Hillary needs to burn in political hell...

[ReillyT]

IF ONE PERSON STAYED HOME BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLD THE VOTE WOULDNT COUNT THEN THE ELECTION IS INVALID... THATS IT!!!

We dont know who would have won michigan because there wasnt a legitimate way to know that.. polling has been off and if you think she would have carried the white racist vote.. remember that Jesse Jackson took Michigan convincingly just a few decades ago..

Actually, when you include Michigan according to the exit polling that was done in the state following the primary, Obama still wins the popular vote (although as I have pointed out, this is a meaningless metric). Exit polling accounts for the tens of thousands of write-in ballots cast for Obama, which were not counted because he did not file the paperwork necessary to obtain write-in votes. One would think that if the main goal should be to get all the votes counted, then one would use exit polling as the best method to determine shares of the vote in Michigan. I don't believe that Mr. Sanders approves of this method though. Apparently, it is irrational.

 

[Jon]

Actually, when you include Michigan according to the exit polling that was done in the state following the primary, Obama still wins the popular vote (although as I have pointed out, this is a meaningless metric). Exit polling accounts for the tens of thousands of write-in ballots cast for Obama, which were not counted because he did not file the paperwork necessary to obtain write-in votes. One would think that if the main goal should be to get all the votes counted, then one would use exit polling as the best method to determine shares of the vote in Michigan. I don't believe that Mr. Sanders approves of this method though. Apparently, it is irrational.

Your point on the Michigan exit poll was refuted. Read my posts. That was the result of ONE exit poll, and it was not weighted. After they weighted the exit polls in the entire state, the polls matched the results of the election precisely.

In fact, the source YOU provided on the Michigan Exit Poll actually stated that itself. You just read to the point where you thought you had an argument, and you missed the information two paragraphs down that completely debunked your argument.

 

[ReillyT]

Your point on the Michigan exit poll was refuted. Read my posts. That was the result of ONE exit poll, and it was not weighted. After they weighted the exit polls in the entire state, the polls matched the results of the election precisely.

In fact, the source YOU provided on the Michigan Exit Poll actually stated that itself. You just read to the point where you thought you had an argument, and you missed the information two paragraphs down that completely debunked your argument.

From Pollster.com (I won't claim that this is my argument). Not that any of this actually matters.

What is misleading about this entire discussion, however, is that the Michigan results relied up by the DNC on Saturday (and analyzed in more detail by Brian Schaffner) were not the second-wave or "at poll closing" estimates of the official count, but rather the results of this question after the tabulations had been weighted to match the official count:

Can we rely on the final exit poll data when weighted data "forced" to match actual results? That is the difficult-to-answer question many of us have been been pondering this year. Does weighting the result by the vote preference and turn out eliminate all possible bias with respect to demographics or other attitudes? Perhaps. In this case, however, the correction for statistical bias is right on point. We know that the results are weighted so that the percentage who chose Clinton matches the actual count.

Actually, if anything, the final weights may favor Clinton slightly, for two reasons. First, the truly final count (available after these tabulations were done on the evening of January 15), gives Clinton 55% (not 56%) and undeclared 40% (not 39%).

Second, as reported on Saturday, the official count did not include approximately 30,000 write-in votes that were never counted or included in the official totals because no candidates filed the necessary papers to request the counting of write-in votes. Most assume these write-in votes were cast for either Barack Obama or John Edwards. The voters who cast write-in votes presumably had no idea their write-in votes would not count as they left their polling place and, we can assume, would have been just as likely to participate in the exit poll as other voters.

The exit poll questionnaire had a response option for other ("Other: Who? _______") that, presumably, would have been chosen by write-in voters (though I am not sure how the exit pollsters handled any such responses in the final tabulations). Since no write-in votes were reported, however, the weighting of the final tabulations did not reflect votes that could have increased the total vote by as much as 5%. So the weighting of the exit poll -- like the official count -- may have overstated Clinton's vote by a few percentages points over what it would have shown had all write-in votes been counted.

The final Michigan exit poll tabulations are best evidence we have on which candidate voters would have favored had the names of all candidates appeared on the Michigan ballot. The weighting procedure provides reassurance that, in this case at least, the percentage of Clinton voters was either right or erred slightly in her favor.

Pollster.com: About That Michigan Exit Poll

 

[Jon]

Weighting polls makes perfect sense.

