Posted on

Two weeks to go

Continuing on my theme of predicting that the winner among the pledged delegates will win the Democratic Party’s nomination because the super delegates will (probably) flock to the leader among pledged delegates in order to build the appearance of unanimity and avoid a floor fight at the convention (see here and here), I’ve updated my table. I’m now using the data from Real Clear Politics for no particular reason beyond ease of extraction.

Date Barack Obama: running total Barack Obama: share of pledged delegates Hillary Clinton: running total
3 Jan (IA) 16 51.6% 15
8 Jan (NH) 25 51.0% 24
19 Jan (NV) 38 51.4% 36
26 Jan (SC) 63 56.8% 48
5 Feb (Super Tuesday) 906 50.8% 876
9 Feb (LA, NE, WA, Virgin Is.) 1012 52.1% 931
10 Feb (ME) 1027 52.2% 940
12 Feb (DC, MD, VA) 1134 53.2% 996
19 Feb (HI, WI) 1185 53.6% 1024

obama-ahead-08-02-20.jpg

The RCP data still include estimates and don’t include 56 delegates that have nominally already been allocated (26 are with Edwards, 30 RCP aren’t willing to estimate one way or the other, but since 10 of those 30 are in Hawaii, it seems safe to say that they’ll break for Obama overall). For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that the 56 break down as 30 to Obama and 26 to Clinton (that’s 53.5% of them to Obama). That gives us 1215 for Obama and 1050 to Clinton to-date.

There are 988 pledged delegates to go (giving 3253 in total). To win the pledged delegates race, a candidate needs 1627. That means that Obama only needs 412, or 41.7%, of the remaining 988 to-be-pledged delegates. Clinton needs 577, or 58.4%, of the remainder.

As an indication of how tough that will be, Clinton’s best vote performance so far was 57% in New York. She has only managed to break 55% of delegates pledged in 9 out of 37 primaries/caucuses so far and that’s including American Samoa that only had three delegates to give. If she is going to do it, her wins in Texas (193 to-be-pledged delegates) and Ohio (141) will need to be huge. I just can’t see it happening.

The polls do have Clinton up with 50.2% vs. 42.6% in Texas and 52.7% vs. 38.0% in Ohio on average. That’s a pretty big undecided gap, but I can’t see it all breaking for Clinton given the apparent movement towards Obama in the more recent polls. By comparison, the betting markets at InTrade put Obama at a 68% chance of winning in Texas and a 49% chance of winning in Ohio. I suspect that the betting market is a little overly pro-Obama, just as it was in the lead-up to New Hampshire, but just like in New Hampshire, I think that although Hillary Clinton will win the headline vote, she’ll barely win in the delegates pledged.

So, my prediction: Come the 5th of March, Obama will still be ahead in pledged delegates and will probably still be ahead after adding in the ridiculously apportioned super-delegates by the Main Stream Media estimates. Look for it to be all over bar the shouting in two weeks.

Posted on

Are we at the tipping point?

Just after the Maine primary, I wondered whether Obama may have been in front all along on the basis that he has been ahead all the way in pledged delegates and the super delegates will probably flock to the leader among pledged delegates in order to build the appearance of unanimity and avoid a floor fight at the convention.

We’ve just had the primaries in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia and as expected, Barack Obama appears to have won all three by strong margins. Here are the updated table and graph, although the data for the 12th of February are still very much estimates:

Date Barack Obama: running total Barack Obama: share of pledged delegates Hillary Clinton: running total Hillary Clinton: share of pledged delegates
3 Jan (IA) 16 51.6% 15 48.4%
8 Jan (NH) 25 51.0% 24 49.0%
19 Jan (NV) 38 51.4% 36 48.6%
26 Jan (SC) 63 56.8% 48 43.2%
5 Feb (Super Tuesday) 903 50.1% 898 49.9%
9 Feb (LA, NE, WA, Virgin Is.) 998 51.4% 944 48.6%
10 Feb (ME) 1013 51.5% 953 48.5%
12 Feb (DC, MD, VA) 1111 52.5% 1006 47.5%

obama-ahead-08-02-13.jpg

And just as I predicted (well, Chris Bowers predicted and I agreed), we are starting to see twitchy movement in the super delegates. On the one hand, we have people calling for them to vote according to the will of their constituents. Ryan Avent is typical:

[I]t seems that Obama has an excellent chance at winning the District primary tomorrow. Should that be the case, it would be incredibly unfortunate if the District’s superdelegates essentially undid the wishes of the voting public … It is especially galling that D.C. Councilmembers, so familiar with the frustration of disenfranchisement, would contribute to the further erosion of the District’s electoral clout.

… and the super delegates are listening. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives and one of the most influential of currently-neutral super delegates, is “leaning” towards Obama:

A senior adviser to Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has suggested that she – along with other “party elders” – will step into the ring to end this extraordinary contest if it threatens Democratic hopes of winning back the White House or maintaining control over Congress. Ms Pelosi says that she is “torn” and that “the people will speak – that’s the beauty of a democracy,” before adding: “My focus is on re-electing a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.”

Her voice would carry great authority among uncommitted super-delegates on Capitol Hill – and she is said to be “leaning” towards Mr Obama. “The party Establishment is not going to turn its back on a candidate who is generating this tremendous excitement and bringing all these new voters into the political process,” said a source close to her. Mr Obama’s team are pressing the same message, especially to members of Congress in districts where he has already won and who may not wish to alienate their core vote in an election year.

Posted on

Barack Obama: winning since day 1?

Via Matthew Ylesias, I came across this piece by Chris Bowers: “Now Is Not The Time To Count Super Delegates”

Right now, with the exception of NBC news, most news outlets are counting super delegates in their running delegate total for the Democratic nomination … From 1984 to 2004, the overwhelming majority of super delegates have cast their convention votes for the candidate who won more votes during the primary and caucus season. This was just as true for Mondale in 1984 as it was for Kerry in 2004. On every single occasion, large numbers of super delegates switched their early, public support for a candidate in favor of the candidate who had the most popular support from voters in Democratic primaries and participants in Democratic caucuses.

This is important stuff. For the 2008 nomination, the Democratic Party will have 3,253 pledged delegates at their August convention and 796 unpledged (or “super”) delegates. If the super-delegates break 90-10 for the winner among pledged delegates, a 1,627 vs. 1,626 split in the pledged delegates would end up as a 2,343 vs. 1,706 vote at the convention and so look like a blow-out for the winner.

Why do they do it? Because they want the public to see the Democratic Party lining up behind a clear candidate. A bitter, narrow fight on the convention floor looks like a divided party that cannot come together and lead, whereas a large win looks like momentum and inevitability. It’s also important to note that, by and large, the super-delegates are up for re-election themselves. From Wikipedia: “In 2008, the superdelegates include 221 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, 48 senators, including the District of Columbia’s two shadow senators, 31 state and territorial governors, 397 members of the Democratic National Committee, 23 distinguished party leaders, and 76 others.” Nobody wants to be running for re-election as the guy or girl who voted against their own presidential candidate.

Given all that, I thought I’d have a look at how Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have being going in just the pledged delegates. The data below comes mostly from CNN. Some of the counts are still just estimates. Note that I am ignoring the delegates awarded to John Edwards.

 

Date Barack Obama: running total Barack Obama: fraction of pledged delegates Hillary Clinton: running total Hillary Clinton: fraction of pledged delegates
3 Jan 16 51.6% 15 48.4%
8 Jan 25 51.0% 24 49.0%
19 Jan 38 51.4% 36 48.6%
26 Jan 63 56.8% 48 43.2%
5 Feb 901 50.1% 899 49.9%
9 Feb 987 51.1% 944 48.9%
10 Feb 1002 51.3% 953 48.7%

obama-ahead.jpg

In the lead up to super (dooper) Tuesday on the 5th of February, Hillary Clinton had to temporarily stump up US$5 million of her own money. Following the Maine caucus on the 10th of February, she changed her campaign manager. On the 12th of February, the states of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia will vote in their primaries and the Democrats Abroad will finish taking its votes (they started on the 5th of Feb). The polls have Obama clearly in front in Maryland (by 21 points on average) and Virginia (by 17 points on average). The betting markets estimate his chances of winning in Maryland and Virginia at 97.7% and 96.0% respectively. On the 19th of February, Hawaii (where Obama was born) will have its caucus and Wisconsin will have its primary.

It’s not until Texas, Rhode Island, Vermont and Ohio on the 4th of March that pundits are predicting the next win for Hillary, but there’s no guarantee that she’ll win enough to get in front.

Perhaps the “coming from behind” story is wrong. Perhaps Barack Obama has been in front every step of the way in 2008.

Posted on

A tight race in Bowman

The overall result may not be in doubt, but spare a thought for Andrew Laming (Liberal, incumbant) and Jason Young (Labor) in the Queensland seat of Bowman.

Before the election, Laming held the seat with an 8.9% margin.  It was safe, but not that safe and by the time of the election, the betting markets were leaning towards Labor (thank you, Simon Jackman). Turnout on the day was 85.25%.  With those votes counted, the primary count went to Laming (33,833 vs. 32,498), but the two-candidate preferred count is going to Young (36,693 vs. 36,672).

