Conservative Inquirer pundit Jonathan Last is in "Operation Chaos" mode, trying waaaaay too hard here to make Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee, or at least prolong the nomination fight to the advantage of his presumably favored GOP candidate John McCain. He has an op-ed piece today that's currently the most widely read story on Philly.com, entitled "In most inclusive count, Clinton has the numbers." It attempts to make the case that by June 3, Clinton will have more popular votes than Barack Obama, assuming you use a formula that's not the most pro-Clinton but is still fairly pro-Clinton (not using Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot, but also disregarding the caucus results from several states that Obama handily won.)
For one thing, the whole popular vote argument is a little silly, since -- and this is coming from a hardcore, lifelong political junkie -- this is a measurement that has never, ever been used before. Winning the nomination is all about getting delegates, just as winning in November is all about getting electoral votes. If I have time later, I'll be sure to dig up all the columns that Last wrote in 2000 declaring the illigitimacy of George W. Bush and annointing Al Gore our 40th president.
But even so, I would have let the matter drop until I saw the fuzzy math that Last used to give Hillary those "numbers" from the headline:
The third and fourth counts - the ones which include Florida - seem more fair. Here, Obama is clinging to a slight lead of 146,786 votes (257,008, with the caucus estimates). However, with Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota remaining, he will almost certainly finish behind her in these counts, likely by a few hundred thousand votes.
But could Clinton take over the lead in all of the popular-vote tabulations? Quite possibly. In Puerto Rico's last major election, two million people voted. Let's assume that turnout for this historic vote - Puerto Rico has never had a presidential primary before - will be equal to or greater than that turnout.
If Clinton were to win Puerto Rico by 20 points she would pick up at least a 400,000-vote margin. This would allow her to swamp Obama in the popular-vote counts, which include Florida, making her the leader in four of the six permutations of the popular vote. At that point, Obama would be left clinging to the least-inclusive count, which he now leads by 441,558 votes (551,780, including caucuses).
OK, it's been a while since my poly-sci major days, but a couple of things leaped out at me here. One, he notes that the last three primaries are Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota, but then never mentions Montana or South Dakota ever again. Could that be because Obama is heavily favored to win those two states, an inconvenient truth for Last's premise?
But what really got me going was his vote estimate for Puerto Rico, which assumes a turnout equal to a recent election there. Except a) not everyone in Puerto Rico is a Democrat and b) primary turnout is usually much lower than general election turnout and c) the biggest predictor of voting is habit, and if it's a first-time primary that would actually depress turnout, not increase it. So I immediately searched to see if anyone else thinks 2 million people will vote in Puerto Rico, the cornerstone of his whole premise.
It took a very short time to learn the truth: No.
But scant attention has been paid to Puerto Rico and most analysts seem to have simply accepted the nice round estimate that 1,000,000 residents will participate in the June 1 Democratic primary.
The estimable election expert Michael Barone, in his much-discussed analysis of the popular-vote possibilities, attributed this forecast to the fact that “turnout in Puerto Rican elections is, as a percentage of those eligible, higher than anywhere on the Mainland, something on the order of 80 percent as compared with 61 percent in the 2004 presidential general election.”
But that fact might not have much bearing on this year’s primary vote. Manuel Alvarez-Rivera, an expert on Puerto Rican politics, told me that for several reasons “the estimate of one million voters for the upcoming June 1st primary is way too high.” He suggested a more reasonable turnout figure of 600,000, “give or take 100,000.”
Wow, so Last is probably off here by a factor of 3, or even 4 -- even the most optimistic forecast is just half of the number he pulled out of thin air, apparently.
I do agree with him about one thing, and that is that Clinton, who's popular with Latino voters, will probably win in Puerto Rico -- but not by nearly enough to erase Obama's lead in any calculation except the one that counts a large state, Michigan, which did not even have Obama on the ballot. So the entire premise for this "widely read" article is wrong, with easily available facts.
So I'm not sure is Last is being just lazy here, or intellectually dishonest.
But in this case, the Last shall be wrong.
UPDATE: This will not help Hillary with the math:
Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.
That's an interesting strategy, huh?
Also, it's ludicrous to suggest that support in Puerto Rico is a valid reason for superdelegates to vote against the result from their own states, since PR doesn't vote in the general election.— tonycpsu- For one thing, the whole popular vote argument is a little silly, since -- and this is coming from a hardcore, lifelong political junkie -- this is a measurement that has never, ever been used before.
neither, of course, has the argument "got more delegates than the other person" argument been used before. If you were actually a student of history, your would realize that the whole "primary/caucus" system for coming up with a nominee is a relatively recent phenomenon -- and that only an Obama shill would try and get away with the "historical comparison" nonsense.
but ever since the system was changed in the wake of the 1968 debacle, EVERY Democratic nominee has gone to the convention having won a majority ALL delegates in primaries and caucuses. So HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, the situation is unique -- and HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, you're talking out your a$$ here.
The system is set up to require a SUPERMAJORITY (over 60%) of pledged delegates available through caucuses and primaries -- the idea is to ensure that the nominee has broad based support among the party rank and file. Obama DOES NOT HAVE THAT -- over 32% of his support comes from African Americans, who in 2004 made up on 11% of the electorate -- and he has lost the White vote(which made up 77% of the electorate) by 15 points. And he's done even worse in the vital swing states.
And excluding the "popular vote" from the caucuses is the right thing to do IF YOU CARE ABOUT WINNING IN NOVEMBER -- people VOTE in november, and in Washington, Texas, and Nebraska VOTERS either favored clinton, or considerabled reduced Obama's 'popular vote' margin (in Nebraska, Obama's margin went from 12,000 to 2000.)
— paul_lukasiak 
Don't worry Tony, by June 3rd Hillaryland will be screaming that Puerto Rican was robbed of statehood, and that states that held caucuses really aren't states at all.- Bunch, when you wake up on Wednesday, November 5th, and Mr. John M McCain is President-Elect, what will you do?— Domenic
- "over 32% of his support comes from African Americans, who in 2004 made up on 11% of the electorate -- and he has lost the White vote(which made up 77% of the electorate) by 15 points" . . . . . . . . Paul, your measure of what constitutes broad-based support seems fixated on race, and race alone, for no apparent reason that I can decipher except the racial characterisitcs of the candidates. Are you personally obsessed in some way with race, or are you merely mimicking the media's obsession with it? What happened to gender, educational level, age, income, and so on? Help me out, so I don't have to assume the worst about you. After all, you yourself probably have a lot more social characteristics in common with the black people in your own community than the white hillbillies down here in West Virginia.
- "the idea is to ensure that the nominee has broad based support among the party rank and file. Obama DOES NOT HAVE THAT -- over 32% of his support comes from African Americans, who in 2004 made up on 11% of the electorate -- and he has lost the White vote(which made up 77% of the electorate) by 15 points." +21 vs. -15 sounds like a net gain. Therefore, Paul, I guess the only way to answer you is to say, welcome to your new "party rank and file."— Aaron G. Stock
- I realize now I may be misreading your stats, Paul: a percentage point of "African American" voters may not quantitatively equal a percentage point of "White" voters.... Still, I am heartened to see such increased turnout among Democratic African-Americans.— Aaron G. Stock
- Talk about beating a dead horse... Will is "el maestro" on this topic.— shoeshineboy
- Montani. What? No caselaw. Did you exceed your WestLaw minutes?— Patrick M
- Patrick M, I admit I'm trained in the law. How silly of me to assume others can appreciate the significance of case law.
