home

Hillary Raises 10MM Since PA Victory

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:59:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Kos and Todd Beeton:

On MSNBC a few minutes ago Terry McCauliffe announced the Hillary Clinton campaign raised $10 million online "with 50,000 brand new donors" since the polls closed in Pennsylvania last night. "The biggest day we've ever had." An impressive amount by any measure and, as I wrote last night, a clear sign that people do not want this primary to be over.

BTW, and speaking for me only, Kos is right that it is ridiculous to claim Clinton is winning the popular vote right now. Excluding the caucus states and giving Obama zero votes for Michigan is absurd. We can get an exact count if Iowa, Nevada and Maine release the numbers they have in their possession.

By Big Tent Democrat

< The So-Called Liberal Media | Um, You Think They Didn't Know? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Raises 10MM Since PA Victory | 220 comments (220 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Can't blame the campaigns for spinning... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:06:14 PM EST
    Well, you can, but it's not going to change anything. They're paid to spin.

    And that's a very impressive fundraising number for Hillary. Certainly enough to keep her in the game through the 6th. Has she gained any Supers since yesterday? You'd think a double digit win might lure one or two out of the shadows...

    Obama gained one from Oklahoma (none / 0) (#14)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:11:50 PM EST
    and she also gained one -- don't remember which state the SD is from.

    Parent
    TN - Rep. Tanner (none / 0) (#70)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:41:22 PM EST


    Parent
    She has actually (none / 0) (#16)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:13:20 PM EST
    gained at least one so far today...

    Rep. John Tanner of TENN, co-founder of the BLue Dog Coalition in congress, member of the WAys and Means committee and member of the Foreign Relations committe.

    Parent

    The type of guy (none / 0) (#38)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:25:53 PM EST
    who always votes Republican.

    Right, Axelrove?

    Parent

    You really (none / 0) (#96)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    should NOT got there!!! Considering these are in both Camps...ie Claire.

    Parent
    Is $10 million so fast some kind of record? (none / 0) (#22)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:17:19 PM EST
    I think it probably is although I wouldn't be surprised if Obama has exceeded that in the past.

    Parent
    RCP appeared to include (none / 0) (#52)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:33:11 PM EST
    the caucus votes as far as they can be estimated.

    Also there is a version with the undeclared from MI somewhere.

    They are about even as far as it goes.

    Parent

    The word "Ridiculous" is overused (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:09:17 PM EST
    Nobody told Obama to take his name off the ballot in Michigan.  Let's look at the logic:

    If Obama wanted to he could have taken his name off the ballot off Pennsylvania as well, fearing a projected loss there months ago. (the spreadsheet)

    So if Obama was not on the ballot in Pennsylvania last night, should we just not have counted those votes for Hillary?

    What's ridiculous here is calling the rest of us ridiculous for actually being right.

    I came across this (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Leisa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:50:30 PM EST
    piece that I found interesting, maybe as a theory... I do not know the veracity of it though.

    Here is a quote from this article.

    Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.

    It would be interesting to follow up with this reporter.  I think that those staffers should be identified and questioned by the DNC.  (HA!  Like that will happen...)

    Parent

    Obama and Clinton both (1.00 / 3) (#31)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:21:16 PM EST
    signed a pledge not to "participate" in the MI primary.  Following up that pledge in good faith should have included removing one's name from consideration.

    Parent
    the pledge was not to campaign. (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:22:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Please (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:22:36 PM EST
    not this ridiculous talking point again!

    Parent
    All the old stuff (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:03:09 PM EST
    will be brought up again... aggression after a Clinton win.

    We will see alot of OLD topics slung around the next few days.

    Parent

    Well, Clinton backers (none / 0) (#133)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:35:12 PM EST
    are talking about counting MI and Fl again, so of course this stuff is relevant.

    Parent
    Relevant, perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:49:32 PM EST
    but still completely untrue!  This has all been debunked endlessly and we get tired of going round the mulberry bush every single time it comes up.

    Parent
    Yes, they could (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:52:14 PM EST
    search the old blogs for information on the SAME OLD topics.

    It like I'm on the merry-go-round and can't get off!! After a 100 rounds ... it gets old.

    Parent

    So... (1.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:01:03 PM EST
    why keep posting about it?

    Parent
    Considering that you (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:09:00 PM EST
    have posted 37 times today... I beleive I have some leeway. Thank You.

    Parent
    What does... (none / 0) (#219)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:16:53 AM EST
    my number of posts have to do with you not wanting to post about a topic?

    Parent
    So why was Obama's name on FL ballot? (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:27:41 PM EST
    The Obama camp always seems to gloss over that point when making this ridiculous argument.

    Parent
    IIRC, (1.00 / 2) (#58)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:34:39 PM EST
    it was too late to remove it, or they would have.  Same reason other candidates (Edwards, Biden) were on the FL ballot, but not MI.

    The text of the pledge has been linked here before.  It said both "campaign" and "participate."

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:42:15 PM EST
    They couldn't remove their names AFTER they were submitted to the state in Florida. But they never tried BEFORE that.

    They removed their names from the Michigan ballot in the beginning of October. The FDP didn't submit their names to the state until the end of October.

    Thats plenty of time.

    Parent

    From the Washington Post (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:45:10 PM EST
    "The campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards are urging their supporters to cast ballots for "uncommitted," according to state Democratic party chairman Mark Brewer. The Obama campaign says there may be "grass-roots efforts," but that the Chicago-based campaign is not involved.

    In an effort to signal that Clinton cannot stroll away with the state's delegates, even in a largely uncontested race, Michigan Rep. John Conyers and his wife, Detroit city council member Monica Conyers, taped a radio advertisement Wednesday afternoon. In it, they called on Obama backers not to surrender their vote.

    They say on the radio spot that they intend to vote "uncommitted" and give Obama a chance to compete for those delegates in Denver.

    An "uncommitted" vote would take the place of a write-in, which is not permitted."

    Parent

    Link supporting your view? (1.00 / 0) (#130)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:32:55 PM EST
    Candidates can't withdraw from Florida's primary without taking themselves off the November ballot as well.
    St. Pete Times, October 10 2007

    ----

    State law allows candidates who wish to withdraw from the Florida primary to do so by filing an affidavit stating that he or she is not a candidate for President of the United States of America. In other words: to get off the ballot in Florida, a candidate has to swear that he or she isn't running for President.
    FL Dems

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:57:45 PM EST
    PDF - Florida Federal Qualifying Handbook

    You will notice that the parties have until October 31st to submit the names. I know the Dems voted on October 28th to approve who was on the ballot. That means they submitted the list between the 28th and 31st (I know I read somewhere the exact day they submitted it but I can't say for sure and I won't guess since it doesn't really matter).

    After that, you will see from page 3, to remove a name you must sign an affidavit to not run for office by Nov 12th. But you only need to sign that to be removed AFTER your name is submitted. The FDP didn't vote until the 28th (here's a link kind of mentioning it) at the end of the convention.


    Parent

    Thanks for the link. (none / 0) (#208)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:48:18 PM EST
    I'm sure you're giving your honest interpretation, and am left wondering how a political reporter at the St. Petersburg Times could have gotten it wrong on 10/10.  At that early date, she wrote matter-of-factly that it was too late to withdraw.

    Also in googling around in search of understanding, I found this thread:

    "I am fairly certain the Florida rules did not allow any of the candidates to remove their names from the ballot...." - standingup

    "You are correct.  This was reported on this very site."  - BTD

    "Yes you are right.  I deleted my comment suggesting otherwise since it was wrong."  - Jeralyn

    I really don't get any enjoyment of beating a dead horse, but unfortunately it looks like the controversial MI and FL votes may be decisive, making these questions important.  Wish I could find the relevant thread here.

    Parent

    The press gets things wrong. (none / 0) (#215)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:53:13 PM EST
    I was one of the first people (if not first as I looked up the info in the code instead of reading it somewhere) over on dKos saying they couldn't remove their names. You'll see my post is from 10/9/07 which I think was the day they removed their names. So obviously its an easy mistake to make. :D  Thats my excuse anyway.

    One would need to know the timing of the events in order to know that the names hadn't been submitted at that time. It wasn't until later that month that I read the ballot was being voted on by the FDP. I took December off from posting but was posting in January of this year that they could have asked for removal of their names prior to the FDP submitting the list.

    I've searched and never found anything that discounts that they could have asked for their names not to be on the list (Gore's people declined to be on the list). Keep in mind they only have to sign the affidavit if they are asking to be off the primary ballot after the state has their names. That is the rule everyone is talking about when they say they couldn't remove their name. But nothing I've seen demands they be on the primary ballot in the first place. And the parties have full control over which names to submit.

    If someone has some information that says otherwise, I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong. But I've yet to see it (the info not me being wrong of course).

    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:30:27 PM EST
    And that is the real reason

    Parent
    But the Obama camp did campaign (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:42:38 PM EST
    in MI -- they encouraged supporters to vote "uncommitted"

    Parent
    Campaign (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:16:08 PM EST
    in MI, they did.  Edwards and Obama set up phone banks to get out the vote for uncommitted.

    Parent
    Enough already (4.33 / 6) (#76)
    by xspowr on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:43:42 PM EST
    Obama himself characterized his decision to remove his name from the MI ballot as an "additional commitment" and not as a requirement of the Four State Pledge. This fact has also been linked here before, repeatedly. Nothing in the pledge required candidates to remove their names from the ballots in either FL or MI. You embarrass yourself and your candidate with this sophistry and misstatement of fact.

    Parent
    I think the people (none / 0) (#211)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:05:42 PM EST
    who should feel embarrassed are those who think the January 15 MI vote should count in any way, shape or form after even Hillary Clinton said it "wasn't going to count for anything."

    Link.

    When right wingers tell citizens their votes won't count, then count the results anyway, true democrats rightly call it vote suppression.  MI 1/15 is a poisoned well.

    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#212)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:22:56 PM EST
    she didn't tell the voters their votes wouldn't count.  It's unlikely that a single Michigan voter heard that comment.

    This is strictly a game of gotcha.  People don't lose their right to vote based upon what some candidate said on a radio show.

    Parent

    Cue Mr. McKinnon: (none / 0) (#226)
    by mattt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:19:55 PM EST
    "Every day they run a primary campaign, we run a general election campaign," explained Mark McKinnon, McCain's senior media adviser, as the campaign bus rolled through Kentucky. "And every day we run a general election campaign is a good day for us."


    Parent
    Then the DNC... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by NWHiker on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:32:24 PM EST
    pledge should have said exactly that: not to campaign and to remove their names. It did not.

    As an Edwards supporter (could Clinton and Obama just drop out and release their delegates to Edwards, please?), I was pissed when I found out he'd removed his name, even if the votes weren't too count, because I thought it would be good to win there, even if it didn't count. So I'm not going to be blame Clinton (my current preferred candidate) for leaving her name on there. It made no sense to remove it.

    Parent

    Spin (1.00 / 0) (#66)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:39:26 PM EST
    pledge should have said exactly that: not to campaign and to remove their names. It did not.
    I guess that depends on what you think "pledge I shall not campaign or participate" means.

    pledge text

    Parent

    Call the DNC and ask if she broke the pledge. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:00:03 PM EST
    If so, also ask them what penalty was applied for breaking the pledge. Or look it up online. No one is trying to spin you.

    Parent
    IMHO (none / 0) (#30)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:20:59 PM EST
    a "fair" way to count the popular vote would be:

    1. Count all the votes from FL;
    2. Count HRC's votes from MI and split the "uncommitteds" depending on how many other candidates were on the ballot; and
    3. Get the real popular vote tallies from the caucus states and add them in.

    I don't know who would win in that case, but I highly doubt that Obama would be boasting of a large popular vote lead. ;-)

    Parent
    There are actually exit polls from MI (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:20:14 PM EST
    I think the number was 35% Obama. So he got about 2/3 of the uncommitteds. The other third to Edwards, et al. Since the popular vote is just a rough metric to be factored in by SuperDs, if they so choose, then that is close enough, I would think.

    It would be a 57-43 split if you want to prorate it to just Clinton-Obama. Not horribly out of line with OH and PA seeing how they turned out after being carpet-bombed by Obama ads.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#126)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:29:45 PM EST
    I'm sorry but there really is no way to estimate what Obama would have gotten in MI.  The best, though still very imperfect way, would be to give all the uncommitted votes to Obama.  I think this might offset the absent "having-your-name-on-the-ballot" bump.
    But I stand by my original position that MI is just uncountable as far as the pop vote.  

    Parent
    That's the perfect argument (none / 0) (#155)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:09:30 PM EST
    For having a revote - WAIT!  Obama stalled that too. So now what?

    Parent
    Aw, because the Dems who voted GOP (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:43:55 PM EST
    after being encouraged by a top blog would not be allowed to vote Dem? Ha. It would have been a got'ca moment. That was one of the first kinks in the armor. I could not believe that Markos did that because we were suppose to be so above that sort of Republican tacit. In the end, the standards were lowered and people thought it was fun.

    Parent
    If you listen (none / 0) (#186)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:02:15 PM EST
    carefully to Hillary, you will hear her check move.

    She will not get out of the race until MI and FL are resolved.

    Check.  :)

    Parent

    Resolving the MI Popular Vote (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Petey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:09:31 PM EST
    I'm happy to give Obama two thirds of the uncommitted vote in Michigan.  I'd even go up to a probably overly generous three quarters of the uncommitted MI vote if that's what's necessary for fairness' sake.

    I'd go with 3/4 (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:45:43 PM EST
    Polling supports this. Beyond that, there were certainly discouraged Obama voters (including some who voted for Hillary), but there were also discouraged Hillary voters (who would have boosted HRC's pop margin had they not stayed home). ANd Obama was the only candidate on-air in MI with an active (surrogate) "Vote Uncommitted for Obama" organization.

    Parent
    Elections have consequences! (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:09:54 PM EST
    I'm impressed.  I hope the SuperDs are too.

    Not absurd (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:10:39 PM EST
    Caucus votes cannot be mixed with primary votes because the are not the same animal.  As to MI, I agree that is difficult to give HRC those votes, but it's not her fault that BO decided for political reasons to take his name off the ballot.  I see no reason to penalize HRC for his mistake.

    Given the Mix (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by The Maven on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:41:11 PM EST
    across all the primaries of open, partially-open and closed primaries, which can make the question of sorting out who the actual Democrats voted for, I think it's within reason to include figures from caucus states where the individual vote counts were released to the public.  Many of the caucus states did this, which means a vote could theoretically be matched to a specific individual (and some of those states even had secret ballots at their caucuses, entirely unlike Iowa).

    In the cases of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, the only official numbers made available were for delegates selected for the next round of caucusing (at the county or district level), thus relegating the cumulative margin of 110K for Obama from those four to the realm of speculative guesswork.  It would be nice if the traditional media could acknowledge this, instead of counting it as representing actual "votes".

    Parent

    Also, RCP uses the ESTIMATED (none / 0) (#169)
    by seeker on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:29:48 PM EST
    WA caucus votes.  Clinton won the primary a bit later, but that had no delegates attached.  So Clinton is the preferance of VOTERS.  But Obama gets credit for the flawed caucus.  

    Parent
    Peeing in the Punchbowl (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:16:17 PM EST
    Obama saw that he wasn't going to get most of the punch, so he decided to add his own ingredient, and poisoned the vote.

    OBAMA - GOTV or PTV?

    Parent

    Nor is it her fault that Obama nixed a re-vote (none / 0) (#85)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:47:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh by the way, congratulations to Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:13:14 PM EST
    Those $10 million dollars are a huge figure that was well deserved.  I will continue donating until she wins the nomination!

    Cha-ching! (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:54:58 PM EST
    I deposited some money in the ATM today!

    It was so much fun, I just may add some more money to Hillary's fundraising tomorrow.

    Parent

    More Hyperbole (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by Petey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:13:44 PM EST
    Here's an interesting example today from Ambinder of Obama's odd tick of unnecessary hyperbole:

    Here's Barack Obama, speaking to CNN's Roland Martin: "We have won the white, blue collar vote in a whole bunch of states" ... Atlantic Media's Ron Brownstein notes to me in an e-mail that, according to the exit polls, Obama has won the white non college voting bloc (e.g., white blue collar voters) in Wisconsin -- 52% -- and lost them everywhere else, even in Illinois
    No one has done more (5.00 / 10) (#43)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:29:16 PM EST
    for the blue-collar votes than Obama. :)

    Parent
    Gawd (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:36:33 PM EST
    If Hillary had told that fib it would be the Bosnia thing all over again.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:18:27 PM EST
    anytime folks are talking about the popular vote tally, and validating that as a method of deciding who wins, I am happy.  It also keeps the question of Florida and Michigan out there.  As BTD said back in 1803, when this all began, Obama not having MI and FL resolved is going to haunt him.

    I think they are just flying by the seat of their pants now.  Bring on the popular vote talk!  It shows to everyone who glances at the pie chart just how freakin' close this race is.

    Wow... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    1803?  Maybe this primary has been going on too long.

    Parent
    The Louisiana Purchase (none / 0) (#206)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:39:39 PM EST
    must have made for a very good year for Kathy and Armando both, spurring them to begin discussion of how to take back the White House from those Jeffersonian demography-is-manifest-destiny types  205 years later.  These things take time, after all -- as then, off went Lewis and Clark and Sacajawea on that pesky expedition that meant a little detour into opening the West, eventually even including Bleeding Kansas, so that a family might move there one day and raise the Sainted Mother of Obama . . . and the rest is, as they say, history.

    Parent
    I don't think it's any more absurd (5.00 / 10) (#27)
    by MaxUS on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:19:57 PM EST
    than arguing that CA SDs should choose Obama because of how people caucused in Idaho. That's pretty much what insisting that the race for pledged delegates should be the supreme indicator of the public will.

    In fact, considering that he got zero votes in MI by his own doing, I'll go so far as to suggest that it's less absurd.

    It's arguable that he won support in IA as a result of his pandering stunt with MI. Many of his own supporters have made the case that his result in IA helped to make his case in SC which, in turn, put him in a winning position for the February races.

    I see him as having gone all in with his MI move. It paid off in the short term but might not be quite enough in the end. Oh, well. Hillary, paid the price in the early states and now is being expected to pay again? Hopefully, the Supers will be persuaded not to buy that.

    Whether they count for delegates or not, voters voted, period. If voters couldn't vote for Obama because he took his name off the ballot, that's not anybody's fault but his own.

    The popular vote is not subject to DNC rules, it is what it is, and Obama made a mistake.

    Exactly. It was a strategy for Super Tuesday (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:42:06 PM EST
    to be all tied up by then, because of his exploitation of caucuses.  But he couldn't close it then or since.  So actions have consequences, and he just will have to live with this one while he tries again to close up the race.  Or not.  Tough, but as my dad used to say, that's life in a great democracy.

    Parent
    Bottom line: (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Jim J on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    Someone's gonna have to swallow their pride for Dems to win this fall.

    I'm hearing the good ol' "you-know-who is going to riot if Obama doesn't get the nomination" talk from the fanboyz. The playing of the violence/fear-of-a-black-planet card is a sure indicator of their own fear at Obama's core weakeness, which they desperately try to paper over with these hysterical calls for HRC to drop out prematurely.

    I also know for a fact that many Clinton supporters, rightly in my opinion, are so disgusted by her treatment by the Obama/MSM/blogosphere nexus that they will either not vote for him or actively support McCain as the lesser of the two evils.

    I have said from the beginning that this was all coming down to a HRC/Obama joint ticket. I still think it's the only formula for a Dem win, though it certainly seems unlikely now.

    And no, this is not off-topic, because I'm addressing the endgame, which is the subject of the post.

    And no, Kos isn't right. He is never right. About anything. Period.

    Impressive numbers by Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:20:45 PM EST
    Impressive fundraising. I hope there is money left for whoever wins vs. McCain!

    She has $24 million for GE (none / 0) (#149)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:59:31 PM EST
    contributed earlier which she cannot touch for the primaries.  And if the contributions that poured in after Pennsylvania is any indication, she will do even better when she becomes the nominee.  

    Parent
    I have no doubt. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:00:37 PM EST
    I think either one of them will be flooded with money when the nominee is chosen. I was sort of being tongue in cheek :)

    Parent
    My Math (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:22:06 PM EST
    Clinton 15473426
    Obama 15264155

    Includes: Florida, Texas Primary (not caucus), Washington Primary (not caucus), Michigan (uncommitted not given to anyone), caucuses except Iowa, Nevada, Maine.

    While I agree the 3 states who haven't released their votes should be included, I think uncommitted in Michigan is debatable. Of course a revote might have solved that. :D

    But just to give that figure, if I give Obama all the Michigan uncommitted votes the totals become:

    Clinton 15473426
    Obama 15502323

    This is the very problem (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:33:13 PM EST
    with the entire popular vote argument.  There are too many ways to figure out that vote.  Who is to say which is the "proper" way?  

    Of course the supers are the one that will decide which argument to use.  They'll decide based on who they like, who will be best for them and their state, etc.  They are as divided as the rest of the party.  

    Parent

    Not hard (none / 0) (#84)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:46:51 PM EST
    The proper way is to count as many as possible.

    I went to each state/party site and took their figures. If there was a primary I used that figure (more people). For a caucus I used votes if given. I didn't estimate otherwise.

    No guesses or estimates. Just the votes as they have been cast. There is a real problem if we can't figure out how to count votes. Seems simple to me. People vote. We count the votes.

    Parent

    But the standard for winning the nomination (none / 0) (#104)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    is reaching the appropriate number of delegates.  That is the way it was decided for Bill Clinton, for Al Gore, for John Kerry, it will be the standard this time.  

    Neither candidate will have enough state earned pledged delegates to reach that total so it will be decided by the SDs.  Some SDs may use the popular vote total to decide, some may not (OK Gov went for Obama today).  She needs a greater percentage of these SDs than him since he is ahead.

    As such, I don't see the argument that Michigan should be counted for Hillary and nothing given for Obama as persuasive to anyone but diehard Clinton supporters.  

    Perhaps I'm wrong and, if so, we should be seeing a number of SDs endorse her soon.

    Parent

    BO has managed to block FL & MI delegates (none / 0) (#110)
    by katiebird on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:15:52 PM EST
    But he can't keep the SuperDelegates from considering ANY factors they want when making their decisions.

    Hillary's making sure the super delegates know the impact of blocking those states.  And how much of that vote belonged to her.

    This is TOTALLY Obama's fault.  He took his name off the ballot AND he blocked revotes.

    Maybe now that it might actually affect HIM, something will be done about it.

    Again, Super Delegates don't have to base their vote on anything.  

    Parent

    We agree that the SDs (none / 0) (#114)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:21:29 PM EST
    don't have to base there vote on anything. Of course the Supers can use whatever yardstick they want for deciding their vote.  

    That is is TOTALLY Obama's fault is an argument that will not be persuasive to the SDs, IMO.  

    Parent

    should be... their vote on anything. (none / 0) (#120)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:25:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Its the fault... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:25:05 PM EST
    of everyone who tried to rush the primary.

    Parent
    YES! What was the purpose (none / 0) (#122)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:28:01 PM EST
    for Michigan to move up the primary knowing it would lose the chance to seat delegates?  Why did it do that?  The Gov is a Hillary supporter -- was it engineered to help her?  

    Parent
    Yeah, Michigan is faulted for doing it (none / 0) (#135)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:36:15 PM EST
    because it got caught. Iowa and New Hampshire slid right by daddy Dean, though. Preferential treatment?

    Parent
    I'm not sure what you mean (none / 0) (#139)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:41:39 PM EST
    I believe that those that go early in the primary lineup get less delegates then they would if they went later.  So Iowa and NH want to be the first primary -- if they were to agree to go later, they would be given some extra delegates as a reward.  Michigan wanted to go early, they were warned not to do so.  They were told their delegates wouldn't be seated and they went ahead and did so.

    Do I think the process is studpid?  Yep. But it is what we are in now and the game needs to be played out.

    If you're implying preferential treatment for Obama that would be no.  Was he even running when the schedule was devised?  

    Parent

    I was implying preferential treatment (none / 0) (#182)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:56:10 PM EST
    for Iowa and New Hampshire: they were allowed to move their primary dates up, but Florida and Michigan were penalized. I don't understand why two were allowed, but another two were denied--unless the justification is that Iowa and New Hampshire are historically special (and must be for all time). But that seems weak.

    Parent
    Yep they are special (none / 0) (#198)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:58:17 PM EST
    because they are first but I have no idea why.  But they don't want to lose those spots.  The party does have a say in how the Dem primaries are run.  They allowed Iowa and NH to move up (why I don't know) and MI and FL knew the penalty and didn't care.  IMO they thought the nominee was going to be Hillary and they didn't think it would be much of a contest so they wanted to get their primaries in before she had it sewn up.  Little did they know...

    Parent
    Fine... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:41:58 PM EST
    take those votes away too.  Whatever it takes to stop people from blaming Obama for the MI and FL trying to rush their primary.  He had nothing to do with that decision, and it was that decision that has caused this mess.  

    Id love it if they hadnt have screwed up and those votes could have gone to HRC.  Then maybe this thing could have been over sooner and we could all start leveling our guns to where they belong, McSenile.

    Parent

    I wasn't blaming Obama for the mess in my comment (none / 0) (#184)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:58:24 PM EST
    And, personally, I don't level all the blame against him, either. Nearly all of it resides squarely on the shoulders of the DNC, but Obama has been obstinate in trying to remedy the situation. For that, I do hold him accountable.

    Parent
    The purpose was (none / 0) (#159)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:16:31 PM EST
    that for 7 (almost 8)years Carl Levin and other prominent Michigan Democrats have been asking the DNC to redo the primary calendar so that Iowa and New Hampshire aren't always first. They weren't necessarily advocating that Michigan go first, but more along the lines of regional rotating primaries.  7 years ago, the DNC said they would look into it after the election. They never did and never got back to Levin. (Wouldn't it be nice for your state of Indiana to get a little retail politics for once?)

    Then 3 years ago, the same group went back to the DNC and asked again - they were promptly blown off.

    So this whole exercise was out of frustration that the DNC caters to the small number of voters in 2 small states every election year. (Yes, I know that either Iowa or NH has in their state constitution that they will always be first in the nation. But what if Rhode Island, as the smallest state, also put that in their constitution? Should that law be ignored?)

    Hopefully, the DNC will see the error(s) of this after this election and fix them, but since Dean and Brazile are in charge, I'm not holding my breath.

    Parent

    I agree... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:22:51 PM EST
    that those two states having a monopoly on first primaries is bad and I'll be very happy if that ever changes.  However, regardless of the reasons as to why they rushed ahead, the fact is they still rushed ahead.  

    Obama had nothing to do with that decision, so if youre going to hate anyone for screwing up votes, blame those who did it, good intentions or not.

    Parent

    But Obama (none / 0) (#167)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:28:56 PM EST
    had the decision on a revote.  A plan was developed by the Governor and state legislature, who wanted both candidates' approval before they passed the legislation. HRC approved. Obama said he would agree to whatever the DNC decided. The DNC approved the plan, then Obama punted on the plan, so it never got voted on.

    This. debacle. falls. squarely. on. him. There could have been an equitable solution, and he refused to do it. Now he is running the clock out until they won't matter.

