not overturn the verdict of the elected pledged delegates. But I think there are serious arguments against as well as for this proposition. The superdelegates themselves were elected, and to positions that everyone knew carried an entitlement to be a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. A minority of them are elected public officials; most are state party chairmen and members of the Democratic National Committee. You can argue that the party officials were chosen by only a relatively few party insiders, but that's arguably true of pledged delegates selected in caucuses as well. In both cases, everyone knew or could have known the rules, and those who chose to participate had influence over the outcome, while those who didn't, didn't.
As it happens, something like three quarters of Obama's current advantage in pledged delegates comes from delegates elected in caucuses. The Clinton people might argue that these aren't as legitimate as delegates selected in primaries because they were chosen by so few people (perhaps 1.5 million as against 30-some million in primaries). But the Obama people have a perfectly good reply when they say that the Clinton people knew the rules and that if they didn't play competently, the side that did shouldn't be penalized. The problem is, the same argument could be deployed in favor of superdelegates' supporting Clinton. The Obama people could have lobbied these superdelegates better or, back when they were selected, acted to choose different superdelegates more amenable to Obama.
It seems to me that Clinton's current popular-vote lead (with Florida and Michigan) and her likely post-June 3 popular-vote lead (with Florida and Michigan) and possible post-June 3 popular-vote lead (with Florida but not Michigan) give her a talking point with superdelegates. The talking point is that she is the choice of the people. The Obama side can respond, plausibly, by saying that caucus wins produce only small popular-vote margins (or imputed popular-vote margins, as in Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine) and that if those states had primaries, they would have produced bigger Obama margins. To which the Clinton people can reply that Obama has consistently done better in caucuses than in primaries (as in Texas, where he lost the primary and won the caucus) and that his percentages in caucus states if they had held primaries would have been smaller and that in some such cases he would have lost caucus states if they had held primaries. The Obama side can also say that Florida and Michigan shouldn't be counted, because they were held too early and because Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. But real people did vote there, and in Michigan prominent Obama supporters urged people to vote for "uncommitted," which got a respectable 40 percent of the vote, to Clinton's 55 percent. And then you can get into arguments about the imputed vote in the four caucus states.
The important thing here is that all, or almost all, these arguments, on both sides, are plausible. Reasonable people can advance and believe them. And supporters of the two candidates will, reasonably, advance the reasonable arguments that serve their cause. There is no entirely value-neutral basis, no one moral yardstick, to determine which set of arguments is the more legitimate. Reasonable people will disagree, as they call on the superdelegates to make their decisions.
My sense is that the superdelegates don't want to make their own decisions; they want to ratify someone else's decision. This was underscored when I watched North Carolina Rep. Brad Miller being interviewed on the Fox News election program last night. Miller has a district with a large black percentage and with white-majority rural counties. His black constituents are probably numerous enough to carry the district for Obama; his white constituents will probably vote heavily for Clinton. And he, to paraphrase an old joke, is always with his constituents. He wants to ratify, not decide. The problem is that the results are sending us to a situation in which superdelegates have to decide which decisions they will ratify.
The Pennsylvania primary seems to be sending us to a situation in which Obama will clearly have the most pledged delegates and Clinton will be able to claim that she has the most popular votes. Play by the rules! Count every vote! We will hear the same cries we heard in the struggle for Florida's electoral votes in November and December 2000. The news media are trying to keep careful count of the superdelegates' preferences. Which leads me to ask this question: How would you like to be the superdelegate who casts, or is presented by the media as casting, the decisive vote? The vote that will determine whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. The vote that will determine whether you are overriding the delegates elected by the people or whether you are overriding the people who have cast the votes. The vote that will determine whether the party rejects the first black with a serious chance to be elected president or the party rejects the first woman with a serious chance to be elected president.
Even to be part of a large group of superdelegates that is seen to have cast the decisive votes is to be in a position of political peril and the focus of furious discord. To be the single superdelegate seen as casting the decisive vote is to be in the position of the senator who cast the single decisive vote against the conviction and removal from office of President Andrew Johnson. He was not heard from again until John Kennedy wrote (or had ghostwritten for him) Profiles in Courage 87 years later. Which superdelegate wants to volunteer for that position or find himself or herself in it after a game of political musical chairs?
Tags: presidential election 2008 | primaries | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | superdelegates | Pennsylvania
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (325)
Reader Comments
Clinton to Win Nomination
All states and delegates should be counted with a warning to FL and MI that a future misstep WILL result in wiping out the votes. The people who cast votes don't deserve to be disenfranchized because of political undoings.
Stupid Analysis
How can you count Michigan where no one had their names except Hillary?
Popular Votes a distraction?
Obama leads popular vote even with FL votes, and popular vote counting excludes four caucus states, so cannot be used as a 50 state measure. HRC needs over 65% of remaining votes just to catch Obama in delegates, so:
The only way for Hillary to win is for an overwhelming number of superdelegates to overturn the delegate count and the rules, which would really be disenfranchisement. We'll have to wait longer, but there is only one realistic outcome.
The "new" Clinton Strategy
Look for Hillary to tell the uncommitted superdelegates that:
1) Barack cannot win alone due to racism (PA primary as proof).
2) Nominate me and I'll take him as V.P.
3) The two of us together CANNOT LOSE to John McCain.
She will do this as a way to woo the supers, and because she quietly knows that she too has a significant risk of losing to McCain if she wrests away the nomination any other way and Barack's voters stay home.
Sne "might" even be right about the racism. It's a sad thought for us to face about our country, but Pennsylvania pretty much shouted it at us. Nonetheless, it IS NOT a reason for people to lose to corporations (again) with John McCain.
Really Stupid and Idiotic Analysis
Which idiot asked you to write this highly idiotic analysis.
Fair Play---Remember Florida, Stupid...
Ok, the thing that bothers me is the lack of give when it comes to Obama supporters. Somehow, no matter how they read this article, they still make a case for pledged delegates, of which their man, Obama, will not have enough to win with when the primaries are over. Over means over. When primaries end, there is then another track to get on and it is the one they fear most---superdelegates. They somehow feel that these superdelegates should overlook two key states. Yes, overlook the delegates, but the sheer vote numbers must be counted. Representation of delegates from those two states and denial of such is quite different than not including the voters. So, if Hillary wins all the big states, wins the popular vote --without the devilish Michigan, then how can you say that Obama wins? In my mind, it is a jump ball folks and it is really a logic scenario that must prevail. Supers will have to look at viability. They could not possibly see Obama as a viable candidate if he is not able to win the bit states, the rural voters, the women voters, the latino voters, the blue collar voters, the union voters, the white male voters, the elderly voters. These, my friends are Hillary's talking points.
Bad article
Michael, this is yoour worst writing. Can you disect the issues any more so that you can keep your job? Maybe if the wind is from the north hillary should be nominated? And if the wind is from the south, Barack should be nominated? Has anyone ever heard of rules? If you don't like them, change them BEFORE the primarys!
One thing you said is true: People vote by race, religion, tribe, gender, sexual orientation, economic status and prejudices. ALL the wrong reasons.
If 80% of the people don't like the direction of our country, here's a good starting point to change it.
Math is everywhere even in an election!
Yes I agree mathematically Hillary cannot win. Realistically she is wasting her time with all of this. She is basically showing how stubborn she can be by not showing support for the winning candidate. To think that the Super Delegates will just blatantly overturn the decision of the people is absurd. I feel that she is a great candidate and will make a great president but not this time. Obama has won enough points to continue on and that is that.
One think that is interesting is she cannot not even control the spending of her campaign how is she to control the spending of the US Fed Gov't etc? She has a ridiculous debt to pick up after this is all over. Obama has more money than he will even need to spend. Second I would like to add that I have not given my vote yet... because I am independent. If people like myself were able to vote you'd see a turn of events. No one has even heard of the Independent Primary so... I rest my case.
Dan Dav
I'm not sure its racism so much as being called gun-clinging and racist. Its hard to vote for someone when they essentially call you a racist dumb hick.
terrible
you are not very smart; pure and simple
Only Delegate Count
While all this is an interesting spin, the only number that has any value and can be counted is the number of delegates. HRC gained a net of 19 yesterday. Since Feb the numbers of supers have been running 7 to 1 in favor of Obama. That may change but even a 50-50 split the rest of the way on supers has Obama winning the nomination based on delegates.
The general election is about delegates NOT popular votes
The general election in November is not about popular votes but about delegates awarded by each state. The primaries started on the premise that the delegate count would be the decider. Why change the rules in the middle of the game? Why not play by a fair system? This shows dishonesty and lack of respect!
Operation Chaos
How effective is Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos”? Claiming credit today in having Republicans cross over and vote for Hillary. He said his hope is to have Hillary get the superdelegates to take the election from Obama at the convention to create RIOTS, across the country, CAR BURNING etc. How can an American aim to create blood shed and rioting in the street of America? Please please call him out on this. For someone to openly claim to be promoting stuffing the ballot to create civil unrest cannot be tolerated.
Thank you,
Virginia Zdanowicz
Hamilton Sq., N.J.
Operation Chaos
How effective is Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos”? Claiming credit today in having Republicans cross over and vote for Hillary. He said his hope is to have Hillary get the superdelegates to take the election from Obama at the convention to create RIOTS, across the country, CAR BURNING etc. How can an American aim to create blood shed and rioting in the street of America? Please please call him out on this. For someone to openly claim to be promoting stuffing the ballot to create civil unrest cannot be tolerated.
Thank you,
Virginia Zdanowicz
Hamilton Sq., N.J.
Problem?
"The problem is, the same argument could be deployed in favor of superdelegates' supporting Clinton. The Obama people could have lobbied these superdelegates better or, back when they were selected, acted to choose different superdelegates more amenable to Obama."
I don't understand why this is a problem. If anything, you've justified Obama's caucus argument with simple logic - Hillary did more to establish a strong superdelegate base early on and Obama put together a solid grassroots campaign to win the caucuses. I know that I'm repeating your point, but where I'm dissenting is that I don't see a problem with it at all.
As far as the popular vote is concerned, the issue IS tough, and there certainly are a lot of ways to look at it. As an undecided voter, I have a hard time stomaching the idea of using the results we first received in Florida and Michigan. Imagine yourself being in a sports game - basketball if you'd like - and all of the officials told you not to compete... but your opponent plays anyway and scores all of the points. How fair would it be for your rival to convince the officials to count the game, even though you were told it was invalid? Obama was only following the rules; if the DNC chose to penalize the states, either the state itself or the DNC is at fault... not the candidates. I understand the need to include voters in the primary process, but I also believe that both candidates deserve a fair competition, and unless the candidates both get to campaign in MI and FL with a revote to follow, the process becomes very unbalanced.
Just my opinion.
Just a bet: Obama will win NC by 20 points. If he does, and if the MI & FL votes aren't counted, Hillary won't be catching his popular vote lead.
In defense of Senator Clinton, she HAS won all of the big states, two (possibly three) of which are vital swing states (Ohio and Penn). I don't buy her whole argument about winning all of the big states because Obama will still win most of them in the general - Cali, NY, NJ & Mass are going to go democrat regardless of who is in. The polls have Obama way out in front of McCain in all of those states (save NJ, but I suspect the nominee of the Dems will start running a margin when the general gets closer) but I do wonder PA and Ohio will go to McCain if Obama gets in. RCP is saying that it would be close. Although Obama probably has more potential to win the Purple states, those big swing states can mean an election.
Obviously I lean towards Obama. The math is more blatently in favor of him (the superdelegate gap is closing, the pledged delegate gap will probably end up around 150 and I believe he'll still end up with the popular vote). However, if Hillary's moment becomes significant by cutting his win in NC to single digits (sound familiar) and winning IN by about the same margin as PA, I'd probably start re-evaluating everything.
If Obama rakes in another 80 - 90 superdelegates by mid-June, this thing will be over.
popular vote?
What planet are you living on? Click on the very RealClearPolitics link you provided, and here is what it says about the popular vote right now: Obama +500,353.
That's right, Obama leads Clinton by half a million votes.
If you include good estimates on states that haven't yet released the official tally (e.h. Iowa, Nevada), that goes up to Obama +610,575.
It is clear to everyone (except, apparently, the author) that the "votes" in Florida and Michigan will never be counted. Those states broke the rules, they knew they were breaking them, they knew their votes wouldn't be counted, the candidates all agreed that it wouldn't count, and no one (except Hillary) bothered to campaign in them. Obama didn't even have his name on the ballot. The "elections" were a farce, and the attempt by the Clinton camp to have these farcical results included just shows how desperate they are.
The fact is that Obama leads by all counts: he has won more states, he has won more delegates and he has won the popular vote. He has won, period.
HOPE
A NEW HOPE
We all have been living a nightmare. A vision D. Eisenhower warned of in his 1961 farewell address to the nation. In his address, Eisenhower warned of the corruption of our government, our society, and our culture by the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. It seems that, as a nation, we have not listened. Eisenhower’s dire vision has become our reality. And from this fearful dream, this nation is waking. Our eyes are opening to the truth collectively for the first time. WE THE PEOPLE are finding that we have been subjugated, placated into ignorance and fear, lied to by the very people we have entrusted to preserve and protect our rights, liberties, and our constitution. Many will turn away in fear of truth and close their eyes once again. To open our eyes to this reality, is to also understand that we are all responsible for it as well. complacency and dependence upon the machine keeps THE PEOPLE in line because it is convenient and safe. We have sold our souls. We have as a nation let this happen to ourselves.
My heart breaks for the people of this nation. Our government wages war upon our freedoms, liberties, and our constitution. I watch our republic’s destruction, not to the sound of guns or bombs, but to the sound of thunderous applause of those held captive by terrified patriotic blindness, guided by the propaganda of fear, as we give our rights and even the lives of our fellow man for the profit of the corrupt. A fear that is erasing our great history of freedom and repeating itself 70 years later with another dictatorship of war, under the guise of homeland security and the protection of the people.
BUT THERE IS STILL HOPE.
With love and openness, we can overcome ignorance and fear. It is our right as the people, and my duty as a United States MARINE written into our constitution by our founding fathers, entrusted to us, by the people, to ensure that our liberty, freedom, and the constitution never again become the subjugation of the corruption that we have wrought upon ourselves. We must take back our country, and give it to the people. So let us open our hearts, take responsibility, and make our HOPE become our reality. Lets begin REVOLUTION. His name
Dr. Ron Paul
Obama vs Clinton
What I do agree w/, people cast their vote based on the wrong reasons. If we viewed the situation in the simpliest terms -- Obama will be not only the Democratic choice, but the next President of the US.
Hillary Clinton (HC) voted for the war; everyone knows McCain's position on the war;
HC cannot control her spending or her campaign representatives; she isn't trust worthy even on issues that can be easily verifiable -- like Cheney said, she gets confused w/ Bosnia and going hunting (okay poor joke on my part and I just broke by rule)
Which goes to show you, people like her don't care about rules and agreements that were made up front. Very similar to our current administration -- oh folks will just forget and forgive.
Ladies, the reason many of us are single, is because leaders who make the decisions to go to war either have a husband or are men. Our daugthers, will too be single and their children will experince the absence of a father. The intangible costs of this war is far more reaching and costly than what you can imagine or have even thought about. Just because she is a woman is not reason enough to vote for her. Or perhaps, turn about is fair play and this is the time to get revenge for all women.
Pa CD7 70-30, 75-25, 80-20 for Obama
Pa CD7 70-30, 75-25, 80-20 for Obama
Yes those were the numbers we were getting here in Pa CD7 (delaware county) from calls during the last 3 weeks after voter registration drives which added many many more voters to the roles. There was only one town that had a 50-50 percentage. That was drexel Hill where Hillary did visit.
The Fast Edddy Rendell FIX was in. Thats why it took them so long to add votes to the machines and the results were held off for a 1/2 hour or more so he could get his Democratic machine underlings to complete his FIX for Hillary.