That’s a margin, on current counting, of just 0.014%.

The pre-poll, postal, absent and progressive votes are still being counted, but you’ve got to feel for those guys.  If Laming hasn’t worn holes in the carpet then I’m a monkey’s uncle.

Update 29 Nov 2007:  With a bit under 2,000 extra votes counted, Young appears to have squeezed a little extra traction from one fingernail.  He’s now got a margin of 0.040% (37,690 vs. 37,630).

Posted on

Oz Election

Well, the Australian election is getting pretty damn close now.  A few random thoughts:

  • Both at an aggregate and at a seat-by-seat level, the betting markets have blown out in favour of a Labor victory.
  • There have been plenty of predictions of exactly how many seats Labor will win, but as ever, Bryan Palmer does a superb job of aggregation and analysis.
  • We have, as Joshua Gans puts it, “US style election-lawyering” from the Coalition, who have released legal advise suggesting that 13 Labor candidates may be inelligible to stand.  I am entirely in agreement with The Possum on this one:  “Sour grapes do not play well with the electorate, threatening to bring in lawyers to try and overturn the election result looks bitter. Not accepting the umpires decision, and threatening to take your bat and ball and go home looks pathetic.”
  • Andrew Norton has some good work in looking at the reasons why the Coalition are on the nose.  His prognosis:  expect a long time in opposition.  I’m not sure I agree with him, but I can’t really explain why, so I’ll just shut up and direct you to him.
  • A friend here in London was voting for somewhere (sorry, I have no clue where) in NSW and thanks to the beauty of the Australian preferential voting system, had to rank One Nation, Family First and Fred Niles.  I really don’t know how I’d put them.
Posted on

Oz Election (again)

I’m still not that interested in general, but these two bits looked interesting in their specifics:

  • Looking at Bryan Palmer’s “Day 6 report,” it seems that the betting markets have started moving sharply in favour of the Coalition. Labor is still being billed as the favourites, but it’s narrowing fast.

* The action is really at the top. The only difference between the Howard and Rudd tax cuts is that Rudd wouldn’t cut tax rates from 45% to 42% for those earning over $180,000. Assuming the same rate of wage growth that we’ve had over past years, only 1.4% of adults in 2010-11 will have an income in that range, while only 3% of families will have an income-earner in that range.

* This means that the richest 1% of families get 7% of the Howard tax cuts, but only 4% of the Rudd tax cuts. The richest 10% get 28% of the Howard tax cuts, but 25% of the Rudd tax cuts.

* The education credit is fairly evenly distributed across the income spectrum (as Labor pointed out on Friday, 2/3rds of families with children are eligible for it). So the Rudd package looks more even – but only a little – if you take account of it.

Posted on

The Election in Oz

So, the campaigning has formally begun for the 2007 Federal Election in Australia. I’m interested, but mostly in an abstract sense and at the same time have a definite feeling of “blah” towards the whole thing. When I do end up wanting to know what’s happening, I’m pretty sure that Bryan Palmer will be a superlative aggregator of information that I ought to care about.

I did notice, with a sigh and a rolling of eyeballs at the stereotypes involved, that the two sides are squabbling over the debates: how many to have and when to have them. The Coalition is calling for just one and early in the campaign (before most policies have been released), while Labor wants three spread out over the entire length of the campaign.

Posted on

Two questions for the punters

1) Does the large gap in the implied probabilities of a Labor win in the upcoming Australian Federal Election between overall-result betting (62% at the latest update) versus seat-by-seat betting (23% at the latest update) imply some sort of arbitrage opportunity? Is the overround really that large?

2) Why the gap in the first place? I assume it’s got something to do with the particulars of just how marginal each seat is (see below), but why do the two markets disagree so much? Is one of them massively incorrect?

For those that don’t know, I’d recommend looking at the tabular and graphical representations of the marginal seats here. Here are the guts of it (there are 150 seats in the House of Representatives):

Uniform swing Labor gains Labor total Coalition total Result
2.92% (+13) 73 75 Clear Coalition win
3.27% (+14) 74 74 Sort-of-hung parliment (depending on the two independents)
3.27% (+15) 75 73 Sort-of-hung parliment (depending on the two independents)
4.85% (+16) 76 72 Clear Labor win

The first 13 seats for Labor only need a 2.92% swing, or 0.22% per seat. The 14th seat will take an extra 0.35%, the 15th a further 0.90% again and the 16th another 0.71% on top. Remember that each extra percent of swing to Labor takes an increasing amount of goodwill from the electorate (i.e. increasing your swing from 1% to 2% is doable, but increasing it from 25% to 26% is effectively impossible).