home

Poor Report On Popular Vote Count From Bloomberg

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:49:13 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

The usually solid Greg Sargent fumbles his post on Bloomberg's shoddy article on the popular vote count. Sargent uncritically regurgitates Bloomberg's recitation of the popular vote count. What both Bloomberg and Sargent failed to do was discuss the issues of Florida and Michigan. As the RCP popular vote counter demonstrates, the 800,000 vote lead that Bloomberg assumes excludes the Florida and Michigan votes. It has been clear for some time that the Clinton popular vote argument includes counting Florida (Clinton won by 300,000 votes there) at the least, and Michigan as well.

The Bloomberg article is a very poor one and Sargent should have known this. Bad show Greg.

< More On the Polls: Inside The Numbers | Clinton Conference Call Live Blog >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Poor Report On Popular Vote Count From Bloomberg | 34 comments (34 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    They were stripped of their delegates (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:54:19 AM EST
    but not their votes.

    Interestingly, (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by The Maven on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:05:19 AM EST
    I was just writing to some other folks about these totals flaws in the same Bloomberg article -- namely that not only does their 800,000+ margin completely fail to at least acknowledge the Florida vote, but also includes the estimated vote counts from the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington (while ignoring the primary numbers from the last of these).  This increases Obama's margin by 110,000.

    Although an argument could be made that Michigan's popular vote shouldn't be included since Obama took his name off the ballot (leaving aside the merits of that for another discussion), it seems entirely unreasonable to leave Florida's vote out of the popular vote total.  The state's primary delegates may have been stripped, but it is folloy to pretend that no vote even took place, even if it hasn't had an effect on the delegate totals.

    If one leaves out the estimated caucus figures and includes Florida, the Obama margin is 422,000, merely half of what the Bloomberg report -- and Sargent -- make it out to be.

    hahahaha (none / 0) (#14)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:06:50 AM EST
    you can't leave out caucus votes, if they are out FL is out simple.

    you cant say well the people of FL MUST be counted, those people in caucus states? not even sure if they are Americans they don't count.

    Parent

    No, It's Not That (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by The Maven on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:36:03 AM EST
    anyone is saying that caucus votes don't count, but that in these four states (and only these four), there was no official individual vote count released to the public, only summaries for the delegate equivalents who were selected for the next round of caucusing (county- or district-level).  Many of the other caucus states did release formal individual vote totals, and thus it is legitimate to count them in the popular vote.

    It's fair to exclude from a popular vote count those numbers which are basically just extrapolated guesses.  If the Democratic Parties in those states have actual numbers available to them and wish to disclose those figures to the public, then by all means, include the votes at that time.

    Parent

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#27)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:49:53 AM EST
    why the DNC doesn't tell those four states to just release the caucus vote totals. If they're allocating delegates on the basis of who showed up for each candidate, why don't they have a hard count of who showed up?

    And if they don't have a hard count, then how on earth are they allocating delegates?

    Parent

    Caucuses are not elections. (none / 0) (#17)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:15:38 AM EST
    If you want to count the local delegates from caucuses, I am amenable to adding them to Obama's vote count though.

    Parent
    You're amenable? (none / 0) (#22)
    by digdugboy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:38:16 AM EST
    That's generous of you. But this isn't really any kind of negotiation. Counting the popular vote is an academic exercise only. Thus, negotiating about the terms by which this academic exercise will occur seems a tad silly.

    Parent
    but in the states Obama has lost (none / 0) (#18)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:17:53 AM EST
    and claims will go for "any Dem" in Nov. -he's explained those voters didn't support him because they're racists and gun toting Bible thumpers.
    Why does Obama hate Democrats?

    Hopefully, the undecided supers will also consider his "Dems for a day" scam.

    Parent

    Where are you getting this. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:46:00 AM EST
    On RCP 800,000 includes WA,Nevada etc.

    Parent
    That's Exactly the Point (none / 0) (#31)
    by The Maven on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    The margin of over 800,000 only exists when using the figures with the estimated, speculative "vote" totals for these four states which never released actual popular vote numbers.  In those states, the only formal numbers given out were for county or district delegates awarded to each of the candidates, not the actual votes cast for each of them.

    The footnote on the RCP page states:

    Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals. RealClearPolitics has estimated the popular vote totals for Senator Obama and Clinton in these four states. RCP uses the WA Caucus results from February 9 in this estimate because the Caucuses on February 9 were the "official" contest recognized by the DNC to determine delegates to the Democratic convention. The estimate from these four Caucus states where there are not official popular vote numbers increases Senator Obama's popular vote margin by 110,224.


