Who's Winning the Popular Vote Total?

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

    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).


    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

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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
    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.!!!

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    *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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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....


    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.

    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....


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.  


    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.

    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.

    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....

    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.

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


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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?

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

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?


    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.

    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?

    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.

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

    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?


    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.

    *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.

    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.

    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.

    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).


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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
    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.

    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....


    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.


    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
    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.

    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.

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

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

    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?!


    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 :) )


    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

    hmm (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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....



    Agreed the popular vote scenario (none / 0) (#131)
    by Rigelian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:23:44 PM EST
    is even worse than not counting Florida and Michigan.  This proposal is ridiculous and I suspect no one in the party will take it very seriously at all.  

    I'm familiar with RCP (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:58:49 PM EST
    it is clear to me that you took the 5th row in the RCP table which you linked to and, to that, added tht Washington primary result.

    Obama = 13931423 (RCP) + 354112 (WA) = 14285535
    Hillary = 13837418 (RCP) + 315744 (WA) = 14153162

    What I am telling you is that that 5th row of the RCP table ("Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)**") DOES include the popular vote from ALL caucus states where the popular vote is known; that is it includes all caucus states except Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington.  That is what the 6th row ni the RCP table is for - it makes an educated guess as to the popular vote in each of those four states.  It DOES include results for popular vote in Kansas, North Dakota, Alaska, Virgin Islands, etc - look at the list of states further down the page, those caucus states are there.

    What seems legitimate to me is to include the Washington primary result and then include estimates of the Iowa, Nevada and Maine caucues.  In those three states, Obama would pick up another 165000 votes and Hillary would pick up another 145000 votes.

    Obama = 14285535 (YOU) + ~165000 (IA/NV/ME) = 14,454,464 (50.3%)

    Hillary = 14153162 (YOU) + ~145000 (IA/NV/ME) = 14,300,875 (49.7%)

    I'm not arguing your overall point, just that the specific data you cite DOES include most caucues.


    So why then does RCP report the top line (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:03:51 PM EST
    On it's front page? The very top yellow line is the one they link to as their main calculation. There are multiple lines that include the caucus states.

    I can't see any reference to the meaning of the different lines. They seem to produce the exact same information differenty.

    Since RCP uses the top line as their primary calculation I assume it's the one that includes (in their view) the best data.

    In any case it's unlear to me exactly what the colors signify.


    Popular Vote (none / 0) (#134)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:24:41 PM EST
    RCP is not the final arbiter of what is most fair.  That is for the superdelegates to decide and the rest of us to argue out.

    RCP, however, does provide objective data.  They present the sum total of all popular votes from all DNC-sanctioned primaries and caucuses whose vote totals are known; they estimate popular vote results in 4 states where popular votes are not known; they include information about the popular vote results in primary elections in Washington, Florida and Michigan which are not recognized by the DNC for the purpose of allocating delegates, etc. etc.

    I'm just clarifying to Jeralyn that the data she has presented on the main page DOES indeed (contrary to her assertions) include the known popular vote totals from the caucuses held in Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Democrats Abroad and that, by including educated estimates for the caucus results in Iowa, Nevada and Maine plus the known primary election result in Washington, all states/territories are represented and the result is not significantly different than what she asserts.


    Hawaii and Alaska too (none / 0) (#141)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:30:18 PM EST
    Forgot about them...the popular vote results from those caucuses are ALSO included in Jeralyn's total.

    Since you understand the sheet (none / 0) (#181)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:47:30 PM EST
    explain what each of the colors mean. There are two yellow bars, two light blue bars, and two dark blue bars. They seem to be repeating information but they are clearly pulling together different sets of data as the numbers are different on every line.

    My point was not that RCP is the final arbiter of anything but that they regard the top line, the +2.6 line as important. But from the way that the spreadsheet is constructed it's not clear what each of the different color gradations signifies since there are multiple lines that state w/IA,NV,WA,ME.

    Does Cost give an explanation of what the colors mean elsewhere?


