Peter Daou just sent out another e-mail linking to Marc Ambinder's article entitled, "How to Count the Popular Vote", which in turn references Jay Cost's amazing spreadsheet over at RealClearPolitics. The spreadsheet allows us horserace handicappers to plug in our prognostications about the remaining primaries, and look at the outcome in popular vote, with and without FL and MI and with all other kinds of scenarios. And it shows why Obama's lawyering up to block the seating of the FL delegation. His popular vote lead largely depends on his ability to disenfranchise FL and MI. And with the popular vote lead goes the ability to strongarm the superdelegates, Pelosi-style.
Here's Ambinder quoting Jay Cost, and opining:
|
The hyperintelligent Jay Cost at RearClearPolitics has produced for us a most helpful spreadsheet computing the various popular vote scenarios. But this paragraph, is, to me, a very crucial point that both Clinton and Obama campaigns would rather ignore:
Under a scenario that includes the Florida and Michigan votes for Clinton, gives Obama all of the uncommitted Michigan votes, estimates the votes for all the caucus states and includes the Washington primary, Clinton wins by about 16,000 votes -- or about a tenth of one percent. Which scenario is "right?" Under DNC rules, until the credentials committee figures out which delegations to seat, Florida and Michigan do not exist. But the voters in those states certainly do in the existential sense -- and if we're answering the question by figuring out how many Democrats voted for Obama versus how many Democrats voted for Clinton. Obama supporters will anchor their estimates in the worldview most hospitable to Obama's nomination, and Clinton's supporters will similarly find ways to justify including Florida and Michigan before it is DNC-legal to do so. The media may be called upon to take a stand -- especially since the superdelegates tend to listen to the media more than other entities -- and the most reasonable answer may well be -- well, it depends on who you talk to. Are there historical precedents? Well, Democrats like to count every vote. So -- advantage Hillary? But there has to be some tempering factor to account for Obama's name not being on the Michigan ballot. Ok, but then there has to be some tempering factor to account for the fact that Obama's campaign made the decision to stay off the Michigan ballot as least as much because they feared losing the state to Clinton as they wanted to make a statement to Iowans about the integrity of the calendar process. Obama's campaign also made the strategic decision to contest caucuses; the Clinton campaign dumbly decided to avoid them. If they had spent a comparable amount of money and resources in the caucus states, Obama's margin of victory would have been lower and he certainly would have less of a delegate lead. These are all arguments... all persuasive in their own way... and they don't get me any clearer towards the answering the question about which votes to count and which votes to ignore. |
This race is closer than people are pretending it is. I'm not saying Hillary will win the popular vote, but i AM saying that people screaming "the race is over!" are engaged in wishful thinking. Go to Jay Cost's spreadsheet and plug in some numbers. I've been playing with it for the last two days, and I can make the baby Jesus cry real easy.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 65 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