    Parent
    I see yes. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:38:29 PM EST
    I misread your post. Quite correct.

    Parent
    The Morning Joe show (none / 0) (#2)
    by kenosharick on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:55:00 AM EST
    had a report by David Schuster that talked about how she cannot win the popular vote. He said that even if there is a big Penn win and Fla/Mich are counted he would still be up by 200,000 or so. Is he correct or doing the usual Obama network spin?

    That would be incorrect (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:57:56 AM EST
    UNLESS you assigned all the uncommitted vote to Obama.

    With MI, the spread is 94,000 right now.

    If Clinton wins by 200,000 there would be a tie EVEN giving Obama the uncommitted vote in MI.

    Shuster is wrong.

    Parent

    only way you get (none / 0) (#6)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:00:58 AM EST
    94,000 is give Hillary HER MI votes, but say NOT A SINGLE PERSON voted for Obama in Michigan.

    the fact people quote the 94,000 as if this is a realistic possibility is amazing.

    you really think if Obama has the power to STOP 2 state legislatures from passing bills from a revote, that he doesn't have the power to stop everyone from saying NOT A SINGLE PERSON voted for him?

    Parent

    How many should yopu assign to Obam is an issue (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:01:51 AM EST
    but even if you do, Shuster is wrong.

    Parent
    Obama didn't get a single vote (none / 0) (#16)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:14:37 AM EST
    in Michigan because he took his name off the ballot!

    He made the decision to do that, but now we're supposed to award him some votes anyway?

    Parent

    Hillary has never argued it about the (none / 0) (#19)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:22:03 AM EST
    candidates, she made it about the voters, and thus everyone argued about the VOTERS, and what was fair to the VOTERS.

    thus if even 1 Edwards supporter went and voted uncommitted for Edwards, and you count it to Obama,

    you invalidate Hillary's entire 2 month argument that we have to be fair to the VOTERS. this is why I always cried Bulls***t she wanted the votes, and painting the people who voted to strip them (super delegates) and playing politics and making them look bad was NEVER going to get them seated.

    MI vote wont count because you will never get enough people to agree what to do with the popular count.

    FL will, but 300,000 wont be enough without a big win in PA, because NC is in 2 weeks and Obama is expected to get just as big a win, thus they can cancel each other out and leave us exactly where we are now, only with less states left.

    Parent

    I don't think so (none / 0) (#23)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:41:24 AM EST
    Here is what Hillary said in an NPR interview:

    Hillary Clinton says the results of Michigan's Democratic presidential primary should count, even if Barack Obama's name did not appear on the ballot.

    "That was his choice," she says in an interview with Steve Inskeep. "There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot. His supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted."



    Parent
    Will Obama net as many (none / 0) (#26)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:49:19 AM EST
    votes in NC as Hillary will in PA?

    And then there is KY, IN, WV, PR, all expected to go to HRC.

    Parent

    According to exit polls (none / 0) (#28)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:51:25 AM EST
    Senator Obama won 27% of the votes in MI and Senator Edwards won 13%. So converting those figures to a proportionate share of the uncommitted vote should give us a fair number.

    Parent
    I didn't hear him mention FL and MI. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:08:54 AM EST
    He's on again right now and he didn't mention them when repeating what you heard. ?

    Parent
    Does anyone include (none / 0) (#3)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:55:33 AM EST
    FL and MI?  All the media spin I see never includes them.  Again today, he has an 800k lead and at best she can pick up 200k blah, blah, blah.  I don't know how she can count FL and MI when the media spin is she can't.  The media is pushing the 'stealing the nom' theme still.

    lol its hard to make a (none / 0) (#5)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:58:46 AM EST
    pop vote argument for MI

    I know ALL votes count but give me my MI votes, and the rest they don't matter so just throw em to obama or ignore em, I don't care as long as I get mine.

    she may be able to argue FL, but there is just no argument for counting MI popular vote. just saying give Obama the MI uncommited kinda kills the whole popular vote being who voted for which candidate.

    Indeed it is (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:01:09 AM EST
    But the absence of MI and FL is an issue that deserves at least a mention, especially when you are supposedly describing Clinton's argument.

    you do agree I hope that it was a poor article.

    Parent

    yeah, I will say they (none / 0) (#9)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:03:59 AM EST
    are excluding FL, which I think everyone counts, that puts Obama's lead to 400,000. I think whatever Hillary gets from PA, Obama will net from NC, so Indiana, is the decider after that all the states are to small and I am sorry.

    saying hey Puerto Rico should decide the democratic nominee? that is pretty weak to me, everyone complained about GOP and Indies in our primaries, but people who can't even vote, should decide the nominee nope.

    but the MI popular vote will never count. only the delegates.

