Count WHOSE Vote 2.0

ABSTRACT: Based on available exit polling from states that held primary elections, while Obama dominates the "Independent" voter, Hillary Clinton actually does slightly better among "Moderate" voters— and this is even more true in crucial swing states. The data suggests that a more comprehensive review of all such "electability" factors is required.

Data tables and an explanation of the methodology employed can be found here.

* * *

This study is based on exit polling data from primary states. With regard to Michigan, all "uncommitted" voters are treated as if they had voted for Barack Obama. "Swing states" consist of those states not identified as either "Safely Democratic" or "Safely Republican" as of 2/20/08 by Rasmussen Reports for which data is available (NH, AR, DE, FL, MI, MO, NJ, NM, WI, VA). ¹ There is an appendix that includes information regarding states that held primaries but for which exit polling data is not available (WA, DC), and data from caucus states where exit polling data is available (IA, NV).

The media, and the Obama campaign, have endlessly hyped Barack Obama's appeal to "Independent" voters. A search of Google News at 8:00 AM EST on February 23 for "'Barack Obama', 'independent voters'" turns up 2490 hits for the last month, for "'Hillary Clinton', 'independent voters'" the number of hits is 1299. But almost no attention has been paid to the crucial "Moderate" voter demographic. A "'Barack Obama', 'moderate voters'" Google News search finds just 54 hits during the same month-long period, "'Hillary Clinton', 'moderate voters" also turns up 54 hits.

Yet exit polling data reveals that the "Moderate" demographic is much larger than "Independents". And there is no correlation between the voting patterns of "Independents" and "Moderates". And "Moderate" voter are the key constituency that will be crucial in swing states in November.

Independents and moderates

"Independent" itself is a meaningless term. It includes the entire ideological spectrum: people on the ends of the ideological spectrum who think the Democrats are too conservative or the Republicans too liberal, people who share some views with both parties but can identify with neither of them, and people whose views are consistent with a party, but just don't want to be "labeled." It also includes those who consider themselves "Moderates," people who think that the Democrat party is too liberal, and the GOP too conservative.

"Moderate," however, is meaningful, especially given the choices that those polled were given ("Very Liberal", "Somewhat Liberal", "Moderate", "Somewhat Conservative", and "Very Conservative"). And while there is doubtless some variation in how each individual defines a "Moderate" (the average Rhode Island "Moderate" is probably more liberal than the average "Moderate" from Utah), that variability is not truly significant—especially when the general election is winner-take-all in each state.

Moderates also make up a much larger part of the electorate than Independents, both in the Democratic primaries, and in the 2004 general election. In the primary states so far, Independents have made up 19.2% of the voters, while Moderates made up more than twice that (39.1%). In the 2004 general election, 26% of voters were Independents, while 45% identified themselves as Moderates.

Yet, ever since the Iowa caucuses, the media has been obsessed with Obama's success among "Independent" voters, and completely ignored the "Moderate" demographic.

The contrast between each candidate's "Independent" support, and their "Moderate" support, is striking. While Obama received 54.2% of the "Independents" in primary states, he received only 46.7% of the "Moderate" vote. But despite far less "Independent" support (36.2%) than Obama, Clinton managed to outpoll him (47.8%) by a small margin (1.1%) among moderates.

And while Obama maintains his strong advantage among Independents in crucial swing states, Clinton (with 49.2%) does even better relative to Obama (with 44.5%) among "Moderates" in the those states. In "safe states" Obama holds a slight lead over Clinton among "Moderates" (Obama 47.8%, Clinton 47.1%).

Skewed Perceptions due to post-Super Tuesday results

But even these numbers don't tell the true story of Clinton's superior appeal to moderates, because of a gross miscalculation by the Clinton campaign. It is clear that the Clinton camp was too focused on November, and ensuring that voter in key states knew who she was, and what she stood for, and depended upon momentum from convincing wins in those states to do well in the states that voted the next Saturday and Tuesday and from there to victory. The Obama campaign, recognizing that this left her vulnerable in "safe" Republican states, put much more effort into those states, and the states that followed Super Tuesday.

The contrast between what happened on Super Tuesday and what happened since then is staggering, and provides stark evidence that it was the campaign strategy, and not any better intrinsic appeal of Obama over Clinton, that has lead to Obama's recent string of stunning victories.

Total Popular Vote Margins

Super Tuesday: Clinton +1.5%

Post Super Tuesday—Obama +22.5% (with DC +23.5%)

Total Popular Vote Margins in Swing States

Super Tuesday: Clinton +9.1% (without Arkansas 2 +4.2%)

Post Super Tuesday—Obama +22.4%

All Moderate Voters Margins

Super Tuesday: Clinton +4.5%

Post Super Tuesday—Obama +24.4 %

Moderate Voters in Swing States Margins

Super Tuesday: Clinton +11.5% (without Arkansas +5.9%)

Post Super Tuesday—Obama +23.8%

Legend

Super Tuesday State: AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DE, GA, IL, MA, MO, NJ, NM, NY,OK, TN, UT

Post-Super Tuesday states: LA, MD,VA,WI

Super Tuesday Swing States: AR, DE, MO, NJ, NM

Post-Super Tuesday swing states: VA, WI

(Clinton did manage to do better in Wisconsin among moderates (Obama +17%) than she did in the three primary states in the week immediate after Super-Tuesday (Obama +28.3%), which suggests that her campaign is back on track, but still playing catch-up.)

Head to Head—Where Both Candidates Ran Credible Campaigns

The data shows that Clinton did far better in the more competitive states (where the popular vote margin was less than 15%, Obama did better in less competitive states (popular vote margin 15% and above) and that Obama's numbers are heavily influenced by "blowout states"--states where the popular vote margin was greater than 28%.

Moderate Vote Margins

More Competitive States—Clinton +9.5%

Less Competitive States—Obama +4.7%

Blowout States—Obama +27.1% (without "home states" of IL and AR, +34.7)

Legend

More Competitive States: NH, AL, AZ, CA, CT, DE, MO, NJ, NM, TN

Less Competitive States: SC, AR, GA, IL, MA, NY, OK, UT, LA. MD, VA, WI

Blowout States: SC, AR, GA, IL, VA

By focusing solely on Obama's strength among "Independent" voters, while ignoring Clinton's strengths among "Moderate" voters in competitive and crucial swing states, the media is skewing the coverage to make Obama look far more electable relative to Clinton than he actually is. Obama's lead in states, delegates, and the popular vote rest primarily among "Independent" voters, those states that are considered "safe" for one party or the other in the general election, and the post Super-Tuesday states where a strategic failure of the Clinton campaign resulted in non-competitive races. Clinton's strengths are among "Moderate" voters in swing states and competitive states.

Factors That Should Be Considered by Super-Delegates

The general election is far more like Super Tuesday than the long primary campaign—it's a single day event, where every state is winner take all, and candidates devote their resources to ensuring victory in competitive (not just swing) states, while paying little attention to non-competitive states. On Super Tuesday, the Clinton campaign showed that it knew what it takes to win a general election by outperforming Obama in competitive states by appealing to the moderate voters who make up the nearly 40% of voters in a general election. So far, while the Obama campaign has demonstrated a mastery of primary campaign strategy, it has yet to show that it knows what to do to win in November.

As with the rest of his campaign, the basic "electability" argument for Obama rests with two words: "trust me." We are asked to "trust" that Obama understands how the Presidency operates. We are asked to "trust" that Obama will perform adequately in the face of a political crisis--or an international crisis. We are asked to "trust" that Obama can do what he promises, and create the necessary popular coalitions he says he will build in order to overcome special interests, and achieve meaningful change.

And we are asked to "trust" that Obama will emerge victorious over the "maverick", "appeals to Independents" GOP nominee, John McCain, and do so after a months-long, relentless onslaught by the right-wing smear machine.

At this point, it does not appear that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will gain enough pledged delegates to lock in a first ballot nomination, and the super-delegates will determine who will be the nominee. The Obama campaign insistence that the "most pledged delegates and/or most voters and/or most states" entitles him to the nomination reduces a complex decision involving who would make the best candidate and the best President to one that could be made by a simpleton. But the issues and problems that the next President will face will be difficult, complex, and multifaceted in much the same way that the question faced by the super delegates--who to choose as the Democratic candidate--should be. And rather than insisting that the super-delegates refrain from using their judgment based on years of experience, and saying "Trust me, I know what I'm doing", Obama should be insisting that the super delegates consider all the relevant factors before making their decisions.

The purpose of this analysis is not to argue that Hillary Clinton would make the best general election candidate, rather its purpose is to demonstrate that the assumptions underlying the arguments who say that Barack Obama is a better choice for the general election are dubious at best, and that there are numerous legitimate reasons to view Clinton as the better choice.

Neither primary results, nor current polling, should be major factors in the decision that the super-delegates are likely to face at the Democratic Convention that is more than six months away. We are just beginning to see the effort by well-funded right-wing smear groups to define Barack Obama in highly negative terms—and in 2004 we saw how easy for these groups to redefine John Kerry. While its entirely possible that Obama will be able to transcend the coming onslaught of attacks on his character and define himself on his own terms, it's also entirely possible that by September he will be a severely damaged candidate who would face an steep uphill battle to win in November.

One thing is certain—calls for Hillary Clinton to withdraw are dangerously premature. Not only does Clinton remain a highly viable candidate, continuing the campaign will present Obama with the opportunity to introduce himself on his own terms to voters in a number of states that will be important in November—not just Pennsylvania, but North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, and South Dakota. Keeping the contest alive also keeps the media focus on the Democratic candidates and their issues while paying little attention to John McCain—and as was seen with both John Edward and Rudy Giuliani, when the media doesn't focus on a candidate, that candidate declines in the polls.

Appendix—Unpolled Primary States and Caucus States

This analysis pretty much ignores the results from two states (DC and WA) that held primary elections because there was no exit polling data from those states, and thus no way to determine how "Independent" and "Moderate" voters voted in those states. However, the data tables that accompany this article do include totals, based on using the averages for "Independents" and "Moderates" from polled primaries. The differences turn out to be insignificant (doubtless because averages are being used).

Nor were caucus states used in this analysis—for very good reasons. Except for Iowa and Nevada, there is no exit polling data from the caucus states. There are huge variances in how "totals" are reported by states, with some states reporting "raw" participation numbers, and others reporting on the number of delegates election to state/county/district conventions—and this also creates problems. (For instance, twice as many people were estimated to have participated in caucuses in Iowa than in Nevada. But the total delegates "reported" as elected in Nevada is over 10,000, the delegates "reported" from Iowa are only about 2,500 hundred.)

Finally, as has just been amply demonstrated in Washington State, primary results do not reflect overall voter sentiment. (Washington's Democratic primary was a "beauty contest" and no delegates were at stake.) Obama's margin over Clinton in delegates in the Washington caucus was an astonishing 37%. His margin over Clinton on results reported the night of the "beauty contest" (which consisted primarily of people who voted in the polls that day) was only 3.1%. But Washington also has "mail in" voting, and the bulk of these votes had not been included in the totals reported on election night. As of 2/24/08, Obama had a 13 point lead in mail-in votes, resulting in the overall margin over Clinton to rise to 5.1%.

Even more striking are the Republican results in Washington, where delegates were at stake in both the caucuses and primaries. In the caucuses, John McCain got only 25% of the delegates, and Ron Paul got 22%. As of 2/25/08 (i.e. including mail in votes) McCain has 49.44% of the popular vote, and Ron Paul has only 7.59%

Nevertheless, the accompanying data tables do include totals based on entrance polling results from Iowa and Nevada, using estimates of total participants from local papers, and dividing the "raw" vote between the candidates based on percentages of delegates reported as elected. As with the inclusion of the unpolled primary states, the impact on the results as reported in the main body of this piece is negligible at best.

---

End notes

1 ^{Rasmussen’s list of "safe" states includes some states that will probably be contested (e.g. CA, TN) by both parties for strategic reasons, and thus are different from "battleground" states. The states listed as safe (and their electoral college votes) that were part of the primary data set, but excluded from the "swing state" data set areCalifornia (55), Connecticut (7), Illinois (21), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), New York (31), Alabama (9), Arizona (10), Georgia (15), Louisiana (9), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (8), Tennessee (11), and Utah.}

2 ^{"Without Arkansas" numbers are included for comparison purposes, because the apparent lack of any serious effort by Obama in Arkansas due to Clinton’s "home state" advantage skews the Super Tuesday data in Clinton’s favor. In Arkansas Clinton’s popular vote margin was 44.1%, and her margin among "Moderates" was 46%--the highest margins by far in any polled primary state. Obama’s abysmal performance in Arkansas reinforces the point that when a campaign makes little effort in a state, the results do not reflect what would happen in a state where both campaigns had made a serious effort.}

Table P—Popular Vote Totals

Polled Primaries		P1	P2	P3	P4	P5
Date	state	total votes	Total Clinton	Total Obama	Total Clinton - Obama	Vote Margin %
1/8/08	NH	287322	112251	104772	7479	2.6%
1/26/08	SC	532227	141128	295091	-153963	-28.9%
2/5/08	AL	543074	226454	302684	-76230	-14.0%
2/5/08	AR	309506	217313	80774	136539	44.1%
2/5/08	AZ	446098	228158	191681	36477	8.2%
2/5/08	CA	4434533	2306361	1890026	416335	9.4%
2/5/08	CT	353515	164831	179349	-14518	-4.1%
2/5/08	DE	96341	40751	51124	-10373	-10.8%
2/5/08	GA	1054831	328129	700366	-372237	-35.3%
2/5/08	IL	2016316	662845	1301954	-639109	-31.7%
2/5/08	MA	1254537	704591	511887	192704	15.4%
2/5/08	MO	823280	395287	405284	-9997	-1.2%
2/5/08	NJ	1119768	602576	492186	110390	9.9%
2/5/08	NM	149098	73105	71396	1709	1.1%
2/5/08	NY	1748833	1003623	697914	305709	17.5%
2/5/08	OK	417096	228425	130087	98338	23.6%
2/5/08	TN	618723	332599	250730	81869	13.2%
2/5/08	UT	124307	48719	70373	-21654	-17.4%
2/9/08	LA	384348	136959	220588	-83629	-21.8%
2/12/08	MD	777675	285440	464474	-179034	-23.0%
2/12/08	VA	979712	347252	623141	-275889	-28.2%
2/19/08	WI	1110702	452590	645554	-192964	-17.4%
Contested Primaries		19581842	9039387	9681435	-642048	-3.3%
1/15/08	MI	593837	328151	237762	90389	15.2%
1/29/08	FL	1725264	857208	569041	288167	16.7%
All Polled Primary Total		21900943	10224746	10488238	-263492	-1.2%
Swing States		7194830	3426484	3281034	145450	2.0%
Super Tues Swing		2497993	1329032	1100764	228268	9.1%
ST Swing - AR		2188487	1111719	1019990	91729	4.2%
Swing Thru ST		4973426	2521304	1989926	531378	10.7%
Post ST Swing		2090414	799842	1268695	-468853	-22.4%
Super Tuesday		15509856	7563767	7327815	235952	1.5%
Super Tues+NH+SC		16329405	7817146	7727678	89468	0.5%
All Thru Super Tues		18648506	9002505	8534481	468024	2.5%
Pre Super Tues		3138650	1438738	1206666	232072	7.4%
Post Super Tues		3252437	1222241	1953757	-731516	-22.5%
Week After ST		2141735	769651	1308203	-538552	-25.1%
Post ST +DC		3366183	1249567	2039291	-789724	-23.5%
More Competitive		8871752	4482373	3939232	543141	6.1%
Less Competitive		13029191	5742373	6549006	-806633	-6.2%
Blowouts		4892592	1696667	3001326	-1304659	-26.7%
Safe states		14706113	6798262	7207204	-408942	-2.8%
Blowouts (no home state)		2566770	816509	1618598	-802089	-31.2%
Unpolled Primaries^2
2/12/08	DC	113746	27326	85534	-58208	-51.2%
2/19/08	WA	518753	243306	259323	-16017	-3.1%
totals		632499	270632	344857	-74225	-11.7%
all primaries	totals	22533442	10495378	10833095	-337717	-1.5%
Caucus States
1/3/08	IA	239000	71318	83650	-12332	-5.2%
1/19/08	NV	116000	55355	47409	7946	6.9%
total caucuses		355000	126673	131059	-4386	-1.2%
all polled		22255943	10351419	10619297	-267878	-1.2%
primaries and polled caucuses		22888442	10622051	10964154	-342103	-1.5%

Column Definitions—Table P

Total Votes (P1):Based on data collected at CNN and The New York Times elections websites as of 2/20/08, depending upon which had the most complete results. The Times website was used for adding totals for candidates not listed by CNN.

Total Clinton (P2): Total popular vote for Clinton (from CNN or NYT website)

Total Obama (P3): Total popular vote for Obama (from CNN or NYT website)

Total Clinton—Obama (P4): Vote difference between Clinton and Obama (P2 minus P3). A positive number indicates that Clinton got more popular votes, a negative number indicates that Obama got more popular votes.

Vote Margin % (P5): The vote difference between Clinton and Obama expressed as a percentage of the popular vote totals (P4 divided by P1).

Table I—Independent Voter

Polled Primaries		P1	I1	I2	I3	I4	I5	I6	I7	I8
Date	State	Total Votes	% Inde- pendent	% Clinton Inde- pendent	% Obama Inde- pendent	Inde- pendent Margin	Total Inde- pendent votes	Clinton Inde- pendent	Obama Inde- pendent.	Indepen. Clinton – Obama
1/8/08	NH	287322	44.0%	31.0%	41.0%	-10.0%	126422	39191	51833	-12642
1/26/08	SC	532227	23.0%	26.0%	42.0%	-16.0%	122412	31827	51413	-19586
2/5/08	AL	543074	13.0%	48.0%	48.0%	0.0%	70600	33888	33888	0
2/5/08	AR	309506	18.0%	56.0%	32.0%	24.0%	55711	31198	17828	13371
2/5/08	AZ	446098	20.0%	37.0%	47.0%	-10.0%	89220	33011	41933	-8922
2/5/08	CA	4434533	18.0%	34.0%	58.0%	-24.0%	798216	271393	462965	-191572
2/5/08	CT	353515	18.0%	32.0%	62.0%	-30.0%	63633	20362	39452	-19090
2/5/08	DE	96341	15.0%	44.0%	50.0%	-6.0%	14451	6359	7226	-867
2/5/08	GA	1054831	19.0%	33.0%	63.0%	-30.0%	200418	66138	126263	-60125
2/5/08	IL	2016316	16.0%	22.0%	72.0%	-50.0%	322611	70974	232280	-161305
2/5/08	MA	1254537	33.0%	54.0%	42.0%	12.0%	413997	223558	173879	49680
2/5/08	MO	823280	22.0%	30.0%	67.0%	-37.0%	181122	54336	121351	-67015
2/5/08	NJ	1119768	19.0%	43.0%	49.0%	-6.0%	212756	91485	104250	-12765
2/5/08	NM	149098	11.0%	29.0%	65.0%	-36.0%	16401	4756	10661	-5904
2/5/08	NY	1748833	12.0%	40.0%	55.0%	-15.0%	209860	83944	115423	-31479
2/5/08	OK	417096	15.0%	41.0%	38.0%	3.0%	62564	25651	23774	1877
2/5/08	TN	618723	20.0%	43.0%	47.0%	-4.0%	123745	53210	58160	-4950
2/5/08	UT	124307	32.0%	26.0%	68.0%	-42.0%	39778	10342	27049	-16707
2/9/08	LA	384348	12.0%	36.0%	53.0%	-17.0%	46122	16604	24445	-7841
2/12/08	MD	777675	13.0%	27.0%	62.0%	-35.0%	101098	27296	62681	-35384
2/12/08	VA	979712	22.0%	30.0%	69.0%	-39.0%	215537	64661	148720	-84059
2/19/08	WI	1110702	28.0%	33.0%	64.0%	-31.0%	310997	102629	199038	-96409
Contested Primaries		19581842	19.4%	35.9%	56.2%	-20.3%	3797668	1362816	2134512	-771696
1/15/08	MI	593837	18.0%	37.0%	51.0%	-14.0%	106891	39550	54514	-14965
1/29/08	FL	1725264	17.0%	40.0%	30.0%	10.0%	293295	117318	87988	29329
All Polled Primary		21900943	19.2%	36.2%	54.2%	-18.0%	4197853	1519684	2277014	-757331
Swing States		7194830	21.3%	36.0%	52.4%	-16.4%	1533581	551483	803409	-251927
Super Tues Swing		2497993	19.2%	39.2%	54.4%	-15.2%	480441	188134	261316	-73181
ST Swing - AR		2188487	19.4%	36.9%	57.3%	-20.4%	424729	156936	243488	-86552
Swing Thru ST		4973426	18.3%	38.0%	44.5%	-6.5%	911588	346225	405334	-59109
Post ST Swing		2090414	25.2%	31.8%	66.0%	-34.3%	526533	167290	347758	-180468
Super Tuesday		15509856	18.5%	37.6%	55.5%	-17.9%	2875081	1080608	1596382	-515774
Super Tues+NH+SC		16329405	19.1%	36.9%	54.4%	-17.5%	3123915	1151626	1699628	-548002
All Thru Super Tues		18648506	18.9%	37.1%	52.3%	-15.1%	3524101	1308493	1842131	-533638
Pre Super Tues		3138650	20.7%	35.1%	37.9%	-2.8%	649019	227885	245749	-17863
Post Super Tues		3252437	20.7%	31.3%	64.5%	-33.2%	673753	211190	434883	-223693
Week After ST		2141735	16.9%	29.9%	65.0%	-35.1%	362756	108561	235845	-127284
More Competitive		8871752	19.1%	35.8%	54.9%	-19.1%	1696564	607992	931719	-323727
Less Competitive		13029191	19.2%	36.4%	53.8%	-17.3%	2501290	911691	1345295	-433604
Blowouts		4892592	18.7%	28.9%	62.9%	-34.0%	916688	264799	576504	-311705
Safe states		14706113	18.1%	36.3%	55.3%	-19.0%	2664272	968201	1473605	-505404
Blowouts (no home state)		2566770	21.0%	30.2%	60.6%	-30.4%	538367	162626	326397	-163771
Unpolled Primaries
2/12/08	DC	113746	19.4%	36.0%	56.1%	-20.1%	22044	7938	12370	-4432
2/19/08	WA	518753	19.4%	36.0%	56.1%	-20.1%	100534	36200	56415	-20215
totals		632499	19.4%	36.0%	56.1%	-20.1%	122577	44138	68785	-24647
all primaries	totals	22533442	19.2%	36.2%	54.3%	-18.1%	4320431	1563821	2345799	-781978
Caucus States
1/3/08	IA	239000	20.0%	17.0%	41.0%	-24.0%	47800	8126	19598	-11472
1/19/08	NV	116000	15.0%	33.0%	47.0%	-14.0%	17400	5742	8178	-2436
total caucuses		355000	18.4%	21.3%	42.6%	-21.3%	65200	13868	27776	-13908
all polled		22255943	19.2%	36.0%	54.1%	-18.1%	4263053	1533552	2304790	-771239
primaries and polled caucuses		22888442	19.2%	36.0%	54.1%	-18.1%	4385631	1577689	2373575	-795886

Column Definitions—Table I

Total Votes (P1): Based on data collected at CNN and The New York Times elections websites as of 2/20/08, depending upon which had the most complete results. The Times website was used for adding totals for candidates not listed by CNN.

% Independent (I1): The percentage of voters who are identified as "Independent", derived from CNN exit polling data.

% Clinton Independent (I2): The percentage of "Independent" voters who voted for Clinton, derived from CNN exit polling data.

% Obama Independent (I3): The percentage of "Independent" voters who voted for Obama, derived from CNN exit polling data.

Independent Margin (I4): The difference between support for Clinton and Obama among "Independent" voters expressed as a percentage, derived by subtracting Column I3 from Column I2.

Total Independent Votes (I5): The total number of Independent voters, extrapolated from the percentage of the Total Vote (P1) who identified themselves as "Independent" (I1) (I1 times P1)

Clinton Independent (I6): The total number of Independent voters who voted for Clinton, extrapolated from the percentage of the Total Independent Votes (P1) who identified themselves as having voted for Clinton (I2) (I1 times I2)

Obama Independent (I7): The total number of Independent voters who voted for Obama, extrapolated from the percentage of the Total Independent Votes (P1) who identified themselves as having voted for Obama (I2) (I1 times I2)

Independ. Clinton--Obama (I8): The vote margin among "Independent" voters, derived by subtracting Obama Independents (I7) from Clinton Independent (I6)

Table M—Moderate Voters

Polled Primaries		P1	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8
Date	State	Total Votes	% Moderate	% Clinton Moderate	% Obama Moderate	Moderate Margin	Total Moderate Votes	Clinton Moderate Votes	Obama Moderate Votes	Moderate Clinton - Obama
1/8/08	NH	287322	36.0%	39.0%	37.0%	2.0%	103436	40340	38271	2069
1/26/08	SC	532227	42.0%	23.0%	52.0%	-29.0%	223535	51413	116238	-64825
2/5/08	AL	543074	45.0%	40.0%	57.0%	-17.0%	244383	97753	139298	-41545
2/5/08	AR	309506	49.0%	71.0%	25.0%	46.0%	151658	107677	37914	69763
2/5/08	AZ	446098	38.0%	52.0%	41.0%	11.0%	169517	88149	69502	18647
2/5/08	CA	4434533	37.0%	55.0%	38.0%	17.0%	1640777	902427	623495	278932
2/5/08	CT	353515	37.0%	47.0%	50.0%	-3.0%	130801	61476	65400	-3924
2/5/08	DE	96341	40.0%	42.0%	51.0%	-9.0%	38536	16185	19654	-3468
2/5/08	GA	1054831	41.0%	28.0%	68.0%	-40.0%	432481	121095	294087	-172992
2/5/08	IL	2016316	41.0%	34.0%	65.0%	-31.0%	826690	281074	537348	-256274
2/5/08	MA	1254537	34.0%	62.0%	36.0%	26.0%	426543	264456	153555	110901
2/5/08	MO	823280	49.0%	49.0%	48.0%	1.0%	403407	197670	193635	4034
2/5/08	NJ	1119768	41.0%	54.0%	44.0%	10.0%	459105	247917	202006	45910
2/5/08	NM	149098	34.0%	58.0%	38.0%	20.0%	50693	29402	19263	10139
2/5/08	NY	1748833	33.0%	62.0%	36.0%	26.0%	577115	357811	207761	150050
2/5/08	OK	417096	44.0%	57.0%	32.0%	25.0%	183522	104608	58727	45881
2/5/08	TN	618723	43.0%	52.0%	44.0%	8.0%	266051	138346	117062	21284
2/5/08	UT	124307	39.0%	44.0%	53.0%	-9.0%	48480	21331	25694	-4363
2/9/08	LA	384348	48.0%	38.0%	56.0%	-18.0%	184487	70105	103313	-33208
2/12/08	MD	777675	37.0%	34.0%	64.0%	-30.0%	287740	97832	184153	-86322
2/12/08	VA	979712	38.0%	34.0%	66.0%	-32.0%	372291	126579	245712	-119133
2/19/08	WI	1110702	40.0%	41.0%	58.0%	-17.0%	444281	182155	257683	-75528
Contested Primaries		19581842	39.1%	47.0%	48.4%	-1.4%	7665528	3605802	3709775	-103973
1/15/08	MI^1	593837	41.0%	61.0%	36.0%	25.0%	243473	148519	87650	60868
1/29/08	FL	1725264	37.0%	52.0%	30.0%	22.0%	638348	331941	191504	140436
All Polled Primary		21900943	39.0%	47.8%	46.7%	1.1%	8547349	4086262	3988930	97332
Swing States		7194830	40.4%	49.2%	44.5%	4.6%	2905228	1428384	1293294	135090
Super Tues Swing		2497993	44.2%	54.3%	42.8%	11.5%	1103400	598851	472473	126378
ST Swing - AR		2188487	43.5%	51.6%	45.7%	5.9%	951742	491174	434559	56615
Swing Thru ST		4973426	40.5%	52.8%	38.6%	14.2%	2016666	1064074	777928	286146
Post ST Swing		2090414	39.1%	37.8%	61.6%	-23.8%	816571	308734	503395	-194661
Super Tuesday		15509856	39.0%	50.2%	45.7%	4.5%	6049759	3037379	2764405	272974
Super Tues+NH+SC		16329405	39.1%	49.1%	45.8%	3.3%	6376730	3129132	2918914	210217
All Thru Super Tues		18648506	38.9%	49.7%	44.1%	5.7%	7258551	3609591	3198069	411522
Pre Super Tues		3138650	38.5%	47.3%	35.9%	11.5%	1208792	572213	433664	138548
Post Super Tues		3252437	39.6%	37.0%	61.4%	-24.4%	1288798	476671	790861	-314190
Week After ST		2141735	39.4%	34.9%	63.1%	-28.3%	844517	294515	533178	-238663
More Competitive		8871752	39.5%	51.9%	42.4%	9.5%	3506707	1819666	1487588	332078
Less Competitive		13029191	38.7%	45.0%	49.6%	-4.7%	5040642	2266596	2501341	-234746
Blowouts		4892592	41.0%	34.3%	61.4%	-27.1%	2006654	687838	1231300	-543462
Safe States		14706113	38.4%	47.1%	47.8%	-0.7%	5642121	2657878	2695636	-37759
Blowouts (no home state)		2566770	40.1%	29.1%	63.8%	-34.7%	1028307	299087	656037	-356951
Unpolled Primaries
2/12/08	DC	113746	39.2%	40.1%	38.3%	1.8%	44614	17898	17075	823
2/19/08	WA	518753	39.2%	40.1%	38.3%	1.8%	203470	81626	77871	3755
Totals		632499	39.2%	40.1%	38.3%	1.8%	248084	99524	94945	4579
All Primaries	Totals	22533442	39.0%	47.6%	46.4%	1.2%	8795433	4185786	4083875	101910
Caucus States
1/3/08	IA	239000	40.0%	31.0%	33.0%	-2.0%	95600	29636	31548	-1912
1/19/08	NV	116000	41.0%	46.0%	43.0%	3.0%	47560	21878	20451	1427
Total Caucuses		355000	40.3%	36.0%	36.3%	-0.3%	143160	51514	51999	-485
All Polled		22255943	39.0%	47.6%	46.5%	1.1%	8690509	4137775	4040929	96847
Primaries and Polled Caucuses		22888442	39.1%	47.4%	46.3%	1.1%	8938593	4237299	4135874	101425

Row Definitions—Table M

Polled Primaries: Those states in which Democratic primaries (as opposed to caucuses) have been held, and for which exit polling data is available.

Contested Primaries: Polled primaries where delegates were at stake. (i.e., all except FL and MI)

All Polled Primary: Same as "Polled Primaries" above.

Swing States: Polled primary states not identified as either "Safely Democratic" or "Safely Republican" as of 2/20/08 by Rasmussen Reports for which data is available (NH, AR, DE, FL, MI, MO, NJ, NM, WI, VA.) (note that the information at the linked site changes over time, but no relevant changes have occurred as of 2/24/08)

Super Tues Swing: Swing States that held primaries on Super Tuesday (AR, DE, MO, NJ, NM)

ST Swing - AR: Super Tuesday Swing States, minus the Arkansas results. (DE, MO, NJ, NM) (Super Tues Swing, minus Arkansas, where Clinton appears to have had a 'home state' advantage.)

Swing Thru ST: All Swing States up to and including Super Tuesday (AR, DE, FL, IA, MI, MO, NH, NJ, NM)

Post ST Swing: Swing States that held polled primaries after Super Tuesday (WI, VA)

Super Tuesday: States that held primaries on Super Tuesday (AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DE, GA, IL, MA, MO, NJ, NM, NY,OK, TN, UT)

Super Tues+NH+SC: Super Tuesday states plus the two contested "Contested States" which held primaries before Super Tuesday (i.e. NH, SC)

All Thru Super Tues: All primary states up to and including Super Tuesday (AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, NH, IL, MA, MI, MO, NJ, NM, NY,OK, SC, TN, UT)

Pre Super Tues: Polled Primary states that held contests prior to Super Tuesday (FL, MI, NH, SC)

Post Super Tues: Polled Primary states that held contests after Super Tuesday (LA, MD, VA,WI)

Week After ST: Polled Primary states that held contests the week after Super Tuesday (LA, MD, VA)

More Competitive: Polled Primary states where the popular vote margin was less than 15% (NH, AL, AZ, CA, CT, DE, MO, NJ, NM, TN)

Less Competitive: Polled Primary states where the popular vote margin was 15% or more (SC, AR, GA, IL, MA, NY, OK, UT, LA. MD, VA, WI)

Blowouts: Polled Primary states where the popular vote margin was 28% or more (SC, AR, GA, IL, VA)

Safe states: Polled primary states not identified as either "Safely Democratic" or "Safely Republican" as of 2/20/08 by Rasmussen Reports for which data is available (CA, CT, IL, MD, MA, NY, AL, AZ, GA, LA, OK, SC, TN, UT)

Blowouts (no home state): Polled Primary states where the popular vote margin was 28% or more, excluding data from Clinton and Obama's "home states" (SC, GA, VA)

Column Definitions—Table M

Total Votes (P1): Based on data collected at CNN and The New York Times elections websites as of 2/20/08, depending upon which had the most complete results. The Times website was used for adding totals for candidates not listed by CNN.

% Moderate (M1): The percentage of voters who are identified as "Moderate", derived from CNN exit polling data.

% Clinton Moderate (M2): The percentage of "Moderate" voters who voted for Clinton, derived from CNN exit polling data.

% Obama Moderate (M3): The percentage of "Moderate" voters who voted for Obama, derived from CNN exit polling data.

Moderate Margin (M4): The difference between support for Clinton and Obama among "Moderate" voters expressed as a percentage, derived by subtracting Column I3 from Column I2.

Total Moderate Votes (M5): The total number of Moderate voters, extrapolated from the percentage of the Total Vote (P1) who identified themselves as "Moderate" (M1) (M1 times P1)

Clinton Moderate (M6): The total number of Moderate voters who voted for Clinton, extrapolated from the percentage of the Total Moderate Votes (P1) who identified themselves as having voted for Clinton (M2) (M1 times I2)

Obama Moderate (M7): The total number of Moderate voters who voted for Obama, extrapolated from the percentage of the Total Moderate Votes (P1) who identified themselves as having voted for Obama (M2) (M1 times I2)

Moderate Clinton--Obama (M8): The vote margin among "Moderate" voters, derived by subtracting Obama Moderates (M7) from Clinton Moderate (M6)

Notes for Table M

1. In Table M, with regard to Michigan, all voted recorded for "uncommitted" are treated as votes for Obama. It should be noted that even this may underestimate slightly Obama's relative strength to Clinton in Michigan. Clinton's margin over "uncommitted was 15.2%, but an exit poll asking who people would vote for if everyone had been on the ballot provided Clinton with an 11 point margin (Clinton 46%, Obama 35%). Unfortunately, there is no data breaking down the latter percentages by "Party ID" and "Ideology", and thus this data could not be used for this study.

2. In the unpolled primary states (WA, DC), the vote totals are derived in the same way as the rest of the states. It should be noted however, that the numbers for Washington State are those reported on election night—and primarily reflect what voters did at the polls. Washington's "vote by mail" system left hundreds of thousands of votes uncounted despite "100% of precincts reporting", and while Obama's lead was 3.1% on election night, it has increased to 5.1% with 59,000 mail-in votes (combined, for both parties) still uncounted.

Percentages for "Independent" and "moderate" voters in unpolled states are the average of the polled states. While this may (or may not) be a good way to allocate Washington State voters, it is almost certainly a bad way to allocate them for DC, because of DC's unique demographic characteristics.

In the polled caucus states, total votes (column P1) are derived from estimation of the number of participants in each state as reported by local papers in Iowa and Nevada. Popular vote numbers for each candidate (Columns P2 and P3) are based on the percentages of delegates to county/district conventions each candidate was reported to receive. "Independent" and "Moderate" percentages for both states are from exit polling from the CNN website.