The Numbers
A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for more than 15 years – conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. He's the first and only pollster to win a News Emmy, for his second national survey of public opinion in Iraq.
FAVORITES
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
« Obama and Working-Class Whites | Main | Updating the Vote Count »
Counting the Vote
May 16, 2008 11:53 AM
In an interview with Charlie Gibson this week, Hillary Clinton contended that she's ahead in the popular vote – a critical claim in her last-ditch attempt to win over super delegates. The problem: It's arguably not so.
"Arguably" because there are myriad complications in trying to count votes in this nominating contest – and not just because of the disputed Michigan and Florida primaries. The other problem is that in a handful of Democratic caucuses votes simply weren't toted up. The "vote" totals being reported there aren’t votes at all, but initial delegate counts. Switch to an estimate of actual, human-being voters, and the story changes.
Here’s the deal: ABC and other news organizations are basing their totals on counts supplied by The Associated Press. Those numbers have Obama ahead (by 579,502 votes) if you leave out Michigan, where he wasn't on the ballot, and Florida, where neither candidate campaigned, in both cases to respect the national party in a dispute over those states' primary dates. Clinton's claim is that if you add in the votes from those two states, she's ahead – and she is, by a grand total of 43,579 votes out of more than 33 million cast.
"In fact," Clinton told Gibson, "I'm slightly ahead in the national vote right now."
Hold it.
Above and beyond the Michigan/Florida issue are the challenges in counting votes in the Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Washington and Texas caucuses. There the AP counted initial delegates, not votes, simply because votes weren't tabulated. ("Initial" delegates because final delegate selection is a more drawn-out process. Don’t ask.) It makes sense if what you’re really after is a delegate count. But if the vote count is what you care about – as Clinton clearly does – well, it doesn't.
Take Iowa. The AP count there gives Obama 940 votes, Clinton 737. That seems bizarre in a state where the state Democratic Party reports that 236,000 caucus-goers turned out. Caucuses are party-run affairs; they make their own rules, and vote-counting wasn't on the agenda. AP had no choice. Its "vote" count tallies initial delegates, because that's all it had to tally.
But there is a way to estimate actual voters – an estimate to be sure, but an entirely plausible one. In Iowa we can multiply total caucus-goers by the candidate preferences measured in the entrance poll – 34 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Clinton. That produces a vote estimate of 80,240 votes for Obama, 63,720 for Clinton – an Obama margin of 16,520 votes, rather than the 196-"vote" margin in the delegate-based count.
Doing the same in Nevada helps Clinton, giving her an 8,229-vote margin, rather than her 582-delegate margin in the AP delegate count.
In Maine we don't have an entrance poll, but we do have delegate percentages – 60 percent of initial delegates went to Obama, 40 percent to Clinton. Applying those shares to the state party's count of 44,866 caucus-goers produces an 8,773-vote Obama margin, compared to his 683-delegate margin.
Washington's a tougher nut. The AP count based on initial delegates is 21,629 for Obama, 9,992 for Clinton – a 68-31 percent Obama margin. But we can’t use that margin to produce a vote estimate, because unlike in Iowa, Nevada and Maine, the state party in Washington didn't produce an overall turnout figure for its caucuses.
However there was another event – a "beauty contest" primary in Washington, held in addition to its caucuses. The primary did not elect delegates, so it's not included in most tallies. But it does represent people who got up on their hind legs and voted – 354,112 for Obama, 315,744 for Clinton – an Obama margin of 38,368 votes. This seems more than fair to Clinton, since Obama won delegates by a much wider margin – but with no total caucus-goer count, it's the only vote-based data we've got.
Texas is the big kahuna, with its own complications. There was both a primary and a caucus there, and both awarded delegates. The initial delegate count for the Texas caucuses has 23,918 for Obama and 18,620 for Clinton. This is complicated by the fact that only 41 percent of the caucus precincts were included in the AP count, but again it's what we've got. That's 56-44 percent for Obama.
