Where Would Obama Have Been Without Caucuses?
There’s a school of thought that the most revealing presidential primary this week was not in West Virginia but in Nebraska, where a non-binding vote was held in conjunction with the state’s regularly scheduled primary.
Barack Obama won it very narrowly over Hillary Clinton, 49 to 47 percent. That closeness is noteworthy because Obama routed Clinton in the state’s February 9 caucuses by a 68-32 percent spread.
Nor was this the only time that Clinton has fared vastly better in a state’s non-binding primary than in its caucuses. In Washington, she came within three points of Obama in the February 19 primary, ten days after being trounced by 37 percent in the caucuses.
To some, this is validation of the Clinton camp’s contention that caucuses are undemocratic and unrepresentative of the will of the party – and that Obama wouldn’t be in position to win the nomination had it not been for his lopsided wins in a handful of caucuses in mostly red states.
But the numbers don’t really support this. It’s true that Obama built the bulk of his now insurmountable pledged delegate lead in caucus states. After his decisive loss in Tuesday’s West Virginia primary, Obama now commands an overall lead of 1,599 to 1,446 among pledged delegates, a difference of 153. In caucus states only, Obama enjoys a 132-pledged delegate advantage over Clinton, accounting for nearly all of his lead. But even if all of these caucus states had instead held primaries, Obama’s overall delegate lead would probably not be significantly different. He’d still be a lock to secure a pledged delegate majority for the primary season.
And his advantage in the cumulative popular vote would not be appreciably different. How could this be – especially in light of the Nebraska and Washington examples?
First, it’s important to note the obvious caveats about these two states. In both, there was no campaign activity by either candidate in the run-up to the primary, nor was there any confusion among voters about which contest – the primary or the caucus – was the “important” one.
A full-fledged campaign in both states might have skewed the primary results significantly. But at the same time, there’s no ignoring the glaring difference between each state’s primary and caucus totals.
Clearly, the Clinton campaign does have a point: When the electorate is radically expanded (in both states, turnout was three times higher in the primary), the influence of the party’s most committed activists – who lopsidedly back Obama – wanes.
Thus, it’s reasonable to assume that the results in each of the caucus states would have been closer had they instead held primaries – even if they wouldn’t have been quite as close as the Washington and Nebraska examples suggest. For the sake of argument, let’s try to convert most of the caucus states into primaries.
(We will leave Iowa and Nevada alone, since both campaigns treated these states like primaries and expended vast amounts of time and capital there, turning out more “casual” voters and producing results that are probably close to what primaries would have yielded. We’ll also leave out Obama’s quasi-home state of Hawaii, where he probably would have won big no matter what.)
This exercise, obviously, is a guessing game. We don’t know what the participation rules would have been for each state had primaries been held (i.e. would independents and Republicans be allowed to vote?), and we don’t know exactly how much effort each campaign would have put into each state (remember that Clinton essentially skipped the February caucus states).
But we do have some clues. For instance, Utah was the only small Western state that voted on February 5 to hold a primary, and not a caucus. Obama cleaned up in all of these Western states, but his margin was smallest in Utah – just 57 to 39 percent. By contrast, in neighboring Idaho, a caucus state, he snagged 79 percent. This seemingly confirms Clinton’s contention that caucuses are more suited to Obama’s strengths.
But the fact that Obama still won Utah by nearly 20 points also suggests that, while his margin would have been cut, switching from caucuses to primaries in the states he won probably wouldn’t have resulted in quite the dramatic disparity seen in Washington and Nebraska.
It’s important to remember, too, that Obama has won his share of primary states, often convincingly. His margin in Wisconsin was nearly 20 points, and in Virginia it approached 30. He also posted primary wins in Missouri, Connecticut, Maryland and South Carolina, among other states.
This suggests that Obama still probably would have won primaries in the states where he racked up giant caucus routs. The spread, though, would have been closer. (Another factor to consider is the calendar: perhaps Obama’s performance in Nebraska would have been better had the state held its non-binding primary back in early February, when he was on a roll and winning everywhere.)
