Popular Vote Totals: Hillary's Still Ahead

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:36 PM EST
    Guam is being recounted!

    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!!).

    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.



    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")


    Hillary is ahead in the popular vote. (5.00 / 3) (#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. :)

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

    Counting FL but not MI (5.00 / 1) (#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?

    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%

    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.


    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.



    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.

    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?


    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."


    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


    That was not the original rool. (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#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...

    Unless you prove otherwise (1.00 / 0) (#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.


    Oh please. (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    You don't think it's true? (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    with resort to research? (1.00 / 1) (#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?


    CNN (5.00 / 2) (#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. ;-)


    The point is: (1.00 / 0) (#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.


    Oh my gawd (5.00 / 1) (#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.



    There's an article about it... (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    No (1.00 / 0) (#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.

    can someone provide a link (1.00 / 0) (#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).


    Gawd (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    OK then (1.00 / 0) (#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?

    Gawd indeed (1.00 / 0) (#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.  


    What you said was (5.00 / 3) (#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"


    If EVERYONE knew (1.00 / 0) (#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.


    political pandering... (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    It's called (5.00 / 1) (#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!)


    They all signed pledges (5.00 / 3) (#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.


    Thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:04:59 PM EST
    To all the rest of youze...was that so hard????

    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...


    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.


    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.

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.

    T. Right, now you know better by now (5.00 / 2) (#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!


    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.  

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

    Talk about arrogance and presumption! (5.00 / 1) (#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.



    No, T. Right is not entirely correct (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    Iowa is the problem (5.00 / 0) (#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.  

    Ha!!! (none / 0) (#18)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:21:22 PM EST
    What the hell is a caucus strategy (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:19:00 PM EST

    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?


    Yes. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:22:35 PM EST
    Not really my set of values (5.00 / 5) (#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.

    Oh me neither. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:34:00 PM EST
    Yes, caucuses are great "hookup places" (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    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':)


    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. :-)


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

    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.

    Actually, BC wasn't so great with caucuses. (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:33:23 PM EST
    Caucus meeting limit participation by design.

    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!!!

    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.

    But thinking caps aren't enough (5.00 / 1) (#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 / 0) (#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.

    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.

    $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.

    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?


    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.

    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. :-(


    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.

    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?

    What's Important About the Popular Vote? (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    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.


    Yes, how do you count the vote (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    You count the votes (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    Like this (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    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.  

    Yup! (5.00 / 3) (#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?


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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


    Wed on't caucus in November (5.00 / 3) (#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.


    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.


    Um (5.00 / 2) (#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?

    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?

    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
    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
    Here it is... (3.66 / 3) (#88)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:43:12 PM EST
    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?

    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.


    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.

    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 / 4) (#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 / 2) (#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..."

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    Especially when the pledged delegates (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:47:09 PM EST
    can change their minds. ;-)

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

    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.


    I think it's pretty clear (5.00 / 3) (#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 / 0) (#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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    Memo To DNC Dean from Gov Dean ca. 2004: (5.00 / 0) (#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 / 4) (#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 it's telling that the last state in that run, Wisconsin, was also the last state where Obama made any sort of inroads into Clinton's base. Once the dust settled and voters realized that Clinton was still a viable candidate, she started cleaning his clock, and hasn't stopped.

    This isn't to say that the pledged delegates he won during that time are any less legitimate. They're his, without question. But the fact remains that he didn't win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination, so it becomes a metric (and an important one) for the supers to use. But there's no question that Obama has been coasting on the lead he earned in February, and since then it's been pretty much all Clinton, including burying him in the Philadelphia debate.

    Delegates earned in caucuses count just as much as any other, and they represent an ability to organize the caucus effort, which is important. But to claim that caucus delegates in any way represent "the will of the people" is just fallacious. And this isn't just an opinion. The results from Texas and Washington, among others, provide clear evidence of the disparity between caucus results and the will of the people. If the supers want to use the pledged delegate lead as their only metric, then they'll support Obama. But if they really want to look at electability, there's a significant argument for Clinton.

    Personally, I think many of the supers could support either candidate. But because they're confident of a win in November, they just want the primary process over with. Since Obama currently has the lead, they're figuring they might as well hand it to him. I think someone who has waited until April or May to support Obama is less an Obama lover than a politican. Do people really think that pols like Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry et al are enamored of the "new politics"? They've had their whole careers to enage in a different kind of politics. Now suddenly it's a passion for them? Please.

    Talking in circles (none / 0) (#230)
    by jmtsierra on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:00:55 PM EST
    A few points. So Clinton "cleaned his clock" in North Carolina? Or does that state not matter? And Oregon and Mississippi? And while it seems logical to say it's "fallacious" to say caucuses don't represent the will of the people...where's the evidence? The only evidence we have is Texas where there was a caucus AND a primary. Although Obama won the caucus and Hillary won the primary...they were both narrow wins, so that makes the case that a caucus is not wildly off from the "will of the people". Now, I'd be the first to say that you cannot take a sample of one state and generalize, but at least it's SOME evidence.

    Now, Michigan. Look, either you're a "will of the people" champion or you're not. If you care deeply about the will of the people, then you cannot in good conscience say Obama gets no votes for Michigan. You absolutely know there are voters there who would feel "disenfranchised" if they did not get their votes for Obama counted. So, all of a sudden the rule about whether your name was on the ballot is more important than the rule of whether Michigan violated DNC rules?

    You cannot so narrowly focus on these particulars of a few states, with a specific kind of voting method, with a particular demographic, under particular media conditions, with a particular voter bias (12.22% are sexist, 10.24% are racist), who had more name recognition, who had more political establishment support, who had the benefit of Reverand Wright, etc.. You end up talking in circles because at that level, there's a statistic/argument to support your candidate of choice. To me, the most fair thing to do is, well, follow the rules.

    Now, superdelegates...they're part of the rules...so if they all switch over to Clinton, so be it. They'll be some serious complaining, but still, the only choice in my mind at that point would be if (still according to the rules) they switched back to Obama.

    One last point, it's pretty disingenuous to keep saying that Obama is going to be "handed" the nomination. It's pretty clear that both campaigns worked their asses off to get to this point. Whoever gets the nomination certainly "deserves" it. Even if Clinton manages to change the rules and get FL and MI seated as is.


    The problem is that the SD's don't buy this (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:42:42 PM EST
    argument. Since the SD's are her only path, her campaign is over.

    Once and for all (I wish!) (none / 0) (#184)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:15:06 PM EST
    No votes are counted until the convention roll call.  You remember:  The great state of Hallalu is proud to cast 100 votes for Mickey and 50 votes for Donald.  And delegates are not votes--they put their names on the dotted line at the convention too.  SDs do not have to honor prior endorsements, and we have noted that pledged delegates can change their minds also (Obama did not send the Clinton delegate back 'home,' I think.

    "He took his name off the ballot"... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by dianem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:43:59 PM EST
    ...is a bad argument when we are saying that it's important to count every vote in Florida and Michigan. Obama's supporters ran ads in Michigan encouraging people to vote uncommitted so that those voters could be allocated to Obama at the convention. We know that not all of the uncommitted voter's supporterd Obama, but a lot of them did, and it does not seem right to insist that the will of those voter's be ignored just because Obama made a bad decision any more than the votes of Michigan and Florida should be ignored because their states made a bad decision.

    That said, this race is amazingly close and, imo, the only way to resolve it is having a unity ticket. Nothing else is even remotely fair.  

    Every vote WAS counted - that's how we know (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Anne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:17:02 PM EST
    how many were "uncommitted," isn't it?

    And since Obama's was not the only name not on the ballot, it doesn't make sense that all of those uncommitted votes were votes for Obama, and it doesn't even matter that some people think that "almost all" of them were silent votes for Obama - the fact is that you don't know how many of those votes were votes for Obama.  And unless we have slid all the way into banana republic territory, we simply do not give votes to people who did not stand for election, and I cannot agree that now is a good time to start setting that precedent.

    Can you show me where there was an agreement that the uncommitted votes were going to be awarded to Obama at the convention?  A real agreement - not some anecdotal, let's-do-it-this-way-and-then-make-the-argument-at-the-convention ploy. If not, I think you have to stop making this absurd contention that these uncommitted votes are Obama's by some kind of divine right.

    As near as I can tell, the will of the voters was thwarted by the candidates who chose to take their names off the ballot; regardless of what the DNC's punishment for the early primary was, it was the candidates who chose to screw around with the legitimacy of the popular vote, and I cannot accept that one of those candidates - Obama - should now be rewarded for it.


    Caucus states should be included in Popular Vote (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Newt on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:45:26 PM EST
    The people in caucus states voted.  For states that had caucuses only, it's a winner take all election.  So the winning candidate should receive that areas total number of registered voters tallied into the total for the Popular Vote.

    It's only fair to count their votes, and their caucus system is winner take all.

    Obama wins in the popular vote.

    So TX voters (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:56:16 PM EST
    get to weigh in twice. That's quite the elite, banana republic plan you got.

    Vote McCain (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by neglected blackman on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:46:33 PM EST
    He will solve all of our problems. Even though I'm struggling with my bills, I have too much money. I hope we go to war with the evil empire of Iran. That should make oil $200/bbl, right where I want it.

    It Is Projected That Oil Will Be $200/bbl (none / 0) (#160)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:06:07 PM EST
    by year end anyway. Might want to drop that portion of your argument.

    Obama is floating (none / 0) (#193)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:19:46 PM EST
    Chuck Hagel on his ticket.  We'll have two Republicans running, might as well vote for the one who might be competent (McCain).

    I feel the supers have no guts (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by Saul on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:52:39 PM EST
    No matter how good Hilary looks in winning the GE, the supers do not have the guts of moving her way for fear of a looking like racist if they do not move to Obama.    I feel their decisions  in deciding have nothing to do with who has the better chance of winning the GE.  I don't think that is even in their minds.   Look at Byrd.  You know that in the back rooms he probably said,  
    Yeah Hilary won my state big time and I know I should follow the will of the people of my state by picking her and I also know that she is the better candidate overall to win the GE but if I vote for her I will look like a racist.

    I've been asking this question (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:55:10 PM EST
    on a prior thread, but there were no definitive answers. If it's appropriate, I'll ask it here:

    Six states moved their primaries up in defiance of the rulz: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, Florida, and Michigan; right?

    What reason has been given for punishing only FL and MI?

    What is lunacy is taking the position that (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Anne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:58:56 PM EST
    "counting all the votes" means giving them to someone who wasn't on the ballot.  Can you point to one election, anywhere in this country, where a person who was not on a ballot was deemed to have earned those cast for "Uncommitted?"  Just one election.

    It doesn't matter why he took his name off the ballot, because in the end, what it meant was that he - he, Senator Obama, the Man of the People, THE ONE, the Shining Light of Unity - made a strategic decision to take away the voters's choice to vote for him; if any one was doing any disenfranchising, it was first, the DNC for exacting such a draconian punishment, and second, it was Barack Obama and the others who voluntarily took their names off the ballot, leaving those voters who may have wanted to vote for them (note the use of the word "them;" Obama was not the only one who came off the ballot) no choice except not to vote, or to vote uncommitted.

    There is no way to know who would have voted for the missing candidates - exit polls are still polls and there is no way to verify those results.

    It seems to me that when a voter chooses to vote "uncommitted," he or she knows that his or her vote is not going to end up in a particular candidate's totals.

    If Barack Obama really wanted the votes - if he cared about making sure the people of Michigan who voted in the Democratic primary had an opportunity to be part of the process, he would have agreed to a re-vote - but he didn't.  He would have agreed that it was unprecedented to allow people who cast legitimate votes for Republican candidates in the original primary to be able to cast another vote in a do-over for any other candidate.

    I am so tired of this man, and his supporters and surrogates, making the argument that poor Barack much be handed votes on a silver platter.  Is there anything he is willing to be accountable for?  Or is this just one of many instances where he expects to benefit from his own bad decisions?

    Sorry (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:01:56 PM EST
    You don't get to come to Jeralyn's site and dis her.

    And if McCain is sworn in in 2009, it will be because the much weaker candidate was anointed when he had no business skating his way through a primary season without allowed to be criticized for his lack of experience, the skeletons in his closet, and his ineptness with policy.

    Personally, joejesus, I can "live with" (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:07:08 PM EST
    any threat you dish out. But you're calling Jeralyn "petty" on her own site? If you are so disgruntled, why not go elsewhere? Do they not talk to you at the big blogger boys sites? (All of those foregoing questions are meant to be rhetorical.)

    Shocking! (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Dr Molly on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:10:07 PM EST
    Shocking news flash:  Clinton and her supporters will be blamed if Obama loses to McCain!! Can you believe it?! Better step into line NOW!

    popular vote (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Double Standard on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:12:48 PM EST
    When people say the popular vote doesn't count in the primary or general, they are right.  In the general we do things using the electoral college, which if counted in the primary Clinton would be well on her way to wrapping up the nomination.

    The problem is that we have this proportional system where you can split delegates even where there is a 59-41 voting spit.  Or you give more delegates to places where the turnout has been better in year's past.  It is a stupid and corrupt system.

    Oh, and an electability update:

    Florida (Rasmussen)

    Obama 40, McCain 50

    Clinton 47, McCain 41

    Or the person (none / 0) (#199)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:21:58 PM EST
    who LOST the popular vote can get more delegates:


    Close elections under this system are IMHO NOT EVEN legitimate.


    Amazing (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by COgator95 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:25:54 PM EST
    Stunning, stupefying, flabbergasting....

    The arguments used by the die hard Hillary supporters that frequent this site to twist the numbers into your candidate's favor are just plain dumbfounding.  

    BTW, I've been a registered independent since 1990 and I'm not an Obama supporter.

    Point of clarification (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by kid oakland on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:26:31 PM EST
    are you arguing that Obama should receive zero votes or delegates from Michigan?

    Can you point to another election where (none / 0) (#225)
    by Anne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:51:39 PM EST
    someone who did not stand for election, was not on the ballot, was awarded uncommitted votes?

    I mean, is that the precedent we should be setting?


    All this talk (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by independent thinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:31:13 PM EST
    about a popular vote lead for Hillary Clinton is predicated on completely ignoring people in several caucus states. I know, I know...I have heard the arguements...can't use caucus number because of the process (multiple rounds of voting, not representative of all voters, etc), but frankly, to completely leave out these voters by not calculating a reasonable estimation of them is just as much a disenfranchisement as is leaving out MI and FL. I mean, tens of thousands of people participated in those caucuses, right? Aren't their voices as important as those in FL and MI? As I see it, you can't have it both ways.