How many people attended Texas caucuses? The state party tells us it was “a little under a million.” That's an awfully round number, and some anecdotal reporting suggests the Texas caucuses weren't, shall we say, supremely well-organized. Let’s call it 900,000. That produces a margin for Obama of 108,000 votes.
We can debate whether it's fair to include both the Texas primary and caucus results, since that double-counts people who participated in both. But people who voted in both Texas events were playing by the rules, and including them seems at least as fair as including Michigan, where Obama voluntarily stayed off the ballot, thus netting exactly zero votes to Clinton's 328,309. (Pushing it a bit, one could argue to give Obama all or some of the "undeclared" vote in Michigan, 40 percent or 238,168 voters, including disproportionate numbers of supporters that elsewhere have been strong for him – including young voters, African-Americans, independents and better-educated whites.)
We're leaving aside one other state, Nebraska – it had a caucus for which we do have a vote count. It also had a beauty-contest primary. But since the primary didn’t award delegates, and the caucus votes were counted, it doesn’t quite fit the mold. If we did count its beauty contest, though, it'd produce another 2,665 votes for Obama – not enough to change our basic conclusion.
And that conclusion? Using these estimates of actual voters in the Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Washington and Texas caucuses, rather than the initial delegate counts, we get a net total Democratic vote to date of 17,607,152 for Obama and 17,504,742 for Clinton, an Obama lead of 102,410 votes – even with Michigan and Florida included.
The national vote count, of course, has nothing to do with winning the Democratic nomination under party rules - that's done by delegate counts. Clinton nonetheless has found her claim of an advantage in total vote a useful talking point. The problem: It doesn't quite add up.
(With thanks to Peyton Craighill, Pat Moynihan, Scott Clement and Dick Sheffield for help with the math.)
May 16, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (29)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/29152328
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Counting the Vote:
I am thoroughly convinced now that this women's mind is in an alternate world. Why is it that she thinks she is talking to a bunch of stupid people? Is she trying to give us subliminal messages to make us believe what she is saying. OR is she so power hungry she can not handle the truth? Either way this is not good presidential material.
Posted by: bb | May 16, 2008 12:10:32 PM
Posted by: HIllaryTheChosenOne | May 16, 2008 12:08:21 PM
Whoa! Are you for real? Noooo - you're kidding right? Wow. I hate to break it to you but there is no going back to the "glory of the 90s". We can aspire to achieve a new "glory of 2008 and on" but to yearn to go back is pretty nutty and sad.
Posted by: EddyNewHope | May 16, 2008 12:16:52 PM
NO way she is the same ole crap she is a liar and to herself and if she don't get her own way heaven forbid....The opt word chosen one <<<< The reason she wants MI and FL counted is, if goes as she wants the popular will be hers that is why she is so quiet,,,,, method to her madness!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: IND older person | May 16, 2008 12:21:06 PM
Should have, could have, would have.
Too late now, as Clinton is a sure afterthought.
Ask yourselves this question cynical Clinton Sour Grape Groupies: WHAT HAPPENED? Allow me:
Problems at the outset-Assuming she was a lock for POTUS. Never underestimate an opponent. I bet she knows now!
Problems with personnel-Incompetent staff not understanding caucases
Problems with execution-Corny speeches; no consistent brand. Changed her campaign theme 8 times!
Problems with the candidate-Blatant lies, resume pumping, boring and fake
Problems in Iowa-Not considering the WHITE VOTE
Problems with money management- $20 million in the hole after raising a quarter of a billion? Pathetic
Problems with the press-Lying to the press thinking they weren't going to follow up on her fabricated stories?
And you cynics continue to speak out of the side of your heads in jibberish.
BLAME CLINTON for your woes.
Posted by: Nat Turner | May 16, 2008 12:22:55 PM
WIll Hillary also count france , canada and iraq election voters too.
Posted by: patacake | May 16, 2008 12:23:08 PM
What are the additional 7 states that Obama has been too? LOL Are they muslim too?
Posted by: DMK | May 16, 2008 12:41:17 PM
Hillary has so many skeletons in her closet she needs a double lock on the door. That doesn't even add the dealings Babba has with the Arab nations and the money has has taken...
Obama has the right response on the gas situation. HRC had promised this to gt votes. She knew any type of a gas rebate would NEVER be passed before June..plus what is $50.00 when it take almost that much to fill your tank...
Bush needs to release some of our oil reserves. This was done in the 70's when we had the oil shortage. We need along term solution NOW...
Posted by: truthtell | May 16, 2008 1:00:59 PM
Hillary...yes HRC is qualified, but how many times has she been caught in exaggeratons like this one( I won't say lies)? She says what she needs to get votes, even if it is untrue. That shows character...which she clearly has none...
Posted by: telltruth | May 16, 2008 1:05:51 PM
In somewhat agreement with Nat Turner" you cannot ever assume anything. Even in an interview sometime back with Katie Couric she was asked the what if she doesn't win question and she was in denial then as well as now. What she failed to realize was that there is a strong undercurrent of hostility within her own party. Either she did not know or she underestimated them. Being aside the fact that Obama is a good candidate. Those democrats who now have an opportunity to to stick it to the Clintons with impunity do so now without party fear or reprisal. Bottom line the party would have embraced her under duress only if there was not another choice. But Obama did the work for them. Goodbye Clintons enjoy retirement. Two more things. 1 No independent will ever win the White House the way the system is set up; no party - no presidency. 2 Clinton fans no use waiting until 2012 whether Obama wins or not in 08; she missed the boat if she does not have the respect and support of senior party leadership now 2012....think about it.
Posted by: porterwayne757 | May 16, 2008 1:07:44 PM
Now the obama people are trying to spin away his 57 states comments. For a man who now needs to wear a flag pin to show off his patriosm, who did say 57 "states" (not "contests", who was so strong about dealing with Afganistan yet didn't even know people there don't not speak Arabic, a man who spent most of his 1-year senate tenure out campaigning and funding raising for himself and other democrats, are there any substance that you can provide that Obama can deliver what he has promised?
I do know the things he promised but did not keep his words:
He promised that he will serve the senate term for Il for one term, he didn't.
He promised to get tough on the nuclear plant immission and claimed he passed a law, he in fact didn't (and lied)
He promised to unitfy the country, yet he sat in a racist church for 20 years. Ophra left the church, why didn't he?
He promised he cared about people, yet 11 of Rezko's defunct public-subsidized projects are in his district. When asked about the situation, he said he was not aware -- how could he? some buildings are right cross street from his office.
He has nothing to prove his claims. ONly he has done a good campaign. For those using campaign performance as a way to judge a candidate, I think you are wrong. That is what got Bush into the office-his funding raising in 2000 and 2004 were both record breaking. And that is how Gore and Kerry lost - they didn't have a good campaign. When can Americans wake up????
Posted by: Amy | May 16, 2008 1:15:32 PM
Clinton: Theloserone.
Spring classes in Political Science will start a comprehensive instructional guide on the rise and fall of the Clintons.
Just as Bill made history as the only President to see the "head" doctor in the Oval Office while boring wife is in the White House, she will join his as the only First Lady to crash and burn after expected to win POTUS.
How compelling is that?
Posted by: Nat Turner | May 16, 2008 1:18:09 PM
DMK,
Obama is right.
There are 57 contests (primaries/caucauses).
51 State Contests (49 States & 2 in Texas)
6 Other Contests
American Samoa
Democrats Abroad
District of Columbia
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Posted by: Steve_NJ | May 16, 2008 1:45:43 PM
Obama said he'd been to 57 states but not to Alaska or Hawaii. He forgot to mention Michigan and Florida. So guess he thinks there's actually 59 states? Since he spent his youth in Indonesia perhaps he has an excuse since they probably didn't teach US geography there? Though I read he has said one of the most beautiful sounds on earth is the sound of the call to Muslim evening prayers. He said that himself. But now of course we all know he is a Christian belonging the UCC Trinity Church which welcomes articles from Hamas in their church bulletin and has awarded lifetime achievement award to Farrakahn Nation of Islam leader. Oh and Rev Wright and Farrakahn took a trip to see Kadafi(sp?) together. He evidently converted about 20 years or so from Muslim to this church.
Posted by: Michigander | May 16, 2008 5:44:24 PM
from the DNC Website
Calendar
Last year the Party's Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling issued its recommendations on the 2008 primary and caucus calendar.
The Party recognizes the need early in the nominating process to broaden participation to reflect the Party’s rich racial, regional, and economic diversity by including 2 additional states. Twelve states applied to conduct early primaries and caucuses. We believe that shows the energy and excitement for opening up the process.
The addition of 2 states early in the process will also open up the dialogue to engage a broader range of people to talk about a wider variety of issues. This will enable the Democratic Party to choose the strongest candidate to be our Presidential nominee.
The new schedule is as follows:
* Iowa holds the first-in-the-nation caucus on January 14.
* New Hampshire holds the first-in-the-nation primary on January 22.
* Nevada conducts a caucus between Iowa and New Hampshire on Saturday, January 19.
* South Carolina holds a primary 1 week after the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, January 29
The regular window will open for all other states on the first Tuesday in February -- February 5, 2008.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The non-conforming primaries
January 29th FLORIDA
January 29th MICHIGAN
Now, I’m wondering just exactly what horrible foul FL and MI committed since they held their primaries AFTER 3 of the chosen early states and the same date as the SC primary. Just why would the DNC put Nevada and S.C. ahead of FL and MI?
IF you want to look for racial, regional and economic diversity…they WHY would you put 2 highly unrepresentative caucuses ahead of two primary states. WHAT was the DNC thinking?
Posted by: Linda, OKC | May 17, 2008 8:35:59 PM
"In an interview with Charlie Gibson this week, Hillary Clinton contended that she's ahead in the popular vote – a critical claim in her last-ditch attempt to win over super delegates. The problem: It's arguably not so."
If it's not so, why is ABCNEWS count contradicting your opinion having Hillary with more votes?
Votes (MI and FL Included)
Clinton----16,691,639
Obama----16,648,060
You should argue against ABCNEWS count before writing against Hillary Clinton.
Counting Texas popular votes twice?
By definition, the 4th March primary results represent the popular votes in Texas.
You can not add the votes casted during the caucuses of 4th March, 29 March and 6 June because they are the same people who voted during the primary.
Posted by: Angel | May 19, 2008 1:40:15 AM
Counting votes twice is obviously at fault.
You shouldn't count the votes which aren't there and you shouldn't count them more than once.
I find the compensatory argument biased and unprofessional. Compensating an orange with an apple do need some criteria to equate an orange with an apple. State your assumptions then.
An obvious bias between the counting is found.
By comparing primaries with caucases, we can see that caucases are highly inaccurate. Primary vote counts are closer approximation to real vote counts.
In other words, the vote counts in this article are consistently biased more in favour of BO while the actual figure is much less in many states using caucases.
Posted by: John_Lai | May 19, 2008 7:58:52 AM
Jake,
Thanks to ABC for the attempt at a popular vote count. What your presentation proves is the numbers can be whatever you want them to be. You can estimate votes extrapolating from caucuses. Oh, by the way, caucuses set their own rules, state by state, and we do not know those rules. Further, we can count votes twice and do in Texas.
All this proves is that the DNC is out of their minds!!!
Clinton campaign was counting real votes!! You know as when a citizen goes in and actually votes for a candidate. That is what "popular" vote is. What a mess.
No matter who wins this will always be perceived as an illigitmate nomination and it is precisely that.
Posted by: countallthevotes | May 20, 2008 10:36:37 AM
washington state, iowa, nevada, and colorodo didn't include the totals from their states.
Also Obama would have gotten a lesser percentage from colorodo in a primary but a bigger popular vote margin from states like colorodo and minnesota.
Minnesota would have probably been like Wisconsin with a big popular vote spread if it was a primary.
Obama was hurt in the popular vote argument by having so many caucus states in the upper midwest and the west in his strongest areas.
Also Candidate Clinton is not giving Obama one vote from Michigan. Exit polls show he got at least 75 percent of the uncommitted vote. So three fouths of 238,000 would give Obama around 170,000 votes from uncommitted in Michigan.
What else is new candidate clinton is being less than honest.
Also pennsylvania hasn't reported their final totals. Obama will gain about 25,000 or more votes over Clinton from the provisional ballots being counted. This happened in ohio as well.
Posted by: david | May 20, 2008 11:01:36 AM
People here act as if the delegate count is INSIGNIFICANT. If the boot were on the other foot, could you imagine Bill and Hillary Clinton conceding the point? They want to change the rules in mid-game, rules they signed on to in the first place. What is wrong with these people?
Posted by: Adrian Millet | May 20, 2008 11:56:24 AM
We are all Democrats...RIGHT?????
We have been twice bitten by unfair politics in the last 8 years....do we, the Democrat Party want the same label?
When all the votes in every state are counted and numbers come in the Clintons will concede if the math then does not make Hillary the nominee....but, why disenfrancise those voters that still have not even cast their votes and why should we allow the error that the was made in the process continue. Not counting Michigan and Florida.....the voters are not to blame? If we end this election on a sour note we are no different from the "takeover" by the Republicans; albeit Barack Obama has been a Super Candidate..... if the nomination is his he will get it!!
Let's not give the media so much of fodder for the boring,lengthy programs every minute of every day by keeping them so busy (sometimes leading the voters and driving them to the candidate of their choice), confusing the voters and not letting each voter time out to make a fair decision.
I am from a country that did not allow me to vote due to race and apartheid policies and this made me a proud American since the 70's...let's not mimic some of those past and some present situations of some countries where they do not have the possibilities of fair elections without supervision. We are showing the world a reason to further ridicule us. Both our Democratic Candidates and their families have given so much in time, resources and effort for which they need to be saluted; given some consideration and let them remain dignified..win or lose! If we step back and join in appreciating their passion and commitment there will be a moment we can all enjoy...viz when the eventual nominee makes that acceptance speech! Then that moment will also be right for the one that concedes to gracefully conclude the race and bring us together with the nominee. We will support OUR DEMOCRAT in the fall. We must allow the process to end in the same high spirit and allow our children and all future generations to follow by example; that they too can achieve their goals in a fair way. The excitement of achieving any dream has to be kept alive...WE ARE DEMOCRATS AND WE ARE AMERICANS!!
Posted by: DIVKINS | May 20, 2008 1:50:15 PM
> Now, I’m wondering just exactly what
> horrible foul FL and MI committed
> since they held their primaries AFTER
> 3 of the chosen early states and the
> same date as the SC primary. Just why
> would the DNC put Nevada and S.C.
> ahead of FL and MI?
>
> IF you want to look for racial,
> regional and economic diversity…they
> WHY would you put 2 highly
> unrepresentative caucuses ahead of two
> primary states. WHAT was the DNC
> thinking?
The DNC had a vote... Michigan lobbied to be one of the early states... they lost. The DNC chose South Carolina for it's large African-American population and they picked Nevada for it's large union and Hispanic vote.
What did Florida and Michigan do wrong? They broke the rules. Rules that Harold Ickes voted for. He, and the rest of the Rules and Bylaws committee, voted to strip Florida and Michigan... now that Clinton needs them, he's opposed to it.
Posted by: Rob, Indianapolis | May 20, 2008 2:04:18 PM
Clinton's popular vote count also does not give any MI votes to Obama since he, Richardson, Edwards and Biden all took their names off the ballot. Her popular vote count gives her 328,309 votes from MI and no votes to Obama.
