2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Is Not Ahead By 3 Million Votes
This was a Shaun King story at The Daily News. (still can't get links to work)
(Shaun Kings story is posted at caucus 99%)
In 12 states where Bernie won, they held caucuses in which individual votes are not tallied in the same way as they are in closed primaries.
For instance, in Washington state, which has nearly 7.1 million people, Bernie won 72.7% of the vote there, but not one single vote is counted toward the numbers where Clinton claims a 3 million vote lead over him.
In Alaska, Bernie won 81% of the vote, but not a single vote is counted toward this tally that the Clinton campaign leans on so heavily. The same is true for Maine. There, Bernie won by 29%, but because all three are caucus states, the vote tallies aren't even included.
It is not possible to tally total votes cast. Bernie could very well be leading in total primary votes cast if it were possible to tally votes in caucus states.
msongs
(67,496 posts)Renew Deal
(81,897 posts)And thing would probably happen in most of the rest of those states.
Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)Frenchye
(37 posts)Shaun lied about Washington State and other caucuses not being counted.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)The Post's Glenn Kessler arrived at that figure by taking estimates of how many people came out to vote in caucus contests and applying the final vote margin to that population. This is admittedly imprecise, as King notes, since in some caucuses (like Iowa's) voter preferences can and do change.
Sounds like fuzzy math to me.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Last edited Thu May 19, 2016, 09:15 PM - Edit history (3)
Hillary won by huge margins in densely populated primary states like New York, Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Pennsylvania.
BS won caucuses in sparsely populated states like Utah, Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho, et cetera. The only caucus state of any appreciable sized states Sanders won was WA.
Forensic accountants do what Kessler does for a living. They re-create the record. Embezzlers don't put down proof of embezzling in the books.
Gothmog
(145,839 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)More partisan flotsam from the WP.
Sean's point is that not taking into account that caucuses involve fewer voters than do primaries grossly underestimates the number of votes a caucus winner would have received IF the state had held a primary instead.
Now Kessler is free to question whether you can legitimately make that extrapolation (in fact, I would tend to agree that you can't) BUT what he does instead is to estimate the number of CAUCUS VOTERS and then act like he's addressed the issue raised by Mr. King. That, my friend, is a LIE.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Nebraska had a caucus and a primary,
Our heroine won the primary 59-41:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/279468-clinton-wins-nebraska-primary-but-gets-no-delegates
and lost the caucus 57-42
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nebraska%20caucus&eob=m.05fhy/D/2/short/m.05fhy/
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)In my post, I specifically stated that I didn't believe you could extrapolate out likely primary vote percentages from caucus vote percentages. Nebraska is a good example,
BUT that isn't what Kessler claimed . . . no, he said that Sean's/Bernie's claim that the results of such an extrapolation would dramatically alter the popular vote total was mathematically incorrect. That is hogwash.
The truth is we know the 3.5 million figure is inaccurate for the very reasons stated by Mr. King.
Unfortunately for Senator Sanders, I also know that your intuitive conclusion that Secretary Clinton has won in more densely populated states therefore she almost certainly has more popular votes IS CORRECT.
You should see if you can get Kessler's job and at least put one principled Clinton supporter at the Post.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)TX and FL have a lot of people but they are pretty large states. Densely suggests they are packed in like sardines.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)the (unfortunate for my preferred candidate) accuracy of your observation.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Response to Frenchye (Reply #4)
Post removed
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)Can you believe we're witnessing this election? I mean, it's really happening right in front of us. I had bad feeling after they won in 2008 that the party was going to implode, but not the way it's doing in this election cycle. This is intense.
amborin
(16,631 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)There are almost 72 Million people in the state and Bernie won that by 72%. He just says stuff like "he looked into it, not true." Oh, well if you say so. . it must be true. He offers NO numbers that I saw. What nonsense.
Show me the place where they give me the NUMBER of votes they gave Bernie for Washington state and the other caucus states.
I want to see the NUMBER of votes bernie got for winning a state with 72 MILLION people with 72% of the vote. Show me the number of votes. Otherwise, that is just his "saying it is so."
MattP
(3,304 posts)obamanut2012
(26,181 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)That is patently absurd:
because:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/19/yes-hillary-clinton-is-winning-the-popular-vote-by-a-wide-margin/
Frenchye
(37 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)He has every right to be wrong and he exercises that right often.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Meteor Man
(385 posts)
The Post's Glenn Kessler arrived at that figure by taking estimates of how many people came out to vote in caucus contests and applying the final vote margin to that population. This is admittedly imprecise, as King notes, since in some caucuses (like Iowa's) voter preferences can and do change.