Note: the dems and republicans work together here in Pa to keep themselves in power. Pa has some of the most crooked politicians. They do not want an honest man like Obama changing what they have created over the last 200 yrs.
PS: I can only hope there are enough honest small states wanting obama to stop the big states from keeping control.
Popular vote math
The problem with the Real Clear Politics methodology is that it gives Clinton all her 388,000 votes from Michigan without giving anything to Obama. Michigan could reasonably be included only in terms of Clinton's 90,000 vote net margin over "Uncommitted", the Obama surrogate. This leaves Obama still ahead by about 200,000 votes. I don't see how Clinton can overcome this gap in the remaining states. She needed to net at least another 100,000 votes in PA, but she didn't.
Re: Problem? comment by Corey of AL
Corey of AL: "all of the officials told you not to compete... but your opponent plays anyway and scores all of the points....unless the candidates both get to campaign in MI and FL with a revote to follow, the process becomes very unbalanced."
What? The only campaigning done in Florida came from Obama's TV commercials, which should not have been aired. Clinton did not campaign. She did follow the actual rules.
I don't know of either campaigning in Michigan. Both followed the rules there.
As for Obama's name not being on the ballot in Michigan—he took it off. That was an error on his part. He didn't take if off the Florida ballot, so he'd obviously figured it out by that time. Had he taken it off in both states, there might be an argument that would hold water.
If you're going to say his campaign handled the caucuses well, then you ought to be able to continue the critique by noting that it handled Michigan and Florida poorly. You don't learn much by denial or omission, i.e., encouraging ignorance.
Mrs. Clinton is such a poor role model for the young generation. She lies and will do anything to win. She demonstrates poor poor ethics. To use the American flag on 9/11 for her own political gain is just unbelievable. She is destroying the Democratic party and the hopes and dreams of so many Americans
Popular Vote is not Determinative of Anything
To those who would advocate the position that the winner of the nationwide popular vote should get the nomination and the backing of the superdelegates, that is not the way 'rep by pop' works in any election. Gore had the edge in the popular vote in 2000 but did not become President. Just as the electoral college determines who wins the presidential election, the delegate allocation rules determine the winner of the nomination. Both candidates play under those rules, which are known in advance. A candidate should legitimately win the nomination by focusing on carrying delegate-rich congressional districts knowing that he or she can afford losing less important districts and possibly even the popular vote in the state. Both candidates are acutely aware of the delegate allocation formulae. Superdelegates must abide by the outcome with respect to pledged delegates determined by the primary election if the nomination exercise is to have any legitimacy as a democratic process.
Comment by Mary
Actually since Florida was before Michigan I can't see how Obama could have 'figured it out' to keep his name on the ballot in the first primary but not in the second.
There was limited campaigning by both candidates in florida - Obama had some national TV ads that did also air in Florida (which he got approval for) and Hillary held some fundraisers in the state and also held a 'victory' rally (which she also got approval for). They both had a limited presence in the state.
However neither actually amounts to serious campaigning, and since neither candidate campaigned and also the voters of both states were told that their votes wouldn't matter both counts are deeply flawed. For all the people who did turn up it should be noted that a lot of people simply didn't (Florida and Michigan are two of only six states where the Democratic primary turnout was below the Republican turnout - the trend everywhere else had a greater democrat turnout).
People stayed at home in both Michigan and Florida on primary day - and to quote Mr Barone I would like to make a 'reasonable' argument that this would affect Obama more.
The general basis is that younger people tend to be more apathetic about voting than older people - particularly senior citizens who generally revere the right to vote a lot more, and also on primary day may have nothing else important to do so they may as well go out and vote anyway. Young professionals who trend towards Obama are less likely to bother to vote when they know it doesn't matter. They are generally more apathetic about politics at the best of times and so are more liekly to stay at home.
If you contrast Florida and Pennsylvania then there may be some credence to this line of thought (though I am loathe to claim any conclusive proof). In Pennsylvania the 60+ vote was 32% of the turnout, in Florida it was 39%, which the 18-29 vote was 12% and 9% respectively. Although Florida is an 'older' state the proportion isn't that large, with the 2006 census with over 65s making up 15.2% of Penn and 16.8% of Florida residents.
I'm sure one can spin statistics in every way possible though - that was just a rough argument. The ending problem though is that the Florida and Michigan votes are flawed. The rules were that the votes didn't count, everyone agreed that the votes didn't count and at the end of the process the votes won't count (in fact none of the popular vote counts as the race was always about delegates).
As a side note I find it interesting how Michael Barone has changed his predictions to mirror the 'perfectly reasonable' arguments that he now refers to. His original (admittedly optimistic) predictions had Clinton winning in Pennsylvania by 370,200. On the day she won by 215,000, and so now Florida and Michigan have been inserted. However the fundamental argument about this split still relies on Hillary having to optimistic set of results that Michael outlined in his original post - given that Pennsylvania failed to live up to the optimism by quite a large margin, I will be surprised if there isn't a clear winner.
Andy
UK
Mr Smooth
Why does Obama do so bad in debates? Everytime I watch and listen to him TRY and speak on global situations, he stammers. Is this who you want representing your country?? Obama supporters need to get their heads out of the clouds. All he does is speak of CHANGE but he has no real plans. Anyone can walk on stage and preach change. This guy claims he is black?? Im white and more black than he will ever be. I grew up in some of the worst neighborhoods. All you blacks out there think hes going to do something for you....think again
This is all ridiculous. Hillary is stronger against McCain
Hillary Clinton is more likely than Barack Obama to beat John McCain in the fall election. So I don't understand the logic behind the assertions by Obama and his supporters that Hillary Clinton can't--or worse, shouldn't--win the nomination. The Democratic party has established a system which utilizes super-delegates. Regardless of its popularity, the system lets party bigwigs attempt to override the will of the people and install the strongest candidate as the nominee.
The question that boggles the mind is why people are still wondering who is the stronger candidate. Try as you may (and as Obama does), you can't argue that Hillary has received more of the popular vote. Obama doesn't think when you tally the popular vote, it should include the votes cast in Florida and Michigan. But votes were cast in those states and they are part of the popular vote. There is simply no arguing that Hillary has received more votes. But you know what? I'll bend on this one: I'll let Obama and his supporters have a pass. Undemocratic as it may be, let's just pretend for a second that it's not necessary to count "all the votes." (Hell, that's how our current president got his job eight years ago!)
Now, Obama has more delegates than Hillary but neither can reach the amount of delegates necessary to secure the nomination. So delegate count is no longer the issue. Hillary has more super-delegates and the remainder are still in play. Super-delegates will decide the nomination. Both candidates are still capable of wooing super-delegates. So how, exactly, is it appropriate for one candidate to say the other should drop out?
As stated above, the very purpose of super-delegates is to ensure the strongest candidate becomes the nominee. So the question is: How should super-delegates decide who to support? Clearly, they need to support the candidate who stands a better chance of winning in November. Regardless of arguments to the contrary, it is the only thing that matters--especially at this late stage of the game. (Don't give me a bunch of talk about the polls. Nationwide polls don't matter because they estimate the popular vote. Ask Al Gore if the popular vote is how presidential elections are decided.)
Here are the facts: Hillary wins more of the battleground states needed to carry a Democrat into the White House. As this primary season has proven, she outperforms Obama inCalifornia, New York, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Florida . Again: Hillary is more likely than Obama to beat John McCain in the fall.
So why are there still questions? The super-delegates need to start lining up behind the stronger candidate. The stronger candidate is Hillary Clinton. This should be over.
Not That Controversial
There are many valid points in this for Clinton supporters & for Obama supporters. Personally, I believe a Superdelegate knew their obligation was to the PARTY when they took their post. Part of that is the electability of the PARTY's candidate, not how some caucus attendee voted at 2 in the afternoon after her manicure. I beleive Obama loses to McCain, Clinton makes a better run at it. I am a lifelong Dem, with no embarassment - I have voted in every primary & election since I was legal. I truly believe in this process & that no one should be counted out when they have millions & millions of supporters behind them (both D candidates do). I am a bit afraid of Obama's economics, I'm a 35yr-old who will be 1 of those bearing the brunt of the baby boomer's retirement & his plans to address this seem very expensive. I am not voting on 1 issue, though, I'm looking across the board. We need to win this - the Bush ability to hold office for 8 yrs has seriously injured our constitutional & privacy rights, we HAVE to be stronger this time around & nominate the person who can WIN!
It's Time
IT'S TIME AMERICA:
It’s time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.
Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have defeated her. And proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources. In all honesty. I felt some of that too.
But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.
Hillary Clinton say’s that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.
Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton’s have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.
If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.
Sincerely
Jacksmith... Working Class :-)
Write in the candidate of your choice
If Obama and McCain don't appeal to you in November, write in the candidate of your choice.
Annoyed
There was a concerted effort by Obama supporters to go out and vote in Michigan, even though it was not officially supported by the Obama campaign. Uncommitted, which is what Obama supporters pulled the lever for in Michigan, received 238,168 votes. If the Clinton campaign is going to start including votes cast in Michigan, let's count ALL the votes. If you voted uncommitted, it was because you did not support Clinton for president, plain and simple. With the uncommitted vote tallied in Obama's favor, he is ahead by 115,000 votes (not including caucus states) and he is ahead by 226,000 votes when including best estimates of the votes cast in the caucus states.
Even if you were liberal with the numbers and gave John Edwards 48% of the uncommitted votes cast and figured every single one of those people would pick Clinton as their second choice, Obama would still be ahead in the vote total. Clinton is completely grasping at straws and so are her supporters. Obama will win NC, OR, SD, & MT. Hillary will win PR, WV, and KY. IN will be the only nail biter. If Obama wins or loses by only a couple points, he will end up as the vote winning champion. Hillary has to win by 10% in Indiana and only lose in NC & OR by the slimmest of margins in order to make up the vote differences.
Silly article
Of Mr. Barone's article, I will say as the Irish said of Hil-liar-y, this really is “a wee bit silly”.
On 25/8/07 HRC said: "It's clear, this election [Michigan] is not going to count for anything."
DNC's rules panel stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following. The DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all delegates three months later.
Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them—most notably Harold Ickes—voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)
Obama therefore is ahead in both the popular and the delegate vote.
IGNORANT ARTICLE
SINCE OBAMA'S NAME WAS NOT EVEN ON THE BALLOT, IT IS MORE THAN A LITTLE RIDICULOUS to say "Clinton won" in Michagan. She did not win, because she had no opponent. It's like saying the 1962 Mets beat the Yankees cuz the Yankees didn't show up to play. DUMBER THAN DUMB, it's ABSURD.
primary = caucus
i should say it is idiotic that both primary and caucus pop votes are added together with no scaling whatsoever. again, dem only primaries and open primaries cannot have their pop vote added together. obama will need only 110 more superdelegates out of 311 remaining to reach the target when the primaries are over.
my guess? we'll see a lot more money and energy wasted on the dem nomination while mccain thanks heaven for the luck he has had.
reasonable people
"The important thing here is that all, or almost all, these arguments, on both sides, are plausible. Reasonable people can advance and believe them."
