The Popular Vote Six Ways: Where We Stand Today

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:24:00 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Real Clear Politics calculates the popular vote six ways. I've reprinted all six below.

Not surprisingly, my view is that only the first two are valid because whatever happens with delegates, the Florida and Michigan elections were certified by the states and people pulled a lever or touched a screen or dropped off or sent in a ballot choosing a candidate and those votes must be counted.

The DNC and both candidates agree at least some FL and MI delegates will be seated at the convention. The delegate selection is based in large part on who their voters selected in their state's certified primaries -- the popular vote for the counties/districts in the two states. How can their votes not be counted in the popular vote total?

However you calculate the popular vote total today, here's the ultimate question: Between 1 and 2 million people may vote in Puerto Rico's open primary on June 1 (2 million voted in 2004.) If Hillary wins convincingly, not W. VA or KY numbers but convincingly, won't she clearly be ahead in the popular vote by any rational standard?

More...

There are almost 200 superdelegates yet to weigh in. There is no requirement for them to give more weight to the pledged delegate total than the popular vote total. While they may be hesitant to go just with electability, those who believe Hillary is both the popular vote winner and the more electable against John McCain should not hesitate to choose Hillary when all the votes have been counted after June 3.

Superdelegates who declared for Obama early, thinking FL and MI wouldn't count, or before the votes in every state and territory were cast, are free to change their mind up until the convention.

I hope those who haven't yet decided wait until all the votes are in before making a choice. This is a two person race. It is not over. One candidate will have won the pledged delegates and the other may well win the popular vote.

At that point, the electoral map must be considered by superdelegates. Who can best win against John McCain? Those superdelegates who believe that Ohio, PA and/or Florida are critical, should pick Hillary.

Here are the calculations six different ways:

Popular Vote (w/FL and MI but without estimates for the caucuses in IA, NV, ME, WA that didn't take attendance)

Hillary: 17,426,809
Obama: 17,262,155
(Hillary + 164,654)

Popular Vote (w/FL and MI and estimates for the caucuses in IA, NV, ME, WA that didn't take attendance)

Hillary: 17,650,671
Obama: 17,596,239
(Hillary: + 54,432)

Popular Vote Total Without Florida, Michigan and the caucuses that didn't take attendance:

Hillary 16,227,514
Obama 16,685,941
(Obama + 458,427)

Popular Vote Without Florida and Michigan, but with estimates for the caucuses in IA, NV, ME, WA that didn't take attendance:

Hillary: 16,451,376
Obama: 17,020,025
(Obama + 568,649)

Popular Vote (w/FL, without MI or estimates for the caucuses in IA, NV, ME, WA that didn't take attendance)

Hillary: 17,098,500
Obama: 17,262,155
(Obama + 163,655)

Popular Vote With Florida, without Michigan, but with estimates for the caucuses in IA, NV, ME, WA that didn't take attendance:

Hillary: 17,322,362
Obama: 17,596,239
(Obama + 273,877)

Additional calculations by Jay Cost of RCP are here. It's only current to May 7 and includes options for the Washington Primary, but not the Nebraska primary, where Hillary did much better than she did in the state's caucuses.

Here's the latest graphs from Jay Cost on Hillary and Obama's respective voting coalitions, as of May 23.

< Can Obama Win Without Clinton Democrats? | Sunday Afternoon Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Popular Vote Six Ways: Where We Stand Today | 174 comments (174 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Jay Cost (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Faust on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:36:57 AM EST

Actually has an even more comprehensive spreadsheet where he goest through even more ways to count the votes. I can't find it right now I'll post the link when I find it.

In any case I like to do it as follows:

Count FL

Count MI, use exit poll data to give votes to Obama.

Count caucus states using estimates.

Hillariously, using some projected numbers that I think are reasonable, Clinton and Obama wind up within 500 votes of each other after all the remaining contests. i.e. a virtual tie.

Ahh thank you (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Faust on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:45:40 AM EST

The link I was looking for was in that article.

You can find his comprhensive prediction spreadsheet here:


[ Parent ]

I do pretty much what you do (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:47:44 AM EST

with the spreadsheet. That's why I've been saying since Ohio that it will come down to Puerto Rico!

[ Parent ]

I agree with counting FL (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by Y Knot on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:05:51 PM EST

But I'm sorry, I just can't see Michigan as a valid contest. Please, let's not get into the "it was his choice" "Hillary was right not to take her name off the ballot" arguments. I can't give credence to the argument that the people of Michigan were heard. They weren't given a choice.

One candidate on the ballot is not an election, that's what they do in dictatorships. (And no, I'm not saying Michigan is a dictatorship. I'm saying that's what they DO in dictatorships. We don't consider those valid elections, I don't know why we should consider this one valid.)

I know it would be expensive and I know it would drag things on for another month at least, but I feel very strongly that Michigan should be re-run.

[ Parent ]

partly agree (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:12:44 PM EST

The election should be re-run. No doubt. Guess who opposed that?

The people weren't heard, not completely. But absent a revote, should they be heard not at all? This is the part of your argument that makes no sense to me. It's not the voters' fault - it's the DNC's and the candidates who removed their names' fault.

Absent a revote, there is no alternative but to let the votes stand as cast.

[ Parent ]

: Ultimately, that's the problem, yeah (none / 0) (#171)
by Y Knot on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:28:12 PM EST

But I don't think it's as cut and dried as "they had an election, that's all that matters." There is a legitimate disagreement here, between two very large, very powerful factions of the party. And the problem is, both sides are so polarized they won't admit the other side has a point. All anyone cares about is that their person wins.
That's why I'm pushing for the admittedly impractical but in my estimation, only true solution of a revote. If, between now and May 31, the DNC and both camps got an avalanche of emails and phone calls, insisting on that, maybe it would change things. Maybe not.

[ Parent ]

A re-run would be good (3.50 / 2) (#141)
by Faust on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:33:55 PM EST

But failing that exit polls are available to supplement and provide voter intent.

[ Parent ]

counting Mich (none / 0) (#166)
by tedsim on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:34:36 PM EST

Clinton,dod,kicinish were on ballot.

[ Parent ]

deliberate and defiant... (none / 0) (#180)
by vrusimov on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:03:29 PM EST

the bluff:

"But Florida and Michigan seem willing to challenge the party, thinking it unlikely that the party's nominee, assuming that person is chosen before the convention, would go along with dissing those populous states."

"Michigan has been bellyaching for years, more vociferously than any other state, about Iowa and New Hampshire going first," Mr. Ballenger said. "They're saying, `We've had it, we're going Jan. 15, we're going to trump everyone,' and that's what they're determined to do."

A move up by Michigan could set off a cascade of other moves. First, it could force New Hampshire to Jan. 8 because of a state law that says New Hampshire must hold its primary at least a week before any other primary.

And that would trigger a move up by Iowa, which has a similar law saying it must hold its caucuses eight days before anyone else's primary. Gov. Chet Culver of Iowa, a Democrat, has said his state is determined to go first -- and at the same time determined not to be bumped into December. (Democratic Party rules say that voting for the 2008 election cannot take place before 2008.) That means asking the Iowa Legislature to waive its law, which Mr. Culver has said he is prepared to do. But then what?

There are few good choices for voting in the week between New Year's and Jan. 7. The earlier Iowa votes, the harder it is to get the attention of people still caught up in the holidays. The later it votes, the more it cuts into the time that New Hampshire expected to have to itself.

Charles E. Cook Jr., editor of the nonpartisan Cook Report, which analyzes political races, mused that if he were advising Iowa, he would urge moving the caucuses to Dec. 17.

"If you're Iowa and you're trying to salvage your position, mid-December might be the least unacceptable option," Mr. Cook said. "You would have a couple of weeks of undivided attention beforehand, and whoever wins Iowa would be in a very strong position for a few weeks because they would freeze the ball over the holidays. Who's going to interrupt Jimmy Stewart and `It's a Wonderful Life' with a negative ad?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/us/politics/22calendar.html?pagewanted=print

While Florida has a legitimate degree of mitigation, it is well known that Sen. Carl Levin(D) and the Michigan state legislature as a whole, have been incensed with Iowa and New Hampshire being given undue influence...this 21-17 party line vote in the Senate, though it is control by Republicans, represented a blatant, in your face slap at the DNC...and with full knowledge of Florida already having been stripped 100% of its delegates...

this was pure politics and a deliberate end-around on the RBC with the thinking that their state was too influential for the punishment to stick...so who tries this in 2012?...knowing that the rules are'nt worth the paper they are printed on that any punishment won't ultimately be enforced...

the call:

Sept 4, 2007 the MI presidential preference primary date was moved up...DNC gave them the requisite 30 days to comply and they refused to do so...Oct. 7, 2007 Michigan is stripped 100% of its delegates...Oct. 9, 2007 Four Democratic presidential candidates - U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, U.S. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards - filed affidavits with the Michigan Department of State requesting that their names be removed from Michigan's Jan. 15 Democratic Party Primary ballot.

