THE MATH – Wednesday, March 19 – TURNOUT and Senator Clinton’s Best-Case Scenario for Popular Votes

[phrigndumass]

THE MATH – Wednesday, March 19 – TURNOUT and Senator Clinton’s Best-Case Scenario for Popular Votes

3:00 p.m. Eastern Time (US)

With the Clinton Campaign making its case for nomination using popular votes, I’ve been wondering about the probabilities of Senator Clinton winning in this area. Almost everyone can agree that her campaign’s probability of at least narrowing the margin in popular votes is high, given the polls for upcoming contests. So let’s take a look.

FIRST, ABOUT PLEDGED DELEGATES

Looking at bell curves for both candidates based on probability densities of strength-of-win, we can determine the probable outcome of the race for pledged delegates. Senator Obama has a 97.1% probability of winning the most pledged delegates, while Senator Clinton has a 2.9% probability of winning the most pledged delegates. These are my own calculations, based on the results of previous contests as reported, and based on polls for upcoming contests.

Why, you may ask, isn’t it a 100% probability by now for Senator Obama to win a majority of pledged delegates? The answer in one word: Arkansas. Senator Clinton was outside her bell curve by a significant enough margin with her 70% win in Arkansas.

TURNOUT BY POPULATION

The average turnout by population for primaries-only so far this year is 13.2%. I don’t use a percentage of registered Democrats to determine turnout because some primary contests are open and some primary contests are closed. The 13.2% figure is a good indicator of the public interest in voting in this year’s Democratic primaries, and it provides a good average or basis to project probable turnout in upcoming contests.

It is more difficult, however, to project a range of probable turnout. This is where we dig out our history books to look at past turnout by population.

The Pennsylvania primary in 1992 is a good place to start. Bill Clinton had about 1,400 pledged delegates at this point in the primary season in 1992, with over 2,100 delegates needed to nominate, before Pennsylvania. Turnout in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary in 1992 was a little over 10% of the state’s population at that time. At this time in 1992, though, Bill Clinton’s lead was more significant, and as such the public interest in voting in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary in 1992 was on the low side.

With the average public interest in voting in Democratic primaries so far this year being 13.2% of the population, and a figure of a little over 10% used as a low-range indicator, we can determine a probable high-range of voter turnout by population at 16%. This would be Senator Clinton’s best-case scenario for voter turnout.

POPULAR VOTE TOTALS SO FAR

Status Quo (includes IA,ME,NV,WA):
Barack Obama – 13,644,666 (+740,818)
Hillary Clinton – 12,903,848
(Source: Wikipedia 3/17/08 plus states listed above)

Primaries only (Status Quo) (includes WA):
Barack Obama – 13,173,496 (+533,947)
Hillary Clinton – 12,639,549

With Florida only added (includes IA,ME,NV,WA):
Barack Obama – 14,220,880 (+446,046)
Hillary Clinton – 13,774,834

With Michigan only added* (includes IA,ME,NV,WA):
Barack Obama – 13,644,666 (+412,509)
Hillary Clinton – 13,232,157
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn’t on the ballot)

With Florida AND Michigan added* (includes IA,ME,NV,WA):
Barack Obama – 14,220,880 (+117,737)
Hillary Clinton – 14,103,143
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn’t on the ballot)

POLLS USED FOR PROJECTIONS

Have a look at my previous journal entries for sources. The polls are summarized here:
Pennsylvania – Senator Clinton +16.2
Guam – No Poll (Even)
Indiana – Senator Obama +15.0
North Carolina – Senator Obama +5.4
West Virginia – Senator Clinton +21.0
Kentucky – No Poll (Even)
Oregon – Senator Clinton +8.0
Puerto Rico – No Poll (Even)
Montana – Senator Clinton +12.0
South Dakota – No Poll (Even)

PROJECTIONS OF POPULAR VOTES

Pennsylvania has an estimated 2007 population of 12,432,792. The scenarios used below use estimated 2007 population for all the state contests remaining, including Pennsylvania. Notice how Senator Clinton’s gains in net popular vote totals are projected to increase in Pennsylvania, and decrease over the course of the remaining contests, yet still show a net increase over today’s totals.

Pennsylvania only:
Turnout 10% - Senator Clinton net +198,718 popular votes
Turnout 13.2% - Senator Clinton net +262,374 popular votes
Turnout 16% - Senator Clinton net +318,072 popular votes

All remaining contests, including Pennsylvania:
Turnout 10% - Senator Clinton net +108,858
Turnout 13.2% - Senator Clinton net +143,729
Turnout 16% - Senator Clinton net +174,241

BEST-CASE SCENARIO FOR PENNSYLVANIA FOR SENATOR CLINTON

A high-end turnout will result in the following popular vote projections after Pennsylvania (adding 318,072 net popular votes for Senator Clinton):

Status Quo (includes IA,ME,NV,WA):
Barack Obama wins by 422,746 popular votes

Primaries only (Status Quo) (includes WA):
Barack Obama wins by 215,875 popular votes

With Florida only added (includes IA,ME,NV,WA):
Barack Obama wins by 127,974 popular votes

With Michigan only added* (includes IA,ME,NV,WA):
Barack Obama wins by 94,437 popular votes
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn’t on the ballot)

With Florida AND Michigan added* (includes IA,ME,NV,WA):
Hillary Clinton wins by 200,335 popular votes
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn’t on the ballot)

BEST-CASE SCENARIO FOR REMAINING CONTESTS FOR SENATOR CLINTON

A high-end turnout will result in the following popular vote projections after all remaining contests (adding 174,241 net popular votes for Senator Clinton):

Status Quo (includes IA,ME,NV,WA):
Barack Obama wins by 566,577 popular votes

Primaries only (Status Quo) (includes WA):
Barack Obama wins by 359,706 popular votes

With Florida only added (includes IA,ME,NV,WA):
Barack Obama wins by 271,805 popular votes

With Michigan only added* (includes IA,ME,NV,WA):
Barack Obama wins by 238,268 popular votes
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn’t on the ballot)

With Florida AND Michigan added* (includes IA,ME,NV,WA):
Hillary Clinton wins by 56,504 popular votes
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn’t on the ballot)

****************************************

Notice that there is only one scenario where Senator Clinton would win the popular vote in a best-case scenario of high voter turnout. That would be to include the January totals for both Florida and Michigan, with zero votes for Senator Obama in Michigan.

Notice also that if a revote is held in these states, Senator Obama might gain those 238,168 “Uncommitted” popular votes back in Michigan, and then Senator Clinton would lose the popular vote in every scenario.

If revotes happen, Senator Clinton’s only chance to win the popular vote would be to have a highly improbable turnout of 30% of the total population.


.

[papau]

1. So why is Obama afraid of a Mich redo - has his supporters stopping it? if it helps put

popular vote point to bed, I'd think he's be for it.

[phrigndumass]

2. For the same reason Senator Clinton is afraid of a Mich redo

... but they both approach it from different angles. The revotes would be a fair compromise, in my opinion, but depending on which campaign's angle you're coming from, they both lose ground.

Senator Clinton has been hinting at counting Florida and Michigan popular votes as they are from January, where Senator Obama received zero popular votes in Michigan. She loses ground if any votes are counted for Senator Obama in Michigan.

Senator Obama loses ground if any votes in these states are counted at all, but he has the rules and the "Status Quo" on his side.

[papau]

8. there us no "official" total of anything - Supers are free to count FL/Mich in their "pop vote total

[Dawgs]

10. Are the 'Supers' stupid?

FL and MI were undemocratic contests. Would they really be that dumb to include undemocratic vote numbers when picking a Presidential nominee?

[phrigndumass]

11. The point of this post is ... Senator Clinton will most likely lose the popular vote, too ...

... even with Florida and Michigan.

If Senator Obama wins both pledged delegates and popular vote, and the superdelegates vote for Senator Clinton anyway, it's bound to be 1968 all over again. There would be absolute hell to pay.

[papau]

12. Obama refuses a joint Clinton/Obama - any order - ticket - it is on his head

[phrigndumass]

13. Why do you want to assign blame?

Do you need a hug?

:hug:

[tabasco]

42. Who would have a running mate who just ran a filthy smear campaign against you?

Hillary is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

3. Soros said Michigan do-over would delay nomination, damage Democrats

Soros turned Ed Rendell's request for funding the do over.

[papau]

7. so has the party said it will not pay?

[ericgtr]

4. Who's going to front that bill just for a "give or take" of 10 or so delegates?

It just doesn't make sense.

[papau]

6. the state party has offerred to do so

[phrigndumass]

9. I think what they're realizing is that even the popular vote net outcome ...

... won't make much of a difference in these states from the current standings, let alone the net outcome for the delegates.

on edit ... change will to won't

[Zhade]

35. Because it disenfranchises some voters.

I started a thread on it.

[phrigndumass]

5. I guess if there's no hate in your post title, your thread sinks like a stone

:thumbsdown:

[RiverStone]

14. Don't take it personally...

I have had many feel good - lets create unity posts also fly off page 1. Yep, people like the sensational thems fighten words! stuff.

Your hard work is apprecaited phrigndumass

Even if you run an abbreviated version, your math analysis adds a helpful perspective.

Thanks!


peace~:)

[phrigndumass]

17. Are you sure you don't want to fight?

LOL ... Thanks for your note of appreciation, and for reading.

:hi:

[DerekJ]

16. I read your MATH everyday

I am putting a request for you to self kick the post.
See there is nothing to discuss about it unless you have made a mistake in your calculations. Otherwise, how can you argue against that?

[phrigndumass]

22. Thanks for reading, DerekJ

And my "thank you" doubles as a self-kick!

:hi:

[phrigndumass]

27. And so does this one

:dunce:

[phrigndumass]

28. self-bump

[phrigndumass]

44. bump for the morning crowd

.

[phrigndumass]

45. Last one for the lunch crowd

.

[bhikkhu]

29. It doesn't have to be hate.

Try naming the next one "NAKED SUPERDELGATE PICS!" and see how it does. ;)

Thanks for all the good work, by the way.

[JeffR]

15. 5th rec here!

This is a helluva lot more worthwhile and relevant than the vast majority of what passes for "discussion" here.

[phrigndumass]

18. If I agree, would that sound stuck-up?

LOL ... Thanks for reading, JeffR. The only reason I write The Math is because I want to know this information myself.

:hi:

[JeffR]

19. It's the kind of informative stuff DU used to burst at the seams with.

Pretty rare these days, and all the more appreciated for that.

[phrigndumass]

20. I remember those days

I was just a reader here for years, before the ads. DU is still a must-read for latest breaking news, journals and such.

[writes3000]

21. I love your posts. Thank you. n/t

[phrigndumass]

24. Thanks for the love!

And thanks for reading.

:hi:

[Bigleaf]

23. Kick for the truth, as painful as it is to some.

[phrigndumass]

25. It's painful even if there's a revote in Michigan ...

... which I support.

:hi:

[phrigndumass]

26. If you believe this info is important to see, please REC it to the front page

Of all the MATH posts I've written in the last two weeks, this is the one that most astonished me. I had to know this information for myself, and I never believed it until I saw it. The contest really was over after Texas, despite Senator Clinton's hopes otherwise.

I've been literally working several days toward the results found in this OP, showing my work all along the way. This thread is the final result of all my curiosity.

Thanks to everyone for reading, and let's support our Democratic Nominee.

:grouphug:

I'll keep posting THE MATH, but I imagine there won't be much of a change in the end results.

[Bigleaf]

30. Yep. The media is playing fucking games and everyone is falling for it.

IT'S FUCKING OVER! SHE CAN'T WIN!

The Supers are not going to come in at the last minute and snatch the victory away from Obama. Not going to happen. There would be a fucking war. Those who think otherwise are fucking delusional.

[phrigndumass]

32. I admit I was duped at first by the paid operatives posting here

... and filled with doubt. Not anymore. Remember 1968? It won't happen again.

:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

31. k&r

[ORDem]

33. Probably have to keep repeating this ad infinitum, but ... the pop. vote is a bogus

measure as it is counted now, since the caucus votes are unweighted in proportion to the number of voters in those states.

That's why we have pledged delegates people. Those represented the weighted votes of each state more or less.

If the caucus votes were weighted proportionally Obama would be way, way ahead in pop. vote such that we wouldn't be having this conversation.

:dem:

[phrigndumass]

37. Yes ... Totally agree

But Senator Clinton can't even with with her own argument. That's what I'm saying.

:hi:

[Arugula Latte]

34. One small point -- I really don't think Clinton will win Oregon.

[phrigndumass]

38. Damn! That ruins everything.

:D

:hi:

Thanks for reading!

[Zhade]

36. I have a feeling clinton's supporters will HATE mathematics by the end.

When she finally accepts her loss, they may stage a mass burning of arithmetic books!

(I kid about the book burning.)

[phrigndumass]

39. Accepting the loss is the hard part for their campaign ...

They're having way too much trouble with it. They seriously need an intervention.

:hi:

[ejbrush]

40. kick

[stop the bleeding]

41. I so look forward to grantcart's and your posts everyday

Cheers:beer:

[phrigndumass]

43. Thanks for reading, stb!

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

46. Bumped for the NEW batch of idiots who still think she has a chance ...

:banghead:

[TheDoorbellRang]

48. We have historical precedence for this phenomenon

Then:

Gallileo: "My astronomical calculations are irrefutable proof that the earth rotates around the sun."

Pope: "Nope. I see the sun come up every morning, spinning around the earth!"


Now:

phrigndumass: "According to my calculations, Hillary's chances of winning the nomination with a majority of the pledged delegates are astronomically small."

Clinton supporter: "She can still win it. She's only behind by 150 delegates!"



:banghead:

[phrigndumass]

49. LOL!

:rofl:

Spot ON!

Even if there were only 151 delegates left, and one candidate was behind by 150 delegates, some people in GDP would still insist the candidate who's behind has momentum.

It's like, you know, evolution! To hell with the evidence!!!

[grantcart]

47. thanks again