Daily Kos

To find new ways to say "Obama has won the nomination" every primary day. Kudos to you for taking a turn doing it today.

was using much the same numbers on their below-the-screen crawl.  Just wish they'd call more attention to it with words.  Thanks!

it's been driving me crazy all afternoon.  I had to turn it off.  For some reason they just won't give Obama his due.  They act like she still has some kind of a chance.  The media is just as dellusional as Hillary and Ickes.  She's just trying to diminish his win.  I really despise her for that.

I want to scream everytime I see a Clinton surrogate espousing this lie in the media.  They wring their hands about the "disenfranchisement" of FL and MI, but have no qualms with doing it to the caucus states.  Barf.

but sorry, not recommended. I think there's been too many diaries about "Clinton Math" here. I think the message has been spread enough about it. Great diary on a topic that has been obsessed over too much.

compared to Obama's 133K.

"Spoiler votes" are those that voted for candidate X, but would not vote for X in the general election, estimated using exit polls.

I did the calculations in this spreadsheet.

We should subtract 375K from her popular vote total and 133K from Obama, and that gives Obama gains 242K.

Earlier today I published a diary on the false numbers on the front page of RealClearPolitics that seem to support Clinton's popular vote argument. My rationale is that RCP is one of the most frequently sited sources in the MSM, and therefore needed to be debunked, even though it is a right-leaning shop.

Your data has the advantage of having the Texas Caucus estimates, which RCP did not include.

I strongly believe we should not allow Clinton to get away with her fallacy, even though we all know that pop. vote does not count. Many people, the brain-less MSM and the uninformed will buy into it. And it bothers the hell out of me!

is going virtually unchallenged. I'm not watching, but all I hear is Hillary's peeps this, and Hillary's peeps that. I haven't heard much of anything out of the Obama camp. It seems the Clinton folks are doing a full media blitz. I suppose it's a last stand flareup, but still. They just wander into whatever studio they want and get to say anything at all without anybody calling them on it??? They really are starting to look like Republicans.

spreadsheet.  don't be afraid of the numbers.  we can count on the numbers.  thanks for doing our homework.  from a beancounter

/snark

I hear this popular vote statement often on CNN.

Washington had a primary and a caucus, like Texas. Why are you counting Texas, but not Washington?  

Barack Obama won the primary (for which few if any delegates were assigned) 51-46%, or 354,111 to 315,740 in popular vote according to msnbc's own election results site.

Digg it: http://digg.com/...

get off their asses and put this information out there. Just like the superdels sitting on their hands while she piled up outrage upon outrage, here we have the Democratic leadership dithering yet again and not pointing out the outrageous flaws in Clinton Math.

Expecting the media to actually look into this when their whole reason for existing has been to keep this campaign going is ridiculous beyond belief.  It's almost as if the leadership wants this talking point to take hold. Idiots.

Daily Kos diary. You're one of the reasons I keep coming back for more. Thanks!

and work with national surveys, state numbers, etc.  I approve your methodology.  One thing I was impressed with is how "conservative" you were about estimating votes for Obama -- using estimated turnout in the caucus states, which is likely lower than the turnout for primaries, means that you are being very careful not to over-estimate the number of votes for Obama.  

Based on your numbers, we can be even more conservative and only count a portion of the uncommitted as being for Obama.  Let's say that we give Obama only 2/3 of the uncommitted votes, and remove 1/3 of those uncommitted from the totals -- Obama still wins the popular vote with about 17.7 million votes as compared to less than 17.6 million for Hillary.  
And on that topic, my guess is that if Obama had been on the ballot, he would have received more than the number of uncommitted votes because 1) some of the people who voted for Clinton did so because they weren't comfortable with voting for "uncommitted;" and 2) there were many Obama voters who didn't bother to vote at all since he wasn't on the ballot (my daughter and her friends are among those).  If Obama had been on the ballot, Hillary would still have won Michigan, but probably by the same sort of margin she got in Ohio -- or maybe a little more -- e.g., 10 points.