On December 10, 2007, the Michigan Democratic Party issued a press release stating that the primary would be held on January 15, 2008, and that the Democratic ballot would contain only six choices: Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Uncommitted, and Write-in. The press release also urged supporters of Biden, Edwards, Obama and Richardson to vote "uncommitted" instead of writing in their candidates' names. In order for any such write-in votes to be counted, those candidates would have needed to file additional paperwork by January 4, 2008. None did so.

Michigan should either be re-voted, which is cost prohibitive because a caucus has little support, or should be disqualified...any allocation from polling would be inaccurate..any ratification of the results as-is would be a disenfranchisement no matter how you view it...

all candidates pledged no campaigning and no PARTICIPATION well in advance and without dissent...to seat would be to embolden other states to try it in 2012...it would also render the DNC useless, cowardly and incompetent as an entity claiming to have legitimate, enforceable Rules and Bylaws...

Florida democrats got railroaded but when faced with two choices, both of which would introduce potential disenfranchisement, which do you choose, the path of least resistance of course...there was support early among Democrats for moving the date up but it was the Republican controlled House and Senate that bulldozed this through...there were very important issues with regards to tax, education, municipal elections, paper trails, etc. on the ballot that day...Republicans knew that Democrats could'nt afford to vote against the bill in its final form...

The issue of disenfranchisement in Florida has become a hot-button issue.

The DNC sited Florida's haphazard attempt at compliance as "more form than substance"...

For whatever reasons, Florida's efforts at coming into compliance did'nt satisfy the RBC...while a primary would be against state law, a caucus represented a loop-hole in the state statute...

this is what i'm not clear on but i will find out.
---------------

The Democratic National Committee sought to seize control of its unraveling nominating process yesterday, rejecting pleas from state party leaders and cracking down on Florida for scheduling a Jan. 29 presidential primary.

"The penalty will not take effect for 30 days, and rules committee members urged officials from the nation's fourth-most-populous state to use the time to schedule a later statewide CAUCUS and thus regain its delegates."

Florida's state party chair, Karen L. Thurman, showed no signs of backing down yesterday. The former congresswoman said she will consult with state Democrats but added that she expects all the presidential candidates to ignore the national party's edict and campaign vigorously in advance of the Sunshine State's primary.

"Whether you get a delegate or don't get a delegate, a vote is a vote," a defiant Thurman said. "That is what Floridians are going to say is important."

"Rules are rules," said DNC member Garry S. Shays, of California, at the meeting. "California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos."

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.

Thurman and other state leaders said there are several problems with the caucus suggestion.

She said a caucus could cost the state party as much as $8 million -- money she said the party and its benefactors do not have. She said a caucus in a state the size of Florida would be impractical and would have the effect of allowing far fewer people to participate.

Well...how much would a primary cost?

State party officials also said they prefer to keep the official voting on Jan. 29 because a property tax initiative they hope to defeat will be on the ballot that day. Turning the Democratic presidential primary into a meaningless event would probably mean lower turnout among the party's faithful and make it harder to defeat the initiative, they said.

"Defeating a horrible referendum on Jan. 29 . . . is a top priority for every constituent group I am aware of," said Terrie Brady, a DNC member and former chair of the Florida state party.

The rules committee was largely unmoved; only one member -- Florida's Allan Katz -- voted against imposing the sanctions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/25/AR2007082500275.html

After digesting the candidate pledges, DNC rules and bylaws for 2008, seatFloridasdelegate.com, this article and a few more i don't have the links to list, i think, tentatively, that Florida should be seated at 50% and Michigan disqualified (i don't know how they'd get ~18 million to have another primary...of course i don't get to decide and it's just MY opinion...

to affirm both of these elections as legitimate without a corresponding penalty does a disservice to states that followed the rules, voters who did'nt engage and all candidates who did'nt "campaign or participate"

The rulings were made at a time when the preference primary was in jeopardy of descending into chaos, with Iowa contemplating moving up to December...Michigan deliberately violated the rules...with Florida, there is no way to be fair to both the candidates and the voters simultaneously...there must be compromise and acceptance afterward, even if all parties don't agree...

Bottom line...the legislatures and parties of both states were more concerned with their personal agendas than those of the citizens they represent...arrogance and ego played out while voters rights were glossed over..."form over substance" does indeed come to mind...

to protect the future integrity of the process, these states and consequently the voters, have to bear some penalty for knowingly breaching the rules...we live in a country where ignorance of the law is no excuse (i know this from experience)...in the end choice has consequences and not always good ones...you can't play the game without being subject to the rules...

Some are looking at this through partisan lens...if Governor Crist cared so little about voter rights in Florida perhaps he is'nt fit to hold office...he had the power of veto in his state...his party affiliation is irrelevant... voting is a right as a law-abiding american citizen...he and his party tossed this process of the cliff and then had the audacity to ask the DNC to help pay for a revote (can you imagine Dean's response in private)...Floridians should do the real work of removing him and his disenfranchising entourage from elected office at their earliest opportunity...

[ Parent ]

Here's What Jay Cost Wrote (none / 0) (#6)
by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:43:43 AM EST

right before WVA and KY, and what would happen if she won both big and on why Puerto Rico Matters:

So, here's my question. What happens to "It's Over" if Clinton pulls a 40-point victory in West Virginia on Tuesday, then follows it up a week later with a 30-point victory in Kentucky? If these states turn out in the same margins that states since March 4th have averaged, that would imply a net of about 290,000 votes for Clinton. That puts her within striking distance of a reasonable popular vote victory. "Over" will be over as we turn our attention to Puerto Rico.
There are good reasons not to take Puerto Rico lightly, even though the press has continued to do exactly that. I would note: (a) Puerto Ricans vote in large numbers (2 million in the last gubernatorial election); (b) Puerto Ricans have never had this important a role in United States presidential politics; (c) Puerto Rico's politics is focused at least partially on how (if at all) to adjust its relationship with the United States; (d) Puerto Rico's is an open primary, and the residents of the Commonwealth, who are United States citizens, do not see themselves as Republicans or Democrats.
The inference I draw is that Puerto Ricans could turn out in huge numbers. If they do, and they swing for Clinton in a sizeable way, the popular vote lead could swing, too. Add 290,000 votes from West Virginia and Kentucky to 250,000 votes from Puerto Rico, account for expected losses in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, and you get Clinton leading in many popular vote counts, some of which are really quite valid. If she has one of those leads when the final votes are counted on June 3rd, the race will go on to the convention.

[ Parent ]

: It's a New York thing. (none / 0) (#13)
by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:52:06 AM EST

anyone got tickets to St John?

[ Parent ]

her best argument is the electoral college (5.00 / 5) (#12)
by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:48:41 AM EST

equivalent and her battle ground wins in the Foundry and Border states. Her perfromance best simulates the conditions of the real election.

Obama wins the parade ground drilling but his fieldcraft is lousy.

But the party is congenitally incapable of seeing the truth about how and where Presidential elections are won.

: If You Factor In The Popular Vote, The (none / 0) (#92)
by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:50:41 PM EST

electoral college figures, and how well she does in swing states....I believe that IS a compelling argument for the SD's.

[ Parent ]

you could say roughly (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by The Realist on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:55:07 AM EST

that about most of the States before they voted this primary season.Record turnouts in virtually every state. Why assume PR would be different?

If Obama is such a sure thing, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:56:52 AM EST

why oh why was he campaigning in PR yesterday! It's to his advantage if the voter turn-out is low (or am I misreading the stats).

: Yes, doing so well, he had to trumpet (none / 0) (#93)
by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:51:59 PM EST

"Hillary is just trying to stir up trouble over FL". I sincerely hope that comes back to take a big bite out of his behind.

[ Parent ]

Jay Cost (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:57:42 AM EST

predicts 1 million will turn out in PR to vote and Hillary will win by 25%, giving her an additional 250,000 votes.

I'm not crediting him as the most accurate as I've never followed him before today, just reporting what his chart says.

: I like the (none / 0) (#24)
by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:01:18 PM EST

electoral college comparison. it shows Obama's weakness in very hard numbers.

[ Parent ]

Gallup is showing today she beats McCain (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:12:24 PM EST

McCain beats Obama and her numbers are on a uptick from down 11 points the other day to 5 points. His numbers coming down, hers going up. A little o/t but thought it was interesting. It's national, but hey, it looks good!

Total popular vote... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by p lukasiak on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:12:43 PM EST

while the total popular vote is interesting, the crucial data is found when you compare Obama's performance before and after he was declared the "inevitable" nominee after winning his "tenth straight" contest in mid-February.

Unlike with the GOP, which rallied around McCain once it was declared that he was 'inevitable', Democratic voters are rejecting Obama in droves -- in the primaries held from March 1 to the present, Clinton has a lead of 500,000 votes out of about 12.7 million cast.

And the states themselves have been very representative of the nation; one Far West (Oregon), one Southwest (Texas), one Mid-Atlantic (PA), two New England (VT, RI), two Southern (NC, MS), two Mid-West (OH, IN), and two "Border" states (KY, WV).

I'm working on a series comparing exit polling data from before and after Obama was declared "inevitable' -- its called "Buyers Remorse"...and the first part has been posted at Corrente.

Re: Total popular vote... (3.00 / 0) (#57)
by Sleeper on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:43:19 PM EST

Could you not make the same argument about Clinton, who was pronounced "inevitable" even before she formally declared her candidacy over a year ago and yet allowed a political newcomer to outmaneuver her?

Given her name recognition, her fundraising, her powerful connections in the party and the plummeting popularity of the GOP, there is no way that Obama should even have had a chance this year. It should have been a fait accompli. And yet he has beaten her, despite her impressive wins in the last leg of the race. That fact, more than any other, made me profoundly question her competance and judgment, and made my support for her really waver for the first time.

[ Parent ]

Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Claw on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:59:05 PM EST

I think a lot of the blame lies with her strategists. She may not have been able to win any Obama-streak states (I happen to think she could have), but she certainly could have cut into his leads, taken moree delegates, and netted more votes...helping her pop. vote argument.

[ Parent ]

Winner's syndrome (5.00 / 2) (#85)
by Llelldorin on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:29:45 PM EST

For some reason, would-be Democratic presidential candidates seem to go stupid when they think they've got the nomination in the bag. It's as though they somehow can't be bothered to actually mount a serious campaign as soon as they feel confident.

Clinton did it first--if she'd made a serious effort to organize in the caucus states, Obama wouldn't have been able to run up those huge victories early on; similarly if she'd gone all-out to win the African-American vote instead of writing off SC, Obama wouldn't have run up such overwhelming victories in the southern states. (Similarly, if she'd seriously contested the unseating of FL and MI late last year, she'd have been in a MUCH stronger position going into Super Tuesday. Instead, she coasted, until she found herself behind.)

So Clinton screws up, Obama takes the lead--and makes exactly the same mistakes in reverse. He writes off the entire Appalachian region instead of contesting it seriously, and winds up taking enormous and embarrassing losses in WV and KY.

Somewhere, there seem to be an enormous number of Democratic strategists who believe that the way to land an aircraft is to power down all the engines six miles ahead of the runway. We have to find them, and duct tape their mouths during future presidential campaigns.

[ Parent ]

Resource management (4.50 / 2) (#89)
by p lukasiak on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:39:24 PM EST

Hillary Clinton is running for President -- she knows that the Democratic nomination is meaningless unless you can win in November, and that has been how she has run her campaign.

"Organizing" caucus states is a waste of time and resources, because your effort isn't concentrated on voters, but on potential caucus goers.

So Clinton spent her time and money where it made the most sense --- reintroducing herself to voters in the states that Democrats had a chance of winning in November. As a result, she DOMINATED the swing and Democratic primary states on Super-Tuesday...

That is how a Democrat should run for president.

[ Parent ]

I disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by Llelldorin on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:57:40 PM EST

The problem with that is that the "swing-state" map that we've been fighting for the last several years is a disaster for the party. The Republicans get many more electors from their base states than we get from ours, so all it takes is a single major swing-state loss (by hook or, more typically, by crook) to sink us and give the Republicans the White House.

We need more swing states. That means dedicated and enthusiastic local parties in Republican states--which caucus organizing helps with. That means making serious primary-season runs at states like Virginia and Texas (you'll note that by Texas Clinton was seriously competing everywhere, which I strongly applaud!) so the candidates are known locally by the general.

Aside from strategy, the primaries aren't the general. Writing off Democrats in red states is insulting to good, committed Democrats in those states. It was insulting when Clinton wrote off South Carolina, and it was insulting when Obama wrote off Kentucky, despite the long odds against a Democratic victory in either state.

[ Parent ]

I agree (5.00 / 1) (#113)
by Y Knot on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:14:05 PM EST

We've had a tremendous run this year, turning three House seats blue, in heavily Republican districts. Dissatisfaction with the Republican brand is -- not too unsurprisingly -- enormous this year on issue after issue even national security. They've had this country for eight years and people can see the mess that they've made of it. We have to capitalize on that. Not only in "purple" states, but everywhere.

Whoever wins the nomination this year has a tremendous opportunity not only to win, but to rewrite what we've come to think of as "the map." 2008 is not 2000 or even 2004. If we keep thinking that it is, we're playing by their rules, and that's not good for us.

[ Parent ]

x (none / 0) (#146)
by CognitiveDissonance on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:47:22 PM EST

The problem with this argument is that none of the electoral maps that use the latest polls show this happening. What they do show is McCain gets the strong red states, the dems get the blue ones. But Hillary also gets the swing states and a couple that have been weak red the past few cycles. Obama doesn't get these. So who has expanded the map? Quite obviously, Hillary has, not Obama. In many maps, Obama doesn't even win the Kerry states. We've been hearing this theory ad nauseum all year about Obama expanding the electoral map. But it isn't based on any reality.

[ Parent ]

: You're misreading my argument (none / 0) (#165)
by Llelldorin on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:29:10 PM EST

I'm not actually arguing that Obama is necessarily the more likely candidate to expand the map, merely that the map needed expanding. In my original comment, I was complaining that both candidates have made huge mistakes in ignoring states that they weren't likely to win.
Clinton isn't state-skipping anymore—she seems to have realized that it was suicidal back in late February and has since been contesting each state fiercely, regardless of its "importance" in the general. (To my mind this is a much more likely explanation for the tightening of the race than the "buyer's remorse" theories I've seen around here—she dropped her "aloof frontrunner" act and started serious campaigning, and lo and behold the race evened out.) Lately, it's instead been Obama—to my intense disappointment— who has been carefully keeping his powder dry and ignoring states that he doesn't think he'll win. Clinton was wrong in the first half of the campaign, and Obama is no less wrong now.

[ Parent ]

Priorities (none / 0) (#148)
by Sleeper on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:56:12 PM EST

the Democratic nomination is meaningless unless you can win in November, and that has been how she has run her campaign.

But on the other hand, running for November is meaningless unless you win the nomination, isn't it?

And I think that her victories in KY and WV were impressive, but didn't mean much. KY is not going to go Democratic and in all likelihood neither will WV. It can be argued that Obama should have campaigned there more vigorously, but I'm not sure I agree with the logic.

[ Parent ]

check the Nebraska (none / 0) (#78)
by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:18:29 PM EST

caucus vs. primary results, links are in my post above.

[ Parent ]

sheer nonsense.... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by p lukasiak on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:27:29 PM EST

anyone with ANY sense of history knows that the "favorite" for the Democratic nomination almost never wins (absent being an incumbent president or VP).

And anyone who understands politics knows that Clinton has been running for President, while Obama has been running for the nomination. The big mistake made by the Clinton campaign was assuming it would all be over on Super Tuesday -- it should have been, considering the fact that Clinton dominated the states that Democrats had to win in November. As a result, they had virtually no organization in the "Potomac primary" states, and Obama did, and Clinton got slaughtered there.

But no serious person thinks its meaningful in terms of the relative appeal of Clinton and Obama when can win in New Jersey by 10 points on Super Tuesday, and then lose in demographically/politically similar Maryland a week later by 23 points. Yet the entire rationale for Obama's nomination lies in the fact that Obama won a bunch of deep red states that Clinton CHOSE not to compete in on Super Tuesday because she is running for President and didn't waste resources in states that Democrats can't win, then won in the states right after Super Tuesday.

Did the Clinton campaign screw up? Sure.... but she showed that she knows how to win a general election on Super-Tuesday. All that Obama has shown is that he knows how to turn out his cult followers in caucus states, and can turn out the African american vote in heavily Republican states-- neither of which is indicative of the ability to win a general presidential election.

[ Parent ]

Re: sheer nonsense.... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
by Sleeper on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:05:22 PM EST

Yet the entire rationale for Obama's nomination lies in the fact that Obama won a bunch of deep red states that Clinton CHOSE not to compete in on Super Tuesday because she is running for President and didn't waste resources in states that Democrats can't win, then won in the states right after Super Tuesday.

Actually, the entire rationale for Obama's nomination is that he's ahead in delegates. That's how it works, don't you know.

This idea that someone could enter the race with every advantage one could think of, finish a close second to a newcomer, and then loudly insist that they'd be really great in the general election, is bizarre to me.

[ Parent ]

: Totally Agree (none / 0) (#177)
by Spike on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:35:24 PM EST

How can you claim to be the stronger general election candidate when you haven't run the best campaign to win your party's nomination? And "best campaign" can only be defined as the candidate who has the most delegates at the end of the contest, as Obama will.

[ Parent ]

Another way to figure popular vote (5.00 / 0) (#73)
by Exeter on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:10:03 PM EST

...is to adjust open primary versus closed primaries. For example, Obama's home state of Illinois was open, while NY was closed. If adjusted, Clinton would have picked up approximately another 200,000 votes.

: Sure You Could (none / 0) (#178)
by Spike on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:41:45 PM EST

But why would you adjust for open primaries v close primaries -- both of which were well within Democratic Party rules? Simply because that particular formulation strengthens a weak Clinton talking point? If you want to go down that path, you could also claim that votes should be counted from Clinton's senate campaigns too. After all, ALL the votes should be counted! :)

[ Parent ]

I just read (5.00 / 0) (#99)
by facta non verba on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:03:52 PM EST

that Puerto Rico was originally to hold a caucus but they changed their minds because they wanted all Puerto Ricans to have a say and felt a primary was more democratic:

Puerto Rico Wants All Its Citizens to Vote

: They probably figured out a primary is more (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:17:51 PM EST

democratic, and a much better gauge of the will of the people.

[ Parent ]
: You heard correctly (none / 0) (#134)
by TomLincoln on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:01:27 PM EST

But in fairness, the change came about when the Dem. party leadership in Puerto Rico (both top leaders back Clinton) realized PR might be playing a greater role than usual in this primary and then made the decision to change it to primary and the DNC authorized the change. I'm glad of this change and hope it brings a lot more people out to vote.

[ Parent ]

This is the obvious problem (4.00 / 1) (#2)
by cannondaddy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:39:46 AM EST

with the popular vote arguement as it stands now. There is always going to be an arguement over which count is valid. There will not doubt be arguements on PR counting. Which count to use will always be a matter of opinion, must liklely tempered by one's choice of candidate...

I will dismiss anyone (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by Faust on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:42:39 AM EST

that suggests PR not count out of hand. That's an argument beyond ridiculous.

[ Parent ]

You will, others will not (none / 0) (#7)
by cannondaddy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:44:47 AM EST

it's still just an opinion... The only opinions that matter will be the superdelegates.

[ Parent ]

I agree that the supers are the opinions (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Faust on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:48:01 AM EST

that matter. But the court of the media does too. I seriously doubt any of the primary vote tallys in the MSM will exclude PR. It would be laughable if they did. It's not even worth arguing about.

[ Parent ]

: Not only that, (none / 0) (#72)
by Iphie on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:04:53 PM EST

but Obama (and his surrogates) can't afford to piss off Latino voters more than he already has -- what, with excluding them from the "new coalition" and all. Let's just watch him or any of his media pals try to discount the PR vote. Are they trying some sort of experiment to see what it would take for a Democrat to lose NY?

[ Parent ]

Of Course... (none / 0) (#179)
by Spike on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:03:25 PM EST

...Puerto Rico's delegates will count in Denver just as all pledged delegates will count. The rules require it. As for their popular vote, I doubt that talking point will have much influence on superdelegates.

[ Parent ]

PR votes - and delegates and superdelegates are (none / 0) (#101)
by TomLincoln on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:04:42 PM EST

part of the roolz. I can understand the argument in dismissing the PR popular vote, but along similar arguments you could then dismiss the popular vote in those very red states Obama won that will never go Dem. in November. But you don't, of course. Moreover, although I am 100% for Hillary, consider her 500 times the better candidate and future president than Obama, and truly hope she wins, there are two things I want to point out: first, the turnout in PR will not be as high as expected; second; I really have no idea right now who will win it here.

