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 nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer is a two-time Emmy award winner, both for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq.
ARCHIVES
FAVORITES
RECENT POSTS
- The Other Moon Walk
- Two Emmy Nominations for ABC News Poll in Iraq
- Groves Nomination: On the Move?
- Sarah Palin: Up Among Republicans?
- In Iraq, Progress - and Problems
- Mark Sanford and the Affairs of State
- Iran's Election: The Odds of Fraud
- Affirmative Action: Words Matter
- Hold on Groves: Mystery Hour at the Senate
- "Medical Bankruptcies:" a Data Update
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Updating the Vote Count
May 21, 2008 11:23 AM
(Check the bottom of this item for a 5 p.m. update.)
I blogged last week on the intricacies of counting the vote in the Democratic nominating contest, and proposed a better estimate – a count in which Barack Obama led, even with Michigan and Florida included. Hillary Clinton apparently didn’t get the memo.
Clinton’s continued to proclaim herself ahead in the popular vote; apparently she thinks it helps in her effort to win over superdelegates. (The recent direction of superdelegate preferences suggests otherwise, but that’s another blog.) So we've updated with the Kentucky and Oregon results to see if the picture's changed.
Answer: Yes, in one scenario. Given her net of 154,706 votes yesterday (in the count so far - it's not done in Oregon) our estimate now has Clinton ahead, by just over 52,000 votes out of more than 36 million cast, if we include both Florida (where neither candidate campaigned) and Michigan (where Obama wasn't on the ballot). Exclude Florida and Michigan, or just exclude Michigan, or give Obama a chunk of the Michigan uncommitted vote, and he's ahead.
Here are our estimates, with 88 percent of the estimated vote in Oregon reported:
With Without With FL,
MI and FL MI and FL Without MI
Obama 18,148,061 17,571,847 18,148,061
Clinton 18,200,357 17,001,062 17,872,048Cl +52,296 Ob +570,785 Ob +276,013
As noted, the Oregon count isn't completed; we'll update when that happens. But our decision desk director, Dan Merkle, says it doesn't look like Obama will make up the more than 52,000 voters there that he'd need to surpass Clinton in the "all states" category.
You can see how we arrive at these calculations in the original blog. To recap briefly, the official counts you’ve seen elsewhere are based on delegate counts, not voter turnout, in five caucus states where voter preferences weren't tallied. We’ve adjusted as follows:
-In Iowa and Nevada we are using turnout reported by the state parties, allocated by vote preference in the entrance polls.
-In Maine we are using turnout reported by the state party, allocated by initial delegate proportions.
-In Washington we are using the beauty contest primary results.
-In Texas we are using both the primary results, and caucus turnout reported by the state party (given as “just under a million,” calculated at 900,000) allocated by initial delegate proportions.
Note, the estimate including Michigan gives Obama zero, since he wasn't on the ballot. There could be an argument for giving him all or some of the uncommitted vote there, since it included, for instance, 68 percent of African Americans, 50 percent of postgraduates and 50 percent in $100,000+ households, all among his core support groups. ("Uncommittted" beat Clinton in those groups, and a few others.) But we're not going there; this calculation sticks with our estimate of actual votes for actual candidates. Who knew they'd be this tricky to count.
5 p.m. update:
The AP today updated its vote totals in Idaho, Indiana and North Carolina, as well as in Oregon, where the count is now an estimated 96 percent complete. These have inched things in Obama’s favor:
With Without With FL,
MI and FL MI and FL Without MI
Obama 18,176,329 17,600,115 18,176,329
Clinton 18,214,506 17,015,211 17,886,197
Cl +38,177 Ob +584,904 Ob +290,132
In the all-states count, Clinton’s lead, if you want to call it that, is a smidge over one-tenth of a percentage point. Obama’s is 1.7 percentage points without Michigan and Florida, eight-tenths of a point with Florida but not Michigan.
A Clinton staffer wrote in to ask how we can include the Texas caucuses, since that double-counts primary voters who also went to the caucuses. We discussed this in Friday's item. But it doesn’t make a big difference; take out our estimate for the Texas caucuses and Clinton gains 108,000 votes – still slightly ahead with Michigan and Florida, still a little less slightly behind without.
And as our political director, David Chalian, keeps saying - it's supposed to be about delegates.
May 21, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (70)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
More fuzzy math. Fuzzy election. Fuzzy DNC. Fuzzy pundits. Fuzzy threatened Super Delegates. All in the tank for Barack the Potted Plant. How about some math post Rev. Wright? Or an electoral map? Or better yet, how about some investigative reporting on who Barack the Potted Plant really is?
Posted by: SadStateOfAffairs | May 21, 2008 11:34:15 AM
so count all the votes for me, but in michigan dont give obama any
nice
how can you claim something you arent winning in?
its like winning one game in teh world series and calling yourself the champion
oh well /waits for teh stupid republicans to come here and make crazy claims
and the hillary (whom i dont think are really hillary supporters or arent really democrats most democrats know how important this election is) people come here and claim everything was sexist
please
Posted by: bhrandon | May 21, 2008 11:36:59 AM
This primary process is like something out of a third world banana republic. This is supposed to inspire confidence in the democratic party?
Posted by: Mack | May 21, 2008 11:39:06 AM
The coming Nov election will be nicknamed an Obummer election for Democrats.
Posted by: esvida | May 21, 2008 11:40:51 AM
sad state should we use the electoral map by karl rove?
and anyone who claims taht the dnc is cheating or anything such as that, or about fuzzy math
you must be talking about clinton... have to be....
dont think for a second obama didnt win this any other way then by playing exactly by the rules
nice try
and 4my country
hillary lost...and all your claims are unfounded and bs
Posted by: bhrandon | May 21, 2008 11:42:24 AM
It was BHO decision to remove his name from the ballot in Michigan. Why did he only do for Michigan and not for Florida? Because he knew he does not have ANY chance in Michigan. He is a crook and crooks can not be our president.
Go Hillary!
Posted by: Chiman | May 21, 2008 11:48:45 AM
These votes arre certified by the Secreetaries of State for all US states and teritories that have participated.
So what you are saying is that you know constitutional law about counting votes better than the secretaries of State for Michigan and Florida.
I disagree. Ther law as upheld by the US supreme court in 2000 counts votes as certified by the Secretaries of State.
Clinton is ahead in the constitutionally upheld, legal vote count.
The only one that is legal and not open to subjective interpretation.
Posted by: s.b. | May 21, 2008 11:49:23 AM
And yes if the DNC had asked anyone to remove their names from any ballot, it would have done so for both Michigan and Florida.
Obama removed his name. His choice. His decision and Clinton is in no way shape or form responsible for his decision.
Count the votes!
Take it to the floor Hill. He can't win the electoral college. You are the democrats only hope in Nov.
Posted by: s.b. | May 21, 2008 11:52:11 AM
With all due respect, RealClear Politics sees it this way:
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)
Obama 17,225,759
Clinton 17,407,282
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA
Obama 17,559,843
Clinton 17,631,144
Whoever wins, I would love to see a revote in Fla and Michigan. It was obviously a big mistake to penalize all the Dems in those states because their state leadership messed up. It saddens me that Obama's lawyers blocked such a revote.
Posted by: hopesprings52 | May 21, 2008 11:57:08 AM
hopespring52
quit the lies, his lawyers have never stopped a revote
Searching for ways to close the delegate and popular-vote gap with Obama, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has actively sought revotes in both Michigan and Florida, although Sunshine State Democrats already have concluded that a second primary is unworkable. The Obama campaign has long held the position that it would abide by whatever party leaders decide -- although it would prefer a solution that seats Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention without requiring voters to return to the polls.
Posted by: bhrandon | May 21, 2008 12:00:38 PM
This has been the very worst candidate presented by the DNC, Obama.
He has been shoved down our throats from the get go..we are sick of it and him. We will never, ever vote for him, NEVER!
The MSM has been BRUTAL to Senator Clinton and Obama supporters are the most hate filled cruel lot of FOLKS ever . Worse than Rove republicans!
Hillary Clinton makes Obama look like the untrained puppy that he is.
Barack Obama the worst thing that ever happened to America.
Even his mentor WRIGHT the 20 year pastor to BO could no longer care about the lying politician Obama
Posted by: HP Boston | May 21, 2008 12:11:46 PM
Superdelegates, most of whom have managed to get themselves elected, know this is a bogus argument. I think HRC's strategy is to try to get enough voters to buy it, and then try to get enough of them to pressure superdelegates to tear the party apart so that the candidate who has lost popular vote, pledged delegates, superdelegates, states won, and who has mismanaged her campaign into massive debt, can then "win" against John McCain. She may get a few die hard HRC fans to pretend the rules of the party don't matter, and she can probably find a bunch of people in the party who can't master basic math, but despite the game playing by Rove et al, she won't get the republicans to play by her rules, so she won't be able to force or engineer or racebait her way to an unearned "win" against that party.
Posted by: Irene | May 21, 2008 12:11:47 PM
Please look over those numbers again, something is wrong. They don't make sense.
Posted by: Dana Gum | May 21, 2008 12:14:05 PM
Straight to the White House
OBAMA/EDWARDS 08
Cry now Cynics. Get it over with. It's inevitable.
Posted by: Nat Turner | May 21, 2008 12:16:44 PM
The outcomes of the Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia Primaries should be ringing alarm bells throughout the Democratic Party.
Despite what Obama supporters claim, most Blue Collar Americans reject Far Left Obama.
If the super-delegates do not rescue the Democratic Party from Obama's left-wing takeover, the Democratic Party will have nominated the most Far Left candidate since George McGovern.
Posted by: USmarine0331 | May 21, 2008 12:20:18 PM
According to the Clinton people the rules should be changed to fit their needs. The rules are simple, the one with the most delegates win. That was the way it was last time, the time before, the time that Bill won, the time before that, etc. Hilary lost because of HER mistakes, she lost because she would not listen to the experts she hired, she lost because they became over confident at the start of the campaign, she lost because people became tired of her negativity, she lost because Bill said things that lost her votes, she lost because Obama and his team put together a better campaign, she lost because she squandered her money at the beginning of the campaign, etc.
Posted by: The Unshrub | May 21, 2008 12:24:22 PM
72,000 people came to WaterFront Park, Oregon last sunday.
Not all of them came to see him but to see the Rock concert band "DECEMBERISTS"
Posted by: catleya | May 21, 2008 12:26:47 PM
Guys,
Stop this nonsense.
It is over.
Obama has won.
Let us stop this nonsense and unify the Democratic party.
Or if you are so vicerally opposed to Senator Obama for whatever "sinister" reasons that you would switch and become a RepubLoser and vote for SSGM (Semi Senile Grandpa McCain), be my guest.
It is a free country.
However, leave our DNC alone. Senator Obama won this fair and square by all the rules that we all agreed to as party activists for our candidates.
My candidate lost and I am ready to live with it and move on to support the Democratic Party Nominee in November.
Stop acting like unsportsmanly sore losers (boy you are pushing me to sound like an Obama luney).
Posted by: Steve_NJ | May 21, 2008 12:29:31 PM
Dems, are you ready for one of the easiest GE's in a long time? Consider this:
McCain is in very deep doo doo according to all news sources.
Ron Paul - Will syphon 30% of the GE vote
Bob Bar - Will syphon 5% of the GE vote
Former Lobbysts - Those former lobbyists who helped MCCain when he was flying coach and staying at the Red Roof In are now very angry for him now wanting to turn his back on them. Is this the thanks they get?
Republican Senator Hagel-Openly praising Barack Obama while at the same time denouncing John McCain's foreign policy
No Donors - This guy is going to be outspent 5 to 1.
Can YOU SAY BLOWOUT?
Posted by: Nat Turner | May 21, 2008 12:31:14 PM
THIS THING IS OVER. WE HAD BETTER UNITE OURSELVES NOW AND MOVE FORWRAD. SOME PEOPLE THINK IS FAR FROM OVER. THEY ARE MISTAKING. IT IS TIME TO STAND BEHIND ONE CANDIDATE AND UNIFY THE PARTY. BOTH CLINTON AND OBAMA HAVE RUN A REMARKABLE CAMPAIGN WHICH WE ALL SHOULD BE PROUD OF.THEY WILL FOR EVER BE REMEMBERED IN THE HISTORY. BUT WHEN TWO PEERSONS FIGHT THERE MUST BE A WINNER. LET US PUT ALL DIFFERECES BEHIND US AND RECONCILE. OUR PRIORITY NOW AND ONWARD IS TO DEFEAT THE REPUBLICANS IN GENERAL ELECTION IN THE FALL.
Posted by: I.A. SMITH | May 21, 2008 12:31:37 PM
Post a comment
