It shows that Obama has a great GOTV effort for contests that go to picking pledged delegates.  I am excited to see this GOTV effort bring us victory in the fall.

And yet you don't control for the fact that in three of those cases, the caucus preceded the primary.  One would think that that would be an important factor to consider.

Seeing as both campaigns knew there'd be both caucuses and primaries, and Barack's campaign made better use of GOTV to GOTD than Hillary's, it makes sense he'd come out on top. I like that forward thinking in a nominee.

Because the others, you know, didn't count and so only old people who vote in every single election by and large turned out for those.

And not coincidentally, the marginal difference is by far the smallest in Texas.

55-45 Obama in caucus, 51-48 Hillary in primary (+13 difference for Obama)

What a great analysis, The R^2 is very high.

Rec'ed

 Caucuses are not just an alternative way to gather popular votes. You know that, right?

Many registered Democrats I know here in Washington didn't vote because they knew their vote wouldn't count. I expect the same is true in Nebraska, Florida, and Michigan.

three of those, being non-contested straw polls, constitute bad data unrepresentative of any serious primary contest. Moreover, your interpolation generates questionable results (e.g. a 4% margin of victory in Minnesota, when neighbor Wisconsin's primary went steeply for Obama).

Nice attempt, but in terms of projections it's about as meaningful as using the results of an online poll.

You can question the value of "beauty contest" primaries, but kudos for injecting some actual data into this debate.

Oh, and nice axes!

Caucuses shouldn't count.  The rules should be ignored and we should count these primary tallies of the diarists.

Excellent diary

It's funny.  Call it overconfidence.  Call it incompetence.  Call it whatever you want.  Obama knew the rules.  Clinton knew the rules.  Excuse me, the former First Lady, who's been through this process before knew the rules.

Why didn't Clinton put more resources into the caucus states?  Why did she only make one appearance in my home state Minnesota, on Superbowl Sunday?  

I'm not a huge fan of caucuses, however, both candidates knew the rules.  Both candidates had a strategy based on those rules.  One strategy worked and the other didn't.

Hillary's lack of effort in the caucus states is one of the biggest reason, she lost the nomination.

Having more people in a group does not make it more representative.

The Literary Digest poll of 1936 had HUGE numbers of respondents and it predicted that Franklin Roosevelt would lose in a landslide. Then his opponent won just two states. Why? Because the people who responded were not representative of the population.

Regardless of the winner of caucuses this time, and with the realization that someone I support the next time might have an easier time winning caucuses, the process should be changed for the future.  Caucuses obviously keeps whole groups out of the process, doesn't allow for absentee ballots, and discourages ordinary voters from actively participating unless they are obsessed activists who have time to devote hours of their time to politics.  Older people, and people with disabilities depend on absentee ballots to participate in the voting process.  Caucuses are held for only a couple of hours eliminating people who work that shift, can't get or pay for babysitters, and a whole lot of other situations.  Primaries usually go for at least 10 hours offering an opportunity for people in all situations a chance to participate.

and I appreciate the clear-headed straight statistical analysis.  We all know it is a very close election, and that the party is pretty evenly divided between Obama and Clinton.  This analysis not only confirms this, but illustrates an essential difficulty with the caucus system actually representing the voter's choice.  Texas is one of the clearest examples.

Not only do the supers need to see this, but this forms a good basis for restructuring the nomination process.

Excellent work, reccommended.

If these Primaries had counted, would Obama not be in the lead in the popular vote no matter what?  Even with less delegates?

thank you for compiling this.

a caucus held in February, which had incredible turnout and which was determined the state's delegates, with a non-binding, meaningless "primary" vote in May.

Yes, there was a state and local election in May, which also included a presidential non-binding "primary" which everyone, even in Nebraska, understood was a beauty contest.

So as soon as I read the sentence," In all four cases, more people participated in the primary than in the caucus.  Also in each case, Hillary Clinton performed better and Barack Obama worse in the primary than in the caucus" I immediately thought, "Who in the world could possible care how many people participated in a non-binding primary months after a state's delegates were allocated by a caucus?"

Even in the state of Nebraska, where I live, and which Mark Penn has dismissed as small and insignificant, we understood that the race for the nomination is about delegates, and we were excited to be able to participate, for the first time, in the primary process with our caucus back in February. As a result, Nebraska's delegates were allocated 16 to Obama and 8 to Clinton.

Progressive roots run deep in Nebraska, and the war is a big issue here. Senator Clinton was not as successful in appealing to Nebraska values, Thus, Obama gained more delegates than Clinton in Nebraska.

Who cares what the results of the May vote were? Or that Clinton lost again?

This "trend" and "reallocation" is baseless and insulting to the voters of Nebraska.

look at Idaho and New Jersey.

In Idaho, about 21,000 Democrats gathered for caucuses. Obama won in a blowout by a margin of 13,000 votes. For that, he won 15 delegates to three for Clinton -- a net gain of 12 delegates.

In New Jersey, Clinton won by a margin of 110,000 votes out of more than 1 million cast. For that, she won 59 delegates to Obama's 48 -- a net gain of 11 delegates.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/05/d emocrats-dilem.html

fair system, huh?

I had a calculus final (in college) and on the same day (actually, 30 minutes after the final was over) I was leaving town on vacation with my girlfriend. As soon as I got the final exam questions I walked up to the professor and asked "Out of these 11 problems, how many do I have to solve to keep my A for this course?"

"Five" He said.

I did six in 30 minutes. Handed it in. Made it to the airport on time. And got my A.

The 5 problems I didn't solve? Well, those represent the people that didn't vote in the primaries in states where caucuses were already held and determined the delegate distribution.

You've constructed a model where it's impossible for Obama to win states by margins of more than a few points, when he won similar states which used the primary system by margins of 20 points or more (eg. Wisconsin, Utah, Vermont, Oregon).  If a ND primary would have broken 50/50, then why is Clinton behind in SD right now by approx. 12-14 points?  Your suggestion that Obama isn't strong in the upper Midwest and "Rockylachia" isn't corroborated by other polls.  Watch what happens in SD and MT on June 3 (both primary states).

The use of low-turnout caucuses rather than higher-participation primaries is directly responsible for a net margin of 123 pledged delegates in Barack Obama's favor.

The low turnout didn't cause the margin.  

PROVING that caucuses should be thrown OUT. If I was Hillary's lawyer - I would sue to have ALL caucuses thrown out.

...if you can explain to me why this is a problem, without mentioning "obama" or "clinton" then I'll listen.

But people who argue caucuses are bad, argue it for no other reason than BECAUSE Obama does better in them.  But that's a biased point of view.  Obama people don't rail about how horrible Primaries are.  

Explain to me why, and you can even reference PREVIOUS elections, caucuses are bad. But don't argue it based on who does better or worse in them in THIS election because it just comes across sounding like sour grapes.

is that Clinton voters are more apt to show up to vote when it doesn't matter. We knew this.

in incontrovertible.  

And no, that is not a gender reference.

is incontrovertible.  

And no, that is not a gender reference.

My favorite part of this ridiculous recalculation is that it completely blows Clinton's popular vote argument out of the water. If you really want to go there, Obama would likely be leading by over a million votes, MI and FL straw polls included.

you can't tell people
that one election counts
and the other doesn't
and then after the fact
pretend
that the beauty contest
is more legitimate.

Texas is the only valid example here.

The "what ifs" are going to haunt you, if you let them.

"If only" will torture you as well, because you'll always be able to devise a fantasy scenario in which your candidate wins.

You have to let go at some point, and move on. Creating alternate realities may offer some short-term comfort, but you can't live there. Look at what happened to Bush.

The argument that Clinton lost many delegates becuase states used caucuses looked good at the start of the contest but it hasn't worn well.  We know a lot more now about who is supporting which candidate and why.  Obama's strength in the upper Midwest and Rockylachia states is real--it just shows up in too many other polls (eg. this is why Obama is running better than Clinton in head-to-head matchups in places like Minnesota, Alaska, etc.).  Even the situation of a state like Maine is more ambiguous, because we now Obama won Vermont by 20 points.

I'll meet the Clinton folks halfway and suggest the following: if the caucus states had an effect on this race they probably magnified Obama's lead (eg. he might win the SD primary by 14 points, whereas he won the ND caucus by 24 points).  What is the number of delegates probably in play?  Around 40.  To argue that it's higher, one really has to believe that Clinton could have done in Colorado, Minnesota, etc., what she wasn't able to do in Oregon, Wisconsin, etc. (and that's crazy).

What explains the differential between the results of caucuses and primaries in some states?  There are some mundane explanations which deserve consideration.  In a competitive contest many voters will turn out who simply won't show up for a beauty contest (eg. indies).  And while I know it's not the whole explanation, some fraction of Clinton's better showing in the TX primary vs. the caucus comes down to this: there was a group of Republican voters who turned out for her as spoilers (but weren't going to participate in the caucus).  

I like your diary and have rec'd it.

However, I have some major problems with your conclusion.

1.  WA, NE, and ID primary results were beauty contests, and thus, far from optimal comparisons.  Given the vaunted Obama GOTV operation, there is reason to believe he would have done better in a real primary.  Not coincidentally, the margin of Obama's advantage in Texas, with real primary and caucus on same date, is less than half the Obama advantage in WA, NE, and ID.

2.  ID held its caucus on 2/5 and WA and NE held their caucuses on 2/9.  It has been repeatedly reported and I believe even Clinton campaign officials have admitted that Clinton did not adequately prepare for and campaign in the caucus states, especially those immediately after Super Tuesday.  Thus, Obama's caucus advantage in ID, NE, and WA has two components:  (1) an inherent caucus advantage for whatever reason and (2) a campaign advantage because he allocated more resources to these states.  Even if you believe Obama should not get credit for whatever his inherent caucus advantage is, I do not believe that it is appropriate to give credit to Clinton for her own campaign's failings.  There should be no do-overs in politics.  In further support of this position, see WY which held its caucus in March and where the Clinton campaign did not repeat its prior mistakes.  Clinton was much closer in WY than she was in ID, NE, and WA although the state does not seem any more inherently pro-Clinton than these others.  If Clinton had made the same effort that Obama had in ID, NE, and WA, I have no doubt that she could have greatly cut the margin of her losses.  

The interaction with other Democrats in your own precinct is infinitely more illuminating than simply voting, and is very useful for networking.

Caucuses are tricky. Honestly they are a disadvantage to less educated voters who dont understand the process or didn't even know that their states hold caucuses.

[I for one, didn't even know Texas held caucuses (then again I have barely been able to vote) but in Texas many citizens had no idea about the system. and I found that the last presidential election, in my precinct, had only two people to show up to caucus.
I credit this year with a much needed political awakening to some people. Because of the significant closeness at the time, there was a big effort by news organizations, campaigns, and my local democratic party (who held caucus trainings) to educate people about the system.]

I believe we should have some kind of reform. And while I think your diary is very good, the analysis of the data is quite advanced compared to some diaries here, I dont think we get anywhere by arguing about the past. to argue over something we cannot change is counter-productive. To argue about the past, re-hashes my irritation towards the 'unfair' process and frankly I just dont want to think about how close and yet so far we came to this nomination.

has it occurred to you that that is due to two factors:

1) in all but Texas, Obama knew that the caucus counted, and the primary didn't.  Thus, the focus was less on general media blanketing and more on activist GOTV.

2) Clinton voters in primaries vs. caucuses are voting name recognition and the "default" candidate, especially in the early battles.  They are also the voters less likely, by comparison, to turn out in November.  When Obama is the default candidate, these voters will return to him.

With 35 years of experience you think she would have learned how a democrat gets nominated by now.

So, as has been continuously said, SHE MESSED UP BIG TIME by ignoring caucuses.  That is one of the things that DIRECTLY lead to her defeat.  But those are the rules.  One can not bitch and complain about the rules that everyone is playing by.  Should the rules be changed for next time... there is certainly merit in that... but for now both played the game by the Established rules and Obama was clearly superior at winning based on those rules.  He knew the game and strategized accordingly.  Clinton did not and it cost her the nomination.

Fun diary, thanks for the effort involved.

I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions but fun to look at.  

I think it is incumbent that during the next election, each candidate sign a statement that they have read the rules, understand the rules and agree to abide by the rules as set forth from Day 1 and anytime a candidate starts spinning so fast it makes everyone within 100 feet feel dizzy, we can just refer back to their signed statement.  

It is fun trying to come up with new angles and new arguments to advocate for our respective candidates, but in the end it will boil down to whether or not the superdelegates uphold or overturn the pledged delegates.  

If my aunt had balls, she'd be by uncle.

The rules are what they are. The Clintons have had powerful friends at the DNC for years. If Hillary had wanted the rules to be different, she could have lobbied for changes before the campaign season started.

for having the primaries on the y axis and the caucuses on the x axis is completely subjective?  You can reverse the axes and Obama completely blows her out of the water.  It's too bad we didn't have caucuses in every state.  Based on interpolation, Obama would have won every state!  You know why the previous statement is faulty and your analysis is faulty?  They presume that the candidates would have ran the same campaign under different rules.  Obama didn't run his campaign for primary contests in caucus states.  He ran his campaign to win the caucuses.

What a shame for Hillary that she and her team didn't figure out the importance of caucus states until it was too late.

Kind of like not figuring out the importance of being against the Iraq War until it was too late.

Not the best judgement, imo.

Congrats, BHO!  Let's go take out McCane!

Hillary should have had a strategy for the caucus states.

And perhaps, if the caucus states were primary states, Obama would have put all his efforts into winning primaries and not caucuses.

Your graph is well done, but it doesn't necessarily lead to a favorable conclusion  I don't see much point in disagreeing that Obama does better in caucuses than in primaries, because it's not necessary.  Obama tried to perform better in caucuses because he had to.  The difficulty is if you try to say, from this, that caucuses are necessarily less democratic than primaries, which is a complex argument to make, and even if you succeed in your argument, it still does Hillary no good because Obama's strategy would have been different without the presence of caucuses.

Hillary herself nailed down the reason for the failure of her campaign in that famous fundraiser tape:

"[T]he activist base of the Democratic Party... [T]hey are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

She drove the "activist base" crazy with her national security and foreign policy positions, and that is a fundamental factor that worked against her that has nothing to do with strategy and everything to do with Iraq.  

I tend to take the position that, but for her position on foreign policy, she would have won the nomination handily and people like me would not have opposed her so bitterly.  And from that quoted statement above, she already KNOWS that.  The caucus system only exaggerated the core of her basic problem.  

Unfortunately, I can't draw any graphs to prove this point.  I can only point to the fact that Obama has succeeded, and Hillary has failed, and she failed worse in those states that were the most anti-war, like Iowa.

Blah Blah Blah....diaries about the evil of causcuses are sour grapes. If I'm not mistaken, Senator Clinton knew that caucuses were part of the nominating process and should have planned accordingly.

...has to stop.  The whole point of a caucus is that it is cheaper to administer and it is easier to organize (it's much easier to get caucus chairs than poll workers).  But it strikes me that primacaucuses give you the worst of each system and add confusion to the mix.

Great diary. Rec'ed. I appreciate your objectivity in presenting the data. This is not a candidate diary. It simply presents the facts of how Obama was able to use caucuses to accumulate more delegates than Clinton.

Great analysis and I say that as a Statistician.  Caucuses are not part of a democracy.  It's like the way the Soviet Union used to hold elections.  Our nominating process must reflect the general election.  Using a sports analogy, why would a team practice against defense A (caucus) when it knows it will face defense B (election) in the game?  The result would be a disaster and that's what the democrats are headed towards in the general election if Sen Obama is the nominee.  Sen McCain is already taking him to the cleaners on almost every issue.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges when you compare caucuses that are dispositive to its primaries that are not dispositive.  There isn't always ample information when the contest is not dispositive.  That's where I think your analysis falls short.

Also, just as having open primaries and closed primaries (another apples/oranges comparison), caucuses, too, serve a purpose (velvet elvis):

Caucuses are not supposed to reflect the level of support for a candidate in the general population.  It's supposed to measure the level of support among the party activists and volunteers who actually do the majority of the work in a campaign.  Why shouldn't the people who will be doing all the work have more of a say than the people who just vote, put up a sign and donate?

It's long been known that Hillary's grassroots support is weak and that's a huge liability.  Part of the purpose of caucuses and indeed the whole multilayered convention system to prevent the scenario where voters choose a candidate who is unable to attract enough volunteers to successfully mount a campaign. Caucuses are precinct level conventions.

Of course the states that had both caucuses and primaries, the caucus was before ot the primary, and therefore the primary was a beauty contest.  

Don't seem to add up.

thanks for this post. I've been trying to say this for a long time. I caucused and voted in WA and I don't even think the caucus votes represent real state voters. I think they were young thugs (in WA they were all white so I'm not saying anything racial here. It's sad that I have to clarify a statement like this, but this is where the cries of racism have taken us.) bussed from state to state. They came in, create chaos, overwhelmed the registrars and tag teamed uncommitted and HIllary supporters. They pretended to be uncommitted and for Hillary so they could make dramatic shows of "defecting" or switching to Obama.

Most of it was legal and reprehensible. Hillary supporters left unable to wait or stand or make it through the chaos. It was not a  great day for Democracy like BO would have everyone believe -- it was awful.

Women are starting a group and we will walk out of the convention if Obama is made the nominee. We will not accept him -- he is so clearly unqualified.

691K Dem's voted in the primary. That 46% of Kerry's total in 2004, a high-turnout year.

Yes...something the MSM SHOULD be talking about...but, gosh, why don't they? Is there a pattern here? Thanks for the research and the post! Nice work!