Educated estimate of the "caucus" vote

[George II]

There have been lots of complaints that Clinton isn't ahead by 2.5M votes because caucus votes aren't included.

Being a numbers guy, I thought I'd take a stab at estimating the number of votes that each candidates have gotten in the caucuses.

Based on state population, in the primary states roughly 9% have voted in the Democratic primaries. Using that number, and the % of votes that Sanders and Clinton have gotten in each of the caucus states we can calculate the actual votes cast for each.

So, I took Population X .09 to get a rough estimate of voters, and then multiplied that by each candidate's %.

For example, in Iowa there are 3,107,126 people, so at a 9% turnout (average over all primary states) 279,641 people voted. Of that Clinton got 142,617 and Sanders 137,024 (Clinton won 51-49%)

Doing that for all caucus states, Sanders got 2,078,000 votes and Clinton 1,200,000. This will reduce Clinton's popular vote lead by about 880,000, bringing Clinton's overall lead to 1.7M votes.

So, the 2.5M number is high, but Clinton still has gotten a significant number of votes more than Sanders.

In fact, if one were to look at both % of popular vote and % of pledged delegates, they're remarkably similar:

Pledged delegates - Clinton 54.4 to Sanders 45.5 (1310 - 1094)
Popular vote - Clinton 54.4 to Sanders 45.6 (10,365,000 - 8,685,000)

Finally, based on this I'd say the DNC's allocation of delegates in each state and the way they're allocated by vote is pretty damned accurate!

[BlueMTexpat]

1. Thanks for your estimates, GII!

Hillary is still ahead by a significant margin.

[George II]

3. That's basically the bottom line - overall she's gotten 10% more of the vote than her opponent.

In a General Election, that would be a landslide.

[Cha]

2. K&R for your numbers, George.. thank you!

Doesn't matter if she got less votes than 2.5 Million.. she's still winning and hopefully she'll add millions more before this is done.

[anotherproletariat]

4. I think you're overestimating the caucus vote.

Looking at the Washington State Democratic Party webpage, for instance...they estimate a turnout of 230,000. The population of WA is just over 7 million. That works out to 3.3%. The caucus states in general have a much lower turnout than primary states, so that makes Sanders numbers even worse.

[George II]

12. Correct, but engineers (me) do that - this is probably a worst-case situation, the overall turnout..

...in caucus states generally is lower than primary states due to the logistics and investment of time.

Chances are the votes in the caucus states, as you point out, was much lower. But it certainly wasn't higher than this estimate, which still resulted in almost 2 million more votes for Clinton.

[Thinkingabout]

5. The states where caucuses have been are usually smaller populations than states such as Illnois and

Texas, no the caucus states do not normally out do the states who have used voting. It is great for Sanders to have the caucus states, then accept the fact it does dot produce high vote numbers.

[George II]

13. Yes, most of the states he's won have been relatively small (rural) states. To put ....

...into perspective the relative sizes of the states each has won:

Clinton has won 18 states with a total population of 166 million. Sanders has won 16 states with a total population of 53 million.

So much for "the will of the people"!

[Thinkingabout]

14. It's do the math.

[LiberalFighter]

6. Iowa

Many precincts were delayed in reporting the Democratic results, but early Tuesday morning, the Iowa Democratic Party announced that 171,109 Iowans participated in its caucuses. That's a fall from 2008, which saw 239,000 vote in the Democratic caucuses throughout the state. 2016, however, is a dramatic improvement on 2012, when numbers dwindled to 25,000.

[LiberalFighter]

7. Nevada

The picture is similar across the board. In Nevada's caucuses, 84,000 Democrats turned out to vote--a nearly 30-percent drop from 2008, when 118,000 Democrats caucused. In New Hampshire, just over 250,000 Democrats turned out, compared with 288,000 in 2008 (a 13-percent drop). In the Iowa caucuses, turnout fell from about 240,000 to just over 171,000 (a decline of just under 30 percent).

[LiberalFighter]

8. Colorado

After record-breaking crowds at Democratic caucuses in Colorado on Super Tuesday—more than 121,000 voters participated—and poor turnout at Republican caucuses (the party did away with the presidential preference poll last year, which likely kept voters away), some Democratic and Republican officials are saying it’s time to bring back the primary.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Maine

Maine Democratic Party chair Phil Bartlett tweeted late Sunday that more than 47,000 attended caucuses, an "unprecedented" number. The previous record, set in 2008, was roughly 44,000 caucus-goers, the Portland Press Herald reports.

[LiberalFighter]

10. Idaho

Bernie Sanders soundly defeated Hillary Clinton in Tuesday’s Idaho Democratic caucus, winning across the state by margins as high as 4-1 in a turnout that easily surpassed the previous record year of 2008.

Statewide results gave Sanders 18,640 votes, or 78 percent, to Clinton’s 5,065 votes, 21 percent.

[LiberalFighter]

11. Basing the numbers on a state's population or even registered voters would not work.

If a state is really blue it would be different from one that is really red.