### Obama v Clinton, vote totals [Update: 50/50!]

{UPDATE: Yer lameness had the Arizona vote totals wrong (thanks minvis!). So, I take most of what follows back . . . Obama in fact, using my calculations, leads Clinton by 82,781 votes. She has 12,687,081 primary votes and he has 12,769,862. Obama leads Clinton 50.16% to 49.84%.}

NEVERMIND: I realize it may be hard to read the chart below, but I see an excel spreadsheet as the only way to question the vote totals in Max Fletcher's What will it take for Clinton to catch Obama in the popular vote?, at openleft and at mydd.

NEW CHART W ACCURATE nearly 50/50 vote split:

My particular take is the one that is most fair-minded but that neither Obama nor Clinton wants, that the Florida results should be counted and the Michigan results should not be, as it was unfair and undemocratic in Michigan not to have Obama on the ballot, while the Florida primary election was nearly perfectly fair to both sides. Also, caucus 'votes' should not be counted, as they are biased away from 'average voters' toward activists.

NEVERMIND: Nonetheless (Obama supporters), my spreadsheet shows Obama leading Clinton by 1,802,781 primary votes. In percentage terms, he leads her 53.3% to 46.7%.

NEVERMIND: I take all my data from CNN Election Center, where exact vote totals are provided. NEVERMIND: Again, I don't see how Fletcher and his source, Real Clear Politics, arrive at an Obama "592,682" popular vote lead. Much too small.

##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far
I don't understand how "popular" vote can be derived from caucuses - but that's the rules.
Caucuses are undemocratic - but that's the rules.
by annefrank 2008-03-10 10:05AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

If you notice, fairleft doesn't include any vote totals for caucuses.

by minvis 2008-03-10 10:07AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far
Oops! you're right.
Thanks
by annefrank 2008-03-10 10:17AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

I don't understand how 'real' votes even enter the conversation. It's a delegate race not a national popular vote. Hell even the GE is not won on popular votes.

Who ever wins the most earned delegates wins the race. Every thing else is just wishful thinking.

by JoeCoaster 2008-03-10 10:10AM | 0 recs
##### Actually, the rules say...

...A majority of delegates are needed to nominate.

by Andre Walker 2008-03-10 10:19AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Actually, the rules say...

supers are going to vote with the earned delegate winner. anything else would be party suicide.

by JoeCoaster 2008-03-10 10:29AM | 0 recs
##### The automatic delegates can vote...

...Which ever way they chose and I trust their judgment.

by Andre Walker 2008-03-10 10:44AM | 0 recs
##### Re: The automatic delegates can vote...

I hope Hillary feels the same way after they all move over to Obama after the last state primary. If not she could do serious harm to the party by fighting it into the convention.

by JoeCoaster 2008-03-10 12:33PM | 0 recs
##### Re: Actually, the rules say...

Suicide?  More threats, just love these bots who live in their own little world where everything is so life and death.  Get a grip, no death required, our party will survive even this latest attempt to take it over by the far left, it has happened before, they will learn, now or later, but learn they surely will.

by democrat voter 2008-03-10 10:54AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

It is a delegate race. You are right only till then.

It is not a earned delegate race. A delegate race means both pledged and supers. Get used to rules as Obama said.

by Sandeep 2008-03-10 11:56AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

Caucuses have been around forever and only now are butt-hurt Hillary supporters calling them undemocratic.

by smoothmedia 2008-03-10 10:13AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

Many Dems who've never been involved with caucuses are just learning how undemocratic they really are - because they disenfranchise so many voters.

by annefrank 2008-03-10 10:19AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

Funny Hillary supporters did not have a problem the Nevada caucus after she won there. I mean they had a problem with Nevada until she won....then Nevada caucus's were great!

What caucus disenfranchise are low information voters and late decider's.....the kind of voters that can be swayed with a last minute smear campaign (Hillary's specialty).

by JoeCoaster 2008-03-10 10:26AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

Or the Obama campaign that has been smearing cCinton for a whole year, and these posters who do it daily.

by democrat voter 2008-03-10 10:51AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

Point me to some Obama smears.

