The myth of the "popular vote"

[patgund]

A common thread I'm seeing from some of Sen. Clinton's more rabid "supporters", (the "Give me Clinton or give me Death/McCain" crowd) is that Sen. Clinton supposedly won the popular vote. On the WesPAC blog, I asked a Clinton supporter about this and was curtly told to "go to Real Clear Politics and see for yourself."

So I did. This page to be precise:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

What I saw was there was six different ways to calculate the popular vote. In three of these, Sen. Obama wins the popular vote, and in three of these Sen. Clinton wins the popular vote.

Note, the primaries - or the general election for that matter - are not conducted based on popular vote. Indeed, the states are welcome to select delegates pretty much as they want. Most use the primary election system, some use caucuses. Texas uses both, and Washington has a binding caucus and a non-binding primary. Because of the way the caucus system works, it's pretty much impossible to figure out popular vote from those states. Sen. Obama did well in caucus states, which is why you see many of the more extreme supporters of Sen. Clinton speaking out against the caucus system. However, it's to be assumed that if the caucus system was not in play, his committee would have taken a different approach.

There's also the problem of Michigan, where most of the people running withdrew their names from the ballot per DNC request.

Format is Type/Obama/Clinton/Spread

The first is the basic popular vote. The caucus states are not counted, neither is Michigan:

Popular Vote Total - 17,535,458 48.1% - 17,493,836 48.0% - Obama +41,622 +0.1%

The second is basic popular vote, plus estimates for caucus states:

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA - 17,869,542 48.2 - 17,717,698 47.8% - Obama +151,844 +0.4%

The third is basic popular vote, no caucus, Sen. Clinton is given her Michigan votes, uncommitted votes are not given to Sen. Obama:

Popular Vote (w/MI) - 17,535,458 47.4% - 17,822,145 48.1% - Clinton +286,687 +0.8%

The fourth is the same as the third, but with the addition of the caucus estimates:

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA - 17,869,542 47.4% - 18,046,007 47.9% - Clinton +176,465 +0.5%

The fifth is popular vote, no caucus, Sen. Clinton is given her Michigan votes, uncommitted votes are given to Sen. Obama:

Popular Vote (w/MI) - 17,773,626 48.0% - 17,822,145 48.1% - Clinton +48,519 +0.1%

The sixth is the same as the fifth, but with the addition of the caucus estimates:

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA - 18,107,710 48.1% - 18,046,007 47.9% - Obama +61,703 +0.2%

It's interesting to note that in all three of the Clinton wins, the win is based on denying Obama the popular vote. This is done by denying the uncommitted Michigan votes to Obama, and/or the caucus votes. Two of Obama's wins are based on ignoring the results of the invalid election in Michigan, but the third win is by counting all the votes. This is ironic, based on Sen. Clinton's campaign cry of "count all the votes", since that method results in a win for Sen. Obama.

Comments

[morgan-gw.livejournal.com]

She's been using an "I'm winning in all the states that matter" approach for months now. Did you notice that, in her speech Tuesday night, she also mentioned winning the "last" primary of the season, even though the were still open polls in Montana?

...and thanks so much to South Dakota. You had the last word in this primary season...

What gall.

[ophy.livejournal.com]

Just out of curiosity, if Obama chooses Clinton for his running mate, will your vitriolic posts about her lessen?

Your guy won. She's ending her campaign and supporting Senator Obama. When do the attacks on her end?

Edited to add: I'm a democrat. Not a Hilary-supporter or a Barak-supporter. I've been totally cool with either of them from the get-go. I will happily cast my vote for Barak and whomever he has as his running mate in November.

[patgund.livejournal.com]

The "popular vote" comment was told me by a Clinton "supporter" who used that as the excuse why they were going to vote for McCain rather than Obama.

I simply found it interesting that the site they told me to check to prove their claim seems to say something completely different.

I figured if Sen. Clinton won I'd more than likely vote for her. But I don't like being lied to, and some of her "supporters" are doing just that. That's not an attack against her.

[patgund.livejournal.com]

Oh, and while I would vote for her if she was Sen. Obama's running mate, I'd rather hope he picks someone else. That's not to say I think she would be bad for that role, but, again, she brings a lot of negatives in terms of public opinion to the role. I'd rather see her with a role in his cabinet, say as health and human services, or even a diplomatic role.

Currently my VP favourite is Clark. Strong leadership and public service background, and being a Clinton supporter himself, could bridge the gap between the two groups. Another choice would be Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius.

Ultimately, I suspect Sen. Clinton's campaign is going to be a textbook case of how not to run a campaign. While she had a lot of negatives, she came in with money, name recognition, the majority of super delegates, and a host of other positives that would have, if managed correctly, made her unbeatable. The problem is she also came in with a pronounced "entitlement" mentality, and her campaign was based around a "knockout punch" on Super Tuesday that would have given her an unbeatable lead. They literally did not entertain any other options - and when the knockout punch didn't happen, it left her campaign floundering behind. She still could have pulled up out of that, but her campaign staff and advisors went negative early to try and take out the opposition, and that crystalized things further.

