Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

Popular Vote Prediction

by BooMan
Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 07:01:20 PM EST

Yesterday, I took a first crack at trying to figure out if Clinton can win the popular vote. It's worth investigating because her surrogates keep suggesting that she has a chance to win the popular vote and that that possibility justifies her continued campaigning. Part of the challenge is in predicting turnout in the various states. Yesterday, I used the rather crude method of estimating turnout by comparing states with a similar number of Electoral College votes. Today, I decided I could improve on that methodology by using a different measure. The number of pledged delegates assigned to each state is based on the number of Democratic votes those states provided in the last three presidential elections. Using this measure allows me to differentiate similar sized states based on the differential partisan makeup. For the following chart, I estimated turnout using the following method:

Guam= Virgin Islands, plus 25%
Indiana (72 pledged delegates)= Maryland (70)
North Carolina (115)= Ohio (141), minus 18%
West Virginia (28)= Mississippi (33), minus 15%
Kentucky (51) and Oregon (52)= Alabama (52)
Puerto Rico (55)= Louisiana (56)
Montana (16) and South Dakota (15)= Delaware (15).

This yielded what I consider to be reasonable numbers. If I had to guess, it probably overestimates turnout in North Carolina, West Virginia, Indiana, and Kentucky, but hopefully it's a wash.

All polling (except Montana and Oregon) is based on the latest Pollster.com polling averages. In all cases I distributed undecided voters in the polls evenly to attain 100%. If there was an odd number of undecideds, I gave the extra percentage point to the candidate that is favored to win in that state. Montana has no polls, so I just gave it the same breakout as South Dakota. Guam has no polls so I left it with a 50-50 split. The Oregon poll is based on the single recent poll, from SurveyUSA.

State	Date	P. Del	Estimated Turnout	O %	C %	Obama Votes	Clinton Votes	Net Advantage
Guam	May 03	4	2500	50%	50%	1250	1250	Tie
Indiana	May 06	72	760000	47%	53%	357200	402800	Clinton +45600
North Carolina	May 06	115	1800000	60%	40%	1080000	720000	Obama +360000
West Virginia	May 13	28	350000	39%	61%	136500	213500	Clinton +77000
Kentucky	May 20	51	540000	34%	66%	183600	356400	Clinton +172800
Oregon	May 20	52	540000	55%	45%	297000	243000	Obama +54000
Puerto Rico	Jun 01	55	360000	45%	55%	165600	194400	Clinton +28800
Montana	Jun 03	16	96000	57%	43%	54720	41280	Obama +13340
South Dakota	Jun 03	15	96000	57%	43%	54720	41280	Obama +13340
Total	--	--	--	--	--	2277990	2136510	Obama +141480

Based on current polling averages and my best estimate at likely turnout, Obama stands to increase his popular vote lead by 141,480 votes between now and the end of the nominating process.

It would help Clinton if she could tighten the race in North Carolina or expand her lead in Indiana. For example, if she lost North Carolina by a narrow 53%-47% margin and won Indiana by a healthy 58%-42% margin, she would reduce Obama's projected lead in the last contests to 22,550.

However, as I noted yesterday, Obama currently enjoys an approximate 250,000 popular vote lead even if you give Clinton all her votes from Florida and the 46% of the Michigan votes that the exit polls suggested she would have earned if everyone's name had been on the ballot.

If Clinton were to win every undecided vote in the current polls, she would reap about 400,000 net votes. That would be more than enough to erase Obama's 250,000 lead. Of course, that would require Clinton winning Kentucky 72-28, West Virginia 75-25, and Montana and South Dakota by 54-46. Short of scandal, that is out of reach.

To give you another example, if Clinton were to split the projected Obama states of North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota fifty-fifty, and win her projected victories in Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico with a 60-40 split, she would pick up 272,000 votes. That would be just enough to claim a popular vote victory with Michigan and Florida included in the tally.

