This is a short diary.
I wanted to bring people's attention to the fallacy promoted on the front page of the RealClearPolitics web site:
This is basically based on their calculation, Ickes' style, of the Michigan vote as follows:
1- Undecided votes are not counted for Obama;
2- Votes are counted as full votes; and
3- Caucuses at Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine were not counted, with the "fine print" explanation that these states have not released their vote totals.
This is an outrage in my humble opinion.
Update [2008-6-1 13:57:46 by yaddab]: I know: The popular vote does NOT count, but we should not allow any such false argument to be used to fool the uninformed. Also, many comments referred to RCP as a right-wing leaning web site. That may be the case, but it also happens to be one of the most quoted web sites in the MSM when it comes to elections stats. When there is a major fallacy there, it spreads very quickly. Here's an example of CNN quoting RCP.
[UPDATE #2] I don't know if emails from Kossacks motivated it, but RCP has now added MI uncommitted to Obama's tally as one of the options listed. THANKS!!! However, you only see this outcome when you follow the link from the front page to the details on a deeper page. The front page still shows Clinton with an advantage in the popular vote when MI is counted, and doesn't mention that the 4 caucuses of IA, NV, ME, and WA are not included in the count.
.
.
.
When you follow their link, this is what you see:
Even more preposterous.
This the day after the RBC has laid this whole thing to rest.
* Caucuses have to be counted.
* Florida and Michigan received 1/2 of their vote.
* The undecided in Michigan were slated to Obama.
Now there was also the new delegate allocation for Michigan, but I will not base my calculations on that and just take the reported vote totals and halve them. I also will use RCP's own estimate of the popular vote for the four caucuses in IA, NV, ME, and WA.
Update [2008-6-1 13:57:46 by yaddab]: The figures below were all taken from the RCP web site, aiming to use their own arguments against them. This, however, means that the results of the Texas caucus are not included, which would have favored Obama even more.
Update [2008-6-1 13:57:46 by yaddab]: I also acknowledge that some would object to halving the popular votes of Fl and MI. So I added the popular vote with full votes.
This is how it ought to be shown based on slating MI undecided for Obama and the caucuses counted:
State |
Obama
|
Clinton
|
Spread
|
Florida votes: |
576,214 (half=288,107)
|
870,986 (half=435,493)
|
-294,772 (-147386)
|
Michigan votes: |
238,168 (half=119,084)
|
328,309 (half=164,154.5)
|
- 90,141 (-45070.5
|
IA, NV, ME, WA: |
334,084
|
223,862
|
110,222
|
All other contests: |
16,690,219
|
16,229,691
|
460,528
|
Popular Vote (Fl and MI at half votes) |
17,431,494 (50.55%)
|
17,053,200.5 (49.45%)
|
378,293.5 (1.1%)
|
Popular Vote (Fl and MI at full votes) |
17,838,685 (50.26%)
|
17,652,848 (49.74%)
|
185,837 (0.54%)
|
.
.
.
[UPDATE #3] With Puerto Rico numbers in, here's the new total at 100% precincts reporting:
State |
Obama
|
Clinton
|
Spread
|
Popular Vote (Fl and MI at full votes) |
17,960,143 (50.06%)
|
17,915,968 (49.94%)
|
44,175 (0.12%)
|
Here are the contact emails for RCP:
Site Related Questions: webmaster@realclearpolitics.com
General/Other : feedback@realclearpolitics.com
Editorial Team: letters@realclearpolitics.com
Media Inquiries: media@realclearpolitics.com
I really hope that all Kossacks act on this and email RCP their objections to the distortion on their front page.
[UPDATE #3] June 1, 2008; 10PM EST: The RCP page linked to the front page stats now shows this: