Has Barack Obama's support slipped in the month of July?

There has been speculation -- reasonable and based on some empirics -- that Barack Obama may have slipped some in the match-up against John McCain in the presidential preference measurement. This slippage appears to have occurred since about July 4th weekend. For example, the fivethirtyeight.com model shows some downturn, and Michael Barone also appears to think so. The tracking polls by Rasmussen and Gall Up show the race to be with in 1-2 points.

However, I am not certain that the preference measurement data are clear on this matter. I think that we need to get some new preference data from Ohio and Indiana, and that will present a more clear pictures, The last preference measures from Ohio and Indiana showed Obama to be in slight lead (2-4 points) in Ohio, and essentially tied in Indiana. Here is my thinking --

(1) It is true that Obama's lead has shrunk in Maine from 20 plus points to about 9 points, it is also true that McCain's lead has ballooned to 20 plus points from about 9 points in Kansas (Rasmussen reports.) But it is also true that Obama's lead in California has expanded to 20 plus points from single digits (Field poll) and to double-digits in most East-coast states and robust numbers in Michigan (Quinnipiac, Sienna, Strategic Vision polls and Survey USA polls.)

(2) Michael Barone argues (July 16th) that "...if one assumes McCain is running a little stronger now, in which states would he be overtaking Obama, assuming a uniform rise across the country? In the South, Virginia (13 electoral votes). In the West, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Oregon (24 electoral votes). In the Midwest, Indiana and Ohio (31 electoral votes). "

But recent preference measures (polls) taken after July 4th weekend show that Obama is leading by 4 points (about the same lead as in June) in Colorado, by about 9 points in Oregon (may be even a little bigger lead than in June), and he is tied with McCain in Virginia (about the same status as in June). There have not been preference measures in Montana, New Mexico and Indian and Ohio in the month of July. (Source, see RealClear Politics data). In any case, Barone's inference is inconsistent with data -- McCain is not leading in any of the states mentioned by him.

The state-by-state polls still appear to show the presidential race to be where it was in the month of June. Ohio will be a big one -- new polling data from Ohio will provide greater clarity.

Barack Obama and the gallop to the Politcal Middle

Barack Obama is racing to the political center, ready to defy stereo-types (e.g. a weak liberal) and spar with John McCain. In this regard, Obama has made several decisions by Obama in the last month or two.

Among those decisions are Obama's solemn undertaking to protect Israel, in a speech to the leading pro-Israeli lobby (AIPAC); Obama's nuanced welcome of U.S. Supreme Court's decisions affirming the right to bear arms by individuals, and the right of appeal to Guantanamo detainees, and gentle disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision rejecting death-penalty for child-rape; Obama's acceptance of the compromise in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which contains a provision granting telecoms companies immunity from lawsuits for co-operating in a surveillance program that conducted wiretaps without warrants;Obama's efforts to lower the rhetoric on free trade and NAFTA, and increased recognition of the importance of trade and markets; and Obama's support and even a call for expansion of faith-based initiatives and programs, and recognition of faith-based community groups.

And now Obama, while sticking to his argument that Iraq war was unjustified and should not have been authorized, affirms that he will listen closely to the advice of the military leaders. While Obama says that the his plan to withdraw the troops in 16 months -- one brigade a month -- is firm, he also suggests that he will "refine" and recalibrate the actual details. Per media reports, Obama said,“What I said this morning what I will repeat, because its consistent with what I have said over the last two years, is that in putting this plan together I will always listen to the advice of commanders on the ground but that ultimately I am the person thats making the strategic decisions.”

Finally, Obama has set a somewhat rigorous condition (surprisingly, so) for later-term abortions. In an interview this week with Relevant, a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother." Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

All these decisions -- and nuanced statements -- move Obama to the political middle, and make it a challenge to categorize and stereo-type him. However, when does that journey to the middle starts to appear a bit opportunistic? Time will tell though so far, I think, that Obama has maintained a sense of authenticity in his journey to the middle. In general, Obama appears to be thoughtful and making sensible changes based on empirics.

McCain, Obama and the Finances

Senator Barack Obama has opted out of the public financing system in his contest for the U.S Presidency, and John McCain has decided to stay in the system. It appears that Obama may have about $250 million to invest in the months of September and October, and McCain may have only about $85 million.

Should McCain be afraid? No and Yes.

No, because I do not think that Obama's financial edge will do much for him in advertising (traditional and non-traditional) for his candidacy and causes. The reason is simple -- time is short, and there will be galore free publicity. Here are some ways that Obama may use his financial resources to increase the scale and scope of advertising. Let us look at various elements of this advertising.

First, Obama can and will probably advertise in almost all the 50 states -- even as his campaign will concede that several states like Alaska have not voted for a Democratic candidate for a very long time. The goal of this exercise to merely scare up McCain's campaign and force him to spend some of his valuable resources -- money and time -- in some of those states lest he should lose. Will this be effective? I rate the effectiveness about 3 on a 1-10 scale (10 being most effective) because when push comes to shove McCain will not divert his resources (he cannot afford to) and thus would call the bluff (not out of choice but out of necessity.)

Second, Obama can use micro-segmenting and try and use different media for diffusing his image. Money provides that luxury. Obama can also try non-traditional approaches and media.

Will be this an effective strategy? Better than the 50-states strategy but not overwhelmingly so. I would rate this strategy to be about 5. The reason is simple. The Presidential race will get plenty of free media coverage from networks, cable channels, print media, blogs, u-tube productions and those Presidential debates. Additional reach -- over and above these -- is likely to have marginal impact. Further, the content/message of the candidate does matter.

The message will determine the basic positioning of the candidate, and no amount of volume of reach can necessarily change that positioning. Two examples of this are: one, though Barack Obama invested thrice as much as Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania Democratic primary and twice as much in Ohio, the ultimate preference numbers did not change from the forecasts three weeks before the actual voting; two, with less than $1 million investment the 'Swift Boat' advertisement against John Kerry was devastatingly effective. In the first case, the message was the same but in the second case, the message was sharply different and new (whether that was true or not is besides the point -- further, since Senator Kerry did not effectively and immediately repudiate the attacks the message assumed a level of truthfulness as a default.)

Final aspect of this element is that Obama is likely to receive somewhat of a negative coverage from the mainstream media for his rejection of public financing -- this is not huge but one cannot ignore the word-of-mouth value of major networks and newspapers. In this case, the word-of-mouth effect would be negative.

Yes, because Obama might gain a very substantial advantage in voter registration, and mobilization with paid staff and localized promotion and patronage. It takes almost one-on-one to persuade a voter to register, and then actually vote on the election day. The upside of such voter mobilization is monumental. Particularly when the enthusiasm for McCain's candidacy is somewhat muted thus far. For example, in the recent USA Today-Gall Up survey 61% of Democrats said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting in this year's election, while just 35% of Republicans said that.

Obama can employ this vast resource to mobilizing voters through registering new voters and individual contacts -- paid staff (and volunteers) knocking on the doors, telephonic calls, mobilization on the day of the election. Here, the resources can make a very big impact. I would rate the potential effectiveness of this approach about 7. There is substantially higher marginal benefit to be achieved here.

For illustration, let us examine Ohio (20 electoral votes.) In 2000, Al Gore lost the state only by about 350,000 votes even without any campaign investment. In 2004, John Kerry lost Ohio by less than 120,000 votes. If only Kerry had mobilized 10 extra votes in every precinct in Ohio, he would have won Ohio and the Presidency. Obama can pour his resources in the ground game in Ohio and quite possibly win it given the current sour political climate. Similarly, Kerry lost New Mexico and Iowa by less than 20,000 votes each -- and that can be easily overcome with strong election-day mobilization. In a state like Georgia where about 600,000 African-Americans have not registered to vote are rich Obama-votes. If they can be mobilized to register to vote and actually turn up to vote, Obama can put Georgia in play. In Florida, more than half a million black registered voters stayed home in 2004. Hundreds of thousands more African Americans are eligible to vote but not registered.

Off-shore drilling: The case by and for McCain

McCain has reversed his stance against off-shore drilling, and now advocates it. Obama continues to oppose this. The U.S. Congress currently has a statutory ban on off-shore drilling. What are the pros and cons?

With the high gas prices and improved technologies, voters are open to this idea -- all public polls show that 55-60 percent of Americans support off-shore drilling. It is estimated that there may be about 21 billion barrels of proven oil reserves that are left untouched because of a federal moratorium on offshore exploration and production.

So that should help McCain, right? Not much for two reasons. One, the voters will always be reminded that McCain might be opportunistic and runs counter to McCain's tough-it-out but do the right thing image. Two, the blue-collar, working class, lower income voters who are most affected by high gas prices are also surprisingly principled and tough (they would rather tough it), so McCain may gain no traction with this most plausible demographic group.

The principled-stubbornness of the working class demographic group came to most vivid demonstration when Clinton's advocacy of temporary suspension of gas tax (and Obama's opposition) did not fetch her any favors with this group in the Democratic primaries.

Finally, even if the federal ban on the off-shore drilling was removed it would be a long time before there can be any potential oil production because the individual states such as California and Florida have to make their own determination and then the business of drilling oil has to begin.

The probability of Obama winning the Presidential Elections

The probability of Obama winning the Presidential elections in November appears to be pretty robust. Here is why --

(1) Based on public polls, it is becoming evident that Obama is most likely to hold all the states (Michigan appears close but it is trending Obama's way) that Kerry won in 2004. That would give Obama 252 electoral votes. Add to this Iowa which is almost certain to go to Obama -- 7 electoral votes. That gives Obama 259 electoral votes.

On the other hand, McCain -- at this stage -- is not likely to win all the stages that Bush won in 2004 (284 electoral votes.) McCain is almost sure to lose Iowa (7 electoral votes.) Add to this mix, Ohio (20 electoral votes), Virginia (13 electoral votes), Colorado (9 electoral votes), and New Mexico and Nevada (each with 5 electoral votes) -- there is substantial doubt if McCain can hold these states. That puts McCain at about 225 electoral votes.

(2) The more compelling arithmetic is this. Repeatedly, in large numbers of public polls about 37-38 percent of the likely voters identify themselves as Democrats and about 30 percent as republicans. That leaves about 30 percent as independents.

Assuming both Obama and McCain get 80 percent of their party votes, the differential gain for Obama would be about 6.5 percent. In the cross-over vote of 20 percent, Obama would lose about 1.5 percent leaving a net lead of about 5 percent for Obama. Assuming that Obama and McCain split the independents, Obama's overall lead would be about 5 percent.

The only caveat is the potential Bradley-Wilder effect which accounts for about 5-7 percent.

