Extrapolating the Caucuses - done!
What Hillary never wants to mention when arguing about the popular vote and a topic from time to time here is the specious argument she will make about the popular vote if she closes that gap anymore.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the MSM to be upfront except for KO - he did a short piece on it yesterday, but no video of that segment is posted on their site. From 'Democratic Courage' comes the article this is excerpted from.
The numeric increase, in other words - would have been about 600,000 or so, giving Obama about a 1.3 million vote lead.
Also, did anyone catch wind of the University Of California at Davis threatening to send the Clinton Campaign to collections?
Oh yeah - rock solid management skills on display here. Executive experience that even the Enron folks would abhor - they'd give an A for screwing people and an F for being piss-poor at hiding the crime.
Finally - has anyone noticed a significant reduction in the time from comment to appearance? I have. Progress?
Don't hold your breath waiting for the MSM to be upfront except for KO - he did a short piece on it yesterday, but no video of that segment is posted on their site. From 'Democratic Courage' comes the article this is excerpted from.
A new study by Wharton professor Gregory P. Nini and Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party author Glenn Hurowitz casts serious doubt on the use of the popular vote to provide legitimacy in the current Democratic nominating contest.
The study also estimates that, in a true popular vote system where all states held primaries, Obama's popular vote lead would have increased from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent, because voters in caucus states would have slightly favored Obama based on demographic projections.
A pdf of the study is available for download here.
The numeric increase, in other words - would have been about 600,000 or so, giving Obama about a 1.3 million vote lead.
Also, did anyone catch wind of the University Of California at Davis threatening to send the Clinton Campaign to collections?
Oh yeah - rock solid management skills on display here. Executive experience that even the Enron folks would abhor - they'd give an A for screwing people and an F for being piss-poor at hiding the crime.
Finally - has anyone noticed a significant reduction in the time from comment to appearance? I have. Progress?
Advertisement
When we forecast the likely outcome of hypothetical primaries in caucus states by using their demographic profiles to project vote outcomes based on national demographic voting patterns, we find that Barack Obama’s lead in the popular vote would increase from about 2.5 percentage points to about 3.5 percentage points.
Forecast, likely, hypothetical, profiles, project, patterns...
Uh... He has an educated guess?
April 10, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS) THere was a blip last night which caused me to accidently double comment and from that point forward, they've been appearing a LOT quicker.
April 10, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Magister,
This is off the topic but i wanted to let you know that your posts have changed my mind somewhat. While I remain completely in support for Obama, your statements about the tone of anti-Clinton comments have had an effect on me. No reason to rant and be mean. It's almost like violence in its ability to take on a life of its own. Thanks. I wish there were more chances to have civil discussions on this site, but the posts don't last.
April 10, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks and I've also noticed that you're also one for a thoughtful comment and not too many (if any) quick drive-bys. Though, I do have to admit that I've been tempted to create an alternate identity, so that I can occasionally drop a Wonkette-like snark because sometimes it's just too hard to resist. Sort of, like the way I did in my comment to this post (after I read the report, of course)
I've probably said somewhere that I've always liked the idea of Obama and certainly wouldn't be opposed to his ultimate victory. It's just that I love politics and discussing the subjects, but I really can't bear the thought of ripping ourselves apart. After all, come November, we're going to need the old-line feminists, the blue-haired snowbirds, the uneducated union workers and everyone else, if we're going to completely free ourselves from this perverse administration and all that it has wrought.
April 10, 2008 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. While I've been guilty of some knee-jerk on occasion, I've tried to stop the Hillary-bashing on my end. It just doesn't serve much purpose, especially around here where I'm fairly certain 99% of the posters have already decided who to support. The media-bashing, however, I will not give up. ;)
April 10, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Magister,
You think the two lines of snark in my post are a bit rough? Sheesh... when you look at the many paragraphs that I wrote yesterday (see the 'Wavering on Obama' and the 'Obama o'what' posts by others yesterday to name two places that have at least 20 para.s between them and NOT ONE SNARKY remark or even close to snarky, a coupla lines at the end of an 18 hour day ain't so bad.
There's of course no way to accurately assess what might have happened with primary vs caucus in these states, and for many of us - the larger point is that Clinton didn't really put much effort into several of them not because they were caucus, but because they seemed to think they wouldn't NEED them.
We're a tad piqued as well, when the Clinton camp keeps trying to change the 'important metric' a current fad for them is to talk about Electoral Votes. Consider this a snarky counter to that.
April 10, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I agree that Obama played a better game, especially when he grabbed some small states on Super Tuesday and because he has been very good at getting his people to the caucuses.
Of course, way back when and on another blogsite, I tried to credit him for this and in the process I made reference to how he had motivated voters, especially among the young. For some reason, what I thought was an innocent comment ended-up getting me an online lecture about how the folks at one woman's caucus weren't very young and she felt that I had somehow insulted her by sounding dismissive.
I don't know, but since then, I've tried to keep to "motivated voters".
Oh, and just to be clear, I meant that my comment was somewhat snarky. I'm one of those people who sometimes like to pick on things which pass as "science" and all of the tentative language, or disclaimers in the pdf really stood out.
April 10, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Popular vote is terribly flawed precisely because far fewer people participate in the caucuses than primaries. In many caucuses (e.g. Maine, Alaska, Iowa), we don't even know the preferences of all those who participated at the first level - only delegates to the next level of the process were reported. Those states are virtually invisible in any "pure" popular vote count of the primaries.
April 10, 2008 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! A very significant shortening of the time. I was very surprise, starting yesterday or so.
April 10, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
In Texas I am convinced that Obama would have won a straight popular vote because the caucuses were so overwhelmingly in his favor.
Without the caucuses I doubt there would have ever been a question about who won. On the other hand, I loved the caucuses and I don't think there's any real question now who won Texas. It was Obama.
I loved the caucuses because I'm a political junkie and it raised my heart and my spirits more than I can say to see that many people get involved in the process.
I have said this now a thousand times, but I have literally never seen anything like it in my life.
April 10, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
HusseinTenaX,
(In Texas I am convinced that Obama would have won a straight popular vote...)
I hate to burst your bubble, but there was a straight popular vote in Texas. It was called the Texas primary. HRC won it. Too bad the results seem not to have made it into your paper.
April 10, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink