home

On The Popular Vote

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:18:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

There has been a lot gnashing of teeth by Obama supporters about even discussing the popular vote. They are mad that Hillary Clinton claims she is leading in the popular vote. As it happens, I do not agree with Hillary Clinton on this. I think Obama leads in the popular vote by about 260,000 votes as we speak.

I accept the RCP numbers that include FL, MI and the caucus results, except for Washington which had a contemporaneous primary result (that reduces Obama's total margin there by 50,000.) But unlike RCP, my calculus is assigning the uncommitted vote in Michigan to Obama. Putting all this together, I have Obama leading the popular vote by roughly 260,000 votes out of 34,000,000 cast so far. In percentage terms that gives Obama a 0.7% lead. There are five jurisdictions left to vote. So this could change as well. But why does it matter? I'll explain why I think it does on the flip.

Much to the chagrin of Obama supporters, who love to hurl the accusation that I never cared about the popular vote or had reservations about the pledged delegate selection process, I have been focused on both of these issues since before Iowa. The pledged delegate process is not designed to reflect the will of the people. Normally this does not matter as the nominee is usually the clear pledged delegate leader and the popular vote winner.

That clarity did not happen in this nomination contest. It simply did not. And this has Obama supporters chagrined. They do not like that it is not clear that Obama is the choice of the voters. I do not much like it either. But it is what it is.

As folks here know, I believe it is a virtual certainty that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But it will not be a convincing win by any measure. I of course will support him no matter what. But I really believe his claim to legitimacy will be very much strengthened by winning the delegate race including Florida and Michigan and if he holds on to the popular vote lead. It will certainly make his nomination a clear moral choice of the voters of the Party as well as a de facto reality.

That's why I pay attention to the popular vote.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

Comments closed.

< Michelle Obama On Hillary As Veep | SUSA Polls, OR: Obama By 13; KY: Clinton By 31 >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    On The Popular Vote | 197 comments (197 topical)
    As. . .ahem Pat Buchanan observed (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:21:23 PM EST
    on The McLaughlin Group this weekend, it will come down to Puerto Rico. I expect Hillary to win the popular vote.

    If She Does (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:25:48 PM EST
    We'll see what the party will do.  Will they be rolled by the media?  Or will they use it to reconsider Obama, who is currently the weaker EV getter in November?

    It will be very interesting to see what happens.  I have a hard time seeing Al Gore standing up and supporting the person who did not win the popular vote, but then I never thought I'd see democratic party leaders sit quiet in the face of unrelenting misogyny and sexism directed at one of their own.  This has not been a good primary for the democratic party leadership.  

    Parent

    Amazing (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by chrisvee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    isn't it?  Here I was naively assuming we'd have a shot at a sea change with 16 years of Clinton/Obama but now we're looking at potentially some sort of major schism in the party.  Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans, I guess.

    I doubt even the popular vote lead can confer legitimacy on Obama's nomination in the eyes of some Clinton loyalists.  I expect that statement would be true in the reverse as well.  How much that will affect the GE, I don't know.  The bottom line for me is that the race is essentially tied.  I also think if the states had been contested in a different order we might have gotten a different result.

    I think there's going to be quite a bit of work to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.  If we get a big win in the GE to increase our majorities in the House and Senate, that will help.

    Parent

    the race is indeed tied (none / 0) (#200)
    by dotcommodity on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:37:08 PM EST
    it could have been exciting all along but the other campaign had to be whining to her to drop out from February onwards, because of his superdelegate lead, 95% of which was in little red states we will never win.

    Parent
    Funnily enough, it is Clinton who has (none / 0) (#220)
    by JoeA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:44:23 PM EST
    had the Superdelegate lead until very very recently, so your point falls down a bit there.

    Parent
    the party will make sure she doesn't (5.00 / 7) (#160)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:19:26 PM EST
    The goalposts of this nomination process are easily movable. The DNC has, in my ticked off mind, demonstrated that Obama is their choice. Just look at the remarks from leading and prominent Democrats and look at the steady flow of Super Delegates to Obama, through thick and thin.

    There are umpteen different ways to count the popular vote, thanks to not resolving FL and MI (which the DNC seems interested in doing only if they can keep the delegate count favorable to Obama or neutral--no revotes!) and the mystery of caucus math and how it translates caucus results into popular votes.

    So the DNC will be careful to choose the way that gives the edge to Obama. I think they've made it pretty clear thus far--shooing delegates toward Obama, no revotes in FL and MI--who their preferred candidate is, electable or not.

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:26:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#34)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:38:25 PM EST
    I'm sure Pat just loves seeing it come down to those pesky Latinos.

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:41:29 PM EST
    Pat infuriates me because I disagree with him on just about every substantive matter of policy, but I nevertheless find him to be one o the best political analysts on television as far as strategy and process are concerned.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:46:10 PM EST
    I think it's because he's more or less opted out of both parties.  So he doesn't have a dog in the fight.  That lets him be honest about the strategy and process stuff even as his own beliefs are abhorrent.

    Parent
    Joe Biden Yesterday (5.00 / 11) (#62)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:47:24 PM EST
    Joe Biden on ABC yesterday referred to the possible scenario of Hillary winning the popular vote and then making her case to the superdelegates.  It was in response to any suggestions that the race be called before the primaries end.  He certainly indicated that if Hillary wins the popular vote - this was a fair case for her to take to the supers (which include him).  I thought it was significant that Biden recognized what we all do here.

    Parent
    And This Clearly Scares the Obama Camp (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:50:40 PM EST
    The tell was that memo they put out where the compared counting the popular vote to considering voters' heights.  That seems like a rather extreme reaction and, to me, signals they're worried about that particular argument.  If they weren't, there'd be no reason to go so over-the-top in denouncing it.

    Parent
    He Is Correct On This...The obama Camp Is (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:57:52 PM EST
    running scared, although they would never admit it.

    And, as for obama getting the "uncommitted" votes, I would have to ask, "WHY SHOULD HE"?
    It was his decision to remove his name from the ballot and now he should be rewarded?  Because he should have known that the rulz have a provision for a revote and things could change at anytime.
    His pandering to other states with that move may come back to bite him in the butt.

    Parent

    And while we are at it, (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    why don't we give Obama all of every other candidate's, besides Clinton's, votes in every state as well? If it works for MI it should be as valid elsewhere too, right?

    Parent
    I've only seen him show (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:49:39 PM EST
    absolute respect for Hillary on the occasions he's been on the panel I'm watching.

    I often disagree with him, but I also find myself agreeing almost as often.


    Parent

    Watching (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:55:05 PM EST
    My sense was that Biden prefers Hillary, even thought he has not endorsed.

    Parent
    I think Biden (5.00 / 8) (#95)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:56:05 PM EST
    has been kind of bummed that experience has counted for so little in this primary.

    Parent
    Quick Answer (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:02:48 PM EST
    George S. hit Biden yesterday with a clip of him saying in a debate that Obama had no foreign policy experience - and asked Biden what he thinks now.  Biden stammered, and said Obama had learned a lot in a year.  To which George said: "On the campaign trail?"  LOL.

    Back to pop vote discussion - I note that ABC does not have these Biden comments on Hillary and the popular vote in their online summary of yesterday's show.  Hmmm.

    Parent

    Biden told the truth. (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    Political-types get into a lot of trouble when they do that.
    Obama has no policy experience.

    Parent
    Ask ABC for the comments, Goddess. (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    I'm trying to figure out how to let the networks know how we feel. Shouldn't we be flooding their comment pages and email/phones with objections about how they are covering the race and suggestions of aspects of the story that are going so unreported? And in large numbers by tomorrow?

     The nomination rules, for instance, the experience issue, the sexism, the incrediblely arrogant presumptuousness and the 3/4 of Americans who object to the media crowning Obama.(PewPoll)

     But maybe more important is how we got to the point that a person who has not won is the  victor and he claims victory by denying votes or taking votes that were legally cast in an audited process and certified as having been otherwise cast.

     Here we are.  What are we going to do about it? (media contact sheets?Contact all the media you think not being fair and encourage the "better" ones - that might just be Pat! Email Hillary tips and support at the top right of her Hillary Hub on HillaryClinton.com.  Let them know what we are doing and good arguments, factiods, insights we are coming up with.