Sounds like fuzzy math to me.
LisaM
(27,850 posts)I think I read that the entire number of voters participating in the Democratic caucus in March was something like 230,000. Extrapolating 73% out of that would only net Sanders around 176,000 votes (loose estimate). But it's also a bit of a false equivalency, because you don't really cast votes, instead, you align up in a room and choose delegates. They also round off to the nearest whole, so that the percentages don't completely match up to the actual "votes" cast (2.3 vs. 4.7 would, for example, be rounded off to 2 and 5). This may have slightly inflated Bernie's delegate count, but either way, if they counted one person, one vote (again, a false equivalency), his net gain in votes would not be that much. He vastly benefited from this in Washington because he picked up the delegate equivalent of a much larger voting base.
From what I read of other caucuses, most have equally arcane systems (and they also had very low turnout). If Washington had a primary (well, we do, but it won't count), Bernie would have won comfortably, but I don't think he would have won by as much.
Caucuses completely dampen turnout.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)for participation attendance. WA was major Bernie country.
LisaM
(27,850 posts)The percent figure I heard was 4%. It probably seems like a lot in those crowded caucus rooms, but the actual number of voters was pretty low. The total participation was slightly under the number in 2008.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)turnout in 2008 was nearly as miserable?
LisaM
(27,850 posts)I guess if you are comparing it to other caucus years, it's a "win", but as far as voters coming out and voting, it's just depressingly low.
In general, I don't think the OPs comments about number of votes is a completely accurate representation, because primaries and caucuses function so differently and because they create delegate counts differently.
I am not a fan of caucuses. The first one I went to only had 9 people and two of them were us and one was my neighbor and while it was civil and all, it hardly seemed representative of my precinct. Yet I'm sure the delegate count was based on the number of registered voters.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)It works in Florida and Oregon from my own experiences.
LisaM
(27,850 posts)The number of spoiled ballots is huge. Mostly signatures but they have reported tens of thousands of spoiled vote by mail ballots in Washington with no recourse.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)Meteor Man
(385 posts)I can live with that. Looking forward to a Trump presidency gift from the Democratic apparatchiks.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)He has never, in a year of running his campaign discussed any substantive plans.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)And, you're happy about this!?!
I cannot fathom why anyone supports a candidate whose integrity is in the toilet (almost 60% of survey respondents think she's a liar), whose biggest donors are the banksters who tanked the economy in 2008, who laughed about bin Laden's death, and who's under investigation by the FBI.
Yeah, she's a stellar candidate, that's for sure.
(And, I don't believe she's "won" more votes than Bernie. She doesn't draw anywhere NEAR the crowds Bernie gets.)
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)There weren't enough caucuses goers to be material compared to 3 million votes.
This is just another bogus Bernie math story.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)That is precisely why caucus votes cannot be mathematically translated into total vote numbers without making subjective assumptions.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Meteor Man
(385 posts)And there has never been an argument over census assumptions and adjustments to the actual count.
Glad we got that cleared up.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)"Glad we got that cleared up."
Meteor Man
(385 posts)Because Economics is pure math!
That's why economists and political polls or forecasts are never wrong.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)"Glad I could clear that up for you."
Meteor Man
(385 posts)Jeffrey Sachs? Brad de Long? Krugman is a political economist just like his buddy David Brooks is a cultural icon.
Don't bet the farm on Krugman's stock picks or economic predictions. Or his political forecasts.
See how clear that is?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)He has praised our heroine:
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/55380d0dfe3444bbe40002b4
He has been critical of BS:
Arguing that Bernie Sanders's policies are likely to produce a 5.3%/year real GDP growth rate is not just wrong--not just likely to read to false conclusions about the likely impacts of the policies--but further opens the gates of hell for the likes of Arthur Laffer and John Cochrane to dance around and get their garbage into the press.
http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/02/we-need-to-hold-the-line-on-analytical-standards-here-bernie-sanders-blogging.html
BTW, Stiglitz would make a great Treasury Secretary
Meteor Man
(385 posts)Nice title on the video at your Stiglitz link. However, Stiglitz actually compares Hillary to Rubio and other Republicans on the minimum wage.
He also throws in a BIG but, "there are complex political forces"
I would love to see Stiglitz as Treasury Secretary and he has praised Bernie's health care for all plan.
This thread is too skinny, so I'm moving on.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)If you can demonstrate that Rubio and the Republicans favor a $12.00 minimum wage I will donate $12.00 to this site in your honor.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)Stiglitz suggests that Hillary's economic proposals are better than Republican economic proposals and shifts to comparing Hillary's position on the minimum wage is better than Rubio's presumsable opposition.
That's it? We should unite behind Hillary because she is better than Rubio on minimum wage?
You are missing a few limbs on your logic tree if you find that persuasive.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Considering Sanders did very well in Washington state it looks like he would cut her lead by.250,000 to 350,000 votes.
So she wouls be leading 2.65 to 2.75 million votes.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)Your RCP link shows Clinton receiving 310,000 votes to 76,000 votes for Bernie.
Not real clear.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Meteor Man
(385 posts)Got AL mixed up with Alaska. You know, the Alaska Crimson Tide.
Still doesn't change the fact that caucus state votes do not directly translate to a popular vote count.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Meteor Man
(385 posts)Yes. Guess work is why Nate Silvers is never wrong.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)I can't get enough of this video, lol.
riversedge
(70,441 posts)Gothmog
(145,839 posts)Shaun King's analysis is simply wrong https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/19/yes-hillary-clinton-is-winning-the-popular-vote-by-a-wide-margin/
This has been floating around so long, in fact, The Post's fact-checkers looked at this issue at the beginning of April. Did Clinton at that point actually lead by 2.5 million votes, as she claimed? No, she didn't.
She led by 2.4 million votes.
The Post's Glenn Kessler arrived at that figure by taking estimates of how many people came out to vote in caucus contests and applying the final vote margin to that population. This is admittedly imprecise, as King notes, since in some caucuses (like Iowa's) voter preferences can and do change. Kessler's total included Washington, despite King's insistence -- and in Washington, he figured that Sanders had the support of 167,201 voters to Clinton's 62,330. Despite that, still a 2.4 million advantage for Clinton.
It's worth noting that caucuses, for which it's harder to calculate vote totals, are usually in smaller states and/or have smaller turnout. King's concern about ensuring Alaska's huge Democratic voting base is included in the tally is answered by Kessler's math.
What's more, Kessler continued updating his tally as results came in. The most recent update was after the contests on April 27, at which point her wins in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and other Northeastern states had extended her lead to "just over 3 million votes" -- including his estimates for the caucuses. (By my tabulation of Kessler's numbers, it's 3.03 million.)
Since then, there have been five contests.
Indiana. Sanders won with 32,152 more votes.
Guam. Clinton won with 249 more votes.
West Virginia. Sanders won with 30,509 more votes.
Kentucky. Clinton won with 1,924 more votes (per the latest AP count).
Oregon. Sanders won with 69,007 more votes (per AP).
In total, then, Clinton's lead over Sanders in the popular vote is 2.9 million. The difference isn't because the total excludes Washington. It's because it includes more recent contests from the past 14 days.
That number will continue to change. There are only two big states left -- New Jersey and California -- both of which vote June 7. Clinton leads by a wide margin in New Jersey, where more than a million people turned out in 2008. She has a smaller lead in California, where about 5 million voted in the Democratic primary eight years ago. For Sanders to pass Clinton in the popular vote, he would need turnout like 2008 in California -- and to win by 57 points.
The analysis in the OP is simply false
Meteor Man
(385 posts)Kessler used "estimates" and used assumptions to translate his assumptions to total votes.
Sheer guess work.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Meteor Man
(385 posts)is not math.
Gothmog
(145,839 posts)The analysis in the OP was simply false and sad
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Population. Since there are also Republicans in a state counting the population is wrong also. In caucus states it amounts to voter suppression since many seniors are unable to participate, the handicapped and workers who are working during these hours.
JCMach1
(27,590 posts)Seriously people...
bigtree
(86,016 posts)DWilliamsamh
(1,445 posts)Washington State for instance Bernie won 77.2% of 30,00 CAUCUS votes. It is mathematically, statistically and logically ridiculous to equate that in ANY way to the statewide vote. As a matter of fact in the primary that drew more than 700,000 voters, Clinton WON by a comfortable margin.
This is just stupid.