home

Who's Winning the Popular Vote Total?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:46:23 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Both candidates agree the popular vote count will be an important factor for superdelegates to consider in deciding how to cast their vote. It's one of several, others being their view of the candidate's electability in November and the pledged delegate totals.

So, how many human beings have gone to the polls so far and cast votes for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?

The popular vote total is the votes cast by individuals in state primaries. Caucus votes don't count in the popular vote total because they are counted in terms of delegates, not votes, and many states don't count the number of people attending caucuses. More on this below.

Sources and Methodology below:

Methodology: Add WA primary votes to primary votes of other states, including FL and MI.

  • On the popular vote total:
    Under Democratic rules, each vote isn't tallied at caucuses. The caucuses serve only to award delegates to go to a state convention (which then elects the national delegates). The results from caucus states reflect the number of convention delegates to the state convention won by each candidate.
  • The Michigan uncommitted votes were not votes cast for Barack Obama. As Real Clear Politics states,
    ** Senator Obama was not on the Michigan Ballot and thus received zero votes. Uncommitted was on the ballot and received 238,168 votes as compared to 328,309 for Senator Clinton.

Bottom Line: Hillary and Obama each have 50% of the popular vote. They are separated by 130,000 votes. There are 10 states left with up to 12 million potential voters (pdf).

An estimated 12 million individuals are eligible to vote in the 10 remaining Democratic primaries or caucuses (Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana, South Dakota.) Together, these states and territories will have 566 elected pledged delegates and 124 superdelegates.

Update: Comments at 200, now closed.

< Hillary and Bill Clinton's Tax Returns Released | NYT/CBS Poll: Obama's Support "Softening" >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Who's Winning the Popular Vote Total? | 204 comments (204 topical)
    Florida, Oh, Florida (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Athena on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:51:24 PM EST
    Ignoring votes means ignoring democracy itself. And if we ignore the votes of thousands in Florida in this election, how can you or any American have confidence that your vote will not be ignored in a future election?

    Al Gore, November, 2000.

    Deciding that MI Hillary votes should count... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by tbetz on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:53:23 PM EST
    ... even though Obama was not on the ballot makes much less sense than excluding caucus votes.

    [ Parent ]
    Caucuses vs. primaries: WA example (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:13:28 PM EST
    WA is a perfect example of how undemocratic caucuses are since the results of their primary was radically different from their caucuses--by about 25% (or more).  So it does not reflect popular will; caucuses are actually quite anti-democratic by their very nature.

    And since there are no caucuses in the GE, it's a horribly poor indicator of how someone would fare in the GE.  Since the GE is winner-take-all in each state, counting the popular vote/state would actually be an accurate indicator of GE strength.

    And I agree with the previous comment: the DNC never required Obama to remove his name; he chose to do so and the hell he should be rewarded for taking that risk (and yet if MI is ever taken into account, he likely would be).

    [ Parent ]

    Same with Texas (none / 0) (#52)
    by Suma on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:36:59 PM EST
    Primary goes to Clinton, while the caucus though still counting, seems to go to Obama

    [ Parent ]
    I seriously doubt that Obama (none / 0) (#57)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:38:25 PM EST
    would be this close if those caucus states were actually primary states.  Hillary would have won some of them outright.  The disinfranchisement of the Hillary "voter demographic" was obvious. So acting like Obama is being short changed is simply a bully tactic to shade the argument that he is sooooo much ahead.

    [ Parent ]
    ADA and Caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Athena on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:47:47 PM EST
    Jeralyn - or anyone - any idea whether the caucuses violate the ADA?  

    It has seemed to me that this type of public event (or accomodation) is just not hospitable or available to many disabled individuals (let alone the elderly or frail).  There's no opportunity to participate by mail.

    I think that ADA-related issues are another kind of legal defect in this kind of electoral event.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you; I raised this 'way back re Iowa (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:28:35 PM EST
    where some caucuses where in basements downstairs in private homes (and even upstairs in private homes can mean outside stairs, and in the worst of winter) and was dissed about it by Iowans who said they would carry in their neighbors, if need be.

    That totally ignores the need for dignity of those of us who (sometimes, in my case) deal with disabilities -- and thus totally ignores that some of us would stay home to avoid such treatment.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you for a point you made (none / 0) (#95)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:33:34 PM EST
    about Edward's delegates; I'm new at this so it helped clarify things. I would have said something in the original thread, only it was closed by the time I noticed it.