That means, in her estimation, that the 40% in MI who voted 'uncommitted' don't count.
Posted by: Cindy | May 20, 2008 3:24:08 PM
Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden all took their names off the Florida and Michigan ballots; Elections that were funded at least in Florida by the Republican controlled legislature. Hillary and Obama are seperated by less than 600,000 votes out of 33 million cast. Obama harkens to George Bush's 2004 People's Mandate. Hillary need only take it to the convention; Where the delegate difference will be much closer than when Ted Kennedy tried to steal the nomination from Jimmy Carter in 1980. Learn your history Obamaphiles. He will lose badly. Just like Dukakis, Gore and Kerry did.
Posted by: Colin | May 20, 2008 6:15:15 PM
Fine. Then Obama's lead by your account just evaporated tonight when Clinton received a 150,000 net gain in the popular vote between Kentucky and Oregon. And that does not even take into account Clinton's electoral advantage as reported by electoral-vote which makes estimates based on state by state polls:
Clinton 284 McCain 237
Obama 242 McCain 285
Posted by: dmoran | May 21, 2008 2:23:08 AM
Hillary has been hampered by the bizarre Democratic Party rules for apportioning delegates. For example, she won got more votes in Texas and Nevada but fewer delegates. If delegates were assigned the way electors in the general are, Hillary would be routing Obama 308-224. Even excluding FL and MI, she'd be ahead 264-224.
Posted by: steve | May 21, 2008 11:22:48 AM
Many of these rural white, working-class, Appalachian Clinton supporters live in congressional districts that were disloyal to John Kerry in 2004 and voted for Bush (which dovetails with how many of them are threatening to vote for McCain.) That is the reason their disticts got less delegates than Obama's districts, where the voters were more loyal to Kerry in '04. So Clinton's strongest districts, though they may turn out (disproportionately, when compared with Obama's districts) more Democratic voters in this year's primary than Obama's districts proprtionately did in the '04 General Election, will still gift Clinton less delegates than Obama's districts, which were loyal to Kerry in '04. Not so "unfair", now, is it? Your district votes more Democratic one year, it gets more sway in deciding who is the Democratic nominee the next time.
Posted by: AR | May 21, 2008 7:50:42 PM
Actually,
Texas counts came back as finalized at 2,007,786 - Obama - 2,073,158 - HRC;
Maine - final Obama - 27,977; HRC - 18,805
They said 117,599 came out so it ends up at 64,726 - HRC at 52,731
Posted by: tm | May 25, 2008 4:27:45 AM
Caucus + proportionality rule gives false numbers of votes to BO.
In fact, Hillary has received much more votes than BO.
A 6 point win of Washington primary to 37 points win of Washington Causus implies more than 6 times boost of winning margin. Using Caucus to calculate the popularity vote implies number fudging and deceit.
In Texas, the primary count indicates 4 points win to Hillary and then the caucus reflects 12 point losses.
One person one vote and no vote should be more important than the other. We are living in American not the Animal Farm.
Everyone is equal except someone is more equal than the other.
Stupid!
Posted by: John_Lai | Jun 1, 2008 10:09:39 PM
If Hillary Clinton is the ideal candidate, how come the vote is so close? It should have been overwhelming. In fact some figure I have heard say Clinton has lost and could not get enough delegates. Others say otherwise. I don't know what math anyone is basing this on. As far as experienced candidates, Biden and Dodd who had more Senatorial experience, Kucinich who has more experience in House and Richardson who is a Governor and has foreign diplomacy experience were eliminated by lack of media coverage.
I think anyone would be an improvement over a third Bush term with McCain, the flip-flopper on Iraq that he first thought was playing wack-a-mole, tax give aways war time, and folding on his torture stand and I'm sure there is more. I don't know about the way McCain treats his wife or women in general or who he will appoint to the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Julian Kernes | Jun 2, 2008 6:39:20 PM
Post a comment
