Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Count WHOSE Vote 1.5

Just for giggles, I decided to look at the data from my "Count Whose Vote?" piece, from the perspective of the electoral college.

Basically, I took the popular vote gap from each primary, multiplied it by the electoral college vote in each state, and added the whole thing up.

Unsurprisingly, Clinton comes out well ahead -- 17.3% better without Michigan/Florida, and 27.5% better with Michigan/Florida.

Now, even I don't take these numbers too terribly seriously, but I do think that they show that Clinton has demonstrated more strength in terms of the electoral college map.

0
No votes yet

Comments

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

But please everyone shut up about Michigan, I'm tired of reading about those delegates. I don't care about which side of the fan base people are on, but seriously, quit even discussing including Michigan.
There was only one person on the ballot, and it seems like neither of them should have stayed on the ballot. What kind of idiots argue about trying to include delegates from a state where everyone but Hillary pulled out of and agreed they wouldn't campaign in? Again she ran unopposed in Michigan, so what? And for the record "Other" did pretty well against a single candidate race.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Half the candidates stayed on the ballot along with Clinton, including Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich. It's true that Dodd quit after Iowa, but that wasn't known at the time of the great ballot withdrawal.

I honestly don't see how Obama's strategic decision to pull his name off the Michigan ballot should be used as a reason not to count the Michigan delegates any more than I think Clinton's strategic decision not to contest the Idaho caucuses can be used as a reason not to count the delegates from Idaho.

And it was a strategic decision by Obama to try to make Michigan less important and to suck up to Iowa. At the time, there was no great outcry about how the candidates who remained on the Michigan ballot were violating the DNC rules from Obama, the other candidates who withdrew their names, or the DNC. And you can bet there would've been if staying on the ballot had been some great big rules violation. The media love to scream loud and long about how Hillary Clinton will do anything to win. If this was a rules violation, that's what they would've done. They didn't because it wasn't.

Clinton followed the rules in Michigan and Florida. There may be reasons to not count Michigan and/or Florida delegates, but Obama's strategic decision about Michigan is not one of them.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

when I discuss michigan, I do so within the context of giving all the "uncommitted" votes to Obama. Michigan is considered a "swing" state -- Kerry took it by only 3.42 points in 2004, and any discussion about the best candidate for November that does not include Michigan (and Florida) is the equivalent of sticking ones head in the sand.

********
oh, and BTW, for those who care, Count WHOSE Vote 2.0 is coming soon. This one examines the "independent" vote as it relates to the "moderate" vote -- and while I'm going to wait to include tonights data, the results so far say that when all primary states are included, for every 100 Indenpendent votes for Hillary, Obama gets 146 Indepdentent votes. But for every 100 Moderate votes for Hillary, Obama gets only 95.

Odd, isn't it, how the media obsesses over the "independent" voter, and ignore the moderate voters who make the difference in swing states?

Submitted by lambert on

And please consider at least one cross post here ;-) I'm not sure I framed the discussion correctly the last time. You know how polemic I get. Sheesh, I'll even stop saying Fuck!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Lambert, this was actually my first choice for the orginal project, but Corrente seems to be more about "short and snappy" than the kind of verbosity that I engage in with these kinds of projects.

But I'll certainly send you a copy along with Taylor (where verbosity seems to be a virtue ;-) )

Submitted by lambert on

... if you're going to be in Philly when Escachon is happening in March?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

... if you're going to be in Philly when Escachon is happening in March?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

dmk47's picture
Submitted by dmk47 on

you took a meaningless set of figures, performed a meaningless operation on them, and impressed yourself with the result. Meanwhile every poll shows Obama vastly outperforming Clinton in the general election.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Submitted by lambert on

Does Axelrod assign your handles?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

That's why President Dukasis is considered one of the best presidents of the last century!

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0... (quoting a 1988 Times article)

Fifty-five percent of the 948 registered voters interviewed in the poll said they preferred to see Mr. Dukakis win the 1988 Presidential election, while 38 percent said they preferred to see Mr. Bush win. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I sent the email to the corrente contact address ...since you asked twice ;-)

Submitted by lambert on

And I responded.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

... and don't create a mandate for the expression of the general will?

Could it be? Could it be that study is needed?

Come on. Let's be reasonable, here.

And I do seem to recall (no link, sorry) that Edwards beat the crap out of everybody in the general. So, if it were down to polling, that's who we all would have gone with. One of the many maddening little inconsistencies...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

sane unaffiliated voter's picture
Submitted by sane unaffiliat... on

Paul I respectfully disagree with your argument that Clinton is a stronger candidate to run against McCain. Yes, Clinton has beaten Obama in the big states of California and New York quite handily. But the simple fact is those states are irrelevant in the winner take all election against McCain come November. Those two gigantic states will go democratic regardless of the nominee. Same thing goes for some of other Clinton's wins like Massachusetts and New Jersey. There are key battleground states like Virginia, Colorado, and Ohio, which are very important. Obama has already destroyed Clinton in Colorado and Virginia in easy wins. Maryland is also another key state in which Obama did extremely well in. We will see with Ohio.

Also since I know my opinion means squat, I will reference all the polling. The national polls currently have McCain beating Clinton in a majority of them, while every poll has Obama beating McCain with the exception of one and that one is by one point and has Clinton farther behind McCain in it. Here is the link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...

Go Obama!! Lets make it 10 straight with Hawaii! Great night for the democratic party. Kudos to the democrats for getting this right.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

the reason I think that Hillary will be the better candidate has nothing to do with polls...

...it has to do with the $250 million dollars that Freedom Watch (brought to you by the same folks who invented 'swift-boating') alone is planning on spending to destroy the Democratic candidate.

Hillary is already defined in the minds of most people -- and the GOP smear machine will not have much impact. Obama hasn't really been touched with any serious attack ads -- and trust me, there is more than enough fodder in his record (e.g. in 1996, he answered a questionnaire about banning ownership of handguns with a simple "yes") to make Bernie Sanders look like a moderate.

The big problem is that the media loves McCain, and they only love the "idea" of Obama -- and only because he's the anti-Hillary.

sane unaffiliated voter's picture
Submitted by sane unaffiliat... on

Paul, my response would be that Barack Obama is a lot stronger then John Kerry. He is also a lot smarter then John Kerry. He will not sit and take it. He will also not walk around in a costume pretending to be something he is not like Kerry did. That hunting outfit was ridiculous. I am still pissed about how poorly he ran that campaign. We had to put up with another 4 years of Bush, because he is an idiot.

I can't be 100% sure of how Barack will respond to an attack from the republicans, but if the democratic primary is any indicator he will handle it well. First he had to put up with a smear campaign from Fox trying to say he was muslim, which would hurt him. Then he had to put watch the former president compare him to Jesse Jackson, which was done intentionally to try and paint him as the candidate for blacks only. He has been as cool as a cucumber and has run his campaign a lot more effectively then Hilary Clinton and he has kept his composure a lot better then Hilary Clinton. You will not see Barack Obama crying. And if a gun questionaire is the best they got, then I am not worried. Barack has publicly supported the right to bear arms.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

Obama: junior senator from Illinois, still in freshman term
Kerry: junior senator from Massachusetts, fourth term

Obama: never served in the military
Kerry: two tours in combat in Vietnam; decorated for bravery

Obama: as an adult, left the US once, for London
Kerry: 19 years on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, served as an election observer, grew up the son of a Foreign Service officer

Obama: prior to the Senate was a law professor
Kerry: prior to the Senate was an officer in the US military and a prosecutor

Far as walking around in a costume -- windsurfing, hunting, what have you, the Faux Noise media will make any Dem look as ridiculous as possible. Haven't you noticed the "accidental" mistake that crops up periodically -- Barack Osama?

Far as "sitting and taking it" -- the high road is never a bad place to fight from, and acting like an adult was a credit to Kerry. Wasn't his JOB to prove the Swiftboat lies (he wasn't Roger Clemens for catsakes!) -- was his job to keep his candidacy out of that mudhole.

Based on how he's responded to the Clinton campaign, the high road's not somewhere Obama's comfortable. Based on 40 years of watching GOP politicians slaughter Dems on national security, foreign policy, law and order, and the economy -- Obama's gonna have to pull miracles out of his hat all the way back to his state senate days to have a fighting chance, and I haven't seen any of 'em yet.

Last but not least, a gun questionnaire's not a gun questionnaire -- it's his vote to deny private citizens the right to keep and bear arms that will be built on his answer.

And I'm one of the people who thinks he's wrong about that, by the way.

But then again, I'm not part of the fan base, anyway. So, according to the Democratic punditry, my vote shouldn't count.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

So far, they've counted nearly twice as many votes as their were caucus participants and Clinton trails by 4, 50-46. You can see results here - http://vote.wa.gov/elections/wei/results...

And, yet, once again the Democratic party is not going to count these votes for anything. They are worth 0 delegates. Instead, the party is going to allocate the delegates 2-1 based on the caucuses, which appear to have had less than half the participants and gotten a lopsided result that is not consistent with Washington Democrats' preferences. Yeah, that's a great way to go. Nicely done, Democrats!

sane unaffiliated voter's picture
Submitted by sane unaffiliat... on

Seems like he is doing alright. This was supposed to be locked up for her according to Terry McAuliffe. But Obama has overcome the odds and is winning this primary at the moment. So if Obama is so inept, then what does that say about Clinton?? The establishment was behind her. He has passed her, because he has run a much better campaign.

As far as Kerry I think he served honorably for this country and I will always respect him for that, just like I will respect John McCain for his service to this country. Both deserve a lot of respect in this regard. Does not mean I want to vote for McCain because he served in the military and Obama has not? No way. And despite his service it does not mean Kerry ran a good campaign in 2004. And if you are such a big fan of Kerry why don't you check who he is endorsing.

Now if you are going to bring up military service and say that is the prevailing factor then why are you going to have another person with no military background and tout her?? In fact the Obama has more military support from the troops then Hilary Clinton does. The below links back this up. In fact Obama is calling for an increase in the size of the military.

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/0...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/...

Submitted by lambert on

Sane...

0. Obama is running a flawless campaign. Of course, he's not running as a progressive, he's going to govern from the center right, he's going to fuck me over on UHC and Social Security, but he's not a sociopath. I'll hold my nose, forget about the OFB, vote for him, and try to prevent as much damage as I can. (I wonder how soon the financial "crisis" that will allow the nation to "unify" behind privatizing Social Security will come? I'm sure the Chicago Boys in his entourage don't need to read Shock Doctrine; they live it!)

1. Repeat after me: "I don't care what Terry McAuliffe said." Hillary was the annointed front runner, and they always get destroyed. By the standards of frontrunners past, it's amazing that she's still in the game. Remember Dean? Muskie? And so on.

2. The fact that both Hillary and Obama are calling for troop increases of 100,000 or so is only proof of how insane the country has gone. I suppose that's better than McCain wanting to be in Iraq for 100 years, but it's not a whole lot better. What on earth do they want to use them for?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Saying Barack Obama beating Hillary Clinton proves that he can beat John McCain is like saying John Kerry beating Howard Dean proves he can beat George Bush.

Every democratic nominee has proven he can beat other democrats. That doesn't mean he can beat the Republican nominee. That's particularly true in Obama's case where he hasn't beaten any Republicans that matter - ever. Besting Alan Keyes is not exactly a sign of electoral strength against the GOP.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

While the close race between Clinton and Obama in the Washington state beauty contest is instructive (and expect Obama's lead to expand a little more -- while two counties have not finished reporting, the bigger of the two (King) favors obama, while the smaller (Pierce) favors Clinton), the fact that it is meaningless makes it not as valuable as it could be.

The real action is on the Republican side, where delegates were at stake in both the caucuses, and the primaries. In the caucuses, McCain got 25.9%, Huckabee 23.5%, Paul 21.6%, Romney 15.4% and uncommitted 13.5%. In tonight's primary, its McCain 48.7%, Huckabee 21.2%, Paul 7.3%, Romney 20.5% and other candidates splitting 2.1%.

I mean, is there any better argument than this to show how little caucus results reflect voter sentiment?