Clinton and Obama on Math: Addition vs. Division

Posted on May 16, 2008 by garychapelhill

Anybody else see this gem on the ARG main page?

A Surprise About Obama, Clinton, and Turnout

Conventional wisdom has it that Barack Obama’s primary victories are based on his ability to increase turnout.

A look at what happens when voter turnout increases in the primaries proves that this notion is wrong. In fact, Obama has had his greatest primary (and caucus) victories when turnouts have been low.

Obama received 66% of the primary vote in Georgia when 22.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Virginia, Obama received 64% of the primary vote when 21.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Mississippi, Obama received 61% of the primary vote when 24.4% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary.

Hillary Clinton received 67% of the primary vote in West Virginia when 30.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Pennsylvania, Clinton received 55% of the vote when 27.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Ohio, Clinton received 54% of the primary vote when 30.5% of all registered voters in the state voted in the primary.

There are exceptions (such as Arkansas, Tennessee, and Rhode Island), but Clinton, and not Obama, tends to win in the states where turnouts are higher. The relationship is strong enough that Democratic primary turnout can be predicted using Clinton’s share of the vote.

–Dick Bennett

I cringe every time I hear that Obama is responsible for bringing out so many new voters. The above observation states what many of us Hillary supporters have known for a while now. When Hillary Clinton wins, it is because she energizes voters and and the turnout is high. When Obama wins, for the most part, it is by suppressing the vote. This is obvious when looking at the states that held caucuses. They have very low voter turnout and Obama does very well. In the biggest states that turn out the most voters, Hillary proves to be the best candidate. Obama’s supporters have for months bullied Hillary supporters by calling us “Republican lite”, and “Rovian”. I can’t think of anything MORE Republican than winning elections by suppressing the vote. To add to the voices of others I’ve heard here today, I will not be voting for Obama under any circumstance in November. It is Hillary or nobody.

Filed under: Barack Obama, General, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Presidential Election 2008

« »

40 Responses

  1. katiebird, on May 16th, 2008 at 11:55 pm Said:

    Brilliant post, Gary! This is a very important story. And one of the big reasons I signed up to call for 2 hours tomorrow and Sunday.

    “When Hillary Clinton wins, it is because she energizes voters and and the turnout is high. When Obama wins, for the most part, it is by suppressing the vote.”

    I hope we can make a difference.

  2. Melanie, on May 16th, 2008 at 11:58 pm Said:

    great post, Gary!

  3. garychapelhill, on May 17th, 2008 at 12:02 am Said:

    thanks guys. I heard the conference call, great job! she sounds so confident. That really helps about now… thanks to everyone who is giving 100% and then some. We’re almost there!

  4. Pat Johnson, on May 17th, 2008 at 12:08 am Said:

    Gary, great research.

  5. Jamie Holts, on May 17th, 2008 at 12:33 am Said:

    I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!

  8. katiebird, on May 17th, 2008 at 12:48 am Said:

    I found it, Melanie!

    It’s a GREAT map & comment — thanks for sharing it.

    I wonder if anyone out there is adding up the numbers of counties each of them has won?

  9. jacilyn, on May 17th, 2008 at 1:31 am Said:

    Am I missing something? This sounds messed up to me:

    So, when she stops casting the nomination as a standoff between the Dukes of Hazzard and the Huxtables and accepts the outcome as a fait accompli, the party can unite, and there will be a better sense as to which states are in play.

    They seem to be saying that somehow the party is better off without Appalachia. Or am I reading something wrong?

  10. Melanie, on May 17th, 2008 at 1:43 am Said:

    Jacilyn, the spin is disgusting, The graphic tells the real story. Their spin is as elitist as Senator Empty Suit. They clearly have no respect for Appalachia. They ought to be ashamed. Bobby Kennedy would tell them to eat dirt.

  11. katiebird, on May 17th, 2008 at 1:48 am Said:

    Wow, I didn’t even see the editorial. I was just struck by the map and how Hillary dominated in so many counties.

  12. Melanie, on May 17th, 2008 at 2:09 am Said:

    Me too, katie.

    Please just ignore the editorial, all. Really the graphic tells the story.

