The Political Chase

A closer look at ‘popular’ and ‘overall’ votes

Greg Sargent at TPM has referenced a finding in the ABC News/Washington Post poll released today that merits discussion.

First, let me say I think the folks at TPM do a great job and more importantly provide a valuable service. I don’t want anyone to infer I am bashing Greg or TPM. The Democratic primary has generated a lot of harsh remarks between progressive blogs that historically have had relatively common themes and fundamental purposes. I applaud Josh Marshall for not taking aim at other progressive blogs when he has had more than enough justification to do so. My point here is to offer a different perspective and to illustrate how the interpretation of polls can be misleading, including my own. Candidates frequently and intentionally reference polling data inaccurately to accommodate whatever spin they’re trying to push.

The title of Greg’s post is "Poll: Plurality Thinks Super-Delegates Should Back Winner Of Popular Vote" and he focused on Question No. 18 in the poll (pdf -page 16). Following are the question asked and the results

18. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) The Democratic nomination may be decided by so-called "super delegates" who can pick any candidate they choose. Do you think the super delegates should support the candidate who won the most (delegates) in primaries and caucuses; the candidate who won the most (overall votes); or the candidate they think is best, regardless of either delegate or vote totals?

This is Greg’s comment (emphasis added):

The Hillary campaign is clinging to the hope that she’ll somehow be able to eek out a long shot popular vote win, and support here appears stronger for the idea that the popular vote is the metric super-dels should use.

Obama, of course, is on track to win both the delegate count and the popular vote, and the total support voiced here for supporting either of those is 59% — far higher than the 37% saying super-dels should exercise their own judgment.

I know I am getting way down in the weeds on this issue, but as Greg rightfully noted, this is the very thing Hillary Clinton will attempt to exploit and exaggerate ad nauseam. Therefore, I believe it is important voters can discern between what they may be told and reality.

First, the poll does not define "overall votes." Although, "popular vote" is strongly implied in the question, and Greg seems to have reasonably inferred it that way given his comment. It is important to remember "popular vote" in the Democratic nomination process does not in any way include or is influenced by the number of people that participated in caucuses. It only reflects the number of votes in states that had actual primary elections, and there were many states that only held caucuses.

There is no evidence in the poll’s documentation that suggests the pollster clarified "popular overall vote" to the respondents. Therefore, one has to question how many people were cognizant of that fact and took it into consideration when they answered the question. I can’t prove it, but I instinctively believe many respondents, if not the majority, would not have known what "overall votes" really means. Without further evidence to the contrary, one can only reasonably conclude there is a certain amount of latitude in the "overall votes" response.

There may be an exception or fault in my logic. The poll’s margin of error may account for any misinterpretation of "overall votes." But the poll’s documentation does not give any indication how margin of error was determined. Therefore, in my opinion, it is better to err on the conservative side and assume no provision was made for misinterpretation of the specific term.

Second, although Greg accurately states "plurality" in the title of his post, his comment, in my opinion, is more indicative of a majority than a plurality. Greg writes,"support here appears stronger for the idea that the popular vote is the metric super-dels should use." From my perspective a majority is out of the question and plurality is reasonably debatable.

The definition of plurality, as applied here, is:

In a contest of more than two choices, the number of votes cast for the winning choice if this number is not more than one half of the total votes cast.

When considering the margin of error (+/- 3), the four percent that had "no opinion," and the possibility of respondents misinterpreting overall or popular votes, it is not reasonable to conclude overall votes, as determined by this poll, is valid for for any substantive argument. But as Greg appropriately predicted, Hillary Clinton will likely reference this or other similar data to make an incredulous argument that she must be crowned the party’s nominee.

To be a fly on the wall

I would have dearly loved the opportunity to just listen to Pope Benedict’s conversation with George Bush today. They reportedly had a a private conversation, but Bush’s "private conversations" almost always include Darth Vader. So, I wonder which president the Pope met with. Who knows, maybe both.

The pope and the president had a private meeting in the Oval Office after the public ceremony. The White House issued a statement afterward saying the two “devoted considerable time in their discussions” to the Middle East, particularly resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict, as well as “their common concern for the situation in Iraq and particularly the precarious state of Christian communities there and elsewhere in the region.” The pope has in the past expressed his opposition to the war.

Weighing the Court’s decision

Capital punishment is a highly controversial topic. And decisions like the Supreme Court made today are profound reminders to voters that they should carefully weigh their decisions about presidential candidates.

In a widely splintered decision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for death-row executions to resume across the country, concluding that the most common method of lethal injection does not violate the Constitution. The final vote was 7-2 in Baze v. Rees (07-5439), although there was no opinion that spoke for five or more Justices.  The Court’s plurality adopted as a standard for assessing the validity of an execution method whether it poses a “substantial risk of serious harm.” It rejected the death row inmate’s proposal that the standard be “unnecessary risk.”

Justice John Paul Stevens will be 88 on Sunday. Also,  I’ve heard several sources say Justice Ginzberg is anxiously waiting the results of the election. She is 75. 

I’m embarrased to admit it — I know what type of justice John McCain would appoint, but I haven’t a clue what Obama or Clinton would do.

Hillary going full-tilt negative

Of course no one can say for sure until after the Pennsylvania primary, but this negative strategy seems to fly in the face of the overwhelming narrative conveyed in the poll released today.

In most of Pennsylvania’s markets, the only TV ad Hillary is running right now is a negative one — the spot hitting Obama over his “small town” comments, a political ad buyer who tracks buys in Pennsylvania tells [Josh Marshall].

The buyer says that as of this morning, that ad — and no positive spots — are running in the Pittsburgh, Erie, Johnstown/Altoona, and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton markets.

Moreover, it appears Clinton agrees with Doug Schoen’s (former Mark Penn partner) advice to abandon her “purely positive campaign.” I’m sure Schoen is considerably more knowledgeable than I am about such matters, but I thought Clinton abandoned anything remotely related to “positive” months ago.

Dems see Obama more electable 2 to 1

More interesting data from the ABC News/Washington Post poll. Sixty-two percent of Democrats consider Barack Obama as more electable in the general election, while only 31 percent consider Hillary Clinton as the more electable candidate.

On the eve of their debate before the Pennsylvania primary next week, Democrats by a 2-1 margin, 62-31 percent, now see Obama as better able to win in November – a dramatic turn from February, when Clinton held a scant 5-point edge on this measure, and more so from last fall, when she crushed her opponents on electability.

Click image to enlarge

Hillary approaching Bush trust level

This will certainly bolster Sen. Clinton’s electability claims. She’s rapidly approaching George Bush’s ttrustworthiness level.

Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton - washingtonpost.com

Clinton is viewed as “honest and trustworthy” by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.

Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006; among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent. Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent. Majorities of men and women now say the phrase does not apply to Clinton; two years ago, narrow majorities of both did.

But just wait for Clinton to start decrying the poll as sexist and baseless since two-thirds of men said Clinton was not honest. It won’t matter that 53 percent of women shared the same view.

In light of this, I can’t wait to see how Clinton handles herself in tonight’s debate on ABC.

Rule of law, So!

Looseheadprop at FDL has a post today about an assertion of power and authority by the Bush administration that is so incredible, not even suspension of disbelief can keep one from being shocked to the core, or at least not me. Reviewing an analysis Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) did of John Yoo’s memos, Loosehead highlights two of Sheldon’s findings. One assertion the Bush administration made is remarkably incredulous, but the second is beyond shocking.

The first finding:

[T]he good Senator launched into the topic of the Yoo memos. He had several great pickups. For example: that definiton of torture Yoo used, you know “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure ….”, that one? Do you know where it comes from? 42 USC Section 1395w-22, a Medicare reimbursement statute! I kid you not.

And how did we get to the point where the highly respected Office of Legal Counsel was using Medicare reimbursement statutes – statutes utterly irrelevant to the interrogation of suspected terrorists – to justify its legal analysis on this issue?

Making matters worse, this “legal analysis” was used to justify the legality of a certain coercive interrogation technique that regrettably has become familiar to us all, “water-boarding.”

As outlandish as that is, it pales in comparison to this finding.

1) An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it;
2) The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II; and
3) The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

It was bad enough when Richard Nixon made the statement: "If the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” But the Bush administration had the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel sanction Nixon’s statement, in essence, under the law, and thereby govern the nation accordingly.

Read Looseheadprop’s post.