    Parent

    oh note (none / 0) (#12)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:05:26 AM EST
    when I say count, I don't mean officially, I mean in their minds we all go, OH subtract FL though and its only this.

    MI will never count, because the popular vote loses meaning if you know you are counting Edwards votes to Obama. then its not the official popular vote anymore. MI pop vote won't count or at least it shouldn't or if it does, then this was never about each person's vote counting.

    Parent

    undecided SDs - not bound by primary results (none / 0) (#11)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:05:23 AM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/6ozzxu
    The media says they are (none / 0) (#20)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:23:07 AM EST
    An occasional person comes out and says they aren't but the Obama campaign has been very successful in getting the media to present their story that the superdees must go with the pledged delegates.  At this rate, Obama will have enough pledged delegates, the popular vote (I think his wins will cancel out Clinton's gains) and the most states (stupid stat IMO) and talking Democratic heads will insist the Dems will unite (even though I am not voting for Obama, I see people softening on their stance already on the intertubuels).

    Parent
    I and most voters count them and should they are (none / 0) (#13)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:06:31 AM EST
    certified results from REAL voters, not a press spin machine phoney fact or fake poll.

    Have the winds shifted for good on this meme? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:42:56 AM EST
    The 800,000 votes also includes the guestimations from the 4 caucus states that don't report vote totals (I believe).

    I get the sense that the insurmountable popular lead is an increasingly accepted meme (i.e. a total that excludes MI and FL).

    If Clinton wins by single digits in PA I expect that reading to get cast in iron.

    The Clinton argument? (none / 0) (#29)
    by mattt on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:14:07 AM EST
    It has been clear for some time that the Clinton popular vote argument includes counting Florida ... at the least, and Michigan as well.
    My impression is that Bloomberg was not attempting to present the Clnton argument, but rather to discuss outcomes that are actually possible.  Note graf 16:
    There's almost no chance that party officials will give credence to those results. ``No one is going to buy the argument that you have to count Michigan and Florida,'' says Allan Lichtman, a professor of political history at American University in Washington. ``Those were not contested primaries.''


    Interestingly (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:04:37 PM EST
    Alan Lichtman's opinion is not a fact in my world. It is an opinion.

    Parent
    The real popular vote (none / 0) (#30)
    by zebedee on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:23:26 AM EST
    I think the Clinton team could have been making the case better re the true "will of the voters". Counting Fla and MI as is, with BO getting 0 in MI, isn't going to fly.

    Working off the totals in RCP, she's about 200,000 behind in pop vote, allowing their estimated 110,000 for some caucus that didn't fully report pop vote. This is with BO having no MI votes. The uncommiteds were 40% of MI, it seems fair to give him 30% and Edwards and the rest 10%, roughly what they were taking at the time.

    So giving BO 180000 for MI, he leads by around 380000.

    Now if FLA and Mi had been able to vote normally, what would have the result? Of course, no-one really knows which is why a recount makes so much sense. But from the best we know, the allocations are in the above make the most sense. Except the turnout was lower because of the DNC pronouncement. Taken as a perectage of the votes Kerry got in 2004, the average primary turnout has been around 65%. In fact the big states were higher, TX being 100% and Ohio 91%.

    Just taking the average of 65%, compare to Fla of 40% and MI of 23%. Scaling these results up to 65% actually put HRC in the lead (less tha 50,000 though). We'll see after Tuesday where the real "will of the voters" lies.

    yes the article does discuss Florida and Michigan (none / 0) (#33)
    by dc2008 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:56:39 PM EST
    Yes the Bloomberg article does discuss Florida and Michigan.  It quotes an AU professor saying that officials won't buy the argument that those votes should count, because they weren't contested primaries.

    Agree or disagree with that viewpoint, agree or disagree with that professor's prediction about whether superdelegates will hold that point of view too, fine.  But the article does in fact discuss Florida and Michigan.

    Therefore the premise for your criticism of the article is completely incorrect.  Saying that Lichtman's opinion was merely an opinion, in the comment section as a reply to another comment, isn't good enough!  It belonged in the body of the post, if the post belonged here at all, because the presence of the Lichtman quote contradicts the very premise of your post and readers had the right to know.

    Poor Report On Popular Vote Count From Bloomberg | 34 comments (34 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment