How to Manufacture a Popular-Vote Victory
The Clinton campaign, which is losing the pledged delegate race, is now talking up a different metric: the cumulative popular vote.
"I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else," Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday, a day after she won the Pennsylvania primary by more than 200,000 votes.
Her characterization is true only in a highly technical way: If you count the votes she received in Michigan (where hers was the only name on the ballot) and Florida (where an outlaw primary was held in January), and if you ignore a series of caucus states where hundreds of thousands of Democrats participated but no official popular vote tally was kept, then yes, she has received more votes than Barack Obama.
By any other reasonable standard, she has not, and most likely will not. This is highly significant because, even though the popular vote is an officially meaningless metric, the entire premise of Clinton's longshot campaign now rests on winning it.
Since she cannot win the pledged delegate race, it is the only plausible way in which she can still lay a moral claim to the nomination when the primary season ends. With a popular vote victory, she can ratchet up the pressure on superdelegates to side with her, arguing that they'd be voiding the "will of the people" if they didn't.
As her spin on Wednesday indicated, there are several variables at work that allow for differing calculations: Do you count Florida and Michigan? Or just Florida (where at least Obama's name was on the ballot)? Or do you give Obama the "uncommitted" vote from Michigan? And do you add in vote estimates from Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington state, where popular vote tallies weren't kept during caucuses?
Let's go through it one step at a time, starting with the current baseline popular-vote total (in other words, not including anything from Florida, Michigan or the four caucus states that didn't tally popular votes):
Obama: 14,447,566
Clinton: 13,965,162
Now, let's project the remaining primary contests:
Indiana
Turnout estimate: 905,000
Clinton: 479,650 (53%)
Obama: 425,350 (47%)
North Carolina
Turnout estimate: 1,750,000
Clinton: 770,000 (44%)
Obama: 980,000 (56%)
West Virginia
Turnout estimate: 445,000
Clinton: 271,450 (61%)
Obama:173,550 (39%)
Kentucky
Turnout estimate: 540,000
Clinton: 329,400 (61%)
Obama: 210,600 (39%)
Oregon
Turnout estimate: 750,000
Clinton: 330,000 (44%)
Obama: 420,000 (56%)
Puerto Rico
Turnout estimate: 1,000,000
Clinton: 600,000 (60%)
Obama: 400,000 (40%)
South Dakota
Turnout estimate: 130,000
Clinton: 54,600 (42%)
Obama: 75,400 (58%)
Montana
Turnout estimate:160,000
Clinton:64,000 (40%)
Obama: 96,000 (60%)
Add these all together, and here is a reasonable projection of the popular vote total for all of the remaining states and Puerto Rico:
Obama: 2,780,900
Clinton: 2,899,100
That's a gain of 118,200 votes, for Clinton, owing entirely to her projected landslide win in a high-turnout primary in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Without Florida and Michigan, that would make the end baseline popular-vote total Obama 17,228,466, Clinton 16,864,292. That's a margin of 364,174 votes for Obama.
Now, here's where the math gets funny. The Clinton campaign, should it reach this point, will insist that Michigan and Florida be factored into this popular vote total. She won Florida by 294,772 votes and received 328,309 votes in Michigan. Mix both of these in, and she would indeed edge into the popular vote lead by 258,907 votes.
But the arguments against doing this are well-known and hard to refute: No one campaigned in either state, turnout was much lower than in other states (and, indeed, much lower than in each state's G.O.P. contests – something that didn't happen anywhere else), and – most glaringly – Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.
If you're going to count Michigan and Florida, Obama's side will argue, you'd better also consider the four caucus states (Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington) where hundreds of thousands of Democrats participated but where no official popular vote tally was maintained. Obama won three of those four states, losing narrowly in Nevada. Add reasonable and generally accepted estimates of each candidate's performance in these caucus states together and Obama gains 334,084 votes to Clinton's 223,862 – a difference of 110,222 votes, severely cutting into the lead that Clinton enjoys when Florida and her share of Michigan are factored in.
But will it even come to that?
Whereas in Florida both candidates’ names were on the ballot and the result was probably a fair representation of what the margin would have been under normal circumstances, Michigan is different. It’s unlikely that superdelegates – or the media, or anyone who isn’t already a hard-core Clinton supporter – would seriously accept the notion that Clinton should be credited with 330,000 bonus votes (those that she won in Michigan's outlaw primary) and Obama with zero. In fact, polls show, there's a very reasonable chance that, had a re-vote taken place, Obama would have won the Michigan primary outright.
So if Florida were counted, but not Michigan, and not the uncounted caucus vote, Obama would still be ahead by 69,402 votes. Add to this his uncounted caucus vote -- it's hard to see how you include Florida but exclude the caucus estimates -- and he leads by 179,624 votes.
As for Michigan, the most compelling argument is simply to discount the state's primary results completely. But, for the sake of argument, if you're intent on including them, Obama ought to be credited -- at the very least -- with the votes that "uncommitted" received in January, many of which were intended for him anyway. It's true that some weren't, but it's also true that, has his name been on the ballot, Obama would have received even more votes than uncommitted did in the primary. So awarding him the uncommitted total is actually a conservative estimate of his support in the state. As was mentioned above, he very likely would have won the state outright had there been a legitimate primary. But credit those 238,168 uncommitted votes to Obama, and his overall popular vote lead -- this includes Florida and the caucus states -- stands at 89,483.
The point is that under the most basic and probably the fairest criteria -- simply counting every state and U.S. possession where there was a legitimate primary or a caucus where popular votes were tallied -- Obama will finish the primary season hundreds of thousands of votes ahead of Clinton. Considering that an estimated 36 million primary votes may ultimately be cast, Obama's advantage, obviously, won't be huge. But it will still be significant: You'd have to forecast some extraordinarily good results (putting it mildly) in the remaining primaries for Clinton to overtake Obama.
And even counting the extra caucus states, Florida and Michigan (with uncommitted going to Obama), Obama will still very likely lead Clinton at the end of the process, though by a more narrow margin. The only way she will be able to claim a popular vote win would be through very selective, self-serving criteria: counting Florida and only her votes in Michigan (as she did in declaring herself the popular vote leader this week).
No doubt, if they reach June, the Clinton campaign will declare a popular-vote win anyway. But will anyone believe it?
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.5
- 41.7
- Obama +4.8
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.7
- 32.7
- +23.0
- McCain
- 52.4
- 34.7
- +17.7
Boy oh boy do I agree with this commentary. When Hillary first put her hat in the ring, there was no doubt that I'd vote for her. In fact, when Obama put his name out there I was more skeptical than anything...then it happened...he won me over. Not only is he winning in every since of the word, but he out-classes her and is a more wise candidate. This is who I want representing me. But for the life of me, I can't understand why no-one has asked the obvious character question. It goes something like this: No one has been more publicly humiliated than Hillary Clinton...and by her husband...yet, he's the main mouthpiece of her campaign (and causing trouble at that). The most embarrasing moment possibly for Mr. Obama is his "association" with his former pastor, Mr. Wright(?). It seems to me that the fact that he even attended that church is being cast as a character issue (by Hillary). So, if in fact it's a character issue, this is the common ground between Mr. Obama's association with the pastor and her association with Bill Clinton. I want to ask Hillary, "should she have never married Bill?" Were all the years before the affair not worth it". I'm not questioning or looking for answers about the who's and why's of the relationship, but it's a question of character...Why?" But noone is asking this.
There is one very important point omitted from this analysis, which I think is more important than all the other points.
Caucus turnout averages something like a quarter of primary turnout. For two states with about the same voter population, why should the state with the primary count as four times as important in the popular vote total as the state with the caucus? We have a mechanism to weight the will of the people in these two states fairly-- the count of delegates, not votes. No state would EVER decide to hold a caucus if the
popular vote was a fair way of looking at voter intent, because you would instantly dispose of three quarters of your state's impact on the race.
If, god help us, she steals the nomination, could Condi Rice please--pretty please, please wrapped in truffles--take her clothes shopping!!!
I live in Puerto Rico and I have no idea why people assume Hillary is going to win in a landslide. In an island of 4 million with an 85% turnout rate for elections, voters on the island know their stuff on political matters. That being said, Obama has more prominent supporters on the island, more money to spend on ads and good shot at winning. PR voters are being misrepresented for being Hispanics as voting in the same way. Clinton does not have a chance, I've said it before to other bloggers, be the first one to call that out.
W. Robinson: Have you really been so easily dissuaded by the current hooplah to forget about the myriad of great things Bill Clinton did for his party and his country?
Your absolutely right about the caucus number needing to be multiplied into the popular vote. Which, as you point out, is why delegates are the only relevant criteria.
You're forgetting Hillary's next counter-move:
She is going to claim that you should only count black votes as 3/5ths of a white vote. like the Constitution originally said.
Then she's way ahead.
Ben,
Couldn't the same be said about Rev. Wright? He voluntarily served his country in Vietnam and has done an undeniable amount of service to his community. Not to mention, the most scrutinized of his words were when he was quoting someone else. Bill Clinton has been putting his foot in his mouth all by himself.
I appreciate Steve's article. And I am very pleased to see Glenn Picher's point in print. At the beginning of March I wrote the following blog, and I have been hoping to see the issue picked up by the MSM.
March 5, 2008
"The Popular Vote Myth (or why caucuses may be hazardous to your representation)"
Here is a hypothetical: Michigan holds a caucus in May and Florida a primary in June. At the convention Obama has a 135 pledged delegate lead (excluding superdelegates) and Clinton has a narrow lead of 25,000 in the national popular vote. Question: Is it legitimate for Clinton to argue that she should receive the nomination based on the popular vote? The answer, absolutely not. To do so would be to change the rules in the middle of the game and deny the citizens of the caucus states their voice at the convention.
There are apples and there are oranges. Typically we know the difference. We have primaries and we have caucuses. And we usually know the difference. Yet, somehow, we now appear to have something that is neither a caucus nor a primary. It is sometimes referred to as the (national) popular vote. The latter is created by totaling the votes from all of the caucuses and the primaries. It is a chimera, a mythical beast, a red-herring with wings, etc. But the folks in the caucus states stand to be, shall we say, disenfranchised by this chimera. Consider, if your state holds a caucus, your caucus will involve many fewer participants than in a primary. When the apples and oranges of primaries and caucuses are combined into one large national popular vote, your state will not be adequately represented. Had the members of caucus states realized this before they set up their systems, they might have reconsidered. But they, as the rest of us, were told that citizens voted for delegates (directly or indirectly).
I have not seen one note in the Media or the Press, not one small asterisk, warning the American people that combining the votes in caucus and non-caucus states is not only unfair to the caucus states, but may misrepresent the strengths of the candidates and undermine the present system. For better or worse, we currently have a delegate system, and we need to play by its rules. By accepting a popular vote lead as definitive, especially a slim national one, the Democrats are inviting chaos at their convention.
The DNC did not send out a warning: Caucuses may be hazardous to your representation. It must now step up to the plate and defend its delegate system.
HILLARY'S SUPERBOWL: "Yes, they scored more often. Yes they have more points. But we had more rushing yards in the 3rd quarter and a higher QB rating in the 4th. So, WE WIN!
Moral: If you can't win playing by the rules EVERYONE agreed to, just change the rules and declare yourself victor.
"Yes, they scored more often. Yes they have more points. But we had more rushing yards in the 3rd quarter and a higher QB rating in the 4th. So, WE WIN!
You forgot the most important part: "Yes, we won two preseason games that everyone had agreed beforehand wouldn't count. But now we think that unless those games are counted, the fans who paid good money to watch them will be disenfranchised. Why are you so anti-fan?"
Since when did HRC become WJC? Furthermore, do you really want LIARS back in the WH again. You do know you get 2 for 1 with the clintons, don't you? Well I guess while HRC is obliterating Iran for the start of WWIII, Slick Willie will be using his Slick Wickie doin the new interns she will put in the WH. Nothing will change - it will be DRAMA/TRAMA if they manage to STEAL this nomination. WJC did NOT do as much as you seem to think. He lost the congress to the Pugs and was constantly LYING to deceive the American public. If you want more of the same, then by all means, continue your blind support of the LIARS. You will DESERVE everything you get as a result. Haven't you had enough LYING over the past 8 years with Bush/Cheney and Co? I have! As an Obama supporter, I WILL NOT NOW, NOT EVER support LIARS known as CLINTONS! I want my country back and they certainly will not give it back - they will continue on their GREEDY EGOMANICAL POWER HUNGRY QUEST TO SEND THIS COUNTRY AND ITS CITIZENS TO HELL IN WWIII!!! There will be no FUTURE, so if you have children or want to have them, think before you vote for LIARS AND PANDERS in an effort to secure your vote!!!
Puerto Rico has 2.5 eligible primary voters and an 80% average turnout for elections. They are BIG on elections there. It's a national holiday and they have the day off. So if Clinton gets at least 60% of an 80% turnout (2 million people),which I think she will, she could net 400,000 votes in Puerto Rico alone.
Besides Clinton having won the Hispanic vote so far in every primary so far there is a huge Puerto Rico-New York connection. There are 1 million Puerto Ricans in New York City. And Clinton is a well known senator from New York, so I don't buy "Anonymous"' prediction that Obama will win Puerto Rico.
Yes, Obama has the support of the Governor of Puerto Rico, who was recently indicted for corruption charges. He might not the most helpful surrogate.
Time will tell. When it's all over I hope Democrats decide to bury the hatchet, regardless of who gets the nomination.
Bill Clinton was the only Democrat able to win the White House in the past 28 years. Carter couldn't get re-elected. Mondale couldn't get elected. Dukakis couldn't get elected. Gore couldn't get elected. Kerry couldn't get elected. So all the venomous dis-ing of Bill and the only Democrat First Lady in the last 28 years is pretty sad when coming from supposed fellow Democrats. Obama's supporters say they want hope and unity and a new kind of politics that's not divisive, yet they say and write terribly nasty things about our former president and First Lady. Where's the hope? Where's the unity? Where's the change?
Jim,
While I appreciate that Bill Clinton succeeded where other Democrats haven't, I appreciate more my responsibility as a citizen to speak my mind and vote my conscience. I have respect for a number of things the Clintons accomplished, but that doesn't mean I'll pretend like there aren't a lot of things about them that I can't accept in the White House. I don't like being told that my state is unimportant because it is a caucus state, that as a student I don't have the experience or financial responsibilities to make an informed decision (and probably won't vote in November anyway...), and I hate that her campaign called me a 'latte-sipping elitist'. That is such a gross generalization. Maybe I could afford a habit like coffee if politicians paid more attention to the needs of college students and the unreal price of an education these days. The Clintons frustrate me, and have said and done more in the last ten years to insult me and those like me than they have done to help me or earn my respect.
Obama sat in Jeremiah's pew.
Hillary slept in Bill's bed.