Anyway, with all of this in mind, here is a speculative look at how primaries in the caucus states might have looked. For turnout, we are simply tripling each state’s caucus turnout, based on the turnout in the Washington and Nebraska turnouts. Note that Obama’s overall plurality in most of these states isn’t really affected, even though his margin of victory is slashed, thanks to the higher turnout. In fact, in some states his plurality actually expands slightly. (Remember, we are excluding Iowa, Nevada and Hawaii from this exercise.)
SUPER TUESDAY CAUCUS STATES (FEB. 5)
Kansas
Caucus result: Obama, 74-26 percent
Caucus plurality: 17,700 votes
Projected primary result: Obama, 58-42 percent
Primary plurality: 17,580 votes
Net Clinton vote gain: 120
Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 5
Colorado
Caucus result: Obama, 67-32 percent
Caucus plurality: 40,757 votes
Projected primary result: Obama, 56-44 percent
Primary plurality: 42,455
Net Clinton vote gain: NEGATIVE 1,658
Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 6
Idaho
Caucus result: Obama, 79-17 percent
Caucus plurality: 13,225 votes
Projected primary result: Obama, 57-39 percent
Primary plurality: 11,089
Net Clinton vote gain: 2,136
Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 4
Alaska
Caucus result: Obama, 75-25 percent
Caucus plurality: 4,480 votes
Projected primary result: Obama, 60-40 percent
Primary plurality: 5,320
Net Clinton vote gain: NEGATIVE 840
Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 1
North Dakota
Caucus result: Obama, 61-37 percent
Caucus plurality: 4,677 votes
Projected primary result: Obama, 51-47 percent
Primary plurality: 2,219
Net Clinton vote gain: 2,448
Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 1
Minnesota
Caucus result: Obama, 66-32 percent
Caucus plurality: 73,188 votes
Projected primary result: Obama, 54-44 percent
Primary plurality: 63,100 votes
Net Clinton vote gain: 10,018
Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 8
FEB. 9-10 CAUCUS STATES
Washington
Caucus result: Obama, 68-31 percent
Caucus plurality (estimate – no official tally kept): 88,812
Non-binding 2/19 primary result: Obama, 50-47 percent
Primary plurality: 38,386 votes
Net Clinton vote gain: 50,426
Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 12
Nebraska
Caucus result: Obama, 68-32 percent
Caucus plurality: 13,681
Non-binding 5/13 primary result: Obama, 49-47 percent
Primary plurality: 2,665
Net Clinton vote gain: 11,016
Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 4
Maine
Caucus result: Obama, 59-40 percent
Caucus plurality: 8,813 votes
Projected primary result: Obama, 52-47 percent
Primary plurality: 6,594 votes
Net Clinton vote gain: 2,219
Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 2
MARCH 8 CAUCUS STATES
Wyoming
Caucus result: Obama, 61-39 percent
Caucus plurality: 2,067 votes
Projected primary result: 50-50
Primary plurality: Clinton by 1 vote
Net Clinton vote gain: 2,069
Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 1
Add all of these together and we find that, based on our projections, had the caucus states been converted to Clinton-friendly primaries, Clinton would have made the following gains:
Net plurality: 77,954 votes
Net delegate gain: 44
Practically speaking, this would do little to change Clinton’s current predicament.
After West Virginia this week, she still trails Obama by 153 pledged delegates and about 562,000 popular votes.
However, when you factor in generally accepted estimates from the four caucus states where no popular vote tallies were kept (Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington), Obama’s popular vote edge rises to about 672,000. And since we’re using two of those caucus states in our exercise, we need to include this data. So when the numbers from our caucus-to-primary conversions are factored in, Obama still leads by 109 pledged delegates and about 594,000 popular votes.
Neither of those leads will be threatened by the remaining five primaries, or even – most likely – by the inclusion of Florida and Michigan (assuming Obama is at least credited with the “uncommitted” vote from Michigan). In other words, the caucuses helped Obama greatly, but they’re not the reason he’s the nominee.