If you poll 100 people in the inner cities, they will favor Obama. If you poll 100 people in the rural areas, they will favor Clinton.

If only 1000 people voted in the inner cities, and 10,000 voted in the rural areas, overall, the population will support Clinton. However, based on the polls, you would assume the votes are about equally split. Once you weight those polls based on the number of votes in each area and how that area polled, you get a better estimate of the number of TOTAL people who support each candidate.

Weighted polls absolutely make more sense and have statistically proven to be more accurate. Thus is the case with Michigan. Actual polls show she got 46%, weighted polls say she got 56%, and she actually got 55%. Further substantiating that weighted polls work.

They did not "force" the results to match Clinton. They simply took the number of people polled in each area, weighted that number to match the number of people in each area, and then calculated a total number of votes. It's not forcing, it's calculating. It's a proven method.

 

[ReillyT]

Also, just in case you needed further evidence of reasonable disagreements about the popular vote, here is someone else's breakdown of the possible scenarios. Remember, I am not saying anything as to who actually won the popular vote (as it was so close and based on value judgements, anybody can claim the mantle).

Final Popular Vote Estimates: Obama wins 7 of 8 Michigan scenarios
With all ballots having been counted in Montana and South Dakota, we present our final version of the popular vote scenario tester...

That leaves eight potential ways that we can handle Michigan.

1. Ignore Michigan entirely. That gives Obama a win by 155,782 votes.
2. Count Michigan at 100 percent and give no votes to Obama. That gives Clinton a win by 172,527 votes.
3. Count Michigan and give all uncommitted votes to Obama. Obama +65,641.
4. Count Michigan and give all uncommitted and write-in votes to Obama. (Note that we have included a new option to treat Michigan's 27,694 discarded write-in votes as uncommitted). Obama +93,335.
5. Count Michigan and allocate uncommitted votes based on the preferences of uncommitted voters in exit polls. We have that total at Obama +6,961, however it is so close that it can essentially be considered a tie.
6. Count Michigan and allocate uncommitted and write-in votes based on exit polls. That gives Obama a "safe" win by 28,008 votes.
7. Count Michigan and allocate all officially-recorded votes based on exit polls. This may be a truer reflection of voter preference because roughly 20 percent of Hillary Clinton's voters indicated in exit polls that they'd prefer to have voted for another candidate. Under this scenario, Obama wins by 90,398.
8. Same as above, but also include write-in votes in the total that we divide among the candidates. This is actually my preferred solution, because write-in voters were almost certainly included in exit polls even if they weren't included in Michigan's official tally. Counterintuitively, Obama's margin goes down slightly if we take this approach (because we are giving the majority share of a slightly larger pie to Clinton). But we still have Obama winning the national popular vote count by 87,351.

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right

 

[Jon]

Also, just in case you needed further evidence of reasonable disagreements about the popular vote, here is someone else's breakdown of the possible scenarios. Remember, I am not saying anything as to who actually won the popular vote (as it was so close and based on value judgements, anybody can claim the mantle).



FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right

The problem with each one of those scenarios is that they all fail to include John Edward's presence in the Michigan election. Give Obama all the write-ins? Really? Give him all the uncommitted votes? Really? None of those arguments have any logical merit.

 

[ReillyT]

The problem with each one of those scenarios is that they all fail to include John Edward's presence in the Michigan election. Give Obama all the write-ins? Really? Give him all the uncommitted votes? Really? None of those arguments have any logical merit.

There was also the scenario where Obama gets his share of the votes based on exit polling with the inclusion of write-in ballots. I know your argument. Exit polling is unreliable as it is unweighted. However, I don't know that by including write-in ballot apportioned amongst non-Clinton candidates according to exit polls, that wouldn't put Obama on top right there. I actually don't know the answer.

Secondly, it is not clear to me that you shouldn't rely on exit polling altogether.

What is the purpose of voting? Aside from its civic function, it is primarily to determine the will of those people entitled to make a decision. Thus, it must represent.

If, as you acknowledge, the Michigan election was flawed, then it fails to accurately represent the will of those entitled to make a decision (not even counting those who may have stayed at home). An election that fails to accurately represent the will of those entitled to make a decision seems like no better a metric than an exit poll, which is also flawed in its own way, but also has its own advantages (can pick up Clinton voters who would have voted Obama/Edwards were their names on the ballot). All of this of course bypasses the argument as to whether a flawed metric of the will of the people should even be included at all.

Between the choice of two flawed metrics of the will of the people, why is one better utilized than another without an indication of the degree of their reflective flaws (which is unfortunately impossible).

By the way, I don't feel strongly about any of this. I am just enjoying the discussion.

 

[Flowerchild]

I posted this reply origially under the thread "Will ex Hillary supporters really support a more conservative court". I was redirected to this thread by someone.

First of all, I read through this entire thread (yes all 7 pages, took me half an hour) and I can't believe not a single person mentioned the fact that Hillary actually has the popular vote. (sorry it won't let me link yet)

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html]RealClearPolitics

The only reason Obama has stated that he has the popular vote is because he is ignoring Michigan. If he wants to ignore Michigan in regards to popular vote then he should also ignore Michigan's delgates.

As for someone stating that "mature voters" would not vote for McCain (I cannot remember where it was stated and I don't want to go through all seven pages again), I can tell you right now that my husband and I will vote for McCain if it comes down to Obama or McCain. My husband and I are extreme Democrats. He is a Union Sheet Metal Worker out of Chicago and we have two teenage sons. If we are not considered "mature voters" then who is. Our reasoning on this is simple. Obama is new to the political system. Obama has gotten so used to his upper class lifestyle that he has forgotten what it is really like to be middle class. And yes, race does have something to do with it. My sons are middle class white males. Unless they make the honor roll and get a 4.0 GPA they have a lower chance of getting into a good college than a C average black male or even a C average middle class white female (so it's not entirely race, it's also gender). There is no chance in hell that a black president is going to change these standars. Now granted there is a very slim chance that a white female president would change them either, but she has already stated that it's no longer girls who need more support in schools but boys. Another reason we support Hillary over Obama is their universal healthcare plans. Hillary's plan would cover my children no matter what. As it stands now, unless my sons join a union or get government jobs, the likelyhood of them receiving affordable and good healthcare is very slim. Under Obama's plan, that likelyhood would increase somewhat, but most likely not enough.

nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

As for all this racist crap, I am so sick of hearing people complain about this. White people and black people have become equally racist. Males and females are both gender biased. My husband was sent to a different jobsite one day to pick something up. The jobsite was not an affirmative action jobsite, it was a standard one. There were 2 black women, 1 hispanic woman and 1 black man working there. One of the black women saw my husband carrying his pickup and rudely asked if he was working the jobsite. She had her phone in her hand. When my husband asked why, she stated that if he was working the jobsite she was going to call the employer and complain saying they were not complying with affirmative action rules. I visited a friend who lives in an all white neighborhood and when a black man in a suit walked down the street all her neighbors went into their houses and locked their doors. Out of the 2500 members of my husband's Union Local, every single one that is currently unemployed is a white male. The door swings both ways people. We have tried to do so much to make up for the fact that we had slavery legal in this country that we have ostrasized whites. We have done so much to make up for the fact that girls weren't given proper educations that we have discouraged boys from learning. When will we find a balance?

To all of you who have your selfish reasons for supporting one person or another, think about this. Who is better for your children, for your grandchildren? Screw the country itself, it's already circling the drain. Screw the war, no one really knows when it will end, no matter who is elected. Think about the people who aren't old enough to vote yet. Your nieces and nephews, your friend's kids, your neighbors' kids, all those little ones running around free now that school's out. Because if we don't think about them now, by the time they're our age, there might not be anything worth fighting for anymore.

 

[AllieBaba]

We've already hashed over the fact that she has the popular (Dem) vote and marveled at the idiocy of superdelegates who insist on supporting Obama anyway.

But it's good news for Republicans.

 

[ReillyT]

We've already hashed over the fact that she has the popular (Dem) vote and marveled at the idiocy of superdelegates who insist on supporting Obama anyway.

But it's good news for Republicans.

Maybe she did. Maybe she didn't.

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Quite possibly doesn't matter (for Republicans).

 

[Jeepers]

Fair weather Democrats should form their own party with Zell and that Jewish guy from Conn.

 

[ReillyT]

Fair weather Democrats should form their own party with Zell and that Jewish guy from Conn.