     Stop arguing with the beastieboyz on those other sites, ignore their comments. Put some of that energy into talking to the media and post responses to each other in front of the bullies, making the points, encouraging action, sharing good arguments and contact info.  If we fight today like Hillary does every day, what could we do by tomorrow?

     Maybe we need to reach all of those women who anchor the not prime shows tomorrow and Wednesday and help them interpret Kentucky and the urgent power grab with something different that what the night boys are saying.  

     When did that stop being election fraud?

     When did number of states(let's do counties!) matter to superdelegates and number of electoral votes not matter? We seem to be having a vast shift in how we define right and wrong and democratic process.

     Isn't what Senator Obama is doing widely understood to be wrong?  Not playing by the rules? Unjust? Why is no one calling it crooked?

     Biden trys to say we need someone qualified - bad,bad,bad.  He tries to teach us that the count hasn't happened -bad, bad,bad.  Those were probably the most important quotes on the Sunday shows yesterday and they get unreported?

    We really need to re-think where the fairness bar is moving to and how we can move it back to something more civilized and sustainable.

     We are watching this election being stolen and our watchdog media is picking the lock and driving the getaway car.  Let's take them on today.

    Parent

    What Do You Think Of Biden As Hillary's VP? (none / 0) (#104)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:58:50 PM EST


    Parent
    No (1.00 / 0) (#163)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:20:37 PM EST
    She has to ask Obama first. She needs his fundraising abilities, and she could mentor him for 8 years if he doesn't get sidetracked and move toward a different ambition.

    If he really wants to be president one day, he would do well to learn from her and then pursue the top of the ticket.

    Biden wouldn't be able to take over after 8 years.

    Parent

    I still think he is Sec of State (none / 0) (#208)
    by BarnBabe on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:39:04 PM EST
    He really knows foreign policy. He said he would not take it, but who knows.

    Parent
    He's probably gonna lose (none / 0) (#134)
    by Salo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:10:26 PM EST
    anyway.  So no matter. the party appears to be designed to lose no matter what.

    Parent
    I think you mean 0.7% (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:23:13 PM EST


    I'll check my math (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:30:17 PM EST


    Parent
    i already did (none / 0) (#22)
    by Klio on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:34:50 PM EST
    and frankly0's correct

    Parent
    not that I'm anybody (none / 0) (#25)
    by Klio on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:35:41 PM EST
    mind you, :-)

    Parent
    You can not assign uncommiteds to Obama. (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:23:27 PM EST
    My Lord, the hoops people go through.  He made a political error.  You don't give votes to people who take their name off the ballot.  It was lousy strategy, just as Hillary had a lousy caucus strategy.  Further, he was polling at 19%.  Edwards would have earned a good number of votes had his name appeared on the ballot.

    agreed (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by boredmpa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:34:15 PM EST
    They are with 100k imho

    Parent
    you can possibly assign the delegate votes- (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by kimsaw on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:36:44 PM EST
    uncommitted delegates would have right to add their vote to the nominee of their choice at convention ( if that's how it works), but as far as assigning the popular vote numbers to him it should go unearned. He had a choice he took it, just like the DNC claimed they have a right to take away MI& Fl. delegates, but they don't have a right to redistribute popular vote numbers to candidates that didn't earn them. The popular vote is recognized in the recognized and registered by the state. Uncommitted #s does not translate to Obama #s.

    Parent
    Wasn't there a time (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by standingup on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:24:38 PM EST
    when the Obama camp championed the popular vote/will of the people in arguing that there was no way the superdelegates would overturn the candidate with the popular vote?

    Prepare for the movingof the goalposts (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:27:53 PM EST
    The Obama ampaign ough to be called the pretzel strategy. The knots that the punditry have twisted themselves into in order to hand this to Obama has been nothing short of entertaining.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:25:56 PM EST
    They have always been obsessed with the pledged delegate leader.

    Parent
    That's because they knew (none / 0) (#167)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:21:55 PM EST
    exactly which districts they needed to go bully to get the most delegates from the caucuses.

    Parent
    Maybe I'm wrong... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by sweetthings on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:28:14 PM EST
    But it seems to me that regardless of what happens in the remaining primaries, the popular vote is going to be very, very close.

    Is a .07% difference either way going to convince anyone? Are Hillary supporters supposed to say "Oh well, he won the popular vote by a tiny fraction of a percent, guess he's our guy!" Particularly when you factor in caucuses and the like?

    I don't see any way that either candidate can take a mandate from the popular vote at this point. One of them will win in the squeakiest of squeakers. I'm not sure that win can or will be treated as a substantive metric by either camp.

    I do not know (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:29:37 PM EST
    I am expressing my view on the subject.

    Parent
    I am waiting for the proper moment to have that (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:06:37 PM EST
    battle and will be quite interested to see the Obama reaction to counting the votes in Puerto rico.

    Parent
    what about Ireland? (1.00 / 4) (#105)
    by iago on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:59:19 PM EST
    My ancestors came form Ireland and Ireland, like Puerto Rico, isn't a state and doesn't have any electoral votes but I think those cheeky micks should not be disenfranchised and their voices need to be heard!

    And as long as they vote for Hillary I think the above poster would agree they should be able to vote! Of course if they vote Obama there's no reason to include them. :)

    Parent

    Another blithering idiot (5.00 / 6) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:08:09 PM EST
    Two things. Puerrto Rico is part of the United States though it is not a state.

    But most importantly, the DNC says Puerto rico has a say in who our nominee is .

    The racism and bigotry that some Obama supporters will demonstrate in order to support Obama is appalling and disgusting.

    Parent

    it's not racism (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by iago on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:31:57 PM EST
    It's satire. You'll need the ability to laugh in the days to come I suggest you embrace it.

    Parent
    Satire is based on truth (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:38:33 PM EST
    Moat of us here have a sense of humor.  That just wasn't funny, which made it look like you were serious and didn't know that PR is just as important in the Dem candidate selection process as some states.

    Parent
    I wasn't aware that Ireland was a territory (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by lorelynn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:12:40 PM EST
    of the US. When did this development occur?

    Parent
    why disenfranchise? (1.00 / 3) (#187)
    by iago on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:30:06 PM EST
    Why disenfranchise the Irish because Ireland isn't a territory? Ireland has as many electoral votes as Puerto Rico does.

    Of course I'm kidding but when you're hanging your hat on Puerto Rico it makes you look desperate.

    Hillary started this race with assets normally only an incumbent would have. She's blown that and will lose this election not because she's a woman but because she ran a poor campaign.


    Parent

    she ran such a poor campaign (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:37:41 PM EST
    she is only 260,000 votes behind, and could still close that gap.  Since they have an almost equal number of votes what does that say about Obama's campaign?  And don't give me the crap about establishment candidate.  Anyone who has a brain can see that the entire DNC leadership Dean, Brazile, the House leader pelosi, Senators kerry, kennedy, dodd, leahy, etc...have all been for Obama.  So why couldn't your guy blow her out?  Why couldn't he win Mass with Deval Patrick's machine and Kerry and Kennedy behind him?

    Parent
    she was the first lady (none / 0) (#215)
    by iago on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:42:20 PM EST
    of a popular president... with tons of cash... the support of the party apparatus... and she's lost to a black guy. It's not sexism it's that she ran a poor campaign.

    Perhaps if she hadn't blown cash foolishly and had a  chief strategist who thought California was winner take all she might have succeed but she didn't and here we are.


    Parent

    what exactly is the party apparatus? (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:43:58 PM EST
    you ignored my questions, that tells me all i need to know.

    Parent
    Delegates (5.00 / 3) (#229)
    by BeBe on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:50:59 PM EST
    It's OK with me if PR does not have delegates, but neither should Guam and DC. They aren't states either.

    Parent
    I did see Matthews (none / 0) (#171)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:23:42 PM EST
    laughing about it.  What a total, uninformed fool.  Why would there be a primary there at all if it didn't mean anything?  PR is part of the US, and has more Dem delegates at stake than a lot of states.

    Hope Obama isn't planning to be as stupid discounting these votes. Iven if Puerto Ricans don't vote in the GE, they have friends and family who do.

    Parent

    I'd Be a Lot Easier (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:33:25 PM EST
    with the popular vote than I'm going to be with pledged delegates, which are a travesty and which are going to be incredibly close, too.

    The media narrative not withstanding, this race is for all practical purposes tied.  The smart thing would be to decide which candidate is stronger in November and can best unify the party (hint: the one not insulting voters).  But that would require the democratic party to 1) put winning first, and 2) have the courage to buck the media narrative.  Two things they've almost never been able to do.

    Parent

    Tie (5.00 / 3) (#232)
    by chrisvee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:53:05 PM EST
    I agree that for all practical purposes the race is tied.  But since we've seen that the party leadership has declared for Obama, I think the senior SDs are concerned about the optics of opposing the obvious choice of the party leadership as well as nominal leader.  Unless there's some other shoe to drop that's bigger than Wright, I don't see Clinton getting the support she needs to put her over the top.  Political courage appears to be lacking somewhat in our leadership.

    Cynically, I would also say that cash is king and the Obama campaign has it. I'm quite sure that's a factor under consideration.

    I think this primary has been a nightmare in terms of process.


    Parent

    It is difficult for me to consider (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:39:00 PM EST
    the contest tied, given Byrd's endorsement of Obama today, espec. after Clinton's lopsided victory in WV.  Patriot, humble, Christian.  It's over.

    Parent
    So Byrd will cast his delegate vote (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:41:07 PM EST
    against the popular will? That seems to be quite common with Obama's SDs.

    Parent
    That's how the Obama campaign works (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Iris on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:46:08 PM EST
    an exercise in eternal double standards.  You must vote with your state if they voted for Obama.  If they voted for Hillary, you must vote for Obama so he looks "legitimate."

    What a crock!

    Parent

    and let's not forget that the only (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:05:13 PM EST
    pledged delegate to declare he's switching his allegiance thus far changed from supporting Hillary to Obama.

    I keep waiting for the outrage from Obama-supporters since they considered pledged delegates to be sacred when Hillary's camp said they could actually use their own discretion.

    Parent

    Byrd? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:47:30 PM EST
    Except for the devoted few, I'm hard pressed to think Byrd's endorsement holds much sway with the average American.  Edwards held more potential, but we will see how that works for Obama in KY.

    I honestly think endorsements stopped mattering when Kennedy and Kerry couldn't get MA.  Folks are so entrenched at this point that only negatives can change their minds, not positives.

    Parent

    I Still Think (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:48:22 PM EST
    Obama is the favorite to be the nominee.  I just don't think he has it sown up yet and so long as that's the case, there's an opening for Clinton.  

    Parent
    Well, the main Obama argument is the (none / 0) (#14)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:31:39 PM EST
    "will of the delegates who support Obama", which is pretty unconvincing to me.

    Parent
    it was hillary's (none / 0) (#110)
    by iago on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    It was Hillary's rational that the delegates would decide this not long ago. Hmmm I wonder when she changed her mind....

    Parent
    probably when the delegates kept (none / 0) (#131)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:09:15 PM EST
    moving toward Obama even as his electability problems became apparent post-Wright (mid-March).

    If you want to win, you support the candidate most likely to win the EC votes in the fall. Of course, it's hard to predict with complete certainty because November is a long way off, but Lambert points out at Corrente that those maps can be amazingly predictive (is that a word?), even this early out. They were in 2004.

    Parent

    Maybe not that close by the end (none / 0) (#56)
    by goldberry on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM EST
    Hillary will pick up a lot of votes tomorrow in KY.  Oregon actually has a smaller population than KY so there will be presumably fewer votes to pick up there.  
    Puerto Rico will be huge for Clinton.  SD and MT are sparse mountain states.  I don't think they will offset PR.  

    Parent
    OR had higher turnout (none / 0) (#209)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:39:23 PM EST
    percent for the 04 GE.  1.78 in KY to 1.8 million
    in OR.  Oregon votes by mail which increases turnout.  Clinton needs a higher pt win than Obama in OR.  I think the Gov of KY expected turnout of 20% of 1.8 million voters, that is 363,000 voters.  If Clinton can get the 30 pt spread, she picks up 100,000 votes in KY, but whether she can gain overall will depend on how Obama does in OR.

    Parent
    Since the popular vote total (none / 0) (#170)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:23:36 PM EST
    includes the caucuses, it seems there should be something of a margin of error built into the count, and .07% is a pretty small margin of error.


    Parent
    Would it matter? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by citizen53 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:30:31 PM EST
    The system is so screwed up on so many levels that people will just find some other lame way to rationalize.

    Perhaps not (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:31:57 PM EST
    I can only say it matters to me.

    Parent
    Fair enough... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by citizen53 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:36:24 PM EST
    but what a sham the whole electoral process has become.

    If all the wasted energy spent on the campaign and analyzing every tiny detail were spent on something actually productive, just think of what could be accomplished in society.

    Insofar ans the information age, we are moving backward in terms of quality.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Parent

    Post of the year, I totally agree (none / 0) (#217)
    by Jim J on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:43:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Sorry, but I cannot accept the assignment of (5.00 / 10) (#13)
    by Anne on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:31:29 PM EST
    votes to a candidate who was not on the ballot, even for the sake of argument.

    It doesn't matter to me why he did it, or that no one campaigned there, or that others did it, too, because if you take that approach, you might as well start taking votes away from Clinton on the theory that maybe some people voted for her because they couldn't vote for Obama or Edwards.

    Obama made a strategic, and short-sighted, decision that has proved to be a problem - but it should be his problem, and it should not have an effect on anyone but him.

    Legitimacy does not attach to this election by giving Obama votes he did not earn.

    Exactly. This is just a lame (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:32:22 PM EST
    argument.

    Parent
    The uncommitted voters were expressing their will (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:33:04 PM EST
    too.

    almost all were Obama supporters.

    Parent

    More people have actually voted for Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by katiebird on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:35:10 PM EST
    all else is conjecture.

    Parent
    We have no way of knowing that (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by goldberry on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:38:52 PM EST
    At the time Michigan held its primary, Edwards was still a very viable candidate.  If we want to figure out how to apportion the votes in MI, the last poll there should be the guide.  In my calculations, Obama gets no more than 33% of the vote.

    Parent
    By Micvhigan Edwards was NOT a viable candidate (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:45:52 PM EST
    But assign him 25% of the uncommitted vote if you wish.

    That still leave Obama ahead by more than 200,000 votes.

    Parent

    We don't need to guess (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:58:19 PM EST
    The exit poll tells us how people would have voted if all the candidates had been on the ballot.  Clinton 46%, Obama 35%, Edwards 12%.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    Hillary got 55% of the vote so those exit polls are wrong in the sense of what transpired.

    But I see the argument for assigning Obama 75% of the uncommitted based on that.

    Parent

    Well, if we want to apportion by epoll (none / 0) (#126)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:07:53 PM EST
    then we actually need to take some votes away from Hillary, as apparently 18% of her voters would have gone to Obama if everyone had been on the ballot. Going down that road seems. . .tricky.

    Parent
    Yes, that's why we just count (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:09:22 PM EST
    votes as they actually were cast.

    Parent
    More to the point. . . (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:39:00 PM EST
    the voters who went "uncommitted" in Michigan were basically "Stop Hillary" voters.

    Parent
    All this tells me is that (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Iris on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:42:42 PM EST
    it was 'Stop Hillary' to you.  Thank you for confirming to me that you didn't take the time to research your candidate, and just pulled the lever against Hillary.

    Parent
    Ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:43:33 PM EST
    you attack Larry for stating the obvious.

    that makes you no better than the crazy Obama supporters.

    Parent

    Actually. . . (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:51:35 PM EST
    I voted for Clinton.

    Evidently you haven't researched the campaign, complete with radio spots, that took place in Michigan trying to gin up the Stop Clinton vote before the primary there.

    The idea that your view of reality ought to be determined by which candidate you support is no more attractive coming from Clinton supporters than Obama supporters.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:42:55 PM EST
    But more importantly, most all were OBAMA voters.

    Parent
    About 3/4 (~180,0000) were Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:01:54 PM EST
    And of course anyone -- including every superdelegate, individually -- can assign them any way he/she likes, in arriving at their own judgment of who "won" the popular vote.