    Never mind! (none / 0) (#184)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:54:14 PM EST
    I finally stared at it long enough. It's a progression based on including FL, then FL/MI

    Light blue includes FL and dark blue includes FL/MI each with an additional option of including the 4 states that have to be guestimated.

    So Obama's best scenario is the second yellow line and Clinton's best scenario is the second dark blue line.


    Correction (none / 0) (#185)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:55:38 PM EST
    Clinton's best is the 5th line. Which of course is why Jeralyn picked it :)

    if (none / 0) (#198)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:19:54 PM EST
    if counting all the votes works to Hillary's advantage, so be it.  Jeralyn does go out of her way to add in the Washington primary result, which is not to Hillary's advantage.

    People are gonna have problems (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:06:46 PM EST
    With the methodology, and for the right reasons.  How can you leave caucus states out?

    At the same time, none of the people who will express outrage here about leaving the caucusses out of the grand total are going to adequately confront the fact that caucusses are not an accurate reflection of a popular vote election.

    I would make a suggestion for states that do both.  Stop.

    When we see what happened in WA and TX, the whole system gets discreditted.

    Found an interesting site (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Rainsong on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:32:10 PM EST

    Doing state comparisons of popular votes, and including estimates for caucus state totals where available.

    State comparisons of Dem primaries


    Thanks (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:16:46 PM EST
    For the link.

    Very informative.


    This is the popular vote only (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:09:53 PM EST
    Caucus votes don't belong in the popular vote total. People didn't go to a voting booth and pull a lever for a specific candidate.

    Caucus votes count in delegate totals.

    Popular Vote Total is But One Measure (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:14:05 PM EST
    the superdelegates can consider. Pledged delegate totals are another. That's where the caucus votes count.

    No... (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:20:03 PM EST
    ...because if this is what you mean by "the candidate ahead in the popular vote should win," you are effectively eliminating voters in the caucus states.  

     As an ethical appeal, it is illegitimate if it does not include caucus states.


    I've never said (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:24:54 PM EST
    the candidate ahead in the popular vote should win. I don't believe that.

    I believe all three factors should count for the superdelegates -- pledged delegates, popular vote and electability. The superdelegate votes together with the pledged and other delegates is the total delegates -- that's who gets the nomination.

     This is the popular vote. Caucus votes go to delegate counts. Superdelegates can consider both.


    really? (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:29:27 PM EST
    So you think caucuses are so inherently flawed as to not be included in the popular vote.... but MI and FL SHOULD be? Explain this reasoning.

    I think she means... (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:33:23 PM EST
    ...that they count only in the pledged delegate count.  The problem is that the pledged delegate count includes primaries, but her popular vote count does not include caucases.  There is no way of getting around the unfairness of that methodology.

    Jeralyn.... (none / 0) (#79)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:07:45 PM EST
    See my comments elsewhere in this thread. You're needslessly propogating this "caucuses dont' count" meme when the very data you're showing on this page DOES include most of the caucus results!  A popular vote total that includes FL, MI and ALL caucuses would not be terribly different than the data you have on the front page.

    Another metric (none / 0) (#138)
    by magster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:27:35 PM EST
    Jeralyn this doesn't make sense (none / 0) (#143)
    by Rigelian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:34:44 PM EST
    the primary states are being double counted, first in the delegate count and second in the popular vote count.  The caucus states are counted only a single time...If this doesn't tilt the analysis unfavorably noting does.

    Unreal (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by dmk47 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:17:22 PM EST
    Why not exclude every state Obama won?

    Unreal (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Tim B on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:18:01 PM EST
    No kidding.  Stalin won the popular vote in the USSR when he was the ONLY PERSON ON THE BALLOT, just like Hillary was in MI.  Saddam too, he got over 90% of the votes in Irag by being the only person on the ballot in Iraq.        

    All the Dems, including Hillary, agreed not to run in MI.  Hillary is the only person who's name was on the ballot, so she "wins" MI.  And some people actually think that's fair and shows that the voters of MI chose Hillary.  