  13. Mike, on May 17th, 2008 at 4:56 am Said:

    RD, do you, or perhaps other participants, know if the
    new http://www.clintondems.com site is legit?

    If it is I would like to join in. However, I certainly do wish to avoid any Trojan horses.

    I take nothing for granted re the Obama campaign and supporters. They have shown that they will stoop to any level to elect their savior.

    Not paranoid, merely pragmatic.

    Any information you could post would be appreciated.

  14. DCDemocrat, on May 17th, 2008 at 7:45 am Said:

    My guess, Gary, is that there is a nuance to your interpretation. Obama does well when he turns out in high proportion a certain demographic in the population, a demographic that actually is a small portion of the potential electorate. Hillary does well when she turns out in high proportion a certain demographic in the population, a demographic that actually is a large portion of the potential electorate.

  15. Honora, on May 17th, 2008 at 8:25 am Said:

    DCDemocrat- Can I kiss you? Sorry, but that is exactly right and I never could have said it so perfectly. I love the NYTimes editorial not only does it say Obama puts Virginia into play but it also says that he has a chance in Florida, because it ‘almost’ turned of did turn last election. Has he forgotten that Florida is no longer one of the 57 states!! Obama’s chance in Florida is not something the SDs should count on.

  16. Mary, on May 17th, 2008 at 8:45 am Said:

    So if Clinton would just get out…..all the states the DIDN’T go for Obama will miraculously “change” and vote for him ? Incredible.

  17. katiebird, on May 17th, 2008 at 8:48 am Said:

    Hi Charles, That’s a fantastic post at your site but, is there a trick for signing up and making comments? I could swear that I’ve done that at least once. But, my comments never show up. And when I go back, I have to sign up again. I’m sorry for asking here.

    Thank you very much for your kind words. Having the chance to hear and talk to Hillary directly is something I’ll always remember. And thanks to Taylor Marsh — I’ll be able to prove!

    It was such a relief to hear how untouched she is by the WWTSBQ drumbeat. That she has multiple reasons for going all the way to the convention — influence on the platform being just one of them.

  18. dotcommodity, on May 17th, 2008 at 9:12 am Said:

    3 states she won with increased turnout over previous records of:

    STATE: NEW YORK

    PREVIOUS RECORD: 1,575,000

    VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,744,000 (99% reporting)

    % CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +11%

    –
    STATE: NEW JERSEY

    PREVIOUS RECORD: 654,000

    VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,104,000 (99% reporting)

    % CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +69%

    –
    STATE: MASSACHUSETTS

    PREVIOUS RECORD: 793,000

    VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,170,000 (98% reporting)

    % CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +48%

    per CNN

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/06/democrats-shatter-turnout-primary-season-records/

  19. dotcommodity, on May 17th, 2008 at 9:22 am Said:

    I can’t understand why sometimes my posts with links do or don’t show up, so heres the data from

    http:// politicalticker. blogs. cnn.

    (remove spaces and attach:)
    com/2008/02/06/democrats-shatter-turnout-primary-season-records/

    –
    STATE: NEW YORK

    PREVIOUS RECORD: 1,575,000

    VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,744,000 (99% reporting)

    % CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +11%

    –
    STATE: NEW JERSEY

    PREVIOUS RECORD: 654,000

    VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,104,000 (99% reporting)

    % CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +69%

  20. bostonboomer, on May 17th, 2008 at 9:25 am Said:

    Katiebird,

    Did you watch the town hall meeting that Hillary did in Oregon last night? Someone asked her about all the demands that she get out, and she said basically the same thing as on the phone call–only more strongly and concisely. I need to see if there is a transcript, because I want to save it. Her words really inspired me. She said that she is just going to keep going no matter what the “pundits” say and see what happens. Only she said it better than that. I’m going to see if I can find it.

  21. katiebird, on May 17th, 2008 at 9:27 am Said:

    Hi dot — there is a trick to getting links through the filter. It’s to format them using HTML rather than just posting the raw link.

    to do that type (remove _ character)

    <_a href=”"_>The words you want displayed<_/a_>

    Then paste the URL between the quotes:

    <_a href=”http://www.somewebsite.com”_>The words you want displayed<_/a_>

  22. katiebird, on May 17th, 2008 at 9:29 am Said:

    Correctly formatted links get through every time.

    Also, we do try to release non-spam from the filter. But, we aren’t always online when good stuff gets caught.

  23. bostonboomer, on May 17th, 2008 at 9:30 am Said:

    Charles,

    Congratulations on the traffic at your blog. I’ve been visiting, but like KB, I haven’t been able to figure out how to comment. Any tips would be appreciated.

  24. katiebird, on May 17th, 2008 at 9:30 am Said:

    Hi BB, I didn’t watch it. I didn’t want to be that tied to the computer last night and it wasn’t on TV. I guess I could have listened, but I was pretty buzzed from talking to her & I’m not sure it would have sunk in.

  25. elixir, on May 17th, 2008 at 9:36 am Said:

    Great job yesterday KB (Lambert et al). Too bad it wasn’t longer, but, I think it achieved it’s purpose – thanking the bloggers and answering some questions.

  26. bostonboomer, on May 17th, 2008 at 9:37 am Said:

    Hi Katiebird,

    I can understand that. I was so excited yesterday, that I didn’t want to stop listening to Hillary. When I heard the phone call, it really struck me how Midwestern she sounds. In fact, her accent sounds similar to the way my grandmother talked (not that Hillary sounds old, I mean when my gm was late 50s). When I wasn’t seeing her at the same time, Hillary sounded just like my grandmother. I’m sure that contributes to people in the Midwest feeling comfortable with Hillary.

    It was fun to hear your voice and that of the other bloggers. I had heard Armando on another call. He didn’t sound at all like I expected him to, but you sounded just like I imagined–you sound very sweet and youthful. I’m so impressed with how you did. I would have been a nervous wreck!

  27. bostonboomer, on May 17th, 2008 at 9:38 am Said:

    Oddly, Lambert sounded like I expected too, but I didn’t think he would come across as so enthusiastic. It was very endearing.

  28. dotcommodity, on May 17th, 2008 at 9:49 am Said:

    Did anyone watch Bill Moyers on the campaign race/gender issues last night? I think it warrants a diary here.

    Astounding disconnect between his own issue:( media monopoly) and the WWTSBQ drumbeat in this campaign.

    He had two former Clinton staffers on (married to eachother: Hispanic wife for Clinton, Black husband for Obama) and Moyers endlessly pushed the Clinton voters are just racists meme.

    Moyers very openly leaned forward in astonishment when the hubby said if Obama wasn’t in the race, he would have been an enthusiastic Clinton supporter. He incredulously demanded to know just exactly what would make a man , (or possibly: a Black person) vote for her.

    It was not clear which he was expressing outrage over.

    It was really shocking coming from him. It was as if nobody should vote for the content of anyones character , and yet every White person must vote for any Black person.

    The husband cited because her policy wonkyness: he was a Clinton staffer…duh! – the only good thing in the interview: a demonstration of exactly what Moyers was chiding America for not doing: voting for the content of character!

    Especially nasty was the fact that WV is poor and so many have no cable or internet, so would have seen exactly ONE debate: ABC was the ONLY broadcast debate(I don’t have cable-so I watched every other one on the computer!), and where was Moyers in that?

    I am sure Moyers could have forced a PBS debate between the two if he wanted to, but he was probably turned down by the Axelrod campaign, knowing how Hillary would do…

    Shame on you Bill Moyers! You know better!

  29. dotcommodity, on May 17th, 2008 at 9:50 am Said:

    (did not mean to make a smiley) its a parenthesis

  30. atdleft, on May 17th, 2008 at 9:52 am Said:

    Gary-

    Wow, great find! I guess we can add this to the now growing list of “Obama Myths Debunked”. So he really wasn’t responsible for everyone everywhere turning out to vote this year? Who would have guessed that people are excited about Hillary? (Asking while observing Hillary’s popular vote lead… How is “the loser” winning?) ;-)

  31. atdleft, on May 17th, 2008 at 9:57 am Said:

    dotcommodity-

    Yeah, what the hell happened to Bill Moyers? Did the O’borg body snatchers invade and replace him with an O’bot pod person? Early on, he was one of the only MSM person talking about the sexist attacks on Hillary. But ever since he got Wright to go on his show, he’s been echoing the rest of the media elite.