(3) What adds to the odds of Obama's victory are the extra-ordinarily low approval ratings (in low 30s) of President Bush and the perception that the country is heading in the wrong direction (over 64-70 percent of Americans say this.)

Senator Hillary Clintion and Political Future

Senator Hillary Clinton is a very able candidate for the office of Presidency. Through a combination of tactical error and ill-fortune, Clinton is and will be (at the conclusion of the Democratic party primaries and caucuses next week) about 125-150 pledged delegates short of Senator Barack Obama.

Clinton's closing arguments -- she has won more delegates from the primaries (leave those caucuses alone), there is evidence to show that she may stronger than Obama against John McCain in the big states of Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in the general election (these are based on today's data and it is not reasonable to base the November forecast on today's data,) may be more number of popular vote, and the core constituencies of the Democratic party (e.g., catholics, women, and working class electorate) appear to be more supportive of her candidacy -- are sound and reasonable.

But we can also present several arguments -- all of which would be reasonable and plausible -- in favor of Obama's candidacy.

Therefore, at this point we can argue and debate because there are no definitive answers to any of these arguments.

At the beginning, the rules of the game were set and everyone agreed to it. The Democratic party presidential nomination will be decided by the delegates, and in this metric Senator Obama is ahead (in pledged delegates -- delegates won through elections.) Sure, the super-delegates can overturn and give the nomination to Senator Clinton. That's not unreasonable but it looks most unlikely because the super-delegates have been publicly expressing support for Senator Obama overwhelmingly.

That's where it is.

Then why not suspend the campaign? In fact, objectively Senator Clinton should have suspended the campaign after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. Why?

Clinton would have, any way, won the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries, and she would equally certainly win the Puerto Rico primaries. Wouldn't it have made Senator Clinton stronger to win these primaries as a non-candidate than as a candidate? Further, if the super-delegates and even the pledged delegates were to confront some extra-ordinary situation or revelations that render Senator Obama as not a viable candidate for the party before the convention in August, the chance that the party will turn to Senator Clinton as its standard-bearer would have not diminished (it probably would have increased) an iota.

In any case, there is a case to be made -- a strong one at that -- for Senator Clinton to complete and contest in all the Democratic party primaries. That does show her determination and strength -- she has been a fighter.

But when the last primaries are over on June 3rd, Senator Clinton should suspend her campaign and let the chips fall where they may.

So what if the Democratic party's presidential nomination does not happen in 2008? There are many good options. If Senator Obama wins the general elections in November Clinton can still seek the Presidency in 2016 -- she would only be about 68 years of age. If Obama does not win the general elections in November, Clinton is most well poised for the 2012 presidential contest. In the meantime, Clinton can continue in the U.S. Senate and/or explore other interests such as governorship of the state of New York though that it not such an attractive office.

Senator Clinton is in a good spot -- that sounds odd in the midst of the current titanic struggle but that's the truth. She has a bright political future -- but she has to tread the needle a bit gingerly now.

Clinton or Obama in Kentucky and Oregon Democratic primaries?

It is time for Kentucky and Oregon Democratic party presidential primaries tonight. Who will win those primaries -- Clinton or Obama?

Of course, there are public polls that show Clinton trouncing Obama in Kentucky, and Obama winning the Oregon primary.

But we do not require any public preference measurements, we can make the forecast based on the demographics. Elsewhere in this blog, I have asserted (with credible empirics from the current election cycle) that Obama dominates those primaries and caucuses in states where the percentage of African-American voters is very small (less than 5 percent as in Iowa or Wisconsin) or relatively large (more than 20-25 percent as in Georgia and South Carolina.) Where the African-American voters are present in the middling range -- 5 percent to about 15-20 percent -- Clinton prevails more often than not.

Demographics has been a reliable indicator thus far, and this assertion has been supported credibly. In the contests thus far, Obama has won 12 of the 15 contests in which the African-American population has been less than 5 percent, and 10 of the 11 contests in which the African-American population has been greater than 15 percent. In those 18 states where the African-American population ranges from 4%-16%, Obama has won 8, while Clinton has won 11.

What are the distributions of African-American populations in Kentucky and Oregon? 7.3 percent and 1.6 percent respectively. So Clinton will prevail in Kentucky and Obama in Oregon. We will know tonight.

Note that the hypothesis and model are postulated only for the Democratic party presidential contests between Obama and Clinton, and not for the general elections.

Time for a woman president for the U.S.? Hillary Clinton or ...?

As Hillary Clinton's contest for the Democratic party presidential nomination is becoming less likely, there is a natural and somewhat anguished question: when will a woman be the presidential nominee of one the U.S. parties let alone be the winner of the office?

I think that Hillary Clinton was and remains the most plausible candidate for securing the U.S. presidential nomination and even winning the office of presidency.

Unfortunately, Clinton has let the opportunity silp away from her in 2008 but her best efforts may not have been enough. Barack Obama has not only run a better tactical campaign (for example, Obama wisely contested all the caucus state contests while Clinton did not) but Obama is also the "person" that has met the mood of the country and time in 2008 -- just as Reagan did in 1980, and Bill Clinton did in 1992. When that happens i.e., "the candidate" is in perfect sync with the mood of the country, it is almost-impossible for any other candidate to overcome that.

However, Hillary Clinton is eminently qualified to be the President of the United States. There will be another time -- may be in 2012 or in 2016.

The New York Times has listed some potential women presidential candidates. The names are presented in the enclosed photo-graphics. Clearly, Hillary Clinton is the most credentialed person (who also happens to be a woman) for the U.S. presidency.

Indiana and North Carolina Democratic Party Presidential Nomination Primaries on May 6th

As the voters head to the polls tomorrow in the Democratic party presidential primary contests in Indiana and North Carolina and express their preferences, it is my belief that Clinton will win the Indiana primary by about 6-8 points, and Obama will win the North Carolina primary by about 10-12 points. Here is why.

In Indiana, the African-Americans are likley to be about 10% of the electorate and the whites about 90% of the electorate. Among the African-Americans, Obama is likely to secure about 85% of the votes and Clinton about 10%. That gives Obama a net gain of about 8 points from the African-American votes. Among the whites, Clinton is likely to secure about 60% of the votes and Obama about 40% of the votes. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 20 points from the white votes. So Clinton has a net overall gain of about 12 points. However, making some adjustments for age and region in Indiana it is more likely that Clinton's net advantage is likely to be about 8 points.

Let us look at it from another perspective. In all the recently released (i.e., released in the last 2-3 days) public polls, Obama's preference numbers have been in the small range of low-to-mid 40s. However, Clinton's preference numbers have varied from as low as 42 to as high as 54 -- much higher variability. In a closer examintion of the preference numbers, it appears that when the undecideds are nudged and cajoed they prefer Clinton overwhelmingly. In any case, this has been the pattern in the earlier primaries.

Take Zogby's tracking poll released today. The stated preference numbers in Indiana are 42 for Clinton and 44 for Obama. If the undecides break 70-30 in favor of Clinton (not a very unreasonable assumption given the recent history), the undecideds would give Clinton a net gain of about 6 points placing her preference number about 52-53 and Obama's number at about 47-48.

In North Carolina, the African-American vote is likely to be about 35 percent of the electorate on Tuesday. Assuming about 70 perent net advantage in the African-American vote, the overall net gain for Obama from the African-American vote is about 24 points (70 percent of 35 percent.) Assuming about 20 percent net advantage for Clinton in the white votes, the overall net gain for Clinton from the white votes is about 13 points (20 percent of 65 percent.) So the total net gain for Obama is about 11 points (24 minus 13.) Most public polls put Obama's lead in North Carolina in the high-single digits or low double-digits.

We will obviously find out tomorrow night.

Update on Tuesday, May 6th: Based on the reports of large numbers of registered republicans voting in the Democratic primary (the republicans may be mischievous or genuinely engaged -- nobody knows for certain) in Indiana, the overall turnout numbers, and Zogby's final Indiana primary tracking poll including Zogby's report that Obama did well on Monday (47-41 in favor of Obama over Clinton), it is likely that Obama could come within striking distance (within five points) of Clinton's votes and/or may even squeak past her in today's Indiana primary.

Who has a more viable path to nomination? Clinton or Obama?

Both Senators Clinton and Obama are genuinely hopeful of securing the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the presidential contest in the fall.

In a purely rational world, Obama's hope appears more reasonable -- he is leading by insurmountable margin in the delegate count, the only measure that matters to secure the party's nomination.

However, human beings do not evaluate their options (sometimes called prospects) in that simple rational frame work. Two behavior psychologists (Kahneman and Tverskey, 1979) discussed this at length and proposed a new theory to explain choices made by human beings -- the psychologists argued and showed that human beings evaluate their choices based on their own experiences and (subjective) reference frame, and not on some objective and external frame. Kalyanaram and Little (1994) demonstrated the application of this theory to marketing, particularly, to how consumers perceive pricing.

The prospect theory explains the doggedness of the Democratic party presidential nominating contest.

Clinton-Obama Democratic Party Presidential Contest: Are we seeing Bradley/Wilder Effect?

I have written about the Bradley effect. Sometimes, it is also called Bradley-Wilder effect. I wrote about this in 2003, and that piece is available on this blog.

Simply put, Bradley-Wilder effect asserts that some white voters when they reveal their political preferences state the black candidate as their preference (lest they be misconstrued to be closed-minded) in a white-black candidates race though the real preference of the said voters may be the white candidate.

So we have the situation of the publicly expressed polls overstating the support for a black candidate in a black-white candidates political race. The two political choices that are cited as examples of this effect are the 1981 California gubernatorial race between Dukemajian (white candidate) and Bradley (black candidate), and the 1989 Virgina gubernatorial race between Wilder (black candidate) and Coleman (white candidate.)

The question now is: is the Bradley-Wilder effect is still alive? And is it showing up in Obama-Clinton Democratic party presidential contest?

The most compelling data to assert that Bradley-Wilder effect may be operational comes from the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. About one in five Pennsylvania voters said the race of the candidates was among the top factors in deciding how to vote, according to exit polls, and white voters who cited race supported Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.

The polls, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the five television networks and The Associated Press, asked voters if the race of the candidate was important: 19 percent said yes, while 80 percent said no. Of those who said yes, 59 percent voted for Mrs. Clinton and 41 percent voted for Senator Barack Obama. Of those who said no, 53 percent voted for Mrs. Clinton and 47 percent voted for Mr. Obama. Broken down by race, 13 percent of whites said race was important to them, and 75 percent of those voters sided with Mrs. Clinton. Of the 66 percent of whites who said race was not important to them, 58 percent voted for her.