    We can even apply empirical adjustments for "caucus effect" to the caucus state numbers, and/or use unofficial media or party accounts of the numbers in IA, ME, WA, TX.

    There's a wide swath of judgmental grey area.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:03:42 PM EST
    Make it 180,000.

    Obama still leads by about 150,000 votes then.

    Parent

    Was Edwards doing that poorly in the polls? (none / 0) (#24)
    by lorelynn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:35:28 PM EST


    Parent
    He hung around to S, Ca. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:37:05 PM EST
    But if you want to assign 10% of the uncommitteds to Edwards, Obama still deserves most of the uncommitted vote.

    Parent
    And How Do We Know They Were Obamacans? (none / 0) (#120)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:05:28 PM EST


    Parent
    About 10-15 percent were Edwards supporters (none / 0) (#159)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:19:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Popular Vote counts are fungible (3.00 / 0) (#33)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:37:56 PM EST
    Since they have no definitive value, you can count whatever ones you like.

    The problem is that if you wish for the popular vote to be considered a legitimate number then it will require that both sides find it acceptable.  

    If either side finds it unacceptable then the popular vote count is irrelevant since the SDs will not feel compelled to use as part of their decision making process.

    Arguing that Obama gets zero votes from Michigan will never be acceptable to Obama supporters.  And your argument that he chose to pull his name from the ballot, rings hollow to Obama supporters.  He followed the rules.  End of story.

    Parent

    He did NOT follow the rules, (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:40:16 PM EST
    definitely not in FL, where the entire state was inundated with his TV ads for weeks.
    There was no requirement to take his name off the ballot in MI.
    Hillary and Obama followed the rules equally in MI; in FL, Obama flouted them.

    Parent
    There was no rule making him withdraw (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by goldberry on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:40:48 PM EST
    He did it of his own volition because he wanted to make the primary illegitimate.  I wonder how the voters of Michigan feel about that?  

    Parent
    I count them (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:42:22 PM EST
    I think my analysis of the popular vote is quite fair. Explain to me what objections, if any, you have to them.

    Parent
    No objections (none / 0) (#96)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:56:21 PM EST
    I thought this was a pretty good entry.  

    As sweethings mentioned below, I think that the PV will be essentially a draw.  One candidate or the other will have a small lead.

    I don't see how it will have much impact one way or the other.

    Parent

    It will help heal the Party (none / 0) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    imo/

    Parent
    I am going to go by your numbers (none / 0) (#139)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM EST
    BTD, because I know you have been as objective as possible.  I will be watching to see how many votes Clinton picks up in KY, compared to the OR diff..and then MT and SD and Puerto Rico.  It sounds like you think he will maintain a slim lead in the popular vote after PR...what happens if he doesn't?

    Parent
    How do you see this playing out? (none / 0) (#141)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:12:16 PM EST
    It seems to me that after tomorrow the most likely thing to occur is that the SDs will start to pledge for Obama in greater numbers.  There are only 220 SDs remaining that are unpledged.  

    If another 50 pledge before May 31st it is possible that the RBC will seat Florida and Michigan.  But it probably won't much matter at that point.  

    Now if Hillary were to somehow win in Oregon that could change things.  That doesn't seem very likely but it could happen.  IMO, that is the only way she could possibly win the nomination, barring a massive scandal.

    Parent

    I'd be okay with it if they would give (none / 0) (#180)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:27:39 PM EST
    a margin of error sway. Then, it remains a tie until one of the candidates has a 5% lead, as an example.

    Parent
    you can't assign all the uncommitted (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:32:49 PM EST
    in MI to Obama. Some may have been leaning towards Hillary and not ready to commit. Others voted for Kucinich, Dodd or Gravel -- you cannot assume those go to Obama. Those who voted uncommitted for Edwards may or may not agree with his current endorsement of Obama. Some of them may support Hillary now. There's no way to know.

    Obama took himself off the ballot, he gets nothing in the popular vote there, no matter how many delegates he ends up with.

    If you insist on awarding Obama some of the popular vote, it should be in proportion to the delegates he ends up with in Michigan, not all the uncommitted.

    Obama the cherry picker. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:41:38 PM EST
    (Actually, the cherry harvest used to be a big deal in MI.  Wonder if it still is.)

    Parent
    173,664 (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    Chris Bowers calculated an MI for Obama based on the exit polls. This assigns Clinton the actual number of votes she received, and the proportion of the uncommitted vote based on the exit polls. This seems to be the fairest way to go.

    Parent
    Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel were (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:34:12 PM EST
    on the ballot.

    By January 15, the only other candidate were Obama and Edwards.

    Clearly the uncommitted voters favored one of those 2.

    Parent

    And Dodd had withdrawn from the race (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:35:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Edwards withdrew, too (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:45:00 PM EST
    does that mean we give his 7% in WVA to Obama?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:46:47 PM EST
    Dodd has a line on the ballot in Michigan. His voters could vote for him.

    Hardly the same thing.

    Parent

    Hehn? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:49:50 PM EST
    Am I wrong?  I thought Edwards' name was on the ballot in WVA and he got 7% of the vote?  What am I missing?

    Parent
    I am not assigning Dodd's Mi voters (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:52:21 PM EST
    about 1000, to Obama, that is why you are not making sense.

    Parent
    Jeralyn is right (none / 0) (#194)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:33:09 PM EST
    Where MI is concerned, the offer to settle was clearly favoring Obama by wanting to give him a share of Hillary's delegates in addition to everyone elses (uncommitted, Dodd, Kucinich).

    Just once, I would like to see a decision in this primary that shows fairness toward Hillary.

    Parent

    "Fairness" (none / 0) (#197)
    by Laureola on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:35:36 PM EST
    Fairness is following the rules and standing by previous committments.

    Parent
    So when Obama told Florida (none / 0) (#223)
    by DJ on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:46:11 PM EST
    he would make sure they counted (wink, wink) and then denied a revote he was "standing by previous commitments"????

    Parent
    I respectfully disagree. (none / 0) (#231)
    by befuddled on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:52:18 PM EST
    You are assuming that the voters would choose from the available candidates left. Maybe they didn't, but preferred one of the ones already gone and hoped that person might come back later through other primaries. Maybe they hoped a new person would come up because they didn't like any choice. Maybe they were confused because the sides weren't clear then. Maybe they were spoilers on a variety of sides. Probably you have good reasons for saying this based on your continual monitoring of the situation; I'd be the first to respect an expert's instincts. But, what is the evidence that, at that time, most of the voters preferred Obama or Edwards?

    Parent
    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Iris on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:36:24 PM EST
    I of course will support him no matter what.
    This is what Obama is counting on, and I for one refuse to play along.  Further, by offering your unconditional support you sacrifice any leverage we have with the DNC regarding FL and MI and the nomination itself.  Don't you think?

    Toobin re McCain's judiciary (none / 0) (#184)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    nominations [warning: Huff Post link]:

    McCain

    I am a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton's candidacy.  However, if Obama is the nominee, I will vote for him.

    Parent

    I think the arbitrary numbers are probably pretty (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:41:11 PM EST
    close but the fact is those states can release the actual vote totals. They have them and have chosen NOT to release them.

    MSNBC Politics Page removed the (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:44:19 PM EST
    popular vote count. That tells me Hillary is leading.
    Wow... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by americanincanada on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:15:46 PM EST
    did they really?! That speaks volumes.

    Parent
    They used to have the country total (none / 0) (#210)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:39:38 PM EST
    on the front page of the Politics section. Now they only have the state-by-state and no total.

    Parent
    The votes have been certified. (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:46:31 PM EST
    Pretending voters didn't go the polls and vote is utterly foolish.

    Imagine if there had only been primaries. (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by davnee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:49:39 PM EST
    She'd be running away with this.  Even in caucus states where she would have still lost primaries, the margins for her would be much more favorable - in both popular votes and delegates.

    Let's see what happens in OR and PR.  If she keeps it close in OR then her KY romp will get to be all gravy.  That will put her in real striking distance of the popular vote win under every conceivable calculation that includes FL and MI if she comes through with a good margin in PR.

    In the end, I don't think the popular vote will be a major factor for SD's.  I just think it is important for public show - gives HRC the time and space to make her electability arguments to the SD's and continue hope for a miracle.  What will matter for SD's is momentum and electability.  Of course, if that really mattered most, Obama would have already been put out of his misery.  So what will matter most in my estimation is scandal.  The SD's need a scandal to give them cover to reverse course and boot Obama.  They can't "deny him" and keep his supporters in check unless they have something clearly and inarguably devastating against him that makes it obvious to even his most devoted that he is an electoral risk.  This is the hail mary pass that HRC needs.

    Now I'm going to adjust my tin foil hat for my next argument.  What if the SD's are coming out now in an effort to make it look like Obama has been embraced as the candidate by the Dems, only to have the Dems themselves drop the smoking gun(s) on him?  This would require buying into assorted rumors about the devastating material that the R's are sitting on, and/or buying into the rumors that HRC has been sitting on dynamite all along that she is too good a Dem to use.  The bizarre behavior of the Obama campaign of late, suggests to me they are still afraid of Clinton pulling this out, which seems ridiculous giving evolving conditions, unless they know something we all don't.  Wouldn't the Dems be best served in the healing game if they told AA's and other BO stalwarts that he was their guy, they had chosen him, but that it is now apparent to everyone given these shocking revelations that he can't win, but aren't we lucky to have such a strong and amazing candidate in reserve?

    Okay, I know the above is a serious tin foil theory, but something is so off in all this and I just can't explain it other than with something outrageous.

    Hard to tell if Dem elected officials (none / 0) (#85)
    by Iris on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:53:18 PM EST
    have word of this yet.  Some might.

    Parent
    Nah...it's pretty much along the lines of what... (none / 0) (#154)
    by cosbo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:16:53 PM EST
    I'm thinking, which is why I think the Edwards endorsement is a feint. But who really knows...democrats just don't know how to choose good GE candidates. Our own intelligence used against us time and time again. We think that we need to pick the smartest most intelligent sounding candidate to be represented, when really we need a trojan horse candidate like Bill Clinton or John Edwards to win. People who comes across as down to earth and simple but is actually quite brilliant.

    The republicans have figured this out and we still can't. I mean how smart are we really? Sigh

    Parent

    "Implosion" (none / 0) (#196)
    by lambert on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:34:54 PM EST
    If Obama's not declaring victory on Tuesday, it's because he can't, because at this point you know he'd put Hillary away if he could. That means his momentum is stopped, at least temporarily, and I'm doubting he's going to regain it after OR (funny how there's no expectations game going on there, isn't it?).

    I'd argue that if Obama is to lose the nomination, as I believe he should, it can't be because of "the map," though I think that argument is true; it will only come if the SDs are given a reason that fits into a narrative.

    And that, in turn, would argue for an Obama "implosion" of some sort, to give the SDs just that reason. The optimist in me would argue that all this sudden "be nice" stuff is negotiation about the nature and nastiness of the implosion, which is going to have to happen in a way that lets Obama live to fight another day. Medical problems, for example? That would explain his tiredness?

    Parent

    I dunno either (none / 0) (#236)
    by Emma on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:40:02 PM EST
    Okay, I know the above is a serious tin foil theory, but something is so off in all this and I just can't explain it other than with something outrageous.

    I feel something off in all this, too.  But, it might just be the cognitive dissonance created by a very strong fighting Dem candidate being constantly told to get the f*** out of the race by other Dems.  It's a constant state of "Huh?" and "Say what?"

    OTOH, the cognitive dissonance is quickly resolved by acknowledging the rabid misogyny pushing the "Surrender, Dorothy!" narrative.

    Parent

    There was a very simple easy solution. (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by mm on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:50:51 PM EST
     
    This may or may not be Obama's fault, but don't punish the voters for it.

    All speculation would have disappeared if the Obama campaign had not blocked a revote.  He shouldn't be allowed to cut off all prospects for a clear resolution of this problem and then get credit for votes that were never cast for him.

    There is one objective fact right now.  More voters who cast a vote voted for Senator Clinton.

    So the ONLY election (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Iris on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:50:56 PM EST
    that Florida and Michigan voters were able to vote in, is equivalent to a mock election?

    Give me a break!

    One is a civics lesson.  The other is a state election paid for with taxpayer dollars, which Clinton won handily and would have won even if Obama was on the ticket.

    Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by standingup on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:51:46 PM EST
    Your choice of user name should be a sufficient signal to the rest of us that is is unlikely you are here to join in an intellectually honest discussion.    

    Can we please avoid allowing the trolls to overtake the discussion today?

     

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:52:45 PM EST
    Those elections conformed to standards and were certified, other issues were on the ballot.

    Would you throw out the results as they pertained to the other issues?

    I don't think (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:57:35 PM EST
    Any of this matters any more.

    Obama never would have had a chance in 50 state primary, anyway.

    He's illegitimate, even if you counted FL and MI today, right now, the damage done over the last few months in terms of narrative is already done.

    Let him win, everyone can lie to themselves saying he's legitimate.  the DNC colluded, and now the party can roll their dice.

    And (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:11:12 PM EST
    say hello to President McCain.

    Parent
    Saying he's illegitimate over and over (none / 0) (#148)
    by rilkefan on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:15:25 PM EST
    doesn't make it true.  This isn't some impartial olympian contest, it's a party election.

    Parent
    Perception issues (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    Without getting the "hand out" from the DNC on MI and Fl, I don't think he would have won.

    You can quibble about how that question is framed, or worded, and you can talk until you're blue in the face about who's to blame, but fine, change the wording, but don't change the meaning, and you'll realize that while Obama will have won, what he will have won might not be worth as much as it would have been worth if FL and MI would have counted from the get go.

    Belichick, Bonds, Obama.


    Parent

    He's (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:20:05 PM EST
    illegitimate unless he wins the right way rather than the wrong way. If he continues to support disenfranchisement he will be considered illegitimate.

    Parent
    illegitimate is in the eye of the beholder (none / 0) (#164)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:21:28 PM EST
    And if Obama is smart he will try to address the reasons why some people might see his nomination as illegitimate to prevent too many people from taking that perspective

    Parent
    He is as legitimate (none / 0) (#222)
    by Manuel on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:45:05 PM EST
    as Hillary would be if she was was selected at the convention in August.  The SD's are going to decide this contest.  It is unfortunate that the media, the Obama campaign and the DNC have done so much to delegitimize the process.

    Parent
    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    Only Clinton did not benefit from any of the "rulings" and "processes."

    It would be close either way, but I can't think of one set of circumstances where Clinton benefitted from a rule or process, can you?

    The biggest issue is the two states removed from the process were states where Clinton would have won.  It wasn't one state that would have gone to Obama and another that would have gone to Clinton.  It was two states Clinton didn't get.

    Also, caucusses made the vote less available to Clinton's demographic.

    Etc.

    A book is gonna be written about this one day.

    Obama and his movement aren't going to like it.


    Parent

    If it doesn't count, why were the polls (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by zfran on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:58:29 PM EST
    open to Dems that day and why did they even tally the votes..why didn't they just shut it down..

    Electoral Votes (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by DJ on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    and the trending of voters since March.  If I were a SuperD I would be talking about that.
    Obama is losing most demographics.
    Hillary is gaining most demographics.
    The difference in the popular vote is tightening.
    Voters are clearly swinging to Hillary DESPITE the media narrative.

    What's with the sarcastic name? (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    Interesting Unity strategy to come at people in full Code Red mode.

    she is dishonest and desperate  How many voters do you think you convinced to consider your candidate with that little ditty?

    The rules (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Step Beyond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    clearly said no such thing. In fact, it is not within the power of the DNC RBC or their rules to ever determine whether an election counts.

    The RBC decided that there would be no delegates prior to the convention. That does not mean the VOTES are not actual votes. Heck, they aren't even the last say on the delegates. But more importantly, they have NO say over whether those votes are legitimate in the eyes of anyone else. It was the same process that would have been used had the DNC seated the delegates. The DNC may decide to use or not use those votes to seat the delegates, but the votes exist independently of the DNC's decisions.

    In addition, the candidates decided not to campaign. The DNC did not require it. So if you think the race would have tightened perhaps you should have encouraged Obama to actually campaign.

    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:10:03 PM EST
    is going to be ahead in the popular vote at the end. The two primaries with the largest populations are where she is expected to make up her margins.

    So the press/boiz try to suppress the popular vote (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by lambert on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:25:20 PM EST
    with the narrative that it's all over. Understandable, of course.

    It's only that just as I thought disenfranchisement wasn't something Democrats did, so with voter suppression.

    New kind of politics, I guess....

    Who is ahead is complete nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by pluege on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:25:41 PM EST
    The nominating process is just not precise enough to claim a winner and it won't be - democrats are clearly evenly split. Obama's small pledged delegate lead and a 0.7% popular vote lead if in fact it exists are both nonsense.

    Delegates are flipping and can continue to do so until August, the popular vote can be counted any number of ways to show either with a tiny lead, the caucus process is completely corrupt. With the facts as they stand, anyone can manipulate the known facts and how they were arrived at to claim their candidate should be the nominee.

    The democratic party needs to decide one thing and one thing only: which of the two candidates would be best situated to beat mccain, taking into account all factors, not the least of which is who would best win over the other candidate's supporters. End of story - who has the best chance of beating mccain.

    But I was told... (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:30:13 PM EST
    just yesterday that the popular vote isn't important.

    ::sigh::

    I'm soooo confused... ;-)

    After yesterday, perhaps we (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:38:00 PM EST
    should just figure out who gets the largest turnout at campaign events.  

    Parent
    Good Lord (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Nadai on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:38:16 PM EST
    Tonya Harding looks like Hillary Clinton.

    This is so stupid, it should win a prize.

    Quite frankly (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:41:47 PM EST
    The democratic leadership has allowed this whole process to devolve into such a mess that there is going to be hell to pay, no matter who wins. They have allowed themselves and the narrative to be manipulated way beyond what the process is. They should have clearly talked about the "real" role of the super delegates a long time ago. They should have talked about the fact that if no one reaches the magic number of pledged delegates, that it will be the SD's call entirely - not who might happen to have a handful more delegates than the other. If you don't get to the finish line, then SD's decide, using whatever criteria they decide on. Personally, I think the popular vote PLUS electability as seen with a hard eye to the electoral map and individual state polling should be used. Popular vote should be used simply because delegates are supposed to be based on the popular vote. If there is a difference, then the popular vote should be used. But we still can't forget electability or the fact that SD's were first conceived to prevent another McGovernesque blowout. I believe that's what we'll see with Obama, but if he gets the popular vote and the electoral maps change, then maybe that won't happen.

    Stop the madness! (5.00 / 0) (#239)
    by schmed on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:06:45 PM EST
    All the what-if's and might-have-been's are counter productive.  A commenter on a thread at the NYTimes put it succinctly and well:  
    "I think she is making it really hard for there to be a reconciliation of the party after the nomination process has ended. she is arming her supporters with arguments that have no factual basis. she is giving them hope where there are none. They are going to feel really really cheated and it will be a great tsunami backlash against obama. She is arguing that the system is unfair, and she is being cheated. She is arguing she still has a chance. Her supporters are listening to her."

    It's not Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by chopper on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:26:40 PM EST
    I haven't heard Hillary say a word about the system being unfair.

    It's pretty damn obvious if you open your eyes.

    On top of the totally inequitable delegate system. there was rampant fraud, corruption, threats, and physical attacks on Hillary voters.

    Hillary doesn't have to say anything.

    hardball (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by tedsim on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:04:49 PM EST
    Where is the outrage!!!

    Proper Calculations (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by Petey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:36:12 PM EST
    "But unlike RCP, my calculus is assigning the uncommitted vote in Michigan to Obama."

    If we wanted to do this properly, we'd allocate only some fraction of the uncommitted MI vote to Obama.

    I'd say the proper fraction would be 2/3, but I'd be willing to go up to 3/4, if it'd make the Obama camp happy.

    Obama gets... (none / 0) (#53)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:44:56 PM EST
    ...an estimated +110,000 out of the 4 caucus states which don't announce specific vote totals, plus at least 70% of the 239,000 uncommitted votes in MI, based on exit polling.  That's about +278,000 for Obama, factored into the RCP total with FL and MI counting, would give him about +250,000 at the moment.

    He'll likely gain +50-200K from Oregon, depending on margin and final totals, and maybe +25-50K from Montana and South Dakota.

    Clinton needs at least +350K, and probably more like +5-600K from Kentucky and Puerto Rico to unambiguously claim the popular vote lead, by about +100K votes, or one/third of a percentage point.

    But what does that mean, exactly, to the superdelegates? Her margin, in that instance, would include the votes from Puerto Rico and the votes from two states which held contests in contravention of DNC rules, and in which the candidates were barred from campaigning(and, therefore, from influencing the outcome; needless to say, this tends to heavily favor whoever the longtime frontrunner/establishment candidate is).

    I don't think you can assert illegitimacy based on two contests where campaiging wasn't permitted (and the contests were legally invalid at the time they were held according to DNC rules) and one contest where the voters don't get a voice in the general election.

    It would be nice if Obama could finish slightly ahead in the popular vote, but if he's less than a percentage point behind, given the murky nature of some of those results, I don't think it undermines his claim on the nomination in the slightest.  
    It is, ultimately, about the delegates.  If you don't like the selection process, change it.  But both candidates have campaigned by the rules of the contest, and accepted those rules going in.  Had the rules been different, they might have campaigned differently, and the outcome might have been different...or the same.

    Yes, it's about delegates (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Iris on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:48:51 PM EST
    not pledged delegates, not super delegates.  Just delegates.

    And they don't vote until the convention.  Hillary is still in the race, and it's not over til she says it is.  I for one hope she goes all the way; I'd like to save our party from the travesty that would be an Obama candidacy in the GE.

    Parent

    WA has a contemporaneous primary (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:50:10 PM EST
    That is the popular vote number. Reduce your 110,000 to 60,000.

    And once again, the ugly bigotry agasinst Puerto Rico raises its head. the popular will of the Democratic nomination contest voters counts because the DNC SAID SO.

    LEt me put it bluntly, you want to argue electoral vote math, then Hillary should be the nominee.
    you are NOT making a will of the people argument.

    and if the argument is about electability, Hillary is at least tied.

    Parent

    Tired of this "ugly bigotry" crap... (none / 0) (#130)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:08:28 PM EST
    ...quite simply, BTD, their vote isn't counted in the general election.  Their delegates get counted, yes, but why would a Clinton "popular vote win" which is basically less than or equal to the margin of her win there be considered "the will of the Dem electorate" when PR is not part of the Dem electorate in November?  

    If Obama's popular vote margin was roughly equal to the votes he got in the Virgin Islands, Samoa and Guam, would you also be trumpeting that as the "will of the Dem electorate"?

    Heck, for that matter, a candidate could get 45% of the vote in the rest of the country and 90% in California, and be the popular vote "winner", but far behind in pledged delegates.  Would anointing them the nominee based on their popular vote margin be a "reflection of the will of the electorate"?  

    Parent

    Try this one on (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:12:45 PM EST
    An Obama win that does not fully include Michigan and Florida is illegitimate.

    a candidate could get 45% of the vote in the rest of the country and 90% in California, and be the popular vote "winner", but far behind in pledged delegates.  Would anointing them the nominee based on their popular vote margin be a "reflection of the will of the electorate"?  

    Obviously. The "will of the people" is a metric not subject to the roolz.


    Parent
    MI and FL will be included... (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:23:13 PM EST
    ...but insisting on an outcome which is unlikely (DNC completely caves and removes any penalty whatsoever from FL and MI--superdelegates reinstated, pledged delegates fully reinstated, results of campaigning-free contests accepted as is) is the equivalent of drawing a conclusion and doing research designed to reach that conclusion.

    There will still be some penalty to FL and MI for breaking the rules(either the delegations will be halved, or the supers will still be stripped, or the delegations will be seated and the supers halved(the lightest penalty I can think of)), but they will be seated, probably based on the existing results.

    You can see the obvious flaw in picking a nominee based on my hypothetical, though, right?  They lost the popular vote by a decent margin in the aggregate of every contest but one, then won huge in a single state(let's assume their home state is CA) to erase the gap--in that case, the will of the majority in all the other states weighed heavily against the candidate, but the "popular vote nomination rule" would dictate selecting that candidate anyway.

    The point of the Democratic primary system wasn't "who can accumulate the most total votes?", but rather "who can accumulate the most pledged delegates and superdelegates?"

    A nomination which would be won based on "who will get the most total votes" would be conducted radically differently, one imagines, than the current contests.  It's quite possible that 20 or more states might be largely ignored.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:27:15 PM EST
    A nomination which would be won based on "who will get the most total votes" would be conducted radically differently, one imagines, than the current contests.
    In 2000, most Democrats preferred that metric. I still do.

    This sense of entitlement that people in small states have just baffles me. No, your vote should not be worth more than mine.

    Parent

    Then stop making dumb comments (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:16:55 PM EST
    The will of the people in the general election will be expressed by the votes in the general election.

    the will of the people in the Democratic nomination will be expressed in the vote int he Democratic nomination contests.

    You ask me if the popular vote margin Obama possesses is based on the virgin Islands, etc. would I be trumpeting them. Did you see me EXCLUDE THEM. They are parto "the People" in the Dem nomination process.

    you expose evern MORE BIGOTRY in yourself.

    The reality is you are making a Hillary Clinton argument, only counting the votes that matter in the general election.

    If you want to do it THAT way , then ?Hillary won in a landlside. Because the Dem votes in Alabama, ND, MS, UT, ID, KS, GA, etc will have NO EFFECT of the Presidential race in November. NONE.

    those votes mean as much as the votes in PR will in November.

    So stop with the bigotry and start having some common sense.

    Parent

    "Bigotry", to me... (none / 0) (#193)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:32:38 PM EST
    ...implies ethnic prejudice.  I bear none towards PR.  None.  But they don't get a vote in the general election, and if we're going to go with an arbitrary and inherently problematic measurement like "popular vote total" in a contest where there are over a dozen caucuses, where there are two contests which remain mired in controversy, and where there are territories which get delegates to the convention but which have no say in the general, shouldn't the margin of popular vote "victory" be of such a magnitude as to transcend all those problematic considerations?

    If you want to say their votes do count in the Democratic primary process, fine.  I have no disagreement with that.  If PR's delegates provided the decisive margin of victory for the nominee, I'd have no problem with that either.

    The only thing I would have a problem with is with the popular vote in PR, not the delegate allotments, being the "decisive margin of victory" for the Democratic nominee, and superdelegates voting for the candidate based strictly on that criteria. I think that's a problematic criteria for a variety of reasons.  

    If they win based on superdelegate selection on other criteria, and happen to have a popular vote margin based on PR, fine.  I just don't particularly like it as the basis of a pitch to superdelegates.

    Parent

    I will revise this... (none / 0) (#227)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:49:49 PM EST
    ...so as to not single out Puerto Rico.  To me, a "decisive popular vote win" significant enough to influence superdelegates should be larger than the candidate's largest popular vote margin from any single contest.  I think that's fair.  
    Obama's largest margin was Illinois, about +650K, and Clinton's was California, about +420 K.

    So, by my criteria, a DPVW for either candidate would be upwards of 5-700 K votes--and neither one of them is going to have that kind of margin over the other.  Ergo, popular vote totals should be non-dispositive here.

    Parent

    Funny you should mention running up huge margins (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by davnee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:18:50 PM EST
    Given the massive popular vote margin Obama pulled out of Cook County (Chicago), which was about 430,000 votes, this may not be the argument you want to highlight.  Those votes from the Daley machine will all be wasted in the electoral college of course.

    Parent
    Should we also go through the (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    laborious process of deducting all Republican, Independent and non-affiliated votes from the popular vote tally, too? (That'd be fine with me. Plus, I suspect Hillary would be ahead.) My philosophy is count EVERY vote or count NO vote. Puerto Rico is recognized as a contributor to the delegates and popular votes, as are all the territories of the United States. As such, every vote from that pool should be counted. Otherwise, why bother counting any votes anywhere?

    Parent
    not count PR (none / 0) (#150)
    by DJ on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:15:37 PM EST
    well then let's not count votes or delegates in red states b/c they won't have an Electoral Votes for Dems in the GE.  Sounds good to me.

    Parent
    There are all kinds of ways (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    of interpreting the popular vote, but I expect that in the end Hillary will have the better of most of them.

    Certainly any contribution to the popular vote Obama may get in virtue of the caucus states is highly suspect, for example. There have been three cases now in which we can compare side by side a caucus result and a primary result for the same state: WA, TX, and NE. In all three cases, Obama's popular vote margin went down dramatically (even turning from a positive for him in the TX caucus to a negative in the TX primary), even though there were far fewer voters in the caucuses than in the corresponding primaries. That fact really undermines a quite significant proportion of his current popular vote margin, such as it is.

    And what is Obama and his campaign going to do with PR, given that it's likely to go pretty heavily against him? Find still another way to marginalize the Latino vote by dismissing it as irrelevant, even though the Democratic Party has allowed it a say in the nomination process?

    Yeah, find another way to marginalize still another potential voting bloc, even while claiming to be the "unity" factor.

    What Obama supporters can't seem to understand is just how much splitting of the Party they've had to promote in order to get their guy nominated.

    And they expect there won't be any blowback. Good luck with that.

    Parent

    Oh, and if we are (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    going to throw out the PR vote because they don't count in the electoral college, should we then count up votes won in terms of electoral votes of states (which clinton won handily)?

    And why should we include the popular vote contributed by non-Democrats in the nomination of the Democratic candidate? Because, again, Hillary won decisively the vote of registered Democrats.

    Parent

    Query - why no NE results (none / 0) (#178)
    by Klio on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:26:52 PM EST
    on The Spreadsheet?  I can't find either caucus #s or the non-binding primary #s.  What am I missing?

    Parent
    NE vote try greenpapers (none / 0) (#225)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:46:39 PM EST
    I got my number from greenpapers.  here.

    Parent
    My worry about the popular vote (none / 0) (#76)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:51:15 PM EST
    is that there appears to be no single objective way of counting it. I personally agree with casting the widest net possible, which means including caucus estimates, FL, and MI, with some percentage of the uncommitted votes going to Obama. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, is pushing a different total, which leaves out caucus estimates, and assumes that Obama had exactly zero supporters in Michigan (even though the exit polls indicate otherwise).

    It sounds like no one will ever agree on who the popular vote winner is, unless Obama wins by the most Clinton-friendly measure. But this seems like the wrong standard, when we should be casting the widest possible net and judging who wins based on that.

    And then we run into another problem: in a race this close, how do we include Edwards votes? Do we leave them out, or divvy them up between Clinton and Obama somehow?

    Really? It's pretty simple to me... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Iris on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:57:41 PM EST
    Count up all the people who voted for Obama and compare that to all the people who voted for Hillary.  

    Caucuses aren't 'votes' - they don't even have a secret ballot!

    Parent

    You're illustrating the problem (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    You personally don't like caucuses, so you're leaving out the will of the people who showed up to support their candidate. But those people still count! They showed up to the only contest they had available to them, just like the voters did in MI and FL, and participated in the process.

    If you don't want to count them because you don't believe that caucuses are legitimate, then logically you have to drop any insistence that the popular vote can possibly measure legitimacy. The purpose of the exercise is to demonstrate which candidate has the most support of people who showed up to express their support. This means you can't exclude anyone who showed up, whether they showed up to a caucus or to an unsanctioned primary.

    Ultimately the question is moot, since only delegates truly matter, but I agree with BTD that it's a useful exercise.

    Parent

    People vote in caucuses (none / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    It is silly to say they do not.

    Parent
    Caucuses count for delegates (none / 0) (#129)
    by DJ on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:08:23 PM EST
    that is a separate issue from popular vote.

    Parent
    Yes, but they vote several times. (none / 0) (#149)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:15:27 PM EST
    The numbers are not comparable.

    Parent
    You may not know your subject matter. (none / 0) (#226)
    by wurman on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:48:37 PM EST
    In my local caucus we voted by secret ballot.

    At the next level up, our caucus split into Sen. Obama & Sen. Clinton groups (undecided & other didn't get to caucus because of the 15 percent minumum rule) & each group selected delegates to the next level up by secret ballot.

