Popular vote update

I begin with the caveat that the popular vote is an illegitimate metric for determining the "winner" of the primary and caucus process, and that pledged delegates are in fact the proper measure of such. (Note that "such" refers to "the 'winner' of the primary and caucus process," not "the winner of the nomination.")

I also note that Obama has already secured the pledged-delegate "win," with or without Florida and Michigan -- if we give Obama the Edwards delegates who have personally declared for him, and if we give him all (or nearly all) of Michigan's "Uncommitted" delegates, both of which are accurate counting methods if we're trying to project what's actually going to happen at the convention in August.

Nevertheless, with all that said, here's an update on the "popular vote" math:

With 99.2% of the precincts reporting in Kentucky, it's Clinton by 35.5%, or 249,224. Meanwhile, with 89% reporting in Oregon, it's Obama by 16.6%, or 95,387.

NOTE: In the cumulative vote tallies that follow, I am including Real Clear Politics's estimated Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington results. I have not included alternative counts without these four states, because I don't believe any such counts have any legitimacy, even arguably. If you're going to engage in the fool's errand of trying to construct a cumulative national "popular vote" from the utter hodge-podge that is the Democratic primary & caucus process, I don't think there's any possible way you can justify excluding four whole states that held indisputably valid elections. The estimates are imprecise, of course, but the whole damn project is inevitably imprecise, by its nature. Regardless, you've gotta do something about those states; estimating their results is far better than pretending those elections never happened. To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, "we cannot claim that we have a nominee based on 46 states!")

If we assume that the remaining precincts in Kentucky and Oregon will have similar margins as the precincts that have already reported, the likely final margins from yesterday's primaries are something like Clinton by 251,000 and Obama by 107,000, respectively.

That's a net gain of roughly 144,000 for Clinton in the cumulative "popular vote," which would leave us with the following approximate tallies, depending on how you count the votes from Michigan and Florida:

• Without Michigan or Florida: Obama by 562,000
• With Florida, without Michigan: Obama by 268,000
• With Florida and Michigan, giving Obama all of Uncommitted's votes: Obama by 177,000
• With Florida and Michigan, giving Obama 73 percent of Uncommitted's votes: Obama by 113,000
• With Florida and Michigan, giving Obama zero votes in Michigan: Clinton by 61,000

As I've said before, that last count is indisputably illegitimate. But you can make plausible arguments for any of the first four. (The "73 percent" figure is based on the percentage of "Uncommitted" voters in Michigan who told exit pollsters they would have voted for Obama if he had been on the ballot. Of course, I do not regard exit polls as rock-solid evidence by any means, but if we're going to count Michigan at all, we have to do so in a way that at least attempts to comport with the voters' expressed will, and giving Obama either 73% or 100% is obviously more accurate in that regard than giving him 0% and awarding Hillary Clinton a Saddam Hussein-style, 328,309 to zero "victory.")

So, the question is, can Clinton win in any of the arguably legitimate counts? And the answer is: it all depends on Puerto Rico.

But first, let's factor in South Dakota and Montana, although they actually vote last. (PR is June 1; SD and MT are June 3.) The initial question is what the turnout will be. In the states that have voted since Michael Barone's projections in March, turnout has been between 125% and 160% of what he predicted. Let's be conservative and assume South Dakota and Montana are on the low end of that range, with 125% of Barone's projected turnout. Let's also assume Obama wins each state by, oh, 8 percent. Again, I think that's pretty conservative, and it gives Obama a net gain of about 24,000 votes.

So... to catch Obama in at least one arguably legitimate popular vote count, Hillary needs an approximate margin in Puerto Rico of either 137,000 or 201,000 votes, depending on how you count Michigan's Uncommitted votes. To catch him in the count that excludes Michigan entirely, but includes Florida, she needs around a 292,000-vote victory on the island. To catch him in the non-Michigan, non-Florida count, she needs to win by roughly 586,000.

The latter figure is very probably out of reach; she'd need a 30-point win with a turnout of 2,000,000 to get there, both of which sound high to me. The other numbers, though, seem quite plausible. But it's very hard to know, as there's really no precedent for this in Puerto Rico (which has always held caucuses in the past), so turnout is just about impossible to predict. And the likely outcome is also hard to guess. Polling is sparse, and there's no demographic or geographical analogue to Puerto Rico on the election calendar. Puerto Rico is, to put it mildly, unlike anyplace else that's voted. Also, just because Obama has been weak with mainland Hispanics doesn't necessarily mean he'll be weak with Puerto Ricans on the island. It's a whole different ballgame on the island. Bottom line: who the hell knows how Puerto Rico will vote?

The one poll I've seen had Hillary up by 13%. I have no idea how trustworthy that poll is, but if a 13% margin were accurate, she'd need a turnout of either 1,050,000 or 1,550,000 -- depending, again, on how you count Michigan's Uncommitted voters (73% or 100%) -- to win a plausible Florida + Michigan count, and a turnout of 2,250,000 to win a Florida-but-not-Michigan count. (Does anyone know how many eligible voters there are in Puerto Rico?? I have no idea.) Of course, she could easily win by more than 13%. Or less. Or maybe Obama will win. Again: who knows?

One thing's for sure: Puerto Rico's unexpected decision in March to switch from a caucus to a primary -- which was supported at the time by Clinton and Obama supporters alike -- is the only reason Hillary still has a shot at an arguably plausible popular vote win. Who knew? (Actually, wait! I knew! I said at the time -- on March 7 -- that Puerto Rico's decision "raises the possibility that Hillary can rack up a big popular-vote primary margin in what is presumably friendly electoral territory for her, thus increasing her chances of 'winning' the overall 'popular vote'." w00t!)

Comments

[David K.]

Don't forget that while Hillary is trumpeting this popular vote == better chance to win in November schtick, she's neglecting to exclude Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa. No votes in the general election means no impact of their popular vote for that purpose.

[dcl]

Out of curiosity, why should Puerto Rico be included in the national popular vote total for the primaries? (I include Guam, America Samoa, and even kind of sort of Democrats abroad, although at least they can actually, you know, vote in the general election based on their home states absentee ballot rules) I mean not to be tremendously crass about it, but if you argument is on electability in November (which is all Hillary seems to have left), these people have no impact whatsoever on that. I mean they produce delegates to the convention, fine. But in terms of US popular vote count? To say you are winning the popular vote total? Honestly, why should we bother to count them. Especially if we are unwilling to count, you know, actual states.

Of course the real answer is, Hillary needs to drop out of the race, and two month's ago! She is single handedly destroying whatever chance the democrats have of winning in November and some how thinks that makes her most electable. With apologies to her, but it's really long passed time to be nice about it. At this point there is no way I'd ever vote for her for anything.

[David K.]

Great comment about the territories dcl, wish I'd thought of it :D

[Brendan]

Just to clarify, Dane, I assume that, by "I include Guam, [etc].," you mean, "I include them on the list of places that shouldn't count," not "I include them in the count." Right? :)

[Joe Loy]

Ahem :)

"(Does anyone know how many eligible voters there are in Puerto Rico?? I have no idea.)"

Neither does Chris Matthews I'm sure ;>. As of the hotly-contested Nov. 2, 2004 general election in the Commonwealth there were 2,440,131 registered voters, of whom 1,994,269 (81.7%) voted. Further excellent information here and here. :}

David & Dane, the reason American Samoa, Democrats Abroad, Guam, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico should be included in the cumulative popular vote ~ given that people are silly enough to try to Invent such a CPV ~ is that the Democratic Party has allotted them full-fledged voting Delegates who are selected/apportioned by the popular vote in each jurisdiction respectively. To Count their Delegates' votes in the Cumulative Roll Call tally, but not the People's votes in the Cumulative Popular Vote tally, would make Eminent sense in the Entirely sensibile scenario in which nobody was Compiling a phonybaloney Cumulative Popular Vote tally at all ~ but since folks foolishly Are doing so, to exclude Some delegate-enfranchised entities from the CPV while still Counting their Delegates' ballots make no sense whatsoever.

FWIW (which isn't Much :), Hillary's primary-PV-based November Argument is the State-by-State one, not the Cumulative one. She says her primary wins in Big battleground states with Big Electoral Votes prove she's the one who can Win those crucial EVs in November (which, they Don't :). Now if she wins Puerto Rico and argues that therefore she will win its EVs in November, then I'm with you :). But her CUMULATIVE Primary PV case (fraudlently calculated of course) is simply that (supposedly) She is the grassroots Choice of the eligible-&-participating rank-&-file People for their Party's nomination.

If you want to argue that Entitles without Electoral votes shouldn't have Delegate votes, that's fine with me. Change the Rules for 2012. :>

[Brendan Loy]

Dad, we've been over this before, but I think you're entirely wrong to claim that the David/dcl position "make[s] no sense whatsoever." It has perfectly reasonable internal logic. So does your position. They are two legitimate competing positions. In the abstract, I would prefer yours. However, their position is more consistent with Hillary Clinton's overall argument to the superdelegates, and thus is less hypocritical when advanced by her. In any event, whatever the respective merits of your count-every-vote argument and the David/dcl count-every-state-plus-D.C. argument, neither one is obviously ridiculous or nonsensical -- except, of course, to the extent that the whole "popular vote" concept is itself ridiculous and nonsensical.

[Alasdair]

Brendan - just a thought, but ...

"perfectly reasonable internal logic" - in that *this* country is a representative Republic and not a pure democracy, any plan based upon raw popular vote counts is intrinsically unreasonable in the context of *this* country ...

Absent context, Hillary just needs some skilled (borderline autistic) Higher Mathematicians, since such persona can mathematically PROVE that 2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently high values of 2 ... their "internal logic" is impeccable ... and, in the Real World, nonsensical ...

[David K.]

Joe,

I want to be clear, I'm not saying the DNC shouldn't count the territories votes, in fact including them in the nominating process is a noble thing to do as it allows them to be at least part of the process in picking the President.

The trouble is, with her claims of "popular vote" win, Hillary's campaign has been arguing that the importance of that supposed measure of her support is towards the November general election. Given that argument it makes no sense for her to include the territories, which as I said, won't be able to vote in said election. If she were claiming popular vote for the sake of its own count, then fine, but by adding the win the general election clarifier on to it she makes such a count even MORE absurd.

[Joe Loy]

Perfesser Alasdair, I'm sure sometime-commentposter & doctor-of-mathematics Mike's brother Matt will Thank you to Shove yer "skilled (borderline autistic) Higher Mathematicians" swipe someplace where the Sheep ain't Sheared ;}.

Now as to your proposition that (emphases added) "any plan based upon raw popular vote counts is intrinsically unreasonable in the context of *this* country", that is a perfectly respectable 19th-century argument for building (or Defending :) the Bridge to the 18th Century, but it isn't Mine. (Then again Finnegan, I wasn't Bred & Buttered in *that* country whose State functionaries include an hereditary Monarch, a House of Lords, and a parliamentary Office entitled Black Rod. :) No, my humble Point here is simply that if you're Going to compile a Raw popular vote, you ought to begin with some sort of Consistently certifiable subtotals (raw Or cooked :) from which to Compile it.

But Speaking of Internal logic: Brendan. (Brendan, Brendan, Brendan. / Emphases added. :)

Dad, we've been over this before, but I think you're entirely wrong to claim that the David/dcl position "make[s] no sense whatsoever." It has perfectly reasonable internal logic. So does your position. They are two legitimate competing positions. In the abstract, I would prefer yours. However, their position is more consistent with Hillary Clinton's overall argument to the superdelegates, and thus is less hypocritical when advanced by her.

OK now let me see if I Understand this. / The David-&-Dane position, which Opposes Hillary, is More consistent with Hillary's Superdelegate pitch than is My position (Me being Also a Hillary opponent ~ honest! :) ~ which [My position] is More Hypocritical when advocated by Me than it is when propounded by Hillary. // Is that about It? ;>

Look. When I commentposted that the David/dcl position "make[s] no sense whatsoever" I was being Consciously hyperbolic, in compliance with the Norm in the Commentsection of This Here Blog. / Sure, the D&D Platform has some merit. No, it is Not altogether Nonsensical. / BUT its Internal Logic is Intrinsically Dependant upon its factional Function as a Political response to the lying temptress blandishments of Pat Summitt Hillary the Devilwoman :}.. / Your gut recognition of which is why you write that D&D's and mine "...are two legitimate competing positions. In the abstract, I would prefer yours." / So, in the Abstract, endorse Mine. Iow, for God's sake cut the Cord: proclaim that IT DOES NOT ALL GO BACK TO HILLARY. :)

[David: see Above :]

[Alasdair]

Elder Loy - Her Majesty is a number of things, yet "State functionary" ain't one of 'em ! (grin) Nor is the Chooky Embra, Her Maj's Esteemed and Revered Hubbie ...

And if you are going to use a "popular vote" metric, it's sorta sporting to state that from the get-go - and then stick to it, dontcha think ?

Which brings me back to "Is it time for us to say "We told you so !", yet ?" ...

[Joe Loy]

Alasdair, hee hee! :) By the way, am I the only native-born Yank who still holds to the antiquated notion that "metric" is an Adjective, not a Noun? :> Now if we want to install a popular-vote Meter, well that's another Mattre. ;}

[Alasdair]

Venerated Joe - I'm not sure if it was called the Metric System because is was based upon a set of metrics - or because the Metre was chosen as the metric for the system ...

However, as a Brit with a Classical Education, I don't have even the Haigest problem with nouning verbs and vice versa, since the english language is so heavily contextual ...

Plus, given one of the Clintons' favourite funding sources, should that not be "Anothe' Mattle Entilely." ?

Do you see a polpular-vote Meter as what, Iambic ? Trochaic ?

[Alasdair]

Now, where the l did that intrusive letter come from ?

(sigh)