    The MI's voters didn't choose anyone.  Hillary was the only "choice" they had.  However, having only one option isn't a choice.  Therefore, Hillary didn't win MI in a fair and democratic vote.  

    Instead, she simply gamed the system, just like Bush did in Florida and Ohio.  Including the "votes" she "won" in MI by gaming the system in her popular vote total is a joke.        


    More nonsense (none / 0) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:09:00 PM EST
    Obama-supporting groups heavily promoted and canvassed for Obama supporters to vote for "Uncommitted."  Effectively, he campaigned in Michigan rather intensively, while Hillary honored the boycott.

    Gross distortion (none / 0) (#142)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:34:08 PM EST
    Clinton did not game the system.  How could she?  Tell me what she did to make it unfair to any other candidate as your grotesquely absurd comparison to the USSR and Bush implies?  How?

    There was no DNC rule requiring any candidate from removing their name.  Obama did that on his own.

    If you have such a problem with this horrible mess, why don't you take it up with Obama?  He was the reason why there was no revote in MI.  The money was raised.  The DNC had approved it and yet he rejected a revote!  Tell me, if the primary was so dastardly why wouldn't he want a legitimate revote?


    Edit (none / 0) (#144)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:35:48 PM EST
    I meant to type:
    There was no DNC rule requiring any candidate to remove their name.  Obama did that on his own.

    Dodd was on there... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:43:20 PM EST
    as were other Democratic candidates. Also the Cornyns, Obama supporters, ran a "Vote Undecided" campaign.

    The Saddam parallel is bogus...as is the Stalin parallel.


    Not counting the caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:20:18 PM EST
    undermines the legitimacy of the popular vote argument.  You can't count some votes but not others....

    How do you count (none / 0) (#54)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:37:56 PM EST
    something that was never counted?  The records for IA, WA, NV, and MN are 'estimates' because they don't use votes.  The causus are a delegate process.  Get the states to release the popular vote if they have them.  One report was that info was written down and then disposed of, another that the delegate sheets were lost (not to mention what vote tally might have been with it.)

    Do not stop at Go (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:21:36 PM EST
    Too many definitions of popular vote....An attempt to slice and dice the popular vote to benefit Hillary shows how slanted this whole idea is....

    Too much cute parsing....

    Forget the popular vote.  The leader in pledged delegates wins....


    Delegate system is no less clearer and foolish (none / 0) (#146)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:38:50 PM EST
    Clinton won NV and yet she lost the delegate count.  In the GE that would not be the case.  It is insane to count caucuses as in the popular vote, because they are--by nature--undemocratic.

    How is it parsing to follow this rule: one person, one vote.


    So then... (none / 0) (#175)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:34:35 PM EST
    The SD's base their decision on the PV, delegate count and electabilty.

    Then, what has more weight in determining 'the will of the people'?

    I think that Obama will carry both the count and the PV, so it won't matter, but how can they weigh it?


    So, you're saying (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:43:20 PM EST
    that the delegate count actually doesn't matter, which would effectively steal the voice of all those happened to live in a caucus state?

    That's what Clinton means by "everyone should have their vote counted"?


    The discussion (none / 0) (#165)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:19:45 PM EST
    is about what superdeez might consider.  Delegates, popular vote, ability to survive the GE.  Popular vote is one thing to consider and there are different methods for calculating it.  I was merely pointing out that you can't count the popular vote when the popular vote is not released.

    I have no problem with superdeez looking at numbers however they want.  Jeralyn's item is just one.  I imagine 100 people will come up with 100 different criteria.  I don't get the drama.


    There are other caucuses that did (none / 0) (#133)
    by Korha on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:23:53 PM EST
    release popular vote totals. There is no justification whatsoever for not including them in the popular vote total.

    Florida and Michigan don't count (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Publicus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:40:00 PM EST
    And if those states were re-run, Obama would do much  better.  Clinton's uncountable margins are based on name recognition because of the early, illegal voting.  

    Tough cookies.

    illegal voting? (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:42:27 PM EST
    Wow, I need to tell my parents and 5 siblings that voted in Florida that there votes were illegal!

    You sure are gracious for a winner.


    It was understood by both candidates.... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Publicus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:09:01 PM EST
    ....that Florida and Michigan were ruled illegal by the DNC.  If Clinton was ahead, she wouldn't care about them at all.  She's trying to change the rules after the fact.

    I'm glad your caucus went well (none / 0) (#179)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:44:32 PM EST
    but you're ignoring the fact that 100% of the people you saw there fell into the category of "people who can make it to a caucus."

    Completely Illogical (none / 0) (#187)
    by brad12345 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:56:13 PM EST
    100 percent of the people who voted in the primary fell into the category of people who could vote in the primary.  If they had planned to vote but got held up at work, no vote.  If they had planned to vote but had to take the kids to soccer, oh well.  If they got stuck in traffic... etc.

    Caucuses are flawed, but not as flawed as your logic.


    So you're saying (none / 0) (#195)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:11:38 PM EST
    that the barriers to participation in caucuses are the same as barriers to participation in primaries? There are always barriers to participation in anything, but in a conversation about the relative merits of caucuses and primaries my argument is perfectly logical.

    No (none / 0) (#210)
    by brad12345 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:02:51 AM EST
    I'm saying that this isn't a theoretical conversation about the relative merits of caucuses vs. primaries, but an after the fact conversation that's attempting to use theoretical objections to invalidate reasonably fair results.  Once everyone has agreed to the rules, those are the rules.  It's illogical to complain about the rules after the fact--unless it's to change them the next time around.

    I also don't like the electoral college, but until my vote as a Californian has some value, I'd like to see the democratic candidate stay the hell away from California in order to win undecided voters in toss-up states.  


    Sadly (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:44:57 PM EST
    Obama is blocking revotes.  So he's scared of doing much better?

    Please explain.... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Publicus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:11:02 PM EST
    ....how Obama is blocking re-votes.  It's entirely up to the states and state parties to come up with a plan for re-voting - which they have not done.

    I would suggest that you go back and read (none / 0) (#125)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:13:09 PM EST
    BTD's explanations of this.

    You've been around long enough to have seen them...or know where you could find them if you aren't already aware of the different options that were put forward by MI nodded at by the DNC and then frowned at by the Obama campaign.


    Nice Try, No Cigar (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by dell on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:20:35 PM EST
    That is the second best piece of lawyerly reasoning that I have read this week.

    My son (MN) and I (TX) both thank you for not counting us.  If the other 400 people in the Tom Landry Elementary School Cafeteria in Irving, Texas at 7:15 PM on March 4 knew of your impeccable logic, I'm sure they would all be equally thankful.

    Oh, while we're at it, is it seriously your contention that there was not a single person in Michigan who supported Barack Obama on January 15--not even one?  Even for a lawyer, making that contention with a straight face would be a notable feat.  You're good--but you're not that good.

    By the Way (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by dell on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:31:34 PM EST
    If you want to see this same sort of analysis done competently, instead of from a pure advocacy perspective, go to www.openleft.com and then scroll down to Fladem's featured diary called "Popular Vote Projection".

    If you caucused in Texas (none / 0) (#114)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:00:59 PM EST
    then your vote is included in the popular vote total for that state, the way I understand it. Didn't you have to vote in the primary in order to caucus? How were you not counted?

    You're right (none / 0) (#128)
    by dell on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:19:48 PM EST
    ...that you have to vote in the election to be eligible to attend the caucus.  But you're ignoring that, in TX, you're legally allowed, indeed entitled to vote twice.  And the caucus votes are easily countable, because the sign-in sheets require/allow you to state your Presidential preference.  In fact, those stated preferences are the start of the math that determine delegates to the next level.

    That's nonsense (none / 0) (#166)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:22:00 PM EST
    Then CA could organize a caucus tomorrow and double its representation.  We're trying to come up with a fair counting of the will of the electorate.

    If you caucused in Texas (none / 0) (#115)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:01:25 PM EST
    then your vote is included in the popular vote total for that state, the way I understand it. Didn't you have to vote in the primary in order to caucus? How were you not counted?

    So much bad reasoning in this thread (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:08:11 PM EST
    Well after reading this whole thread I've once again come to the conclusion that I'm glad that this is now in the hands of the supers. I hope they are better thinkers than the partisans of the blogosphere.

    Wishful thinking I know.

    So, basically... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by mike in dc on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:23:00 PM EST
    ...it's not fair to "disenfranchise" two states, but it's perfectly reasonable to disenfranchise 13 states which happened to choose the caucus process--oh, wait, now BTD will say "they disenfranchised themselves"(never mind the irony of that).  Of course, the Maine caucus permits absentee voting, but I guess you gotta break a few voter eggs to make that popular vote cherry-picked omelet, right?

    And even by this cherry-picked count, which I'm sure will ultimately include PR(which, facts being what they are, actually has no say in the general election) while excluding those caucuses, Obama still leads.

    BTD has been consistent (none / 0) (#135)
    by Korha on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:25:28 PM EST
    I think BTD would agree that the popular vote of people who voted in caucus states should be counted in the overall popular vote totals. At least I really hope so.

    Did you go to RCP and read (none / 0) (#169)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:28:24 PM EST
    all of the numbers? and see what states they included in the popular vote? Looks like they have all but the 4 who haven't released numbers. One state is NV which Clinton won the PV and Obama the delegates. If those states release the numbers, it may not change that much? The changes that matter when you look at all the numbers over there are when Fla/Mich are added in.

    Anyway, follow the links and see if you get a different take than me :)


    Obama still wins that metric... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:05:46 PM EST
    ...which is mindblowing to me. You're going all out to craft a set of filters for a metric that only matters for appearances only (and, yes, therefore for the superdelegates, too) and Obama still leads by over 100,000. It's amazing.

    Point is (none / 0) (#170)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:28:41 PM EST
    PA is coming up, and Obama will probably lose badly.    Ditto a number of other states.  If Clinton clearly leads the popular vote (by a sensible metric, including caucuses [maybe reweighted]), leads the Democratic vote, and is polling better than Obama in the electoral map, she'll have a very strong argument for the supers.  I expect she'll have to do  even better than that, because Obama's supporters won't recognize a result where she's fairly but only slightly ahead - but that's what she's aiming at as a minimum.

    He's still winning (none / 0) (#173)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:31:10 PM EST
    but it shows that if she performs well, she can over take him. They obviously did math at the Obama camp judging by the message they sent out via surrogates.

    Reading through 150 comments has my (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:28:21 PM EST
    head spinning - it's as if there is an unwritten rule that when a Clinton supporter says "up," the Obama supporter has to say "down;" it's very discouraging.

    What is the popular vote?  In states with primaries, it is the total of votes cast.  What is it in a caucus state?  Is there a record of votes cast, any record of attendance or record of who each voter supported?  In some cases there is a count, and in some cases not.

    I get that pledged delegates is a measure, but there is no consistency in the allocation of pledged delegates to votes cast.  In Wyoming, a pledged delegate could represent 500 votes, and in California, 11,000.  It's like trying to argue that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar, when in one country it's worth 85 cents and in another it's worth 90.  We've created a system where all the delegates are equal, but the number of voters that each delegate represents is not.  

    Because there is no consistency in the allocation of votes to delegates, I think we have to look at the total votes cast as a separate measure - not the only measure, but without looking at it at all, we are not putting those votes in context.

    Now, I know that in recent presidential contests, we have not had this kind of argument to take a broader look at the pre-general election process, but that's because we haven't needed to.  To turn a blind eye to the indicators we have the ability to consider, even as we know that the determining metric will be delegates of both pledged and super variety, is just foolish.  We do ourselves no service in denying what these indicators might tell us - having to admit that the candidate we support may, in fact, not be the strongest one is not a sign of weakness, but of maturity and yes, of intelligence.