Further, a recent Associated Press-Yahoo News poll found that about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black president. (The actual percentage is probably higher because voters are shy about admitting a racial prejudice to pollsters.)

So are we watching Bradley-Wilder effect? May be but there are some serious confounding elements. Here is one. Unlike pre-election polls, the exit polls do not involve a "face to face" interview. Rather, the exit poll interviewer's task is to randomly select and recruit respondents, hand them a paper questionnaire, a pencil and a clipboard and allow the respondents to privately fill out the questionnaire and deposit it into a large "ballot box." (Note that the "Bradley/Wilder effect" pertained less to exit polls but to pre-election telephone surveys. The underlying theory was that white respondents were sometimes unwilling to reveal their preference for the white candidate in a bi-racial contest when they felt some "social discomfort" in doing so. That is, respondents would be less likely to reveal their true preference in a telephone interview if they believed the interviewer supported a different candidate.)

The Divide in the support of Clinton and Obama

There certainly has been very discernible divide in the electoral support of Senators Clinton and Obama in the Democratic party presidential nominating contests -- primaries and caucuses. The divide has been along many lines -- gender, race, age, level of education, level of income, and rural versus urban locale -- and some of these divides have been persistent and clear. The enclosed Decision Tree (Source: The New York Times) makes it all evident (you can click on the Decision Tree to enlarge it.)

Democratic Party Presidential Nomination Contest: A Review of the Delegate and Popular Vote Counts

After the Pennsylvania vote, it is time to update the estimated number of delegates (total of pledged delegates i.e., delegates won through elections -- primaries and caucuses, and super-delegates i.e. party officials and activists) and popular vote acquired by Senators Clinton and Obama in the Democratic party presidential nominating contest.

These -- delegates and populate votes -- counts do not include the outcomes of the primaries held in Michigan and Florida. Both Michigan and Florida violated the explicit rules set by the Democratic Party National Committee (DNC) that no state -- other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- was to hold its party presidential nomination primary or caucus before so-called Tuesday when any state could have set its elections. (Super Tuesday was semi-national primary election day. The four states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada (large Hispanic population) and South Carolina (large African-American population) -- together are considered representative of the American electorate and small enough for campaign without the need for extra-ordinary amount of resources.)

As a result of their defiance of the DNC's ruling, DNC mandated that any election would be considered null and void and asked all the presidential candidates (which included Clinton and Obama but it also included Senators Biden and Dodd, and John Edwards) not to campaign in those two states. All the candidates -- including Clinton and Obama -- consented to this. There was absolutely no campaigning. Obama and Edwards even removed their names from the ballot in Michigan (for some reason, Clinton did not.) However, Obama and Edwards (and Clinton) could not remove their names from the Florida ballot -- Florida party would not allow that.

Senator Clinton now argues that the Michigan and Florida votes should be counted but Obama says no -- so far, the Democratic Party is holding on to its rules and punishment of Michigan and Florida.

If Michigan and Florida were excluded, the the number of delegates required to win the Democratic Party's nomination is 2024. (If Michigan and Florida were included, then the majority number would be approximately 2208.)

The following estimates of delegates vary some because the estimates from the caucus results and the the commitments of super-delegates are just estimates with opportunity for slightly different interpretations and counts.

Delegate Counts without Florida and Michigan
NBC: Obama 1,727, Clinton 1,594
ABC: Obama 1,721, Clinton 1,586
CNN:Obama 1,719, Clinton 1,586
CBS:Obama 1,715, Clinton 1,585
AP: Obama 1,714, Clinton 1,589
So Obama leads by about 130 delegates.

Delegate counts with Florida and Michigan (approximation)
Obama 1960-65, Clinton 1925-1930
If Florida and Michigan primaries were honored as they were conducted with no adjustments, Obama would only lead by about 30-35 delegates (Clinton would lead by about 95-100 delegates when the approximately 380 Michigan and Florida delegates are counted, i.e. the approximate delegate counts would be about 1960 for Obama and about 1925-30 for Clinton.)

And now to the estimates of popular votes under various scenarios.
Popular Vote Total without MI and FL and without caucus popular votes
Obama 14,417,134(49.2%), Clinton 13,916,781(47.5%), Obama +500,353(+1.7%)
Estimate without MI and FL but with w/IA, NV, ME, WA caucus popular vote
Obama 14,751,218(49.3%), Clinton 14,140,643(47.2%), Obama +610,575(+2.1%)
Popular Vote (w/FL) but no caucus popular votes
Obama 14,993,348(48.3%), Clinton 14,787,767(47.6%), Obama +205,581(+0.7%)
Estimate with FL and w/IA, NV, ME, WA caucus popular votes

And now we provide numbers from Michigan primary too. But this is seriously problematic because Clinton is given about 328,000 votes (because her name was on the ballot) and Obama is given zero (because the rest of votes went to "uncommitted" as Obama's name was not even on the ballot.)
Obama 15,327,432(48.4%), Clinton 15,011,629(47.4%), Obama +315,803(+1.0%)
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI) but no caucus popular votes
Obama 14,993,348(47.4%), Clinton 15,116,076(47.8%), Clinton +122,728(+0.4%)
Estimate with FL and MI, and w/IA, NV, ME, WA , and caucus popular votes
Obama 15,327,432(47.5%), Clinton 15,339,938(47.5%), Clinton +12,506 (+0.04%)

In summary, even with the disputed Florida popular votes included Obama leads Clinton. However, only when Michigan is included (where Obama is given zero votes) Clinton leads Obama narrowly.

