More Projections on the Popular Vote for Clinton and Obama

April 25, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (15)

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:
primaries,
Indiana,
2008 presidential election,
Hillary Clinton,
polls,
Barack Obama

Reader Comments Read all comments (15)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

WHOOPS! OBAMA WINS NORTH CAROLINA BY 230K+ VOTES

WHOOPS! YOU OVERESTIMATED HRC'S INDIANA WIN BY 15K VOTES

JUST STOP ALREADY

Barry of FL 2:22AM May 07, 2008

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).

J.T. of DC 2:02AM April 29, 2008

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 !

rcb of MO 4:16PM April 28, 2008

Michael Barone

Michael Barone

Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S.News & World Report and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics. He has written for many publications—including the Economist and the New York Times.

advertisement

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Democrats Should Be Worried About Polls After Obama Scandals

Democrats should be more worried about President Obama's approval ratings.

Tea Party IRS Rally Should Wait Until After Moore Tornado Recovery

Tea party rallies against the IRS should wait until the tornado victims are taken care of.

God Bless America and the Boy Scouts

The Fund does the right thing by pushing the Boy Scouts to lift its ban on gay members.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Show the Failure of Obama's Big Government

Giving an inefficient organization like the IRS more responsibility makes it more likely to screw up, not better able to solve this nation’s problems.

Coburn Wants Oklahoma Tornado Aid Offset With Budget Cuts

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn wants spending cuts before aid is sent to tornado victims in his own state.

advertisement