  32. UpstateNY, on May 17th, 2008 at 10:16 am Said:

    Finally I got to listen to the call. Hi Kbird. Nervous some? You got to talk to Hillary (you lucky you…). Good good, good!

    Fellow Conflucians: I may get some cr*p for saying this, but counting counties for the sake of it is in my opinon as invalid an argument as the one presented by Obamaphiles when it comes to states. People vote, not counties/states.

    While I think it is undeniable that some states are more “relevant” to our chances in the GE than others (e.g. New York vs Idaho or Wahsington vs Texas), the rural vs urban counties argument is less valid come November.

    I may be wrong thoush, so who knows.

  33. garychapelhill, on May 17th, 2008 at 10:18 am Said:

    I love the map from the nyt. I recall seeing that earlier, I think on real clear politics. The editorial is elitist drivel. Why would we compare Hillary to the previous two democratic losers instead of the one who took the region and won the presidency? I think that says more about kerry’s losing strategy than Hillary’s plan to win. I loved RD’s comment yesterday about the loser brigade that is Obama’s base….kerry, kennedy, daschle, dukakis, etc. Maybe we should change it from WWTSBQ to WWTSBLULA (let us lose again)

  34. garychapelhill, on May 17th, 2008 at 10:20 am Said:

    just another thought…..Gore’s loss made me sick, but he couldn’t even win his home state of tennessee. I think I’ll go with Hillary’s plan to actually win Appalachia…

  35. garychapelhill, on May 17th, 2008 at 10:24 am Said:

    Actually, if Gore had won TN he would have won the presidency and we wouldn’t be in any of this mess to begin with. Maybe we should not write off the “hillbillies” too quickly….

  36. Anne, on May 17th, 2008 at 11:36 am Said:

    folks, Moyers is a tool …didn’t you see him loving handle Rev Wright like he was MLK? They are buying up the heroes and turing them into , at best, concern trolls.

    Bill Moyers : Concern Troll….

  37. dar1a g, on May 17th, 2008 at 12:30 pm Said:

    I expect everyone surrounding Bill Moyers is openly pro-Obama and he’s never stepped back to think seriously about why anyone would be for Hillary, even though 16+ million people are. This whole campaign, it’s made me have a sense of how Republicans must view the “liberal media,” there’s so much bias with media figures openly rooting for one candidate and not at all interested in why anyone would disagree.

    I don’ t know how to explain.. like the media is OK with picking up on the usual silly stereotypes about Democrats (elitism, weakness), but they’re incapable of understanding why Americans who aren’t in the socioeconomic classes they know would support Hillary. I can sense a values disconnect between Obama and many people that runs pretty deep.. and strangely it seems that Fox News picks up on it too, while the other networks don’t have a clue. I don’t advocate the POV of Fox News but they’re by far the most popular news station.

  38. dotcommodity, on May 17th, 2008 at 3:39 pm Said:

    katie, thks for html hint

    on myers, yeah that was one thing the wife missed: she said (in answer to Moyers WWTSBQ) “well theres hundreds of thousands of women who are Hillary supporters who just want…”

    NO! Theres 17 million of us!

    I really think this is a letterwriting time.

    1. PBS should have forced Obamabi to debate
    2. This race is tied.
    3. If Kennedy could battle to the convention 1,000 delegates behind, why can’t Clinton?

  39. dotcommodity, on May 17th, 2008 at 3:58 pm Said:

    4. Moyers is seemingly unaware of any sexism in this race …(?)
    5. Moyers used to be a proponent of nonOrwellian media….(?*@!~)
    6. etc…

    really, you just have to watch this. If you did see last nights Bill moyers, heres the comments page:

    leave your comment here for Bill Moyers

  40. Hillary Supporters: Journalistic Integrity of Fox News? « Too Much Information Anonymous, on May 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pm Said:

    [...] is a site out there, Reality Doesn’t Matter as Long as We Have Spin who keeps presenting this rosy picture of an increase in Hillary Supporters, while denying fact and [...]

Comments are closed.