An update on Pennsylvania Democratic Party Primary

Here is my update on Pennsylvania Democratic primary.

The latest and final round of reliable public polls seem to affirm that Senator Clinton is leading by about 6-7 points. Rasmussen and Survey USA polls both of which use automated calls, show 5-6 points lead for Senator Clinton. Mason-Dixon and Zogby (tracking) polls, both which use live interviews, also show5-6 points for Senator Clinton. There are other polls (American Research Group, Quinnipiac, Strategic Vision and SuffolkUniversity) that show a range 7-13 points lead for Senator Clinton, and one of them -- just one of them i.e. Public Policy Polling (PPP) -- shows Senator Obama leading by about 3 points, 49-46 (PPP has been quite reliable, and it was both in direction and magnitude correct in its final polled forecasts in Ohio and Texas.)

There are reports that suggest that Senator Clinton's (own) internal polling suggests a 11-points lead for her. Further, Senator Clinton has just released a last-minute political advertisement that is dark and wonders on the imponderables, -- it even has an image of Osama bin Laden -- and asks the question, "Who do you think what it takes?" This is a sterner version of Clinton's (really, Mondale's 1984) celebrated 3 am advertisement that saturated the Ohio and Texas markets and that was considered responsible for Obama's unexpected loss in Texas and a larger magnitude of loss in Ohio.

So a substantial (7-9 points) Clinton victory appears likely. However, there are tow huge caveats. First is a comparative (empirical) observation about the publicly measured preference of votes and the movement of this preference in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Examining just the averages of the polls in the days leading up to the primaries, Senator Clinton led in Ohio by about 5 percent (47.8 to 42.4) with three days to go. And this average lead of about 5 points persisted at least for about 4 days before we started seeing an uptick for Senator Clinton. With three days to go, Clinton's average support grew from 47.8 to 50.1 -- a statistically significant 2.3 percent increase. In the same time-period, Obama's support remained flat -- the final number being 43.0 which was statistically insignificant. So there was a clear, statistical uptick in support for Clinton in the last three days and the upward trend carried over to the election day with the final tally providing Clinton with a 10-points victory margin.

However, in Pennsylvania the numbers just don't show that trend. For the last 4-5 days, the average lead for Senator Clinton has been about 5 points (average support of about 47.5 to 42.2.) However, today -- with one day to go -- Senator Clinton's support has edged from 47.5 to 49.0 -- a significant gain of 1.5 percent. However, Obama's support too has edged upward today from 42.2 to 43.6 -- about 1.4 percent increase, the same magnitude of increase as observed for Clinton. So the differential appears to be stable, and we don't quite yet see the electorate breaking in favor of Clinton.

Second, the registration of substantial number of new voters and their distribution in the various regions of Pennsylvania tilts the field in favor of Obama. This is best analyzed by Jeanne Cummings of Politico as abstracted below.

"It's clear that a disproportionate share of the 300,000 new Democratic voters this year are young, and they're underrepresented in opinion surveys because pollsters don't have their cell-phone numbers. People under 34 represent 25 percent of the state's Democratic electorate, but they're only 7 percent of the likely voters in the Daily News/Franklin & Marshall poll that showed Clinton up by 6 percentage points.

According to the Secretary of State’s office, since January about 217,000 new voters have registered for the April 22 primary, the vast majority of whom signed up as Democrats. In Philadelphia, by far the state’s largest city, more than 12,000 new Democrats were added to the rolls in the final week before the March registration deadline, compared to just 509 Republicans.

That statewide Democratic surge has been accompanied by a flood of party-switching. More than 178,000 voters have changed their party status since January — and the Democrats have captured 92 percent of those voters. In Delaware County, a Philadelphia suburb once home to a storied Republican machine, nearly 14,000 voters have switched their party affiliation to Democratic since January compared to just 768 who became Republicans.

A poll of those switchers and new registrants released by Madonna last week found that Obama was the preferred candidate for 62 percent of them. Clinton insiders said they are also bracing for the same 60-40 split among newly registered Democrats. Depending on turnout, Madonna (of Franklin and Marshall) said, those newcomers could help Obama cut a Clinton victory margin by 2 to 3 percentage points and keep her below a double-digit win that would breath new life into the hard-fought race.

For instance, about 143,400 Democratic newcomers – including newly registered and party switchers — are in Philadelphia and its suburbs. Those numbers could help Obama rack up big margins in what is considered his strongest turf. About 28,400 of them are in or around Pittsburgh, an urban area Clinton needs to counter Obama’s Philly support. Another 30,000 of them hail from the generally smaller, conservative counties in the state’s northwest and southwest, a region that Clinton is hoping to draw Reagan Democrats back to the party and to her cause.

Finally, the Clinton-friendly sections of central Pennsylvania are now home to more than 70,000 of the Democrats’ new recruits, including more than 6,000 in Centre County which is home to Penn State University. An area where Obama and Clinton are likely to battle for voters is the state’s northeast corridor. Those ten counties, ranging from Carbon to Wyoming, have recorded more than 40,000 newly registered Democrats and party switchers. In Lehigh County, for instance, Clinton is expected to have an edge in working-class Allentown. But Obama could tap a vein of votes from the host of small universities and liberal arts colleges based in the county. "

Update on Tuesday, April 22 morning (9 am). Based on a flurry of additional polls (new Insider Advantage and Zogby polls among others), I can now report that there is now a more discernible uptick in the average measure of the preferences for Senator Clinton than for Senator Obama since yesterday. Clinton's average preference has grown from 47.6 to 49.3, and Obama's from 42.3 to 43.3 -- a statistically significant difference of 0.7 percent in the upward tick. Further, the trend estimator from the polls of last two days now shows a lead of about 6.6 points for Senator Clinton as against a lead of about 5.3 points on Sunday. The possibilities from the new registrations and the voter turnout still remain.

