More Projections on the Popular Vote for Clinton and Obama
My recent post noting that Clinton is currently ahead in popular vote (with Michigan and Florida included) has inspired many comments in which many reasonable arguments have been advanced on all sides. One criticism that I should note is that the realclearpolitics.com compilation of the popular vote doesn't credit Obama with the votes cast for "Uncommitted" in Michigan, and that if he is credited with those votes Clinton's current popular vote margin disappears. Probably most, though certainly not all, of the votes cast for "Uncommitted" were intended for Obama (John Edwards was still a live candidate when Michigan voted); reasonable people can argue about how many should be attributed to him.
To gauge the possibility of Clinton's current popular vote lead (if it is that) being maintained, I used once again, as I did in my March 28 post Jay Cost's spread sheet, this time plugging in the results from Pennsylvania, which had a higher turnout but a lower Clinton percentage than I had projected—and remember that these projections are optimistic from Clinton's point of view. This time I found Clinton getting a net gain of 545, 298 popular votes, including her actual 207,529 popular vote gain in Pennsylvania. The net post-Pennsylvania gain is 337,769. I have assumed that turnout will be 77.2 percent of the 2004 Kerry vote, as it was in Pennsylvania; obviously in Puerto Rico there was no Kerry vote, so I have arbitrarily assumed a turnout of 1 million voters in a commonwealth with 2.5 million voters; it could go much higher, or lower. In North Carolina, I have predicted that she would do slightly better than current polls, leaving aside the results from the latest poll from PPP, which seems to have been all over the lot in recent races (they had Obama ahead in Pennsylvania). Despite the current polls showing Obama ahead in Indiana, I have projected a narrow Clinton win there, with half the percentage margin she won in Ohio and Pennsylvania. I have assumed, optimistically from Clinton's point of view, that West Virginia and Kentucky will deliver large percentages for her (as all Appalachian counties around those states have done) and that the Oregon results will look more like the desultory victory Obama won in the nonbinding February 19 caucus in Washington rather than his much more robust percentages in the February 5 binding caucuses in that neighboring state. I have kept the same numbers from Puerto Rico, and acknowledge that no one has any real idea of the turnout or the Clinton percentage in this unprecedented contest (the one poll I am aware of shows her, plausibly, with a large percentage lead). I have heeded the advice of many commenters, and the results from one South Dakota poll, and projected Obama rather than Clinton the winner of the June 3 primaries in South Dakota and Montana. The numbers look like this:
| Expected Turnout | Clinton % margin | Net Clinton votes | |
| May 6: North Carolina | 1,177,955 | -10% | -117,796 |
| May 6: Indiana | 748,076 | + 5% | 37,404 |
| May 13: West Virginia | 252,090 | +40% | 100,836 |
| May 20: Kentucky | 550,230 | +30% | 165,069 |
| May 20: Oregon | 728,122 | -10% | - 72,812 |
| June 1: Puerto Rico | 1,000,000 | +25% | 250,000 |
| June 3: South Dakota | 115,216 | -10% | - 11,522 |
| June 3: Montana | 134,104 | -10% | - 13,410 |
Currently, according to realclearpolitics.com, Clinton has a popular vote advantage of 122,728 when you include the Florida and Michigan results. When you offset this by including the imputed turnout (imputed, because state Democratic officials did not tabulate the actual turnout) in the Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington caucuses, Clinton has a popular vote advantage of 12,506. What happens to these when you plug in the projected votes cited above?
Clinton popular vote advantage/disadvantage
| With FL & MI | With FL & MI and imputed caucuses | |
| Current | +122,728 | + 12,506 |
| May 6 projected results | + 42,336 | - 67,886 |
| May 13 projected result | +143,172 | + 32,950 |
| May 20 projected results | +235,429 | +125,207 |
| June 1 projected result | +485,429 | +375,207 |
| June 3 projected results | +460,497 | +350,275 |
These projections are not quite enough to eradicate Obama's current popular vote leads without Florida and Michigan, which are without the imputed caucus results in those four states +500,543 and with those results +610,575. But by the former measure they leave Hillary Clinton only short by 40,046 votes, about one-tenth of 1 percent all votes that will be cast in Democratic primaries and caucuses. Admittedly, these projections are optimistic for Clinton, but I would submit not wildly so. And they could significantly underestimate or overestimate her popular vote margins, depending on what happens in eminently unpredictable Puerto Rico.
Tags: Indiana | presidential election 2008 | primaries | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | polls
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (16)
Reader Comments
Yes, wildly so
"Admittedly, these projections are optimistic for Clinton, but I would submit not wildly so." -- Barone
No, these are wildly optimistic -- as well as biased -- because it is all based on hypotheticals, mathematical assumptions, and the belief that it is valid to project Pennsylvania's results onto the upcoming non-Pennsylvania primaries. This is far from critical reasoning or actual data, factors that ought to be the basis for serious, objective, analysis.
But I guess it sells magazines.
OK we get it -- You like Clinton
Your articles would be more honest if you just simply stated "I support HIllary Clinton." Instead, you continue to churn out these horrible estimates.
You actually produce a table that includes a column with vote totals including MI and FL, but not including "imputed caucuses." OK, let's examine this a moment: should we even give light of day to a vote estimate that INCLUDES results from unsanctioned contests and EXCLUDES results from fully sanctioned contests?? Can you see how delusional that is?
Also, let's spend a moment on Michigan. You would have to be a complete loon to think anyone takes that popular vote total seriously. 330,000 - zero, huh? And that's one of the things about Hillary Clinton I can't stand -- to take credit for the popular vote total for an unsanctioned contest where your opponent was not on the ballot shows you not only have no integrity, but that you also must think the rest of the world is stupid.
9.2 does NOT equal 10 - Please get the facts right!
Mr. Barone, you and the majority of media outlets are getting and propagating the facts WRONG on the PA elections. What's most amazing is that you give a link to the PA Sec. of State web site where the results are given and which states Clinton 54.6%, Obama 45.4% which means she won by 9.2% which is 9% if you want to use an integer and NOT 10% (55-45) as you all have been propagating. This does make a difference due to the pressure on Clinton to win by "double-digits" which she did not. Except for the impression that media, including you continue to present to the gullible American public. I really wonder why journalists who one would consider to be fiercely committed to journalistic honesty and objectivity when it comes to basci facts, would show such bias in their reports?
Mr. Barone, I implore you, please for your own good just cut it out. It truly is embarassing to watch you go through these bizarre "mathmatical" twists to continue to create some basis for Hillary to continue in her campaign.
As another poster said, "we get it, you like Hillary". Now stop before you hurt your reputation in the process.
You want to give Hillary hundreds of thousands of votes from an election that only she competed in and then use that as an excuse to give her a victory? Do you know where else they only have one candidate on a ballot and use that a basis of legitimacy of a victory, well Cuba and Russia come to mind immediately. And no, this is not a negotiation, FL was an unsanctioned primary and does not count either. As you have seen, every state where Obama campaigns, he cuts the gap. He never campaigned in Florida to cut the gap.
So please, just give it a rest before you hurt your publications reputation too.
More Projections on the Popular Vote for Clinton and Obama
Shame on you Mr. Barone. You obviously have no integrity in representing actual facts; and certainly show your own agenda in your writing and inflation of Hillary's own calculating calculations. You should get another job. You're lousy at presenting real factual information. Maybe you should just go work for the Hillary campaign instead. At least you would be at home with another liar.
Obamamaniacs
Some of the comments here resemble those of the Ron Paul fanatics last fall. Mature study of politics takes place whether or not children posing as adults flood the comments with emotional stuff like this:
"So please, just give it a rest before you hurt your publications reputation too."
Wishing doesn't make it so and acting like a cult doesn't convince skeptics.
Great Points
It is no wonder that you have worked so long at such a great magazine. You have done your research and it is powerful. Those who fear the truth run the risk of being cut down by it.
In the coming weeks this argument should become a part of Ms. Clinton's discussions with the press.
fuzzy math for hillary
In your worst of all possible worlds - first Lady /victim =Dem Presidential candidate
!) Why should anyone ( except die-hard Hillary fans) ever count
a) Fl & Mich where everyone agreed not to campaign. They ( or some of them) voted anyhow knowinh their votes wouldnt count.
b) Many voters stayed home - thinking their vote wouldnt count
c) Eveyone knows Hillary for 15 + yrs ( incl 7/60 yrs of elected service). Unknown Obama had no chance to present himself. - couldnt compete w/well-known hillary
d) Michigan 3-2 win over Uncommited (anyone but Hillary)
How can Michael Barone condone counting these illegal votes. Perhaps because they favour Hillary ( US News/Zuckerman's choice - the hands that feed him).
The clintons have had their time in the sunlight let them shift either gracefully or bitterly screaming into the shade.
Think you can sell your fuzzy math - what contempt you have for the American peopl
Sean Oxendine
Mr. Barone,
I believe it is not quite right to say we have no precedent for Puerto Rico. I understand that there has never been a disputed primary, which is one reason I would expect turnout to be on the high side rather than the low side.
In 2004, in the election for a non-voting member of Congress, 2 million people voted. Given the opportunity to select the next President of the United States, I would reckon at least that many people will turn out again.
Barone is a Hillary supporter?
He is trying to present the best case for Hillary, not supporting her. Right now it looks like Obama has it wrapped up unless these things happen. Him saying that this is what the vote totals will be if these votes are counted or those are not is not him "condoning" the counting of the votes. He said over and over that these numbers are optimistic from Hillary's point of view.
Also I'm pretty sure Mr. Barone is a conservative and not a Hillary or Obama supporter.
Oh, for pete's sake.
One thing the internet has proven- both the ideological extremes have more then their fair share of blooming idiots.
People- when you can produce a resource like Barone's "Almanac of American Politics" every 2 years, then you can attack the man's capacity for non-partisan analysis.
But who needs analysis?
Obama Speaks !
We follow !
I think a lot of these numbers are surprisingly right. At this point elections are about demographics. I don't think there will be a lot of close states left. Majority white/rustbelt states will vote for Clinton and states with high black and/or college populations will vote for Obama.
I think Oregon and North Carolina will go bigger for Obama.
I think Indiana will return a surprisingly large margin for Clinton (+9 or 10).
JUST STOP ALREADY
WHOOPS! OBAMA WINS NORTH CAROLINA BY 230K+ VOTES
WHOOPS! YOU OVERESTIMATED HRC'S INDIANA WIN BY 15K VOTES
JUST STOP ALREADY
Add your thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our comment guidelines.advertisement
On Big Gov-Uncle Sam Pays
Yes, Big Gov. will pay. Since US started the bail-out system with the Fed Reserve, it has grown out of control. The public keeps wanting it and electing those who continue the system. Eventually it will collapse; perhaps sooner than later.
Apr 26, 2008 13:11:41 PM [permalink] [report comment]