Ultimately one has to look at her campaign as an example of a good person who was not served well at all by her staff and advisors.

[electorprince.livejournal.com]

Sebelius is almost worse than Clinton; as devastating as she's been to Kansas during her time in office, you'd have better results cloning Lloyd Bentsen.

[marymont.livejournal.com]

I'm usually in the camp of "if it's about politics, STFU" but I've read Pat's posts on this subject very carefully. His comments were never vitriolic. They were measured, reasoned, and smart. He pointed/points out inconsistencies and irregularities in Mrs. Clinton's campaign and lets his readers come to their own conclusions. Thank you, Pat.

Those on my flist who are supporters of Mrs. Clinton have been rather vicious in their Obama-bashing and far more so in their McCain-bashing, I'm sorry to say.

Personally, I am socially left-leaning and fiscally right-leaning--I guess that makes me naturally Libertarian. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party is still pretty fringy.

[ophy.livejournal.com]

Just taken as a whole... it seems that most of his political posts for the last couple of months have been "OMGZ, look at how horrible Clinton is!!1!11!" I was just surprised to see a continuance of anti-Clinton posts now that it's clear that Obama has the nomination.

Personally, I've kept out of the political arena since the primary was over in my state. Nothing more I can do about it, so I wasn't gonna bother with it. Way too much rabid-ness on both sides... aren't we (democrats) all supposed to be rooting for the same team?

I too am socially left-leaning and fiscally right-leaning. I've been described as an extremely conservative democrat or a terribly liberal republican. I just want Shrub out. This county has gone to hell in a handbasket under his watch.

[allyra.livejournal.com]

Just interrupting to say OMG I LOVE your icon!! /covets

[ophy.livejournal.com]

Feel free to gank. I have several PB icons that I've ganked from all over.

[allyra.livejournal.com]

Thanks! *snabbles*

To be fair.....

[patgund.livejournal.com]

You have a point. I HAVE been critical of Sen. Clinton. From the day she entered the race, I found her sense of entitlement and the attitude that she deserved the nomination to be like fingernails on a chalkboard.

And I do NOT think her campaign staff or certain of her more rabid supporters have helped her at all. I feel her staff ran a nasty and divisive campaign, and only her name kept her in as long as it did.

But that is my opinion. And mayhaps I should have been a bit more fair about such things. (I don't feel my last couple political posts were that rabid or nasty at all, but some of my other ones WERE a bit critical). There was a lot about Sen. Clinton's behaviour and campaign I did not stomach well at all. But she ran a historic campaign, and thanks to her, the path to the White House for future women is just that much easier. For those things, she deserves both honour and respect.

[jkusters]

This was an attack?

JOhn.

[ophy.livejournal.com]

Not as venomous as others in the past few months, but yes. The phrase "beating a dead horse" comes to mind.

That said, Patrick and I have been friends for a very long time now and I knew he would take my comment/question in the spirit it was intended. Certainly not an attack on him.

[allyra.livejournal.com]

Here via my friends-friends list (though I think we have the LMB list in common).

I was one of the "Give me Clinton or give me McCain" crowd...until I realized how moronic it was to even consider voting for a man who agrees with me on 8% of the issues. I remain reserved about voting for Obama, but I definitely will not be voting for McCain.

Very interesting analysis of the popular vote.

[patgund.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

I don't think I would have ever voted for McCain 2008, (2000 was a different matter), if Sen. Clinton would have won. Then again, Sen. Obama wasn't my first choice (or second, or even third choice) I remain uncomfortable with his experience level.

But I felt he was the best of the lot running at that time.

[allyra.livejournal.com]

I too feel uncomfortable with his experience level. That's my biggest reservation. My decision will be informed by the people he chooses as his advisers...and in no small way, of course, by whom he chooses as his running mate. (I'd prefer Hillary, as you could probably guess. ;) )

I did think about voting for McCain in 2000, which is why I was so easily swayed in 2008 at first. Now...*shudders*.

[kyril.livejournal.com]

Compared to Dubya, who not only didn't seem to have much experience but fostered a culture of "loyalty to all Bushes", yes-men who couldn't play devil's advocate or advance unpleasant truths, not to mention support of incompetent underlings even after they failed in such a way that showed they should never have had those positions to begin with...

I predict Obama will have good advisors. And he will listen to them. Or maybe it's more of a hope than a prediction...as one Heinlein character said, look well at the new rascals before you throw the old rascals out.

But at this time I give more weight to another sentiment: politicians, like diapers, should be changed often, and for the same reasons.