    These internal workings are very esoteric functions that differ from one jurisdiction to another.  This is not a very good subject area for generalizations.

    The true difficulty is that caucus numbers do not represent votes & were/are not ever intended to do so.  It's a mis-use of the actual functions of a caucus.

    Further, our convention had a motion & second to stop the caucus system & use the primary election.  It was crushingly defeated.  The apparent desire to end the caucus method may be totally out of step with the "will of the Democrats" in the caucus states.

    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#83)
    by Laureola on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:52:32 PM EST
    Obama's popular vote is substantially larger if you calculate representative numbers for caucus states.  If you do not, then it's not a true popular vote - just a contrivance.

    And, of course, Michigan would never count under any contrived scenario.  

    Actually if you calculate rperesntative numbers (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:54:01 PM EST
    for caucus states, Obama would be far behind in the popular vote.

    See, WA, TX and NE for example.

    My gawd, some Obama supporters do not even know their own arguments.

    Parent

    Yes, it is remarkable that in the (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    three cases where we can compare caucus and primary results side by side in the same state, in each case the popular vote margin for Obama goes down dramatically from caucus to primary -- even turning from a positive in the TX caucus to a negative in the TX primary. It's remarkable that this should be true, given that there are so many fewer votes in any caucus than in any corresponding primary. It really establishes beyond dispute what a perversion of democracy a caucus really is.

    Extrapolate these results across all caucus states, and you have a significant decrease in Obama's popular vote margin.

    Parent

    Texas...... (none / 0) (#195)
    by Laureola on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:33:49 PM EST
    ...has a popular vote, so the caucus results there do not need to be estimated.   If you calculate just the pure caucus states by converting winning margins to estimated popular votes - Obama would bury Clinton.  

    Parent
    Let me try again. (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:49:56 PM EST
    In NE, Obama won the caucuses, garnering 26,000 of 39,000 votes, giving him a 13,000 vote margin, and a percentage margin of about 67-33%.

    But in the NE primary, there were 93,000 votes cast (many times over the number in the caucuses), but Obama won by only 2,600 votes -- about a 2-3% margin.

    Point is, Obama's popular vote margin went DOWN, and dramatically, even though the number of people participating was well over double in the primary.

    The same holds true for the case of WA.

    Parent

    Estimated popular votes? (none / 0) (#219)
    by eric on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:44:11 PM EST
    How in the world would that be done?  BTW, in the states that have had both primaries and caucuses, Obama always fared worse in the primaries.  So how in the world would you calculate votes?

    Parent
    Still wrong (none / 0) (#147)
    by Laureola on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:14:01 PM EST
    Up is down, and Hillary would get more votes if cacuses were converted to representative popular votes.

    Parent
    The problem is (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Iris on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:55:05 PM EST
    caucuses don't at all represent the support of voters.  All it represents is how organized and activist your campaign is; see for example Nebraska, which had a wildly different caucus/primary result.

    Parent
    Then, similarly...... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Laureola on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:17:44 PM EST
    Elections that have been declared null and void in advance only represent a portion of voters that were not discouraged.  

    Parent
    For example..... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Laureola on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:30:00 PM EST
    There were 227,000 votes in the Iowa Democratic caucuses.  Obama got 38% of them, and Clinton 29%.  Extrapolate that to the projected number of Democratic voters in the general election, and you have a truer picture of the "will of the people" through a popular vote.

    Parent
    Are you not following ANY of (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:36:25 PM EST
    the argument here?

    Look, in WA, Obama won in the caucuses by, I believe, 36%. He won the WA primary by only 5%. Even though vastly more people voted in the primary than in the caucus, his popular vote margin went DOWN from caucus to primary, because the percentage of people supporting him went down so dramatically.

    This is what happened in NE as well. And in TX his margin in the caucus was a positive, which changed to a negative in the primary.

    Again, if you extrapolate those results across all caucus states, his popular vote margins go DOWN.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:38:25 PM EST
    In each of the states which have had both primaries and caucuses, Obama's caucus percentage has been far greater than his percentage in the primary.

    This is conclusive evidence that you can't extrapolate the victory margin in a low-turnout caucus to the population as a whole.  Even in a primary, which has much lower turnout than the general election, the results aren't anywhere close to what the caucus would suggest.

    Parent

    good idea (none / 0) (#88)
    by iago on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:54:39 PM EST
    A tribe in Brazil, good idea! But only if Obama isn't allowed to campaign. Heck why put him on the ballot at all!

    :)

    Has anybody weighted the pledged delegates? (none / 0) (#122)
    by davnee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:06:19 PM EST
    I've seen numbers in the past, but anything recent on the number of voters per delegate Clinton has earned vs. number of voters per delegate Obama has earned?  Those are great illustrations of the differences in the breadth and depth of the support for the candidates.  Sure they don't change the roolz, but they do highlight that cliff the Dems are stampeding towards.

    Not including FL and MI, including caucus states (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by thomphool on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:30:09 PM EST
    Obama received 10,213 votes per delegate.
    Clinton received 10,905 votes per delegate.

    That may not seem like much, but if they both had received 10,540 (Total votes/delegates allocated to the two of them thus far) votes per pledged delegate, the pledged delegate count would currently be 1560 to 1493 (gap of 67), instead of 1610 to 1443 (gap of 167).  

    That's not to say that getting less votes per delegate is in any way illegitimate, but it does show that IF "the will of the people" is the criterion for determining the vote of certain Super Delegates, pledged delegate count, like any count, has problems.

    Parent

    Clear as mud (none / 0) (#183)
    by Manuel on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:28:15 PM EST
    By whatever measure, there isn't a clear convincing winner in this race.  Were Hillary to become the nominee, she would not be a clear winner either.

    Ironically, Obama is the likely nominee not because of the delegates and popular vote but because of the strong momentum he currently enjoys with the superdelegates.  Of course, as we have seen, that is subject to change before August.

    BTD, you're wrong. (none / 0) (#216)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:42:37 PM EST
    You can make a case, that in the spirit of compromise, we could or should give Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from MI.

    However, a vote is a ballot cast in your name and certified by the authority in charge. I think it's usually the "Secretary of State".

    I agree by the way, that we should give Obama the "uncommitted" but those are not "his" votes per se.

    The mandate is for both (none / 0) (#224)
    by HelenK on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:46:23 PM EST
    of them to be on the ticket. I think America is saying "we want both."

    So, I know no one would prefer VP. but it would be an unstoppable ticket.

    More information (none / 0) (#234)
    by Binx on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:10:28 PM EST
    This link is to Gallup's most recent national polling re: Clinton v. Obama. It is meant to provide an alternate perspective to the discussion of Hillary Clinton's "trending upward" in recent weeks.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/107395/
    Gallup-Daily-Obama-Opens-16Point-Lead-Biggest-Yet.aspx

    I inserted a return to avoid skewing the page... remove to follow link.

    caucus states (none / 0) (#235)
    by cacamp on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:17:25 PM EST
    I'm new here so it may be too late but I'm wondering how the popular votes of caucus states are counted?

    Corrupt Caucuses (none / 0) (#238)
    by chopper on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:44:49 PM EST
    I don't believe the caucus delegates should be counted in any way at all because of the fraud, threats, attacks, and corruption that took place in some, if not all of them.

    As far as the popular votes, it's clear in FL, Hillary gets hers and Obama gets his.  And Hillary will have to be stuck with the handicap of Obama campaigning and she did not.

    In MI Hillary should obviously get hers, but half of the uncommitted should go to Obama because the other half could have been intended for someone else.  And, it was not Hillary's fault that Obama chose to remove his name.

    hardball (none / 0) (#241)
    by tedsim on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:03:35 PM EST
    Michele I forget her last name an A.A said there would be race riots in the street if they take it away from obama.I guess we better give it to him.

    Andrea Mitchel (none / 0) (#243)
    by tedsim on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:12:19 PM EST
    I noticed she didn't have a show today.Mybe she is being punished for saying hillary was droping out according to someone in the clinton campaign.

    No matter what anyone say, the Popular vote is (none / 0) (#245)
    by alright on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:10:27 PM EST
    ALWAYS important to anyone who values democracy period.

    On The Popular Vote | 197 comments (197 topical)