AS is pointing out that Ohio has just certified its votes, or whatever.
This has prompted me to do my own tables, rather than rely on other sources. Besides, you never really get a handle on the figures until you run them yourself, most often.
Here's my breakdown:
| Contest Type / Category | Obama | Clinton | Lead / (Trail) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primaries, States | 15,542,649 | 15,069,799 | 472,850 |
| MI, FL Adj; MI BHO=23% | 713,009 | 1,199,295 | -486,286 |
| memo: MI Adj: BHO=29% | 38,660 | ||
| Tally, adjusted: | 16,255,658 | 16,269,094 | 25,224 |
| Projections: | 861,491 | 1,007,999 | -146,509 |
| Subtotal, Tally & Projected | 17,117,149 | 17,277,093 | -121,285 |
| Caucuses, States & D.C. | 437,810 | 184,153 | 253,657 |
| IA, ME, NV, WA Adj | 253,948 | 186,934 | 67,013 |
| Tally: | 691,758 | 371,087 | 320,670 |
| Caucus-to-Primary Adj | 560,845 | ||
| Tally, adjusted: | 881,515 | ||
| Caucuses & Primaries, Territories | 19,371 | 10,070 | 9,301 |
| Projections (Puerto Rico remains) | 768,800 | 1,153,200 | -384,400 |
| Subtotal, Tally & Projected | -375,099 | ||
| Grand Total | 385,132 |
*note the Michigan memo figure is a net figure (the difference between the two differences), so that can be added/subtracted with the other numbers in the columns, for ease of sensitivity analysis. IA, WA, NV, ME have to be estimated separately, because the state party didn't report a popular vote breakdown. A Gory Details DIY
Projections
| State | Total voters | Clinton Margin |
|---|---|---|
| West Virginia | 408,750 | 35% |
| Kentucky | 498,400 | 20% |
| Oregon | 735,540 | -10% |
| Puerto Rico | 1,922,000 | 20% |
| Montana | 121,800 | -10% |
| South Dakota | 105,000 | -10% |
Hopefully, these are 'conservative', in that I'm using fairly wide margins and high turnout for PR.
The WV margin could be as high as 40%, or another 20K on my turnout guesstimate.
'Anything could happen' seems most likely if the Obama campaign somehow fell off the boat on Puerto Rico issues, perhaps.
The only other place for real controversy with my figures is that the caucus-to-primary figures put Obama Washington vote quite a bit higher than the non-binding WA primary (by about 155K). Frankly, both estimates have their problems, and one might just split the difference among quibblers, about (-70K for Obama). Turnout in the non-binding primary was quite a lot lower than in the binding primaries, and that's a plain indicator that such primaries are ... biased.