You put your finger on it.

That the popular vote she claims to lead is indicative of electability

a) it can't be indicative of electabilty/political strength if she doesn't SOMEHOW estimate relative strengths in caucus states, and

b) if the popular vote mearures something OTHER than electability/political strength, WTF good is it?  None.  It's just a bullshit number that measures nothing we care about.

I like your math (I also like MSNBC's), and even though Clinton people will scream about it, there's not much they can really logically complain about. The one possible weak spot is in Texas. I've heard some people say that while it's fine to include the delegate counts for both the primary AND the caucus, it might get weird if you count the popular vote in both. That's because in order to participate in the caucus, you have to have voted in the primary. In other words, your vote gets counted twice.

So if you agree that you might get complaints about that, here's the difference. By your count, Obama has an overall lead of about 190K. If you take away the Texas caucus votes, he still leads, but by more like 59K.

But the lead should increase on Tuesday. Assuming turnouts like that in similarly-sized states, there should be about 150K voters in each, South Dakota and Montana. Give Obama wins of about 55%-45% in each, and he gains a total of about 30K. Add that to the previous lead (leaving out TX caucus), and you still get...

Obama by about 90K after all is said and done. Close, but NO CIGAR for the Hill Person.

This Week (with George Stephanopolous) today (OK, I DVR'd them and skipped the commercials during the playback).

I kept hearing this too, and waiting... waiting... still waiting for someone (meaning Bob Schieffer at the very least) to speak up and say, "uh, excuse me, but are you crazy today?"  

The Clinton spokemodels, uh, spokespersonas...hell the Clinton talking heads all keep repeating this mantra (and now there's a new TV ad with this drivel in it coming on the air in South Dakota on Monday) of "Clinton is ahead in the popular vote."

Of course, they are counting those Michigan and Florida votes cast in primary contests that violated the DNC rules (and have now been publicly acknowledged as having done so with the 1/2 vote per delegate penalty).  

And Clinton and her delegates keep pounding home the message that 'every vote counts and so every vote must be counted' and "the Democrats can't win in November without Florida and Michigan voters because they are swing states".

What about my home state of Washington?

Fuck us.  We had a caucus ballot.  We don't count in Hillary Math.  We should all eat worms, and die, I guess.

But God Help us, if we don't seat Florida and Michigan delegates, to the advantage of Hillary, with no Obama votes in Michigan.  Hey, he didn't have to take his name off the ballot, is what they keep saying.

Why I expect someone (besides Keith Olbermann) to speak up and challange a claim like this on national television on a news show, is, well, just beyond me.

Nonetheless, I do expect it.  Silly me.

The caucus totals for most states are available. The only caucus totals which are not available are Washington, Nevada, Maine, and Iowa (about 700,000 total votes which Obama won 56-42). If you add those totals into the system and allocate Michigan as the 30,000 ballots plus 175,000 Obama/Uncommitted voters (roughly 75% probably intended to vote for him) is ahead by about 145,000 votes before today's results, which he lost by 145,000 votes. So it's no more or less tied, but Obama will win by 30,000 or so on Tuesday, so he'll end up having 30,000 or so more votes at the end of this...

Everyone here should forward this to every news outlet in the country.  Multiple times.

Yes, the Clinton spin is becoming unchallenged "fact" because it is being repeated so often.

For every post here, email some news executive.

There's nothing hotter then someone that knows their way around a spread sheet!

As a senatorial precinct delegate, I find it funny (well, not so much) that the caucus votes aren't being counted in the new clinton math - especially after the grueling hours we spent waiting to cast our votes!

argue a rule change about the appropriateness of considering their popular vote count for awarding the nomination in August. Oh, I forgot, that's what they argued yesterday, that's what they will argue in August.

It's their ploy for August. Hoping less astute will not understand the rules and vote their way.

what has a been a days-long rant here at home about the intellectual dishonesty as well as the condescension involved in even claiming a "popular vote" win.  Never mind the fact that it also basically raises a middle finger to the DNC.

(or maybe Huffman?  Can't remember) who alluded to the unfairness of caucuses during yesterday's RBC meeting.  My thought is, fine - if they're unfair, then change the rules BEFORE the next nominating cycle to primaries ONLY.

suggests that if it had been a primary, Obama would have netted 100,000 more votes from the likely increased turnout, even if he won by 10% instead of the caucus margin of 40%.

counted the 30K write-ins - I thought only that they referenced them as a rationale for their ruling.

Great point!

Yes - the estimate I heard was between 300K and 435K turnout in PR.  I erred on the highest of the high side in including those numbers for her.

but on the other hand the whole practice of trying to divine what happened (or would have happened) in MIchigan is really an exercise in necromancy: on the one hand, you have the 30,000 write-ins, on the other, you can't really say that all 237 thousand odd uncommitted votes are Obama votes (since Edwards was still in the race, but also not on the ballot).  And, of course, there is the all too obvious fact that if Michigan Democrats thought that their votes were really truly going to count, far more than 600,000 would have showed up on January 15th.  And who knows but that some folks who voted for Clinton did so because the other major candidates were not on the ballot (and the exit polls suggested precisely this).  So it's all pretty pointless, but then, that's why the Clinton campaign is going down this road of obfuscation.

-- Stu

One I frequently come back to, I'll add.  :)

But good point.

Democrats who voted for Romney in Michigan

I probably should have included that.

made it impossible for me to claim THE Math!

to be in non-HRC-land...we look forward to joining you soon!

you are correct.

but that's because the RBC can't really ratify "the votes."

broader level - but I'm trying to get to a "total" that fairly reflects the 50 states and District of Columbia that have electors in the general.  :)

Frankly I was unhappy with the MI decision in the RBC yesterday.  My issue is that assigning the uncommitteds to Obama violates the DNC's own charter - and I've always been a "rules are rules" advocate with respect to this issue.  I would have preferred they not seat the MI delegation period, given that the only fair resolution that included seating violates the rules.

Yes I know - I'm a bit stiff on this subject.  :)

amount of faith in the superdelegates.  I think they are, above all else, political.  And if they feel for some reason that the Clinton "argument" is resonating, they'll go with what benefits them politically.

I'm not saying it's likely - just possible.

(under the My Math) section, PR is NOT included for that very reason.  :)

Except the Texas caucus participants determined a certain amount of delegates.  That was my reason for counting them.  They were distinct and they showed up and were under no constraint to caucus the same way they voted.  (shrug).

As I said, though - it's all a bit - you know - squishy on my part anyway.  :)

if the news outlets weren't repeating and reinforcing it!!  Sheesh!!

is my fear.  I muted.

been wandering around a college campus to come up with #3.

And watching me trying to decipher the crap code that somebody else wrote...

Because in boxing, punches actually count as scoring so that if nobody gets KOed the judges go to a scorecard where the amount and effectiveness of strikes are considered. Hillary's argument is further out there than that.

The analogy I like is that I've just lost a chess match to you but argue that I should win because I'm better at scrabble. The two games are completely different and have a different way of keeping score.

If HRC is so in love with the popular vote, why wasn't she raising a big stink when Gore out-populared Bush in 2000?

You'll gets hits fairly easily.

Also, RCP has already done this. Check the site.

Here are some links to the totals (don't know if they are still good, I got them a while ago).

http://www.cnn.com/...

http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/

http://findarticles.com/...

http://thehill.com/...

after the caucus estimates takes you to a George Mason University stie - that's where I got the estimates for all but Hawaii, Washington and Texas.  The other three I googled on "2008 [state name] democratic caucus turnout estimate".