    Parent

    What revote plan... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:32:10 PM EST
    are you talking about?  Wasnt there some legal issues from Floridas own state laws preventing a revote?

    Parent
    "No deal reached on Michigan re-vote... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:37:25 PM EST
    (CNN)--Sen. Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House suffered a blow Thursday when Michigan's state Senate adjourned without passing a bill to schedule a new Democratic primary.  The Senate's inaction makes it nearly impossible that a re-vote will occur."

    That was from March 21, so there may be more recent info Im not aware of backing your claim.

    Parent

    Ok... (none / 0) (#177)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:43:21 PM EST
    the proposed revote would only allow those who didnt vote in the republican primary to vote, which would knock out many democrats from being allowed to vote.  So if HRC (someone I support for president, just like Obama) and her supporters are going to claim Obama doesnt want every vote to count, they have to look at how fair that specific proposed revote would be.

    Parent
    You're mistaken (none / 0) (#180)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:50:35 PM EST
    The people who voted in the Republican primary DID have their votes counted - for Mitt Romney, or Mike Hucakbee, or Ron Paul, or John McCain, or Rudy Guiliani, or Fred Thompson.  So your argument (as well as the Obama's camp) on this is specious.  You can't vote in both parties' primaries.

    Parent
    You cant count... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:57:29 PM EST
    previous votes in a REvote.  So it doesnt matter who they voted for before.  If theyre democrat, they have the right to have their votes counted.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#185)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:01:38 PM EST
    DNC rules (since Obama is so big on them) state a voter cannot vote in both the Republican and Democratic primary in the same election.

    And the Republicans aren't re-voting. Their votes have been certified - no double voting.

    Parent

    So now... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:02:54 PM EST
    youre arguing for DNC rules being enforced?  You cant have it both ways.

    Parent
    I was pointing out (none / 0) (#188)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:05:26 PM EST
    that Obama wanted it both ways.  

    Parent
    And... (none / 0) (#190)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:08:52 PM EST
    so do you it seems.  Look, Im personally blown away by HRCs tenasicy and would love to have her as president.  But if Obama gets it, well, its better than having 4-8 more years of McBush.  Thats my main point.

    Parent
    * tenacity... hate posting in a hurry n/t (none / 0) (#191)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:10:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Thanks and I do (none / 0) (#199)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:02:54 PM EST
    agree that the entire process needs fixing.  I'll be in MI (my homestate) visiting my family this weekend and I was going to ask about why it happened.  In all my discussions about politics with friends/family while in Michigan the subject of HOW it happened never came up.  

    And if the mess of this primary doesn't inspire the leaders to fix the process, nothing will.

    Parent

    The answer is (none / 0) (#163)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:22:03 PM EST
    this is really part of Sen. Levin's longstanding crusade to break the Iowa/NH stranglehold and get Michigan a better place in the process.  And while I'm biased, it does seem to me that Michigan is a great early state as it features quite a few of the most significant Democratic voting blocs.  Certainly more diverse than Iowa or NH, and a big union state.

    Anyway, here is the letter in which the MI Dems make their case to the DNC.  I think they really do have a point in that this is really about the fact that New Hampshire gets to run roughshod over the process, year in and year out, and no one says boo to them.  One of the biggest secrets of this whole election is that NH flagrantly violated the rules and got no punishment whatsoever.

    Parent

    I agree with Sen. Levin on breaking (none / 0) (#201)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:06:34 PM EST
    the stranglehold of Iowa/NH.  Can you believe I interned at his office one summer year's ago?! I think we'd get better Dem candidates if MI was the first primary then the Iowa caucus.  We just disagree on who the better Dem is this time!  

    Parent
    It's not that longstanding for Iowa and NH (none / 0) (#209)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:50:08 PM EST
    as I well remember when Wisconsin and West Virginia went first and garnered the media buzz and bucks.

    Moses did not bring down from the mountain an 11th Commandment that thou Dems shalt meet in church basements in the worst of winter in the goshawful cold and snows of Iowa and New Hampshire to caucus, vote, or pass a hot dish, whichever.

    The DNC blew it by not living up to its promise to look again at the primary schedule, as it has done before.  But interestingly, the DNC gets to penalize states that waited and waited for action. . . .

    Parent

    It isnt about being persuasive (none / 0) (#115)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:22:59 PM EST
    It's about being fair to voters. I don't think people should be given votes they didn't actually earn.

    To take away those Clinton votes from Michigan is to deny every one of those voters their right to vote. They took the time to register, stand in line and cast their ballot. And because Obama decides to remove his name they shouldn't matter?

    No one made Obama sign that pledge. And no one, including the pledge creators, told him to remove his name. He screwed over his supporters in Michigan with that move. Should he now have a say in how many voters would have voted for him if he had allowed them to? Do we give him the votes of people who didn't want to vote for him? You can't just decide on a fair formula for giving away peoples votes.

    I included the figures giving (and it was a gift) Obama all the uncommitted even though I don't agree with it for those who prefer to do that.

    And btw, I am not a Clinton supporter much less diehard. I'm a Floridian who will not be voting for Obama or Clinton since the Dems don't seem to think voters matter more than rules. They decided to play with voters as if they didn't matter. Some are still doing it. But to me votes are sacred. And should be treated as such.  

    I don't think we'll see much activity from the SDs. Why should they act now, it doesn't seem politically wise at this point? Of course I could be wrong so we'll have to wait and see.

    Parent

    I'm sure... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:29:36 PM EST
    all the American soldiers who'll die in Iraq and possibly Iran under a McMuffen administration will appreciate your misplaced principles.  

    Parent
    Nice (none / 0) (#153)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:08:55 PM EST
    Maybe if you stopped blaming the voters and actually worked towards earning votes this wouldn't be a problem. And btw, I'm still waiting for the Dems elected in 2006 who promised to do something to actually do something. But I'm sure your convincing and fact based argument is winning over plenty of voters.

    Parent
    Uhh... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:13:50 PM EST
    who are you talking to?  

    Parent
    Look At The Last Result (none / 0) (#128)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:32:00 PM EST
    As such, I don't see the argument that Michigan should be counted for Hillary and nothing given for Obama as persuasive to anyone but diehard Clinton supporters.  

    His last totals gave ALL of the uncommetted votes to Obama.  Look at the results: 30 Million votes cast and less that 30 thousand seperating the two.  This means that with Hillary's big MO, she can easily catch Obama in the popular vote totals easily, EVEN giving him  MI's uncommitted!

    Parent

    Yet (none / 0) (#107)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:14:25 PM EST
    in this very thread composed of like-minded Hillary supporters there are several different "totals" comprised several different ways.  Which one is valid?  

    Parent
    Mine :D (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:27:22 PM EST
    Mine, of course. :D

    Its why I added it myself. To actually see the figures and the sources for the figures instead of taking someone else's word for it. I have the links for all my numbers if you are interested.

    Oh and even mine will change, if vote totals from states change. Or if I could get the votes from the 3 missing states. Or the next primary.

    But its not as if SDs are lurking here using our figures. Each SD will find their own reason and/or figures for whoever they endorse. The figures are for us to examine so that we remain fact based in our discussions. Or at least as fact based as we can.

    Parent

    Thanks for the laugh! (none / 0) (#127)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:30:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Or they may choose (none / 0) (#117)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:23:35 PM EST
    to ignore the entire popular vote argument and focus on which candidate they like, or who would help the Dem party in their state, or who would help them, who knows what they will choose.  

    Parent
    Sorry to reply twice (none / 0) (#123)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:28:37 PM EST
    I think its also important to note. As confusing as popular vote totals are, have you spent any time looking at how the pledged delegate totals are reached?

    Parent
    The system sucks! (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:34:41 PM EST
    The one good thing about this primary is that this pathetic system is exposed.  It should be changed.  But I don't want to change the rules during the game.

    Parent
    The system supersucks (none / 0) (#197)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:57:20 PM EST
    And yeah, I agree, too, that automatic delegates can support whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

    I understand about not wanting to change the rules now, but the rules say the rules can be changed at any time to prevent an election disaster. For example, the disaster the Dem nominee may face in the fall (and by extension, downticket Dems) by not counting primary votes in two big and often swing states.

    The DNC can change the rules anytime specifically because a primary is a selection, not an election, and the selection is about getting Dems elected.

    So, should we change the rules then? Should we lift the 100% delegate loss imposed by Donna Brazile et al now because the rules say those states should only lose 50% of their delegates?

    My questions all fit into the supersucking of this system. Trying to be all things to all people makes for bad rules.

    But what matters more: treating Dem primary voters in MI and FL fairly to get them on our side in the fall or sticking to the rules like flypaper?

    What is the advantage to the party and a liberal agenda if the DNC sticks to these rules? And what does the DNC gain by re-reading (heh, I couldn't think of another word) the rules to count those voters in FL and MI?

    My argument isn't because I'm a Clinton supporter. It's easy to accuse me of that---I can see it and I'm aware of my bias. But you can see my arguments as reasonable, even if you don't agree, right?

    Parent

    It's too confusing, so ignore it (none / 0) (#150)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:59:44 PM EST
    This argument is often used by those whose interests are served by obscuring the facts. I expect we'll start to hear this a lot more from Obama supporters, now that the popular vote totals are so close. They will cite articles explaining why it's impossible to really count the votes in this primary, and concluding that nobody will ever really know the truth. Standard spin, like everything else we're subjected to.

