A "Popular Vote" question

[quakerboy]

I keep seeing people state that Hillary is ahead in the popular vote. I do not understand how.

I have the numbers for the primaries, via the official SOS websites(found Via http://www.fvap.gov/links/statelinks.html ), checked and compared to the numbers at the green papers just for redundancy (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/).

The only way I can figure to get Hillary ahead is to count only the Primary votes(no caucus votes counted), including the Florida votes, and the Michigan vote, with a 0 for Obama. But even when I do that, Obama is ahead Obama is still 63k votes ahead. I have to then leave out the "empty primaries" that do not produce delegates(WA, NE, ID), but that I have seen Hillary supporters say should be the votes that count(just not for counting the popular vote?). But even then, Obama is still up by 47K votes. I then have to Subtract any votes not made in a State(DC, VI) to get a result where Obama falls behind Hillary in the popular vote.

DC is worth 63k lead on its own for Obama, DA 7k, NE 3k, WA 13k. All Primaries, but ones that are left out to give Hillary a supposed lead.

But this reasoning seems to undercut another argument that I have been hearing, that Puerto Rico's vote will clinch the popular vote for Hillary. Can anyone help me with this? What am I missing that would give Hillary a popular vote lead without ignoring the voters of DC?

I am happy to discuss here, or to take it private. I really am curious, and I want to know what the claims are based on.

[bhikkhu]

1. Assuming they are based on something may be a mistake.

But it all becomes irrelevant soon.

To be honest, I don't know what they are based on. HRC said she had 17 million votes today. Nobody else has said that, that I know of.

[quakerboy]

4. Yeah. I wonder where that came from

I total her votes at 16,907,835, including every vote cast, all caucuses, even counting both the caucus votes and the primary votes in TX, WA, and NE. Darn close, but not quite 17 million. The same metric for Obama, even with a 0 in Michigan, gives 17,285,660.

As I said in my original post, When looking at any number of counts (state caucuses, State primaries, with or W/O mi/fl, nonstate contests, delegate producing contests, total votes, total primary votes), the single and only one that favors Hillary is looking at ONLY (delegate producing plus MI/FL) state primaries. And even there, it is only 10,137 vote difference, which is .031% difference. an order of magnitude smaller than the .2% of Obamas 7 vote Guam squeeker.

[dchill]

6. "It's been confirmed," Hillary Clinton said.

That's all it's based on... One must count ONLY the votes HRC wants counted. All others are "not important."

:shrug:

[FlaGranny]

2. I doubt anyone can come

up with much of an answer for you. It just doesn't compute.

[TexasObserver]

3. A campaign that didn't know the delegate system, that can't add or substract dollars ...

They haven't shown any ability to add and subtract at a grade school level.

THAT is why they keep coming up with Hillary in the popular vote lead. They can't fucking do math!!

[quakerboy]

5. I give more credit than that

If I can do it at home, I believe that they can do it at HQ.

[dchill]

7. Don't bet the farm on it.

;)

[TexasObserver]

8. But they will redo it until they find an approach that gives them the advantage.

[quakerboy]

11. Ok.

I just want to know what that approach is.

[TexasObserver]

13. I suggest you go to her site and find their methodology.

[housewolf]

9. She's not counting the caucus states

Guess she doesn't think caucus votes are real votes or something...

[quakerboy]

10. But even leaving out the caucuses, Obama is ahead.

Even when you do not count the Caucus votes, Obama is ahead.

[housewolf]

17. When you add FL & MI and omit the caucus states

Hillary's ahead by just shy of 30,000 votes

It's the only scenario where she has a lead.

You can check it out here
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[rug]

24. Caucus votes do not translate into popular votes.

[Secret_Society]

12. According to RCP...

the metric where HRC is ahead is total PRIMARY voters including Michigan and Florida. As a Hillary supporter, I admit that that isn't a really legitimate metric, but I do expect her to be ahead in more legitimate totals after the primaries are completed. Of course, that depends on PR which is a total wild card, turnout and margin.

[CreekDog]

18. so you include Puerto Rico primaries and exclude caucuses in many states?

that's ridiculously unfair.

[Secret_Society]

32. No

I would include PR and the caucuses (estimates by RCP in a few cases)

[tritsofme]

14. Here is a prominent website that tracks the metric

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

And a spreadsheet where you can run the numbers yourself.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html

[sandnsea]

15. From ABC, here's a link

If you go to Hillary fact hub, they have a link to ABC. They have to add MI & FL to put her in the lead. If you click See How Your State Voted, a timeline will pop up and you can find each state and click. The pop up has the numbers for each state. Maybe you can compare those to your numbers. I would be interested in any other creative calculations they've done.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/

[quakerboy]

16. Got it. Too late to edit though.

I decided to check back to the state SOS sites, for any updates. Turns out I had made a data entry error in Georgia. Now I understand the claim. I still disagree, because that particular way of counting disenfranchises all of the caucus states, and a lot of people in Michigan and Florida, I now understand it. Thanks to you all for your assistance.

[barack the house]

19. The basic factor is there is no criteria they see in which Hillary loses.

[4themind]

25. Right, come up with the conclusion first

being that hillary is winning, then they come up with the justification for that claim afterwards....

[lligrd]

20. Hillary Who? nt

[Perry Logan]

21. She's the one who'll help us recoup our losses in 2012, after McCain whups Obama.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. No. That will not happen. Her future is bleak.

[Perry Logan]

23. As is Obama's.

[lligrd]

26. Did Obama Do Something Personal To You

Or do you just hate him for winning?

[lligrd]

27. Even If By Some Odd Chance Or Theft McCain Won

Hillary wouldn't get my vote in 2012. If that is her plan, it is just another failure!

[Exilednight]

30. Exactly!

[Apollo11]

28. All the numbers are up at Real Clear Politics

For Hillary to be in the lead you have to include the totals from Florida and Michigan (also noting that nobody in Michigan actually voted FOR Barack Obama).

You also have to leave out 4 caucus states - Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine - which have not released official Popular Vote totals.

Here is the link: www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[Life Long Dem]

29. Did you estimate the remaing states?

I've been wanting to know the count as well.

That's just for the popular vote to use as an advantage for the super delegates.

She would have to take the popular votes and use them toward the SD's to try and overturn Obama's delegates. All by the popular vote.

I believe I have this right. If not I'm sure someone will pick up on it.

[sfaprog]

31. The "popular vote" is a myth created out of thin air

It is no more valid than a number crunch of the candidate's height and weight