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 has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.

ARCHIVES

November 2009
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          

« 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    17,872,048

         Cl +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 in 2008 Primaries | Permalink | User Comments (70)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Boston Globe's Andrew Miga reports another super delegate for Obama today...

"Connecticut Rep. Joe Courtney, a Democratic superdelegate, announced his support Wednesday for Sen. Barack Obama to be his party's presidential nominee."

Posted by: Debbie | May 21, 2008 12:36:56 PM

Steve_NJ, I agree that America is still a free country, and I will take your advice and vote for John McCain, if Obama becomes the Democratic presidential nominee-- even though I am a long-time Democrat.

However, if you think Obama has already won, you are only fooling yourself.

The rules are that the super delegates can still vote to rescue the Democratic Party from Obama's left-wing takeover by giving Hillary the majority of total delegates.

If they don't, millions of Democrats, like me, will exercise their right to vote for John McCain, simply because they rather vote for a moderate Republican than a Far Left Democrat, who shared the views of Radical Pastor Jeremiah Wright and other radical left-wingers for at least the last 20 years.

Posted by: USmarine0331 | May 21, 2008 12:38:08 PM

"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."

Well, actually, the DNC (strongly prompted by Iowa and New Hampshire) requested the candidates remove their names from the ballots. Obama and Edwards and Biden and a couple others had already requested the removal of their names in Michigan when the Clinton campaign announced they were going to do no such thing.
That put an immediate stop to folks taking their names off the ballots. (I'm not sure that Florida even allowed the removal of names already qualified for the ballot--I'd have to look that up.)

Posted by: Lee C. ― U.S.A. | May 21, 2008 12:41:24 PM

The media is saying that the only people voting for Hillary are the blue collar workers the "uneducated ones"....well they appear to be the only smart ones then. If the college ones voting for him can vote for someone who has not given them any details as to how he will get and pay for all the promises he is making than they are not just stupid, but push overs. I have some swamp land to sell them. he gives a Hollywood speech that one of Oprah's writers has given him to say. He has not and refuses to tell how he will keep any of the promises he says he is going to do. He has no plans unlike Hillary that broadcasts what she will do and how she will do it. He refuses to tell how he will do it because it cannot be done. He is lying to get your vote.
So how stupid are those that vote for Obama. Where is their love for America? He hangs out with someone for 20 years that is a known hater of America and this is who the party wants to run America? I am wondering seriously if the Democratic party has really become the Communist party?! Seriously. What amazes me is how ignorant are those that are voting for him.

I guarantee that if you did not know one was a woman and one was a man, just listened to what they had to say, that everyone would vote for Hillary. She has a valid message, with goals and she tells you how she will accomplish those goals, but Obama doesn't. The military, the pentagon who really are the ones that run our government, they back Hillary. People need to take this seriously and ask why they believe in her? Because she is the better one for the job of President. They know it and back her. Now, the Rockefeller's are oil barons and they are supporting Obama, why? Obama was on a board of people called the Minutemen whose past members bombed our federal government buildings. So tell me again how it is that Obama is so favored? I call into question those delegates that have voted for him and their patriotism and their lack of love for America. You want a person who has been on a board of terrorists that bombed federal buildings, and that has hung out with and loved a man who says America got what she deserved when we were bombed, who has money given to him for his campaign from oil barons, the same ones that are taking our money at the pumps, and a person like Farrakhan who says Israel is a dirty word and hates white people.On Sunday, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan endorsed and sang the praises of Obama comparing him to Nation of Islam’s religion founder, Fard Muhammad.
These are the people who are voting for Obama. They don't sound that educated to me and they sound as though they are not Americans at all. You know if you sleep with someone you sleep with everyone they have ever slept with before you. Obama has close relationships with people who clearly have said and shown they hate America. So why is he running for office. I suggest it is because of the power our America can give to him and for no other reason. My first allegiance is to America and not to a party. If Obama gets the nomination there will be no smoothing over my ruffled feathers because I want someone in office who truly loves America and not one that loves people who hate us. Even in poverty I would rather choose someone who loves America than someone like Obama. You all need to choose where your allegiance lies? Do you care about your party more than your nation? Or will do what is right rather than say "well, my party wants this so..." your first allegiance must be to your country and that country deserves to have someone running it who truly loves America. Someone who truly loves america would not hang out with people who truly show their hatred by word and deed for America.

Posted by: Joanna | May 21, 2008 12:41:58 PM

There is no caucus in the GE.
How DNC will help him to beat McCain?

Posted by: catleya | May 21, 2008 12:42:01 PM

USmarine0331,

Keep praying, hoping and wishing on your weegie board that Obama is not the delegate.

Unfortunately, its already a done deal grasshoppa.

Accept the inevitable. You're on the losing squad.

Wanna be associated with a winning team?

OBAMA/EDWARDS 08

Hillary will be baking cookies in a year or so.

Posted by: Nat Turner | May 21, 2008 12:42:38 PM

Hillary won big in percentage in WV and KY but he is still leading in pledge delegates.
Hillary won big Primary states and he won caucus States, he still got more delegates than her.
DNC rules is silly.
If they decided to put him in the GE instead of Hillary, Dems would fail again.

Posted by: catleya | May 21, 2008 12:51:07 PM

How very desperate the Obama haters seem to have become. They just hate him and can't give any exact reason why. (I could guess it's because he is black, albeit, only half, but because he looks more black, that's all that matters to these morons.) A potted plant? A liar, a crook??? Where do they get this stuff. He's a constitutional law professor, (who could know more about the country and the way it should work, than a constitutional law professor?). He was elected Editor of the Law Review at Harvard (do you have any idea how intelligent someone needs to be to get elected to that position?). Yet, all you Obama haters can only yell out insults. So, vote for McBush! Go ahead. This country is so far down the toilet anyway, what's another 4 years of crap.

Posted by: geecee | May 21, 2008 12:51:42 PM

Elvis has left the building. After the last primary Hillary will tell her supporters to support Obama because this country can't afford a bush-3 term that mc-more-war would bring. Obama 2008!!

Posted by: pt | May 21, 2008 12:52:13 PM

Nat Turner, you are only fooling yourself if you think that you are on the winning team.

Why? Because Rookie U.S. Senator Obama has not won the U.S. presidency, and he still hasn't even been named the Democratic nominee.

Besides, I'm not running for anything, and the only team I'm on is on Team USA, like all Americans are.

I seriously doubt that Obama will win Florida, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia, which means that he will probably will not win the General Election.

Of course, you probably disagree, just like you probably disagree that millions of Democrats will cross-over and vote for John McCain in November, if the Democratic super delegates decide to give the Democratic presidential nomination to Far Left Obama.

Posted by: USmarine0331 | May 21, 2008 12:54:39 PM

Cynical Clinton Supporters,
I wish I could see the look on your faces when Sweet Little Hillary concedes and stands behind Barack Obama 100% in a couple of weeks.

Not only will she stand with him, but she will give a long, typical Hillary type boring speech on why she’s supporting him. (All for your personal enjoyment)

Now, won't that make you look so stupid?

Hmmm, I can't wait to see you turn on your own candidate like you’ve done other endorsers of Obama. I’ll be sure to have my popcorn and kool aid ready because you’ve been so rabidly entrenched in rhetoric, you obviously haven't looked ahead 2 little weeks.
That will be your H-Day.

I’m wondering. What will you complain about then when she's down for the home team with Obama at the lead? Hillary's going to make all of you that are so cynically opposed to Obama look uniquely STUPID.

Can't wait! 2 MORE WEEKS!


Posted by: Nat Turner | May 21, 2008 12:56:49 PM

I am astonished and horrified at the rift between women the Clinton campaign has been feeding.

I'm turned off to hear senior 'feminists' claim they will torpedo Obama as the candidate and punish all younger women for not lining up behind Clinton. Too bad they shout, we will support McCain and we don't care if the position of women - our daughters - is worsened as a result.

I can only hope those folks are spouting in the heat of the moment and will return to considered and thoughtful decisions later.

Posted by: citizen voter | May 21, 2008 12:58:08 PM

I am astonished and horrified at the rift between women the Clinton campaign has been feeding.

I'm turned off to hear senior 'feminists' claim they will torpedo Obama as the candidate and punish all younger women for not lining up behind Clinton. Too bad they shout, we will support McCain and we don't care if the position of women - our daughters - is worsened as a result.

I can only hope those folks are spouting in the heat of the moment and will return to considered and thoughtful decisions later.

Posted by: citizen voter | May 21, 2008 12:58:13 PM

Joanna,

You are absolutely right.
I've been asking myself also how he'd keep his promises.
The longest promises he delivered was on the big rally in Portland, OR.
That's how he got lots of voters in OR.
He promised for everything.
Smart people, even uneducated people will think how he will get those bills to fulfill it.
Most of the crowd said they believe him and will vote for him after listened his speech.
Some of them have never voted before this election.
Can you believe it?
That's how he won OR.

Posted by: catleya | May 21, 2008 1:01:19 PM

Geecee, if you don't think that Obama was not the beneficiary of Affirmative Action, you are fooling yourself.

Obama admits that he may have benefited from Affirmative Action, and he also admits that he got the support of other minority groups at Harvard in his quest to be named the editor of Harvard Law Review.

The fact that Obama took over 20 years to figure out that Jeremiah Wright's anti-American and racists views are too radical, when it most Americans would have reached the same conclusion much sooner, shows how poor Obama's judgment really is.

You may think that Obama is extremely smart, but I think that Obama should have known better than accusing small-town Americans of being bitter and of clinging to God and guns.

Posted by: USmarine0331 | May 21, 2008 1:03:15 PM

Oh noooooo, another McCan't gaff. Gramps is going to get smashed in the GE.

A maverick claiming to be against lobbyists when his whole campaign is full of em? Kinda like the wolf guarding the henhouse saying, he's only filling in for a second until the rooster comes back. Hilarious.

How about supporting the Iraq war 1000% and not knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shiites? Hilarious yet very stupid.

How about saying he has CINC experience and not knowing that Petraus is the commander of Middle Eastern Forces and not Forces in Afganistan? What a joke. Is that ANOTHER senior moment?

This guy is gonna get smashed in the GE.
You better hope the teleprompter doesn't go out! OMG

Posted by: Nat Turner | May 21, 2008 1:08:00 PM

Marine0331,

Remember, you're on your knees looking up.

To the victor goes the spoils.

You will bear witness in November. I just wish I could see the look on your face when Obama smashes McCan't.

Counseling will be available.

Posted by: Nat Turner | May 21, 2008 1:15:41 PM

USmarine0331,

I beg to step in here as someone who knows a thing or too about academia.

Senator Obama may have benefitted from Affirmative Action to get into Harvard.

He graduated TOP of his class.

Do you think it was hardwork and his brians or Affirmative Action that placed him at the TOP?

Your choice Senile Grandpa McCain did not need any Affirmative Action to get into the Naval Academy but he graduated 895th out of 900.

What do you say about that?

Like I said already, this pulling on straws and trying to run down the Democratic Party Nominee is making us Clinton Supporters to really look terrible.

Just stop the Nonsesnse.

It is over.

Posted by: Steve_NJ | May 21, 2008 1:29:40 PM

USmarine0331 - You're touting the fact that Hillary Clinton won the blue collar vote, a voting block that votes heavily Rebublican every election. Is that your argument?

Posted by: Texas Voter | May 21, 2008 1:31:25 PM

Hillary supporters need to wise up. She has a new agenda now and that is to run in 2012.

However, it won't be easy then because they have literally trampled over all their allies and most loyal party voters. The clintons have made it their mission to either win or ruin the democratic party at all cost.

Therefore, I thinking if we don't have a democrat in office next year it probably will not happen until 2016.

The superd's are not going to overturn any delegate ruling simply for the clintons sake. If that was the case they would have done it by now.

Oregon has less AA than Kentucky/WV and yet they continue to play the race card which it is not. It is really based on education. Where you have more educated whites people Obama has won hands down. Don't really understand why you all don't get this (actually I do - you are racist also).

However, I am proud that even though I don't have alot of education (self educated), I believe that I can been very rational and objective.

Posted by: America the Beautiful | May 21, 2008 1:33:57 PM

Post a comment