home

On The Popular Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

Comments closed.

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

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    On The Popular Vote | 204 comments (204 topical)
    As. . .ahem Pat Buchanan observed (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:21:23 PM EST
    on The McLaughlin Group this weekend, it will come down to Puerto Rico. I expect Hillary to win the popular vote.

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

    [ Parent ]
    I have an idea (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by owenaprhys on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:30:38 PM EST
    If we are going to just randomly assign votes why not just split the votes evenly between both candidates. Each candidate gets 50/50 and then Howard Dean flips a coin and decides who the nominee is? (of course Deans coin has Obama on both sides)

    Seriously, this is what is sounds like to me. Our votes don't mean anything anymore. I was excited that my vote in KY would finally mean something, and then to hear Obama is planning to declare victory right after he loses in KY, just makes me say "why vote?" again.

    [ Parent ]

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

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


    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     When did that stop being election fraud?

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

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

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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


    [ Parent ]
    No (1.00 / 1) (#163)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:20:37 PM EST
    She has to ask Obama first. She needs his fundraising abilities, and she could mentor him for 8 years if he doesn't get sidetracked and move toward a different ambition.

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

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

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by owenaprhys on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:37:16 PM EST
    NObama. NOway.

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

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

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


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


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

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

    [ Parent ]
    You can not assign uncommiteds to Obama. (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:23:27 PM EST
    My Lord, the hoops people go through.  He made a political error.  You don't give votes to people who take their name off the ballot.  It was lousy strategy, just as Hillary had a lousy caucus strategy.  Further, he was polling at 19%.  Edwards would have earned a good number of votes had his name appeared on the ballot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]
    puerto rico (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by sgdavis73 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:48:03 PM EST
    what are your thoughts on including Puerto Rico in the popular vote total?  i believe ABSOLUTELY they MUST be included. but have you noticed Chris Matthews and others (even Bob Schieffer) in the past couple of weeks bewildered that Clinton would even think about including these in the vote total?  Their argument is that they don't get to vote in the general election.

    Curious as to your thoughts on this subject.  I think the SPIN on this topic is going to get HUGE in the next week. After tomorrow, I think Hillary has a great shot of being the popular vote winner including Puerto Rico and Florida, and even excluding Michigan altogether.

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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


    [ Parent ]

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

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

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


    [ Parent ]

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

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

    [ Parent ]
    who is hanging their hat on puerto rico? (none / 0) (#213)
    by sgdavis73 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:41:43 PM EST
    to say that hillary is desperate to being "hanging our hat" on puerto rico is a ridiculous statement. it's a fact of the primary calendar that puerto rico hasn't yet occurred. that she has somehow bet all her chips on puerto rico, like it was a strategy all along, is to miss the point that she has been kicking his butt in overall populate votes since March 4th.

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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


    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

    What a crock!

    [ Parent ]

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    Just my 2 cents.

    [ Parent ]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    almost all were Obama supporters.

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

    that makes you no better than the crazy Obama supporters.

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

    There's a wide swath of judgmental grey area.
    P.U.M.A.
    [ Parent ]

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

    Obama still leads by about 150,000 votes then.

    [ Parent ]

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


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

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


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


    [ Parent ]
    "almost all were Obama supporters." (none / 0) (#221)
    by owenaprhys on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:44:53 PM EST
    How can you REALLY tell HOW they would have voted?? OR if they really were BO supporters??

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

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Clearly the uncommitted voters favored one of those 2.

    [ Parent ]

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


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

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

    Hardly the same thing.

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

    McCain

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

    [ Parent ]

    Caucuses (5.