Pennsylvania Democratic Primary: What might be the outcome?

What might be the outcome of the Pennsylvania Democratic party contest between Senators Clinton and Obama? Here is a look at some data.

Basic demographics (larger percentage of electorate that is older, catholic and without any college-education, and in general similar to Ohio) provides a structural advantage to Senator Clinton. In the democratic primary contests this year, demographics have been substantial explanatory variables.

Apart from the basic structural demographic advantage, there are at least two other significant events that strengthen Clinton's appeal. First, the offensive comments by Obama's pastor Reverend Wright and Obama's own less-than artful articulation of the angst of the small-town American citizens. Second, amplification and illumination of these issues in the debate among the candidates on April 16th.

Based on all the public polling data available, it appears that Clinton is leading Obama about 48-43 with about 10 percent of the electorate remains undecided. (And in almost all the polls Obama has so far earned about 40-44 percent of the support but Clinton has consistently earned in the high 40s and lows 50s.) If the undecideds break 60-40 in favor of Clinton, she could win the primary with about 7-8 points margin. Since, so far in the democratic primaries (in 20 out of 27 contests) the late-deciders have broken in favor of Clinton (the structural and events-driven issues are stacked in favor of Clinton in Pennsylvania), it would be reasonable to assume that Clinton will secure at least 60% of the late-breakers, may be even more.

There has been a down turn in Obama's support (both nationally, see Gallup tracking poll and in Pennsylvania, see Zogby tracking poll) since the debate on April 16th. The debate appears to have crystallized some of the allegations (fairly or unfairly) against Obama.

In sum, Clinton should win the Pennsylvania primary and by at least about 7-8 points. Most likely by about 10-12 points unless Clinton's voters -- Catholics, blue-collar workers and older voters do not turn up at the polls and conversely, Obama's voters -- African-Americans, voters with college education, and very liberal voters turn up in very large numbers. A final point -- the Pennsylvania Democratic party primary is a closed primary i.e. the independents cannot vote in the primary unlike some other state primaries, and one of Obama's strength has been independent voters. However, slice the Pennsylvania pie it just does not compute well for Obama.

U.S. Presidential preference analyses based on level of education

The 2008 November U.S. Presidential elections may be quite different if Barack Obama is the Democratic party nominee. (We now know that John McCain is the presumptive Republican party nominee.) And here is one reason why.

Traditionally, the proportion of support for the Democratic party presidential candidate rises as the level of education decreases. Conversely, the proportion of support for the Republican party presidential candidate increases as the level of education level increases. This pattern has been robust and significant at least over the last 8-10 presidential elections. (Since level of education and income are highly correlated, the patterns of support for income have been similar to education levels.)

However, Gallup poll has discovered an interesting finding in its recent presidential preference survey data. In its April 10th report, Gallup Organization (based on 6,158 interviews with registered voters between March 31-April 6 with a 1-point error margin) found that both Obama and McCain were preferred by 45% of the electorate.

But among a sample of 1,440 voters (with a 3-point error margin) with a high school education or less, McCain had 46 percent to Obama's 40 percent -- a deviation from the traditional model of support. In comparison, Clinton had 48 percent to McCain's 43 percent among this sample -- consistent with the earlier patterns of support in presidential elections.

Further, among a sample of 1,936 registered voters (with a 2-point error margin) with some college, but no four-year degree, Obama got 46 percent to McCain's 45 percent. (In McCain-Clinton choice, the numbers were 49 percent to 44 percent.) Furthermore, in a sample of 1,388 registered voters (with a 3-point error margin) with a four-year college degree but no postgraduate education, Obama and McCain were tied at 46 percent (as against, 51% for McCain and 41% for Clinton.)

And, finally, among a sample of 1,350 registered voters (3-point margin of error)with some postgraduate education, Obama had 52 percent to McCain's 42 percent (as against, 48% for McCain and 45% for Clinton.)

Gallup's April 10th report is a confirmation of other similar findings in surveys measuring presidential preference. Among voters with no college education, voters prefers Clinton to McCain in Clinton-McCain match up, and McCain to Obama in Obama-McCain match-up. Among voters with some college education, McCain is preferred when matched against Clinton but it is Obama when it is McCain-Obama.

Clearly, thus, the pattern of support is predictable (and consistent with historical data)in a match-up between Clinton and McCain but not so in a match-up between Obama and McCain. So the churning and uncertainty will be greater with Obama's candidacy. Of course, who (Democratic or Republican party presidential candidate)will benefit from the new pattern of support if it persists into November is not clear? How will this translate into competition for electors is not clear? But it looks like that change and uncertainty are certain outcomes in a McCain-Obama match-up.

Estimates of number of delegates acquired by Clinton and Obama

The estimated number of delegates acquired by Obama and Clinton through elections (primaries and caucuses, called pledged delegates) and commitments of appointed delegates (called super-delegates.) There is no complete certitude to the numbers because the exact numbers of delegates are not yet allocated in the various caucus elections (those numbers are not likely to be finalized till June), and the commitments of super-delegates are not verified independently.

The estimates by the various news organizations are as follows. The total number of estimated delegates are shown as sum of pledged and super-delegates in the parantheses.
NBC: Obama 1,640 (1,416+224), Clinton 1,507 (1,252+255)
CNN: Obama 1,629 (1,414+215), Clinton 1,486 (1,243+243)
CBS: Obama 1,627 (1,409+218), Clinton 1,492 (1,243+249)

These numbers do not include the disputed elections in Florida and Michigan. Without counting Florida and Michigan, 2024 represents the majority of the total possible delegate acquisition. So 2024 assures nomination as the Democratic party's candidate for the presidential contest against the Republican nominee, John Macain, in November.

Delegate Count -- Democratic Party Presidential Nominating Contest

Here are statistics as they stand today -- April 3rd -- relating to pledged delegates and super delegates in the contest to elect the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.
(Pledged delegates are those elected on behalf a candidate through a primary or a caucus or both as in Texas. Super delegates are those assigned by the Democratic party with a vote -- these are Democratic party elected officials and party activists.)

Current estimates (based on the elections and commitments made thus far) are as follows. For Senator Clinton, the numbers are: Pledged delegates 1252 , Super delegates 251 and the total is 1503. For Senator Obama the corresponding numbers are 1414, 221 and 1635 respectively.

The projected numbers of pledged delegates from the next ten nominating contests are (based on the assumption that Senator Clinton would win 60% of the delegates from Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico, and Senator Obama would North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana by about the same margin, and that Indiana would be a near-draw) are 305 and 290.

So at the end of all the nominating contests, the total numbers of delegates would be at about 1925 and 1808 for Senators Obama and Clinton. Of course, all this leaves out Florida and Michigan because nothing is clear at this point.

If 2024 is magic number, then Obama needs another 100 delegates and Clinton needs about 220 delegates from the current pool of about 350 uncommitted super-delegates.

So Obama's path appears clearly more plausible. Based on the last two months rate of commitment of the super delegates, it is more likely that Obama secures the commitment of at least 55 percent of the remaining delegates. If that were the case, that would leave about 75-100 surplus delegates in Obama's corner. At that point, Obama can agree to even seat the Florida and Michigan delegations based on the disputed elections because those states would give only about 50-60 additional delegates to Senator Clinton, and that would not be enough to overturn Obama's majority. That dispute will just melt away. This is a likely scenario.

The Role of African-American vote in the Democratic Party Primaries

The Democratic party presidential primaries have produced an enigmatic phenomenon.

In predominantly white electorate states (where the African-American electorate is less than 5 percent) such as Iowa and Wisconsin, Senator Obama has drawn large percentage of the White electorate votes -- large enough (more than 40 percentage of the votes) to win those primary elections handily.

Similarly, in primaries with very large African-American electorate (20 percent and more) and even larger African-American vote participation (25 percent and more) such as South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana, Senator Obama again has won handily -- but this time with significantly smaller share (less than 30 percent) of the participating white votes and overwhelming support from very large percentage from the African-American votes. The participation of the African-American electorate in these states was over 40 percent.

And then, in states (e.g. Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Ohio) with moderate percentage of African-American electorate and votes Senator Obama has not been able to draw enough white electorate votes to overcome only a modest percentage (15 - 30 percent) from the African-American vote.

The empirics suggest that the relationship between the probability of Senator Obama's victory in a democratic primary election and the percentage of the African-American population and vote is a U-shaped function.

The US Presidential Elections: The timing of the choice of party's nominee

Lately, there have been several assertions that when the Presidential nominee of a party is decided in the party's convention that the leaves that party vulnerable and the nominee always loses in the fall general elections. However, this argument is premised on weak evidence.

The Democratic party's decisions in 1968 and 1980 and the Republican party's decision in 1976 are cited as supporting evidence.

Here is the problem with the cited evidence. Of course, the nominee was decided in the party conventions those years. But there were also very serious exogenous events in each one of those years. And I think that those exogenous events are more powerful explanatory variables than the timing of the decision of the party nominee.

In 1968, the Democratic party's convention turned to be a dog-fight, and riven with war/anti-war hostilities. The whole spectacle was a turn off for the electorate. Even then, Hubert Humphrey lost to Richard Nixon by less than 1 percent of the votes cast (i.e. the difference of less than 600,000 votes.)

In 1976, the Republican party's convention did not have any of the ugliness of the 1968 Democratic party convention. In fact, the fight between Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford while spirited was dignified. Ford lost to Carter, 48% to 50%. However, Ford had to carry the impossible burden of Watergate scandal and his pardon President Richard Nixon into the campaign -- and that was clearly more determinative of the outcome than the timing of decision of party nominee.

In 1980, Senator Edward Kennedy challenged President Jimmy Carter for party's nomination. Sure, that fight was more personal than the Reagan-Ford fight of 1976. But clearly the national humiliation caused by the Iran hostages, and incredible economic suffering caused by staggering inflation and unemployment [the misery index in 1980 was about 20 -- the inflation rate over 12 percent and unemployment rate over 7 percent] were more determinative of the electoral outcome.

So in each cited case, there was an exogenous factor that was more determinative of the electoral outcome than the timing of the choice of the party nominee.