Can Hillary win the popular vote?

The short answer is: probably not.

The long answer is: if she wins by massive margins in Kentucky and West Virginia, pulls a stunning upset in Oregon, and romps in a Puerto Rico primary with unprecedented turnout, she could still potentially win an arguably plausible version of the popular vote tally.

By "arguably plausible," I mean a tally that does not depend on either a) a 328,309 to zero "win" in Michigan, or b) the total disenfranchisement of voters in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington (caucus states that, as I've discussed before, don't report popular vote totals, but that do provide turnout numbers which allow for a rough estimation of vote totals). Any argument that purports to present Clinton as the "choice of the people," while ignoring those four caucus states (in which Obama had a 110,222-vote advantage) and/or giving Hillary credit for her Saddam Hussein-style "victory" in the Wolverine State, is laughable on its face, and such a tally will never be taken seriously by anyone outside Clinton's innermost circle of devoted sycophants.

However, I'd say it's arguably plausible to include Hillary's 294,772-vote Florida margin, even though it came in a beauty-contest primary that both candidates pledged not to campaign in. Similarly, it's arguably plausible to give Hillary the benefit of her 90,141-vote "win" over "Uncommitted" in Michigan's similarly meaningless primary, with Uncommitted's votes going to Obama. (Admittedly, not every Uncommitted voter favored Obama. But it's intuitively obvious that there were a lot more Obama supporters who didn't vote -- because he wasn't on the freakin' ballot, and the primary didn't count -- than there are Uncommitted voters who weren't for Obama. Awarding Uncommitted's votes to Obama doesn't overstate his popular support in Michigan, it understates it. And in any event, a 328,309 to 238,168 margin is much closer to being an accurate reflection of the will of Michigan's people than a 238,168 to 0 margin is.)

Of course, claiming "victory" based on such a tally is highly dubious, not only because it counts the Florida results and a modified version of the Michigan results, but because the "popular vote" is an inherently flawed metric and is not a legitimate way to determine the "winner" of the primaries.

But I said "arguably plausible," not "legitimate according to Brendan Loy." So, with that understanding, I ran the numbers, as promised yesterday. Details after the jump.

According to Real Clear Politics, Obama currently leads by 710,904 votes in the composite count of the 44 indisputably legitimate contests with reported popular vote tallies -- and by 821,126 when you include the IA/NV/ME/WA estimates (as you must, if you are serious about presenting a "national popular vote" that accurately reflects the "will of the people").

However, if we count Florida and the modified Michigan result, Obama's edge shrinks to 436,213. Can Clinton erase that lead in the remaining six contests? I'll start with the five states, since their turnouts and likely results are easier to estimate, and then do Puerto Rico last.

Using Michael Barone's turnout estimates, and giving Hillary margins of 40% in West Virginia and Kentucky, she gains 286,714 votes in those two states. That leaves Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana, all of which Obama seems likely to win. But let's be outlandishly optimistic and give Hillary 5% victories in each state. She'd net 41,532 votes.

That would cut Obama's overall lead to 107,967 votes -- and we haven't counted Puerto Rico yet. Now, it's nearly impossible to accurately guess what the turnout or margin will be there, since there's really no precedent. But it's at least conceivable that Hillary could win Puerto Rico by enough to make up the rest of that margin, giving her a slim popular-vote "victory."

The biggest fly in this ointment is Oregon. The raw vote totals in Montana and South Dakota will be very small, but Barone estimates Oregon as having almost 600,000 votes cast. My "outlandishly optimistic" estimate gives Clinton almost 30,000 net votes from that state, but it's far more likely that Obama will win by something in the neighborhood of 10 percent, netting him roughly 60,000 votes -- a swing of 90,000 from the above-stated numbers, probably putting a popular-vote "win" entirely out of Clinton's reach.

Similarly, if she wins West Virginia or Kentucky by less than 40%, or loses South Dakota and/or Montana -- all of which seem likely, particularly in the growing rally-round-the-nominee environment -- that will further damage her popular-vote chances.

But for now, it's still at least theoretically possible that Hillary could win an arguably plausible popular vote count, with Puerto Rico putting her over the top. The Oregon primary will likely be the final nail in this particular coffin.

Comments

[Rob M]

The question for super-dems becomes..."what state that the GOP carried in 2004 does Obama turn to a democratic victory?"

ohio? nope
Florida? old people and hispanics
any southern state? AA vote only 20 to 25% in each state.
virgina? Obama has lost the church vote
Colorado? okay maybe.
Southwest states? Senator McCain might be strong there (again hispanics)

If your a superdelegate where does he get the electorial votes? You might want to konw that before you make your choice.

[Jim]

And if you are a superdelegate, you should know what is going to happen if Hillary gets the nomination by overturning the will if the people.

Hint: She loses the general election.

[Joe Loy]

"I'll start with the five states, since their turnouts and likely results are easier to estimate, and then do Puerto Rico last."

Bigot ;}

"But for now, it's still at least theoretically possible that Hillary could win an arguably plausible popular vote count, with Puerto Rico putting her over the top."

Yaaay! Viva Borinquen! :)

"The Oregon primary will likely be the final nail in this particular coffin."

Coincidentally enough :), we Obamies are now identifying May 20 as the date, and Oregon as the place, when & where Our Man will lock down his victory per Our own Illegitimate, Arguably Plausible, Theoretically Possible & Inherently Flawed nomination Metric :>, by attaining an allegedly Absolute majority (2.025) of the presumed Total (4,049) of purportedly Pledged delegates. ;]

Good Post btw :).

[JD]

what state that the GOP carried in 2004 does Obama turn to a democratic victory

Iowa*. Seriously. Possibly also Missouri and New Mexico*.

*which, I should point out, are the only states that went D to R in 2004 (NH went the other way).

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

Rob

according to your logic it does not matter anyway because Obama cannot win the states you indicate and the voters backing Barak will not just switch over to Hillary so either way McCain wins.