Hillary Is Not Ahead By 3 Million Votes

[Meteor Man]

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]

1. then bernie does not have 9 million. nt

[Renew Deal]

2. Nebraska was run as a democratic primary and Hillary won.

And thing would probably happen in most of the rest of those states.

[Doctor Jack]

3. If anything caucuses count double

[Frenchye]

4. Shaun King quickly gets fact-checked by the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/19/yes-hillary-clinton-is-winning-the-popular-vote-by-a-wide-margin/

Shaun lied about Washington State and other caucuses not being counted.

[Meteor Man]

11. Glenn Kessler's Math

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]

18. Common sense would tell you King's analysis is nonsensical... it doesn't even pass the eye test.

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]

57. So you are relying on berniemath?

[Uponthegears]

26. Sean King gets hack-checked, you mean

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]

31. Not so fast...

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.

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]

48. Actually I went the right speed

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]

49. Densely was a poor choice of words. I should have said populous.

TX and FL have a lot of people but they are pretty large states. Densely suggests they are packed in like sardines.

[Uponthegears]

54. Does not diminish

the (unfortunate for my preferred candidate) accuracy of your observation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. Take solace in the fact we will stop Donald Trump, inshallah.

[Uponthegears]

60. Truth there

[litlbilly]

45. they are coming out of the woodwork. they must be shaking in their boots.

[Ned_Devine]

52. That has to be it

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]

65. it is intense, total desperation as it implodes before our eyes, they are in total desperado mode

[pdsimdars]

72. Did you even read the article? He offers no facts refuting that Bernie got ZERO votes in Washington

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]

5. No not 3 it's 3.5 million

[obamanut2012]

6. lolz

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. That is patently absurd

That is patently absurd:

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.

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]

9. Shaun King is the same guy who said Bernie won Nevada

https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/716451800581279744

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I am familiar with his work...

He has every right to be wrong and he exercises that right often.

[Starry Messenger]

68. LOL.

[Meteor Man]

12. One More Time

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]

8. I don't know about other states but the turnout in Washington was miserable

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]

37. Whatever you read was likely wrong. As a PCO, my precinct and all the others locally set records

for participation attendance. WA was major Bernie country.

[LisaM]

40. No, I'm not wrong, and it not as high as 2008 (but it was close)

http://www.opb.org/news/article/washingtons-caucus-voter-turnout-2008-record/

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]

42. The state may have come up short but not in my area. Just sayin'

[floriduck]

44. So your "miserable" comment was a bit exaggerated. Or are you saying Obama's

turnout in 2008 was nearly as miserable?

[LisaM]

51. It was high compared to other caucuses, but caucus turnout is miserable in general.

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]

62. For what it's worth, I'd Ike to do away with caucuses too. I'd prefer vote by mail.

It works in Florida and Oregon from my own experiences.

[LisaM]

66. I like the opportunity to vote by mail, but

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]

13. As long as she has one more delegate she wins. Sorry. nt

[Meteor Man]

34. And Democracy Loses

I can live with that. Looking forward to a Trump presidency gift from the Democratic apparatchiks.

[eastwestdem]

36. Way better than a Sanders presidency. nt

[amborin]

64. Sanders Presidency is good for the 99% and for democracy

[eastwestdem]

70. I might agree with you if he had an actual plans to accomplish his promises.

He has never, in a year of running his campaign discussed any substantive plans.

[chervilant]

71. Honestly?!?

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]

14. some of the caucuses didn't even have 10,000 people in attendance.

There weren't enough caucuses goers to be material compared to 3 million votes.

This is just another bogus Bernie math story.

[Meteor Man]

19. Exactly

That is precisely why caucus votes cannot be mathematically translated into total vote numbers without making subjective assumptions.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. The census is based on mathematical assumptions. Your and his arguments are obscurantist.

[Meteor Man]

24. Riiiight!

And there has never been an argument over census assumptions and adjustments to the actual count.

Glad we got that cleared up.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Yeah, flat earthers deny the validity of inferential and descriptive statistics.

"Glad we got that cleared up."

[Meteor Man]

29. And Krugman Is Always Right

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]

33. The Nobel Prize winner has a firmer understanding of economics than the Vermont independent.

"Glad I could clear that up for you."

[Meteor Man]

38. How About Stiglitz?

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]

43. " See how clear that is? " I think so.

How About Stiglitz?

He has praised our heroine:

Joseph Stiglitz: Hillary's 'Clearly Much Better' For Economy Than Others

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/55380d0dfe3444bbe40002b4

Brad de Long?

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]

58. Lol!

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]

61. You don't bring glory to yourself my making things up.

Nice title on the video at your Stiglitz link. However, Stiglitz actually compares Hillary to Rubio and other Republicans on the minimum wage.

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]

67. Did you watch the video?

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]

15. Wrong. The votes from caucuses won't change anything. Almost no one votes.

[workinclasszero]

16. I got a video just for you

[hrmjustin]

17. Just 7 contests have not reported their populsr vote.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html


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]

21. Alaska?

Your RCP link shows Clinton receiving 310,000 votes to 76,000 votes for Bernie.

Not real clear.

[hrmjustin]

23. .alaska is blank on that list.

[Meteor Man]

27. Oh yeah

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]

28. No but they do report how many voted. You can do guess work based on results.

[Meteor Man]

30. Guess Work

Yes. Guess work is why Nate Silvers is never wrong.

[randome]

22. She can't win! The votes don't count! She's unelectable!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[JTFrog]

35. Right.

I can't get enough of this video, lol.

[riversedge]

39. You R right. Hillary is ahead by 2.9M

[Gothmog]

41. Yes, Clinton is winning the popular vote — by a wide margin

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/

The idea that the popular vote totals are flawed because caucuses aren't included has been floating around for a while. The point of questioning the sum is obvious: To question the extent to which Democratic voters (and independents voting in Democratic contests, who usually favor Sanders) have preferred Clinton as the party's nominee.

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]

46. For The Third Time

Kessler used "estimates" and used assumptions to translate his assumptions to total votes.

Sheer guess work.

[randome]

50. I'll take educated guesswork over hopeful fantasy anytime.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Meteor Man]

59. Guess Work

is not math.

[Gothmog]

55. Why trust you over the fact checker?

The analysis in the OP was simply false and sad

[CentralMass]

47. Excellent point.

[Thinkingabout]

53. A caucus vote count does not go by the population, if so the primary states would go by their

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]

63. Well, what if the other side subtracted non-Democratic party votes?

Seriously people...

[bigtree]

69. 2.9 million

[DWilliamsamh]

73. This is actually Stupid. Literally, Mathematically stupid.`

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.