Now... now... I admit that I get a little frustrated with Democrats when they vote Republican, but then again, isn't the point to vote for the candidate that best represents your interests as you see it? There is nothing wrong with running across the party lines. We seek Republican votes, don't we?

 

[ReillyT]

I posted this reply origially under the thread "Will ex Hillary supporters really support a more conservative court". I was redirected to this thread by someone.

Welcome FC. I just wanted to let you know since you are a recent entrant that shorter posts generally receive better responses. That isn't a knock on you or anything. Sometimes I churn out a long one. It does seem though that with so many threads going at once, USMB users (including myself) sometimes skip the longer posts in favor of more succinct ones. Anyway, welcome.

 

[Jon]

There was also the scenario where Obama gets his share of the votes based on exit polling with the inclusion of write-in ballots. I know your argument. Exit polling is unreliable as it is unweighted. However, I don't know that by including write-in ballot apportioned amongst non-Clinton candidates according to exit polls, that wouldn't put Obama on top right there. I actually don't know the answer.

I'm not sure that it would. The total number of Uncommitted votes was 237,762. If there were even 40,000 write-ins, that gives us a total of 277,762 votes that are uncommitted. For Obama to pass Clinton, he would need 64% (176,466, according to RCP) of that number. According to polls just days before the election, only 42% of the uncommitted vote was for Obama, while some 30% were for Edwards, and 28% were actually just uncommitted. It's arguable that some of those uncommitted could have voted Clinton had there not been an Uncommitted choice (ie, if voters were forced to choose between all the candidates).

Secondly, it is not clear to me that you shouldn't rely on exit polling altogether.

What is the purpose of voting? Aside from its civic function, it is primarily to determine the will of those people entitled to make a decision. Thus, it must represent.

If, as you acknowledge, the Michigan election was flawed, then it fails to accurately represent the will of those entitled to make a decision (not even counting those who may have stayed at home). An election that fails to accurately represent the will of those entitled to make a decision seems like no better a metric than an exit poll, which is also flawed in its own way, but also has its own advantages (can pick up Clinton voters who would have voted Obama/Edwards were their names on the ballot). All of this of course bypasses the argument as to whether a flawed metric of the will of the people should even be included at all.

Between the choice of two flawed metrics of the will of the people, why is one better utilized than another without an indication of the degree of their reflective flaws (which is unfortunately impossible).

It doesn't matter which method you choose. The exit polls (weighted) and the actual election were nearly identical in results. It's unreasonable to use an unweighted estimate. Surely you can see that, right?

 

[Shogun]

fair Weather Democrats Should Form Their Own Party With Zell And That Jewish Guy From Conn.

werd

 

[jillian]

Fair weather Democrats should form their own party with Zell and that Jewish guy from Conn.

How old are you? Seriously. You think the entire center of the democratic party should be sent to siberia and think the dems should market an Obama-Powell ticket. (not understanding that Powell is a repub anyway). Clearly not a mature political sensibility.... or a sensibility that takes into consideration the possibilities of winning.

 

[Shogun]

id rather lose on my principals than win mimicking the same ole politiks as usual.

I want to see an Obama-Webb ticket. THERE is your center party with no cliton baggage.

 

[jillian]

id rather lose on my principals than win mimicking the same ole politiks as usual.

I want to see an Obama-Webb ticket. THERE is your center party with no cliton baggage.

yeah, well, you don't have a 10 year old son and don't care if they pervert the supreme court for the next three generations.

 

[Shogun]

yeah, well, you don't have a 10 year old son and don't care if they pervert the supreme court for the next three generations.

what does your son have to do with it? Are childless Americans not relevant citizens?


PERVERT the supreme court? Do you really know how rich that is THIS side of RvW and the ever so useful interstate commerce clause? Indeed, perspective is a bitch sometimes, jillian.


Obama/Webb '08

 

[jillian]

what does your son have to do with it? Are childless Americans not relevant citizens?


PERVERT the supreme court? Do you really know how rich that is THIS side of RvW and the ever so useful interstate commerce clause? Indeed, perspective is a bitch sometimes, jillian.


Obama/Webb '08

It has nothing to do with being relevant citizens. It's that my need for someone like McCain to not be president is more immediate.

and comments about the supreme court from someone who thinks smoking is a fundamental right but control over one's body isn't... really aren't all that relevant to me.