The Popular vote -a fight for fallacy?
Jul. 25th, 2008 03:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
patgundMy previous guest post at YesToDemocracy was so well recieved (as was it's cross post at Taylor March's weblog), that I was asked to provide another post.
I did.
The Popular vote -a fight for fallacy?
One common statement within the PUMA crowd is "Sen. Clinton won the popular vote". Certainly she made a very impressive showing during the primaries.
But did she win it? The answer is - maybe.
Now the "popular vote" thing is meaningless to begin with, since popular vote is not how delegates are selected. Indeed, in both elected delegate and "super delegates", Sen. Obama has leads in both groups. But still you see the "popular vote" claim. Now I got curious about this when I asked a Clinton supporter about this on another blog and was curtly told to "go to Real Clear Politics and see for yourself."
So I did. This page to be precise:
2008 Democratic Popular Vote
They list four different calculations, with Sen. Obama winning 50% and Sen. Clinton winning 50%. Let's look at the first:
1) Popular Vote Total, (no caucus estimates, includes Florida, doesn't include Michigan)
Obama - 17,535,458 Clinton - 17,493,836
Winner - Obama +41,622
Both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama came away with over 17 million votes. Margin is only 0.1%
2) Popular Vote Total, (Estimates for IA, NV, ME, WA, includes Florida, doesn't include Michigan)
Obama - 17,869,542
Clinton - 17,717,698
Winner - Obama +151,844
Over 17 and half million votes each this time. Margin here is 0.4%
So those are the two wins for Sen. Obama.
But now we come into the Michigan tangle.
As you know, most of the people running for the nomination took their names off the Michigan ballot due to a conflict between the state Democratic party and the DNC, which means that Sen. Clinton was on the ballot and Sen. Obama was not (Sen. Clinton got 328,309 55.2% of the vote, with "Uncommitted" getting 238,168 votes).
3) Popular Vote Total, (no caucus estimates, includes Michigan)
Obama - 17,535,458
Clinton - 17,822,145
Winner - Clinton +286,687
By including Michigan and excluding the caucus estimates, Sen. Clinton gets a 0.8% lead. Still, both get, again, over 17 and a half million votes.
4) Popular Vote Total, (Estimates for IA, NV, ME, WA, includes Michigan)
Obama - 17,869,542
Clinton - 18,046,007
Winner - Clinton +176,465
By adding in the caucus estimates, Sen. Clinton gets to 18 million votes to Sen. Obama's almost 17.9 million votes. The margin drops to 0.5%
So on their page, depending on the statistics used, Obama wins 50% of the popular vote or Clinton wins 50% of the popular vote.
But we still have that pesky 238,168 Michigan votes that are in limbo because they didn't vote for Sen. Clinton. One could logically argue that ignoring those voters could in fact be disenfranchisement of those voters. And that's 44.8% of the people who voted in that primary.
Real Clear Politics did NOT add those votes to Sen. Obama's count. But what if we did, just to see what would happen?
5) Popular Vote Total, (no caucus estimates, includes Michigan, uncommitted to Obama)
Obama - 17,773,626
Clinton - 17,822,145
Winner - Clinton +48,519
So here, by excluding the caucus votes, both get over 17 and a half million. Sen. Clinton wins by a margin of 0.1%
Now we get to the last estimate.
6) Popular Vote Total, (Estimates for IA, NV, ME, WA, includes Michigan, uncommitted to Obama)
Obama - 18,107,710
Clinton - 18,046,007
Winner - Obama +61,703
Both get over 18 million votes. Sen. Obama wins with a margin of 0.2% And again, there's that pesky 50% thing.
In a nutshell, depending on which metric used, Sen. Clinton either wins the popular vote or Sen. Obama does. There's a 50% chance either way. So the claim that Sen. Clinton won the popular vote is meaningless because it can be proven just as validly that Sen. Obama won the popular vote.
It's interesting to note that in all three of the Clinton wins, the win is based on denying Obama some of the votes. This is done by either:
a - denying the uncommitted Michigan votes to Obama, or
b - denying the estimated caucus votes, or
c - all the above
The third Obama win is based on making sure all the votes from were counted to the best of everyone's ability.
It is very impressive how well both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton did. Both got between 17 and 18 million votes. That's between 34 and 36 million voters, all wanting change in the way this nation is going. The margin between then was between. 0.1% and 0.8% This is incredible, and a feat both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama should be proud of. They were both trailblazers this election cycle, and both would make very dynamic presidents.
Personally, I feel Sen. Clinton deserved a far better campaign than she got, and would have been unbeatable with a different campaign staff and strategy. Sen. Clinton's campaign made several critical errors that make it very hard to overcome, and it says something impressive about her that she did that well despite those errors.
As for Sen. Obama, I don't think anyone could have predicted how well he did either. "Conventional wisdom" said that someone of his background, and with a "funny name" as well, couldn't go up against someone as well known as Sen. Clinton - especially in a political climate that favored good memories of her husband's terms in office. For him to do this overwhelmingly well speaks volumes about his potential as president.
The Democratic party this year had an embarrassment of riches. Now the question is do they move forward with these riches, and make the changes those 34-36 million want? Or do they claim defeat from the mouth of victory and let the GOP move forward with the same old tired policies that have so ruined our economy and society?
I did.
The Popular vote -a fight for fallacy?
One common statement within the PUMA crowd is "Sen. Clinton won the popular vote". Certainly she made a very impressive showing during the primaries.
But did she win it? The answer is - maybe.
Now the "popular vote" thing is meaningless to begin with, since popular vote is not how delegates are selected. Indeed, in both elected delegate and "super delegates", Sen. Obama has leads in both groups. But still you see the "popular vote" claim. Now I got curious about this when I asked a Clinton supporter about this on another blog and was curtly told to "go to Real Clear Politics and see for yourself."
So I did. This page to be precise:
2008 Democratic Popular Vote
They list four different calculations, with Sen. Obama winning 50% and Sen. Clinton winning 50%. Let's look at the first:
1) Popular Vote Total, (no caucus estimates, includes Florida, doesn't include Michigan)
Obama - 17,535,458 Clinton - 17,493,836
Winner - Obama +41,622
Both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama came away with over 17 million votes. Margin is only 0.1%
2) Popular Vote Total, (Estimates for IA, NV, ME, WA, includes Florida, doesn't include Michigan)
Obama - 17,869,542
Clinton - 17,717,698
Winner - Obama +151,844
Over 17 and half million votes each this time. Margin here is 0.4%
So those are the two wins for Sen. Obama.
But now we come into the Michigan tangle.
As you know, most of the people running for the nomination took their names off the Michigan ballot due to a conflict between the state Democratic party and the DNC, which means that Sen. Clinton was on the ballot and Sen. Obama was not (Sen. Clinton got 328,309 55.2% of the vote, with "Uncommitted" getting 238,168 votes).
3) Popular Vote Total, (no caucus estimates, includes Michigan)
Obama - 17,535,458
Clinton - 17,822,145
Winner - Clinton +286,687
By including Michigan and excluding the caucus estimates, Sen. Clinton gets a 0.8% lead. Still, both get, again, over 17 and a half million votes.
4) Popular Vote Total, (Estimates for IA, NV, ME, WA, includes Michigan)
Obama - 17,869,542
Clinton - 18,046,007
Winner - Clinton +176,465
By adding in the caucus estimates, Sen. Clinton gets to 18 million votes to Sen. Obama's almost 17.9 million votes. The margin drops to 0.5%
So on their page, depending on the statistics used, Obama wins 50% of the popular vote or Clinton wins 50% of the popular vote.
But we still have that pesky 238,168 Michigan votes that are in limbo because they didn't vote for Sen. Clinton. One could logically argue that ignoring those voters could in fact be disenfranchisement of those voters. And that's 44.8% of the people who voted in that primary.
Real Clear Politics did NOT add those votes to Sen. Obama's count. But what if we did, just to see what would happen?
5) Popular Vote Total, (no caucus estimates, includes Michigan, uncommitted to Obama)
Obama - 17,773,626
Clinton - 17,822,145
Winner - Clinton +48,519
So here, by excluding the caucus votes, both get over 17 and a half million. Sen. Clinton wins by a margin of 0.1%
Now we get to the last estimate.
6) Popular Vote Total, (Estimates for IA, NV, ME, WA, includes Michigan, uncommitted to Obama)
Obama - 18,107,710
Clinton - 18,046,007
Winner - Obama +61,703
Both get over 18 million votes. Sen. Obama wins with a margin of 0.2% And again, there's that pesky 50% thing.
In a nutshell, depending on which metric used, Sen. Clinton either wins the popular vote or Sen. Obama does. There's a 50% chance either way. So the claim that Sen. Clinton won the popular vote is meaningless because it can be proven just as validly that Sen. Obama won the popular vote.
It's interesting to note that in all three of the Clinton wins, the win is based on denying Obama some of the votes. This is done by either:
a - denying the uncommitted Michigan votes to Obama, or
b - denying the estimated caucus votes, or
c - all the above
The third Obama win is based on making sure all the votes from were counted to the best of everyone's ability.
It is very impressive how well both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton did. Both got between 17 and 18 million votes. That's between 34 and 36 million voters, all wanting change in the way this nation is going. The margin between then was between. 0.1% and 0.8% This is incredible, and a feat both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama should be proud of. They were both trailblazers this election cycle, and both would make very dynamic presidents.
Personally, I feel Sen. Clinton deserved a far better campaign than she got, and would have been unbeatable with a different campaign staff and strategy. Sen. Clinton's campaign made several critical errors that make it very hard to overcome, and it says something impressive about her that she did that well despite those errors.
As for Sen. Obama, I don't think anyone could have predicted how well he did either. "Conventional wisdom" said that someone of his background, and with a "funny name" as well, couldn't go up against someone as well known as Sen. Clinton - especially in a political climate that favored good memories of her husband's terms in office. For him to do this overwhelmingly well speaks volumes about his potential as president.
The Democratic party this year had an embarrassment of riches. Now the question is do they move forward with these riches, and make the changes those 34-36 million want? Or do they claim defeat from the mouth of victory and let the GOP move forward with the same old tired policies that have so ruined our economy and society?
