Final popular-vote update

Here are the final "popular vote" numbers, courtesy of Real Clear Politics. Leaving aside the fact that the "popular vote" is a fundamentally flawed and illegitimate metric for determining the "winner" of the Democrats' byzantine primary and caucus process, the results are as follows:

• Obama wins if you don't count Michigan, whose primary results were rejected as illegitimate by the DNC.
  
  
• Clinton wins if you count Michigan fully, and give Obama zero votes (thus granting her the benefit of an utterly undemocratic, Soviet-style 328,309 to zero "victory" there).
  
  
• If you count Michigan, but give Obama the votes of "Uncommitted" -- which is more generous to Hillary than the DNC was, and represents less support for Obama than he would have gotten if Michigan had held a real primary -- Obama wins, provided that you include the estimated tallies from Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington. Clinton wins only if you exclude these four caucus states, in direct contradiction of her insistence on "counting every vote" from "all 50 states." Even if you use Washington's non-binding primary instead of its binding caucus, and include caucus estimates for Iowa, Nevada and Maine only, Obama still wins, albeit by a measly 11,000 votes.

Thus, the answer to the question I posed back on May 7 -- can Hillary Clinton "win" an "arguably plausible" popular vote tally? -- turns out to be "no." She only wins if she does one (or both) of the two indefensible things that I've been decrying all along: awarding herself a unanimous victory in Michigan that would make Saddam Hussein proud, and/or disenfranchising four whole states that did nothing wrong.

Stepping back from those controversies, though, a bigger-picture view of the "popular vote" reveals just how freakin' close this election was. The most Obama-friendly scenario has him winning by 151,844 votes, which is just 0.4% of the total cast. The most Clinton-friendly scenario (giving her the unanimous Michigan victory and excluding the caucus states) has her ahead by 286,687 votes, or just 0.8%. Basically, the popular vote was a tie.

Now, that said, if the 13 caucus states had held primaries, Obama probably would have had a more substantial edge. For instance, although he won by a whopping 79.5% to 17.2% in Idaho, he netted only 13,225 votes there, because only 21,224 people voted. If Idaho had held a (real) primary, Obama's percentage margin would likely have been more akin to his 56% to 38% win in the state's non-binding primary, but turnout probably would have been more on the order of 175,000 or thereabouts (judging from Kerry's total in 2004). That translates to a margin of roughly 31,500 instead of 13,225. Repeat that effect in the other 12 caucus states -- Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Washington and Wyoming -- and you're probably talking about an additional several hundred thousand votes for Obama if all 50 states had held primaries.

Nevertheless, it's clear that the battle for the nomination was achingly close, and the central reason Hillary lost is because of the strategic gaffes committed by her incompetently managed campaign. She and Obama essentially split the Democratic Party right down the middle, but Obama came away with a clear delegate majority for the simple reason that he ran a better campaign than she did. This obviously burns her up inside, and helps explain her current irrational behavior. She's sitting there thinking, over and over again, "I should have won this thing, I should have won this thing." And that thought process makes it incredibly difficult for her to acknowledge defeat.

And you know what? In a sense, she's right. She should have won. If her campaign had merely matched the strategic competence of Obama's campaign, such that she'd essentially tied him in delegates as well as votes, she'd very likely have ended up being the nominee, precisely because of the electability arguments she's been making. If this race were truly a tie, the superdelegates would be very open to those arguments, and she'd probably win the floor fight in Denver. But because her campaign arrogantly failed to compete in various states, and thus allowed Obama to rack up an unassailable delegate lead in February, she clearly lost the pledged-delegate count, which is the closest thing we have to an accurate reflection of the "winner" and "loser" of this byzantine process. As a result, it's game, set, match, Obama.

So, Hillary, you're right: you should have won the nomination. But nobody stole it from you. It's your own damn fault you lost, and putting your party through hell in a futile attempt to make up for your own campaign's blatant strategic errors is hardly the mark of a leader.

Comments

[Andrew]

HRC would have won if she had done just one thing: Brought Rev. Wright to the attention of the Hawkeye Cauci voters back in January. Obama would've never had a chance to emerge from the grave after that.