As I said above, these turnout estimates are imprecise, and the more they are off, the more these projections are off. But any way you slice it, Clinton's chances of winning even a disputed claim to the popular vote are more of a pipe dream than a reality. The superdelegates don't need to wait on the fence to see how this particular measure will turn out.

Update [2008-4-24 19:57:7 by BooMan]: In the 2004 gubernatorial election in Puerto Rico, almost two million voters turned out. That's half the population of the island (not of registered voters). Based on that, my projection of 360,000 votes in Puerto Rico is probably too low. If one million people vote (using my formula) Obama will see his 140,000 advantage drop to 80,000. If two million people vote, Obama's advantage will drop to 10,000. In neither case will it put any dent in Obama's current 250,000 popular vote advantage.

Popular Vote Prediction | 20 comments (20 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

It amazes me that people are even responding to this bullshit argument about how we should decide this on Popular Vote. It is a delegate contest. Otherwise no state would do a caucus. But good analysis of it anyway.

O/T but I was just over at Ben Smith's Blog and he provides the audio to what is clearly a push-poll by the Clintons in North Carolina and surprisingly, he doesn't identify it as such. He just points out that it's interesting to him that the Clintons (or whoever sponsored the "poll") would ask at the end of the "poll" if Hillary has any chance of winning.

by RandyH on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 07:25:30 PM EST

The reason I take it seriously is because it is a vacuous argument that is being used to keep this contest going.

I understand if Jon Corzine thinks the popular vote is a valid measure. I mean, if it were totally tied to the pledged delegates then there would be no need or role for superdelegates at all. They'd would just rubberstamp the outcome in pledged delegates.

The problem is that Clinton has no realistic hope of winning the popular vote.

by BooMan on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 07:30:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's an argument that will be treated seriously by the press if she does win the popular vote. So, yes, you're right. It needs to be pointed out that she will not.

Where's Robert Byrd, by the way? He's God in West Virginia. If Obama could snag him, he might have a chance to get into the mid- to high-40s there.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to you country.

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 07:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some corrections (none / 0)

I think you underestimate the Indiana vote. It's an open primary and the turnout will be higher than you're predicting. So if she has that percentage lead then that's more votes. In Pa the estimate was only for 1.4 to 1.8 votes, there was 2.3 million votes.
You give both a very high estimate in NC and give him 20 points. I don't think the point spread will be 20 points because unlike Feb the clinton people will actually work NC....Obama had those blowouts in Feb because the clinton campaign barely contested those states.
While you've corrected for the very high traditional Puerto Rico turnout, I think her margin there will be greater than 10%. So those could be much higher numbers and generate anywhere from 150000 to 400000 votes at the high end.
You may have given Ky ans W. Va more votes than they might get. But the excess there compared to jay cost at Real clear politicis and his nifty little vote manipulation algorithm is giving her an excess of 130, 000 votes while he only gives Obama a lead of 118,000 vote in NC not 360,000 votes.

So using his estimates and not yours...the 10,000 vote lead turns into a 50,000 vote loss.

For those who want to play with it, it's below

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html

debcoop

by debcoop on Fri Apr 25th, 2008 at 08:22:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Using Joy Cost's calculator, I generated a 215,000 point vote margin for Hillary Clinton...in which I use the last option he has....

Count florida, count the washington primary not the coucus, estimte all the caucus states, and do what Chirs bowers did and give Obama the exit poll percntage of the uncommitted vote.

Disallowing him the Michigan uncommited gives her a 490000 vote lead...but uses all the caucus estimates.

She can win the popular vote.

debcoop

by debcoop on Fri Apr 25th, 2008 at 08:32:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

can you give us the percentages and turnout you used?

And please, don't start counting meaningless primaries instead of caucuses. I don't care who it favors. Just stick to the 110,000 estimate from RCP and leave it at that.

Put Florida in if you want, and Michigan based on exit polls if you want.

Although I think the territories, including Puerto Rico, are on iffy ground in the popular vote argument, you can use though too.

