Tweet
The New York
Notes on politics, mostly
April 29, 2008
After Pennsylvania (2)
I’ve been maintaining for months that the most significant metric in the Democratic race will ultimately be the popular vote, even though the official, by-the-rules determinant is convention delegates, elected and “super.” I maintain this because the popular vote—i.e., the votes of actual human beings—has more democratic (and Democratic) legitimacy than the votes of constructed or mediating entities.
Back on February 21st, I did some complicated (for me) math, based on Gore’s half-million-popular-vote victory in the 2000 general election (a Station of the Cross for Democrats), and decreed as follows:
If you count just the votes in regular, Democratic Party-authorized primary elections:
Here’s why her math is new: In Michigan, where Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich were on the ballot but Obama wasn’t, Clinton got 328,309 votes, the barber-shop quartet got 27,921 votes among them, and “uncommitted” got 238,168 votes.
Or, in the Clinton executive-summary version:
Anyway, one of the Clinton campaign’s arguments for counting Michigan has been that local Obama supporters (as well as supporters of Edwards, Richardson, and Biden) quietly urged people to vote “uncommitted.”
So let’s count most of those “uncommitted” votes as Obama’s. A figure of 200,000 seems reasonable. That would change the figures for the two categories that include Michigan to:
Regular + Florida + Michigan + uncommitted:
I calculate that roughly another four and a half million people will vote in the remaining Democratic primaries. If Clinton wins these by the overall margin she piled up in Pennsylvania—i.e., around ten points, 55-45—she will net another 450,000 votes.
Here’s what that would do to the margins in our eight categories, in the order I’ve discussed them, starting with just the D.N.C.-approved primaries down to the two “corrected” (by me) Michigan-included ones:
Regular primaries:
For every point Clinton falls off from that ten-point spread, 45,000 votes switch to Obama. (At least I think they do. The last time I did this much arithmetic was when I was figuring out batting averages for my seventh-grade gym class.) That would mean that if the popular vote in the remaining primaries turns out even, then:
Regular primaries:
Obama’s cumulative margin is 755,070, Clinton’s is 685,162.
Each candidate exceeds the Gore/2000/Hertzberg/Meaningfulness Index in two categories, falls short in the rest.
Bottom line: the whole damn thing will be roughly a tie. And I do mean roughly.
In which case it really will be up to the Supreme Court, I mean the Superdelegate Court. At that point, maybe the best solution would be for the supers to abstain on the first ballot in Denver and then everybody can have a free-for-all. Here’s what would happen next, according to a mystifying non-explanation on the Democrats’ mystifying “Convention 101” Web page:
Copyright © 2008 CondéNet. All rights reserved.
Notes on politics, mostly
April 29, 2008
After Pennsylvania (2)
I’ve been maintaining for months that the most significant metric in the Democratic race will ultimately be the popular vote, even though the official, by-the-rules determinant is convention delegates, elected and “super.” I maintain this because the popular vote—i.e., the votes of actual human beings—has more democratic (and Democratic) legitimacy than the votes of constructed or mediating entities.
Back on February 21st, I did some complicated (for me) math, based on Gore’s half-million-popular-vote victory in the 2000 general election (a Station of the Cross for Democrats), and decreed as follows:
In this year’s Democratic primaries, the equivalent of Al Gore’s national popular-vote margin in the 2000 general election would be around 125,000 votes. So if the final difference between Clinton and Obama is more than that, it will be awkward, to say the least, for the superdelegates to take it upon themselves to reverse the voters’ choice.
Awkwardness has made big strides since then. Post-Pennsylvania, the RealClearPolitics popular-vote count is, shall we say, problematic. Depending on what you count, somewhere between 28.5 million and 30.7 million votes have been cast so far. What you make of the results depends on—well, it depends on what you count. If you count just the votes in regular, Democratic Party-authorized primary elections:
- Obama: 49.2%
- Clinton: 47.5%
Obama’s margin: 501,298
Regular primaries + four caucus states:- Obama: 49.3%
- Clinton: 47.2%
Obama’s margin: 611,520
Regular + Florida:- Obama: 48.3%
- Clinton: 47.6%
Obama’s margin: 206,526
Regular + Florida + caucuses:- Obama: 48.4%
- Clinton: 47.4%
Obama’s margin: 316,748
Regular + Florida + Michigan:- Clinton: 47.8%
- Obama: 47.4%
Clinton’s margin: 121,783
Regular + Florida + Michigan + caucuses:- Clinton: 47.5%
- Obama: 47.5%
Clinton’s margin: 11,561
It’s these last two match-ups, the ones that include Michigan, that have given rise to mischievous claims such as:One thing many people haven’t noticed about Hillary Clinton’s 55% to 45% victory over Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary is that it put her ahead of Obama in the popular vote.
