Friday, March 07, 2008
PLEASE shut up about the "national popular vote"
(Note: This is cross-posted as a DailyKos diary.)
I've become deeply concerned about folks like Kos, Jonathan Alter, and others who are talking about Obama's lead in the so-called "National popular vote."
This is a FALSE METRIC that has nothing to do with anything. It compares apples and oranges. It severely undercounts Obama's support in key states. And it needs to stop.
There was a diary on this issue yesterday by bbrown8370, and on her/his advice, I'm elaborating on it below the break.
Intro
You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.
I've become deeply concerned about folks like Kos, Jonathan Alter, and others who are talking about Obama's lead in the so-called "National popular vote." This is a FALSE METRIC that has nothing to do with anything. It compares apples and oranges. It severely undercounts Obama's support in key states. And it needs to stop. There was a diary on this issue yesterday by bbrown8370, and on her/his advice, I'm elaborating on it below the break.
Based on sites such as the "US Election Atlas" and Real Clear Politics, reporters are looking at the raw numbers and saying that Obama has a lead of approximately 600,000 votes, not counting Florida or Michigan. But of course, this conflates many different things: primaries with caucuses, open primaries with closed primaries, states where multiple candidates were in the race vs. states with just two candidates. This is so arbitrary as to be at best laughable and at worst, dangerous. It's a meme that needs to be stopped.
If for no other reason, people should stop using this term because it is yet another example of moving the goalposts to benefit Clinton's campaign. Why? Because the so-called "national popular vote" vastly undercounts Obama's support, specifically from those states with caucuses.
How did Kos come up with this 600,000 "vote" lead by Obama in this "national primary vote"? If you go by the numbers at uselectionatlas.org, among the primary states (not counting Michigan, where Obama garnered 0 votes and where Clinton herself said the vote didn't count), Obama has a thin lead of less than 100,000 votes. Take out Florida, and his lead blossoms to closer to 400,000 votes. Then add in the caucus states, and there's the other 200,000. But of course, by their nature, caucuses involve a far smaller percentage of voters than do primaries.
Let's look at the numbers.
The 11 caucus states (AK, CO, ID, KS, MN, ND, IA, NV, NE, WA, ME) have been won by Obama by an average of 67%-31%, and have netted him a grand total of a 200,000 "vote" advantage according to these aggregate calculators. These 11 states have over 30,000,000 people according to the latest census figures.
Meanwhile, take Ohio (OH). Clinton won 54%-44%, and it has a population of 11.5 million, or about 40% of the 11 caucus states. Yet her victory there netted her 230,000 "votes." So Clinton's win, by a considerably smaller margin among a significantly smaller populace, nets her a 30,000 vote lead!
By my rough estimate, caucus states are underrepresented in these so-called "national primary vote" figures by between 2-1 to 3-1 -- or something in the order of 300,000 votes.
Using this metric, his ACTUAL "national popular vote" lead is nearly 1,000,000 votes! That's something close to a mandate, and impossible to make up in the remaining states (even if you include Florida and Michigan). Just like in the pledged delegate count (you remember that, right? The system we developed to help gauge support for candidates?), Clinton can't make up the difference.
But of course, these figures are themselves inappropriate to use, because the campaigns haven't been working toward anything other than garnering delegates from day one. I can guarantee that Obama's campaign, and Clinton's, would have done things differently if it were a race for this mythical "primary vote."
And this diary doesn't even get to the apples vs. oranges question of open primaries vs. closed primaries (why do you count some states' independents and republicans, but not others) or early states (with Edwards in the race) vs. late states (with just these two).
The point is - I can't repeat this enough - there is no such thing as a "national popular vote"! Using the term is counterproductive and yet one more example of moving the goalposts ... changing the rules mid-game ... Calvinball.
Please, Kos and everyone, stop using this metric. NOW!
I've become deeply concerned about folks like Kos, Jonathan Alter, and others who are talking about Obama's lead in the so-called "National popular vote."
This is a FALSE METRIC that has nothing to do with anything. It compares apples and oranges. It severely undercounts Obama's support in key states. And it needs to stop.
There was a diary on this issue yesterday by bbrown8370, and on her/his advice, I'm elaborating on it below the break.
Intro
You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.
I've become deeply concerned about folks like Kos, Jonathan Alter, and others who are talking about Obama's lead in the so-called "National popular vote." This is a FALSE METRIC that has nothing to do with anything. It compares apples and oranges. It severely undercounts Obama's support in key states. And it needs to stop. There was a diary on this issue yesterday by bbrown8370, and on her/his advice, I'm elaborating on it below the break.
Based on sites such as the "US Election Atlas" and Real Clear Politics, reporters are looking at the raw numbers and saying that Obama has a lead of approximately 600,000 votes, not counting Florida or Michigan. But of course, this conflates many different things: primaries with caucuses, open primaries with closed primaries, states where multiple candidates were in the race vs. states with just two candidates. This is so arbitrary as to be at best laughable and at worst, dangerous. It's a meme that needs to be stopped.
If for no other reason, people should stop using this term because it is yet another example of moving the goalposts to benefit Clinton's campaign. Why? Because the so-called "national popular vote" vastly undercounts Obama's support, specifically from those states with caucuses.
How did Kos come up with this 600,000 "vote" lead by Obama in this "national primary vote"? If you go by the numbers at uselectionatlas.org, among the primary states (not counting Michigan, where Obama garnered 0 votes and where Clinton herself said the vote didn't count), Obama has a thin lead of less than 100,000 votes. Take out Florida, and his lead blossoms to closer to 400,000 votes. Then add in the caucus states, and there's the other 200,000. But of course, by their nature, caucuses involve a far smaller percentage of voters than do primaries.
Let's look at the numbers.
The 11 caucus states (AK, CO, ID, KS, MN, ND, IA, NV, NE, WA, ME) have been won by Obama by an average of 67%-31%, and have netted him a grand total of a 200,000 "vote" advantage according to these aggregate calculators. These 11 states have over 30,000,000 people according to the latest census figures.
Meanwhile, take Ohio (OH). Clinton won 54%-44%, and it has a population of 11.5 million, or about 40% of the 11 caucus states. Yet her victory there netted her 230,000 "votes." So Clinton's win, by a considerably smaller margin among a significantly smaller populace, nets her a 30,000 vote lead!
By my rough estimate, caucus states are underrepresented in these so-called "national primary vote" figures by between 2-1 to 3-1 -- or something in the order of 300,000 votes.
Using this metric, his ACTUAL "national popular vote" lead is nearly 1,000,000 votes! That's something close to a mandate, and impossible to make up in the remaining states (even if you include Florida and Michigan). Just like in the pledged delegate count (you remember that, right? The system we developed to help gauge support for candidates?), Clinton can't make up the difference.
But of course, these figures are themselves inappropriate to use, because the campaigns haven't been working toward anything other than garnering delegates from day one. I can guarantee that Obama's campaign, and Clinton's, would have done things differently if it were a race for this mythical "primary vote."
And this diary doesn't even get to the apples vs. oranges question of open primaries vs. closed primaries (why do you count some states' independents and republicans, but not others) or early states (with Edwards in the race) vs. late states (with just these two).
The point is - I can't repeat this enough - there is no such thing as a "national popular vote"! Using the term is counterproductive and yet one more example of moving the goalposts ... changing the rules mid-game ... Calvinball.
Please, Kos and everyone, stop using this metric. NOW!
