Super Tuesday: The Most Interesting Number of All

I’m up in NYC, where we are struggling to get dead-tree TIME out the door. As is so often the case, our own numbers wizard Jackson Dykman has come up with the most fascinating bit of data within all these mountains of numbers coming out of Super Tuesday:

TOTAL VOTES CAST

Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)

Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851)

Really, could it have been any closer?

UPDATE: Swampland commenters ask; Jackson answers:

Since you asked

Total votes cast in 21 GOP contests yesterday among McCain, Romney and Huckabee:

McCain: 43.1% (3,611,459)
Romney: 35.4% (2,961,834)
Huckabee: 21.5% (1,796,729)

For grand totals, vastly more Democrats than Republicans voted yesterday;

Democratic votes for Clinton and Obama: 14,622,822 (63.6%)
Republican votes for McCain, Romney and Huckabee: 8,370,022 (36.4%)

Put another way, the Clinton/Obama race drew 76% more voters than the McCain/Romney/Huckabee race.

UPDATE2: Jackson’s on a roll:

Here are the numbers just for the 19 states where both parties had elections yesterday

Obama/Clinton voters: 14,460,149
McCain/Romney/Huckabee voters: 8,367,694

Or, 73% more Democratic voters than Republican voters.

A lot of this is huge Democratic numbers in New York and California.

UPDATE3: Jackson, ignoring the demands of the High Sheriffs to get back to putting out the magazine, has been sucked into the Swampland vortex and continues to calculate (I’m thinking we should make him a regular feature in this space, assuming he doesn’t get fired for blowing his DTT deadline):

I have re-done my calculations with the latest vote totals as of 4:30 p.m., and guess what?

The raw numbers grew a bit, but the percentages are exactly the same.

Clinton: 50.2% (7,427,942)
Obama: 49.8% (7,370,023)

Now keep in mind, this is just among those voting for Obama or Clinton. If you add in Edwards and Uncommitted, etc., the percentages would change slightly, but the point is the same. That breakdown looks like this:

Clinton: 48.7%
Obama: 48.4%
Edwards: 2.7%
Uncommitted: 0.17%
Biden: 0%
Richardson: 0%%

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    William B. Plowman / NBC

    Why Can’t President Obama Get Surrogates You Can Believe In?

    It’s one of the great unexplained frustrations of the Obama presidency: Perhaps the most telegenic political leader of his generation has not been able to recruit a bench of top-flight, telegenic spinmeisters–called “surrogates” in the business–to fight his battles on cable and network television.

    His top two economic spokespeople during the great decline of 2009–Larry Summers and Tim Geithner–had minds that chafed at the remedial logic of televised debate and voices that mumbled through talking points. His most able economic debater, Austan Goolsbee, had some success but then gave up the White House to return to Chicago and the academy. His top political spokesmen–Robert Gibbs, David Axelrod and David Plouffe–deliver a punch as hard as anyone, but for the same reason rarely elevated the President’s case beyond the ring. His Vice President, Joe Biden, hits his marks, but only when he is on message. The DNC chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, struggles to transcend her Congressional roots. And Bill Daley, the President’s erstwhile chief of staff who was hired in large part because of his surrogate chops, faded from the scene after few unremarkable Sunday show appearances.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Obama’s Health Care Box

    Alec MacGillis of the NewRepublic has been doing some fine campaign reporting this year and here he offers a smart look at what may be the most important state of all in November–Ohio. The most striking part of the piece for me, one that illuminates an essential conundrum for Barack Obama, occurs when MacGillis goes door to door with a labor-affiliated political organizer in a white working-class neighborhood in Columbus:

blog comments powered by Disqus