Popular Vote

Suppose Hillary Clinton wins a huge victory tonight and manages to pull ahead of Obama in the popular vote total. I still don't see how that could possibly secure her the nomination as long as the national polling looks anything like this. The superdelegates are obviously free to take into consideration whatever they like, but I assume that anyone contemplating bucking the elected delegate totals is going to be more interested in the current opinion of his or her constituents than in months-old vote totals -- a huge share of HRC's votes came from wins on Super Tuesday before Obama's big surge in the national polls.

Now of course if there's a large lurking bloc of superdelegates with strong pro-Clinton sentiments that they're eager to unleash as soon as they're given a plausible pretext, the popular vote would be a good pretext. But given that there almost certainly isn't any such batch of superdelegates (serious Clinton fans would have endorsed her early) the whole enterprise looks doomed no matter what happens tonight.

Comments

C'mon, Matt, you know that if she has a large win tonight, this Gallup poll will not look like it does today by the weekend. That's how national polls are -- they go with the flow of the media. If he loses by more than 10, the media is going to declare a disaster and we'll see his national numbers fall. Hopefully he can hold things together until NC and IN.

Posted by evie | April 22, 2008 5:15 PM

What if a big PA win changes CW, and she wins big in the next states?

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | April 22, 2008 5:15 PM

Ambinder (who no longer allows comments, it seems) linked to this story about 29 North Carolina state legislators who all just endorsed Obama today. Anybody know if any of them are superdelegates?

I think North Carolina is pretty much impossible for Clinton, and she needs a big win there along with Indiana (about even, I think) and Oregon (which she'll probably lose). Even if she could win them all, I don't think there are enough contests left for her to make the momentum argument.

Posted by LFC | April 22, 2008 5:21 PM

Matt's last point is the best one, and functions independently from the Gallup tracking poll (which I personally think is almost entirely irrelevant to anyone except people in the media looking for something to fill space). Clinton is going to need not just a narrow win among superdelegates, but an overwhelming tide of superdelegates. There is absolutely no reason to believe such a tide is likely to occur, unless perhaps she suddenly starts winning every state by large margins.

Which is pretty much the same condition she would have to meet to win the pledged delegates. So, the superdelegates don't actually change the strategic situation much at all--basically, Clinton needs a completely unprecedented change in the dynamics of the race to pull out a win, and just winning another state which is particularly favorable for her does not constitute such a change.

Posted by DTM | April 22, 2008 5:24 PM

Hillary's people are going around saying "how can Obama win the national election if he can't win in Pennsylvania?" Yet she refuses to apply this logic to herself; if she can't beat Obama, how can she beat McCain?

If he loses by more than 10, the media is going to declare a disaster and we'll see his national numbers fall.

Well, the media declared disaster after the Pastor Problem, the Bitter Blunder, the Bowling Bust, etc etc etc. and most people didn't care.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | April 22, 2008 5:27 PM

Notorious - of course, but losing actual elections has a much bigger effect on opinion than manufactured controversies.

I'm still holding out hope that he's not going to get killed, but my nerves are on edge. We'll see what happens.

Posted by evie | April 22, 2008 5:31 PM

i mostly think it's wisest to stay out of these discussions, but given that my alternative is paying attention to a conference call....

the superdelegate issue is very simple: they could have ended it early for clinton. they didn't. they could have ended it recently for obama. they didn't.

ergo, my guess is they don't want to end it, but that doesn't say how the remaining undecideds will vote (odds favor obama, of course, but odds aren't certainties)....

Posted by howard | April 22, 2008 5:32 PM

Matt hasn't made this argument (for Clinton) when Clinton has been in the lead nationally. Which was just a few days ago.

And current opinion, being sort of by defintion current, tends to change.

But if Matt has now finally decided that electibilty really is the deciding factor, not the popular vote count in the primaries or the pledged delegate count, then that's a considerable shift.

So then it's a matter of who will win in which states. Yes, that's what the supers will have to consider - not who has the most votes or pledged delegates. I've seen analyses that have Clinton winning in Nov and some having Obama winning.

Posted by Neil | April 22, 2008 5:34 PM

"Matt hasn't made this argument (for Clinton) when Clinton has been in the lead nationally. Which was just a few days ago."

That was by one point for one day. The graph is right there for you to see. His point is, Clinton has more to prove to superdelegates than Obama does right now, considering he's won more votes, states and delegates.

Posted by mad6798j | April 22, 2008 5:39 PM

The April 18-20 Gallup poll which showed Obama ahead of Clinton 49-42 was taken from a sample the polled more independents (39%) than Democrats (36%). Clinton polls better than Obama among Democrats.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012390.php

Posted by donna darko | April 22, 2008 5:40 PM

Matt hasn't made this argument (for Clinton) when Clinton has been in the lead nationally. Which was just a few days ago.

To be fair, he may not have had time on the one day out of the last thirty that Clinton had a lead in this poll.

Posted by Gabriel | April 22, 2008 5:40 PM

The April 18-20 Gallup poll which showed Obama ahead of Clinton 49-42 was taken from a sample the polled more independents (39%) than Democrats (36%). Clinton polls better than Obama among Democrats.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012390.php

Posted by donna darko | April 22, 2008 5:40 PM

evie,

But of course Clinton has already won plenty of primaries in this contest--it just turns out none of those wins actually had much effect on the overall dynamic.

Posted by DTM | April 22, 2008 5:41 PM

The April 18-20 Gallup poll which showed Obama ahead of Clinton 49-42 was taken from a sample the polled more Independents (39%) than Democrats (36%). Clinton polls better than Obama among Democrats.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012390.php

Posted by donna darko | April 22, 2008 5:41 PM

DTM wrote: "Clinton is going to need not just a narrow win among superdelegates, but an overwhelming tide of superdelegates."

I guess she's hoping that Obama says "fuck Israel" in front of an open mic or something. That's the only thing that I see making any sense. And her campaign is 100% dedicated to trying to hang some gaffe around his neck.

Not so awesome for fans of the Democratic Party.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | April 22, 2008 5:47 PM

Pulls ahead in which popular vote?

Using the RCP's popular vote calculator

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html

it is pretty easy to see that there will be a dispute about the popular vote winner regardless of what happens tonight. (at least) Four big problems stand in the way of the popular vote being a universally acceptable metric.

1) Florida

Without counting Florida it is difficult to imagine how Clinton would take the popular vote lead. Even if the DNC decision to disregard the Florida delegates is set aside, we can't know what the vote would have looked like after a long campaign in the state. Sen. Clinton has been very vocal in the MSM today arguing that everyone knew she would never win Penn. by the margin polls suggested a month before the primary, should we assume the same thing about Florida? After being told the vote wouldn't count do we know which voters chose to participate and which did not?

2) Michigan

Like Florida but even more-so...

3) Caucuses

Using the popular vote as the primary metric ignores the will of voters in many states including my own. Many argue that the voters in Florida or Michigan should not be punished for the actions of their state parties; what should we do about voters in Minnesota and Colorado?

4) Puerto Rico

The Clinton campaign has argued we should weight the importance of state victories by their implications for the Electoral College; how then should we interpret the vote in Puerto Rico?

Despite the way the media, analysts, and campaigns portray the upcoming votes the above factors make it certain that after the primaries end in June both candidates will be claiming the lead in the popular vote!

Posted by sven | April 22, 2008 5:52 PM

"That was by one point for one day. The graph is right there for you to see."

But she's been in the lead over periods of time earlier and Matt hasn't made this argument.

Do you really think Matt will be making this same arument if she regains the lead? I think you'll find a new found enthusiasim for the popular vote in the primaries or the pledeged delegate count.

Posted by Neil | April 22, 2008 5:53 PM

And her campaign is 100% dedicated to trying to hang some gaffe around his neck.

As a result, she will not concede prior to the convention. She'll use the excuse that superdelegates aren't pledged. Her campaign has already said that pledged delegates aren't REALLY pledged. She'll bite, scratch, claw, and lie her ass off to tear him down. And she still understands that if she can hurt Obama badly enough that he loses the general election, she can run again in 2012.

She has done everything but put out a Photoshopped picture of him with a sheep, or paid a gay hooker to say that he was hired by Obama ... but the convention is still a long way off.

We are seeing personal ambition on display in its most vile and pure form. That's why her negatives keep going up and up.

Posted by LFC | April 22, 2008 5:54 PM

You're forgetting two things:

-- a huge Clinton win would move those poll numbers
-- elections determine delegates, not polls - otherwise, Clinton could have had the whole thing a year ago

Posted by James Robertson | April 22, 2008 5:58 PM

Not only is Obama going to have the pledged delegate lead in two weeks, but he will have clinched the pledged delegate lead in two weeks unless something unexpected happens. (I went to the Slate delegate counter and put in Penn 55-45 for Clinton, Indiana 55-45 Clinton, and North Carolina 55-45 Obama. Then I put in 85-15 Clinton the rest of the way, and Obama still had the pledged delegate lead.) Pelosi can then safely weigh in, and then we are done dealing.

This is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Posted by Curtis | April 22, 2008 5:58 PM

This is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Heavy on the fury?

Posted by LFC | April 22, 2008 6:00 PM

I posted an analysis of this the other day. The reality is that PA will have ZERO effect on Clinton's candidacy except among the pundits and the media.

She CANNOT get enough delegates or popular vote in PA to pull ahead of Obama. Any gains she makes today will be wiped out by Obama in the next primary in two weeks. And even if Michigan and Florida are seated, she STILL will be behind in delegates.

And if she doesn't win PA by at least double digits - which is very unlikely as almost all polls give her a mere 6 to 8 point lead - Gore and Carter will endorse Obama and demand she drop out.

Clinton is toast.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 22, 2008 6:17 PM

sven's point #3 above is the biggest problem with the whole "popular vote" argument - it's the same as saying caucus states don't count. That's also why I don't think that a Clinton "win" of some count of the popular vote will wind up changing many superdelegates' minds. Any superdelegate claiming to vote for Clinton because of it must have already swallowed Clinton's caucus-trashing spin.

Posted by jt | April 22, 2008 6:48 PM

I'm in the "Clinton's done and just damaging the party now" camp, but want to interject a few things here.

I think most of us assume the superdels are well-informed and would realize that the popular vote is problematic as a metric (due to caucus states, MI & FL, etc).

However, having listened to a few interviews of SDs, well, I don't have that impression. They appear to be mostly political animals, influenced largely by which direction the wind is blowing. And they're scared shitless of the Clintons and their backers. It's going to be a slow trickle for awhile folks.

Posted by Jake | April 22, 2008 6:58 PM

The popular vote is bogus for even more reasons. For one thing, four of the states where Obama won caucuses have not released the underlying vote totals, so they are not included in the all-state totals. For another, the caucuses actually undercount the degree of support for Obama because fewer voters participate, thus the margins are smaller. In other words, in the states where Obama won caucuses by wide margins (such as across the west), he probably still would have won in a primary. Although his percentage margin would have been smaller, the actual net difference in votes would probably have been greater. For example, if you win a caucus 65/35 and there are 20,000 votes cast, you net 6,000 votes (13,000 to 7,000). If you win a primary with 75,000 votes cast by 55/45, you net 7,500 votes.

Posted by Brian | April 22, 2008 6:59 PM

Races are about perception as well as delegate math. Sure, Clinton can't catch up. However, what happens if she wins PA (looks like she has), and then takes Indiana and North Carolina? At that point, the perception game shifts to "Obama can't close the deal", or "Obama has problems with various important demographic groups". I can definitely see nervous super-delegates in that case.

The math is irrelevant. All that matters is the perception that comes out of PA and the next 2-3 primaries

Posted by James Robertson | April 22, 2008 10:02 PM

"Popular vote" is obviously the Clinton campaign's new meme, as they think it gives them their only chance at proclaiming victory and moving superdelegates. The problem is that "popular vote" doesn't make much sense as a measurement in a 4-month long process made up of caucuses as well as primaries.

"Popular vote" disenfranchises the caucus states. Some caucus states haven't even released popular vote totals. In those that have, a smaller slice of the electorate takes part than it would have in primaries, because of their more demanding nature.

If "popular vote" was understood to be the determining factor, the candidates would have allocated their money and time differently. For instance, Obama surely wouldn't have spent so much time and money leading up to Super Tuesday in the caucus states. Treating popular vote as decisive is clearly an example of changing the rules in the middle of the game (or at the end of the game).

Posted by Ban Johnson | April 23, 2008 12:04 AM

James, you're right, but Clinton won't win North Carolina. OTOH, losing there won't knock her out because the demographics are so favorable to Obama.

Posted by AlanC9 | April 23, 2008 12:56 AM

This is the bottom line: Clinton can't win, but she can prevent Obama from winning until the convention. That's all this crap means. Obama can't lock up the nomination as long as Hillary keeps siphoning delegates that would, as in the case of McCain, normally be going to Obama (or Clinton, if their positions were reversed.)

The fact is that this damages the Dems probability of winning the GE by dragging out the nomination process.

In other words, Clinton is doing this SOLELY 1) in hopes of a miracle, like Obama dropping dead, or 2) to damage the party so McCain gets elected, and thus she looks better in 2012 (in her own mind, at least - personally I think everybody will regard her like they do Ralph Nader now.)

There's no logical reason for her to be doing this except those two. She simply cannot win this unless, against all logic, Obama either self-destructs or most of the superdelegates decide to ignore him for no known reason and go for her (i.e., a "miracle".)

The problem this poses for Clinton supporters is this: do you want to support a candidate who believes in "miracles" - after bitching and moaning for months about Obama's "hope" crap? Or do you want to support a candidate who is willing to saddle this country with a Republican - and a lunatic Republican at that - for the next four years just to marginally improve her chances for a nomination in 2012?

Or are you simply stupid and can't see the logic here?

Not to mention that Clinton has a history of corruption that makes Obama's Rezko issue a fairy tale.

If so, then Clintonistas are basically pieces of shit who should be drummed out of the party or sent over to the Republicans where they belong - since most of them are Iraq and Iran hawks anyway like their candidate.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 23, 2008 1:15 AM

Meh. I think the race will end a few days after the May 6 races if Obama does reasonably well. I think that it's reasonable to expect a blowout for Obama in NC (by far the largest state that has yet to vote) and a close race in ID. If Obama wins NC by 15-20 and narrowly wins ID, that should be enough of an excuse for the remaining superdelegates to really start flipping. it won't put Obama at 2025, but very well might be enough for Clinton to back out.

Posted by Zeke | April 23, 2008 5:29 AM

iirc, in North Carolina 40 percent of the electorate is black. If Obama carries 90 percent of that, and Clinton takes 65 percent of the non-black vote (in line with other recent states), then it won't be a blow out for Obama - it will be either a narrow win or a narrow loss.

The reality is, he's a weak, regional candidate.

Posted by James Robertson | April 23, 2008 6:26 AM

The math is irrelevant.

Complete baloney. The math is anything but irrelevant. Elections are about math, period. The stuff from the media and the Clinton campaign is nothing more than self-promoting spin.

What does the argument that Obama is a weak candidate say about Clinton? Sure, she had a nice win in Pennsylvania, but how did she fall behind a "weak, regional candidate"?

Hillary Clinton entered this race with every possible advantage. She had the name recognition, the money and the vaunted "Clinton Machine" behind her. She and her husband have dominated the Democratic Party for sixteen years. She started the race with a "reelection" strategy. Now she's losing to a weak, regional candidate? If Obama is a weak candidate, she is even weaker.

Posted by Pug | April 23, 2008 8:43 AM

Amidst all the preceding goobledygook, why is there not one admission that the platonic Obama got his royal ass kicked, yet again, in one of the grease and grime, yet pivotal, battleground states?

This guy reminds me of one of those legendary small-town athletes who makes 'em swoon and gush until he arrives in the city-lights of the big-time. Then his game collapses like a Chicago Cubs World Series dream.

At some point, there needs to be joy in Mudville.

Posted by resh | April 23, 2008 9:09 AM

iirc, in North Carolina 40 percent of the electorate is black. If Obama carries 90 percent of that, and Clinton takes 65 percent of the non-black vote (in line with other recent states), then it won't be a blow out for Obama - it will be either a narrow win or a narrow loss.

I don't think a 57-43 victory is either a narrow win or a narrow loss. What a shock -- James Robertson wrong again!

resh, I totally agree -- isn't it amazing how Clinton wins critical matchup after critical matchup, and yet she's clearly losing by every metric you can imagine? Reality is in the tank for the pretend king!

Posted by Barbar | April 23, 2008 11:04 AM