MyFox
 

John_Schwada's Blog

by John_Schwada from Los Angeles

Last Post 9 days, 20 hours Ago


More ulcers for the Democratic Party’s superdelegates. A new calculation shows that Clinton, after Pennsylvania’s primary results, has received more votes (as opposed to delegates) than Barack Obama in both the caucuses and primaries. So much for Obama’s popular vote bragging rights – at least for the time being (he still leads Clinton by about 125 delegates). 

According to veteran political analyst Michael Barone, reporting Saturday in his Rasmussen Reports column, Clinton now has:

“won the votes, in primaries and caucuses, of 15,112,000 Americans, compared to 14,993,000 for Obama (Schwada’s note: roughly a lead of 120,000 votes, or 4/10ths of one percent of all votes cast). If you add in the votes, as estimated by the folks at realclearpolitics.com, in the Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine caucuses, where state Democratic parties did not count the number of caucus-attenders, Clinton still has a lead of 12,000 votes (Schwada’s note: or a lead of 4/100ths of one percent)."

News like this only prolongs the agony for undecided Democratic superdelegates, desperately looking for some sign, fact, index, trend (have they tried chicken entrails and tarot cards?) to guide them out of the party’s political maze. Imagine the soul-searching too among any Democrats, from the Obama camp, who might have claimed George Bush’s 2000 election victory was a joke – in part because he lost the popular vote. What are they to say now? That the popular vote doesn’t matter?

The super-delegates must also be keeping an eye on the polls….in fact, the pollsters could become the 800-lb gorillas in the Democratic Party’s nomination-kitchen.

For example, what if the polls started to consistently show that one candidate would do a much better job in a matchup against McCain? That’s an electability question that the super-delegates have got to consider.

At this time, by this measure, Obama and McCain are running neck-and-neck. When realpolitics.com looked at six separate polls, the average showed showed Obama doing BETTER against McCain than Clinton - at this point in time. Obama, on average, is currently enjoying a 1.6 percentage point advantage over McCain. In a Clinton vs. McCain matchup, the spread is 1.2 percentage points, in favor of Clinton. But the differences here are unremarkable, statistically insignificant. These kinds of numbers don't provide much help tor the super-delegates.

Another polling measure for the super-delegates to consider: how Democrats nationwide view the two candidatesl, Over time, these polls have seen Obama overcome and then surpass Clinton. Currently, by this measure (again I’m relying on realpolitics.com’s average of six polls), the spread between Obama and Clinton is 6.2% - advantage Obama.. But the latest numbers also hint at a closing of the gap; the spread was nearly 10% a few weeks ago.

There are plenty of other factors to consider – but the polls, delegate totals and popular vote are key to the nomination math, and as of today, the lead changed hands in the popular vote totals. Advantage Clinton.

2 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 2
Page 1 of 1
John_Schwada read my blog view my photos
Apr 26, 2008 | 5:39 PM

apology: references to realpolitics.com should be to realclearpolitics.com

John_Schwada read my blog view my photos
Apr 27, 2008 | 9:10 PM

statue:

Excellent point, and one that I should have made clear earlier. Mea culpa.

Barone's numbers DO take into account Michigan where Clinton was on the ballot and rec'd 328,000 votes; neither Obama nor John Edwards was on the ballot. That being said, 238,000 votes were cast for "uncommitted" in that race and both Obama and Edwards supporters in Michigan urged their voters to cast their ballots for "uncommitted." Vincent Hutchings, an associate professor in the political science department at the University of Michigan, said exit polls suggested Clinton would have won anyway, even if Obama and Edwards had been on the ballot. It should also be remembered that none of these three candidates campaigned in Michigan.

Barone's numbers also INCLUDE Florida where Clinton, Obama and Edwards were all ON the ballot. Again, none of them campaigned there. Clinton got 857,000 votes, Obama 569,000 in Florida (Edwards 248,000).

If the Michigan results are backed out of Barone's calculation, Clinton loses 328,000 votes (Obama doesn't "lose" any votes, because there were no votes cast for him) which puts Clinton - once again - behind Obama in the popular vote count. NOT counting Florida obviously also increases the Clinton deficit...

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




John_Schwada

As a reporter at Fox 11 News, I have covered national political conventions, presidential impeachment hearings and gubernatorial recall campaigns. I've done double-duty as an investigative reporter and, in this capacity, won Golden Mike and Emmy awards. I also have labored in the newspaper biz: LA Herald-Examiner, the LA Times, the San Diego Union, the Arizona Republic and the Riverside Press-Enterprise. I went to UC Berkeley and learned to respect the sharpshooting ability of Alameda County's "blue-meanies" who could hit protesters in the derriere with buckshot from 50 paces. I'm now looking for a wealthy benefactor who will donate their villa in Spain to me and my family.

Member Since: 7/4/2006