    Parent
    From RealClearPolitics.com = current numbers (none / 0) (#165)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:23:49 PM EST
    Tie, using best estimates from all available sources.

    NPR used the top two line, identifying that they did not include caucuses where numbers weren't released by the states. Did not mention FL and MI not included.  

    Popular Vote Total   14,417,134 49.2% 13,916,781 47.5%    Obama +500,353 +1.7%

    Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*    14,751,218 49.3% 14,140,643 47.2%    Obama +610,575 +2.1%

    Popular Vote (w/FL)   14,993,348 48.3% 14,787,767 47.6%    Obama +205,581 +0.7%

    Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*    15,327,432 48.4% 15,011,629 47.4%    Obama +315,803 +1.0%

    Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)*   14,993,348 47.4% 15,116,076 47.8%    Clinton +122,728 +0.4%

    Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA    15,327,432 47.5% 15,339,938 47.5%    Clinton +12,506 +0.04


    Parent

    Obama winning 51% of delegates? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by katiebird on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:22:43 PM EST
    BTD, have you seen this post at the BoomanTribune?

    Long story short, Obama is going to finish with over 51% of the pledged delegates in a near worst case scenario, but more likely will finish with over 52% of the pledged delegates. There is not much difference, therefore, whether he wins or loses Indiana, or whether or not he gets crushed in Appalachia. The media narrative will of course differ, but not The Math.

    and in a comment he elaborates:

    So, in once case Obama wound up with 1,699 delegates and in the other 1,681.  The 50% mark is 1,627.

    Have you every seen 1627 delegates considered a magic number?

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:28:51 PM EST
    Today the "pledged delegate" dishonesty has gotten worse than ever.  Diary after diary presenting "pledged delegates" as the indisputable metric for determining the nomination.

    Because, you know, it would be an act of unspeakable evil if the superdelegates decided to vote for a candidate who only got 49% of the pledged delegates.

    Parent

    OH! 1/2 of PLEDGED delegates.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by katiebird on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:31:26 PM EST
    duh.  (hanging my head)  that didn't even occur to me.

    I guess it's the Obama Rules....

    Parent

    What's even funnier (none / 0) (#161)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:18:08 PM EST
    is thinking that the pledged delegates are actually pledged.  LOL*

    Parent
    Pledged delegates only (none / 0) (#54)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:33:16 PM EST
    Half of 3253 pledged delegates is 1626.5

    Parent
    Obama chose NOT TO RUN (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:29:40 PM EST
    in Michigan.  That was his choice and what did he do by that choice?  Disenfranchised Michigan voters who wanted to vote for him AND made a stupid mistake to detrimentally affect his campaign, just like any stupid mistake Hillary made to detrimentally affect her campaign. Therefore, he should get nothing in Michigan.

    He didn't run.

    Thanks to Obama's efforts those MI votes (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by katiebird on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:30:00 PM EST
    are all there is.  The votes were legally certified.

    If Obama wants something else to count, he should push for revotes.

    As it is, I don't see how superdelegates have any choice but to look at the votes as they stand (not that they actually have to look at anything)

    Again, the ball is in Obama's court -- he's the one who dismissed revotes.

    I think it's fair (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:30:52 PM EST
    to say it if you stipulate you're including MI and FL and that it's based on what we know so far. And if pushed, they can always say about MI, we'll we'd be happy with a revote if you have a problem with the current count. Swoosh. :-)

    And sweet on the 10M. That includes my pennies as well.

    Hillary and Goliath (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Chimster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:31:01 PM EST
    I think the $10 million came from alot of worried voters who listened to her certain demise on a daily basis from the MSM. Reversing roles, Obama and the media have now become Goliath. It kinda feels like David just gave Goliath a swift kick in the Superdelegates (the same Superdelegates Obama needs to win the nomination).

    Where are you, John Edwards? (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:33:18 PM EST
    Now is your time to come out and play.

    Parent
    Is it just me that thinks an Edwards nod (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:11:05 PM EST
    would not really do much no matter who he endorses.    I have respect for him and he was my first choice, but so much has happened since then.  The sides seem to be so entrenched.  I keep hearing both sides dreaming about Edwards or Gore.  I don't think that even they can solve this mess.  

    Parent
    No. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:13:20 PM EST
    I'm also unconvinced that an Edwards endorsement would fundamentally shift things.

    Much though I hate to admit it, it seems that demographics really is destiny. And that puts our party in a very nasty spot indeed.

    Parent

    You may be right (none / 0) (#118)
    by Chimster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:23:59 PM EST
    but at this moment in time, if Hillary were to get the backing of John Edwards, it would start a HUGE ball of momentum for her, which could inevitably lead to her nomination.

    I'm repeating myself, but unfortunately for Barrack, the more people get to know him, the more people get to know him.

    Parent

    I think it would help her on the ground (none / 0) (#125)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:29:41 PM EST
    they have a similar style and reach many of the same voters. He could help with soft Obama support and undecideds just by going around in a state he knows.


    Parent
    Edwaards (none / 0) (#134)
    by DJ on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:35:46 PM EST
    Edwards would help Hill.  Does he get to chose who to give his delegates to?

    Parent
    Edwards (none / 0) (#136)
    by DJ on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:36:33 PM EST
    Edwards would help Hill.  Does he get to chose who to give his delegates to?

    Parent
    There Were Rumers That Elizabeth Edwards Might (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:16:44 PM EST
    do some campaigning with Hillary. I would be more than happy to settle for Elizabeth just doing campaign stops telling the truth about the difference in health care plans. That in itself would be worth pure gold even if John didn't endorse anyone.

    Parent
    Oh, yes! Me too! Would be so sweeeeet. (none / 0) (#168)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:29:46 PM EST
    Elizebeth getting up there to say Hillary's healthcare plan is the closest to best option we have a chance of voting on. So,...

    Vote Hillary for your Health!

    Physical and financial!

    Atrios posted today about a health insurance company which is predicting losses due to, get this!, essentially pricing itself out of the market for many small business owners and individuals. So the company won't make it numbers and make Wall St. do the happy dance.


    Parent

    Boy do I agree- if he is going (none / 0) (#82)
    by kenosharick on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:45:51 PM EST
    to have any relevance , he (Edwards) should endorse now- BEFORE the NC primary, when it will mean something. What about a Clinton/Edwards ticket?

    Parent
    unless, of course (none / 0) (#90)
    by Chimster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:52:51 PM EST
    he endorses Obama. That would be a back breaker. I wonder if Obama is still courting Al Gore.

    Parent
    He said he does not want VP :( (none / 0) (#94)
    by Leisa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:58:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Ten Million dollars in less than a day (5.00 / 8) (#50)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:32:22 PM EST
    is a huge amount of money; Markos can uncharitably call her website an ATM machine if he likes, but it just makes him sound like he's got a mouthful of sour grapes.  Which I suspect he does.

    What will be interesting is whether Obama's fundraising takes a downturn, and what effect that will have on the race.  Jake Tapper last night on Nightline said that the extreme negativity of Obama's ads and speeches in the last few days, together with the loss, had him leaving Pennsylvania with his brand damaged.  No kidding.

    As for it being ridiculous to give Obama zero votes for Michigan, I think it is ridiculous to give him any.  He wasn't on the ballot - by his own choice - and if he wants to claim that he should be awarded some, maybe we all need to petition for a few; we weren't on the ballot, either, but apparently, that is no longer important.

    IA, NV, ME pop counts (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:38:05 PM EST
    DMR and MSNBC published Iowa popular counts by county. ME published attendance and delegate allocation by county, permitting a very close approximation to exact popular count. And IIRC someone produced NV totals from on-site reports.

    Should these count as popular votes? In my analysis, "signs point to NO": Obama's entire lead in caucus states (and his entire lead in pledged delegates) is an artifact of caucus effects rather than popular sentiment in the same states.

    with TX as the perfect example (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:40:09 PM EST


    Parent
    WA may be an even better example (none / 0) (#192)
    by seeker on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:21:20 PM EST
    Obama wins the caucus and the delegates. A couple of weeks later Clinton wins the "irrelevant" primary.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#213)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:38:51 PM EST
    Obama won the WA primary, just not by nearly as wide a margin.

    Parent
    Is that the best fundraising day ever online? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:42:21 PM EST
    Seems like it.

    Good for Hillary.

    Petition for FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by DJ on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:44:19 PM EST
    Does anyone know if there is a petition to send to the DNC
    leadership asking them to count those votes or have a revote?

    HRC's site (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:02:18 PM EST
    HRC's site has a link to write to the DNC.

    Parent
    on Hillary's site (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:16:31 PM EST
    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/flmi/

    On Saturday, buses of Floridians are traveling to DC to protest at the DNC - COUNT OUR VOTES!
    Pitiful - sounds like a news item from a banana republic. AND most likely won't be mentioned by the MSM.
    2000 all over again.

    Parent

    About the Math... (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:48:46 PM EST
    As an Obama supporter, I have to admit, anyway you slice the popular vote and delegate projections they're both so close that it really is inappropriate to expect Hillary to bow out.  Espceially since Pennsylvania and the day after show that her support is not draining away as I expected it might.

    I still think Obama will be the nominee, and am frustrated by this extended primary which I think hurts either candidate's chances vs. McCain.  I wish it would stop.  But I can't blame HRC for continuing....Dems really need to come together after this plays out and figure how to reduce the potential for primary fratricide in 2012 and beyond.

    I don't think it hurts... (none / 0) (#205)
    by NWHiker on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:02:22 PM EST
    I honestly don't think it hurts: it keeps the media attention on Obama and Clinton and not on McCain.

    Parent
    Absurd? (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by ricosuave on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:32:07 PM EST
    Why is it absurd to give Obama no votes for Michigan?  He got no votes. He wasn't on the ballot, and we all know that it was his politically motivated choice to remove himself.  

    He reaped the benefits of removing himself from the Michigan ballot in caucus votes in Iowa.  He should suffer the negative consequences of that as well.

    The equivalent pro-Hillary argument (that I don't hear anyone making) would be that since Obama broke the no-campaign rules in Florida (definitely with a local press conference, and possibly with his national ads) we shouldn't count his popular votes in Florida.  The DNC rules do say he would forfeit all delegates from Florida, so it only makes sense.

    He made his choice in Michigan, now he has to live with it.  Don't ignore the voters in Michigan (or Florida) just because Obama was playing games.  

    Of course, it is all academic.  There is no "official" popular vote count, so we (BTD, me, you, and the superdelegates) are free to interpret the popular will however we want.

    Invest in Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by David07Power on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:41:40 PM EST

    What a great investment Hillary is. Donate as little as $5 now and within the next 4 years you make a profit on all of these:

    >affordable healthcare
    >a tax break for the middle classes
    >lower energy bills
    >lower costs of petrol
    >more efficient cars
    >a better eduaction to get a better job
    >at least 5million new jobs in the green energy industry
    >subsidies taken away from oil companies and put to good use
    >billions no longer being pumped into the Iraq War

    Not too bad an investment and Hillary will even throw in world peace to top it all off. See your $5 get you all this. So donate to www.hillaryclinton.com

    Including caucus numbers now, HRC is ahead (4.80 / 5) (#2)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:05:46 PM EST
    even without Florida and Michigan, according to RealClearPolitics.com:

    Estimate with IA, NV, ME, WA
    Obama    15,307,804     47.5%
    Clinton    15,319,525     47.5%

    Clinton    +11,721    +0.03%

    And I might wish that pigs could fly, as it would be fun to see, but some of those states apparently, simply did not tally total numbers -- overwhelmed as they were by the Obama strategy of exploiting caucuses as part of the plan to close it up and put this all away as of Super Tuesday.

    He didn't do it, so -- sorry, but I say: Tough.  Obama lives with the consequences; Clinton is ahead.

    We need to include a caucus vote (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:15:11 PM EST
    estimate, so when Hillary wins the popular vote, they won't have anything to argue about.

    Parent
    Um no. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:13:47 PM EST
    You must go to a different RCP than me.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

    Look again. Hillary needs MI included to be ahead at this time. With or without the 4 caucus states that don't include popular vote totals.

    Parent

    Always fun to read the footnotes (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:44:44 PM EST
    to explain RCP's two different totals -- one in yellow, one in purple (I rather like that, as they're the woman suffrage movement colors:-).

    Here's the footie: (Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals. RealClearPolitics has estimated the popular vote totals for Senator Obama and Clinton in these four states. RCP uses the WA Caucus results from February 9 in this estimate because the Caucuses on February 9 were the "official" contest recognized by the DNC to determine delegates to the Democratic convention. The estimate from these four Caucus states where there are not official popular vote numbers increases Senator Obama's popular vote margin by 110,224. This number would be about 50,000 less if the Washington primary results from February 19th were used instead of the Washington Caucus results.)

    Parent

    Purple includes FL and MI (none / 0) (#142)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:49:03 PM EST
    Yellow includes neither FL or MI. Not sure what the middle color is...off white? Off white is with FL but without MI.

    So only with FL and MI is Clinton ahead.

    With either just FL or without either FL or MI Obama is ahead.

    Parent

    Unfortunately caucuses cut out anyone below 15% (none / 0) (#174)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:37:58 PM EST
    support when compared with the total precinct.

    So if you have 14.9% forget it. You vote doesn't count. Disenfrancises at least 14 per 100. Even more:

    Example:

    100 total in precinct
    29 for Clinton, 14 for Undecided, 14 for Kucinich, 43 for Obama.
    Gets you 1 Clinton, and 3 Obama delegates to the Leg Distr level.  There they get winnowed down again. Only 15% or over counts.

    Weeds out lotsa people's votes that way. Hmmm.

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#19)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:14:12 PM EST
    I'm looking at this page, and I don't see that at all.

    According to it, the popular vote totals (excluding FL and MI, but including caucus estimates) still have Obama up by more than 600,000.

    Am I looking at the wrong page?

    Parent

    That's all fine and good (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:15:44 PM EST
    but you cannot exclude Florida. there is no valid reason to exclude FLorida's popular vote.

    I would count Michigan's as well but that's just me.

    Parent

    I agree there's an argument for FL. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:27:47 PM EST
    Which brings Obama's lead down to just above 200,000. I think she might be able to overcome that, depending on how NC and PR go.

    But I don't see any way to legitimately claim MI votes. An election where one candidate is not on the ballot is never going to be seen as legitimate. It doesn't matter if it was a power-play by Obama...if it was, it worked. Nobody outside of the Clinton Camp (including Supers) is going to give MI any weight.

    Parent

    "if it was, it worked" (none / 0) (#79)
    by Chimster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:44:56 PM EST
    If it worked, he'd be the nominee by now.

    I wonder what the Dem voters of MI would think of your last sentence. I'm not sure if I can find anything factual in what you've written.

    Parent

    Uh...no. (none / 0) (#175)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:39:36 PM EST
    It worked in that it removed the MI primary from any possibility of being considered legitimate. Of course, simply removing MI is not enough to give Obama the win.

    And I have no idea what voters in MI think. But for better or worse, there's no chance that anyone who isn't already in the tank for Clinton is going to consider Michigan results legitimate. Florida, maybe. Michigan, no way.

    Parent

    You are looking at the right page. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:18:42 PM EST
    Cream City is looking at Hillary Clinton's "fact" hub.

    Parent
    lookit, it says it's a fact, so it must be. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:19:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Do you have a link? (none / 0) (#41)
    by joc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:27:56 PM EST
    The posting I see on the Fact Hub has different numbers than Cream City posted, and clearly states Florida and Michigan are included.

    Parent
    No, I'm not -- here's the RCP link I get (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:41:16 PM EST
    for pity's sake.  So many mindreaders here, it seems, but this is where RCP's link under "Popular Vote" for  "Democratic Nomination" takes me.

    The number might be changed since I posted above a while ago, as the number -- obviously, as returns are tallied -- has been changing since last night.

    Parent

    This numbers have changed... (none / 0) (#83)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:46:41 PM EST
    But they've changed by a few hundred here and there, not hundreds of thousands.

    So either you're looking at the wrong row or I am.

    Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*     Obama +610,575    +2.1%

    Am I missing something?

    Parent

    It's there; I just cut and pasted (nt) (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:42:22 PM EST


    Parent
    That's pathetic. (4.71 / 14) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:07:28 PM EST
    Clinton's website is an ATM machine but Obama's website is a grassroots movement.

    They've been turning websites into a fundraising tool for years now, the second Clinton does it, it's an ATM.  

    Kos is the biggest hypocrite on the face of the planet and if you don't want to see that expressed in your comments section, you should not link to his website because the guy can't even put a predicate and subject together, form a complete sentence at this point without revealing what a scam artist he really is.

    Heh. Heh. Heh. (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:18:20 PM EST
    I love to see a righteous ranter with a good vocabulary and excellent writing skills.

    That's why I come here every day now. Keep it up, BTD, Jeralyn and TalkLefters!

    Parent

    The less confrontational thing to point out (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:24:47 PM EST
    It's proof of some incompetence on the part of anyone who can't see that Clinton has her own brand of bottom up grassroots support.  And thus underestimate it's impact.

    It's the kind of mistake they always say Penn would have made.

     

    Parent

    If you ask me, (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:31:21 PM EST
    it's pretty elitist to pretend that Obama's internet $$$ are somehow "purer" than Clinton's.

    What, does my rural, white trash credit card have manure on it? Or is it that my "bitterness" I smell?

    Parent

    Let's sum up then (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:36:07 PM EST
    Hypocritical elitist incompetence.

    Parent
    troll (1.00 / 3) (#146)
    by BethanyAnne on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:53:51 PM EST
    If an Obama supporter posted that type of comment it would be deleted.

    Parent
    he is a big whiner too !! (none / 0) (#131)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:33:23 PM EST
    Takes cue from KO, Chris Mathews or the Saint Obama himself!

    Parent
    My GOP friends who voted for Hillary (3.00 / 2) (#189)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:06:52 PM EST
    Want to know, where did he get all that money? Really from small donations? They are new Democrats and want Hillary for President. They have not followed Obama that much and are greatly surprised at the money.

    Hillary = GOP Mole (1.00 / 1) (#194)
    by malcontent on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:22:36 PM EST
    So this is where the retards who support Hillary hide out, eh?

    You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

    Hopefully You Are A GOP Troll (none / 0) (#195)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:49:18 PM EST
    because if you are legitimately an Obama supporter you are a prime example of why Obama will lose the GE if he becomes the nominee.

    Parent
    GOP... (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:55:34 PM EST
    and if hes not, we dont need his kind in the party.

    Parent
    Excuse BTD but the MI votes are for Uncommitted. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:04:31 PM EST
    So they should count when the vote in the convention.  The caucuses is another issue.

    That is an argument you will never win (none / 0) (#4)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:06:32 PM EST
    You may think so, but it's not convincing to the other side.  I just PRAY that whoever wins the popular vote does so with a Michigan margin of error.

    Parent
    CST I am not trying to convince anyone (none / 0) (#7)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:09:16 PM EST
    Those votes went to uncommitted and should not be allocated to anyone.  They could have been Edwards votes why should we say they are now Obama's votes.   So now we are going to give him a gift for being him.

    Parent
    The delegates if any from those votes (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:10:29 PM EST
    should be un-pledged

    Parent
    Unpledged Delegates (none / 0) (#56)
    by wasabi on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    How does one go about picking an unpledged delegate?  It's like those people who go into the voting booth and make up their minds as to who to vote for.  Those people are either very conflicted, or haven't really thought enough about their choice to make an intelligent decision.

    I can't think of anyone who is a Democratic activist (the pool for delegates)who doesn't at least have some preference as to their choice for President.

    Where would they find someone like that?

    Parent

    wasabi, at the WA caucus for the 40th LD (none / 0) (#203)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:21:08 PM EST
    there were six uncommitted delgates, one of whom was a member of the local party apparatus. One asked me to pitch Sen. Clinton for her, which I did, but she handed in her credentials and had her alternate take her slot---he swung to Clinton.

    Some unpledged delegates are supporting someone no longer running, some are truly unable to make up their minds, and some find neither candidate to their liking and are protesting by remaining they're unpledged.

    We also had one Clinton delegate go to Obama, though Clinton ended the day with one or possibly two extra delegates to go to the next round.

    At the 39th LD the previous weekend, I don't think there were any unpledged and I don't recall if anyone switched.

    Both caucuses had alternates take slots who were supporters of the other candidate, but it seemed to balance out.

    FYI is all.


    Parent

    Kos is right... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:07:30 PM EST
    ...but, if you split the uncommitteds between Obama and the rest of the field and add in estimates for the caucuses (which rcp has done), you get a number where Hillary is only behind by about 100K in the popular vote.

    No he is not right (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:11:13 PM EST
    Obama could have chosen to stay off the ballot in any state where he feared a big loss and then would we be forced not to count any votes in Hillary's favor?

    You can't just pick your primaries.  Compete everywhere and count every vote if you want to be President.

    Parent

    That might true in an official sense... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:23:02 PM EST
    ...but this whole argument is based on deductive reasoning of the "will of the people." If your going to make that argument, you have to include some figure from every state for both candidates.

    Parent
    The "will of the people" was recorded (none / 0) (#141)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:43:21 PM EST
    in Michigan. Although not for any specific candidate, uncommitted is still the will of 45% of the people. Thus, I see no problem in assigning unpledged delegates based on that figure.

    Parent
    Obama just outsmarted himself in Michigan (none / 0) (#62)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:37:09 PM EST
    First he took his name off the ballot voluntarily and then there was also a campaign from his camp encouraging his supporters to vote in the republican primary.  That is why his side could never agree to a revote for only those who had voted in the earlier democratic primary.  

    Parent
    did the Obama camp (none / 0) (#91)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:54:06 PM EST
    encourage Dems to vote Repub in MI?
    Thought it was Kos and other Obama blogs.


    Parent
    I have a question (none / 0) (#57)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:34:03 PM EST
    If Obama wins the popular vote, INCLUDING Michigan (without any for him) and caucuses; does anyone still think the superdelegates should overturn the race?

    Also, would you be more likely to vote for him in this case in the general election?

    SuperD's should vote the way they want. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:39:17 PM EST
    Because that is what the rules say.  

    Parent
    Slight correction (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:50:51 PM EST
    The race isn't over until the superdelegates vote at the convention (and the state pledged delegates), Ergo, they cannot "overturn the race" - they are a part of the race.

    Parent
    OK Fine (none / 0) (#93)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:57:13 PM EST
    But we are talking about the popular vote as if it should be the deciding argument (which I think is legitimate), so I am asking, what popular vote would be acceptable even if it gave Obama a win?

    Parent
    yes - (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:58:16 PM EST
    Obama has too much baggage for the general.


    Parent
    I will not vote for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:03:40 PM EST
    He could win the popular vote, have more pledged delegates and receive every endorsement possible. As a Floridian who was denied her right to vote, I will not vote for Obama.

    Parent
    yes (n/t) (none / 0) (#59)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:35:01 PM EST


    Parent
    clarify (none / 0) (#63)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:37:29 PM EST
    My answer was to your second question. First rule of journalism, your last question is the only question that will be answered. To your first question, I think it is still valid for the SD's to vote any way they want. That's the rules. Presumably they would either vote in their own self interest instead of their constituents (like Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson, etc.) or they would vote for who they thought could either win or would be a better president. But it would be their choice.

    Parent
    Good thing I'm not a journalist (none / 0) (#71)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:42:01 PM EST
    So it would be okay for SDs to vote for Obama even if Hillary wins the popular vote?

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:55:25 PM EST
    I wouldn't like them very much. But yes.

    Parent
    The SDs (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:00:12 PM EST
    can vote for whoever they like based on any criteria they like. I don't think we should have SDs but we do and they are allowed to do whatever they want.

    I have no problem with any SD voting for any candidate.

    Parent

    Fairest popular vote estimate (none / 0) (#87)
    by zebedee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:49:49 PM EST
    My best attempt at coming up with a fair popular vote has Obama ahead by about 60,000, fully allowing the unreporting caucuses (which RCP has 110222 advantage to Obama) and best Fla & MI estimate.

    For MI, I took the exit poll percentages for HRC and BO (46% and 35%). However, the turnout was depressed to 23% of the Kerry 2004 vote, whereas the average turnout for primaries in 2008 has been 65% of Kerry. So I scaled their votes to the 65% turnout to get 742611 and 565030 respectively. If anyone can think of a fairer way let me know.

    For Fla I took the actual voting percentages and scaled up to 65% turnout.

    HRC leads in many ways, even without Fla and MI e.g. GE rules and Republican rules. Also just taking primaries (excluding the less representative caucus vote), or just blue states (BO leads in red states).

    Most significantly, HRC leads in marginal states. Comparing 2000 to 2004, the maximum swing in any state either way was 11%. Assuming 2004 to 2008 GE change is similar, HRC leads by around 400,000 in states within an 11% Bush/Kerry margin. Roughly similar if you assume, say, a 5% margin.

    Why alter the figures? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:58:23 PM EST
    For Fla I took the actual voting percentages and scaled up to 65% turnout.

    Why would you do that? No state has had near that large of a turnout.

    Parent

    sacaling the figures (none / 0) (#116)
    by zebedee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:23:06 PM EST
    65% is the average (TX was 100%, PA 78%). These aren't theoretical turnouts, they are relative to numbers that actually voted for Kerry.

    Parent
    I really disagree with altering the actual votes (none / 0) (#216)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:08:14 PM EST
    Florida had a Dem turnout of 42.30%. The median closed primary turnout was 41.75%. You don't need to adjust the turnout. You are further complicating matters by demanding that turnout somehow be related to votes for Kerry.

    You shouldn't manipulate the data even with the best of intentions. Votes are what they are and shouldn't be altered because they don't fit a formula that you think they should fit.

    Parent

    Scaling (none / 0) (#217)
    by zebedee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:27:22 PM EST
    I did this because clearly the turnout was lowered by the DNC delegate issue. Why else would this have been so much lower relative to the Kerry vote than other states? The Kerry vote seems to be the only real measure we have of people prepared to actually come out and vote Democrat.

    Where did your 42.3% and 41.75% figures come from?

    Parent

    I did the math (none / 0) (#218)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:55:47 PM EST
    I had calculated the turnout of each closed primary state since Florida is a closed primary state. I looked at each state for their registered Dem voters and the votes cast.

    Connecticut  51.09%
    Maryland  50.71%
    Arizona     50.47%
    District of Columbia  44.48%
    Florida    42.30%
    Oklahoma  41.20%
    Deleware  37.59%
    New York  35.44%
    New Mexico  28.42%
    Louisiana  25.66%

    I then calculated the average and the median.

    Average 40.74%
    Median 41.75%

    There's no need to complicate the matter by trying to tie in another factor which would be influenced by other factors.

    As you can clearly see NO STATE came close to 65% turnout. Its frankly hard to imagine that anyone would think that somehow Florida should have had an extraordinary turnout compared to other states.

    Even a quick calculation on PA which would have an increased turnout due to their obvious importance at this late stage is going to be 54%. Looking at that do you still believe that Florida should have had a 65% turnout?

    The Kerry vote is not an accurate measure of who would vote in the primary. He could have been more appealing in some states than others. And turnout for Kerry would also fluctuate due to whether there were other things on the ballot that mattered. Or weather. Or if it would matter if they voted for Kerry or not (as in a solid blue or red state). Those are off the top of my head. Its a terrible measure as it overly complicates the matter because you add in every factor that accompanies him.

    And how are you comparing states with different primary systems? Texas is an open primary and caucus system. You can't compare open with closed or caucus with primary. So how are you calculating this?


    Parent

    Michigan? (none / 0) (#223)
    by zebedee on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:09:49 AM EST
    It looks like the discrepecy is that Fla had a high turnout in 2004 because of the 2000 issues. I think actual voting is a better guide than registration but we can agree to differ. There has to be some way of accounting for the suppressed voting caused by the DNC ruling.

    What number did you have for MI? That was the real discrepency, only 23% by my measure.

    Parent

    I'm a Floridian so I looked there (none / 0) (#225)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:35:16 PM EST
    That assumes that there was vote suppression due to the DNC ruling. There's no proof in Florida that there was. And I've looked.

    I didn't do Michigan because it is an open primary state not a closed primary state. If you intend to look at the numbers you will need to compare it to other open primary states (not semi-open ones either). You'll also need to take into account when the Repub primary ended (crossover votes). Also Michigan switched systems this year I think, so you should keep that in mind.

    And do not expect those numbers to be comparable to the closed primary turnout numbers.

    Parent

    Kos On Why Obama Didn't Win in Pennsy (none / 0) (#137)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:39:14 PM EST
    Kos lists a plethora of reasons why the election in PA wasn't up Obama's alley by way of spinning the impact on the campaign he wears on his sleeve.  The snicker here is that these are JUST the same reasons that Clinton and NOT Obama might make the best GE candidate for the Dems.  Por ejemplo, he argues Obama was up against a machine!  Hello! Welcome to Realpolitik in the USA!!!!

    Blinded by the light (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Manuel on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:58:28 PM EST

    Obama, on the other hand, can't take that approach. He's already won this thing, so he has to tread carefully. He gets too aggressive with Clinton, he risks pissing off her supporters more than they are already pissed off (can you believe that Obama insists on staying in the race even though he's won?!). So he can't really open up on Clinton and make the same kind of arguments she's making against him. He's trying to maintain some modicum of unity rather than engage in the sort of slash-and-burn politics that now characterizes the Clinton campaign handbook. The inability to truly go negative is a real disadvantage in politics

    How can anyone claim this with a straight face?  Obama has given as much or more than he has gotten.  Are these people watching the same game?

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#193)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:21:37 PM EST
    they just don't use the same measuring stick.

    remember Obama says that this racist bs doesn't count because his campaign didn't actually "circulate" the memo.

    and also remember, passive-aggressive whining IS NOT AN ATTACK.  she's feelin down, she's gotta bring the claws out. she's like annie oakley playing with her gun.

    double standards.  and that's why they're so blind.

    ---
    won't someone, anyone, PLEASE, think of the waffles?

    Parent

    That's (none / 0) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:04:41 PM EST
    one of the most clueless things Kos has ever written. If Obama has boxed himself in so much that he can't go negative then he truly can't win.

    Parent
    Machine (none / 0) (#162)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:21:26 PM EST
    means that her endorsements actually did something beside get on national media and whine about her.  :)

    Rendell is a mean, lean political machine.  He is the type of endorser who matters.

    So is Bayh.

    Parent

    Kos' Link (none / 0) (#138)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:40:37 PM EST
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/23/12477/3996

    $10 million (none / 0) (#144)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:50:54 PM EST
    woohoo!

    I'd love to see her get enough to compete for real in NC AND In.

    That would be way good.

    The day after she wins Indiana (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Chimster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:44:04 PM EST
    She'll raise $15 million in 24-hours to set a new record.

    Parent
    Latest Clinton Email: (none / 0) (#172)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:33:45 PM EST
    Folks, I've never seen anything like it -- thanks to you we are breaking every record we've ever had. The number of people coming on our website and supporting Hillary is nothing short of incredible. More than 50,000 people have contributed to the campaign for the very first time in the last 24 hours alone.

    If you haven't gone to the website today and made a contribution, now's the time to join the wave of grassroots support. And if you have contributed, send this message to your friends and tell them to join you.

    Click here  

    http://tinyurl.com/2v8n6r

    to contribute and help Hillary win.

    Thank you for making this an incredible day,
    Terry McAuliffe
    Chairman
    Hillary Clinton for President




    Parent
    One important thing about popular votes (none / 0) (#166)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:28:32 PM EST
    A vote is a certified ballot cast with someone's name.

    By that definition, the number of certified votes cast with Hillary Clinton name is correct.

    Keep in mind, delegates and certified votes are 2 different things.

    I personally do not care about that number but people are not wrong to mention that.

     

    The Rules (none / 0) (#202)
    by tdraicer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:08:46 PM EST
    Every time an Obama supporter invokes The Rules in regards to FL and MI, I'm forced to remind them that the Supers will now decide the outcome, and The Rules are they can vote however they like for any reason they like. Including taking into account the votes cast in FL and MI.

    Jeralyn! (none / 0) (#204)
    by Oje on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:30:37 PM EST
    I want Jeralyn to weigh in on this topic. The only body that can truly discount Florida and Michigan will be the credentials committee formed at the convention- not Brazile, the DNC, kos, MSNBC, or BTD. Until that time, there is no "final word" on how to count or discount Florida and Michigan.

    Obama supporters now argue for total nullification; the Brazile-led cabal that originally made this determination obviously had Obama in mind. Clinton supporters have unassailable grounds to argue for the total qualification of Florida and Michigan votes and delegates.

    Obama removed his name from Michigan in order to augment his pledged delegate totals in Iowa and Michigan. His short-sightedness on the significance of the popular vote in this nomination race does not provide ex post facto grounds for not counting Michigan's Clinton popular vote. The nomination process is what it is; none of the subsequent races would have been what they were if Michigan's and Florida's results counted from the beginning.

    Counterfactual arguments to dismiss actual votes does not hold water in a democracy - we govern with the democracy we have, not the democracy we imagine we have. Both sides gained and lost due to the Brazile-junta's actions. We cannot remedy the travesty after the fact, so we must accept the outcome as the best approximation of democracy during this cycle. Thus, Clinton now leads in the popular vote and her pledged delegate total with Florida and Michigan makes the race virtual tie at this time (the uncommitteds from Michigan may not be auto-counted for Obama). Without Florida and Michigan revotes, BTD, this must be the DNC's logic in order to honor actual, recorded Florida and Michigan voters.

    Wouldn't it also be interesting to convene (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:59:44 PM EST
    a discussion by a panel of, oh, Constitutional law professors on this conundrum?  I hear they lost one at the U of Chicago, but I bet we could find a few others around the country.

    Of course, nothing in the Constitution is specific as to primaries or, for that matter, even parties.

    So maybe it would be legal ethicists (I know, almost a contradiction in terms, as abiding by the law does not necessarily make us ethical) who would make an interesting panel to discuss the decisions made in this MI and FL process by the state legislatures and governors, the state and national parties . . . and, of course, the candidates.  I'd like to listen to that.  But then, C-Span is my fix for reality tv.

    Parent

    Hopefully the thread is still alive... (5.00 / 0) (#221)
    by Oje on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:46:57 AM EST
    There are two different issues here: process and representation.

    The ruling of the DNC committee last year worked under the rules to minimize the impact of Florida and Michigan on the nomination process in its entirety. It would be hard to argue that they did not effectively neutralize those two states during the six-month nominating cycle. The process has proceeded as if the two states did not vote. That committee, which acted outside of the DNC protocols calling for 1/2 seating, accomplished its (perceived) procedural responsibilities.

    However, the question of convention representation is an entirely different issue. And, the DNC's rules governing the process is not binding on the rules governing representation. The credential committee convened at the convention will have the sole discretion to determine the question of electoral/delegate representation. So, Clinton needs to make clear that the question of Democratic (big D) process will now pass, and the question of democratic (small d) representation will soon take precedence.

    State Democratic parties and Democratic voters legally registered their preferences in state sanctioned party elections. Any hypothetical or counterfactual argument about depressed or discouraged voters is a non sequitur. There is no "as if" at this point, only actual votes protected by civil rights legislation. Consequently, the voters and the delegates must be counted in the popular and delegate totals. (This includes the uncommitted from Michigan which like all delegates can break for either candidate per their own predilections--they are not Obama delegates.)

    As soon as the remaining state primaries are completed, the total popular vote and the total delegates effectively reverts to 100% inclusion. It will take a separate binding resolution by a credential committee (and potentially all delegates) at the National Democratic Convention to reduce the Democratic nomination to 48 states plus U.S. territories contest. That needs to be made clear in the media (if not by the media) - Obama will only be able to claim a win by stripping two states of their actual-recorded-civil-rights-protected popular votes and the requisite delegates that represent that vote.

    Parent

    MO BLUE (none / 0) (#214)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34:52 PM EST
    This was not a trick question. It was the question that some new Democrats asked. Sorry you thought so low of their inquiry.

    Hillary Raises 10MM Since PA Victory | 220 comments (220 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment