PLEASE shut up about the "national popular vote"

I've become deeply concerned about folks like Kos, Jonathan Alter, and others who are talking about Obama's lead in the so-called "National popular vote."

This is a FALSE METRIC that has nothing to do with anything.  It compares apples and oranges.  It severely undercounts Obama's support in key states.  And it needs to stop.

There was a diary on this issue yesterday by bbrown8370, and on her/his advice, I'm elaborating on it below the break.

Based on sites such as the "US Election Atlas" and Real Clear Politics, reporters are looking at the raw numbers and saying that Obama has a lead of approximately 600,000 votes, not counting Florida or Michigan.  But of course, this conflates many different things: primaries with caucuses, open primaries with closed primaries, states where multiple candidates were in the race vs. states with just two candidates.  This is so arbitrary as to be at best laughable and at worst, dangerous.  It's a meme that needs to be stopped.  

If for no other reason, people should stop using this term because it is yet another example of moving the goalposts to benefit Clinton's campaign.  Why?  Because the so-called "national popular vote" vastly undercounts Obama's support, specifically from those states with caucuses.

How did Kos come up with this 600,000 "vote" lead by Obama in this "national primary vote"?  If you go by the numbers at uselectionatlas.org, among the primary states (not counting Michigan, where Obama garnered 0 votes and where Clinton herself said the vote didn't count), Obama has a thin lead of less than 100,000 votes.  Take out Florida, and his lead blossoms to closer to 400,000 votes.  Then add in the caucus states, and there's the other 200,000.  But of course, by their nature, caucuses involve a far smaller percentage of voters than do primaries.

Let's look at the numbers.

The 11 caucus states (AK, CO, ID, KS, MN, ND, IA, NV, NE, WA, ME) have been won by Obama by an average of 67%-31%, and have netted him a grand total of a 200,000 "vote" advantage according to these aggregate calculators.  These 11 states have over 30,000,000 people according to the latest census figures.  

Meanwhile, take Ohio (OH).  Clinton won 54%-44%, and it has a population of 11.5 million, or about 40% of the 11 caucus states.  Yet her victory there netted her 230,000 "votes."  So Clinton's win, by a considerably smaller margin among a significantly smaller populace, nets her a 30,000 vote lead!

By my rough estimate, caucus states are underrepresented in these so-called "national primary vote" figures by between 2-1 to 3-1 -- or something in the order of 300,000 votes.

Using this metric, his ACTUAL "national popular vote" lead is nearly 1,000,000 votes!  That's something close to a mandate, and impossible to make up in the remaining states (even if you include Florida and Michigan).  Just like in the pledged delegate count (you remember that, right?  The system we developed to help gauge support for candidates?), Clinton can't make up the difference.

But of course, these figures are themselves inappropriate to use, because the campaigns haven't been working toward anything other than garnering delegates from day one.  I can guarantee that Obama's campaign, and Clinton's, would have done things differently if it were a race for this mythical "primary vote."

And this diary doesn't even get to the apples vs. oranges question of open primaries vs. closed primaries (why do you count some states' independents and republicans, but not others) or early states (with Edwards in the race) vs. late states (with just these two).

The point is - I can't repeat this enough - there is no such thing as a "national popular vote"!  Using the term is counterproductive and yet one more example of moving the goalposts ... changing the rules mid-game ... Calvinball.

Please, Kos and everyone, stop using this metric.  NOW!

•  Only IA, WA, NV, MI

  not included in count that are caucus states, not all 11!

  by rigso on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:15:09 AM PDT

  •  not MI, ME(Maine) sorry. n/t

    all other caucus states are included.

    by rigso on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:16:44 AM PDT

  •  First Ballot At Convention Is ALL That Matters

    Everything else is just so much smoke...

    by IndianaDemocrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:18:32 AM PDT

  •  Could you clarify?

    Are you saying these states haven't been included in the "national popular vote" total currently being bandied about?

    by sam2300 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:24:03 AM PDT

    •  Yes.

      HERE, most caucus state have been included in the count, only those four havent.

      Popular vote does exist, its simple, how many people voted for each candidate? Include the four states though of course, if they ever release the info.

      by rigso on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:28:40 AM PDT

      •  THANK YOU!

        by sam2300 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:30:41 AM PDT

      •  You can estimate from those states, and it adds

        something like 80k to obama's total.

        by JedReport on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:31:12 AM PDT

        •  The problem is, caucuses have 1/10th the turnout

          of primaries.  So Obama's gap could be three to four times higher than Clinton's gap in all of those landslide states.

          by NotablyZen on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:59:36 AM PDT

    •  Play Numbers/Metrics Games All You Care To

      Just remember that it means NOTHING, in the end.

      The ONLY vote we should be concerning ourselves with is THE FIRST BALLOT at convention. And I assure you, Hillary Inc., is already looking at it that way.

      by IndianaDemocrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:29:26 AM PDT

      •  that is probably true, but prior to convention

        in order to convince S.D and such, it could matter.

        by rigso on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:34:00 AM PDT

        •  people keep forgetting

          how close this race is, and when you have a close race everything bit of data matters.

          by sunshineonthebay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:35:31 AM PDT

          •  But only if the data are reliable and meaningful

            A bunch of back of the envelope estimates of the "true" national popular vote are, at best, not particularly meaningful, and, at worst, down right misleading.  Besides, that's not the system.  The system is a bunch of delegates selected through state primaries and caucuses, and a bunch of supers.

            by cph on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:02:22 PM PDT

            •  you're missing an important point

              When you have a close race while in technical terms it's ok to say this candidate has two delegates more and therefore the winner, the psychology is much more complicated.  The DNC has to do it in a way that does not leave voters supporting the other candidate disenfranchised.  You not only have to declare the winner, but demonstrate the legitimacy of it.  We can't risk having dems stay home in Nov.

              by sunshineonthebay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:08:12 PM PDT

              •  The problem is

                there is no way to determine national popular vote.

                I refer you to an article by Rhodes Cook (doesn't include the most recent primaries) that shows the different results you get using different methods.  Unless all of the methods point in the same direction, you will not be able to alleviate any feeling of disenfranchisement.  Besides, losing isn't disenfranchisement; it's losing.

                by cph on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:12:18 PM PDT

    •  Only Delegates from Caucas States Included

      not the number of people who caucused.

      Still it does show that even in the non-caucus states O has a majority of the popular vote.  

      by reformdem on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:30:00 AM PDT

  •  you're missing the point

    Caucuses, by their nature, have lower turnout than primaries.  Even if you count the all the votes, caucus states are underrepresented in the total.    

    by a wolf raised by boys on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:38:01 AM PDT

    •  hopefully in next election cycle

      We will replace caucauses with primaries, so we get a fairer election.

      by sunshineonthebay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:42:12 AM PDT

    •  thats why we shouldnt have caucuses at all

      they are unfair and drive down turnout inmensely. Obama wouldnt be winning if it werent for this unfair process btw, look at WA state results Caucus Vs Primary as an example.

      by rigso on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:43:47 AM PDT

      •  changing the rules mid-game

        Just like with the fake "national primary vote" meme, this whole "caucuses are unfair" thing is completely beside the point.  We have them.  Many states like them.  Saying they "don't count" is a slap in the face to a system that was accepted by all at the beginning of the process.

        In any case, they're far more democratic than the superdelegate system, which Clinton is banking on to put her over the top, since she can't win on pledged delegates alone.

        But really, stop with the Calvinball.

        by jakester on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:53:10 AM PDT

        •  Calvinball!

          Hillary's favorite sport.

          by cph on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:56:14 AM PDT

        •  im not advocating them not counting now

          or any of that. that would be Calvinball, not doing that, just sayig i dont like em, we shouldnt use them in the future, id rather have a candidate that won with all the dems turning out, not a minority.

          by rigso on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:56:38 AM PDT

          •  Commitment

            Caucuses show a level of commitment that is not associated with a primary election, because of the time required, the "inconvenience", etc.  That commitment can translate into hard work for the candidate in the general election.  From that perspective, caucuses are a good thing.

            by cph on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:59:35 AM PDT

            •  sorry, but we dont elect presidents based

              on who can sit in a room for two hours, pretty much any candidate will have commited staff and volunteer, im more interested in not disenfranchsing people who work, or have kids, and cant afford to sit in a room for over an hour while people yell.  Just look at waht happened in TX Caucus as an exmple of why they suck. Now of course, this cycle we already used them, so of course they should count, but in the future i prefer all primaries in every state.

              by rigso on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:02:10 PM PDT

              •  No but maybe if we nominated

                our candidates that way, we might have a chance of winning in November.

                by cph on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:03:00 PM PDT

                •  based on what data?

                  Because my understanding is that purple states is where we usually get screwed.

                  by sunshineonthebay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:09:26 PM PDT

            •  the only problem with that argument is

              That it doesn't represent a good cross-section of the population.  Should single moms who don't have a lot of free time get less of a say because they cannot commit all day to vote?  What about non-union hourly workers who cannot take time off work?  And people who travel for work?

              by sunshineonthebay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:02:43 PM PDT

        •  jeez man chill

          rigso didn't advocate changing the rules mid-game.  

          by sunshineonthebay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:01:02 PM PDT

•  So Let's Look at the Delegate Count

  Obama wins there too!

  What's not to like?

  by Mr X on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:15:09 AM PDT

•  Excellent diary

  Thanks for making this important point!

  by sam2300 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:15:21 AM PDT

  •  Thanks

    Hopefully it will pick up some traction.  We'll see...

    by jakester on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:20:39 AM PDT

•  Amen! this is utterly silly

  The nomination will be decided by the number of delegates NOT THE POPULAT VOTE.

  A STATE IS WON OR LOSt DEPENDNG ON THE STATE'S FINAL DELEGATE COUNT.

  My God, how stupid is all this meme coming from some "pro bloggers" and the corporate MSM.

  by RaulVB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:15:26 AM PDT

•  It doesn't just benefit Hillary.

  People use the term "popular vote" endlessly in talking about the unpledged delegates, along with the ever-popular "will of the people".

  In both instances, it has no bearing on reality. Neither the nomination nor the general election are direct election by popular vote. No meaningful analysis can come from meaningless numbers.

  The general election is 51 individual races. The selection of delegates is even more complex.

  So thanks for trying, not that it will do any good.

  by homogenius on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:15:54 AM PDT

•  Actually Hillary can regain popular vote

  and it does matter, if they are fighting over S.D her winning Pop Vote will matter, especially if she is also ahead in national polls at the time.  But yes, they should include IA,WA,ME,NV in there.

  by rigso on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:18:18 AM PDT

  •  there's no such thing

    No, she can't regain the popular vote, because there is no such thing.

    That was kind of the point of the diary.

    by jakester on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:22:21 AM PDT

  •  Did you read the diary? (n/t)

    by RaulVB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:23:01 AM PDT

    •  yes, and its wrong

      the vote included most Caucus state, just not 4, out which HRC won one.

      by rigso on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:25:57 AM PDT

      •  But four of those states

        Are ones which Obama won by large numbers, Hillary Clinton's numbers in Nevada, regardless of how they turn-out were so close that they wouldn't give her all that many more votes regardless. Even if IA and NV cancel each other out (which is being VERY generous to Clinton) Maine and Washington State would give Obama a lot more votes.

        by NMLib on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:28:25 AM PDT

      •  it's not that they're not included

        It's that to include them is to underrepresent Obama's support in caucus states, and to compare apples to oranges.

        IT'S A FALSE NUMBER.  And yet somehow it's being treated as legitimate by more and more commenters.

        It's dishonest, and needs to stop.

        by jakester on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:28:53 AM PDT

        •  do you mean because the numbers

          arent voters? because the numbers presented for the caucus states are state delegates and not actual voters?

          by rigso on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:39:39 AM PDT

          •  no, because caucuses generally get 20-40% of

            the turnout of primaries.  As people have been so fond of saying the past month, caucuses do not reflect the popular vote and cannot be compared to primaries other than the fact that they both generate delegates.

            by eparrot on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:43:57 AM PDT

•  I've tried to preach this nicely as well

  I just posted concerning Texas and a complaint about the "will of the people" and "Democracy"

  yet the will of the people of Texas set up the electorial system they use, and have been using for years, and understand how it works.

  The will of the people set up this country, and all bourgeois parliamentary nation states of the Enlightenment to be democratic republics.  That they would be representative with a legislative body.  A democracy would be chaos and a thread away from anarchy.  If 51 people out of 100 voted one way, then that is law but the other 49 people are subjected to the tyranny of the majority as Jefferson called it.  One of the reasons for separation of church and state so that minority religions could not be persecuted by a majority.  The ancient Greeks were aware of this too as Plato wrote about it in his Republic.

  This is the principle here in the electorial process.  No system is perfect, which why we fight over it.  But should the people of Texas feel that their system is unfair and unbalanced, then they have every right to correct it after the elections.  But as it stands now, the rules set in place cannot be changed for better or worse whether one supports candidate x or y.

  We have to go with it for this election and let the cards fall where they may.

  This goes for the system of the legislature, the electorial college, and the way primaries and caucuses are set up.

  We have a representative form of government, basic Civics

  But good luck trying to convince people of that.

  diary recced

  by Jeffersonian Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:22:15 AM PDT

•  The only National Vote takes place

  in November, and even there it counts little (thanks to Electoral college folly and the winner-take-all system). Thanks for pointing out that the people participating so far in the Democratic party nomination process are an array of individuals affiliated with parties across the spectrum or with no group at all. Not everywhere, obviously, but in aggregate. In a hypothetical national vote (Obama vs. Clinton, all registered voters eligible), there'd be a bunch of votes for Obama and a number of votes for Clinton. The currently touted 'Popular Vote' is not indicative of this actual national vote.

  by minorityusa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:23:45 AM PDT

•  i wish there was such a thing

  Al Gore would be getting ready to wrap up his second term now.

  by sunshineonthebay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:28:26 AM PDT

•  recommended

  i've tried to break down caucus votes into something approaching a popular vote and gave up. thanks for doing the hard work and making some great points along the way.

  by fivefouranonymous on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:30:04 AM PDT

•  Thank you thank you thank you!

  I, too, am sick of the "talking heads", so-called experts and master bloggers ranting about the total popular vote.  As you said, there are many different methods of computing this, and there are arguments for and against each method.  The validity of each of the arguments depend primarily on the political position of the person making the argument.

  The fact of the matter is that we do not have a national primary.  We have a series of statewide primaries, caucuses and conventions.  And what counts is delegates.

  by cph on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:32:40 AM PDT

•  I agree in principal with the basis

  of the diary. But, the "system" seems to have bought into the notion of "popular vote" playing a role. If you add all the states Cs and Ps and allocate the C states proportionatly the magical number is around 600,000. You are absolutely right that Clinton stands a near impossible chance in catching up in P delegates, but neither are going to cross the 2000+ delegate line without help from the S delegates. I personally do not think the S delegates are going to countermand the P delegates, they do have the authority to do so though.

  My opinion is that Clinton wants to win the "popular" vote as that is the only hail-mary she has to argue convincingly to the S. delegates. It may also force a shared ticket.

  The only way to avoid all of this is to have Obama come out ahead in this magical number, which he well might. At that point there isn't any more avenues for a legitimate Clinton argument.

  by edgeways on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:37:01 AM PDT

  •  Incidently

    the NYTs has the best data rich election site I have seen, even has vote totals by actual numbers.

    by edgeways on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:39:59 AM PDT

    •  Actually

      USA Today has votes broken down by congressional district, which is critical for determining the allocation of delegates.  The NYT colored maps of counties are cute but useless.

      by cph on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:42:33 AM PDT

      •  link? plz

        by edgeways on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:45:06 AM PDT

        •  here it is

          USA Today Election Results

          Click on the individual state for detailed info.

          by cph on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:52:55 AM PDT

          •  thanks

            by edgeways on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:00:23 PM PDT

•  the Edwards factor

  Remember that this diary isn't just about caucus v. primary.

  There's also the fact that Edwards garnered close to 1,000,000 votes before dropping out.  Who's to say where those votes would have gone if it had been a "national primary race"?  I suspect Obama, personally.  But we can't know.

  For the New Hampshire and South Carolina voters, this was not a one-on-one fight.  It was a 3+ candidate race.  And yet, we see Kos and others blithely use these FAKE composite numbers as if they're somehow meaningful.

  They aren't.

  And nobody has explained why it's okay to conflate open primary popular votes with closed primary popular votes.

  We have a system in place to determine relative support of each candidate.  It's called the delegate system.  And Clinton is extremely fearful of it, because she won't win it.  So she's doing whatever she can to confuse the issue, and one of the means of doing that is this fake "national primary vote" number.

  Again, it's meaningless.  No amount of saying otherwise will change that fact.

  by jakester on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:50:25 AM PDT

•  National Popular vote includes Rush Limbaugh vote

  Reason Clinton lead is increasing is because Rush Limbaugh is sabatoging us, plain and simple!!

  by marsbardem on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:12:54 PM PDT

  •  she doesn't have a lead

    That's the other thing we have to remember - no matter how you slice it, Clinton doesn't have a lead.  Michigan votes are a red herring - either take them out or give "uncommitted" to Obama.  But really, take them out.

    Oh wait - better yet, ignore the whole FAKE "national primary vote" metric!  It is a meaningless number!!

    by jakester on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:21:44 PM PDT

•  it's wacko

  Watching the election night coverage for several nights, the networks somehow think this is a popular election. "CNN is calling Ohio for Hillary Clinton."... "NBC has just called Minnesota for Obama." What were they talking about? Number of votes.

  by minorityusa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:19:01 PM PDT

  •  the whole thing is bogus

    Both the "he won more states" and "she won big states" arguments are bogus, but it doesn't stop supporters from buying into the bs and repeating it.

    by sunshineonthebay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:22:58 PM PDT