As for us Obama supporters, we are reacting to Hillary's campaign antics...and unlike Barack, some of us aren't committed to taking the high road.

Welcome to the blogosphere.

by smoothmedia 2008-03-10 11:11AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

Actually, they don't disenfranchise anyone.  I have no idea how you could say this.  Everyone has an equal right to attend the caucus, no matter who they support.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-10 10:29AM | 0 recs
##### No to be argumentative,

but you're wrong. Everyone doesn't have an equal right to attend a caucus. Have you ever worked in a factory? Most of them around here work 12 hour shifts, two days on and two off. If it is your day to work, you don't just tell them you're going to take off and go caucus. As a matter of fact, you don't just tell them you're going to take off and go to the bathroom. You stand there and run your machine all day, or you don't have a job. If you work in a restaurant, you don't just leave customers sitting at a table twiddling their thumbs while you take a few hours off to go caucus. And if you've got kids that you can't afford a babysitter for, you can't just leave them in the house alone while you go caucus, unless you want to face charges. Maybe in some universe the caucus system is perfectly fair. But in my world it would disenfranchise a lot of people. There's nothing fair, or even democratic about that.

by georgiapeach 2008-03-10 10:41AM | 0 recs
##### Re: No to be argumentative,

actually in most places, you do tell them you are going to caucus and they get fined big time if they don't let you or retaliate.

That said, I agree that the caucus system as currently constituted is unfair.  However, I also believe that a straight primary system will be even more rigged in favor of establishment candidates than the current system.  I would like to see every state have a caucus in which 20% of the state's delegates were selected, followed within a few weeks by a primary in which the remaining 80% were selected.  And ideally we would continue to have a somewhat spread out calendar, just not one where Iowa and NH lead every year.

by edparrot 2008-03-10 11:36AM | 0 recs
##### In theory,

they know they have to let you leave to go vote. In practice, they make sure that you know, if you do leave, your machine will be kept running, and your partners will have to do your jobs and their own too, until you get back. In my case, it would have been at least 20 minutes to my polling place, 20 minutes back, and however long it takes to vote (or caucus). You wouldn't be the most popular person in the plant for a few days, needless to say. Other than that, I think your suggestions have a lot of merit.

by georgiapeach 2008-03-10 07:01PM | 0 recs
##### Re: No to be argumentative,

This has nothing to do with who someone votes for.  You see, workers have the right or are denied the right to caucus independent of their candidate of choice.

Therefore, it is difficult to argue that the caucus unfairly benefits one candidate more then the other, without assuming that certain groups are going to vote a certain way every time.  Which is exactly what you are doing.

I'll tell ya this - NO group has more free time then Seniors, who are Clinton's biggest voting block by far.  She should win each and every caucus hands down.  And at the one I attended this year, there were tons of kids running around; bring your kids with you if you can't get a babysitter.

Just grasping at straws for your candidate.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-10 12:34PM | 0 recs
##### Re: No to be argumentative,

the clinton campaign is saying that seniors are shut in and infirm so they can't caucus.
but apperantly they can go to a poll.

i dunno about you guys, but i'm just glad i live in oregon, where we have vote by mail.

the vastly superior system

by theninjagoddess 2008-03-10 03:41PM | 0 recs
##### How am I grasping at straws for

my candidate, when I never mentioned one? I was talking about the fact that they disenfranchise some voters, and that would be my opinion no matter which candidate they favored. And as for those seniors you mentioned, a lot of them have to vote absentee because they either can't or don't drive or they aren't physically able to go. For many of them, getting dressed and getting to the polls, and then taking 5 minutes to vote is very taxing. Getting through a caucus would be impossible. And just for the record, I think trying to justify Obama dragging his feet on a do-over to prevent voters from being disenfranchised is the very definition of "grasping at straws for your candidate".

by georgiapeach 2008-03-10 07:09PM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

Caucuses not only do disenfranchise voters, they have been packed with people that don't show IDs, don't prove residency, may not even live in the state.  They harass voters, some said Obama supporters accused Clinton supporters of being racists, etc.  They push poll there.  Not democracy, but a pretend party bash, complete with people standing on hoods declaring their support for the ONE.  Ick!

by democrat voter 2008-03-10 10:49AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

Now you are just making stuff up.

You know in primaries the machines are rigged so every vote goes to Hillary. That's what I hear.

by JoeCoaster 2008-03-10 12:37PM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

I'm using 'disenfranchise' very loosely. Caucus attract very involved voters. That's my point.

by JoeCoaster 2008-03-10 12:39PM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

Caucuses cannot be defended by saying they have been around so therefore they are democratic, when obviously they are not, not everyone gets a chance to vote, therefore they are not democratic, they are party functions and are attended by the most dedicated, not necessarily indicative of the real support in the state only the support from those in attendance.

by democrat voter 2008-03-10 10:58AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far
i have a feeling caucus votes would be more democratic and more "important" if she had won them.  Clinton: "i know i may have won, but i just have the feeling that if the process would have been more open, Sen. Obama would have done better"
Yeah. Right.  The rules are the rules, and everyone knew them going in.  They were told FL and MI would not count and since she won them she believes they should, they were told caucus would count but now that she has lost them, they really shouldnt.
Mrs. Clinton, you dont know how to win and really suck at losing.
by affratboy22 2008-03-10 11:45AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far
If we could only be sure Obama's votes from Repubs and Indys would be duplicated in Nov.
But per Texas, Obama voters didn't even vote for the rest of the Dem ticket.
Repubs WANT to run against Obama!
by annefrank 2008-03-10 10:07AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

Actually, most of the Republicans who left their downtickets blank were Limbaugh Clinton voters.

by elrod 2008-03-10 10:26AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

They say they want to run against Hillary but....it's Obama they want they'll blow him away.  He'll never know what hit him

by bradydundee 2008-03-10 10:27AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

And like it or not, people in FL and MI DID vote.  You can count them now or count them when they do a re-do, but people vote.  Not counting those votes puts those states in the Republican column come fall.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-10 10:08AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

An untrue assertion.  MI at least is going to vote Dem in the fall no matter what.  FL, maybe.

If there's a re-vote, those would of course have to be counted.  No point in counting votes which currently don't count, though.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-10 10:11AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

Did you read fairleft's analysis? In this tally, Florida was included and caucuses weren't.

Michigan wasn't included because of Obama not being on the ballot.

by dantes 2008-03-10 10:14AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

"Also, caucus 'votes' should not be counted, as they are biased away from 'average voters' toward activists."

So by that you mean, "Also, caucus 'votes' should not be counted, as they favour Obama far too much for my liking."

This is exactly why the "popular vote" argument is a weak one. You can't get accurate totals from the caucus states, and if you leave them out you are ignoring the votes of millions of Americans and disregarding entire states.

This is why we have a system with DELEGATES. The popular vote is meaningless.

by smoothmedia 2008-03-10 10:11AM | 0 recs
##### But, since u have no solution

for that problem, I leave things as they are, including only "voting" contests as normal democracies define that word. In any case, Obama still has a large lead in 'real' votes.

I'm sure you'll agree that caucuses need to be banned in democracies.

by fairleft 2008-03-10 10:16AM | 0 recs
##### Re: But, since u have no solution

I don't agree.

I don't think they are a great system, but for the purposes of choosing a nominee, it's not a horrible method either.

I'm a Canadian, and in Canada the average citizen has no say what so ever in who our political party's nominee is. The liberal party had a 3 day convention  in eastern canada to decide it.

So I find caucuses infinitely more democratic that what we have here.

Besides, people who care the most (activists, as you call them) go to caucuses. It's likely these voters are more knowledgeable more likely to dontate/fundraise for a candidate, and more likely to vote in the general election.

Why shouldn't they have a stronger voice in some states?

by smoothmedia 2008-03-10 10:25AM | 0 recs
##### Re: But, since u have no solution

Well, no, I don't believe in democracy only for "the best and brightest". Democracy is also for people for whom it's a real pain in the ass to go out for "an evening of caucusing" and for whom neither of the candidates is anything to get enthusiastic about. Otherwise it's not democracy.

by fairleft 2008-03-10 10:41AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

Oh I see you can't get popular votes from caucus states so lets count delegates. Right and you say Hillary supporters are transparent.

by bradydundee 2008-03-10 10:30AM | 0 recs
##### What are my bonehead errors????

by fairleft 2008-03-10 10:14AM | 0 recs
##### Re: What are my bonehead errors????

I found your error.  The Obama number you have for Arizona is 1.9 million instead of 190,000.

by minvis 2008-03-10 10:31AM | 0 recs
##### Re: What are my bonehead errors????

Damn, Got It! Thanks!

by fairleft 2008-03-10 10:42AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

Every caucus has released popular vote totals except Maine, Washington, Nevada and Iowa.  The 592000 number includes all caucuses except those four.

Add in the known primary vote in Washington and Obama gains an additional 40000.  In Maine (45000 participants), Nevada (117000), and Iowa(224000), you can estimate relative candidate support based on the known turnout and the % of state delegates selected in each state for each candidate.  That gives Obama another 10,000 or so.

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-10 10:16AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

You get that total from realclear politics, trusting their calculations. I get mine from adding up CNN's vote totals. I don't get how our totals can be so divergent, by a multiple of 3.

by fairleft 2008-03-10 10:18AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

I have never visited Real Clear Politics.  I got data from www.uselectionatlas.org and came up with a number close to 592000.

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-10 10:46AM | 0 recs
##### Obama took his name off the ballot
no one told him to do that.  He did it so he could claim the voters there do not count.  He knew Clinton was going to win big there and she did.
The SDs will take them in to consideration no matter what.
by MollieBradford 2008-03-10 10:23AM | 0 recs
##### wrong, misleading numbers in you diary

a lot of wrong with your calculations. For example:

1) you cannot count popular vote without Florida and Michigan
2) you cannot include caucuses into popular vote: we have very good prove from WA and TX

by engels 2008-03-10 10:23AM | 0 recs
##### Re: wrong, misleading numbers in you diary

Did you read the explanation. He excluded caucus votes. And he included Florida. To be most fair to Clinton, he could have included the "uncommitted" for Obama in Michigan.

by elrod 2008-03-10 10:28AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

I would agree that you can't count caucus votes.

Which disenfranchise many voters.

After PA, Fl and MI--HRC will be slightly ahead--so the point is mute.

I give kudos to the diarist though for assembling the spreadsheet.

by vivelosdiablosdelsol 2008-03-10 10:29AM | 0 recs
##### Arizona numbers are off

by like 1.7 million- looks like you added a one somewhere.

by linc 2008-03-10 10:33AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Arizona numbers are off

I was just going to mention that - Obama got 191k votes in Arizona, not 1.9 million.

by mikes101 2008-03-10 10:34AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Arizona numbers are off

Just caught that.  This is, um, a mistaken diary.

But as I said below, you cannot take out caucuses and claim you have an actual popular vote. Nor can you take out the Texas caucus portion.

by elrod 2008-03-10 10:36AM | 0 recs
##### You can't add the TX caucus

to a popular vote.  Everyone who voted in the primary voted in the caucus and like WA's primary results versus its caucus result, it just goes to show how undemocratic caucuses are.

by linc 2008-03-10 10:41AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Arizona numbers are off

Now we shall see how fair 'fairleft' really is, since correcting his spreadsheet shows Clinton rather than Obama winning.

by souvarine 2008-03-10 11:03AM | 0 recs
##### You Arizona number is wrong by a million

You have Obama with 1,911,681 and Clinton with 228,158.  I believe Obama got 191,168. That would alter your calculation by about a million votes. That's why RCP was right.

But I think excluding caucuses is silly. Those voters did show up after all. That Hillary couldn't organize for caucuses is her problem. It's like throwing Tennessee out because tornadoes drove down turnout in Memphis where Obama counted on more support. Sorry, them's the breaks.

by elrod 2008-03-10 10:34AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

I re-computed the Real Clear Politics numbers with your assumptions (i.e. no caucus states and counting Florida but not Michigan's votes).  The result:

Obama: 13,168,248
Clinton:  13,056,743

by minvis 2008-03-10 10:38AM | 0 recs
##### Yep

and if she can win PA by 250000 like she did OH, then she will be unstoppable as the popular vote winner, even if you include the caucus numbers.  Her wins in KY, WV and PR will even out with anything Obama can do in NC and SD.  They will tie IN OR and MT, although I think there is a good chance she will come out ahead in all three.

by linc 2008-03-10 10:45AM | 0 recs
##### Unstoppable?

Hardly.  There are lots of ifs and assumptions in there.

by minvis 2008-03-10 10:55AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Yep

Uh, OR is going to be 60/40 Obama at least.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-10 12:08PM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

Even if I include Michigan's totals but include Uncommitted into the Obama column, we get the following:

Obama:  13,406,416
Clinton: 13,385,052

by minvis 2008-03-10 10:51AM | 0 recs

Leaving aside the FL and MI debate, why would there be differing tallies?

For instance, realclearpolitics (and the California state governemnt) has the following tally for California:

Clinton 2,553,784
Obama 2,126,600

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/pres/dem/ 59.htm

but you have:

Clinton 2,306,361
Obama 1,890,026

Where did you get your numbers??  Your numbers are clearly inaccurate in California, and I suspect in other state totals.

by Sieglinde 2008-03-10 10:41AM | 0 recs
##### Taking away the Arizona mistake

Just using your numbers without the Arizona mistake, we have:

Total Obama: 12769862 50.1%
Total Clinton: 12687081 49.9%

by mikes101 2008-03-10 10:41AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Taking away the Arizona mistake

Fairleft, please make the Arizona changes and repost.

by indus 2008-03-10 10:48AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Taking away the Arizona mistake

I did so. The 50/50 virtual tie would've been a much better diary.

by fairleft 2008-03-10 11:04AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Taking away the Arizona mistake

Is there any way you can change this sentence with the right numbers

Thanks

by indus 2008-03-10 11:35AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

This spread sheet is bogus, you can't have the figures wrong and get a right answer, even though I know you are trying your best to demand that Obama has so much more support, check your numbers they are wrong.

Basically this race is half and half, so even with all the claims and counter claims, doesn't matter that Obama has some more delegates if he can't get to 2025 he doesn't win, its really simple, no one can claim just because you want it to be so, it doesn't work that way.  By declaring that Fl and Mich don't count, then you don't have to count those voters.  They count even if you don't count them.  They still count.

by democrat voter 2008-03-10 10:42AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far

You're right! See above. Very sorry, a better diary and title would be "50/50 tie in popular vote".

by fairleft 2008-03-10 11:03AM | 0 recs
##### Your California data is old

They've finished counting absentees, provisionals and those LA County Double Bubbles.

Final tally =
Clinton 2,553,784
Obama 2,126,600

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-10 11:07AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Your California data is old

if this is correct, HRC lead in CA increases by another 10,749 votes ( total 427 184 as per DaveOinSF and 416335 as per the spread sheet)

by indus 2008-03-10 11:39AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Your California data is old

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-10 03:08PM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far [50

How on earth can we glibly say it's the delegates that matter and he popular vote doesn't count when we were all up in arms when Gore won the popular voe but lost the election? Seems there is a double standard here.

by LadyEagle 2008-03-10 11:57AM | 0 recs
##### Re: Obama v Clinton, (real) vote totals so far [50

obviously the small states are a little bit more glib about population vote, and a lot of barack's support is from small states.

that said, he's almost certain to win population vote anyway, since she has to win something like 55% of the remaining vote to beat him in that metric, and considering obama will win a few of those states by landslides, well.... you get the idea

by theninjagoddess 2008-03-10 03:47PM | 0 recs