Study: Hillary's Popular Vote Hope a Mirage
Wharton professor Gregory P. Nini (who worked with me on Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party ) and I just released a new study that undermines Hillary Clinton's efforts to claim popular legitimacy from a possible win in the popular vote. The problem: in 2008 the popular vote isn't really popular.
That's because 13 states held caucuses instead of primaries. Because of the challenges of participating in caucuses (fixed times, long time commitment), far fewer people vote in caucus states. Indeed, turnout in those states was just four percent compared to almost 20 percent in primary states.
The study projects that 4.1 million additional people would likely have voted in caucus states had primaries been held in those states instead. As a result, using current popular vote numbers would mean dismissing the will of all those people who would have participated in primaries but didn't have the chance -- and disproportionately weighting the vote of primary state citizens.
And here's the kicker: based on the demographic profile of the caucus states, had primaries been held everywhere, Obama would likely have slightly increased his popular vote margin from the current 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent. You can read the full study here.
Follow Glenn Hurowitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/glennhurowitz
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
wheres a fork when you need one
Gad, I've been waiting for months for someone to prick a hole in this this silliness about who's leading in "the popular vote"? That figure could not be more meaningless. For example, Washington has a larger population than Tennessee and has more delegates -- 97 vs. 85 -- and presumably thus should carry more weight in any mythical "popular vote" contest. And, Obama had three times the margin of victory in Washington (68-31 vs. 54-41) than Clinton had in Tennessee. But, because Washington chose to operate by caucus and Tennessee by primary, Clinton's 82,000 vote margin in such a "contest" carries seven times the weight of his 11,600 vote margin in Washington. This makes absolutely no sense, without even getting into the issue of counting the Florida and Michigan "votes".
The raw numbers:
Tennessee 85 total delegates
Clinton 332,599 = 54%
Obama 250,750 = 41%
Washington 97 total delegates
Obama 21,629 = 68%
Clinton 9,992 = 31%
Check out another perspective:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012291.php
Monday :: Apr 7, 2008
Dizzy From The Spin
1) Obama does not hold an insurmountable lead to earn the Democratic nomination. Neither candidate can win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination, so neither candidate can win without superdelegates. Neither candidate has enough pledged superdelegates to secure the nomination, so either candidate can still do that. That's the simple truth.
In these conversations about caucus/primary states one truth is consistently disregarded: Hillary's camp decided early that they didn't need caucus states to win. It turns out they were wrong. Maybe if she had campaigned harder in those states, she would be ahead. Then maybe she wouldn't be. All we know is what happened: she lost more than she won. There is no place for a do-over which what she wants.
RE: MI and FL. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can say that it's fair to count votes when neither camp campaigned. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or political insider) to know that Hillary was advantaged in both primaries because of her high name recognition when compared to Obama. It kills me when people comment on how he's out-spending her. He HAS to outspend her to come anywhere close to gaining the familiarity in each state that she has because of her husband's EIGHT years in the White House.
Everybody thought HIllary was going to win easily. I did. Unfortunately, she campaigned as though she'd already won. It's total hypocrisy for her to now say, "this is not a coronation" unless she's speaking of herself.
Let's end the caucus/primary debate. Both camps knew the rules going in. Hillary's camp was just too arrogant to believe they needed caucus votes. They gave Obama an almost clear field to introduce himself to people who didn't know him and win them over. That's on Hillary.
If you had actually read the 6-page pdf then you would have realized that this study did NOT ignore the decision by Clinton to give up on the caucus states. The study uses the **demographics** of the caucus states to predict the outcomes of hypothetical primaries. Certainly Clinton's lack of campaigning in those states didn't alter the demographics.
Hillary can try to re-write the rules and hope for a change from a delegate race to a popular vote race, but I doubt it would go down very well.
Considering Rush Limbaughs effect on current numbers, the supers would be handing the decision to the GOP. Kind of kills the notion of a party getting to choose who they want.
Caucuses were not biased against Hillary. She and Bill are political pros and she knows how they work, and could have organized grassroots operations and excited voters in caucus states to get out and vote for her in greater numbers. Obama did...certainly she was capable of doing the same.
She chose not to.
You make a good point about the popular vote for this year, but indirectly point out why caucuses must be reformed or abandoned in 2012.
Caucuses, if they are used, should allow an absentee, ranked-choice ballot to be cast for those who cannot physically attend because they are stationed overseas, working or for whatever reason.
Also, the first round vote for the Caucuses should be released, not just the first level of delegates elected.
And, this whole convention "delegate" system is really just and intraparty version of the anachronistic and undemocratic Electoral College.
Better to have one national primary day in the Spring followed by a direct popular vote election in the fall, with a form of runoff for each if no one gets 50% of the vote (either two-round as in France/Brazil or ranked-choice as in Ireland/Australia).
Actually, if anything, the study proves how undemocratic caucuses and should not be used in the future.
Also, if Michigan and Florida are given a fair chance to re-vote, I'm sure Clinton would be very close or even ahead in the popular vote count. Trying to disenfranchise MI and FL is a disgrace.
And, finally, I really think that Clinton would actually be ahead if primaries were held instead of caucuses. In some of the states, like Washington, a statewide vote was held in addition to a caucus. The caucus went for Obama by something like a 20 point margin, whereas in the statewide vote, the margin was 5 or 6 points.
Wow. So, like, you didn't actually READ that article did you?
It said, if the caucus states DID do "popular vote" Obama would be ahead by a larger percentage.
Don't you think it is just a little bit silly to try to argue that because your candidate is losing, and ran a crappy campaign, that somehow this is not her own fault?
You're clawing at paper tigers here. Caucuses are used for a number of legitimate reasons in states that can't afford to run a primary, and/or for which the primary system would be difficult to manage logistically. In years past, the calls to change the system have been far fewer which suggests that this is yet another campaign talking point that has been absorbed by part-time political pundits and their followers.
I don't know what factual basis for the "I'm sure Clinton would be very close or even ahead in the popular vote count." comes from, however without actually rewarding FL and MI with new primaries/caucuses there is no metric to estimate what that would be. In the case of FL, their local state leaders were unable to mobilize the rank-and-file to fend of the Republicans, and they sat on their hands while it happened. MI is the victim of their own hubris and arrogance, and as a voter in a state that DID follow the rules I'm more pissed off that they are calling the process invalid when in fact they are the ones who couldn't get it together. Their local leaders and the senior party Dems should be working to punish those responsible and energizing the rank-and-file to fully engage in the process rather than allowing a runaway candidate and her misguided supporters to engage in an ideological insurgency.
Well, Hillary Clinton never thought disenfranchising MI and FL was a disgrace until she realized she needed them. Tough Luck. You don't change the rules in mid-game. That's called cheating. If voters paid attention to what was going on this fiasco wouldn't have happened. But people have to learn the hard way. One of the reasons I like Obama is because is consistently talks about personal reponsibility and the importance of all citizens to engage in the political process. A ny politician that can mobilize young people the way he has, has my vote.
'Obama presents a view of governing that is inclusive and relies on Americans to work with their government to solve sobering problems at home and abroad. By conrast Clinton promotes a self-centered governing style that drives home what she would do as president. She asks little of Americans and discourages opposing views.'
Americans are surprised and delighted that finally a poltiician comes along and asks us to be involved....we feel empowered. 'The presidency of the U.S. is a powerful bully pulpit. The occupant of the White House must not only issue orders, but also inspire and advocate for all Americans.'
Do not confuse the Senator with the facts. She will change them. Facts don't matter. They are not pledged facts, no such thing. It's her turn (whine). He's young and can run later (insert tears). She's still a human.....as far as I know!
Uhoh....sniper fire.....DUCK!!!!!
Too funny!!! And, so true!
Yeah, but if those states held primaries there is no way that the Obama's delegate lead would be nearly as high today. Not only are the people unable to go to caucuses more often in demographics where Clinton does better than Obama, but caucuses oftentimes have disproportionately large margins of victory. Races that would have been far closer in a primary, are oftentimes distorted in a caucus setting.
Look at Texas. When the people typically shut out of caucuses because of their inability to attend them were given the opportunity to go vote in a primary, Clinton won (by a slim margin, but a win is a win). When the caucus happened, Obama won by 12 points. By your logic, if Hillary's claim to the popular vote is delegitimized by the caucuses, then Obama's delegate lead has to be called into question too.
Obama can't have it both ways, taking advantage of the quirks of caucuses when they benefit him in the delegate count, while using them to question Clinton's claim to the popular vote.
Are you for real?
Don't you ever wonder why no other candidate has whined like this about caucuses?
Here is a reality check for you: The only reason Clinton whines about them and claims they are not fair is because she miscalculated and didn't think she had to bother to run with them. She does not know how to organize.
I agree completely that it is Clinton's own fault that she lost the caucuses so badly. My point was that you can't argue that Clinton's popular vote count is a mirage because the caucuses have such small vote totals, while you argue that Obama's pledged delegate count, inflated by the caucuses is a completely legitimate reflection of the will of the people.
If Obama gets to use the distortion of caucuses to his advantage when counting his pledged delegates then Clinton gets to take advantage of it when counting the popular vote. Since Obama earned his delegates according to the rules of the Democratic primary he deserves them, but he can't turn around and say that they are an unfair distortion of the popular vote.
Yes, let's look at Texas. HRC won the primary by 109,000 votes. 119,000 repubichairs voted for her. Does anyone really believe that repubuichairs voted for her because they believe she should be the next POTUS? Never mind, don't answer that. You're an HRC supporter, reality has not yet set in with you folks yet.
ddc, I don't know where you are looking at Texas from but I participated in the secret ballot and in the precinct and County caucuses. I observed the way that caucuses were conducted. I also read in the local papers and saw on T.V. that there were over 2000 documented cases of irregularity at the caucuses. I also used http://www.factcheck.org to determine that what you posted was pure BS. In fact, the numbers show that more Republicans crossed over for Obama because they "Love" him and believe in "Change".
Please do not post anymore false information because Obama supporters will believe it instead of checking for themselves. They are "Programmed" that way.
I agree. Thank you for that gem of an argument. The language is called Clintonese, spoken only in Clintonland.
You must be a sexist pig to pick on Hillary like that!
Okay, then, how about only states I won count?
No? How about - I am the only one who can win? Polls are wrong.
How about... "I won some of the big states so I'm electable?"
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
