2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIs everyone watching the popular vote
in the Democratic Primaries? It's educational.
Here's the current state of things. Anyone claiming that Hillary Clinton is not popular with Democratic voters should be watching this as the primary season continues. The numbers will change on Wednesday, but probably not the percentages, which have remained steady throughout the season. Bookmark the link and follow along:
Clinton, Hillary Diane Rodham 4,263,516 59.80%
Sanders, Bernard "Bernie" 2,745,545 38.51%
Source: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Surely you know that they do not count towards the popular vote.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Some report actual votes. Others do not.
I'm not an expert on anything, but I understand the caucuses in my own state, and I'm pretty new at that, too.
Anyhow, here are the popular vote numbers for Minnesota, my caucus state, from the same source. Those numbers are included in the national popular vote count.:
Sanders, Bernard "Bernie" 126,229 61.69%
Clinton, Hillary Diane Rodham 78,381 38.31%
Source: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MN-D
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Did a little googling and didn't find a link as you had. Was going to add it myself. Just glancing it over I could tell the difference was enormous.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)for a single source for all of the primary states. That was the best one I could find, and it also has massive amounts of other information on elections that is well worth reading.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Before last week I did the addition myself. A little bit tedious at this point. Thanks for the link.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)You can also learn how the unpledged superdelegates are selected and who they are. It's a terrific resource. I've been referring to it almost daily.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)and recall that the numbers above (not contesting!) were just about exactly opposite a month ago. Roller coaster season!
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)The more primaries there are, the more stable those numbers will be.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)Looking forward to seeing pure popular vote #'s later.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)will not be included. Most, however, do report those numbers. Iowa and Nevada didn't, though.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)On any other planet that would be considered a blowout landslide game over.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)It's hard to see those numbers and come up with any other explanation.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Some caucus states do report actual vote numbers, like mine in Minnesota.
So does Colorado. They're all in that national count at the link.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)BainsBane
(53,001 posts)because over the course of a month more people vote. She now leads by 1.5 million votes. On March 15, that gap will become significantly wider.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Every cluster of primaries will be reflected in those statistics the day after they occur.
Some people, early on, asked what would happen if Sanders had more popular votes than Hillary. I think that's very, very unlikely, nationally.
The people are speaking through their votes. They are telling us who they want as the Democratic nominee.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Everyone, don't give up. Let's keep this going until the convention.
40% of Democrats are basically voting for a real change and which is similar to the "Green Party" platform, aka Jill Stein.
This is amazing and wonderful news.
I sent Bernie Sanders $50.00 yesterday.
Chip in all the way to the convention, let's have our voice be heard.
lostnfound
(16,138 posts)I'm heartened at how he is often exceeding expectations in his stronghold. And that there have been NO polls in California since early January. Maybe California will be the tipping point. The trends were sure looking good.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)appears to be very accurate. You can also look at the individual states by clicking on their abbreviation below the table of results.
It's a great resource for political wonks like DUers. Pure, unadulterated information.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)But there was no information or tallies for the Bumper Sticker War or the Lawn Sign Competition.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I'm an information junkie. The site at that link presents pure information, without commentary. As far as I've been able to determine, it's very accurate and not at all biased.
You can find delegate counts, too, both separate and including unpledged superdelegates, in different columns.
It's my go-to site for all information about the primaries. If you drill down in that website, through the links, it's amazing what you can learn about how it all works.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Thanks!
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Young people have already convinced 40% of Democratic voters that real change is necessary. Even if we lose this time, count on us being back next time.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)That's all I can keep track of. We can deal with the next presidential election in 2020, OK?
edgineered
(2,101 posts)NH,MA are mixed
NV,OK,CO,KS,LA,NE,ME are closed
Seems like a lot of indy votes don't get counted using this model. One might think the popular vote doesn't mean much at this point.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)If you vote, you get counted. If you don't, you don't matter when it comes to delegate allocation. This is primary season. All that matters is what leads up to the Democratic National Convention.
I can't really discuss independent voters who don't vote in the primaries. If they do vote, they'll show up in these popular vote numbers. They reflect actual voting. They're not polls. They're actual results from the states that have had primary events.
edgineered
(2,101 posts)My point is that voters in closed Democratic primaries and caucuses is a subset of how the GE popular vote is counted. IMO, a small subset. Anyone not carefully reading what you are saying may not realize how far from November's reality it is.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)The numbers from the primaries only affect who is selected as the nominee. There's no real point in discussing general election turnout or results at this point, and this thread is not about that in any way.
It is primary season. This thread is about the Democratic primaries and nothing else.
November will happen in due time. We'll have plenty to talk about after the Democratic Convention, I'm sure. Until then, I'm focused on the races at hand. Tuesday will be interesting, I'm sure, as will next Tuesday. That's what's interesting right now.
edgineered
(2,101 posts)and the same for IL, MO, and OH on the following Tuesday it will be very interesting to see how things go.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)roughly 26,000,000 people voted in the general election in those states in 2008. You can extrapolate what you want from raw numbers in the primary.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)talking about the general election in any way. I'm showing actual results from the primaries that have already occurred. We are in the process of selecting delegates to the Democratic National Convention right now. The results will determine who the Democratic nominee will be. That's all that is going on at the moment.
Comparing primary voting with general election voting is irrelevant in figuring out who will be the nominee.
Right now, it's primary election season. After the Convention, we can discuss general election issues and turnout.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)I'm sure you realize that the nominee isn't selected by popular vote. So, other than the fact that it favors Clinton at the moment, why exactly should we be focusing on it?
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)popular vote and the delegate count. They are almost identical, as they should be, since the popular vote determines the number of delegates from each state.
In each state, delegates are allocated according to the percentages of the popular vote. By looking at the national popular vote, you can get a very clear picture of things. Or, you can look at the delegate count and figure the percentages. They're almost exactly the same, really.
Our primary system is working as it is designed to work. Precisely so.
That's why I recommend watching these numbers. They tell the story. The site at the link makes it easy to do that.
If the lead changes, you'll see it there. If it doesn't, you'll see that, too. Only the delegate count matters, and that is determined by the popular vote in each state.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)and lost the delegate count and the nomination. So no, they don't "tell the story".
aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)You can't measure popular vote when mixing primary and caucus states. It's like mixing the total scores of 2 different sports into 1 total.
Popular vote totals in this context are irrelevant. Some caucuses don't even tally popular vote totals at all.
At least for the sake of credibility for both the pro-Sanders group and the pro-Clinton group, when using this metric in the future, please use primary vote totals only. Without it, there isn't much news here. And both sides are conveying a message that is not fully accurate.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)percentages reflected in the delegate count. You will find that they are almost identical. From here on out, there are fewer caucus states, anyhow. That will make the two sets of numbers even closer to the same.
Right now, the unpledged delegate count percentages are:
Hillary - 58.44%
Sanders - 41.55%
The correlation is very clear.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Unless there are huge popular votes missing from the Dem side, the three top GOP candidates far exceed the the top three Democrat candidates in popular votes. I assume that that gap will significantly narrow as we begging to see results from the blue state elections but still...the gap is too wide for my liking. And the increase in voters IDing as GOP is worrisome.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)really don't indicate anything regarding the general election turnouts. We have two candidate. The Republicans have four. Our primaries are rather boring, in some ways. The Republican primaries are a cage match.
I wouldn't put to much weight on those differences. November will produce its own results.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)Sure the people in the following states/territories deserve to be counted?
Alaska
American Samoa
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Minnesota
Nebraska
Nevada
Northern Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Washington
Wyoming
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)link.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)I suppose you could find the number of registered voters of each caucus state, and use the proportion of delegates to estimate, but I don't think that would accurately reflect what would have happened in a primary, with who knows what turnout.
In any case, we don't pick a nominee on popular vote, to it's pretty much a moot point.
PS link not active.
bigtree
(85,917 posts)....fueled primarily by a lopsided turnout of black voters.