    [ Parent ]
    If the meeting place (none / 0) (#67)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:49:22 PM EST
    is accessible then it is probably okay, if not, that is a whole different story.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting point (none / 0) (#172)
    by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:30:48 PM EST
    I hadn't thought about that.

    Hopefully somebody was smart enough to have, though.  I wouldn't presume it was an issue without learning more.

    [ Parent ]

    For what it's worth. (none / 0) (#177)
    by phat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:38:04 PM EST
    In Nebraska, all caucus locations were ADA compliant, at least in the bigger counties. In Lancaster County, we specifically made sure all caucus locations were ADA compliant.

    [ Parent ]
    But that doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by digdugboy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:47:55 PM EST
    the DNC allowed states to use caucuses. Twelve states opted for caucus only delegate selection. Those were the rules going in, and this isn't Calvinball.

    [ Parent ]
    It's too bad that... (3.66 / 3) (#8)
    by Universal on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:57:05 PM EST
    ...he chose to take his name off, huh?

    Bad decision.

    [ Parent ]

    Avoidance (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Athena on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:11:34 PM EST
    For Obama - it's not a revote - it would be a "first vote."

    Unlike Clinton, Obama has refused to be evaluated by the voters of Michigan.  What's he afraid of?

    Why should Clinton be penalized for Obama's unwillingness to run in any Michigan contest?  She earned her votes by putting her name out there - unafraid.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong (2.00 / 1) (#82)
    by digdugboy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:09:44 PM EST
    She agreed ahead of time that the Michigan vote wouldn't count.

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong; you misquote again (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:25:26 PM EST
    Give it a rest or take it somewhere else, where it might impress.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you suspending me for the rest of the day? (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by digdugboy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:39:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No she didn't (none / 0) (#167)
    by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:28:20 PM EST
    She said it; that's a horse of a different color from "agreed."  Ask a judge whether that is an inconsequential distinction.

    [ Parent ]
    Candidates didn't agree to stripping delegations (none / 0) (#183)
    by scorbs on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:53:26 PM EST
    The candidates only agreed to not campaign in those states, FL/MI.  They did not agree to stripping the delegations.  That's what the DNC did.  Voters came out anyway and voted, in a record turnout.

    [ Parent ]
    I think that (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:16:00 PM EST
    HRC supporters would do better if they would at least pay lip service to the idea that the will of the people is important.

    Perhaps you could say that you really wish you could consider MI's BO supporters, but it's just not possible, and it breaks you democracy loving heart.

    I won't restate my own opinion about caucuses and the popular vote: I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack, but I get the impression that once a day is more than enough here.  But others have questions too.

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting, that's Professor KC Johnson of (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jerry on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:49:48 PM EST
    the Blog Durham-in-Wonderland who wrote extensively on his blog about the Duke Lacrosse Team and co-authored the book, Until Proven Innocent.

    So what's ironic (and somewhat offtopic) is that Professor Johnson has long said he was a Democrat and an Obama supporter, but he is often pilloried by certain progressive liberal sites that still consider the Duke students to be guilty and think that we'll never know what happened because of Nifong.  And they'll also make weird statements that Duke shows our system works for white males.  Often times as they pilloried Johnson they called him a rightwinger and a conservative (and probably much worse.)  These same sites today are some of Obama's bigger supporters, although they still have to pillory Johnson.  Just today, one of these "super hip liberal blogger professor" folks was insisting once again of Johnson's lack of integrity (on another issue) and calling me a troll for having the temerity to disagree.

    Anyway, I admire Johnson, and I also agree that I find not counting the caucuses in some way in some guestimate of the popular vote is problematical.  I disagree with Johnson in the importance (or unimportance) of the popular vote.  It seems to me that delegates are a proxy for the popular vote, so that the underlying vote should be, and is, very relative.

    [ Parent ]

    Not hardly (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by digdugboy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:08:43 PM EST
    It was the smart decision. No superdelegate with any brains will take seriously a popular vote counting methodology that includes Michigan votes for Clinton. Had he remained on the ballot he'd be in a worse position. The methodology used here is, frankly, crap.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure Jeralyn (none / 0) (#156)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:02:07 PM EST
    appreciates you calling her item crap.  You really need to take the night off.

    [ Parent ]
    He knew the rules when he started. (none / 0) (#22)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:10:32 PM EST
    Too late to start crying now.!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Publicus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:04:05 PM EST
    The rules were that Fl and MI would not count.  Thus he is way ahead on the popular vote as well as the delegate count.

    [ Parent ]
    And as we can see (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by digdugboy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:46:02 PM EST
    it is not Barack Obama who is crying about it.

    [ Parent ]
    News to the DNC (none / 0) (#161)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:10:54 PM EST
    which just said both delegations can be seated.

    Now, a more reasonable counting of the popular vote would have Obama ahead, but that's fairly likely to change soon.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Traven on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:19:42 PM EST
    Excuse me, what do you mean, "caucus votes don't count"?  I live in a caucus state.  That's just another way of saying that my vote doesn't count.  You can't have it both ways, Hillary boosters.  Count all the votes -- the real ones, from the real elections and caucuses -- or don't count any.  Don't pick and choose and then throw in Fla and Mi, too.  This is why so many of us are just disgusted with HRC and those who blindly follow her.  Take the scales off your eyes.  Yes, she voted for war -- not what she says now.  Yes, she lied about Tuzla -- not "misspoke."  Good grief.

    [ Parent ]
    Does your state release total attendance (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:30:32 PM EST
    at caucuses, not just delegate counts by the end?  That's the problem.  Make your state do so in future, or stop the stupid caucuses, paid for by parties.  You're part of the public, so pay up for primary elections or at least for total attendance counts to be posted by your Secretary of State.

    [ Parent ]
    What's become of the argument that (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:26:45 PM EST
    we must never allow citizens to be disenfranchised because of the poor decisions of their elected representatives?

    [ Parent ]
    people in caucus states aren't being disenfranchis (none / 0) (#176)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:34:42 PM EST
    Last I checked all of the delegates from caucus staes were being seated. The fact that they're not counted in the popular vote can be taken into consideration by the supers when they weigh all of the metrics.

    [ Parent ]
    *nods* (none / 0) (#194)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:09:23 PM EST
    That makes sense. But in that case the "popular vote" becomes another relative measure with its own strengths and weaknesses that need to be taken into account, no more or less definitive than any other measure. I'm not saying you were arguing it was anything more than that, but I think others may have been.

    [ Parent ]
    No wonder (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Left of center on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:53:03 PM EST
    the Obama people want Hillary to drop out of the race now. After P.A. she will probably be winning the popular vote.

    Goal (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Athena on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:00:54 PM EST
    Get her out before he loses again.

    [ Parent ]
    If by winning the popular vote you mean (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:50:19 PM EST
    the vote you get ignoring caucus states like Iowa, Maine, Washington, Nevada, and allocating votes in two primaries that were declared in advance not to count, one in which Obama wasn't even on the ballot, then yes I guess so. I'm sure there are all sorts of ways we can count the vote in which one person wins or the other. But in the actual real world according to the system we have set up, what difference does it make? In that world, in that election, Obama is winning.

    Now let me be clear, I would prefer we counted the popular vote in all the states. And I would prefer that Florida and Michigan had not tried to move their primaries before all the other states, or that they had sought out a way to do a revote before the election actually began as opposed to waiting until March. I don't like the electoral college either. But none of this has any bearing on who's going to be the Democratic nominee. And more importantly, making estimates like this don't tell us what the popular would be if we were living in a world where that was the method we used to decide races. Maybe in that world, Obama would have campaigned differently and he'd still be winning, who knows? So I have no idea what an exercise like this is supposed to prove. It does say something (and I already argued the main thing it says is, wow Obama is still ahead even when you eliminate four states he ran extremely well in, and let Hillary run against him unopposed in another). But i don't see what it has to say about how the election is going to turn out, or even how it ought to turn out.

    [ Parent ]

    I have to agree (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:23:49 PM EST
    that it is wrong to use popular vote as any kind of a binding metric when there is no uniform way to count it, and when the candidates were not planning on it being a metric.

    Popular vote only matters as a factor for superdelegates to consider.  They certainly know all of the things everyone has said here about the way it is counted or not counted in caucus states, the situations in FL and MI, the way the candidates could have gamed it differently to maximize popular vote, etc.  and can give the numbers the appropriate weight accordingly.

    [ Parent ]

    Caucus votes (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:53:34 PM EST
    are better than nothing.  It's absurd to ignore them where available.

    They count as pledged delegates (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:15:40 PM EST
    Both pledged delegates and the popular vote will be factors.  Besides, how do you propose they count caucus votes?

    Caucuses should be banned next time.  They're fundamentally anti-democratic.

    [ Parent ]

    Caucuses were never (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:31:44 PM EST
    viewed as anti-democratic until Hillary could not win one.