Anyway, *yawn*, is it football season yet? This Obama-HRC stuff is getting to be super old and boring -- a tempest in a teapot. You can bicker and whine and hate on HRC all you want, but at the end of the day, there will be a floor vote at the DNC in Denver and the nominee will be officially determined once and for all -- and 99.9% chance it will be Obama. So let's move on.

[David K.]

I think for may of the reasons you mentioned in other posts its silly to conclude it was THAT close of a race from the popular vote, because the popular vote was not what was being measured or fought over. I have no doubt Obama and Clinton would have campagined differently if this were about winning the popular vote and not more delegates. I also think you have to include a non-trivial number of cross over voters pumping up Hillary's stats who do not actually represent the will of the Democratic party.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Andrew has a point. When can we discuss Charlie Weis's shortcomings again? I bet he would still be a guru on Offense if he taped the defensive signals of competitors, ala his mentor Bill Belichik.

[David K.]

Anyone ever think to ask if maybe Hillary went to Weis for advice on how to win and THATS how this whole thing happened??

[Alasdair]

Hmmmm ...

"So, Hillary John Kerry Al Gore, you're right: you should have won the nominationPresidency. But nobody stole it from you. It's your own damn fault you lost, and putting your party through hell in a futile attempt to make up for your own campaign's blatant strategic errors is hardly the mark of a leader."

All in all, a remarkably versatile paragraph ...

Andrew - do you detect a pattern here ?

[Sandy Underpants]

Not much reason to talk about 2000 again, but thousands of Democrat voters were illegally purged from voting registrars and not allowed to vote in the Florida general election, also the United States supreme court prevented a recount from happening. Not to definitively state that Gore would have won, but the fact that he won 500,000 more popular votes than GWB, makes it seem like an examination into voting irregularities in Florida would have been worth the couple weeks it would have taken to get right.

Instead, we got George Bush who totally trashed the United States of America. At least Alisdair's party won the election though.

[David K.]

Alasdair cares more about his party than this country, are you really surprised Sandy?

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 97]

Towards the end there Hillary was taping the Obama signals only problem was that she taped the dummy instead of the live signal caller!

Happens to the best of 'em ole girl.

Saw some woman on Fox news this afternoon who said she suppurts Hillary but will vote for McCain because Obama scares her to death and she has to think of her kids future.

Would one of these 18 million just stand up and say, "aint no way I'm voting for some damn nigger with a Muslim name".

I can respect an honest racist but these in the closet racist make me sick and give real racist a bad name.

[Rob M]

Just be thankful that we have a state by state process and an electoral college. In both this case and Bush/Gore, the margins of victory are within the margin of error of all voting systems on a national basis. If we did have a one day primary and everyone voted the same way we would be spending the next 6 months recounting the votes from around the nation.

Oh and nobody was denied the right to vote in Florida in 2000. If I am wrong you can send me the names of those thousands of people who couldn't vote. I will not be holding my breath.

[Anonymous Hoosier]

Anyone know anything about the woman promoted to be Weis's interim boss?

[JD]

HRC would have won if she had done just one thing: Brought Rev. Wright to the attention of the Hawkeye Cauci voters back in January. Obama would've never had a chance to emerge from the grave after that.

Agreed. If not Iowa, the week before Super-Duper Tuesday at the VERY latest. That and more or less ignoring the small states were the campaign's fatal flaws.

[WBV]

Brendan,

You keep using phrases like "Soviet Style" victory and "Saddam would be proud" to describe Hillary's victory in Michigan. Overheated rhetoric at best. At worst, downright deceptive. Obama FREELY chose to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. Who cares WHY he did it. The point is he did it. But he didn't have to do it (as evidenced by the fact that Hillary and others kept their names on).

Hillary got those Michigan votes you don't want to count. Obama didn't. His choice. It's a free country, not a Soviet Styled sham. He made a stupid choice. Might he have gotten more votes had he left his name on the ballot? Anything is possible. But he didn't.

[Tbone]

Sorry WBV, Brendan's analysis is spot on.

Her claim to a 300k to 0 vote victory in a primary where everyone, including the voters and candidates, understood was meaningless defies credibility.

As a Michigan voter, I can't begin to tell you how offended I have been at Hillary's continual spin on this issue. The real vote came out in April, where Obama picked up nearly every one of the "uncommitted" delegates at the State district conventions.

Sure, she wanted to "count every vote". Except those that weren't cast for her. The comparison to Saddam and Soviet style elections is quite accurate in my book.

[Brent]

Well, it's interesting that Sandy brings up the "Count Every Vote" meme from 2000 and concedes that he cannot "...definitively state that Gore would have won..." considering the following. A study undertaken in 2001 by a number of well-know newspapers (Chicago Tribune Co, Washington Post, NY Times, etc..) along with CNN and the AP showed that if the recount had proceeded as requested by Al Gore (the four heavily Democratic counties) he still would have lost the election. The only way he would have won Florida was by counting those ballots where even a hint of a mark on the ballot was considered a vote (basically, guessing voter intent).

Take the advice of your favorite group and MoveOn.

[Quinn]

Sure, she wanted to "count every vote". Except those that weren't cast for her. The comparison to Saddam and Soviet style elections is quite accurate in my book

I must have missed the press reports showing how HRC threatened, intimidated and in many instances killed anyone who didn't vote for her, which were quite accurate for Saddam and Soviet style elections.

Must have been that damn biased MSM again.

Saying the race was "very close" fails to acknowledge the huge advantages Clinton started with.

[Hal]

I stand by what I said here months ago... when the history of this race for the Democrat Party's nominee for POTUS is written it will all come down to two simple words, "Fairy Tale." Interpret the former president's intentions in using them however you will, but nonetheless Mrs. Clinton's ultimate demise was irrevocably set into motion with the utterance of those two simple words.

Elvis, folks, has left the building!

[Joe Loy]

"I think for many of the reasons you mentioned in other posts it's silly to conclude it was THAT close of a race from the popular vote, because the popular vote was not what was being measured or fought over." (emphases added)

True enough, David. / And the Obama campaign has for some time been making the same entirely-valid point, quite correctly reminding us that It's the Delegates, stupid :}.

Now here's the potential purely-political Downside of that. In the Not THAT Far-fetched event that the dread EV/PV Inversion should (God forbid) Happen Again ~ but this time Cleanly, without a single statistically-tied State being the Pivot of the matter ~ then a PV-"winning" but EV-(i.e. Election)-losing Barack, having so irrefutably instructed us that party Nominations are conferred by convention Delegates (whose state-by-state Pledges ought not be Traduced by guile or wile), will be intellectually in No Position to suddenly Switch Up & embark upon a November-to-December state-by-state campaign to persuade elected McCain Electors to betray their Pledges in sufficient number to vindicate an extra-constitutional National Popular-Vote Metric.

(So the Moral of this Story is: to hell with Florida & Georgia; find a runningmate who ~ and/or, an Issue which ~ will carry Texas. Game, Set, Match. :)

[Ed]

Excellent, excellent post, Brendan.

I am going to be figuratively SCREAMING for a very long time that the people (or as O'Reilly would say "The Folks") did NOT nominate BHO. The PARTY did.

This is a big point. I will be made to endure the rhetoric as to how BHO is the man of the people. How he galvanized and moved the electorate. How superior/enlightened the average Dem voter is relative to the eeevil conservative/GOP voters. All of which is BUNK!!!!!!!!!!

He managed to eke out an improbable as hell win. But as you have repeatedly pointed out, he was fortunate to go up against a particularly unlikeable and tin-eared pol.

BHO should be up on McCain. Yet today, he is down 46-45 in the latest poll. Gore and Kerey were each up double-digits at this point. Ruh roh.

[Andrew]

Are you kidding me, Sandy? Not only do we have to debate the 2002-2003 decision to invade Iraq over and over again, now we have to go all the way back to 2000 and rehash Florida? Unbelievable. Wake me up again when the topic drifts further back in time to FDR's role in extending vs. ending the Great Depression.

[David K.]

BHO should be up on McCain. Yet today, he is down 46-45 in the latest poll. Gore and Kerey were each up double-digits at this point. Ruh roh.

Yeah, and look how well that turned out for both of them! Polls at this point mean very little, there is a long way to go between now and the election in November.

[Joe Loy]

"Wake me up again when the topic drifts further back in time to FDR's role in extending vs. ending the Great Depression."

Andrew. Wake up. FDR ended the Great Depression by diagnosing its cause as Phobophobia, threatening to Pack the Court, and declaring War. Andrew! Rise & shine.

