Obamomentum, West Virginia Edition
He's Lost That Loving Feeling
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | 2008 Polls | Barack Obama | polls | The Best Democratic Primary EVER | West Virginia — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It's not every day you see the presumptive nominee lose a presidential primary in a swing state by 41 points (by contrast, despite a persistent protest vote faction, McCain hasn't actually lost a primary since Kansas and Louisiana on February 9), but that's exactly what happened to Barack Obama last night in West Virginia, and suggests pretty strongly why his campaign seems to be writing off the state for November.
Anyway, let's update the chart I've been running (last installment here) showing the popular vote trend since Obama's armor started to crack at the beginning of March. Here's the current chart:
| State | Date | Obama | Clinton | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| West Virginia | 5/13 | 91,652 | 239,062 | -147,410 |
| Indiana | 5/6 | 630,925 | 645,336 | -14,411 |
| North Carolina | 5/6 | 883,508 | 656,284 | +227,224 |
| Guam | 5/3 | 2,264 | 2,257 | +7 |
| Pennsylvania | 4/22 | 1,046,822 | 1,260,937 | -214,115 |
| Mississippi | 3/11 | 265,502 | 159,221 | +106,281 |
| Wyoming | 3/8 | 5,378 | 3,311 | +2,067 |
| Texas | 3/4 | 1,362,476 | 1,462,734 | -100,258 |
| Ohio | 3/4 | 1,055,769 | 1,259,620 | -203,851 |
| Rhode Island | 3/4 | 75,316 | 108,949 | -33,633 |
| Vermont | 3/4 | 91,901 | 59,806 | +32,095 |
| Total | 5,511,513 | 5,857,517 | -346,004 | |
| Overall% | 48.48% | 51.52% |
Read On - there's much more...
Attentive readers will note that some of the earlier states' vote totals have changed slightly; I'm using the RCP figures, which presumably got some late corrections on TX, PA, IN and NC. RCP also has the overall numbers, which mostly narrowly favor Obama, though it depends on what states you count; in any event, recall that Obama didn't even crack 30% in national polls against Hillary until after he won Iowa, and didn't catch her until early February, after trailing by double digits for most of 2007; much of the Obama vote in the first two months was basically the honeymoon of a challenger who had yet to be seriously vetted. So while looking at the last two and a half months doesn't cover the whole race, it likely tells us a lot more than looking at things that happened a political lifetime ago. If you knew nothing else of this race, you'd certainly look at those trendlines and think, especially after last night, that Hillary was really pulling away by now.
Where from here? Another interesting thing is that my rough-estimate projection last week vastly underestimated Hillary's West Virginia margin of victory, which was twice what my mostly unscientific model had projected. Partly that's because I was working off one poll with a lot of undecideds, but partly it's because turnout was larger than the baseline I was using, the number of votes for House Democrats in the off-year 2006 election, which I took as a reasonable proxy for the number of people available to vote in a Democratic primary. I'll attach at the bottom of this post a chart showing how that figure has served as a predictor of turnout, but the take-home from that exercise is that West Virginia Democrats came out in very large numbers despite their betters in the media telling them the race was over, already, man - not quite as large numbers as we saw in Indiana, North Carolina, Mississippi and Texas, but larger proportional turnout by this metric than in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, or Virginia. The voters apparently think there's still something to vote on.
If we update last week's projections, then, with more recent polling and an assumption of 125% rather than 100% turnout relative to the 2006 figures, what do we get? I'm using now the RCP averages for Oregon and Kentucky, but I don't have new polls for Puerto Rico, South Dakota or Montana, and I'm still using the conservative 60% estimate for Puerto Rico:
| State | Date | Obama Poll% | Clinton Poll% | Obama Est. | Clinton Est. | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kentucky | 5/20 | 30% | 59% | 225,646 | 441,514 | -215,868 |
| Oregon | 5/20 | 53% | 39% | 510,250 | 373,353 | +136,896 |
| Puerto Rico | 6/1 | 37% | 50% | 444,000 | 600,000 | -156,000 |
| Montana | 6/3 | 43% | 36% | 85,417 | 71,512 | +13,905 |
| South Dakota | 6/3 | 46% | 34% | 132,519 | 97,949 | +34,570 |
| Total | 47% | 53% | 1,397,832 | 1,584,329 | -186,497 |
In other words, if form holds - even using the conservative projection of the vote total in Puerto Rico - Obama could end up well over half a million votes under water for the last three months of the primaries. We can only speculate as to why Obama has been struggling like this - whether it's a sign of Hillary's strength, the nature of the later primary states, a temporary weakness or permanent damage to Obama - and whether it will carry over in the general election campaign. But I can say this: if Obama was a fatally damaged general election candidate by this point, this is pretty much how you would expect him to be doing in the late primaries.
Here's the turnout chart, which is interesting in its own right:
| State | 2006 House D Vote | Date | Votes* | Turnout |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IA | 492,937 | 1/3 | NA | NA |
| NH | 209,434 | 1/8 | 217,219 | 104% |
| MI | 1,923,485 | 1/15 | 566,477 | 29% |
| NV | 287,879 | 1/19 | NA | NA |
| SC | 461,600 | 1/26 | 435,888 | 94% |
| FL | 1,599,968 | 1/29 | 1,447,200 | 90% |
| GA | 932,143 | 2/5 | 1,034,273 | 111% |
| AL | 502,046 | 2/5 | 523,408 | 104% |
| CA | 4,720,164 | 2/5 | 4,794,846 | 102% |
| IL | 1,987,114 | 2/5 | 1,986,164 | 100% |
| OK | 372,888 | 2/5 | 358,610 | 96% |
| DE | 97,565 | 2/5 | 91,908 | 94% |
| NJ | 1,207,784 | 2/5 | 1,114,872 | 92% |
| MO | 992,258 | 2/5 | 802,102 | 81% |
| MA | 1,632,307 | 2/5 | 1,216,865 | 75% |
| NY | 2,448,964 | 2/5 | 1,819,515 | 74% |
| TN | 860,861 | 2/5 | 589,119 | 68% |
| AZ | 627,259 | 2/5 | 422,627 | 67% |
| AR | 456,569 | 2/5 | 302,612 | 66% |
| CT | 642,859 | 2/5 | 345,168 | 54% |
| UT | 244,483 | 2/5 | 125,871 | 51% |
| NM | 313,124 | 2/5 | 144,501 | 46% |
| MN | 1,152,621 | 2/5 | 211,103 | 18% |
| CO | 832,888 | 2/5 | 118,952 | 14% |
| ND | 142,934 | 2/5 | 18,573 | 13% |
| ID | 177,376 | 2/5 | 20,535 | 12% |
| KS | 369,191 | 2/5 | 36,634 | 10% |
| AK | 93,879 | 2/5 | 8,868 | 9% |
| LA | 357,926 | 2/9 | 357,557 | 100% |
| NE | 261,910 | 2/9 | 38,571 | 15% |
| WA | 1,244,095 | 2/9 | NA | NA |
| ME | 350,681 | 2/10 | NA | NA |
| DC | 111,726 | 2/12 | 122,856 | 110% |
| VA | 947,103 | 2/12 | 977,586 | 103% |
| MD | 1,099,441 | 2/12 | 846,876 | 77% |
| WI | 1,003,156 | 2/19 | 1,100,805 | 110% |
| HI | 219,810 | 2/19 | 37,182 | 17% |
| TX | 1,890,869 | 3/4 | 2,825,210 | 149% |
| OH | 2,081,737 | 3/4 | 2,315,389 | 111% |
| VT | 139,815 | 3/4 | 151,707 | 109% |
| RI | 265,028 | 3/4 | 184,265 | 70% |
| WY | 92,324 | 3/8 | 8,689 | 9% |
| MS | 260,330 | 3/11 | 424,723 | 163% |
| PA | 2,229,091 | 4/22 | 2,307,759 | 104% |
| IN | 812,496 | 5/6 | 1,276,261 | 157% |
| NC | 1,026,915 | 5/6 | 1,539,792 | 150% |
| WV | 263,822 | 5/13 | 330,714 | 125% |
| KY | 601,723 | 5/20 | NA | NA |
| OR | 765,853 | 5/20 | NA | NA |
| MT | 158,916 | 6/3 | NA | NA |
| SD | 230,468 | 6/3 | NA | NA |
The primary vote total is just Obama's and Clinton's votes, so it may underreport turnout in a few of the early races when some people were still casting votes for Edwards (in Michigan, where Obama didn't bother getting on the ballot, I just added Hillary plus the "uncommitted" vote). The states marked "NA" are caucus states that have not released vote totals; the states with turnout below 20% are mostly caucuses as well, most of which Obama won. We can only speculate whether primaries in those states would have produced (1) more votes for Obama or (2) a different outcome. At any rate, you can see that turnout by this metric had largely hovered around 100% until the more recent primaries that saw a surge of interest - another reason why the March-April-May results should be more worrisome to Obama backers, as despite his claims at bringing in new voters, he actually tends to do worse the larger the turnout.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Going Old Testament on the House GOP — Comments (54) »
Obamomentum, West Virginia Edition 10 Comments (0 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
That had nothing to do with the topic. The topic was an examination of the trends in the D primary. Your video was completely unrelated (and already trashed in another post elsewhere).
Now also found at The Minority Report
with the Rove analysis of a sore winner/loser and you have real trouble for the presumptive D nominee.
This, right here, is why Hillary continues to stay in the fight. She has seen the weakness of Obama and is willing to continue to exploit it.
Now also found at The Minority Report
Thanks for explaining just how this is
THE.BEST.DEMOCRATIC.PRIMARY.EVAH!!!
Just when I get all depressed and despondent over this sorry state of affairs, you come along and remind me of the fine mess of chaos these fools have managed for themselves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
Obama's support in the causus states is a "house of cards". If you look at TX, Obama won the caucus by 10 points, but lost the primary vote, earlier that same day, by over 100,000 votes--this "primacaucus" allowed Obama to net more overall delegates out of TX, even though he lost the popular vote.
Now look at WA state. Obama won the caucus in WA by 33 points, with a turn out of around 30,000. Two weeks later, there was a non-binding primary in WA that didn't count for any delegates--in other words, it was a beauty contest or a straw poll. Obama only won the WA primary by 3-4 points, when everyone could vote, and the turn-out was around 200,000. And lastly, Obama won the Nebraska caucus by, also, around slightly over 30 points, and it had around 35,000 people participate in it. Well last night, there was a non-binding primary, or straw-poll in NE (just like in WA), which had around 100,000 people vote in it. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, only won the NE primary by 2 points.
Anyway, this all demonstrates a huge disconnect between how many votes Obama gets in a caucus, when mainly just liberal party insiders and college students can participate, and how many votes Obama actually gets in a primary when ALL of the voters can participate.
Here are some more recent and more exact numbers that I found posted on Talk Left. In NE Obama won the caucus 26,000-12,000 (by over 30%), but he won the primary, or beauty contest only 49%-47%, with close to 100,000 people showing up. In WA state, Obama won the caucus 21,000-10,000 (by over 30%). However, he only won the primary, or beauty contest, 353,000-315,000 votes or 51%-46%. Now, in the TX primary, which did count, he lost by 100,000 votes or 51%-47%. However, Obama won the caucus, on that same day, by 60%-40% (or by 20%)--I thought he only won it by 10%. Anyway, it is now painfully obvious that in primaries, with higher turn-outs where everyone can vote, Obama does a whole lot worse. Somebody needs to explain to Obama that he can't caucus his way through the GE.
I may actually watch the Demolition Party Convention this year!
I may actually watch the Demolition Party Convention this year!
Time for the slow motion train wreck. This is gonna be fun.
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
responders become attentive voters.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

[I have taken the liberty of replacing the link with the actual video:
...so that no more of our readership has any of their time actually wasted. And, Alan? Don't do that again. This is the Internet, not California: your demographic isn't rare here. - Moe Lane]