and headlines like “Using New Math, Clinton Claims She’s Ahead.” (Does that sound gently mocking? Another example of New York Times humor, perhaps?)Here’s why her math is new: In Michigan, where Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich were on the ballot but Obama wasn’t, Clinton got 328,309 votes, the barber-shop quartet got 27,921 votes among them, and “uncommitted” got 238,168 votes.
Or, in the Clinton executive-summary version:
- Clinton: 328,309
- Obama: 0
Anyway, one of the Clinton campaign’s arguments for counting Michigan has been that local Obama supporters (as well as supporters of Edwards, Richardson, and Biden) quietly urged people to vote “uncommitted.”
So let’s count most of those “uncommitted” votes as Obama’s. A figure of 200,000 seems reasonable. That would change the figures for the two categories that include Michigan to:
Regular + Florida + Michigan + uncommitted:
- Obama: 48.0%
- Clinton: 47.9%
Obama’s margin: 78,217
Regular + Florida + Michigan + caucuses + uncommitted:- Obama: 47.6%
- Clinton: 47.5%
Obama’s margin: 188,439
So now what?I calculate that roughly another four and a half million people will vote in the remaining Democratic primaries. If Clinton wins these by the overall margin she piled up in Pennsylvania—i.e., around ten points, 55-45—she will net another 450,000 votes.
Here’s what that would do to the margins in our eight categories, in the order I’ve discussed them, starting with just the D.N.C.-approved primaries down to the two “corrected” (by me) Michigan-included ones:
Regular primaries:
Obama’s margin: 51,298
Regular + four caucus states: Obama’s margin: 161,520
Regular + Florida:Clinton’s margin: 243,474
Regular + Florida + caucuses:Clinton’s margin: 133,252
Regular + Florida + Michigan:Clinton’s margin: 571,783
Regular + Florida + Michigan + caucuses:Clinton’s margin: 461,561
Regular + Florida + Michigan + uncommitted:Clinton’s margin: 371,783
Regular + Florida + Michigan + caucuses + uncommitted:Clinton’s margin: 261,561
In other words, Clinton would have a case. Obama would have one, too—he’d still be a little bit ahead in the popular vote according to to the rules everybody agreed upon in advance, and he would definitely be ahead in elected delegates. She would have a popular vote lead in all the count-Florida-and-Michigan categories. But neither candidate could any longer plausibly claim that he or she was unambiguously the people’s choice.For every point Clinton falls off from that ten-point spread, 45,000 votes switch to Obama. (At least I think they do. The last time I did this much arithmetic was when I was figuring out batting averages for my seventh-grade gym class.) That would mean that if the popular vote in the remaining primaries turns out even, then:
Regular primaries:
Obama’s margin: 276,298
Regular + four caucus states:Obama’s margin: 386,520
Regular + Florida:Clinton’s margin: 18,474
Regular + Florida + caucuses:Obama’s margin: 92,252
Regular + Florida + Michigan:Clinton’s margin: 346,783
Regular + Florida + Michigan + caucuses:Clinton’s margin: 236,561
Regular + Florida + Michigan + uncommitted:Clinton’s margin: 46,783
Regular + Florida + Michigan + caucuses + uncommitted:Clinton’s margin: 36,561
Clinton wins in five categories, Obama wins in three.Obama’s cumulative margin is 755,070, Clinton’s is 685,162.
Each candidate exceeds the Gore/2000/Hertzberg/Meaningfulness Index in two categories, falls short in the rest.
Bottom line: the whole damn thing will be roughly a tie. And I do mean roughly.
In which case it really will be up to the Supreme Court, I mean the Superdelegate Court. At that point, maybe the best solution would be for the supers to abstain on the first ballot in Denver and then everybody can have a free-for-all. Here’s what would happen next, according to a mystifying non-explanation on the Democrats’ mystifying “Convention 101” Web page:
If neither candidate reaches a majority of delegate votes on the first ballot for president, the nomination and the race for delegates becomes competitive.
Like it isn’t already.Copyright © 2008 CondéNet. All rights reserved.