.
OBAMA RAN A BRILLIANT CAMPAIGN. HE WAS 'THINKING' AND PLANNING; HILLARY WAS DOING THE SAME OLD STUFF.
HILLARY'S CORONATION HAS BEEN CANCELED.
Hillary's Southern Style Democratic Politics of 'RACE' lost!
____________________________________________________________
Once again, Kornacki asks the WRONG question.
The CORRECT question is "Where would Hillary be if the Democrats had been smart and run a winner-takes-all primary system akin to the one used by the Republicans and in the general election?"
The answer? AHEAD.
The Democrats' idiotic insistence on proportional representation is the BIGGEST unreported story in this entire campaign season.
Why the hell would you run a proportional primary when it's a winner-takes-all general election? If your goal is to see which candidate would fair better in the winner-takes-all format, it seems obvious that your primary ought to be run that way. The Democrats' popular-vote primary IGNORES the electoral college.
Obama has been catapulted to this delegate lead based largely on votes from red states that have absolutely no chance of going blue in November. He beat the hell out of her in places like Montana, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, and Colorado, but those votes don't mean a fucking thing because they'll all go red in November.
The ONLY states that matter in the Democratic primary are the ones that Democrats have a chance to win in November, and Hillary plays much better in those places than does Obama.
Shane, are you employed? You sound angry and bored, two tell tale signs...
How about this. When we take over the White House, we will promise to increase UI benefits for losers such as yourself...there, can we be friends now?
It's a pity that Mr. Kornacki doesn't get assigned real news to cover. He writes in this story:
"This exercise, obviously, is a guessing game. We don’t know what the participation rules would have been for each state had primaries been held..."
Then what is the point of wasting space with this article?
i think the point is that the clinton campaign keeps saying they'd be ahead if it weren't for all those stupid caucuses in red states, but it looks like maybe they've got that wrong.
Mr. Kornacki, when you're done playing in fantasyland where there are no caucuses, you're welcome to come back to earth and vote for Barack Obama in November.
Obama should not get ANY delegates from Michigan as he was NOT on the the ballot. These uncommitted delegates should simply be at large delegates. Thus, the numbers are much closer. At that point I'm sure it'd be a tie by your calculations or even a very slim Clinton lead. Thus, as today, the decision of the super- or automatic delegates. Pick loser Obama or survivor Clinton who can beat McCain.
As one of many who vote Clinton first, McCain second, I'm losing what little remaining respect I have for the Democratic party. They have allowed and even seemed to encourage an anti-Clinton, sexist bent that is offensive. Especially in comparison to any critique of Obama being labeled racist.
don't you need to net out the switch in delegates from obama to clinton (a one delegate gain for her also is a one delegate loss for him, overall a two delegate switch.)? Results wouldn't change, but his delegate margin would shrink down to 65 instead of 109.
ShaneM, don't worry buddy I too collect UI. Furthermore, when we take the White House;we will start spending trillions on America and not other countries. Hence more jobs for both you and I Shane, then we'll both post happy comments. Also, we'll be able to afford more wine for our hipster friends.
Also, the argument that if the Democratic primary had Republican rules (winner take all) Hillary would already be the nominee, falls short. If the Democratic primary had a winner take all set up, all of the candidates would have campaigned differently - and who knows what would have happened.
Barack Obama is simply the "BEST". "BETTER" than all the rest !
Barack Hussein Obama is dangerous and i wish all luck to USA if he is nominee , unfotunately alqaida is so crazy and they will warn you once again , Obama dont have experience and he want to be president of 57 states ?!? , Hillary is ready on day one and she is only choice for president , AMERICANS WAKE UP UNTIL IS TOO LATE ,
57 States, obviously you are one of those uneducated Hillary voters. Obama when he said 57 states was playing on the fact that they(Obama Camp) have travelled to the same city more than once. Well, without a college degree such humor will pass over your head. Who the hell is alqaida? another reason you should have stayed in school. Watch the video again you arse...
Anonymous said:Shane, are you employed? You sound angry and bored, two tell tale signs...
How about this. When we take over the White House, we will promise to increase UI benefits for losers such as yourself...there, can we be friends now?
I say: Um, I'm a lawyer. Now go back to your $35,000-a-year nonprofit.
Also, you may want to consider a course in basic English grammar. The phrase "such as yourself" identifies you as a semi-literate moron. It's embarrassing.
Anonymous said: ShaneM, don't worry buddy I too collect UI. Furthermore, when we take the White House;we will start spending trillions on America and not other countries. Hence more jobs for both you and I Shane . . .
I say: Uh, it's "for you and ME," you fucking idiot. Learn how to use pronouns, and you might get a job.
These people try to be funny, yet they can't manage ninth-grade English.
What a joke.
Obama does so well in caucuses because many people are shamed when they say they support Hillary Clinton, and there's an unspoken judgement among many in the democratic party that if you do support Clinton you're racist. So she does better when the votes are done in private, just like in a real election.
Obama supporters should be concerned about how people are going to vote in November, when they're alone in that room, away from all the social pressure that there is to vote for Obama. Are voters going to think about experience when they're choosing someone to solve our complicated economic and international security problems? Are they going to think about the "desperate and bitter" and "sweetie" comments, and Rev. Wright? Are they going to be concerned that the person they are electing to rule over everyone in the country disdains a good deal of them?
People don't want to talk about this or acknowledge it, but the social pressure phenomenon is a real issue. And the media does not help it by chastising and de-sexualizing Hillary Clinton, while practically photoshopping a halo above Obama's head. I thought this article was going to finally discuss how social pressure could skew results in a caucus but I guess not.
Right now, only democrats are weighing in on Obama and Hillary with their votes. In November, he's going before Republicans, Independents, people who are not as politically motivated as your typical primary voter, and a whole lot of people he's labeled as desperate and bitter who are probably a little pissed off over that insult. And these people are going to be voting alone, behind a wall, not in front of their neighbors. McCain will win and this country will be screwed for another four years at least.
The vote against Obama is, among other things, a vote against the race-baiting tactics of the Harvard-Hollywood set; a vote against the Don Imus lynching; a vote against race-based affirmative action, which gives advantages to upper-middle-class blacks and hispanics; a vote against open borders; a vote against the suppression of free-speech rights; a vote against political correctness; and, above all, a vote against the quixotic causes of the liberal elite.
Obama's base is composed of the same affluent liberal ideologues who bend over for racist blacks, illegal immigrants, Guantanamo inmates, gay activists, global warming, etc. MEANWHILE, WE HAVE 45 MILLION AMERICANS WITHOUT ANY GODDAMNED HEALTH INSURANCE!
I have never voted for a Republican in my life, but if Obama wins the nomination, it's McCain for me in November. The CENTRIST portion of the Democratic party has HAD IT with the fringe liberals. I live in a blue state, and I can't tell you the number of Democrats who have told me that they're voting for McCain.
A McCain-Obama general election will be an electoral blowout.
I spent 2 weeks driving through NC WV and Kentucky- placing signs for Hillary and making phonecalls. I used to like Barak, but after the dirty tactics his supporters used in those states (witness first hand) - I will have to vote for McCain in the general election. It has nothing to do with race- it has to do with being underhanding and then posing in front of the American public as above it all. This is called passive-agressive behavior, and we as dems and americans should fear Obama for its underlying implications. I realize that a vote for McCain will be another GW situation, but I will live with that rather than be so uncertain for our nation's future. Why have the news media and the dems taken a person who has the potential to be the greatest president ever and thrown her under the bus? It is because of the sexist morons like Russert, Matthews, and Oberman on TV and the agenda of Obamaniacs who do not see him for who he really is. We are in big trouble as dems now. Obama clearly could have waited for Hill to be the pres and then he would have his turn- 16 years of dem leadership. NO- he had to screw it up for a power hungry grab of I want it all now without earning it with a VERY THIN resume. I am very very disappointed in the way Obama and his crew have carried themselves. At least with McCain, I KNOW who we are getting. I trust old people who have taken a beating throughout their lives vs a young guy who has done nothing and has a do nothing record to prove it. It will be really hard to pull the lever for McCain, but I will do it unless Hill gets the nomination. By the way when I did my tour through WV not one person mentioned race as a reason to vote against Obama, but only voiced economy reasons and leadership experience, or the fact that she is a woman to vote for Hillary. Ed Shultz,s comment on the WVirginians stupidity and racism is completely wrong. Ed Shultz should be taken off the air for his comments. They were far worse than Imus's which were bad as well. I thought this was the year for the dems-Oh well- but I have some hope that Hillary can still turn this around. Dr Z
Interesting that Obama's leads in the two caucus / primary states Washington & Nebraska went from 68 down to 49 and 50 but this guy's projections of the other states have Obama at 54, 56, 58, 60, etc. And his loss in the Texas primary isn't even mentioned.
What a route for McCain it will be if Obama manages to hang on to his delegates at the convention. Remember, not even the 'pledged' delegates have to vote the same way, and I'm sure there will plenty more uneasy revelations to surface about Obama, the worst Democratic candidate of the last 24 years.
Brainwashing the Unwitting Liberal Masses
During the first two years of the Clinton administration, when Hillary was appointed by Bill to head the charge toward Universal Healthcare, the special interests got together and underwrote an estimated $100,000,000 investment that was designed to personally destroy her and to some extent Bill. By ruining her credibility they knew they could kill her healthcare plan. Madison Avenue, the same folks who sell you soap each and every day, devised a multitude of ways to mock, belittle and denigrate her. They played the "fear card" frightening people into believing her plan would take away their healthcare and replace it with a huge bureaucratic nightmare that would kill us all. Yes, the professional Ad Men did the job they were hired to do and "Hillary's Universal Healthcare Plan" died a very ugly death.
It is important to note that the Republicans in congress saw what Madison Avenue was doing and were happy to jump on the "let's beat up Hillary" bandwagon. As a result of this unprecedented personal attack ad campaign that spilled over onto other Democratic members of congress that had dared to support Universal Healthcare the '92 elections swung hugely in the Republicans favor and the political opportunists took control of both houses of congress. Even Bill needed to distance himself from her after the healthcare debacle. She became a pariah and Ted Kennedy is still dumb enough to buy into the ancient propaganda funded by the vested interests. Isn’t it amazing what a $100,000,000 “attack Hillary” war chest could buy you sixteen years ago?
Today, when people are asked their impressions about Hillary, a majority will say they don't like her. When pressed they can’t give you a straight answer as to why. When challenged if they think it’s possible they’ve been brainwashed they vehemently reply, “No!” No one likes to think that they can be brainwashed. No one is willing to admit to succumbing to the power of advertising. Everyone likes to think of themselves as "free thinkers" above the sway of the media and the advertisers. We all would prefer to think we hate her because of something she did or the way that she is rather than admit to our judgmental susceptibilities.
But the truth is simple if not hurtful... Most people hate her because they've been told to hate her, first by the ad men and then by the Republican Party. (Who know how to jump on a bandwagon and ride a winning horse when they see one).
Think back. Prior to her media assassination she was universally admired and considered to be an intelligent passionate crusader for children's causes, women's rights and healthcare. The general public's perception of her was nearly 100% positive. What did she do to destroy that image? She tried to pass Universal Healthcare.
Shame on all of us who have unwittingly bought into each and every subtle Madison Avenue manipulation thrown at us. Shame on all of us who never bothered to ask ourselves the question, "why" we feel about her the way we do.
Freedom is not free. It requires constant diligence and inspection. And anyone who still hates Hillary but cannot clearly and logically explain why is still a victim of mass media manipulation funded by special interests out to protect their sacred and lucrative slice of the American pie.
Anonymous wrote: "And the media does not help it by chastising and de-sexualizing Hillary Clinton."
It's not the media de-sexualizing Hillary . . . Carvill did that when he gave away her cojoles. Poor Hillary.
If Democratic centrists want to pay for four more years of war at $5000/MINUTE, then as a citizen in a democracy, I guess I'll just have to accept that and help foot the bill for the next fifty years.
Or, maybe guys like you will start to realize that Obama is one of the few blacks who seems to get it that reverse discrimination from affirmative action is NOT a good thing for our country. Maybe you didn't listen to his race speech, but from what I heard, I’m surprised blue collar and white working class guys aren’t rushing to vote for Obama. Aside from what he said and the changes he wants to make to help ALL of us, the very fact that we elected a black president would tear down all those excuses people use for why some blacks won't go to school or get a job, and build up those who will.
Seems like a no-brainer to me. Go for McSame who'll lie about getting us out of Iraq and instead, drag it on for four more years (and 50 more tax years), or vote for Obama who is betting this election on his ability and our desire to stop screwing up our foreign policy.
Watch out for Republicans pretending to be Hillary Supporters on sites like this.
Republicans are backing Clinton now, not because they know they can beat her, but because she’s their main Get Out The Vote strategy, even more so than their anti-gay and anti-choice strategies that have spurred their followers to vote in the past. Right wing voters don’t just dislike her, they actively despise her! They'll vote in droves to try to block her, especially during a time of war. But whether Clinton can win may be less relevant than the effect her candidacy will have on other elections. This year we have the unprecedented opportunity to fire all the Bush-policy rubber-stamping & obstructionist Republicans in Congress and replace them with Democrats who can get us out of Iraq, enact true election reform, and get big business out of our government. We might even get a handle on health care, equal rights and immigration issues on the way. Many conservatives are so uninspired by McSame that they’ll either support Obama or just skip the vote. Meanwhile, new voters motivated by Obama can help us elect 10-15 new Democrats in the Senate. Unless Hillary is still running, of course. If she manages to win the Democratic nomination, she will inspire conservatives to vote as no one else has ever before. Right-wingers don't just dislike her, they actively despise her! They'll vote in droves to ensure she doesn't win the Presidency, especially during a time of war. Clearly, Clinton herself is the Republicans' best GOTV tactic, even more so than their anti-gay and anti-choice strategies that have spurred their followers to vote in the past. While at the polls, they’ll also vote for all those obstructionist Repugnant Senators we’d like to fire. Compare that to the millions of new voters that will be at the polls if Obama wins the Dem nomination. That’s gotta be scaring the financial interests that back people like Bush, McSame, Clinton and the Senators who keep giving tax breaks to the super rich and voting to “Stay the Course” in a war without end.
Remember, Republicans are trying to keep Hillary in the race because they know if she runs, she’ll engage their conservative base. She’s the GOP’s best Get Out The Vote strategy, even more so than their anti-gay and anti-choice strategies that have spurred their followers to vote in the past. Even if their presidential candidate loses, they want to make sure the Democrat nominee gets their voters inspired, otherwise they’ll lose big everywhere else on the ticket, especially in the US Senate.
Matt Weaver:
You are a complete MORON. If you change the rules, then you MUST change the result. BOTH Clinton and Obama agreed at the start that the MI delegates wouldn't be seated, and the voters knew that when they voted. Thus, many voters who would have voted for Obama did not vote or voted "uncommitted". If you now want to seat the delegates, then you MUST take into account that Obama would have received some number of votes. You can't say he doesn't get ANY because he wasn't on the ballot. Obama's decision to remove his name from the ballot was based on the rules at the time. If the rules change, then his decision to remove his name from the ballot is nullified. A fair awarding of delegats would take that into consideration.
How convenient of a Hillary supporter to create an alternate universe so that only his candidate benefits. It appears to be contagious with you Hillary supporters.
FILLER...must be missing a 'real' reporter.