I can't Hillary closer than 10,000 votes using those assumptions. And that's only if 2 million people vote in PR and she wins it by 10 points.

by BooMan on Fri Apr 25th, 2008 at 08:43:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On the push poll, I think Smith is right to note that with interest, as they might be trying to gauge whether or not her base of support is crumbling at all under the pressure of Obama's lead. I maintain that the $10m night of fundraising is a complete crock of shit, unless the Clintons decided to lend themselves several million. They may be concerned.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to you country.

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 07:34:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BooMan,

have you read this piece in the WSJ by Karl Rove? (don't shoot the messenger).

The GOP wants Clinton

Looks like Rove is joining forces with the Clintons to obliterate Obama. But he also let the cat free -

The Clintons are stealing Michigan

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 07:42:22 PM EST

As a Puerto Rican who first voted in the island (none / 0)

and as a trained Latino Americanist I can tell you this : THE POPULAR VOTE FROM PUERTO RICO DOESN'T COUNT.

Puerto Ricans may be able to vote in the primary but you have to invalidate their votes in the final tally because BY THE NATURE OF OUR CONSTITUTION AS A "FREE ASSOCIATED STATE" WE CANNOT VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENCY AND WE HAVE NO VOTING REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS.

There is no spin at all whatsoever here. The fact of the matter is that the Puerto Rican popular vote DOESN'T COUNT.

Blogueando @ culturekitchen.com

by liza (nyc.blogdiva@gmail.com) on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 08:41:31 PM EST

Re: As a Puerto Rican who first voted in the islan (none / 0)

When I left the University of Puerto Rico's Politics Department in the 1980s, Guam was in the middle of a preparations for a referendum. They have a commonwealth setup similar to Puerto Rico's but they do have voting representation in Congress.

Someone has to check on this, but I am pretty sure they cannot vote for the President either, hence, the popular vote of Guam wouldn't count either.

Blogueando @ culturekitchen.com

by liza (nyc.blogdiva@gmail.com) on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 08:47:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a Puerto Rican who first voted in the islan (none / 0)

For the purposes of judging electability you are correct. Puerto Rico and Guam's preferences in the primary should be respected, but they tell us nothing about who will be the stronger candidate in the fall because they will not be participants in that vote.

Only their delegates should inform the superdelegates.

by BooMan on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 08:55:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a Puerto Rican who first voted in the islan (none / 0)

That's big of you, liza, but the truth is that Puerto Rico will be included in the final vote tally. GOTV!

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to you country.

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 08:47:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a Puerto Rican who first voted in the islan (none / 0)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rq.html

Suffrage
18 years of age; universal; island residents are US citizens but do not vote in US presidential elections

Blogueando @ culturekitchen.com

by liza (nyc.blogdiva@gmail.com) on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 08:53:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a Puerto Rican who first voted in the islan (none / 0)

Oh, I know Puerto Rico doesn't vote in the presidential. I'm just saying that, if Clinton wins it, its tally will be included in the overall tally.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to you country.

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Fri Apr 25th, 2008 at 10:37:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a Puerto Rican who first voted in the islan (none / 0)

CIA FACTBOOK

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gq.html

Suffrage:
18 years of age; universal; US citizens, but do not vote in US presidential elections

So take the popular vote out for both Guam and Puerto Rico. Constitutionally, they can't be counted.

Blogueando @ culturekitchen.com

by liza (nyc.blogdiva@gmail.com) on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 08:51:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmmm. Apparently some people think she's winning.

"Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it." - Malcolm X

by Woodpecker on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 09:14:45 PM EST

Booman,

Thanks for all the number-crunching. The only suggestion I would make is that I think it's a tactical error to even mention Michigan and Florida in your speculations. It's way too generous, and only opens the door to the Clinton spin. Those were bullshit, bogus elections, and if the shoe was on the other foot there is no way that the Clinton campaign would be giving Obama the benefit of the doubt by including those states in the calculations, even on a theoretical basis. Her supporters and surrogates are out there doing their best to alter the dynamics of this race. Let's not help them. Take MI and FL out of the equation and post a bigass number for Obama's popular vote lead.

by eagleye on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 09:54:17 PM EST

Whoa. I think your method of estimating turnout is flawed, unless you have taken into account the bonus delegates awarded to states based on how late in the cycle they schedule their First Determining Step of the delegate allocation process, compared to when their contest occurred in 2004.

You can check it all out at The Green Papers:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml

Bonus delegates are awarded to states holding their First Determining Step (start their delegate allocation process) later in the cycle. The bonus is awarded as a percentage of the base allocation of pledged delegates and applies to the district and at-large delegates. The bonus does NOT apply to the Pledged PLEO and Unpledged delegates.
The Presidential nomination cycle is divided into 3 Stages: Stage I for January, February, or March; Stage II for April; and Stage III for May or June.

The upshot is that each state's final pledged delegate count might be inflated.

An even better, more inclusive metric for you to use is each state's BASE vote, listed here:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml

The Base vote is the calculation you want.

The pledged delegate "base" allocation is determined by the jurisdiction's Presidential vote in 1996, 2000, and 2004 and the jurisdiction's electoral vote allocation.... Half of a jurisdiction's base vote is determined by the number of Presidential Electors assigned to that state and half are computed by the number of people who voted for the Democratic candidate in the last three elections."

So for example, North Carolina has 115 pledged delegates, but it starts out at only 79.
Ohio, the state you compare it to, has a base of 123.

Massachusetts (81) or Georgia (76) would be the closest analogs.

Here are the base votes and closest choices for the other remaining contests:
(NB: there's no explanation of how the base votes for Guam and Puerto Rico have been determined.)

Guam 3 -- Am. Samoa 3 (or) Virgin Islands 3
Indiana 57 -- Tennessee 59
West Virginia 23 -- New Mexico 23
Kentucky 41 -- Connecticut 42
Oregon 42 -- Connecticut 42
Puerto Rico 44 -- Alabama 45 (although PR is a wild card for the reasons you've discovered)
Montana 13 -- Delaware, DC, or Vermont, all 13
South Dakota 12 -- Vermont 13 (numbers seem closer to that than North Dakota at 11)

by along on Fri Apr 25th, 2008 at 12:24:52 AM EST

thanks, I'll look into this tomorrow. The North Carolina numbers are inflated. But so are the numbers out of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Indiana.

I say that based on looking at the votes for Kerry in 2004. However, it's very tricky to estimate primary turnout. It matters whether a state has a true primary, whether it has an open or closed primary, whether it has same day registration, etc.

Even so, I want to hone my estimates as best I can, using all available information.

by BooMan on Fri Apr 25th, 2008 at 12:32:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Does your estimate include (none / 0)

...extrapolated votes from the caucus states? Because if this is supposed to be convincing to people on the Hillary side (not that I imagine any level of argument would do the job for that matter), you have to take into consideration that when they put her popular vote figures over Obama, not only are they including the totals from FL and MI, but they're also skipping the caucus states entirely.

Right, wrong, fair or not, you're playing on different fields in that scenario and basically preaching to the choir here. Not that I mind; I could use the occasional cheering up after a full day's cycle of Clintonball spinning.

The Wages of Sin is about $5.15 an Hour

by hz on Fri Apr 25th, 2008 at 04:11:34 AM EST

Popular Vote Prediction | 20 comments (20 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Proud member of

The Liberal Blog Network

a FeedBurner Network

Advertise in The Liberal Blog Network

Subscribe to this network

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Learn the real story behind the WMD in Iraq:

The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism
by Ron Suskind

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

DaveW recommends:

I Am a Strange Loop
by Douglas Hofstadter

Need some laughs?

I Am America (and So Can You!)
by Stephen Colbert

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End
by Peter W. Galbraith

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Download Sleeper Cell on iTunes

(Better than "24") Download Weeds on iTunes

(Hilarious 1/2-hour adult comedy starring Mary-Louise Parker) Download Late Nite with Conan O'Brien on iTunes

Download South Park on iTunes

James Hunter - People Gonna Talk:

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.