    Besides, like it or not, the calculation that matters, the one established by the DNC and agreed upon by all candidates when this all started, is delegates. Period.

    That's half right, half complete fiction. (none / 0) (#224)
    by MarkL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:50:22 PM EST
    Of course the delegate count determines the nominee, but the idea that SD's should only consider the pledged delegate count is totally unsupported. In fact, it goes against the reason for their existence.
    As far as the caucus states, the examples of WA and TX show that winning the caucus does not relate to winning the popular vote.

    the pure lunacy you describe is, (3.66 / 3) (#41)
    by sancho on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:30:07 PM EST
    in fact, obama's logic. he just expects dems not to call him on it. down south we used to call that strategy "voter intimidation."

    Popular votes (1.00 / 0) (#12)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:18:49 PM EST
    don't count in the general or in the primary.

    Thats Fuzzy Math, To Be Sure (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:22:24 PM EST
    So how are we counting Michigan exactly, hmmm? Counting all the votes for Clinton, but giving none to Obama? None at all? Why not give him all of the Uncomitted votes? After all, Richardson and Edwards, who ALSO removed themselves from the Michigan ballot, endorsed Obama. Give him those votes, and then your argument starts to collapse.

    This is the sort of twisted, tortured data you want to use to make a case for Hillary being "ahead" in the popular count? Which, by the way, is a completely bogus metric in how we pick our candidates.

    Changing the rules, and the "criteria for winning"...this has been done by the Clinton camp what...four, five, six times now?

    Jerylin, your candidate has lost. She is not going to be the candidate. I realize this may be a bitter pill to swallow, but reality often is. Frankly, I would have thought it bitter had Obama not made it, but at this point in the game, I'd be getting on board the damn train and getting behind Hillary, not tilting at windmills that clearly aren't giants.

    The election result are what they are. (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:24:48 PM EST
    They have been certified and he wasn't on the ballot.

    Certified? (1.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:27:48 PM EST
    Certified by whom? The State or the DNC?

    The State can certify all it wants, but if the DNC tells you "Your election wont count if you break the rules", then their election doesn't count, because they broke the rules.

    Why should the other 48 states, who clearly and deliberately played by the rules, be punished, by allowing Michigan and Florida to play kingmaker at the very end. Especially in a contest like Michigan, where almost everyone took their name off the ballot, and Hillary publically told everyone that "It doesn't matter, because Michigan won't count."

    You can't claim to be champion the cause of fairness by sticking a dirk in it's back to make your case.


    The state of course. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:38:28 PM EST
    Howard Dean concedes those votes count in the pop vote totals.  Sanctioning delegates has nothing to do with it.

    Really? (4.20 / 5) (#64)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:35:34 PM EST
    You think the other 48 states "clearly and deliberately played by the rules"?

    Do you even have a clue about what New Hampshire did?


    First of all (4.20 / 5) (#65)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:36:15 PM EST
    They were not all punished. Secondly, it was the GOP that caused the Florida problem. See Fla Legislature. And finally, are you forgetting the Big Orange push for Democrats to vote for Mitt so as to screw up McCain?

    So let's see, the candidates took themselves off the ballot to make Hillary look bad. Stupid move on their part. And people tried to manipulate the GOP primary. Another stupid move. (Don't like it for our side either)And you think that Obama should get 50% of the votes from that primary? I don't think sooooooooo.


    All Hail Krull! (none / 0) (#207)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:23:51 PM EST
    They were not all punished. Secondly, it was the GOP that caused the Florida problem. See Fla Legislature.

    Oh yes! Those poor, poor state Democrats. I remember the news reports well. Generalissimo Senior High Tyrannt Krull of Broward County (Hail Krull!) marched his Death Head Soldiers into the Statehouse, and held all the Dems at gleaming, deadly gunpoint, and laughed manically while stroking his white Persian cat, while daring, DARING, with shaking fist, for those poor, brave souls to defy his will.


    In the real world, not one of those guys voted no.

    Not one. None. They didn't even make a TOKEN resistance. And don't give me that whole "Oh! They couldn't! There was other stuff on that bill they simply HAD to vote for." BS. They could have voted "Present", or they could have voted "No", just enough so that the bill only passed by one vote.

    Please don't pretend that Florida and Michigan supers didn't bring this upon themselves, after much, much warning.

    And finally, are you forgetting the Big Orange push for Democrats to vote for Mitt so as to screw up McCain?

    I fail to see what that has to do with Michigan and Florida. For what it's worth, I thought that was a terrible idea that Kos pushed, and it has bourn bitter fruit.


    The election result are what they are. (1.00 / 0) (#59)
    by zimmjim on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:34:23 PM EST
    You are so right. They were worthless from the start to the finish.  Accept reality and move on.

    How about waiting until (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:28:27 PM EST
    ALL the contests, PR included, weigh in, OK?

    Let's see where the popular vote stands at that point, OK?


    That's cool. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:34:43 PM EST
    I for one would certainly wait for Puerto Rico.  After all, its advantage goes to Hillary.

    Kinda Academic at this point anyhow (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:34:15 PM EST
    On May 31st, the DNC WILL resolve the issue of Florida and Michigan.

    They will not be resolved in any way that allows them to dramatically tilt the results in one direction or the other, but gives them the ability to guide the plank at the convention.

    I would not be surprised if Florida is kept as is, but stripped of 50% of it's votes, and Uncomitted is essentially given to Obama in Michigan.

    I know that the Clinton Camp and some of her supporters (not all, some) are hoping and praying that FL/MI is somehow going to be the white knight on the stallion that saves them in the very end, and slays Da Ebil Obamadragon, but...if you need a white knight to save you in the very end, then you weren't exactly doing very well with your campaign in the first place.


    So in your world's view (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    all those people who are in FL and MI don't deserve to be counted or their delegates to be seated.

    Your white knight analogy is somewhat on track though, except for the whole 'not doing well in the first place.'

    The Democrats need saving:  from themselves.  The White Knight scenario should have never reared its head in the first place.

    But the RULES the RULES.  

    If the situation goes south and Obama gets the nominee, those in the Obama camp can claim a win in the battle but not the war.

    That full page ad in the NYT was just a shot across the bow from Clinton supporters.  The votes, rather the lack of from core Dems, will be the gutting of the DNC and Obama.

    So for all those who say "Hillary stay out of my village!", I say, "No problem...will be waving atcha from Camp McCain."


    Sadly, Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:51:21 PM EST
    >all those people who are in FL and MI don't deserve to be counted or their delegates to be seated.

    Unfortunately, rules is rules. Political parties get to make their rules. It's not like Michigan and Florida haven't tried to pull this crap before. Terry McA had no trouble telling Michigan in 2004 that he'd keep them out of the Convention totally if they bucked the system. And now I'm suddenly supposed to believe he was for the rules before he was against them? Please.

    Where was Hillary in August, September, October? She was right in line with everyone else. Punish Florida. Punish Michigan. They broke the rules, let them take their medicine. Not ONE Democrat in Florida stood up and contested it. Not. ONE. Not one of them merely voted "Present". Not one of them made a principled stand. And now that it might suddenly be Hillary's last desperate attempt at "getting a win", she suddenly is against the rules, when before she was for them.

    Now, the realpolitik of the situation is that in a historically unsual campaign like this, Florida and Michigan will have to be given a sop. And I see no reason not to allow them a say on guiding the plank in the Convention. But they knew full well what they were getting into over a year ago, and if you want to say "THE RULES DON'T COUNT!" now with regards to Florida and Michigan, then you are saying "The other 48 states can kiss my behind. Lets punish them for following the rules by rewarding the rulebreakers with kingmaker status."

    Do the rules suck? Yes. Should they be changed? Naturally. Is now the time to do it? No. You can't change the rules midgame just because the outcome doesn't favor you. This is a Primary, not Calvinball.

    I say, "No problem...will be waving atcha from Camp McCain."

    Sure. Why not. Goes along with the "We must destroy America to teach it a lesson for defying our Queen" stance, yes? I hope so-called Democrats who vote for McCain enjoy four more years of Bush policy that we've all been so fond of these past eight years.

    Look, I do not like Hillary. I wear that on my sleeve. But if she won the primary, I would be the first soldier behind her, marching on to DC in her brigade. I wouldn't be sniffling and crying about how unfair life is, and threatening to vote for the Republicans in order to teach all those mean, mean people who "hurt me and my candidate" a lesson they wouldn't soon forget.


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:54:38 PM EST
    And your reaction to the fact that NH received no punishment for breaking the rules is what?

    Come on, I'm sure you have a self-righteous speech saved up for that occasion too.  Don't disappoint me by revealing that it's really just about candidate partisanship.


    NH (none / 0) (#144)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:59:30 PM EST
    And your reaction to the fact that NH received no punishment for breaking the rules is what?

    Please elaborate.


    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:11:52 PM EST
    You're totally unaware of this?

    On August 19, 2006, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) set the dates for the selection of delegates to the 2008 Democratic nominating convention as follows:

    • at Iowa caucuses held no earlier than January 14, 2008;
    • at Nevada caucuses held no earlier than January 19;
    • at a New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22; and
    • at a South Carolina primary held no earlier than January 29.

    The rest of the states could then hold their caucuses or primaries to select their delegates after the opening of the "window" on February 5, 2008.

    Michigan Democrats, while disappointed our state was not selected as one of the four "pre-window" states, announced we would abide by the DNC calendar, unless New Hampshire or another state decided to ignore the rule establishing that sequence and that calendar.

    On August 9, New Hampshire's Secretary of State, with the support of the state's Democrats, indicated that he was going to hold the New Hampshire primary before January 19, 2008, a clear violation of the DNC rules. This announcement was made at a joint public ceremony and in partnership with South Carolina Republicans who had announced that they would hold their GOP primary on January 19.

    One of New Hampshire's purposes was to push the New Hampshire primary ahead of the Nevada caucus which the DNC's rule had scheduled for January 19. New Hampshire's transparent action reflected its determination to maintain its privileged position of going immediately after Iowa, despite the DNC calendar.

    Those of us who fought hard to loosen the stranglehold of New Hampshire on the process saw you stand by silently.

    Yes, NH jumped (none / 0) (#222)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:46:52 PM EST
    And the DNC approved it.

    My understanding was that there's a BS clause written into NH's State Constitution that requires them to be ahead of almost everyone else, but I could be mistaking that for Iowa. Fair or not, they did get last minute dispensation from the DNC.

    Be that as it may, and I agree with you that this is screwed up and unfair...it hardly justifies allowing Michigan to break the rules, and it does not justify disenfranchising 200,000+ voters in order to "make a stand."

    Funny thing..I don't remember Hillary saying an awful lot about it..other than "Oh..I'm keeping my name on the ballot because, why not? It's not like the election is going to matter. Give them a bone, you know?"

    (Yes, not her exact words, I know.)

    Hillary had no trouble not allowing the vote to mean anything..until suddenly, she could use it as a wedge to her advantage.

    Frankly, I'm tired of these sorts of old-style politics. Shifting goalposts, changing rules in the middle of the game when they don't suit her.

    It's Hillary and her campaigns fault that they didn't run a good campaign. They expected to be coronated after Super Tuesday..hell..Mark Penn didn't even understand the basics of the system! The best she can do now if run the race until June 3rd, and if Obama is still the nominee than it frankly, behooves her, if she REALLY cares about the party (which frankly, I don't think she really does..the Clintons and the DLC have alwasy been about the Clintons and the DLC) she should make sure that she gets a position in a way that best helps the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and their nominee DEFEAT THE REPUBLICANS.

    You know? Hello, McCain and the Republicans? The guys that we're all supposed to agree that we don't like, and don't want to see in charge?

    It's simple: Like them or not, I will support the Democratic nominee. John McCain scare the willies out of me at this point. We can't afford to "fool around" and teach each other petty lessons. Not at this stage othe game. Our country is too important at this point.


    The joke is... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by outsider on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:58:00 PM EST
    Kos wants to call the MI primary "Soviet-style".  But I can't think of a more Soviet-style approach to elections than to disenfranchise millions of people because some arcane set of rules wasn't followed.

    He Had A Completely Different Opinion In 07 (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:03:21 PM EST
    when he said that Obama and Edwards were stupid to pander to IA and NH because MI would eventually be seated. I won't give DKos a hit to find the link but others on this site may have it.

    He ahd no problem with it (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:05:08 PM EST
    when he wanted folks to vote for Romney to keep him in the game.

    Oh, and didn't he write a post praising Hillary for keeping her name on the ballot?


    Kos And I Aren't Of The Same Mind (none / 0) (#183)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:13:27 PM EST
    when he wanted folks to vote for Romney to keep him in the game.

    I thought that was the stupidest, most idiotic thing he could have possibly done, for exactly this reason. Many people told him "Don't do this, it will come back and bite us in the ass." And lo, Lush Rimbaugh came forth, and brought us Operation Chaos, and we were supposed to do what? Tell him "Don't do that!", after Kos wanted to pull the same shenanigans?

    Oh, and didn't he write a post praising Hillary for keeping her name on the ballot?

    He might have. I don't read Kos a whole heck of a lot, so I wouldn't know. If he did, then I completely disagree with him.


    Re (none / 0) (#173)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:10:28 PM EST
    As opposed to disenfranchises hudreds of thousands, if not millions of people by disregarding the rules being broken.

    It's real easy for folks to suddenly take a "principled stand" when it helps out their favored candidate in her darkest hour.

    Why the hell America as a whole didn't wake up and realize how the system actually works, from EC at the top all the way down to primaries and beyond, is beyond me. Great that we're waking up now. Great that people want to fix the flaws in the system. But I just can't get my head around by endorsing rule-breaking and avoiding consequences as a way to justify "legitimacy".

    If the people of Florida and Michigan don't like how they were treated, and if they do not like how things shake out after May 31st, I highly advise them to vote against their superdelegates in the state. The DNC may have crafted the gun, but the state supes picked it up and fired it blindly into the crowd.


    How (none / 0) (#221)
    by outsider on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:46:40 PM EST
    would counting MI and FL disenfranchise "hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people"?  What an odd comment...

    You will wear on your sleeve (none / 0) (#227)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:55:57 PM EST
    losing an election in Nov.  People have been very clear that they will not vote for Obama.  It has nothing to do with liking Clinton. (I personally have no affection for any politician) It has to do with finding Obama unqualified to be in the White House on many levels.

    You chose to vote for Obama knowing many more voters of the candidate would not vote for Obama.  You lose?  Your fault.  Unfair? Get over it.


    Still scratching my head (none / 0) (#232)
    by Newt on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:14:56 PM EST
    'cause I just can't understand why anyone who believes in what Hillary stands for would vote for the opposite platform of the Republicans.  You do know that McSame's "vision" of ending the war in four years is just appeasement, right?

    Who's the enemy here?  Stupid college kids posting on blogs?  Or a Republican who will further stagnate our domestic and foreign policies, appoint judges to roll back civil rights and civil liberties that we've worked for decades to get?  We all want to make our country and the world a better place.  

    Or do you?


    So what (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:43:11 PM EST
    you're saying is that the fix is in.

    OK, that's really going to do a lot to make Obama seem like the legitimate winner.

    And then, I'm sure, you'll find a way to be outraged every time someone alludes to the fact of his illegitimacy when he's running in the general election.

    Illegitimacy is just one more defect Obama can add to his list of vulnerabilities when the general election rolls around, and, like virtually all the rest, they will be of his own making.


    I'm saying actions have consequences.

    Michigan and Florida chose to broke the rules. 48 other states, whom I'm sure would have LOVED to have gone in January, followed the rules instead.

    Actions have consequences.

    What a wonderful lesson to teach our children. Break the rules, and don't like the punishment? Scream loud enough about "the process being illegitmate" until people give you what you want. Wonderful. Wonderful lesson for the youth of tomorrow.

    Again, I wholeheartedly understand that there is realpolitik to the situation. The deligates will be seated. They will be given some votes. However, Michigan will not, and should not be seated as is. To claim you want to make the process "legitimate", and to do this, you casually and dismissively TOSS OUT 230,000+ votes is beyond ridiculous.

    Rules is rules. Hillary agreed to follow the rules. Obama agreed to follow the rules. Edwards, Richardson, Gravel, that dude with the hot wife who's name temporarily escapes me...Oh! Kuchinich. (sp?) They all agreed to follow the rules.

    The rules were okay...until suddenly they got in the way of people getting what they wanted.

    Is it awful and horrible that it's come to this? Yes. Do the rules need a serious overhaul? Of course. But I just can't get my head around the hypocrisy of declaring Hillary the "winner" of a meaningless metric when the only way you can do this is by disenfranchising over 200,000 voters. Never mind the fact that state systems like caucuses are hardly great indicators of "popular vote" in the first place. The system was not set up to accurately measure popular vote, it's disingenous to demand that of it now.


    Wrong! 44 states "followed the rules". (none / 0) (#223)
    by alexei on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:47:33 PM EST
    As Steve M's post shows, it was NH who broke "the rules" first after MI agreed to abide by the rules if NH or any other state did not move their election(s) up.  NH started the domino and six states moved their caucus/primary up and broke "the rules".  Only two states were punished and both in an extra ordinary and draconian manner.

    Again, why wasn't Iowa, NH , NV and SC punished? Because the system was gained to hurt one candidate and help two others.


    Rictor Rockets (2.33 / 3) (#72)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:38:12 PM EST
    Your bio says it all

    BarnBabe (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:52:34 PM EST
    Your bio says it all

    Yes, I am honest and upfront with my alignment.

    Your point of bringing this up is....what? Exactly?


    Your prediction (none / 0) (#209)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:24:18 PM EST
    Your prediction (none / 0) (#210)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:25:10 PM EST

    Just a thought, but (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by outsider on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:42:45 PM EST
    nobody ever won a general election by picking up a load of pledged delegates in the primaries.  I suspect the superdelegates are reminding themselves of that too.

    "They didn't expect the votes to count" (1.00 / 1) (#126)
    by wtfwtf on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:54:28 PM EST
    This biggest issues with Florida and Michigan is that voters knew that their votes did not count toward delegates because the rules of the Democratic primary and the news stated that the primary votes would not count for anything. This is more important than the fact that they didn't   campaign in those states.  

    When people know that their vote doesn't matter then they don't vote.  I live in Washington and voted in the Democratic caucus and not the primary because no delegates were based on the primary.  Also, any statements that try to compare the democratic caucus and primary are ridiculous because people didn't vote because a vote in the primary didn't matter (I am not going to waste my time voting in something that doesn't matter).

    I am a Obama supporter and I think that Michigan and Florida should have had an election that counts (although now we know it wouldn't matter because it comes down to the superdelegates anyways) but trying to count votes from elections where the electorate knew and fully believed their vote didn't count is ridiculous.  

    Also, this is the same reason why the percentage of eligible voters that actually vote in the
    GE is like 50% - if you live in a blue state (under the electoral college) and want to vote for McCain your vote does not count so people don't bother voting.  

    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:55:59 PM EST
    Actually the news said the exact opposite.  Every major newspaper in Florida urged people to vote because of the substantial likelihood that the results would end up counting one way or another.

    The question is, after finding out that the facts are the 180-degree reverse of what you assumed them to be, does this alter your conclusion in any way?


    votes count? (none / 0) (#152)
    by wtfwtf on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:03:19 PM EST
    Well, it changes my opinion a little bit but the fact that the rules said it wouldn't count is important.  Michigan is a bigger problem because Obama wasn't on the ballot that everyone agreed beforehand wouldn't count (did the DNC urge candidates to stay off the ballot?)



    You do know (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:11:14 PM EST
    That the Michigan media said the same thing and were encouraged to vote uncommitted if they were Obama supporters. And that Michigan too, had a record turnout of voters?

    I guess 600,000 people are just dumb - going and voting when their votes won't absolutely count.


    Washington (none / 0) (#161)
    by wtfwtf on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:06:21 PM EST
    But my point about the Washington Caucus and primary comparison being fundamentally flawed is true and I have seen it done on this website.  

    Obama Had Grassroots Organizations (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:11:30 PM EST
    on the ground conducting normal GOTV efforts (i.e canvassing, phone banks etc.) In fact, in reality FL was an example of grassroots politics at its best.

    I agree (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    with Turkana that, while Hillary is not currently ahead in the popular vote, she has the potential to be after Puerto Rico votes.

    I see where this is leading (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by standingup on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:44:44 PM EST
    Look out Puerto Rico because your votes are going to be dismissed.

    Cable Infotainment (News) Has Already Said (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:58:24 PM EST
    that Puerto Rico shouldn't count in the nominee determination because they can't vote in the GE. TL had a post on it yesterday.

    A completely unbiased opinion when playing by the Obama Roolz.


    Yes, they will be to an extent, of course (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:10:15 PM EST
    when the popular vote argument is about who will vote in November.  

    But it may be -- depending on how it goes, on differences in the vastly varied Hispanic demographics, etc. -- that PR votes can offer more insight into Hispanic voters on the mainland?  They vary greatly but still have commonalities, such as being mainly Catholic, working class, etc.


    so - who is correct? Jeralyn or Turkana? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Josey on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:22:40 PM EST
    They both cite RCP.
    Turkana - >>> RCP now has Obama up 257,727 votes, or 0.7%.

    Go to Turkana's spreadsheet link (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:29:54 PM EST
    The only way Hillary is ahead is if you assign Obama no votes from Michigan. That's unacceptable to me because there were clearly voters there that day who intended to vote for Obama. And we shouldn't punish them any more than we should punish Hillary's voters in Florida.

    Oh my. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    If Obama wanted votes in Michigan, he should have put himself on the ballot.

    How can you possibly compare that to Hillary's votes in FL?


    See Hillary supporters are too nice to Obama (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by TalkRight on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:39:53 PM EST
    They are ready to give Obama votes where even his name was not on the ballot....  and you all complain about them being racist!!

    There were Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:56:47 PM EST
    who followed Kos' instruction to go mess in the Republican primary that day in Michigan.  Should we award Obama those votes too?

    And I want to vote for Mickey Mouse (3.66 / 3) (#122)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:53:04 PM EST
    because his ears also stick out.  But darn it, he's not on my ballot, either.

    I'm sure that my argument will get Mick half of the votes in my state retroactively, though, when I just explain to Donna "Watch Me Walk Out" Brazile that Mickey would have won votes in my state.  Right?


    I Wasn't On The MI Ballot, But I Did Stay At A (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:08:56 PM EST
    Holiday Inn, so I should get the votes!

    Not our problem (3.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Regency on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:32:52 PM EST
    They should take it up with their candidate. He didn't respect them enough to stay on the ballot and he didn't respect them enough to give them a shot to really declare for them with a revote.

    Not. Our. Problem.


    Sorry, but that attitude (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:34:06 PM EST
    is just as repulsive when you use it as when they use it to say that Florida shouldn't count.

    Both and neither (none / 0) (#71)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:38:04 PM EST
    That is the very problem with the popular vote argument. It is "tainted" for lack of a better word.   It depends on what numbers you use, if you include the caucus states, etc.  

    The Supers know all this too.  They are aware of all the different popular vote numbers out there.  Many of them are elected themselves and probably won't give much weight to a Michigan number that gives Obama no votes.  

    Everyone here can argue about it from dawn till dusk, but it doesn't seem like the popular vote argument will carry much weight.

    Nothing wrong with the HRC camp making the argument though.  


    Problem is, there's no alternative... (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by outsider on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:54:26 PM EST
    The popular vote ought to be one of the biggest single considerations for the supers.  They can vote their consciences, which effectively means vote for the candidate with what they consider the best shot in the GE.  Popular vote, combined with the distribution of the vote (i.e. "the map") are the important factors.  That's what HRC's case is built on.  What else is there?  "Oh, look, I got all these pledged delegates."  What use is that in a GE?  The truth is, if Obama's best case is that he has the most pledged delegates, then he has no case at all.  There's no reason at all for the supers to push him over the finish line just because he's almost there if there's not a compelling (election-based) reason why he should win.

    I know this (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    and your right, if this was a Normal Election... but this ISN'T an election at all really, and that's the issue here IMO

    This is a Nominee Selection Process, not an Election, the purpose of all this is to 'weed out' all possible candidates so that the Supers and Delegates can pick the best person to represent them going into the REAL Election.

    This is way Pop. Votes AND Electoral Map scenarios are important.


    Opps! (none / 0) (#142)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:58:29 PM EST
    Outsider beat me to it :) My reply was for the one above...

    ...good reply outsider, I'm basically saying the same thing :)


    How to contact Jeralyn for info (none / 0) (#11)
    by delacarpa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:17:56 PM EST

    concerning  the news conference tomorrow that promises to be very shocking about Obama's past, sort of like the Wright thing. Hopefully she can check into it.

    The popular vote is important (none / 0) (#29)
    by rafaelh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:26:29 PM EST
    And it is important, not because it might give us some talking points, but because it is supposed to reflect the will of the electorate.  I think it's not realistic to claim that the Michigan electorate did not have at least 65,000 Obama supporters. So in my book, he's still ahead on votes.

    Hillary wouldn't be having this problem if Mark Penn hadn't decide to ignore 10 states in February. She should have dropped him after New Hampshire.  

    Opening our eyes (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dadler on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:34:14 PM EST
    Whichever candidate you support, not a one of us should accept the manner in which most of our elections are carried out and their results tallied.  Once again, Bev Harris is on top of the latest troubling election fraud news, this time from our latest primaries in Oregon and Kentucky.  Be afraid and disturbed.  Very.  Because we have no reason, none at all, to trust that any vote we cast is being counted and recorded honestly.    

    This is America.... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    popular vote totals don't mean d*ck when it comes to electing a president.  Most unfortunate I know, but the founding fathers were scared to let us rubes pick a leader outright, so we have the electoral college.  The Democrats, in their infinite wisdom, copied that power-holding scheme with their super delegates and what not.

    Personally, I think every election for every office in the land should be decided by popular vote.  Unfortunately, the ruling class of the Democratic party disagrees...they don't trust you.

    Welcome to Civics 101 (2.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:42:00 PM EST
    >Unfortunately, the ruling class of the >Democratic party disagrees...they don't trust >you.

    They haven't trusted us since 1776.

    Oh, if we want to talk about the DNC solely, they haven't "Trusted Us" since 1982.

    It wasn't a problem in 1988 when Dukakis won the nomination.

    It wasn't a problem in 1992 when Clinton won the nomation

    It wasn't a problem in 1996 when Clinton won the nomination again.

    It wasn't a problem in 2000 when Gore won the nomination.

    It wasn't a problem in 2004 when Kerry won the nomination.

    But ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL of the sudden, Hillary isn't going to win the nomination, and people suddenly are shocked....SHOCKED to find that there's gambling going on in...er..I mean...that we aren't a direct, mob-driven democracy in this country.

    So you want to protect Hillary and the "voters of Michigan" by counting all her votes, by completely disregarding the 200,000+ voters who did NOT vote for her.

    You want to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people in order to "protect Democracy"? That's kind of like burning the village down to save it, isn't it?


    That comment makes absolutely no sense... (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by outsider on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:45:31 PM EST
    Really, are you saying the process is legit or not?  Cause I honestly have no idea what you're talking about...

    It makes sense (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by CST on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:56:50 PM EST
    The point is not that the process is legit.  It's that it has been around for a long time and no one has had a problem with it until now (which isn't entirely true, they changed the rules in the 80s because people had a problem with it).

    I disagree with the sentiment though, which is it's only a problem now cuz it's bad for Hillary.  I think it's only a problem because the race is so close so it highlights the problems with the process. No one cares whether the process is legit if there is a clear nominee by all standards.


    I've cared about it since.... (none / 0) (#214)
    by kdog on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:26:32 PM EST
    I learned what the electoral college was in high school civics.  It seemed awfully anti-freedom and anti-democracy then, as it does now, as it will tomorrow.  

    And that's coming from someone with no horse in this race, fwiw.


    I believe you (none / 0) (#220)
    by CST on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:38:37 PM EST
    I shouldn't have said no one.  My point was, I think that so many people care now because it is finally blown up in our faces, where it was easier to not care when it didn't matter as much. Also, the EC is a whole different issue, I think people started paying more attention to that after the Florida fiasco.  However, with regards to the primary process, it wasn't that big of an issue before.

    We're not disregarding them (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:54:54 PM EST
    We just aren't gift wrapping them and handing them over to Obama. Personally, those people ought to be angry at Obama. After all, it was HIS decision to take his name off the ballot. Actions have consequences.

    Yeah, Actions DO Have Consequences (1.00 / 0) (#150)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:02:19 PM EST
    After all, it was HIS decision to take his name off the ballot. Actions have consequences.

    Yes, lets all give a complete pass to the superdelegates in Michigan for creating the problem in the first place.

    Pretty much everyone BUT Hillary took their names off the ballot. Using your logic, we should be angry at her for keeping her name on the ballot, and causing this mess. If none of the Dems had their name on the ballot, there wouldn't be this problem now.

    Again, it's nice to say "We don't want to disregard hundreds of thousands of votes, we just don't want to gift wrap Michigan and give it to Obama"...well, I don't think you should be able to gift wrap Michigan, after they broke the rules, and hand it to Hillary.