    The DNC has completely botched this process, and its failure to get a grip on the problem is the reason we are having these endless arguments that have no resolution - there is no resolution because the DNC cannot suck it up and do it.  Determining what will happen with Michigan and Florida is not a decision for the candidates, and leaving it in their hands is just a way to avoid having to accept the blame for this debacle.

    The DNC screwed up.  No one believed it would matter that Florida and Michigan got stripped, because everyone assumed that one of the candidates would have reached the magoc number long before this.  Neither Obama nor Clinton expected to still be going at it hammer and tongs in April, which is why he took his name off the ballot to avoid losing a big state early and perhaps sinking his chances, and she made statements that acknowledged what the DNC had decided because she believed that she would be the presumptive nominee by February 6.  

    Surprise!  It didn't go as planned, and now it seems imperative to count Michigan and Florida to close the loop on the process, to make sure that all the states have a say.  Let Florida stand as is, award Clinton the delegates she earned in Michigan, and let the delegates allocated to the uncommitted votes be uncommitted delegates who can align as they see fit.

    All the votes should count.  Period.

    It's unbelievable that Hillary is still behind (5.00 / 0) (#211)
    by voterin2008 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:11:52 AM EST
    even after you add MI and FL and don't count caucuses.  And if you are going to use popular vote as your new barometer, it's hard to tell with you people which measure works best for you.  Then you haft to include caucuses, or I guess it's ok to disenfranchise states that use caucuses by not giving them a say in the Democratic nominee.  I take this thread for what it is, meaningless spin.  More and more I see this on this site. The bottom line is you have selectively counted only certain states, added FL, MI and WA which are not counted and guess what.  Your still behind.  I like Clinton, I like Democrats but the spin is thick here and its dangerous to our party to draw at straws like your doing.

    Too bad (3.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:56:09 PM EST
    bloggers can't determine what is or isn't counted.

    These shenanigans among Clinton (2.33 / 3) (#29)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:18:25 PM EST
    and her supporters created the MI and FL problem. These people were told over and over that this fantasy scenario would never see the light of day. But they clung to it until such a time as it was too late to come to a reasonable accommodation. When it finally dawned on them that the fantasy was just that -- a fantasy, suddenly they told the two states to hurry up and vote, giving them a very narrow window to organize these votes. By that time Obama was in a position of strength vis a vis Hillary and the window was closing fast. In fact, MI today totally eliminated any possibility of any re-vote. And you know what, Hillary doesn't get to keep those delegates and the votes are not going to be put in her column. And no amount of Internet blogging is going to change that.

    How? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:21:26 PM EST
    How did Clinton or her shenanigan-causing supporters cause MI and FL to happen again?

    You should read the archives here (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:22:21 PM EST
    All your claims above have been refuted multiple times.

    What has been hard (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:25:32 PM EST
    for Obama supporters to accept all along is how many people are actually voting for Clinton.  Comments I see suggest that only stupid or ignorant people are voting for her, and there are only a few of them anyway.  I know this vote total is not official.  But if you are prepared to accept the "winners" mantle down the road, these numbers should be a sober reminder of how much Obama needs to reach out to Clinton voters in order to get the presidency. If these numbers don't make him seriously consider Clinton for the VP slot, in fact offer it to her, then you are the ones deluding yourselves about how popular Obama is...he is in fact only as popular as Clinton is!  They have the same number of supporters.

    Well that makes sense. (none / 0) (#148)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:40:59 PM EST
    Although even without looking at these figures, it's been clear that this has been a closely contested race with passionate supporters on both sides, and one of the things that's worried me is how we're going to bring the party together whichever candidate wins.

    Thanks for the information Jeralyn (none / 0) (#36)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:23:15 PM EST
    Caucuses were never meant to confer votes, just delegates. It was a short hand way to bypass expensive primaries and keep the "insiders" in control in many states.  You cannot make delegates into individual votes, but you can make voters into delegates. Caucuses are NOT representative and they were NEVER intended to be.  SO SORRY.  That is the payout when you  do things on the cheap with a wink-wink.  Now the Obama people are crying foul.  Well they were attacking the Clinton campaign for criticizing the caucuses and Clinton never asked that they not be counted. So stop whining.  

    I would gi ve Obama Michigan uncommitted (none / 0) (#37)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:23:43 PM EST
    It seems more honest, although it would overstate his support a bit (not everybody who voted "uncommitted" meant to vote for him). But even if you count them more generously, Obama is not as far ahead in the popular vote as he is in the delegate count.

    Some of those uncommitted (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:26:27 PM EST
    voters were Edwards supporters.

    I'd give him the option of trying to persuade those uncommitteds into his column. But handing them over outright...not so much.


    I do agree that it is problematic to convert them (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:31:47 PM EST
    ...to Senator Obama, particularly in a state like MI, where Senator Edwards' message would have a lot of appeal.

     On the other hand, the most liberal county in MI voted uncommmitted, and the turnout in Wayne County was not very high.


    That isn't exactly evidence certain (none / 0) (#119)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:07:55 PM EST
    that those folks were full out Obama supporters.

    More importantly (none / 0) (#178)
    by brad12345 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:44:22 PM EST
    As Alec implies above, the whole exercise assumes that anyone who wanted to vote in Michigan did, which is silly, since I imagine many, many people decided to skip a trip to the polls to vote in an election that they knew wouldn't count. Deciding to count Michigan and Florida now would be roughly equivalent to, at the end of the baseball season, having a second place team argue that once you factor in preseason records, they actually came in first and deserve to get to the playoffs.  

    More food for thought for the SDs (none / 0) (#118)
    by xspowr on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:07:50 PM EST
    Interesting commentary from Rasmussen:

    What If Democrats Used Winner Take All?

    The Clinton campaign could contend that it is the proportional allocation system's inherent "over-fairness" that is denying her the significant delegate gains that she justifiably deserves from winning states like Ohio, where Clinton's 10 percent margin of victory only garnered her 9 more delegates than Obama. This may be an effective argument for Sen. Clinton to justify going forward in the race, especially if she is able to pull closer to even in the popular vote after the contests in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina.

    I saw this too (none / 0) (#126)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:13:32 PM EST
    thanks for posting it.

    Yeah, that is funny, but to be fair (none / 0) (#186)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:55:57 PM EST
    politicians running for office and their enablers always shamelessly spin results in whatever way will be most likely to show they're winning. It's just the way the game is played I don't generally get mad too much anymore unless it crosses a certain line. And sometimes it just gets so extreme it becomes funny, and just makes the campaign look ridiculous.

    The day after Obama drops out (none / 0) (#201)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:27:46 PM EST
    What a lot of people aren't getting (none / 0) (#127)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:19:43 PM EST
    is that the popular vote is a metric for the supers to consider. It's impossible to count the vote in caucus states. As we've seen in Texas, there can be a huge discrepancy between popular vote and caucus results. The supers can take all of that into account. And whatever they decide, I'm sure Obama and his supporters will accept it, rather than "tear the party apart."

    Obviously Jeralyn (none / 0) (#129)
    by Korha on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:21:54 PM EST
    and many other people in this thread do not believe in counting the votes of people who, in fact, voted. I think that is extremely unfortunate and very sad. There is a fundamental principle at stake here: count all the votes! That means FL, MI, primaries, caucuses, democrats, republicans, and independents, whatever. If they voted in an election, count it.  

    Anything less than counting all the votes is simply undemocratic. Again I think it is very sad that otherwise fair-minded people (Jeralyn, other people in this thread) have renounced this core principle in favor of partisan advocacy for a specific politician.

    It's obvious the reasoning is outcome (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Rigelian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:29:06 PM EST
    determinative.  The Clinton supporters will float any plan, no matter how outrageous, to try and wrest the nomination away.  The fact that they can't see how outrageous this proposal is is a confirmation of the notion of group think.

    Obama partisans also do not want to count (none / 0) (#145)
    by Korha on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:37:27 PM EST
    FL and MI. I think that is also wrong from a democratic perspective (it is true that Michigan was not a real election, but Obama chose to take his name off the ballot, so).

