home

Popular Vote Totals: Hillary's Still Ahead

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:03:33 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Real Clear Politics:

  • Hillary won Florida by 294,772 votes.
  • Hillary won Michigan by 328,309 votes
  • Hillary won 150,000 more votes than Obama last night in Kentucky and Oregon. She won Kentucky by 249,224 votes while Obama won Oregon by 102,144 votes.

Let's add it all up:

  • Popular Vote Totals (w/FL & MI)Hillary leads by 174,047 votes (.48%.)
  • Popular Vote Totals (w/FL & MI and Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA): Hillary leads by 63,825 votes (.18%)

Regardless of what the DNC does on May 31 with FL and MI delegates, the popular votes were certified by the states. Their numbers are real and they must be added to her popular vote total. Obama removed himself from the ballot by choice, not requirement. This is a consequence of that decision. He needs to accept it. [More...]

On a related note, for the primaries held in April and May, Hillary won four while Obama won three, including his 7 vote win in Guam.

Memo to superdelegates: Put on your thinking caps. Obama leads in pledged delegates, Hillary leads in the popular vote. Who is better able to win the battleground states like Ohio, PA, FL and MI? Who might bring home W.Va, Kentucky and Arkansas?

Assume either one will win the 15 safe states for Democrats. Who is more likely to put a Democrat back in the White House by winning the toss-ups?

Hint: She'd make a great President.

Comments now closed.

< How Do You Pretend 2 Million People Did Not Vote? | Where We Agree With Daily Kos >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Popular Vote Totals: Hillary's Still Ahead | 234 comments (234 topical)
    Don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:36 PM EST
    Guam is being recounted!

    And as Guam goes ... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:52:31 PM EST
    ... so goes Saipan and the Northern Marianas!

    [ Parent ]
    And from there (none / 0) (#205)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:23:32 PM EST
    "we're gonna go to American Samoa, and then to Hawaii, and then to MI, and then to FL, and AAGGGGHHHH!"  

    (my imitation of the "Dean Scream")

    [ Parent ]

    Just a Clarification (1.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Sawyer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:10:36 PM EST
    Since you mention Guam being recounted, is there the possibility of recounts in the four states that voted via caucuses and didn't record popular vote counts?  I fear that Obama's supporters are going to argue that, if we include Michigan and Florida, then we will be forced to recount the popular count tallies from these four states (which of course don't count!!).

    [ Parent ]
    Just a Clarification (3.00 / 2) (#218)
    by melro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:31:20 PM EST
    No sense recounting caucus states for popular vote count. That's the way those crazy caucuses work. Let Obama's supporters find out how the election process really works. They already don't know that the media is only estimating total delegate count when they include caucuses, and pledged delegates that can flip flop until the convention. Nothing is absolute until that convention is over.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary is ahead in the popular vote. (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:10:00 PM EST
    Let's nominate her.

    Haha (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:28:51 PM EST
    Not so fast -- we are not as presumptuous as our ObamaCamp friends. :)

    [ Parent ]
    LNH- (none / 0) (#189)
    by magisterludi on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    an acronym for my new mantra!

    [ Parent ]
    Counting FL but not MI (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Elporton on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:11:39 PM EST
    it's essentially a dead heat.  Sen. Obama leads by 9,128 votes out of 33 million cast for both candidates.

    In the eleven contests in March, April and so far in May, Sen. Clinton won seven of these and received 569,073 more votes than Sen. Obama.  Yet the race is considered by many to be over.  It just seems counterintuitive.

    So if it's currently a tie in popular vote (none / 0) (#28)
    by outsider on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:25:58 PM EST
    without MI, does this mean that if you just forget about MI as a favour to the Obama side, Hillary could still win the popular vote by the end of the contest thanks to Puerto Rico?

    [ Parent ]
    Check your numbers (none / 0) (#94)
    by ibextati on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:45:06 PM EST
    without MI Obama +264,564 +0.7%

    [ Parent ]
    No -- but it is significant that (none / 0) (#186)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:17:13 PM EST
    his lead in categories not including FL and MI is entirely accounted for by his even larger lead in Illinois, two-thirds of which was in Chicago.

    So super-delegates might want to think about whether Chicago voters who gave him his lead are really representative of the voters that Dems will need in November.  I know Chicago.  I think not.

    [ Parent ]

    obama Is Not Above Greasing Palms, But (none / 0) (#196)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:20:26 PM EST
    seems as thought he is spending more money than he is taking in per this article.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080521/pl_cq_politics/politics2880795

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with Jeralyn that you have to count (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by athyrio on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:11:49 PM EST
    Michigan as he chose to take his name off the ballot and she didn't....He shouldn't be rewarded for trying to game the system....and for Democrats to argue not to count Florida after the fiasco with the Gore run, is total hypocrisy!!!

    Exactly. Hillary lost votes with her (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    lousy caucus strategy.  WA is a perfect example of that.  But this is politics, and tactical errors like that are not rewarded.

    [ Parent ]
    How many do-overs (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:17:19 PM EST
    do you get in politics?

    Zero.

    The votes should stand as is. Obama gets 0 in Michigan.

    As the Big Dawg says, "If you don't want to play a little rough, don't put on the uniform."

    [ Parent ]

    In that case (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:21:11 PM EST
    Don't count any of the votes, since that was the initial deal.

    Don't try to play hardball when it's in Hil's favor then be flexible when it is in Obama's

    [ Parent ]

    That was not the original rool. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:26:33 PM EST
    The original rool was 50% stripping of delegates.

    Donna Brazile pushed this ridiculous option through to make her candidate seem like he was ahead.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:32:53 PM EST
    So that Obama could appear to be having "momentum", and get the ObamaLove snowball rolling...

    [ Parent ]
    Unless you prove otherwise (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:32:33 PM EST
    with credible links, I must assume you are speaking out of hyperpartisan gullibility.

    I don't think what you say is true.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh please. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:36:43 PM EST
    TalkLeft has done many diaries on this.

    Use Teh Google if you think I am wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    You don't think it's true? (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:38:34 PM EST
    It is, and we have gone over it before here, again and again, with resort to research.  Try it.


    [ Parent ]
    with resort to research? (1.00 / 2) (#81)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:41:29 PM EST
    what does that mean?

    Can you just answer the question, or do I have to google it and wade through the massive amounts of hyperpartisan crap out there?

    In other words...CNN does not seem to know what you say is common knowledge. Now how can that be?

    [ Parent ]

    CNN (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:44:42 PM EST
    is hyperpartisan crap. As a person who is so above it all, I'm surprised you don't know that.

    I thought we were the low-information voters. ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    The point is: (1.00 / 1) (#141)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:58:27 PM EST
    Since when did it become acceptable make assertions (that are not common knowledge) about something then back it up by saying "I've done my research, now you go do the research to prove MY point?"

    Seriously. I can provide you  with research to prove just about anything I wish. That's what an education is for.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh my gawd (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:06:27 PM EST
    you are hilarious!

    You totally lost the argument. Appropriate links have been posted. Yet you're still claiming to be more educated and less hyperpartisan and gullible than I am.

    Priceless.

    [ Parent ]

    Any credibility you may have had (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Just another person on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:09:09 PM EST
    went down the tube when you invoked CNN.

    [ Parent ]
    There's an article about it... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:48:57 PM EST
    in the Washington Post about Brazile's "swift and harsh punishment"
    Donna Brazile, a member of the rules committee who argued for a swift and harsh punishment for Florida, said states' desire to be more relevant in the nominating process does not excuse violations of rules intended to make the system fair for everyone.

    What she didn't take into account was that the other initiative related to that piece of legislation had to do with making sure there was a paper trail re: November's ballots.

    But I thought that this comment:

    "I'm going to send a message to everybody in Florida that we're going to follow the rules," committee member Donna Brazile said.
    written up in this article was kinda interesting.

    [ Parent ]
    No (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:34:26 PM EST
    The original rule was a mandatory 50% reduction in delegates plus the option to impose greater penalties at their discretion.

    [ Parent ]
    can someone provide a link (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:38:53 PM EST
    so we can figure this out????

    Because I cannot IMAGINE WHY Obama would

    a) not put his name on MI ballot and
    b) not campaign in either state

    if he thought 50% of the delegates would be seated.

    It just doesn't make sense. It's not a winner take all...he would have at least gotten a proportion.

    Someone explain this to me...what was his thinking way back when he decided not to do these things (remember, he did not know he would be the frontrunner back then).

    [ Parent ]

    Gawd (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    The 2008 DNC delegate selection rules.

    Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent.


    [ Parent ]
    OK then (1.00 / 1) (#155)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:04:05 PM EST
    why has everyone been saying (until recently) that none of the dels will be seated?

    [ Parent ]
    Gawd indeed (1.00 / 1) (#163)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the
    DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions,
    including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C.,
    against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to
    the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C., including,
    without limitation, establishing a committee to propose and implement a process
    which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which
    shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state's division of presidential
    preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is
    practicable under the circumstances.

    The DNC rules committee ruled that both states be stripped of ALL delegates.  

    [ Parent ]

    What you said was (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:51:04 PM EST
    Don't count any of the votes, since that was the initial deal.

    Howard Dean has even said popular vote totals were not affected by the penalty.

    As for the seating of the delegates - been discussed here ad nauseum of how everyone knew the delegates would eventually get seated in some form - hence the vote and push to vote (by Obama) to vote "uncommitted"

    [ Parent ]

    If EVERYONE knew (1.00 / 1) (#147)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:01:49 PM EST
    why would Obama take his name off the ballot.

    It simply does not make sense.

    [ Parent ]

    political pandering... (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:11:37 PM EST
    There was a whole bunch of stuff about it on dkos back then...before the weirdness. People were up...down...mixed about the whole idea.

    At the time (Jan, I think), kos even pointed out that HRC's refusal to pull her name off the ballot showed that she was a fighter.

    And then things started getting weird.

    [ Parent ]

    It's called (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:18:47 PM EST
    "gaming the system"

    Obama (and others) were hopeful this exact situation would happen and they could cry "Boo Hoo - My name wasn't on the ballot,so we can't count it!)

    [ Parent ]

    They all signed pledges (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:54:23 PM EST
    to not campaign in either state. The pledge allowed for fundraising efforts...but no "campaigning."

    The MI name removal thing (he took his name off the ballot), something that I thought was pretty dumb at the time, wasn't part of the pledge. But there seemed to be some sort of wanting to show that they were "more" committed to IA...a kind of end run around that I think was more politically calculated than anything else.

    As to the Brazile factor, I linked to a couple articles above.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you! (4.50 / 2) (#157)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:04:59 PM EST
    To all the rest of youze...was that so hard????

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe... (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:08:05 PM EST
    I have the Brazile links in an email.

    So they were easier to find than trying to dig through the various and sundry googling...

    [ Parent ]

    The "rules" (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:23:14 PM EST
    never had anything to do with popular vote tallies. Only delegates. I am so tired of hearing people make the argument that the popular vote totals don't count.

    They voted. The votes were certified by the states. They count.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly zero do-overs (none / 0) (#139)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:58:21 PM EST
    Andchanging the way the nomination is awarded just becuase you lost the delegate count is just another way of asking for a do-over.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:03:50 PM EST
    After Super Tuesday, it was general knowledge that the Democratic nominee would be decided by the Super D's. No one was going to get to the "magic number" without them.

    One of the criteria the Super D's can use to determine the nominee is the popular vote. They can also decide they prefer Barack's tailor to Hillary's. It's up to them.

    Advocating for the popular vote is not changing a darn thing.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary also lost Iowa for NOT taking her name off (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by TalkRight on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:18:49 PM EST
    MI/FL like Obama did.

    [ Parent ]
    T. Right, now you know better by now (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:31:42 PM EST
    about Florida, where he was on the ballot.  But he lost (despite breaking the pledge about not campaigning, but that pledge said nothing about being on the ballot).  

    Please, let's all take care to be correct on the differences as well as the commonalities in MI and FL -- that votes ought to count -- so that we don't encourage the trolls to take us down that distracting path again!

    [ Parent ]

    Right, since he did campaign in FL (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by g8grl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:49:33 PM EST
    and he ran ads on TV there (regardless of what excuses he had...apparently none of which his opponents availed themselves of).  He should not be allowed any votes or delegates from FL, per the RULES.  

    [ Parent ]
    MI* (none / 0) (#15)
    by TalkRight on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:19:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    TalkRight is correct (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by rnibs on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:38:34 PM EST
    I live in Iowa, and they really go ballistic over her not taking her name off in MI.  Plus, they're still mad about Bill in 1992.  They really do pay attention to things like that.  At the district convention in April, I was fairly taken aback when Harkin was at the podium.  He was visibly furious over the fact that MI and FL had moved their dates up and said they need to be punished.  It was weird seeing a pol on the edge of losing his cool like that.  They're usually so calm and collected at these things.

    [ Parent ]
    Talk about arrogance and presumption! (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by alexei on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:19:03 PM EST
    Since when should it be a right that Iowa goes first and NH second?  This duopoly must be stopped - in 2012.  After reading these comments about Iowa voters going ballistic because she didn't take her name off and Harkin threw a huge hissy fit, I am even more dead set against these two states hijacking the nominating process.

     

    [ Parent ]

    No, T. Right is not entirely correct (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:19:46 PM EST
    in terms of Florida, where Obama's name was on the ballot.  Please, let's keep it straight.

    [ Parent ]
    Iowa is the problem (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by goldberry on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:21:43 PM EST
    As a voter for NJ, I think it's time that we retired Iowa from going first and having a disproportionate impact on the race.  It has two significant problems: it's Iowa and they are caucuses.  You guys have let this going first thing go to your heads.  There's much too much importance placed on this state that has no right to be that important.  I'm glad MI took you guys on.  It's about time someone did.  

    [ Parent ]
    Ha!!! (none / 0) (#18)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:21:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What the hell is a caucus strategy (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:19:00 PM EST
    Anyway?

    Targetting people with lots of free time?

    Making anyone at the event who doesn't support Clinton feel unwelcome?

    Is that what Obama was good at?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes. (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:22:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not really my set of values (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:30:42 PM EST
    But hey, I'm not a Dem anymore, so I guess things are all working out for the best then.


    [ Parent ]
    Oh me neither. (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:34:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, caucuses are great "hookup places" (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:36:25 PM EST
    per a college student I know who caucused for Obama in Iowa.  And got a couple of dates out of it "with really librul guys."

    Clearly, with the Obama campaign's online abilities, too, the future of the Democratic party is in providing dating services, both online and "f2f" at caucuses.  

    And then, if the "hookups" result in relationships that lead to hooking up at the altar or before a justice of the peace -- or, I guess, even if not -- they will breed lots of little libruls to be the future of the Democratic party a couple of decades from now, too.

    By which time I will hope not to care about all this anymore.

    [ Parent ]

    You're making me wish... (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by kdog on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:12:10 PM EST
    my state had the caucus system.  I need to add another pick-up spot to my list besides the supermarket, bookstore, and head shop:)

    At least somebody is getting something out of this farce...we all need lovin':)

    [ Parent ]

    Cracks me up. But (none / 0) (#203)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:23:18 PM EST
    more seriously, add a "Drinking Liberally" local chapter to your life.  A lot of fun to be had at the one here -- more for those younger than I and single, but even so . . . great to have a group that not only loves to talk politics but is loaded with libruls.

    There also is a Drinking Right chapter in my town, but I have no idea of their demographics, etc., as I follow their doings only to know where not to go when going out.  We also avoid line-dancing bars.  I love to watch, but my spouse considers those people to be sort of scary in a lemminglike way. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Naw (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:03:13 PM EST
    paying the Creative Class to organize.  

    [ Parent ]
    Seems like Bill Clinton did good with (none / 0) (#39)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:29:31 PM EST
    the caucus strategy.  They didn't have any complaints about it when he won with the same system.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, BC wasn't so great with caucuses. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:33:23 PM EST
    Caucus meeting limit participation by design.

    [ Parent ]
    bill (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by tedsim on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:50:05 PM EST
    He didn't have moveon.org to beat up oponent!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Tactical errors, damn skippy (none / 0) (#168)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    let's call a duck a duck.

    [ Parent ]
    But thinking caps aren't enough (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:14:46 PM EST
    They would actually have to have the ability to think beyond the $ signs.

    I thought Hillary was doing fine the $ department. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:24:03 PM EST
    She raised what, $22 million in April? Not exactly chump change. And several  people here have mentioned that she has $90 million stocked away for the GE, which would blow away anything Obama has.

    [ Parent ]
    I meant the $ signs that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:48:53 PM EST
    was throwing around in front of them with promises of more to come once he turns over his "list" -- obviously the Holy Grail of fund raising.

    [ Parent ]
    $90 M - I need a link to that source (none / 0) (#36)
    by echinopsia on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:28:38 PM EST
    TO back it up on another forum.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#70)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:37:59 PM EST
    what people are trying to clarify here...as I am a bit confused as well now.

    I THINK people are confusing Clinton's Personal Wealth (which is in that 90/100mil region) to this "warchest of 90mil".

    Or is there somethng else?

    [ Parent ]

    Not personal wealth (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by CST on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:40:44 PM EST
    They were able to receive donations for General election use only.  You can contribute $2300 for a primary and $2300 for the G.E.  Many of her donors did both, so she has a large sum of money that she can't use in the primary but she can use in the general election.

    [ Parent ]
    I read that figure somewhere (none / 0) (#83)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:41:48 PM EST
    as a warchest for the GE.

    I can't remember where, though. :-(

    [ Parent ]

    I'd heard it was $20 million (none / 0) (#215)
    by goldberry on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:26:45 PM EST
    It may be more but that was the amount I'd read.  Also, Obama's strategy is spend every penny in the primary.  I guess he figures he'll get it all back in the general.

    [ Parent ]
    Yaaaaaaaaay! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    Hillary is ahead in the popular vote total!

    But what, precisely, is the importance of that?

    McCain

    What's Important About the Popular Vote? (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Elporton on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:23:48 PM EST
    I think it means that more of the people want that person to win.  Isn't that the basis of a democracy?

    Team Obama has conveniently dropped this standard as one of their arguments for the nomination.  Now it's just about the delegates.  The trouble with that is that these delegates are not committed until after the convention in August.  And until then, they can, and probably will, change their minds about whom they will support.

    [ Parent ]

    So how do you count the popular vote of the (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:27:50 PM EST
    caucus states? Oh, those states (that followed the rules) don't matter. But Florida and Michigan, who broke the rules, matter.

    Totally disingenuous.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]

    Yes, how do you count the vote (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:33:39 PM EST
    of caucus states, given that they demonstrably give more of a popular vote edge to Obama than any election in the same state would -- as demonstrated by the three examples where both caucuses and primaries were held in the same state: WA, NE, and TX.

    When we count the popular vote edge Obama gets from caucus states, we are being, in fact, very, very overgenerous to him. In fact, he would pretty clearly have received only a fraction of the edge he got if primaries had been held instead.

    [ Parent ]

    You count the votes (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:33:45 PM EST
    Just like in the other states, you count up how many people voted for X, how many supported Y.  THey've done that in Kansas, Alaska, Minnesota, Guam, etc.  For Washington, you have the results of an election, and for Iowa, Nevada and Maine, you have estimates that are likely within 10,000 of the actual numbers.

    [ Parent ]
    Like this (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:51:12 PM EST
    1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, etc. Normal principles of mathematics apply.

    [ Parent ]
    Michigan Matters (none / 0) (#241)
    by melro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:33:15 PM EST
    Will everyone please educate themselves that NH disregarded the dates for primaries/caucuses set up by the DNC in 2005 first, and the states agreeing to that order was predicated on NH staying in line. There is a history involved here that many do not know about. NH does not want to lose its second place status for elections, and even threatens candidates that campaign in states that jump before them. Howard Dean is b---less by not penalizing NH who disregards DNC rules. 2 years after agreeing to the lineup, NH announced its primary right on top of Nevada who was designated as second place after Iowa. All bets were off and FL jumped up it's primary, and MI's Senator Levin even wrote a letter to Dean telling him why MI was upping its primary on the list before doing so. Dean did nothing to NH, but stripped FL and MI. I think everyone who supports Hillary should send an e-mail to Mr. Dean telling him how he screwed this up and that he should just let all ride as is, that we'll forget his big gaff, and that Obama deserves zip in MI, which he insults every time he's here anyway.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yup! (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by NWHiker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:33:10 PM EST
    I think it means that more of the people want that person to win.  Isn't that the basis of a democracy?

    Eeeezactly!

    Gore won the popular vote. He was the person most of us Americans wanted to be president. Florida aside (let's pretend it wasn't stolen), more people in the US wanted Gore to win.

    In the same way, more primary voters want HRC to be the nominee.

    I hate the whining about Michigan. He made a bad political calculation. There may be some redress on delegates (which is fine, as long as they don't put some of hers in his column), but for the popular vote, he gets zip.

    Why didn't he leave his name ON? He had no reason to remove it, the DNC had not asked anyone to. His choice, his calculation.

    [ Parent ]

    The basis of a democracy? (none / 0) (#67)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:36:31 PM EST
    Hmmm.  And here I thought we had a constitutional republic.

    [ Parent ]
    We are... (none / 0) (#112)
    by NWHiker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:50:36 PM EST
    And come time for the general, those stupid rules will apply (sorry, folks, the whole EC drives me batty. Went through the French system and lived in France and universal suffrage is the way to go for me!). However primaries are ruled by the parties, have really arcane and awful rules, and with the addition of SDs, all metrics need to be looked at.

    For me, as someone who believes in universal suffrage (one person, one vote) the popular vote is, and will always be the most important metric.

    [ Parent ]

    Our system of government is a republic or (none / 0) (#228)
    by Elporton on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:55:57 PM EST
    representative form but our system of elections for these representatives is based on a democracy, i.e. the will of the people.

    [ Parent ]
    It confers legitimacy (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:25:23 PM EST
    in the eyes of the people -- where legitimacy is defined.

    Poll 1

    Poll 2

    [ Parent ]

    It's at least (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by cloudy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:44:04 PM EST
    as important as reaching the "halfway mark" of total delegates needed to win the nomination that some people and the MSM treated like the second coming of Jesus.

    [ Parent ]
    Why? (none / 0) (#113)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:50:46 PM EST
    Reaching the "halfway mark" is a milestone.  Hillary cannot overtake Obama in pledged delegates.  Delegates are how we nominate a candidate.  As such this is a notable achievement.

    Popular votes, otoh, have absolutely no bearing on the process and are merely a talking about used to convince superdelegates to vote for someone.  

    Arguing that the popular vote matters is no different than arguing about electoral math or who does better in which demographic group.


    [ Parent ]

    Um (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:53:26 PM EST
    If super D's were always JUST to follow the pledged delegate leader, then there would be no purpose for them - you understand that, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Winning the popular vote (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by cloudy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:05:28 PM EST
    is also a milestone, one that no Democrat should ignore.  It is true that we nominate using delegates, but it is also true that neither will have enough delegates to secure the nomination.  But you know this already.

    It is amazing to me how quickly some Dems have gone from bashing Bush as illegitimate and pointing out Gore's popular vote win to trotting out delegate arguments.

    [ Parent ]

    Notable achievements and milestones (none / 0) (#187)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:17:18 PM EST
    are great from a project, "I've accomplished this task" perspective.  What matters is when you finish and if you met the goal.  In this case, that's getting the required # of delegates.  To continue the project analogy, there's some tasks w/start date, and 100% complete fields that have been reached on the project plan yet.  This is the implementation phase.  Where are we at, how do we reach our goal based on an accurate status?

    [ Parent ]
    Wed on't caucus in November (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:44:10 PM EST
    to win the White House.  That's what.

    Even the popular vote is not enough to wisely figure out how to win, as you well know, since we do not simply inaugurate the winner of the popular vote, or President Gore would be completing his second term.

    The popular vote in the winnable blue states is the key to winning the Electoral College and thus the White House.  So the popular vote is a better start to discussing this than is the delegate vote, much of it from processes that are not predictive for fall and/or from tallies taken almost a year before the general election in fall.  

    Much has changed since then in how the public views both candidates -- and much will change again in terms of processes to be followed in fall.  That's all.  Pretty simple to see, it seems to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Michigan (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by CST on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:17:31 PM EST
    I understand your point about the popular vote in Michigan.  But it's gonna be a VERY hard sell if you don't give him some portion of the uncommited.  And frankly, I highly doubt any Obama backers or Super Delegates will bite, and they do need to bite.  I think for Hillary to have a legitimate argument she needs to win the popular vote regardless how you count the uncommited.  She still has a chance, this isn't over.  Frankly, I am praying that whoever wins the popular vote wins with a "Michigan proof" margin.  I see this as being the biggest potential divide between democrats in the fall.

    Exactly n/t (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by outsider on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:27:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    FOR THE RECORD (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:21:24 PM EST
    I do not agree with these calculations.

    I still have Obama ahead in the popular vote by my analysis.

    Show your work. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:23:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Here it is... (3.66 / 3) (#88)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:43:12 PM EST
    http://www.presents-4-kids.co.uk/images/hibba2007/giant_abacus.jpg

    -- just kidding BTD


    [ Parent ]

    BTD, giving MI uncomitted to (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by cloudy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:47:07 PM EST
    Obama and using the WA Primary, Obama is up by just under 91,000 votes.  If Clinton makes up that ground over that last three contests, do you still believe Obama should be the nominee?

    [ Parent ]
    Source? Since it's not (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:46:16 PM EST
    realclearpolitics.com, the best site I know.  But I would be glad to find another site, if there is some discrepancy in vote tallies -- which would surprise me, as rcp says it takes them from official state sites.  Perhaps this is about the states still not done tallying?

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#118)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:52:12 PM EST
    I suspect BTD does not agree with the methodology that assigns Obama 0 votes from MI, for one.

    I understand the arguments, but it really is a bit much.

    [ Parent ]

    Mine too (none / 0) (#148)
    by Faust on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:01:53 PM EST
    Seems that Hillary could pull ahead post Puerto Rico though.

    [ Parent ]
    The voters "award" the votes (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by ChrisO on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:27:23 PM EST
    And they're limited to those candidates who elected to have their names on the ballot. Giving Obama votes in an election in which he didn't participate would truly be "awarding" votes.

    If people want to completely dismiss the vote totals from FL and MI, I think it's shortsighted and wrong, but at least I see the argument they are making. Giving votes to a candidate who wasn't even on the ballot would be unprecedented, as far as I can determine.

    Wow... (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:30:35 PM EST
    discussing the popular vote sure seems to bring a lot of Obama supporters out of the woodwork.

    I wonder why?

    ;-)

    Maybe because they belatedly realised that (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by outsider on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:38:54 PM EST
    what matters now is the pitch you make to the superdelegates.  And "Look, I've already got all these pledged delegates" doesn't sound very impressive next to "Look, more people voted for me than in ANY previous Dem nomination contest".  If I were a superdelegate, and the former was said to me, my response would be "wow, good for you, guess you won't me then..."

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:45:54 PM EST
    Well said -- and we also have the SOLID Electoral Map argument a well -- which is the ONLY argument, as Democrats, in my book.

    [ Parent ]
    Especially when the pledged delegates (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:47:09 PM EST
    can change their minds. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    *Edit* (none / 0) (#104)
    by outsider on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:47:17 PM EST
    "...won't need me then"

    [ Parent ]
    It's a mystery. (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by hitchhiker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:50:14 PM EST
    I think they really enjoy saying things like:

    Obama is ahead by every measure

    and insisting that it's so.  They would be saying it a lot more loudly if the voters of WV and KY hadn't given HRC such boost.

    So now their argument goes like this:

    1. The popular vote is irrelevant.
    2. The popular vote is only relevant if Obama gets all the votes that weren't marked HRC in Michigan.
    3. There is no reason why anyone should care what the popular vote is because it is irrelevant, unless it is calculated in such a way that Obama has more popular votes, in which case it is relevant, and

    Obama is ahead by every measure

    There you go.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it's pretty clear (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by sister of ye on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:32:25 PM EST
    He voluntarily took his name off the MI ballot. Had he wanted to show up in the popular vote, he would have kept his name on. He gets what he asked for - no tally in the popular count, and the "uncommitted" delegates who had an understanding with his campaign can freely vote for him at the convention.
    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:50:33 PM EST
    And well stated  -- Taking his name off was a Calculation on HIS part, no rule, no on else, made him do that.

    IMO he did it just so that he can do what he's doing NOW! Whinning about mistreatment etc.etc.etc.

    It's a really good, underhanded ploy, to undermine a stronger opponent -- but alas, we hear nothing of this outside of our own analysis.

    [ Parent ]

    Then what is the point of using the popular vote (none / 0) (#128)
    by kpatton1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:54:51 PM EST
    If it doesn't represent the "will of the people"?

    The entire argument for using the popular vote is that it represents what the majority of voters want.

    If you want to try and claim that zero people in Michigan support Obama, you've got a lot of work to do.

    [ Parent ]

    How can we guess (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:00:28 PM EST
    who supported Obama in Michigan?

    Seriously. Do you have some fact-based measure by which you could determine that?

    Seems to me that if Donna Darling hadn't messed with the Roolz, none of this would have happened.

    Seems to me that if Obama hadn't blocked the re-vote in Michigan, we wouldn't be wondering how many votes he would have gotten.

    Seems to me Obama should have agreed to the re-votes in both states.

    Instead, he wants votes he didn't earn.

    Not. Remotely. Okay.

    [ Parent ]

    We won't know (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by kpatton1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:22:38 PM EST
    I agree that a revote is the best possible plan, as long as it is done fairly.  But despite what Hillary has claimed, Obama wasn't really the factor holding up a revote in Michigan.  He did have legitimate concerns (as did I) with the plan as initially presented, but did not strictly oppose a revote (you could have easily rectified some of the blatant problems with it).  In fact, he said he would support whatever the DNC ultimately decided- but when they didn't decide to do a revote, that was by no means his decision.

    And besides, it wasn't one single person ahead of time who messed with the rules denying FL / MI a vote.  Where was Hillary to stand up for them in Oct, Nov, Dec? Why did the popular vote in those states not matter to Hillary last year, but suddenly it does now?

    Obama certainly does want FL / MI resolved in a fair way, but these claims about counting their elections as is are anything but fair.

    [ Parent ]

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:29:28 PM EST
    Obama specifically DID balk at a revote plan that was approved by the DNC.  The Michigan legislature was waiting for Obama to sign off (since the DNC and the Clinton camp did) to push through the legislation to create a new election day.

    Obama balked because his supporters who played monkey business in the Republican primary would not be allowed to vote in the Democratic primary, per DNC rules.

    HRC supporters even offered to pony up half the money.

    [ Parent ]

    I wholeheartedly disagree (none / 0) (#226)
    by kpatton1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:55:14 PM EST
    The final decision was NOT up to Obama.  It was up to the Michigan legislature only.  They did asked Obama for input and he listed his legitimate concerns.  But then he left the ball in their court.

    As I just said, there were some serious problems with the proposal that could have been easily fixed.  Or they could not get fixed and they could have passed the proposal anyway.  But the fact that the Michigan legislature did not pass the proposal in the end was not Obama's fault.  You could just as much blame Clinton supporters in Michigan for not wanting to resolve the issues he raised.

    [ Parent ]

    Memo To DNC Dean from Gov Dean ca. 2004: (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:33:37 PM EST
    YOU have the power!  

    And that power being is the vote.  Clealy HRC has the advantage bar NONE.

    Thanks to Jeralyn for laying it out for even us LOW INFO types to get it.(snark)

    he should stand by his judgement (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:37:00 PM EST
    when he purposely and politically removed his name from the MI ballot. That was his judgement. If he stands by his superior judgement (like unconditional talking to leaders of Iran, Cuba, etc.), then he should stand by it here and accept his fate.

    Of course I'm fine with some reasonable compromise as long as there is no vote stealing. And really, just seating the uncommitted delegates in MI and uncommitted (SD's in other words) should be fine by the Obama camp.

    Count the votes, count the votes, count the votes.

    There's no question the Clinton campaign (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by ChrisO on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:41:40 PM EST
    made mistakes. All campaigns do. But I think it's telling that Obama built his advasntage during a 10 day period in February, when a lot of caucuses and primaries where bunched together. All of the coverage was about when Clinton would drop out, and the media bashing of Clinton was at it's height. I think