This is the key point here.
Worst. Article. Ever.
Let's summarize the flawed logic here:
"If we give Clinton 320,000 votes from Michigan, and we give Obama ZERO votes from Michigan (a complete and total absurdity), then she's up by about 11,000 for the moment, with that likely to disappear in less than two weeks!"
Why oh why is this man permitted to write political analysis? And why can't he admit when he's glaringly, embarrassingly proven wrong?
She fell more than 150,000 votes short of what Barone projected for PA, where he said she'd net 370,000 votes. He said she'd win Indiana by 20% and she's neck-and-neck, if not behind.
It's ridiculous!
legitimacy
May I also point out that if delegate assignment was winner-take-all in each state like it is in the general election, Clinton would have had this wrapped by now?
It the Electoral College to be used in November is not illegitimate, then a system which would have handed it to Hillary is not illegimate. So there are legitimate arguments both ways here.
WHAT?
Why do Clinton supporters suggest we suddenly change the rules?
The only reason is because she is losing.
She is desperate, and her tactics show. Her supporters, however, should know better. They are Democrats.
Let's move on, rally behind our nominee, unify the party, and take on John McCain and the Republican machine.
Remember what is at stake...
Dear bloggers
Making a case for only your desired outcome is engaging in half-measured reasoning. I think Mr. Barone presents many intriguing ideas - ideas worth reasoing with him about, not clicking away at your keyboard in a huff.
If you trust in your argument, and/or are willing to be dissauded from factual errors or conclusions, then you will gladly help make your opponents argument for him or her because you will not fear it or the process.
So much blogging seems to be fearful, fretful people defensively tearing others apart- and quite ineffectually at that. It takes a tremendous amount of sorting to find the argument through the anger.
Mr. Barone is pointing out a very real, and soon to become headline news issue on all of our horizons while not leaving out facts here and there to fortify his positions. If you're feeling this threatened now because your candidate lost a primary in Pennsylvania, the concerns Mr. Barone has raised will make you positively lose your stomach contents come the convention. We need to be ready to dialogue and find solutions by that time, not be more practiced at not listening and not thinking because it makes us uncomfortable or upset.
I know you've heard the adage fellow bloggers - don't believe everything you think.
So, in reading Mr. Barone's article, (which I was delighted to find because I just happened to read someone referring to his previously written Jacksonian article last night), there are even more flaws with this election than I had previously thought. These concerns are not being addressed by the MSM in any depth, and I appreciate it when a journalist is willing to take it on, and an editor willing to back him or her. I remember Florida 2000 and really don't intend to let that happen again without a real fight. The right and privilege of voting is deep in my bones and I don't care whether it is a dem or a rep that tries to cheat another American out of their vote. It will not be done this time around. Mr. Barone is very right about that. The more informed I am about all the many issues concerning the election problems, the sooner I can become empowered to be a part of the solution.
Thanks to you Mr. Barone, and thanks for giving us succinct examples of critical thinking at a time when so few want to think at all.
Vic from Oregon
My own idiocy
Ugh I knew I had arsed up in my earlier comment. Michigan was before Florida so I humbly apologise for my toolish first paragraph in my earlier post. Utter brain freeze there.
I should learn to go to bed, rather than post things at silly times in the morning.
Andy
UK
Blatant bigotry.
"They could not possibly see Obama as a viable candidate if he is not able to win the bit states, the rural voters, the women voters, the Latino voters, the blue collar voters, the union voters, the white male voters, the elderly voters. These, my friends are Hillary's talking points." Looks writen by McCain, my friends.
Behind all those categories is the ugly beast of prejudice, racism and ignorance, including the stupidity of the author of this irrelevant column.
Hillary knows that many of their followers are people that won't vote for Obama because of the color of his skin.
Sad but this is intolerance and bigotry at its worst.
Obama caught again
OBAMA Spends 12 million plus in negative ads attacking Clinton and still LOSES BIG IN PA! by double digits!!
Obama caught again playing the politics he attacks other for! This guy is a looser!