    Caucuses are cheaper than primaries....Many party activists view caucuses as a way to build party support....

    [ Parent ]

    I think they (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:33:37 PM EST
    alienate voters, that is why so few participate compared to primaries. I think party activists think it is a way to control the vote, not build the party.

    [ Parent ]
    It has been viewed as a way (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:36:09 PM EST
    of getting new people in the system who will spend time at a caucus, i.e, finding new party activists....

    Primaries costs millions of dollars....That is an area of concern for cash-strapped states and parties....

    [ Parent ]

    That's the positive aspect of it (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Suma on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:38:23 PM EST
    The negative being the bullying tactics that can keep many people away.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, we were bullied by Obama's people in Iowa (none / 0) (#72)
    by doyenne49 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:52:29 PM EST
    It was horrible. I will never attend a caucus again.

    [ Parent ]
    Parties pay for caucuses, not states (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:34:48 PM EST
    so you would be speaking of cash-strapped states.

    And my state is cash-strapped but never would go to caucuses, they'd never fly here for all the reasons noted here -- too many working-class people, parents, people with disabilities, etc., left out.

    If a state can't find the cash for democracy, finding the waste somewhere in the state budget (as there always is waste somewhere), the public won't up the taxes a few pennies per person?  That's all.

    [ Parent ]

    Caucuses are cheaper than primaries? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by suskin on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:54:38 PM EST
    If you paid one dollar for each hour expended by the voters, organizers, campaign staffers, lawyers, party leaders and volunteers in order to organize, run, train, advise and participate in these caucuses, the cost would no doubt be 100 times the cost of a primary.  You're not just talking about precinct caucuses, you're talking about county conventions, and in Washington, Legislative District Conventions, and State Conventions all of which take hundreds upon thousands of hours of man power.  

    There is absolutely nothing democratic about caucuses.  In order to make your vote count, a voter has to stand on line for hours to sign in and then wait around for hours longer while everyone else signs in and their eligibility is checked.  You're lucky if you get out of there in less than four hours, but in most cases it is much longer. Then you have to go to the county conventions. In the Collin County Convention in Texas on Sunday, voters signed in at 10am and did not start caucusing until after midnight.  And that was normal.  Then the delegates have to get to the state conventions.  It's ridiculous.

    That's not to mention the extensive abuses. In Iowa they allowed same day registration and re-registration (changing party) with no ID requirement for God's sakes.  Voters didn't even have to prove they lived in Iowa.  People streamed in from who knows where, kids voted without proving how old they were, people didn't even bother to sign in.  Some ridiculously small number of these "new registrants" turned out to be eligible. In Wyoming, Republicans were allowed to vote in both the Republican and the Democratic primary!  And then there's the rampant fraud.  

    To base a Presidential nomination on who can best game these corrupt and disorganized caucuses is bone-headed.  


    [ Parent ]

    Nonsense (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:58:37 PM EST
    And in any case, it wasn't until this election that the undemocratic exclusionary nature of them became so baldly obvious to so many people because it favored one candidate way, way out of proportion to his actual support among voters.  You should admit that instead of pretending it's all news to you.


    [ Parent ]
    Plain false (none / 0) (#55)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:38:16 PM EST
    You haven't been paying attention if you believe this.

    [ Parent ]
    Which part is false (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:48:15 PM EST
    cost, fairness, or a way of party building....

    [ Parent ]
    People have objected to caucuses (none / 0) (#163)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:15:31 PM EST
    because they discriminate against lower SES voters, because they aren't transparent, because they expose the voters to intimidation, etc.  It might be news to you, but your "nobody cared before Clinton" argument is risible.

    [ Parent ]
    Link? (none / 0) (#180)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:45:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Here's a pithy one from last year (none / 0) (#188)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:56:52 PM EST
    and hit parent.

    If you want an overview of the criticisms of caucuses, and you didn't follow many liberal blogs' withering scorn on the subject before Obama started doing well in them, you might do well to pick up a poli sci textbook.

    [ Parent ]

    Counting caucus voters (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:37:36 PM EST
    At least straight up.  That would be the simplest proxy for the will of the electorate. As a physicist I would definitely construct a better measure which reweighted caucus votes to reflect state (party) population and did the same for primaries, and I would present the resulting set of numbers alongside the set of unweighted ones.

    [ Parent ]
    Too many definitions of popular vote (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:51:02 PM EST
    This discussion shows that one can calculate, slice and dice the popular vote any number of ways.....

