«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

How Accurate Was the Obama Delegate Prediction Spreadsheet?

On February 7, an internal Obama campaign spreadsheet leaked in the press. It contained the campaign's predictions for all of the remaining primaries. Now that the primaries are over, we have the opportunity to judge the accuracy of Obama's prognosticators, who, as everyone knows by now, showed remarkable prescience in their planning this campaign season.

Below are the spreadsheet's popular vote and delegate predictions compared to actual results. The numbers show that the Obama campaign strategists were routinely too conservative: they underpredicted both the margins of their victories and their losses. They often anticipated a close to 50-50 split in a state that turned out to seriously favor one of the two candidates.

Of the states they predicted correctly, they underpredicted their margin of victory (aka were too pessimistic) in 16 states and underpredicted their margin of loss (aka were too optimistic) in six. They only overpredicted their margin of victory in two states, and never overpredicted a loss. In total, they got 24 of the 27 primaries after February 5th correct.

Of the ones the campaign got wrong, they were too hopeful in South Dakota and Indiana, where they predicted victories but suffered losses, and were too pessimistic in Maine, where they predicted a close loss but actually saw a substantial victory.

They nailed the delegate count exactly in five states, and were within one delegate in five more. They predicted their delegate count to within five delegates in 23 of the 27 primaries.

Louisiana	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	54%	44%	31	25
Results	57%	36%	34	22
Difference	+3%	-8%	+3	-3

Nebraska	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	60%	40%	15	9
Results	68%	32%	16	8
Difference	+8%	-8%	+1	-1

Virgin Islands	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	60%	40%	2	1
Results	90%	8%	3	0
Difference	+30%	-32%	+1	-1

Washington	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	60%	40%	49	29
Results	50%	47%	52	26
Difference	-10%	+7%	+4	-3

Washington's numbers are complicated by the fact that the state held both a primary and a caucus.

Maine	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	49%	51%	10	14
Results	59%	40%	15	9
Difference	+10%	-11%	+5	-5

Democrats Abroad	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	60%	40%	5	2
Results	67%	33%	4.5	2.5
Difference	+7%	-7%	-0.5	+0.5

Washington DC	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	58%	42%	9	6
Results	75%	24%	12	3
Difference	+17%	-18%	+3	-3

Maryland	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	53%	46%	37	33
Results	61%	36%	42	28
Difference	+8%	-10%	+5	-5

Virginia	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	50%	48%	43	40
Results	64%	36%	54	29
Difference	+14%	-12%	+11	-11

Hawaii	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	52%	47%	11	9
Results	76%	24%	14	6
Difference	+24%	-23%	+3	-3

Wisconsin	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	53%	46%	40	34
Results	58%	41%	42	32
Difference	+5%	-5%	+2	-2

Ohio	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	46%	53%	68	73
Results	44%	54%	66	75
Difference	-2%	+2%	-2	+2

Rhode Island	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	42%	57%	8	13
Results	40%	58%	8	13
Difference	-2%	+1%	0	0

Texas primary	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	47%	51%	92	101
Results	47%	51%	99	94
Difference	0%	0%	+7	-7

Texas's numbers are complicated by the fact that the state held both a primary and a caucus.

Vermont	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	55%	44%	9	6
Results	59%	39%	9	6
Difference	+4%	-5%	0	0

Wyoming	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	60%	40%	7	5
Results	61%	38%	7	5
Difference	+1%	-2%	0	0

Mississippi	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	62%	38%	20	13
Results	61%	37%	19	14
Difference	-1%	-1%	-1	+1

Pennsylvania	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	47%	52%	75	83
Results	45%	55%	73	85
Difference	-2%	+3%	-2	+2

Guam	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	55%	44%	2	2
Results	50%	50%	2	2
Difference	-5%	+6%	0	0

Indiana	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	53%	46%	39	33
Results	49%	51%	34	38
Difference	-4%	+5%	-5	+5

North Carolina	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	53%	45%	61	54
Results	56%	41%	66	49
Difference	+3%	-4%	+5	-5

West Virginia	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	43%	55%	13	15
Results	25%	67%	8	20
Difference	-18%	+12%	-5	+5

Kentucky	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	42%	56%	23	28
Results	30%	66%	14	37
Difference	-12%	+10%	-7	+9

Oregon	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	52%	47%	28	24
Results	59%	41%	31	21
Difference	+7%	-6%	+3	-3

Puerto Rico	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	45%	54%	25	30
Results	32%	68%	17	38
Difference	-13%	+13%	-8	+8

Montana	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	55%	44%	9	7
Results	56%	41%	9	7
Difference	+1%	-3%	0	0

South Dakota	Obama Pop. Vote	Clinton Pop. Vote	Obama Del.	Clinton Del.
Prediction	57%	42%	8	7
Results	45%	55%	7	8
Difference	-12%	+13%	-1	+1

All results numbers, both popular vote percentages and delegate counts, come from the New York Times.

Comments

Hmm. Seems like he was especially off in the late states of West Virginia and Kentucky, and in Puerto Rico. Any theories as to why?

Posted by: byrddawg on 06/09/08 at 8:33 PM Respond

Considering these were predicted back in February, Team Obama probably assumed they would have enough momentum so that Democrats in general would go with the flow. Alternatively, they might have assumed that Team HRC wouldn't be able to make a "last stand" on financial fumes.

Posted by: Egalitare on 06/10/08 at 4:02 AM Respond

Come on!!! And this is important why? I don't see any headlines that have significance this morning. How about reporting about the issues. Rediculous!

Posted by: Susan on 06/10/08 at 6:55 AM Respond

This was only one prediction -- there was undoubtedly updates on his original predictions as he went along. No one knows everything. The one thing we do know for certain is that whether Obama predicted it exactly, or not, no longer matters -- Obama has what it takes to stay with the plan, which he and his crew managed to predicted well enough that Obama is now the Democratic Party's nominee; instead of Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: MarthaA on 06/10/08 at 11:30 AM Respond

I have a small quibble. The Washington numbers are not complicated by the primary, because the primary did not matter with respect to the delegate count. So you should only include the predictions & results of the caucus, because that is the contest that mattered.

Posted by: Jay on 06/10/08 at 12:04 PM Respond

wow. when you look at this, it becomes fairly obvious that hillary never really stood a chance.

these guys were a crack team and they were on a mission from day one. the clintons never knew what hit them until way too late in the game. and it didn't help that their squad was staffed by hacks and washed up established has-beens.

Posted by: jack on 06/10/08 at 12:40 PM Respond

So, did the Clinton campaign even bother with predictions like this? My guess is, not in this kind of detail and not with this level of research. Otherwise, they might have realized sooner that they needed to end the campaign.

Very interesting.

Posted by: izzie on 06/10/08 at 1:00 PM Respond

Kind of undercuts the scary story about how Obama "limped" to the finish line. How can it be a limp if you saw it coming months ahead of time and planned accordingly? It was all about picking your spots and sticking to your gameplan. Works in the NFL. Works in the Marines. And lookee here, it works in American politics.

Posted by: Asinistra on 06/10/08 at 1:09 PM Respond

You are somewhat incorrect on Washington State. The caucus was the only method that counted. The primary meant nothing and was only a test, as those of us who reside in the state know. The Obama campaign made it's prediction on the caucus, from where the delegates came. In that case, Obama won 69-31, actually overperforming.

Posted by: Don W. on 06/10/08 at 5:32 PM Respond

My personal theory is he stopped campaigning against Mrs Clinton after the North Carolina victory. Much was made about her not attacking him, but little attention was paid to how he didn't attack her. He all but conceded the late states to her and stopped just short of campaigning for her. MSNBC's Chuck Todd once hinted that we might be drawing false positives from her victories because the race was basically over and there was strong turnout to show support, but not necessarily to vote against the winner. Also he is still relatively unknown and its possible the good people of West Virginia and Kentucky voted off name recognition (and for the candidate who actually came to talk to them) than for the other less ideal motives that have been attributed to them. Mayhap team Obama thought the best they could do is what they did in Pennsylvania...spend a lot of money to come within 5 pts. If that was the strategy, wouldn't make sense to not squander resources needlessly? Mr Obama has already stated he's not interested in propaganda victories and clearly the only people who were alarmed at Mrs Clinton's late victoriesor close losses were the members of the media. Just a thought, what say you?

Posted by: IDTT on 06/11/08 at 9:08 AM Respond