    Um (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:08:26 PM EST
    Pretty much everyone BUT Hillary took their names off the ballot.

    Really?  I guess you aren't counting Kucinich, Gravel, and Dodd as well. By my count, almost half the candidates removed their name (Richardson, Biden, Obama, Edwards, and someone else).  That more than "pretty much everyone".


    Very well then. (none / 0) (#190)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:18:19 PM EST
    I stand corrected

    It still doesn't somehow magically "legitimatize" Michigans vote.

    It's very simple.

    They broke the rules. They need to pay the consequences. Hillary's own people were willing to do it in 2004 to Michigan, and now they suddenly are begging for leniency when it helps her out.

    As I've repeatedly said, the real politik is that Michigan and Florida will get SOME seating, some concesion, because they are needed. In a perfect world, they would have to suffer the full consequences of their actions, but we don't live in a perfect world. And I'm not unsympathetic to the poor voters in those two states who are getting screwed over by their states SD's, who are the real villains in this passion play.

    But if you believe that giftwrapping Michigan with a bow and handing it to Hillary, while simultaneously throwing out over 200,000 votes in a quest to "keep people from being disenfranchised" will be seen as legitimate by the OTHER half of Democratic voters, then I believe you are in for an unpleasant surprise.


    Propportional representation and caucuses (none / 0) (#231)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:13:03 PM EST
    don't matter when it comes to electing a president either.

    The GE is winner take all. No caucus states, no getting some dlegates for doing well in certain areas. WINNER. TAKE. ALL.

    How is Obama's campaign stategy going to overcome that?


    Hillary (none / 0) (#98)
    by DCDemocrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:46:13 PM EST
    won more popular votes in March than Obama did. She won more popular votes in April than Obama did. She won more popular votes in May than Obama did. And given the three contests slated for June, she likely will win more popular votes in June than Obama will.

    The whole primary/caucus process... (none / 0) (#103)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:47:10 PM EST
    ...and rules are not set up to accurately assess/report the aggregate popular vote, but to award delegates.  
    The rationale behind the popular vote argument is essentially "I have more support amongst the Democratic electorate, as reflected in these totals".  
    By that standard, Clinton is technically "ahead" in the "popular vote metric"...
    ...if you assume that Obama literally had zero support in Michigan.

    This is obviously a fallacious assumption.  Exit polling suggests about 70 percent of the "uncommitted" voters would have voted for him had his name been on the ballot(and we'll leave aside all the voters in FL and MI who stayed home because they were informed the results wouldn't count), which works out to about 170,000 voters.

    Factor that into the "popular vote metric" on the RCP site, and Obama leads by about 110,000.

    If you're going to make the "popular vote" argument, you should go with a measurement that is as inclusive as possible.  Not estimating the proportion of uncommitted voters in MI who would have voted for Obama is by definition an act of exclusion.

    You can't "win" the popular vote via legalistic arguments or sophistry.  You have to "count every vote", and that includes counting Obama voters who voted "uncommitted" because he wasn't on the ballot there.

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by hitchhiker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:01:23 PM EST
    for doing those numbers.  I've been reading this thread and wondering what the proportional assignment of votes would be.

    I think the most fair thing would be to do it the way you've described.  The result would be that Obama supporters could not claim he was robbed, HRC supporters would have the satisfaction of seeing her get the votes that were actually cast, and  . . .

    Puerto Rico voters would give her undisputed popular vote total.

    HRC is going to be the person who got more votes than any other primary candidate in history.  Astounding.  All the Obama supporters who are fond of smirking over her crappy campaign can smoke on that for a while.  

    In spite of her crappy campaign, his money, his media suckups, and his brilliant use of social networking tools . . . more voters preferred her.


    There's no recent polling... (none / 0) (#204)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:23:31 PM EST
    ...of Puerto Rico.  I wouldn't assume she has it in the bag.  And I wouldn't assume she'll get a big enough margin to secure a popular vote lead, either.  

    The only poll of PR I've seen is weeks old and showed a tighter race than expected, with Clinton up 13.  That's before Obama advertises or campaigns there, before he got this close to being the nominee, and before his recent wins in North Carolina and Oregon.

    I think it'll be within 8 points either way, which means he'll still be the leader in the popular vote.


    173,664 Michigan voters for Obama (none / 0) (#156)
    by s5 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:04:58 PM EST
    The most accurate estimate of Obama's Michigan support gives him 173,664 voters who showed up to the only nomination contest available to them. You can argue that they shouldn't count, but then you're making a rules and technicalities argument, not a will of the voters argument. Either voters matter or rules and technicalities matter.

    If we accept that voters matter, we have:

    63,825 Hillary + 173,664 Obama = 109,839 Obama

    If we accept that rules and technicalities matter, we have:

    449,114 Obama

    No, no, no. Howard Dean himself has conceded (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:09:39 PM EST
    the votes from those states are from lawful elections and the results have been certified.  Seating delegates is a seperate issue.  So no, Hillary has the lead.  

    Rules and technicalities (none / 0) (#188)
    by s5 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:17:45 PM EST
    This is about measuring the will of the voters, to show to the superdelegates who has it. The popular vote is technically meaningless, in the sense that delegates officially choose the winner. But the popular vote counts in the sense of legitimacy.

    Do you think the superdelegates are really going to believe that not a single voter in Michigan showed up to support Obama? Of course they're not. That voter support is non-zero, and can be estimated. The most accurate estimation I've found is 173,664.

    You can try and argue that 173,664 doesn't count, but technically none of the popular vote counts. Superdelegates won't believe that Obama's Michigan support is zero, so attempting to estimate it is worthwhile.

    It helps your candidate, too. If she makes up the 173,664 number in the final three elections, then there can be no doubt. It would erase the "but Obama had the uncommitted vote" argument. Either way, attempting to be as precise as possible should be a goal. Any remaining doubts will undermine the legitimacy of the winner, whoever it ends up being.


    Ouestion (1.00 / 0) (#195)
    by jondee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:20:21 PM EST
    Aren't the (Im guessing predominantly female) voters who post here who say that they wont for Obama if Clinton dosnt win the nomination just reinforcing one of the most pernicious, sexist stereotypes there is, i.e., women are incapable of thinking rationally and analytically about specific issues?

    Or, after the unmitigated disaster of the last 8 years, are there still good, rational, reasons for banking on a McCain presidency? If so, I'd like to hear them.

    We can all do better than basing our election outcomes on middle class temper tantrums in which we cut off our nose to spite our face.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:24:00 PM EST
    This comment belongs in the Unity Hall of Fame.

    I'm going to assume good faith (none / 0) (#206)
    by s5 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:23:47 PM EST
    Nothing brings people together more than a common enemy. Once we have a nominee, I believe both sides will get back together. The same thing happened in 2000 with Republican voters. Remember, 50% of McCain voters claimed they wouldn't vote for Bush and vice versa. In the end, they turned out to vote for the Republican.

    The party will unite; it's just a matter of when, not if. The stakes are far more important than what amounts to a personality clash between Obama and Hillary supporters.


    Question (none / 0) (#175)
    by CST on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:10:37 PM EST
    Does this include all of the Oregon vote?

    I have gone there a number of times today (I am a nerd) and the number appears to be changing.  Is all of the Oregon vote reported yet?  The turnout also seems low based on those calculations, does anyone know the official Oregon turnout?  RCP has a bit less than 600,000 votes for Oregon.  I thought the turnout was closer to 700,000 but I could be wrong on that.

    No, it does not (none / 0) (#197)
    by SpinDoctor on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:20:51 PM EST
    Only 94% of the precincts have reported.  Currently Obama is up by 18% or 102,641 votes.  The Secretary of State only shows 593,063 votes at this time.

    Like BTD, I'll credit BO with MI 'Uncommitteds' (none / 0) (#181)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:12:22 PM EST
    ... at least 3/4 of those, per polls. That adds 180,000 in BO's column.

    For completeness, I'm prepared to dig out actual but unofficial counts for ME and IA caucuses ... and I believe such counts can also be retrieved for Nevada. Only Texas first-level caucuses defied all attempts to count heads. Even the best unofficial tabulations were incomplete and diverged by several percentage points.

    I'm further prepared to present an analysis of caucus effects, and to publish (in the near future) adjusted popular vote estimates for the several caucus states, which will resolve any remaining question as to the People's Choice in this semifinal championship series. [In the process, I'll demolish and ridicule a very ambitious piece of quantitative chicanery by a couple of Obama partisans.]

    Well (none / 0) (#211)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:25:18 PM EST
    There's really no way you can count the TX caucuses, since it's the exact same people from the primary being given a chance to vote a second time.  The same person can't count twice.

    well (none / 0) (#239)
    by boredmpa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:22:38 PM EST
    if you give the exit poll info to obama that's up to the 190s i think for MI. I had a hard time finding actual polls with Obama...

    So she'd be down 10-20k with MI and FL, and with the others that would put her down 70-80k.

    I'm counting the WA primary, not the caucus.  

    And I'm sure as hell not subtracting from hillary on a "what if" exit poll.  She got her votes, fair n square.  And any what if scenario changes the likely voters and thus who shows up.  The CNN exit poll showed 3% of those voting uncommitted voting for hillary if everyone was on the ballot, so there are some complex issues there with dems voting and possibly showing up based on process/protest.


    Was it mandatory to sign the pledge in MI and FL (none / 0) (#236)
    by Saul on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:27:45 PM EST
     in order to participate in the rest of the 48 states in seeking the nomination.  My question is why did not either one say " No I will not sign the pledge and I will campaign in MI and Fl"   Could either one have said that?  If so then why didn't  they since it looks like it would have legitimatized the primaries for the one who did not sign the pledge.

    MI votes (none / 0) (#237)
    by jmtsierra on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:29:09 PM EST
    I emphatically do not think Obama should be given any of the Uncommitted votes...it's not fair and how do you decide what percentage? If they did count some of those votes, it would be a purely brokered, political decision (between the relevant players). But obviously you can't just have Clinton's votes count and as is. I mean, come on. I don't care how it ended up that only Clinton's name was on the ballot. You seem to be claiming that the way it is fair is because Obama CHOSE to take his name off. So he should be punished (along with all those voters who wished they could vote for him). That's actually fine if that's your argument, but PLEASE be consistent in your disenfranchisement, will of the people arguments. You seem to think the rules are not important in FL an MI, but the fact that Obama, for whatever reason, left his name off the ballot is so fundamentally important as to punish all the Obama voters in MI and you don't care.

    Comments Closed (none / 0) (#238)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:11:18 PM EST
    and Fayetteville Franny is gone -- that poster has previously been banned using several names.

    Yes, it was dumb (none / 0) (#240)
    by Natal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:26:25 PM EST
    for Obama to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. But now with the whole thing in disarray because of it, it's working to his advantage. A lucky unconscious move because it appears he would have lost heavily if it were on, IMHO. Unfortunately for HRC the stars just aren't aligned in her favour in this contest.

    MI/FL (none / 0) (#243)
    by vrusimov on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:11:16 AM EST
    i'm sorry but i don't follow the logical consensus of most in this thread...all campaigns KNEW since August 2007 that these two states would be punished, Florida especially...they were warned repeatedly, given 30 days to comply and decided to tempt fate and circumvent the RBC rules:

    Leaders in both states were warned repeatedly that continued defiance of the DNC could result in at least 50 percent or even 100 percent of any delegates awarded from a primary held in violation of the calendar being "stripped," i.e., excluded from voting at the convention. Not quite believing that the DNC would follow through, neither budged. Then, on August 25, 2007, the RBC found Florida in noncompliance of its rules. The state was given thirty days to amend its decision, but again did nothing. Since other states were at the time angling to get in on the early voting--you may recall that Iowa and New Hampshire threatened to move theirs to December 2007 in order to remain first--the RBC decided to make an example of Florida. It ruled that all its elected delegates would be voided. The vote of the thirty-member committee had only one dissent.[3] Florida could go ahead with a primary if it wished, but its voting would constitute a mere "beauty contest"; as far as the DNC was concerned, it would be as if the Florida primary didn't exist. Florida sued in a federal court and lost. The same process ensued later with respect to Michigan.

    So with respect to Florida, everyone knew by the end of Septemeber, that Florida's delegates would be voided and that the election would be illegitimate...Clinton knew this and agreed as all other candidates did...

    After this, there is nothing that can legitimize the Florida election...the delegates are off the table...Obama's national ad buy or Clinton's multiple fundraisers or whatever else happened on behalf of the candidates is irrelevant...for Obama's ad buy to constitute an advantage Florida's election would first need to be a legitimate election...all candidates agreed beforehand that it would not, in accordance with the RBC.

    Clinton may very well end up with a popular vote lead but the penalty of stripped delegates underscores the fact that DELEGATES will be the metric by which the nominee is determined, as the Obama camp has explained repeately to all who would listen...

    The Michigan debacle is something else entirely...the only viable candidate on the ballot states on Oct. 11 2007, that "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program.

    But in March 13, 2008 NPR finds Hillary contradicting herself on Michigan stating that "We all had a choice as to whether or not to participate in what was going to be a primary, and most people took their name off the ballot but I didn't."[23] Critics have labeled Clinton's actions as dishonest, and charged her with trying retroactively to change the rules for her own benefit.[24][25][26]

    This directly contradicts her Sept. 1, 2007 pledge to not campaign or PARTICIPATE in the Michigan primary...so a pledge made in good faith beforehand becomes a choice for candidates in a free-for-all?...this is simply dishonest and nearly 6 in 10 Democrats feel she is exactly that...

    a primary contested between a singular viable candidate versus Gravel, Dodd (who dropped from the race after Iowa), Kucinich (who tried but failed to remove his name from the ballot also), uncommitted and write-in...how this can be considered fair and legitimate is beyond me...again, if all parties knew beforehand the decision to strip Michigan on Dec. 1 2007, how can this election be seen as legitimate?

    All of the Democratic campaigns were notified that Florida and Michigan would not count. As far as is known, none protested at the time. On August 31, all campaigns received a letter from various officials in the four early-voting states asking them to sign a pledge not to campaign in Florida and Michigan. Within a day, all campaigns agreed. Patti Solis Doyle, the recently fired Clinton campaign manager, said at the time:

    We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.... We believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.
    Harold Ickes, who incidentally, is a member of the RBC says that the campaigns were'nt party to the decision to strip the delegates from each state...i find this rather incredulous for an insider like himself and why not say something in August 2007 when the decision was made to strip Florida of it's delegates?...if the Clinton campaign had a grievance, it should've been put forward at that time...however, they remained silent until January 25, 2008 when they decided that perhaps Hillary needed some insurance against an early Obama nomination...