    Better to stick to a delegate race....It will be clear who has a lead in pledged delegates...You won't need a formula for that....Everyone will be able to see what the totals are.

    [ Parent ]

    Discarding information (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:53:37 PM EST
    is never a good idea.  If Clinton wins the popular vote by a reasonable metric, that's important.  Pledged delegates is another metric.

    Total delegates decide the issue.  If the superdelegates care about the popular vote and that puts Clinton over, that's fair.

    [ Parent ]

    If Superdelegates care (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:12:20 PM EST
    more about the leader in pledged delegates and put Obama over on that basis, that would be fair too, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by Nadai on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:09:31 PM EST
    I hope they don't, of course, but it would be fair.  It would fair, if stupid, if they cast each candidate's astrological chart and decided from that, too.  The superdelegates can do pretty much anything they want.

    [ Parent ]
    Problem is that (none / 0) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:01:30 PM EST
    most caucus states don't keep a count of participants, so there's no way to know.  In any case, it means almost nothing.  It's simply who won among people who are able to get to the caucus.  The relationship of those numbers to the actual voter preference in the particular state is a complete unknown.  You might just as well throw random numbers into the mix-- except of course, random numbers that all favor one candidate.


    [ Parent ]
    They throw away the sign in sheets? (none / 0) (#152)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:00:25 PM EST
    they must have some form of legal documentation, right? Sounds like they do in Tx as there were signature issues.

    [ Parent ]
    legal documentation? nope (none / 0) (#192)
    by marisol on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:03:29 PM EST
    A caucus is not an election.  It is run by the party, paid for by the party. Rules are made [and changed] by the party. Each state has different procedures.  In fact, in my state I heard about several different procedures for allocating delegates in different caucuses.

    The only written record we kept in my caucus were the sign-in sheets that proved people were registered Democrats. Voting was done by hand-count. Delegates were awarded based on a formula that didn't actually reflect the percentage of the votes.  

    Even the total turnout number posted for my caucus by the state party was off by about 10%.  I know because I hand-counted people.

    Trying to reconstruct actual vote numbers from caucus delegate numbers is flawed logic.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it's unbelievable (none / 0) (#124)
    by Korha on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:12:35 PM EST
    That Jeralyn would attempt to count the total popular vote without counting caucuses THAT HAVE RELEASED POPULAR VOTE TOTALS. Yes, that is extremely dishonest and hackish.

    [ Parent ]
    Not really (none / 0) (#191)
    by badger on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:01:47 PM EST
    In the first place, it isn't necessary to record vote totals depending on how the caucus is run (I don't think ours did). All that's recorded is the results of delegate election - number of delegates and names. The signup sheets only represent the first ballot, not the final result.

    Second, the caucuses are administered by people elected at the caucus. There is no certification of the votes, no independent authority that does the counting, no verification that the delegate results match the votes, nobody swears the totals are correct, no way to recount, and there's plenty of room to mess with the vote totals.

    So your insult to Jeralyn is both rude and ignorant.

    [ Parent ]

    Let her rip. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Saul on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:54:54 PM EST
    To me PV is the only true test of the people's will.  Remember 2000.  Gore won the PV.  More people wanted Gore than Bush.  The PV is a more important factor in the nomination process.  I just wished they did not have the Electoral College or if they just have to have it then give the electoral votes on a proportional basis.  That would be more representative of what the people want.

    hypocrites (none / 0) (#104)
    by diogenes on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:43:53 PM EST
    Why do I keep reading here that Bush "stole" the 2004 election in Iowa, then, since he was the clear popular vote winner anyway?

    [ Parent ]
    2000 not 2004 (none / 0) (#159)
    by Saul on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:08:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I know who's winning among Dems (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Universal on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:55:24 PM EST
    and that's Clinton, and that includes all the caucuses and neither Florida or Michigan.

    I've done a lot of calculations on it and she is well ahead in Democratic votes, even when giving Obama a lot of benefit of the doubt in the caucuses.

    Good Point (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Left of center on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:11:21 PM EST
    I haven't heard enough people mention this point. Why are we even counting Republican votes for the DEMOCRATIC primaries? Their votes should be thrown in the trash. Open primary or not, i don't care. if you're worried about disenfranchising Republican voters, who cares, lets call it payback for 2000.

    [ Parent ]
    Illegitimate Count (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:57:34 PM EST
    ...and you know it.  First, if that is how we calculate popular votes when we talk about how superdelegates should vote, then you have eliminated every caucus vote from the total.  There has to be some method of including them in the popular vote total.

     Second, allocating all of the MI votes cast for Senator Clinton is no measure of the popular vote in Michigan, because not even write-ins were permitted.  You are disenfranchising all of the uncommitteds.  A better method would be to subtract the uncommitted vote numbers from Hillary's total vote, or subtract it from the MI votes cast.  

     The site even contradict itself because you say there are "12 million potential voters."  But some of those voters are in caucus states, which by definition is not included in the popular vote tally.

     Your bottom line is a deceptive one, even on its own terms.

    MI (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:02:03 PM EST
    If Obama hadn't opposed a revote in MI (and hadn't taken his name off the ballot in the first place) you would have a better argument.

    It would be fairer in this accounting to give him his polled percentage of the uncommitted voters.

    [ Parent ]

    I have to agree on this one (none / 0) (#43)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:27:16 PM EST
    This analysis is very generout to Clinton. I think that the analysis could be done in a way that estimates the caucus votes and allocates Michigan more fairly and it would still show Clinton withint striking distance. A biased tally is not going to appease Obama supporters or convince superdelegates to switch from the person with more delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    But the point is, (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:01:12 PM EST
    the race isn't decided by the popular vote. If it was, presumably all the candidates would have campaigned very differently and it's impossible to know what the result would have been (leave alone the conundrums with the caucus sates and Michigan and Florida). It's as though we were playing a game of chess, and I was winning, and you said, you know. . .if we we're playing checkers, I'd be ahead. And I looked at the board, and yes you would be, but if we were playing checkers I don't think I would have played it this way.

    I suppose the bottom line is, can arguments like this convince a large number of super-delegates to ignore delegate totals and switch over to Clinton giving her the race. If they were secretly looking for a way to give the nomination Clinton, i suppose it might, but otherwise I just don't see it.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure, it is -- it's decided by super-delegates (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:36:46 PM EST
    whose task is to determine who would win, and they will look at the popular vote to determine that.

    There 'tis.  The popular vote will matter.

    [ Parent ]

    It may indeed.... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:41:09 PM EST
    ...but this twisted, self-serving version of the popular vote will not be what they base their decision on. If they do, they'll be receiving some choice words from Democratic constituents.

    [ Parent ]
    That's a bit harsh (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:29:22 PM EST
    "twisted, self-serving"? This is one way of interpreting the vote totals. If you want to, you can come up with your own. We won't have better knowledge until the next bout of primaries, so yours will be as just as invalid as this one. It's a numbers game right now. Have fun with it. Don't take it so seriously.

    [ Parent ]
    It's still a longshot (none / 0) (#137)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:27:07 PM EST
    We haven't had a situation in a long time where two candidate were this close at this point in the race. The point is that, by some measures, Clinton is very close to Obama in the race. If this is a chess game, then one player has a significant advantage, but the other player is still very much in the game and the game will be decided by the superdelegates. Obama has been playing the game by pretending that the superdelegates have to vote in his favor if he get more delegates. But that isn't in the rulebook, and there is no reason that either Clinton or the superdelegates have to play by his rules. If they can be convinced that Obama can't win, then they will vote for Clinton. Either way, the right wing has to hold off on attacking Obama until after the convention, so he benefits from the doubt.

    I still don't think it's likely that Clinton will win, but this data shows conclusively that she should not drop out of the race. It would be like sacrificing a chess match when she still has a chance at winning.

    [ Parent ]

    The nomination (none / 0) (#147)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:40:10 PM EST
    isn't decided by who gets the most pledged delegates, either. It's the candidate who gets a combination of 2,025 pledged and superdelegates. At this point, since neither candidate will reach the required number through pledged delegates, the supers will have the deciding vote, using whatever criteria makes sense to them. All of the pledged delegates will be in Denver as a result of voters making their own decisions. But according to the Obama camp, only the supers should be restricted to using one set of criteria in their decision, a criteria that just happens to favor Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (none / 0) (#45)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:30:06 PM EST
    And such exercises have been done, on TheLeftCoaster for example.

    [ Parent ]
    WoW! (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:59:23 PM EST
    I wish the mainstream media would talk about these numbers.  Does anybody know if anyone out there in tvland has talked about these numbers!  Thanks Jeralyn, this made my day.  Somehow, for no rational reason, it makes me feel better to know it is this close even if they block Clinton from getting the nomination by saying they can't count MI and FL.  People need to understand just how much support Clinton really has because a lot of us have been quiet about it.

    Thanks Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:00:19 PM EST
    I understand it better now. Better, but not completely.
    lol
    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:00:55 PM EST
    So let me make sure I understand this. We're eliminating the caucus states (which Obama ran strongly in), we're giving him zero votes in Michigan and over 300,000 to Hillary, and we're counting the votes in Florida as is even though there was no campaign there (which would surely have allowed him to reduce Hillary's lead as te front runner). Yet even with all that, Obama still as a sleight lead? If I've got that right, then he's doing amazingly well.

    "Surely" (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:03:19 PM EST
    "which would surely have allowed him to reduce Hillary's lead as te front runner"

    Who knows.  Wouldn't it be nice if he wasn't blocking a revote there so we could find out?

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary Clinton herself opposed (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:24:38 PM EST
    doing a revote in Florida all the way until early March. "This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated." The Florida legislature virtually unanimously decided against a revote. So it doesn't make any sense to say that Obama is somehow uniquely responsible for blocking the vote in Florida.


    [ Parent ]
    She preferred solution x for enfranchisement (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:40:48 PM EST
    to solution y for enfranchisement.  Now that x is out she's pushing y.  And Obama is choosing the disenfranchisement route.  Where's the outrage?

    [ Parent ]
    This topic (none / 0) (#61)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:42:29 PM EST
    has been beaten to death on this site.  There are numerous posts on this.

    [ Parent ]
    Check out what she said on Jan 25 (none / 0) (#154)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:01:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Welcome to the Clinton rules... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:06:19 PM EST
    ...where you can talk about the need to count two states as "pivotal" while eliminating dozens.

    [ Parent ]
    Please (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:19:32 PM EST
    Tell me which dozens of states are being written off.  They count in the pledged delegate count.  How does anyone take caucuses into the popular vote count?  It's absurd!  And which one of those dozens of states will be a critical GE state?  MI and FL in terms of EV count alone (let alone the size of their populations) amount to much more than simply two states in comparison to the caucus states.

    How can you not see that?

    [ Parent ]

    Estimates (none / 0) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:47:30 PM EST
    but, but, but you don't understand... you can estimate. You know those caucuses that don't release popular votes?  Just estimate the votes.  Florida? No one, absolutely no one, knew Obama so just estimate what might have happened.  Michigan? Just estimate what you think might have occurred.  It makes no sense to count actual votes that are available when you can count estimates.

    [ Parent ]
    *Nods* (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:19:37 PM EST
    You know I agree with you, I'm beginning to think we don't need to actually hold elections at all. We can just have a roomful of people discuss it together, come up with an estimate of how an election would have come out if we had had it, and then announce the winner. That would save a huge amount of time and expense.

    [ Parent ]
    A room ful of people? (none / 0) (#102)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:43:13 PM EST
    Gee, that sounds kind of like a caucus.

    [ Parent ]
    A roomful of super-delegates will do (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:44:26 PM EST
    just that in Denver.  You will get your wish.

    [ Parent ]
    Where Is Norman Muller (none / 0) (#106)
    by The Maven on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:44:47 PM EST
    now that we need him more than ever?

    And this was supposed to be his time to shine as Voter of the Year (according to the story "Franchise", that is).

    [ Parent ]

    No one knew Obama? (none / 0) (#108)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:46:31 PM EST
    He ran TV ads in the state, there had been several debates, and most importantly, he was coming off a huge win in South Carolina, had been anointed the front runner by the media, and the only news about the Clintons was Bill supposedly playing the race card. At some point that "name recognition" argument doesn't fly.

    [ Parent ]
    snark (none / 0) (#160)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:09:31 PM EST
    the but, but, but was the clue.  When I said, no one, I meant no one that didn't have a tv, computer, was no where near any homes that had signs, had no one knock on their door, nor received a phone call, no mailers,  you know.... those no ones.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep, it's a downside of the Obama/Axelrod (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:38:21 PM EST
    strategy to exploit the caucus system.  It would have worked well, if they had closed it up and won on Super Tuesday, as planned.  But Obama/Axelrod couldn't do it, twice now, so they're stuck with the downside of their caucus strategy.  Them's the breaks.

    [ Parent ]
    There is no downside (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by digdugboy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:53:27 PM EST
    They put a better game on the ground and got more pledged delegates. All the wacky theories here about how to weigh and measure the popular vote will, in the end, be meaningless to superdelegates.

    [ Parent ]
    It is not the superdelegate's (none / 0) (#153)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:01:06 PM EST
    job to rubber stamp the pledged delegate leader.

    They are supposed to save the party from itself and use independent judgement to pick the candidate who will not only make a better preisdent and nominee but who will win.

    There are no rules inplace to crown the 'leader' in delegates. You either get the magic number or all bets are off and the SDs decide.

    [ Parent ]

    It was Hillary not Obama (none / 0) (#182)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:49:05 PM EST
    who said she would have it all wrapped up by Feb 5.....She told katie Couri that she was going to be the next President, no ifs ands or buts.

    Obama never predicted he would win the entire race on FEb 5.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you have a cite for that? n/t (none / 0) (#193)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:06:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You know (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:23:21 PM EST
    I believe she did say something to that effect.  On the other hand, I am stunned I tell you, absolutely stunned, appalled, aghast, dismayed... that a person running for President stated that they were going to be the next President.  It makes absolutely no sense.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure (none / 0) (#197)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:18:25 PM EST
    Here is the Katie Couric interview.

    It will be me....She never even considered the possiblity she would lose.

    She the interview at the 3 minute mark....

    [ Parent ]

    Absurd (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:02:34 PM EST
    Counting FL and MI, and the meaningless WA primary, while excluding caucus states? Ridiculous.

    Need to count all votes. (3.00 / 2) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:47:11 PM EST
    For popular vote you absolutely count Florida, Michigan, Washington and the Texas primary. You also discount the Washington and Texas caucus.

    I do believe where applicable, you must include those caucuses that have tallies into the popular vote as they were voters in states that only had a caucus.

    When counting all possible, it's still a very tight popular vote and will remain so right to the end. Some posters are correct in that it is delegates that matter, but with super delegates ultimately deciding the outcome, popular vote will be extremely important.

    [ Parent ]

    No reason to discard the TX and WA caucuses n/t (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:49:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Washington and Texas (none / 0) (#73)
    by CoralGables on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:52:48 PM EST
    Absolutely you discard the TX and WA caucuses because you already have the primary vote to use. You can't count both or you are giving double votes to individuals and primaries are a far more honest approach to public opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    Then (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:06:39 PM EST
    You count the WA caucus. That was the one that actually mattered.

    [ Parent ]
    I've commented on this (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:51:02 PM EST
    myself today.

    [ Parent ]
    Nobody voted in both (none / 0) (#164)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:17:23 PM EST
    did they?

    [ Parent ]
    No? Then let's have caucuses now in (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:40:47 PM EST
    states that went for Clinton in primary elections, so we can count all those Clinton voters twice, too.

    You okay with that, counting voters twice in other states, too?  If so, please explain why some voters in some states get counted twice.  Is that to make up for not counting voters in two states?!

    [ Parent ]

    I have a solution. (none / 0) (#155)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:02:00 PM EST
    A solution that avoids counting the states that held primaries twice (once for delegates, once for popular vote) and caucuses once (just for delegates).

    We'll let the popular vote stand as given above, but since those states shouldn't get to be represented twice, only the caucus states will be considered in the delegate count.

    Ok. Now I'm new at this, so I may not have this right, but according to that link, Idaho, Nevada, Maine, and Washington are the caucus states which aren't counted in the popular vote. . .let's see.

    Well, Obama is only slightly ahead of Hillary in the popular vote, bet he's crushing her in delegates, with nearly twice as many. 95 to 50.

    (this is all tongue-in-cheek, just in case anyone was unsure :) )

    [ Parent ]

    Actually... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:06:02 PM EST
    The totals you quote DO include popular vote results from all the caucus states except Iowa, Nevada and Maine.  If you add in estimates from those states, Obama's lead only increases by 10-20,0000 overall.

    my numbers don't include (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:08:00 PM EST
    any caucus states. RCP provides options, see the links. I chose the option for state primaries with MI and FL and without caucuses. To them, you add the WA primary

    [ Parent ]
    hmm (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:19:05 PM EST
    So in other words: The caucus states don't count? I see.

    Anyway, this just gives strength to the Obama thinking that delegates are all that matter.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:24:07 PM EST
    This partial count of the popular vote shows how flawed the popular vote metric is....

    It is delegate race....

    This talk of popular vote has only arisen in the last 3 or 4 weeks....It is designed to help Hillary....Back in February even Hillary and her campaign were saying it was a delegate race....

     

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed the popular vote scenario (none / 0) (