http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/rnc-documents-obamas-29minute-conversion_576656_1.html
As a Senator Clinton supporter we will NEVER support Obama because of his lies, corrupt financial friends, racist wife, American and white hater and spiritual advisor Wright that he defends and well-known terrorist connections that also write for the bulletin at TCC Where the Obamas believe is a great atmosphere to raise two young children, he openly supports the crazy rantings of the American hate & white man hate. He is not worthy to lead our great country
Surely proved if Obama would become Democratic nominee he will certainly lose the general election: Obama's camp philosophy of his cadre amount to one big put-down of America. President represents something very personal to Americans who proved they are not in the habit of electing candidates who hold their country in contempt. Not only have the comments of Obama's wife, Michelle who referred to America as "downright mean" and stated that she was not proud of her country until her husband started winning primaries and his minister, Jeremiah Wright (whose hateful, anti-white, anti-American diatribes are available for sale in Obama's church, or for free on YouTube) revealed the tired, leftist scorn for America that Obama represents and condones. Obamas own remarks have exposed this ugly, unelectable side. Obama attempted to explain his persistent deficit in Pennsylvania primary polls by describing small-town Americans as "bitter" people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." This is hard stuff, and patronizing, besides. Add to this Obama's characterizations of the "typical white person" describing his grandmother, whom he tossed under the campaign bus to create a false equivalence with Wright's racism and one finds something far more damaging than a simple series of gaffes its a window into how the Obama sees his countrymen. Obama's associations in addition to Anti- American Wright, speak to this unappealing point of view. William Ayers, a domestic terrorist enjoys a friendly relationship with the Obamas. Voters are learning ( with no help from media like CNN & MSNBC, Ayers bombed the Pentagon on May 19, 1972, and fondly recalls, "The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them." Ayers and his accomplices also bombed the U.S. Capitol, the State Department, as well as banks, police stations and courthouses. Obama has defended Wright insisting that he merely represents the convention of "Black Liberation Theology," as though this were just some quaint offshoot of traditional Christianity. One need not pore over the tenets of Black Liberation Theology or its founder, James Hal Cone -- although a Google search of either would provide a world of clarity to the undecided voter to recognize that a would-be President who cannot utterly disassociate himself from such racist, anti-American rubbish lacks sufficient character and affinity for his country's ideals to be its leader. Americans understand that their president's instinct ought to be to defend the nation against unfair invective, not embrace those who purvey it or, in the case of Ayers, seek to blow it up altogether.
Do you get paid by Clinton?
What about your crap column that predicted a 380K net vote advantage for Clinton in PA? You were obviously wrong about that and being wrong about that your whole argument for Clinton winning the popular vote went caput...so you adopt the Clinton specious argument. You're lame. You're not an analyst...you're a cheerleader. Drink the Kool Aid.
Fuzzy Math
If you want to count Michigan, you should count Undeclared votes there for Obama and not as non-votes - in which case Obama would still have the popular vote lead by over 100,000 votes. Any attempt to give Hillary 300,000 votes from Michigan without some level of balance is just biased reporting.
Don't Spin racism
If you don't vote for Obama, now you're a racist? That's absurd. What about obama's relationship with his racist pastor? That certainly played into it. Why isn't anyone talking about that?
Obama was supposed to be a "post-racial" candidate. Wright compromised that image. Explaining Pennsylvania's loss as due to racism completely undermines his message of unity and hope. Keep talking that way and Obama loses the election for sure.
ALL OF YOU
all of you who are saying the popular vote has NO say in this election, are you the exact same people that complained about how al gore got robbed in the general election in 2000 cuz he won the popular vote but not the electorate? hmmmmm, interesting. i think it's just the kool aid talking.
One of the Dumbest Articles I Have Ever Read
If I were US News & World report, I would never publish anoter article from Michael Barone again. The idea that one would include the Florida and Michigan votes, when both candidates agreed before the primaries that those votes would not count, is byepnd belief. Hillary Clinton is now reversing her position as part of her strategy to do "whatever it takes" to win the nomination. That a serious journalist would buy into this aergument is, frankly, beyond belief. Barone should be embarrased to write such drivel.
spinning racism
Why is it that if whites don't vote for Obama it's racism, whereas there's no mention that only a very small percentage of blacks vote for Clinton --- by the same measure isn't that racism as well? Definitely a double standard.
Clinton
Obama supporters are an un-democratic bunch. They fear Florida and Mi, and of course will expect support from both states come November. The crying shame is that neither state will vote for Obama, and with Ohio and Penns McCain will win the election. There is on way to victory and that is to nomiate HRC. Mike has a great analysis, instead of hatn you people should thank him....
Any distorted metric
So If hillary can find any distorted measurement by which she is ahead, even if it includes counting illegitimate results which she and everyone else agreed would not count, then she can use that to claim a win. However, she will not commit to the popular vote being the right metric to decide the race, because more than likely she will lose it. So her argument is something like this: if I am ahead in the popular vote at the end, then that is the metric that should decide the race. But if I am not ahead then we should not use the popular vote, but some other metric that I can twist to try to make it like I am ahead, and that should be the deciding metric. And that seems like a valid argument to you?
Gage in IL
The only racism in this race that people are afraid to mention is that of the black population. Look at the percentage that BO gets, that is racism dude. BO has carried white men in almost every state until we reached Ohio. Yes people are concerned now about BO's racist background (Wright, etc.). His idiotic comments about rural people have not helped either. Don't expect my vote if you spit on my religion or some hunters right to "cling" to their guns. No, open your eyes to the real racism and point a finger right back at yourself.........
Assumptions
Why do liberals automatically assume that a white person who does not vote for Obama is racist? I see that Obama got 92% percent of the black vote in Pennsylvania. Is it because 92% of the black population know his message? Doubtful. Is it because he has proposed special accommodation for blacks? No, he has not.
Look at the numbers closely and decide who is voting for whom based on race.
If I waited until I found a Japanese, Native American, English, Irish, German to vote for, I would never be able to vote.
I would vote for any conservative - Richard Steele, Bobby Jindal, Margaret Thatcher, whoever...
The liberals game of identity politics is coming back to haunt them. I know it's late in the game to suggest this, you liberals out there should vote for the person, not their identity.
Obama scared to debate
Obama being scared to debate Hillary should be pressed in commercials. She should phrase it as -- Obama finally got challenged in a debate, and he lost. Now, he refuses to debate again. We can't have a president afraid to confront the issues. We need a government with full access to the American people.
Tell Barack Obama that he must debate on the issues specific to voters in North Carolina. Ask Barack Obama what is he is afraid of?
Appalachian Jacksonian Democrats and the 2000 and 2008 elections
I enjoy your election coverage and insightful articles and believe you are uniquely qualified to explain the 2000 polling results and their implication for a possible
Obama candidacy. The conventional explanation for Gore's loss of Tennessee, Arkansas and West Virginia was his stance on guns and a moralistic anti-Clinton sentiment. The media never even discussed the possibility of anti-Semitism and the Lieberman candidacy. A Google search turned up only one scholarly article in Presidential Quarterly (April 2005).. To identify a 'bigot' vote choose counties and
precincts whose demographics have changed little since 1964. Measure the
dropoff in Democratic totals from 1964-1968 (the Wallace vote) and compare it to a similar dropoff from 1996-2000. You would know which counties and precincts to select. Such an analysis would be helpful in understanding the 2000 election and predicting 2008 results. The fact that Obama's pre-primary polling and exit polls consistently outperform his actual numbers clearly indicate the need for an analysis of this sort. Your explanation of the mindset of these Jacksonian Democrats was illuminating and I would hope would be sufficient to explain the 200o Appalachian results but let's look at the numbers and see what they tell us.
Barack...just another politician with a new act...!
I hope they show his association with Rev. Wright, his friend Rezko, and his history with Ayers over and over and over again.
This is a legitimate issue! No one forced Barack Obama to associate with these people. In each case, he benefited from his association. Now...he wants to run and hide like a scared little school girl because the spotlight is on him.
For a man who ran on his ability to make better choices (his anti-war speech)...it is AMAZING how much poor judgment he has shown in so many other areas.
My personal opinion...Barack Obama is a fraud. He has no substance or history of making any real change. His background is questionable. His associations are questionable. His track record in Washington is poor. The guy is a fraud.
When I hear Michelle Obama''s racist anti-American comments...I can help but wonder "what the hell are people thinking" voting for her husband.
Finally...for a "uniter"...it''s funny how Barack made *** sure the voters and Michigan & Florida didn''t get a revote. SAME OLD POLITICS. Again...the guy is a FRAUD.
Speaking of race being a factor in these primaries...
Just to show the ABSOLUTE MEDIA BIAS in favoring Barack Obama... all one has to do is hear the pundits talk about how "race may have played a factor in Hillary winning".
This based on an extra few percentage points that went to a much more deserving candidate. WHERE IS ALL THE TALK...about the BLATANT racism being shown by the black community...?
Hillary Clinton and her husband have served and worked with the black community and leaders for decades. Barack has lived in his hole in Chicago and has done not even 1/10th of the work the Clintons have in this area. Yet... he is getting 90% of the black vote...?
THAT is RACIALLY DRIVEN...but you noticed the media won''t touch that.
Barack is a fraud...plain and simple.
Analytical???
Michael, you've lost your credibility with this article. From an analytical standpoint, there is no way you can include Florida and Michigan as data points in your study. The data is skewed and not reliable. IT CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THIS SAMPLE. As an analyst, you should know this. Shame on you for trying to mislead the masses.
Solution
I would like to see Obama and Clinton commit to (1) a joint ticket, (2) to abide by a the decision of an assembly of all superdelegates as to who should be atop that ticket, and (3) to committ to only pro-Democrat, anti-McCain campaigning from here on out.
You wrote: "He was not heard from again until John Kennedy wrote (or had ghostwritten for him) Profiles in Courage 87 years later. "
Why the dig? The book won the Pulitzer Prize for Biography in 1957 and remains one of the definitive books written on both political courage and the U.S. Senate. Are you suggesting that the pulitzer prize committee awards people who have ghost writers??
It would be a good book for modern politicians to read--and blowhard journalists.
What if Clinton win the popular vote
And this should mean something because?????? Is there a full moon today ! , since when winning the popular votes entitles you the democrat nomination .
Could you imagine if Barack didn't have the delegate lead.. and try to make this argument that he has the popular lead , he would be laugh out the room , So it has come down to this... The Clintons is looking to change the rules while the game is being played . The world is watching ; cant people acknowledge defeat and show some grace ... are you listening Clintons.
I'm a tool
Sorry had a brain attack on my earlier post that florida was before Michigan. Conclusion - I shouldn't write posts at two in the morning.
andy
UK
Hillary would not have the majority of the popular vote even if you count florida. You can not count Michigan popular vote at all because Obama does not have a vote count for Michigan, his name was not on the ballot. So here goes the Media and the Clinton camp putting a unfair spin on the facts as usual. Twisting Obama's words around, now twisting the numbers around to Hillary's advantage. This is getting sickening.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
and if my grandma had wheels she'd be a wagon...
huh? So you are making the specious argument that 'if' you count the popular votes in Mi. and Fl. two states that Clinton agreed would not be counted until the numbers turned against her..very odd indeed. Obama will win on delegates, and 'legitimate' popular vote. Superdelgates are unlikely to go against the will of the people and decide that Hillary Clinton is the 'one who can win'. Have you considered writing a more relevant article, perhaps looking into the reasons why the republicans are attacking Obama rather than Clinton? Could it be that they see him as the one they might have trouble beating? Or, if you like to play with math, figure out how many supers would have to go for Clinton to give her the nomination.
Apr 23, 2008 16:32:38 PM [permalink] [report comment]