    Group Think? (none / 0) (#150)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:51:49 PM EST

    Race for the fruit (none / 0) (#151)
    by digdugboy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:53:33 PM EST
    We're off to see who can collect the most apples and oranges from all 50 states. At the beginning an apple counts as much as an orange. You get an apple from a caucus and an orange from a primary vote. At the end of the race, Hillary Clinton is behind, so we need a new rule . . . an orange counts twice as much as an apple! If she has a few more oranges than Obama, she can overcome his much larger lead in apples.

    That's exactly what's going on here. It's freakin' Calvinball.

    Go to the RCP link (none / 0) (#174)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:34:21 PM EST
    for this "What is it in a caucus state?"

    It looks like they included vote totals from the caucus states they have (if my poor brain took it in right!) 4 states have note released totals. One is Nv, which she won. Anyway, you can see what they are including in the popular votes over there.  :)

    I believe the conventional wisdom and (none / 0) (#189)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:57:26 PM EST
    accepted narrative is that Obama is currently about 800,000 votes ahead of Hillary.

    Obama and MSNBC (none / 0) (#204)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:36:33 PM EST
    narrative only.  You need to accept the rule that says a candidate needs 2214 delegates to get the nomination (with FL/MI.)  Neither of them will get there without superdeez.  It may distress Obama supporters but having even one more delegate does not get the candidate across their made up line.  The real rule (unlike the roolz) is that the superdeez decide on whatever basis they decide.  Delegates, votes, ability to get elected, flip a coin, whatever.

    Obama/MSNBC can say 'pledged delegates' all they want.  It was never the criteria and it will never be.  2214 was the criteria and to many it still is.


    I'm afraid the Obama supporters here (none / 0) (#190)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:00:08 PM EST
    and elsewhere are engaging in a bit of willful obfuscation. All the cries of "so now caucus states don't count" are silly. No one is arguing that the popular vote should supplant the pledged delegates. So no one is saying that delegates from caucus states shouldn't be seated, or that they shouldn't be included in the delegate vote totals. Taking the popular vote into account in no way changes the results from caucus states. And I'm sure more than a few of the Obama partisans making the argument are well aware of that fact.

    If the purpose of this is to give SD's (none / 0) (#196)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:12:08 PM EST
    a reason to vote for Hillary, then I would prefer giving Obama the uncommitted votes from MI. That is a fair approximation to his level of support there.

    Comments Now Closed (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:34:40 PM EST
    We're at 200, thanks for your thoughts.

    Adding apples and oranges (none / 0) (#206)
    by dwmorris on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:40:47 PM EST
    I'm beginning to see people posting the idea of "reweighting" the caucus votes so that they can be fairly included in the total popular vote counts ... and I'm skeptical that this is a viable strategy.  The results from Texas conclusively demonstrate that there is a pro-Obama bias in the caucus format.  Accordingly, I doubt if an acceptable methodology can be devised to normalize (i.e. reweight) the caucus votes into "primary vote equivalents" because of push-back from stake-holders reluctant to acknowledge and correct for this bias.  With respect to the counter argument that the primary format has a pro-Clinton bias, I can only say that one-person/one-vote by secret ballot represents a worldwide gold standard for measuring the democratic will of the people.  While a caucus can be a useful deliberative tool for group decision making, the idea that it is "democratic" is incorrect; particularly when one factors in issues such as intimidation, outside interference, "herd" behavior, manipulation of the process by caucus managers, crowd control, etc.  It would be extremely interesting to hear some educated thoughts from academic statisticians about these issues of bias and normalization.

    Count all the votes (none / 0) (#207)
    by sas on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:40:50 PM EST
    count michigan
    count flrida
    count caucuses-except in primary states

    let's see who's on top thn

    well then (none / 0) (#209)
    by myed2x on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:58:23 PM EST
    count michigan
    count flrida
    count caucuses-except in primary states

    let's see who's on top thn

    OB is.