Doubts from an Obama supporter

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Please see my post directly above.
[/QUOTE]

I’ll give you one guess as to why you’re totally and completely wrong in your above analysis. What Shayna said was perfectly true, no matter what twisted counting methodology you choose. A lead of several hundred thousand votes is significant and will be difficult to overcome in the remaining contests.

I’ll even give you a hint about why you’re wrong, but I’m gonna spoiler it so that you try before checking the hint.

Check the timestamps

82

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
I’ll give you one guess as to why you’re totally and completely wrong in your above analysis. What Shayna said was perfectly true, no matter what twisted counting methodology you choose. A lead of several hundred thousand votes is significant and will be difficult to overcome in the remaining contests.

I’ll even give you a hint about why you’re wrong, but I’m gonna spoiler it so that you try before checking the hint.

Check the timestamps

[/QUOTE]

By yesterday afternoon, few doubted that Hilary would gain on Obama by quite a few Popular votes, and anytime after Texas the Popular vote was close enough so it was a virtual tie. Obama has not been significantly ahead of Hilary since Feb, and *at no time *was Obama “way ahead” of Hilary in the popular vote. So, unless her Time stamp was somehow 2 months * :dubious: before this thread was started, *she wasn’t even close by any definition of “way ahead”.

In any case, by some counts, Hilary is ahead by over *a hundred thousand votes. * You may claim it is by “twisted counting methodology” :rolleyes: but Shayna herself allowed for Fla & Mich. Besides, I used RealClearPolitics (consided authoriative and moderatly unbiased) and cited all the various permutations. Of the six different ways of counting, in NONE of them is Obama “way ahead”, and in two Hilary even has a tiny lead.

For all intents and purposes, the popular vote is a tie. No one is “way ahead” nor has been for quite some time.

83

I have little interest in debating these issues with you for the tenth time, so I’ll let Shayna speak for herself after this post.

My point was simply that Shayna wasn’t ignoring any fact when she said that, as of yesterday, Obama had a significant lead even if you count FL and MI. That was absolutely true.

Your only argument is that a few hundred thousand votes isn’t “way ahead.” That’s more subject to argument, but is obviously a matter on which reasonable people can disagree rather than evidence of Shayna ignoring facts.

And, all of this is assuming, quite uncharitably, that when she said “way ahead” even including MI and FL she meant that the lead was as big if you include MI and FL. It’s obviously not going to be as big; that’s simple arithmetic. But the fact that it was still a sizable lead even under Clinton’s counting underscored her point that his real lead is quite large.

84

If Obama truly were way ahead then Clinton would no longer be a factor in this election. John McCain, for example, is way ahead of Mike Huckabee. Obama’s lead, while it clearly exists and makes him the probable nominee at this point, is not insurmountable.

85

I think your first sentence is false, because the popular vote is at best a heuristic for superdelegates.

But your post highlights to the obvious ambiguity of “way ahead,” which I won’t dispute. I think a plausible reading of “way ahead,” is “difficult, but not impossible to surmount.”

86

DrDeth, thank you for including the estimated caucus votes in your post. Leaving them out when discussing the popular vote has become a pet peeve of mine, and I appreciate the nod towards honestly presenting the totals.

Although I do have to take issue with that last sentence… :wink:

87

[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
DrDeth, thank you for including the estimated caucus votes in your post. Leaving them out when discussing the popular vote has become a pet peeve of mine, and I appreciate the nod towards honestly presenting the totals.

Although I do have to take issue with that last sentence… :wink:
[/QUOTE]

No problem. Or rather there is a problem- there is no “right” figure for the Popular Vote. The Caucus states need to be included, sure, but the figures we have now are estimates based mostly upon how many Caucus delegates the candidate got. But we know that’s not right- Hilary got 100K+ more Popular votes in TX, but got less delegates as she does poorly in the caucus. She very likely did better in the Popular votes in those states than her showing in the Caucuses indicate. But how much better? A few thousand? A hundred thousand?

Then there’s Fla- I think that honestly we have to include the Polular vote there. Even though the Fla legislature did something very stupid (at the urging of the Repub majority in a Democratic state), and thus we aren’t counting the Delegates, still- there’s no reason not to count the Popular vote.

Mich is the worst- Obama withdrew himself from the ballot, so how do you count it? I don’t know, frankly. Do we give Obama the “uncommited” votes? :confused:

Myself, I think the “Popular Vote (w/FL)” figure is the best of a bad lot- that shows Obama ahead by +205,838 votes or +0.7%. That’s a virtual tie.

However, if you count EVERYTHING :dubious: then the figures currently are Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA Clinton +12,249 +0.04%* which is a microscopic lead.

Richard Parker Obama has not had a “significant lead” since Feb, (assuming you count Fla & Mich.) At no time was he “way ahead”. Given an allowance for partisianship, one could allow “way head” from a strong Obama supporter back around two months ago. Not two days ago.

As of the day of the Penn primary, Obama had a tiny lead- especially if you count Fla & Mich- which Shayna accepted only for the sake of argument, no doubt.

In any case, the popular vote is now a virtual tie- and we do not know the exact figures.

88

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Or rather there is a problem- there is no “right” figure for the Popular Vote. The Caucus states need to be included, sure, but the figures we have now are estimates based mostly upon how many Caucus delegates the candidate got. But we know that’s not right- Hilary got 100K+ more Popular votes in TX, but got less delegates as she does poorly in the caucus.
[/quote]
Ugh, I forgot about how TX does it. What a frickin’ mess of a system. But, if I understand it correctly, TX voters could not participate in the caucus unless they voted in the primary. If that’s correct, it seems clear to me that as far as the “popular vote” is concerned, only the TX primary votes should be included.

For the other caucus states, assuming they’re not hybrids, I’d think that the best we can do are the estimates. Certainly not iron-clad, but better than not considering them at all.

I disagree – I think that there is a (very good) reason not to count those votes, even beyond the DNC’s rules/penalty. Namely, neither candidate actively campaigned there (acknowledging both Obama’s TV ads and trivial curbside chat with reporters, but dismissing both as inconsequential). I think that there’s this general assumption (one to which I subscribe, in fact) that Obama would’ve done better than Hillary if they had both campaigned there – but it should be clear that that’s just an assumption. Perhaps Hillary would’ve blown him out. The fact is, we’ll never know, and so cannot say that the vote – as it was cast – is truly representative of the popular vote.

And, IMO, barring a re-vote, MI can’t even be realistically considered for inclusion.

I suppose I should also say that for the most part I agree with what I think are the recount guidelines in most states – anything less than 1% borders on a “virtual tie” (to use your phrase); a value near 1% is certainly pretty close. Although at the same time, my opinion is that the larger the total pool, the more meaningful that 1% is…

89

In terms of the op … I too, as a solid Obama supporter, have been disappointed by how off his game he has been. No question that I still believe he is the best choice available, but he has been whiffing it at his last few at-bats.

For a while now he has needed to get out there more positively and specifically articulating what his administration will look like and do. His off-the-cuff bitter comment was an something that he should have known better than to do. Along with Pastor-gate it cuts out one of his big strengths in a general - appealing across lines on the basis of a solid embrace of religious values while embracing the secular basis of our society. The last debate was a chance to shine by showing how he could use attacks against him as opportunities to articulate the positive messages of his campaign - and he flubbed it. Of course he was attacked and it was stupid crap - but never whine about it. He’s "Uhh"ing way too much lately. He’ll get the nom but he could have gotten it sooner and with more momentum if he played these last several weeks differently.

As to the popular vote claims. Oh it is close but for Hillary to act as if Michigan counts is likely to backfire with the audience that matters for that argument - the supers. Even Florida - we’ve seen what happens when Obama competes in a state - it narrows substantially. He may have lost Florida anyway but if they had a straight up competition there he would have done much better. Few can really doubt that. And certainly the supers know both of those things.

90

I am from Michigan and the whole thing pisses me off. I voted for Edwards. I would have if Obama and Hillary were both on the ballot. If Edwards were off ,I would have wanted to have them come here and lie directly to us. I prefer it that way.

91

[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
Ugh, I forgot about how TX does it.
[/QUOTE]
Y’know, I just realized – bringing up the TX caucus when discussing the popular vote is a complete red herring (intentional or not). And I totally fell for it.

The fact of the matter is that RealClearPolitics doesn’t include the TX caucus in their popular vote count. Only IA, NV, ME, and WA are assigned estimated values.

92

[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
Y’know, I just realized – bringing up the TX caucus when discussing the popular vote is a complete red herring (intentional or not). And I totally fell for it.

The fact of the matter is that RealClearPolitics doesn’t include the TX caucus in their popular vote count. Only IA, NV, ME, and WA are assigned estimated values.
[/QUOTE]

No, they don’t. Nor did I claim they did. But RealClearPolitics does use the Delegate count from the Caucuses to estimate the Popular vote in IA, NV, ME, and WA.

We do have more or less exact figures for TX, and that’s my point- in TX, Hilary led by 3.5% in the popular vote. “1,358,785 47.4% 1,459,814 50.9% Clinton +101,029 +3.5%” However, she won only 48% of the delgates. If dudes had used the TX delegate count to estimate the Popular vote, the figures would be off by around 5%. If RCP’s estimates for those 4 states are also off by 5%, then that’s another 15000 votes or so towards Hilary. Not very many mind you, but still.

Still the point is- we have no exact figures for the Popular vote. No one has a clear mandate here. There is no clear “will of the people”.

93

It strikes me that this is perhaps why the system relies on a delegate count to determine who the winner is.

94

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
No, they don’t. Nor did I claim they did.
[/quote]
I have to say, it wasn’t clear to me what you were claiming, but I thought you were using TX as an example of a caucus state from which no determination of the popular vote could be established. My misunderstanding, and thank you for clarifying.

But still, referring to the discrepancy between TX caucus and primary results as an example of skewed popular vote counts is incorrect. By your method, the only thing we can say is that people who voted for Hillary in the primary didn’t attend the caucus at the same rate that Obama voters did. In other words, because only the voters who participated in the primary were eligible for caucus participation, both candidate’s caucus results were upper-bounded by the primary vote. Assuming that every primary voter also went to the caucus, the delegate allotment should mirror the popular vote percentage. BUT…

…that accounts for neither the “binning” that takes place in the caucus nor the possible disproportionate allocation of delegates for population of a district. If RealClearPolitics is worth anything, part of their estimation calculus attempted to account for those factors. Whether they did or not, I don’t know. How accurate that can possibly be, I also don’t know.

I agree with the first, but with the next two? Not so much. I’ll certainly admit that the numbers have tightened. I’ll even grant that they’re getting close to where the “will of the people” is ambiguous. I suppose we’ll see if the tally gets any closer in about a week and a half. If Hillary can make up even more ground (to a substantial degree), then I’ll concede that ambiguity.

95

Getting back to the OP:

I, too am becoming irritated and dismayed with Barack Obama’s campaign recently.

We had heard that he wouldn’t be swiftboated. He’d fight back. He didn’t criticize HRC for her Tuzla lies in the last debate, hoping he’d come off as a gentleman; now he’s ceded the role of tough guy to his opponent.

This New York Times editorial sums it up pretty nicely:

Arrgh. This is John Kerry all over again. Can someone please wake him up?

96

I just do not know how much racism will fit into the calculus. There are a lot of bigots who will not vote for Obama under any circumstances. If it is true that the Dems and Repubs are very close in numbers, how can Obama win?. Where does he pick up the necessary voters. ?
This Rev. Wright thing sure has a racist element to it. See what these people are really like. As much as I prefer Obama ,Hillary may be a safer choice.

97

[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
I
I agree with the first, but with the next two? Not so much. I’ll certainly admit that the numbers have tightened. I’ll even grant that they’re getting close to where the “will of the people” is ambiguous. I suppose we’ll see if the tally gets any closer in about a week and a half. If Hillary can make up even more ground (to a substantial degree), then I’ll concede that ambiguity.
[/QUOTE]

Obama will win in NC- the only real question is by how much. At one time he was expected to win huge, now maybe it will be by less than 10%.

Indiana is where it gets interesting- they have been polling neck and neck. If the Hilster pulls a nice small but solid victory here, it will mean something.

OR should go to Obama. And PR needs and should be a solid win for Clinton. I have no clue about Kentucky. :confused: Anyone?

So, if Hillary is lucky, she will pull ahead by another 100K popular votes. That will make it even closer.