Don't Be Fooled: Obama Is Actually Leading Hillary By 1-2 Million Votes

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted April 10, 2008 | 04:43 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Late Update: There are some discrepancies between the figures for the popular vote between different news sites, and would alter my calculations substantially depending on who you believe. For example, in Kansas, CNN claims that 36,887 STATE DELEGATES represented the Kansas voters, whereas Real Clear Politics claims that 36,887 VOTERS represent the total. In contrast, CNN claims 406 STATE DELEGATES represented Alaska, whereas Real Clear Politics claims that 8,868 VOTERS represent the total. This, of course, is the reason to pursue the truth in these matters, and if Real Clear Politics says that only 36,887 'actual voters' came out to vote in Kansas, as opposed to, say, the 302,612 voters who came out to vote in Arkansas, which has virtually the same population, then I stand corrected. But it shouldn't stop the DNC from making a clear attempt to make sure these turnout numbers are correct.

Many DNC insiders fear that if Hillary Clinton manages to lose the pledged delegates, she may still take the lead in the popular vote, thereby causing the superdelegates to make a hard decision as to which candidate they should choose come August. Their fears are rooted in the notion that Clinton is only behind by roughly 800,000 votes, and that she could feasibly catch up with a big win in Pennsylvania.

They'd be wrong.

In fact, Obama leads in the popular vote by anywhere between 2 million to 3 million voters. How is this possible? The reason lies in the ever elusive math of the Democratic caucus.

When voters everywhere were watching the returns of, say, Kansas on Super Tuesday, most of them naturally assumed that Barack Obama won 27,172 votes to Hillary Clinton's 9,462. But those aren't voters they're counting, they're really just more delegates. County delegates. The county delegates represent an undefined amount of peoples' votes, depending on how many people arrive to the caucus and how many county delegates are assigned. This number could be anywhere from 5 to 100 people and beyond.

Since there is no exact number of how many votes are actually represented in a caucus, let's just round it out to 20 voters per delegate, out of morbid curiosity. That means each delegate, on average, represents about 20 people, and we will multiply the final tally by 20.

Therefore, in Kansas, Barack Obama gained 543,440 votes to Hillary Clinton's 189,240 votes. This is a far wider margin of victory than Clinton supporters would like to admit, but decidedly more accurate.

But let's just say, for arguments sake, that we're overestimating how many people a county delegate represents. Let's call it 10 rather than 20. Then the tally becomes 271,720 votes for Obama, and 94,620 for Clinton. Still a substantial victory. And that is the absolute rock bottom lowest average estimate.

If we apply this math to all of the caucuses, the results are astounding. But to be fair, we won't count Texas for the final tally. Their caucuses were basically repeat voters who most likely voted in the Primary earlier in the day. Also, there are no clear figures as of yet for Washington and Wyoming.

There have been 13 caucus states so far in the Primary and Clinton has only won one of them. Obama handily defeated her in Iowa, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii and Wyoming. Clinton won Nevada.

The current tally of county delegates (that are available) for these states, has Obama at 366,764 and Clinton at 156,563. When we multiply these numbers by 10, it puts Obama at 3,667,640 and Clinton at 1,565,630, a margin of roughly 2 million votes.

When this math is applied to the final tally, it puts Obama ahead of Clinton by 2,300,000 votes, a far cry from the 800,000 most DNC insiders think is the estimate.

Obviously, there is no way to truly estimate how many people these county and city delegates represent. But the fact remains, these caucus tallies are not accurate depictions of the popular vote, nor are they representative of any singular person or voter. Multiplying these figures by 10 gives a far more telling story towards the truth. And when the Clinton Campaign makes blind claims that they may somehow trump Obama on the popular vote, they may not clearly realize how far behind they actually are in the count.

There are many people who estimate that a state pledged delegate represents roughly 10,000 voters. So, in August, the DNC members need to ask themselves this one question: If a state pledged delegate does not represent a single voter... then why should a county delegate?

 
 

Comments
417
Pending Comments
0

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

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)

This is a blowout by Obama in states and Popular Votes. It's a decisive victory in pledged delegates.
Senator Clinton is acting like a child who cannot have her way. This is exactly why you cannot have the same two familes running the country for so long;they strong arm and manipulate the system when they lose.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:29 PM on 04/14/2008

I'll give an "AMEN!" to that!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:17 PM on 04/14/2008

I think Hillary shot all those extra voters with her Elmer Fudd autographed duck hunting gun.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 PM on 04/13/2008

I figured it out! The sniper fire in Bosnia was actually her having flashbacks to her childhood in the wilds of Tennessee -- oops, urban Illinois -- where she was sniping at ducks. And she kilt her a baer when she was only three! Hillary Crockett! Queen of the wild frontier -- NOT! (More like a crock of . . .)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:56 PM on 04/14/2008

The primary is set up as a delegate race. Any other metric is changing the rules. We need to make that point clear. All this nonsense about other ways to calculate a winner that is being laid out by the Clintons is simply because Hillary is loosing. The Party elders need to show some back bone. I know that is hard for a Democrat because they are out of practice, but this is a good time to start.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 AM on 04/13/2008

Pledged delegates is how we the voters are counted when it comes to we send to the Convention. Do not mistake that some how translates into a people selected nominee. This is why we have superdelegates and why "pledged" delegates is a horrible name. Every delegate on the convention floor is free to vote for whomever they wish. They could all decide to vote for Al Gore is they chose, "pledged" and "super" a like.

The conventional wisdom though is that we the people of the Democratic Party choose our candidate, send delegates who pledge to support that delegate. The super delegates are up for grabs. They are not bound to vote the way their district did, their state did, or anything else. So what does a super delegate look for if they are still uncommited? Who won the popular vote, who won the pledged delegates, who won the most states, who has the best infrastructure, who would empower the underticket candidates the most, who raised the most money, who has the best chance in the general, and who had the best run campaign (usually the person who won the most of the other determinants).

Sen. clinton is currently behind in all of those. She has one meaningful metric, the most super delegates and that lead dwindles every week. Expect after Indiana and North Carolina for several supers to pledge, and by July Pelosi, Reid, and Dean will "encourage" the rest to make a decision one way or another.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:14 AM on 04/13/2008

Obama supporters continue to attack Ms. Clinton for wanting to have votes cast in Florida count, claiming the Democratic Party of Florida moved the primary date in violation of DNC rules. This is not true, the primary was moved by the state legislature and the governor, Republican-controlled and just a Republican. The charge made by Obama supporters is, in other words, false.
And Obama folks ignore the danger the disenfranchisement of Florida voters. Let us consider the ramifications of following the Obama line of thinking. If 35 states have Republican-controlled legislatures combined with Republican governors in 2012 it is possible the primaries in those states could be moved ahead of the DNC schedule, thus invalidating the elections. Following the Obama line of thinking would lead to 15 states, perhaps 15 small states, selecting the Democratic nomination. How fair will that be? What effect will that have on the 2012 election? This is exactly the sort of situation that could happen if we allow Obama to disenfranchise the voters of Florida.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:48 PM on 04/12/2008

You are correct, it was a republican controlled legislature in Florida. However, in spite of this, they were told that it wouldn't count, they even went to court, and were told, "tough." You cannot count the vote as it currently stand, because people who WOULD have voted stayed home, so it's not a valid vote. Therefore you need a revote to ensure that the people's choice is heard. The problem is how would you do this, since you can't allow people to vote twice, and there's no telling how many democrats voted republican to at least get the weakest opposing candidate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:23 AM on 04/14/2008

Clinton supporters continue to falsely attribute some other cause to Florida and Michigan primaries moving their primaries forward. Seriously c'mon, there's video showing the Democrats laughing with their Republican counterparts as the vote to change the date took place! They called the DNC's bluff and lost, that's what happened. Any attempt to blame this mess on Obama is disingenuous - at best.

Oh and by the way, both Obama and your girl Clinton said they'd honor the DNC's request to refrain from appearing on either of those states' ballots, and only Clinton went back on her word. Hmm.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:43 PM on 04/13/2008

To be fair, BOTH Clinton and Obama appeared on the Florida ballot. In Michigan, only Clinton out of the major candidates appeared on the ballot....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:24 AM on 04/14/2008

Obama's campaign has lots of money, give the money to the state of Florida and they can have the people vote again, it is as simple as that. He thinks he will lose in Florida, so he won't contribute to the state, Gov. Corizine is willing
to put half of the money. Obama is a sore loser.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:30 PM on 04/14/2008

She won FL and MI popular votes. BO is afraid of a redo because he will not do as well in those states. I think all BO 'folks' should take a lesson from BO himself when he was an organizer in Chicago..he said 'every vote should count and be heard'..that is why we are a democracy.
I guess like the lobbyists donations..he does what he preaches, when it works for him and everyone else is 'silly politics'.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:13 AM on 04/14/2008

SHE DIDN'T WIN EITHER STATE!!! Stop lying about that. Michigan had ONLY her only the ballot out of all three major candidates. Thus it is a worthless measure! In Florida, neither one of them campaigned (and don't lie and say that he did!) and so SHE won based on a 100% name recognition coupled with a small volunteer force which wasn't connected to her campaign!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:23 PM on 04/14/2008

In the current climate Obama would likely win the Michigan re-vote, Clinton Florida. Neither would win by margins healthy enough to make a significant dent in the metrics. It will be nearly impossible for Clinton to catch Obama in delegates or the popular vote. It is the very reason why she keeps going to the well on seating them as they already voted, which all parties agreed would not be the case at the outset.

Yet Hillary now says they should be seated. Why? Because she realizes a re-vote is not only not possible (through no fault of Obama's), but that it would not help her rapidly diminishing cause. She has only the popular vote to hold onto as an indicator to try and persuade the Supers. And even those numbers are not as close as she would like you to believe.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 AM on 04/14/2008

you do realize that a Democrat introduced the bill to move the primary and that every Democrat in the legislature voted to support it, right? Sure the Republicans who controlled the legislature voted to support it, but it was a Democratic initiative.

Any failure to recognize this is blame shifting to try to erase the culpabliity of the Dem Florida establishment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:39 AM on 04/13/2008

it seems to me that FLA voters have quite a task ahead of them in cleaning up their own State officials before they attempt to take on the National level

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:50 PM on 04/13/2008

Agreed -- the best revenge FL can get against the DNC is by summarily ousting every single Democratic incumbant in the state.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:54 PM on 04/14/2008


Obama said that he would agree to whatever the states and the DNC agreed to. He isn't holding the votes back, it is the states. He has no more control over this than Hillary. The candidates have to handle whatever the party and states tell them to do.

The Clinton campaign has been spreading lies, again.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:50 PM on 04/12/2008

Actually, Hillary was one of the supporters of removing ALL the state's delegates....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:25 AM on 04/14/2008

And one of her advisors was on the committee that devised the rules, to boot.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 04/14/2008

Doesn't matter neither canidate will have reached the magic number of 2.024 delegates need to lock up the nomination . After all the remaining primaries are concluded , Super Delegates are going to choose who is going to nominated .

Obama Is Showing His " Wright Wing Ideology" Side !!!!
He's Moved From The Pews , To The Podium .

Hillary 08

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:52 PM on 04/12/2008

Is there an argument hidden in there, somewhere?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 AM on 04/14/2008

As opposed to Hillary, who is showing her RIGHT wing ideology. I'm gonna say that a man who, while wrong in his choice of words, has done everything in his power to HELP people is better than a group of people who have done everything in their power to help their rich friends!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:26 AM on 04/14/2008

It worries me that otherwise sensible people are getting so hysterical just because Hillary's behind. Geez, it's not the end of the world.

I know it wasn't supposed to shake out this way. Super Tuesday was supposed to be her coronation and it upset the royal order of the universe that she's not winning.

Tell you what, the fact that her campaign has so badly squandered her "inevitability" is troublesome. If she can't organize a proper campaign, how can she run the country?

A lot of Americans will breathe a sigh of relief when the next president isn't named Bush or Clinton. The US does not have the divine right of kings and the fact that a little-known candidate from Chicago can catch up to and then pass the fearsome and mighty Hillary Clinton is a story that resonates with a lot of folks.

And the miserable, foot-stomping, sense-of-entitlement that comes from someone who believes they "deserved" the presidency all along makes a lot of us uncomfortable. We've already had enough of one arrogant little shit in the White House.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 04/13/2008

Truth is spoken here.

It is plain to see the tone this election has taken is in direct relation to the disappointment and shock that the Clinton campaign has endured following Super Tuesday, though tried mightily to hide. The infighting, firings, demotions, poor management, financial troubles, "kitchen sink" mentality and utter lack of any sense of stability coming from the effort makes clear the inner turmoil; their actions belie their words.

This is most true of Hillary herself as we have seen her range from humble to chastising and assume every guise betwixt: the brave diplomat dodging sniper fire, the defender of Second Amendment rights, the whiskey drinking every-woman, the bringer of peace. None of this has really left a good impression of her ability to lead a nation, let alone a campaign which is committed to addressing the very real issues this nation faces.

It makes for some unsavory drama, yes, but it sells short the promise of her campaign just a few short months ago.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:57 AM on 04/14/2008

Colorado Democratic Party:
http://www.coloradodems.org/coloradocaucus/
"Attendance Total 120,971"

Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party:
http://www.dfl.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={BB64F6EA-94CE-43DA-93B9-B26FF9EFFE0B}&DE={736007EA-8F63-4C27-BEFA-272984B5BDDD}
"More than 212,079 Minnesotans attended"

Washington State Democrats:
http://www.wa-democrats.org/index.php?page=pressrelease&content=extended&id=612
"More than 250,000 Washington Democrats attended"

Maine Democratic Party:
http://www.mainedems.org/info/announcements.aspx
"close to 45,000 Mainers attended"

Democratic Party of Hawaii:
http://www.hawaiidemocrats.org//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=396&Itemid=43
"Preliminary results show a total of 37,426 ballots were cast"

Texas Democrats:
Caucus attendees had to vote in the primary first, so the vote totals to go by are the primary results.

Wyoming Democratic Party:
http://www.wyomingdemocrats.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1144780
"TOTAL VOTES: Clinton 3311, Obama 5378, Other 64"

Now will you either pull this article or completely update it properly?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:37 PM on 04/12/2008

Shawn, I have personally emailed your band's email address and Huffington Post to have this article pulled due to inaccuracies. Neither have pulled it - you now say that "There are some discrepancies between the figures for the popular vote between different news sites, and would alter my calculations substantially depending on who you believe" - well then, go to the horses' mouths - the State Democratic Party websites ... here, I will help - here's the links and the numbers on those websites:

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:34 PM on 04/12/2008

OK, let's see, Clinton campaign say caucuses are undemocratic, so you can't count them in the popular vote. But you have to count Florida because people actually voted, even though they were told beforehand that their votes wouldn't count. And you have to count Michigan for the same reason, and Hillary shouldn't be punished just because her principal opponents weren't on the ballot.

So to be fair you have to count the votes in primaries where the voters were told beforehand that their votes were disqualified, because that shows the clear intent of the voters, even when the other major candidates were not even on the ballot. But votes in caucus meetings shouldn't count because the voters show their hands in public instead of in a secret ballot.

For that matter, you really ought to count any votes for candidates other than Obama in the early primaries as votes for Clinton, since they are clearly anti-Obama votes. Thus it is now obvious that many of Obama's so called 'wins' were really Clinton moral victories.

Once you apply these common sense 'fairness' rules to counting the popular vote it is obvious to any delegate - whether they be super or nonbinding-pledged, that Hillary is has beaten Obama by at least 2 to 1. Nevermind the 'official' counts.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:33 PM on 04/12/2008

Genius post. :o) Sadly, this is actually reflective of the twisted logic in the Clinton camp.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:25 PM on 04/14/2008

That's quite a stretch, requiring guess-timations that are pulled out of thin air...or other places. We already have enough trouble with interpreting the nominating "rules" that already exist, let's not create another universe of real, imagined or hoped-for standards.

We all know that the nomination is not determined by "votes," but by Pledged- and Super-delegates. Pledged-delegates are chosen by party rule, state by state, but Super-delegates should make a political decision.

In my opinion (and this is clearly the subject of much debate), each Super-delegate should base that "political" decision solely on which candidate the individual politician believes has the better chance of winning in November and not on the basis of whether it is "fair" or "unfair" to give the nomination to one candidate or the other or on the basis of whether one candidate or another won the most Pledged-delegates in his or her state or district. This might require "courage" for some Super-delegates who are office holders and will be up for re-election in the near future, as a Super delegate might decide that Candidate A has the better chance of winning, but Candidate B might well have won his/her state or district. For example, I don't believe that Senator Kennedy or Governor Patrick should be expected to support Senator Clinton because she carried their state. They should support the candidate whom they believe gives the party the best chance of winning the General.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 04/12/2008

And I'll raise you one nominee based upon primary only results.

Imaginations have run awild.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:48 AM on 04/12/2008

This article is absurd.

The caucus results for all states (except for Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine) represent the actual number of people who showed up to caucus. Some websites (like CNN) label this count "Delegates", but it is actually the number of votes. No extrapolation is needed to convert these numbers.

Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine don't release the actual number of people who showed up to caucus. Those states only release the state delegate count. People have done estimates to convert these numbers into "popular vote" counts. For example, Real Clear Politics estimates that Obama"s popular vote lead from these four states is 110,224.

When people say Obama has a 700,000+ lead, that number doesn't include the IA, NV, WA, and ME estimates. When people say Obama has an 800,000+ lead, that number DOES include the IA, NV, WA, and ME estimates.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:53 AM on 04/12/2008

"But the fact remains, these caucus tallies are not accurate depictions of the popular vote, nor are they representative of any singular person or voter. Multiplying these figures by 10 gives a far more telling story towards the truth...."

Hey, let's multiply by 500!... it's a freakin' party, right?

If you read down this thread and see all the refutations of Christensen's stumbling pitch for an even happier happiness, it should dawn on you: A caucus is the equivalent of a mosh pit for insiders and party enthusiasts, hardly reflective of everyone in the dance hall... or everyone in the state who WILL dance (read: vote) in a primary or the general.

In our next feature, "Astrology Picks The Real Winner; Statisticians Despair".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:00 AM on 04/12/2008

caucus=insiders? Maybe just the ones who wanted to be a delegate. The thousands of people that showed up despite the weather, long lines and waiting for hours, with walkers, wheelchairs, babies and kids in tow are hardly insiders. That would be great if Dems had that many party activists!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:38 AM on 04/12/2008

You obviously didn't read the post, or you are taking a "twist the facts" approach like your candidate regularly does. The man said, and it's the fact, that the counts being used in the tallies for who has what votes misrepresents caucus states. They are using county delegates totals instead of votes. Many people cast their votes and after the candidates' showing is recorded, most of those people leave. The people who stay sign up to go on to the county conventions as county delegates. When he said, "let's multiply by 10," he was using a very *conservative* figure and actual voters was most likely much higher than that, especially given the record turnout for Obama this primary season.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:38 AM on 04/12/2008

i voted for obama, so don't pin this on candidate loyalty. the blog's author is wrong. to re-iterate, the man is incorrect.

the realclearpolitics number of 800K may not be fair, but it is accurate. i think state voting procedures are too idiosyncratic to be mixed or extrapolated, but if superdelegates want to use those "popular" numbers to decide, it's their prerogative to do so. unless we're willing to bend the rules to fund re-votes in florida and michigan, it's hypocritical not to accept the superdelegate rules as they are.