Comment removed.- This would be the same Jonathan Last who defended the new Grand Theft Auto III the same week a Philly police officer got shot. But if you're right about Hil's Bobby Kennedy comment, there's the window into her mind that we just did not want to see fly open.— anne johnson
- The other odd thing about the Democratic primary system is that Puerto Rico, which is not a state and has no direct effect on the popular vote totals or electoral college for the general election, has more delegates, 63 total, than the following states: South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Hawaii, District of Columbia (I know it is not a state, but it has an electoral vote), Nebraska, Maine, Utah, Oklahoma, North Dakota, New Mexico, Kansas, Idaho, Delaware, Conneticuit, Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina & Nevada. TWENTY-SIX of the fifty states have less delegates (both pledged and superdelegates) than Puerto-Rico. Clinton is going to gain an advantage from a territory or commonwealth or whatever it is called that does not have any say in the general election. Yet Hillary is going to claim that her edge in Puerto Rico demonstrates her electability. That is completely screwed up.— Publius
- Last is an idealogue; there is no intellectual honesty in his DNA.— Publius
- montani... when you look at the exit polling from the past three months, and compare it to the exit polls from February (he was declared the 'inevitable' nominee on Feb 19 after winning "10 straight contests") Obama is down by 6.7% overall, down among men by 8.6%, among women by 4.3%, among white voters by 12.9%, among latino voters by 5.8%. In terms of age groups, Obama is down 9.5% among those 30-39, down 41% among those 40-49, down 8.8% among those 50-64, and down 11.2% among those 65 and older.
he's also down by 9.9% among those making 50-75K, down 7.7% among those making 75-100K, and down 6.8% among those making 100K+. He's down 5% among those with a high school diploma only, down 7.4% among those with some post-HS education, but no college degree, and down 5.4% among those who have post-graduate degrees. He's also down 8% among moderates, down 16.3% among those who say they are "somewhat" or "very" conservative, and down 16.7% among independents. He's also down by 7.2% among catholics, and 12.6% among protestants. He's down by 9.3% among rural voters, 16.4% among small town voters, and 7.8% among suburban voters. I left out a lot of other categories where he's down, because they are too small to make a big difference, or because he'd down by less than 5%. The categories he's improved in? Big city voters (up by 11.7%), those without HS diplomas (+13.3%), people making less than 15K (+9%), 18-24 year olds (+6.7%), african american women (+11.2%), and african americans in general (+9.6%). In other words, except for young voters, black voters, and poor and uneducated voters, ever since Obama was declared the inevitable nominee, Democrats across the board have said DO NOT WANT.
— paul_lukasiak
Will Bunch, a senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News, blogs about his obsessions, including national and local politics and world affairs, the media, pop music, the Philadelphia Phillies, soccer and other sports, not necessarily in that order.
E-mail Will by clicking here.
PLEASE COMMENT WITH PASSION...
...but not with racial slurs, potentially libelous allegations, obscenities or other juvenile noise. Such comments will, at our discretion, be deleted in their entirety, and repeat offenders will be blocked from commenting. ALSO: Any commenter advocating killing any government official will be immediately banned.
Thanks.
- Atrios
- Kiko's House
- Suburban Guerilla
- Booman Tribune
- All-Spin Zone
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Afro-Netizen
- Rowhouse Logic
- MyDD
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- iFlipFlop
- CorrenteWire
- upyernoz
- Tattered Coat
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- Slacktivist
- Citizen Mom
- The Next Mayor
- Philly Future
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Young Philly Politics
- Phillyblog
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Phawker
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Keystone Blog
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- BlankBaby
- Above Average Jane
- Phillyist
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- The Clog
- Josh Marshall
- Daily Kos
- Juan Cole
- Oliver Willis
- Andy Borowitz
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- BuzzFlash
- Raw Story
- Cursor
- Crooks and Liars
- Swing State Project
- Kevin Drum
- Talk Left
- AmericaBlog
- Hullabaloo
- Mad Kane
- Think Progress
- Jesus' General
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Majikthise
- Echidne of the Snakes
- David Sirota
- Glenn Greenwald
- TBogg
- Fire Dog Lake
- Taylor Marsh
- Matthew Yglesias
- Jon Swift
- Drudge Report
- Beer Leaguer
- The 700 Level
- Dick Polman
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Shallow Center
- Philling Station
- Phillies Nation
- A Citizen's Blog
- The Good Phight
- Romenesko
- Editor and Publisher
- Pressthink
- Buzzmachine
- The Inksniffer
- Media Bloodhound
- Eat the Press
- Mickey Kaus
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Blinq
- The Corner
- Instapundit
- Andrew Sullivan
- Free Republic
- James Taranto
- Blonde Sagacity
- ScrappleFace
- Blogorrhea
- February
- January
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