;}

[Andrew]

Heh, "phobophobia". I wish I'd thought of that!

[Jim]

I must have missed the press reports showing how HRC threatened, intimidated and in many instances killed anyone who didn't vote for her, which were quite accurate for Saddam and Soviet style elections.

Having a degree in Russian history with a focus particularly on post-Soviet states in the Caucasus and Central Asia, I can tell you there are a lot of similarities between post-Soviet elections and Michigan. They obviously aren't identical, but they share important features. They are notably missing large scale ballot box stuffing, for one.

But the absence of serious opposition campaigning (where Clinton represents an incumbent or essentially government candidate due to her name recognition) is a common feature. Looking at the most recent presidential election in Russia, the parties that were allowed to run candidates weren't able to campaign much.

Not hearing the opposition is definitely a large part of their program.

[Sandy Underpants]

In reverse order:

Andrew, I didn't bring up the 2000 election, Alisdair did. It's important to discuss the War in Iraq since 1) people are dying there as I type, and 2) many people don't seem to recall that there was direct intelligence from the UN Weapons Inspectors in Iraq in 2003 that felt War or Military action was not necessary and there was no significant WMD present. Yet president Bush started a War anyway.

Brent, you didn't actually post any links to prove anything, and furthermore nobody can say what 'might have happened if the recount went forward'. Gore lost the state by a couple thousand votes, that's within any counting measure of error when you have millions of votes cast. There was no recount and that's just the way it was.

Rob M, you can stop holding your breath now. Kelvin King and Sandylynn Williams, "Tampa residents were among thousands, of non-felons in Florida who civil rights lawyers contend were wrongly prevented from voting in the Nov. 7 election after state election officials and a private contractor bungled an attempt to cleanse felons from voter rolls."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A99749-2001May30?language=printer

[Alasdair]

Sandy U - as ever your haystack folk are evident ...

How many of the UN Inspectors were being bribed as part of the Oil-for-Food-and-Drugs corruption and other Saddam Hussein corruptions ? And you persist in ignoring all the other proven reasons which were part of the decision to go to active war again in Iraq ...

Brent may not want to deprive you of the educational result you will obtain when you do your own research as a bunch of us have done ... there was not one single solitary major newspaper who found anything toher than "Dammit, Bush woulda won anyway" ...

And last and by no means least, {sarc}we ALL know that "civil rights lawyers contend " means that what follows MUST be Ablsolute Revealed Truth, now don't we ? {/sarc}

Your last item has all the accuracy of "The butterfly ballot was all the fault of the Republicans" ...

[Sandy Underpants]

No UN Weapons Inspector was bribed. Is that your way of not acknowledging that the UN was right and the US was wrong?

I just posted a link to the Washington Post citing thousands of Democrats that were turned away at the poll. The Washington Post is a major newspaper and if the article is accurate, Bush would not have won.

"The Media Consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center to examine 175,010 ballots that were never counted in Florida. The results showed that the winning candidate varied based on the method used to include or interpret ballots. For cases where all of their examiners agreed, the nine different recount scenarios resulted in Bush prevailing four times, and Gore prevailing in the other five. Ironically enough, under the recount rules initially requested by Gore, Bush would have won, and under the rules requested by Bush, Gore would have won."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000

[Alasdair]

Sandy - how about you quote another part of the article you cited - "It was left to local election supervisors to determine whether residents of their counties were accurately listed as felons. With little guidance from the state, county supervisors devised their own rules." - and what was the proportion of Democrats to Republicans amongst the "local election supervisors" ?

As I recall from the 2000 Election, most of the county election boards in Floriday were either majority Democrat or completely Democrat ... since they made the decisions, this is the Republican Party's fault how ? I beleive that the Butterfly Ballot was designed/selected by an all-Democrat county election board ...

Then, you try to cite Wikipedia - that well known accurate unbiased source of information ...

[David K.]

Alasdair, it was Catherine Harris, Republican and Dubya's Campaign Manager who dropped the ball on providing those standards. And yes someone who was a Democrat designed the ballot, but she was not acting in a capacity as a Democrat, nor, as far as I am aware was she responsible for how the names were arranged on the ballot.

As for his citation on Wikipedia, that article includes numerous links to primary sources AND at the very least he cites *A* source, something you NEVER do.