[ Parent ]

The pop. vote may work for Clinton. (4.00 / 1) (#47)
by wurman on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:27:07 PM EST

Presently, if the MI & FL problem is resolved such that 2210 delegates are needed to nominate, then Sen. Obama will be about 80 to 100 ahead with 321 superdelegates outstanding.

If MI & FL remain in purgatory & 2026 is the magic number, then Sen. Obama will lead by about 200 to 225 delegates with 294 superdelegates who've not endorsed a candidate.

If the MI & FL decision is muddled in some middling way, then degrees of adjustment would be required with Sen. Obama still ahead by about 120 to 180 or so.

Under the first scenario, Sen. Clinton would have a chance to convince reasonable superdelegates that her strength in head-to-head primary elections makes her the stronger candidate.

The other 2 options bring her campaign to an arithmetical impossibility--as all of the detractors point out.

Another factor is that even if the May 31 meeting of the Rules committee ends up strongly against the MI & FL delegations, the Clinton campaign can take the issue to the convention floor & seek a different decision.

But . . . endorsements by a large number of superdelegates moving to Sen. Obama would make that a hopeless effort.

: The downside for them (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by Regency on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:57:53 PM EST

and by "them" I mean the people endorsing BO is what happens when they do get to convention and HRC and co. turn to them and ask why the popular vote doesn't matter?
What's their justification when she's got the will of the people as well as nearly every poll saying she's beating McCain by more than BO is--if BO is even winning--in the side-by-sides?
How exactly do they justify not picking her to their constituents?

[ Parent ]
: the new lawsuit for Fla ..is prob going to win (none / 0) (#130)
by fly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:53:55 PM EST

so the R&B are going to have to face the fact if they don't count and seat the dem delegates from Fla the court will make them.
I believe this suit will win..and i think the Fla powers knew it would and they held it off till now to force the R&B to seat our delegation...
They have a very strong case this time.
fly

[ Parent ]

What about Obama's MI votes? (3.00 / 1) (#19)
by pb on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:59:38 AM EST

As long as we're worried about disenfranchising MI voters, then any count that pretends Obama got zero votes in Michigan isn't valid, either.

I understand a revote (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Edgar08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:01:09 PM EST

Was considered, and then the Wright story broke.

[ Parent ]

What happens to Obama's MI votes? (3.00 / 3) (#74)
by Iphie on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:10:05 PM EST

He didn't have any -- he took his name off of the ballot and denied Michiganders the opportunity to vote for him. The votes belong to the voters, we don't get to decide retroactively what was going through their minds when they voted uncommitted, and then give their votes away.

[ Parent ]

What about Obama's MI votes? (2.00 / 1) (#81)
by hilldemgoneindie on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:22:43 PM EST

huh.

when you purposefully take yourself off a list, then, um... you're not on the list and you don't get votes for being on the list of which you, um, uh... took yourself off.
why is that concept so difficult for obama supporters to get?
by taking himself off the ballot, obama made a statement that he will do anything to win, even cheat.

you can try to explain every which way but sunday why he did it; you can try and use the favorite canard of the obama camp that he was following the roolz, whatever. the fact remains that he SPECIFICALLY took his hat out of the michigan ring, and then, AGAINST the actual rules, had his surrogates encourage voters to vote uncommitted which means his campaign was actively campaigning in a state where he signed a pledge against campaigning.
finally, there is no "pretending" involved because HIS NAME WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT. therefore, NO VOTES FOR OBAMA. jeez... for all the education obama supporters are supposed to have... (shakes head in disbelief)

[ Parent ]

: A Double Standard (none / 0) (#136)
by pb on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:06:27 PM EST

Um, I thought the whole argument was about accurately taking into account the will of the voters. Your whole argument completely ignores what voters wanted, and focuses entirely on Obama's actions.
There isn't any serious disagreement about the fact that lots of the people who were voting "uncommitted" were trying to demonstrate support for Obama. The exit polls all bore that out, Obama's surrogates were making the case that that's what people should do. So yes, it's "pretending" to say we should imagine Obama got zero votes of support.
So your argument boils down to: "I don't like Obama's tactics, so I want to disenfranchise his supporters."

[ Parent ]

If you recall, he took his name off the ballot. (none / 0) (#94)
by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:53:05 PM EST

My name wasn't on the ballot either...should I get some votes too?

[ Parent ]

Since we're giving them away, (none / 0) (#100)
by Iphie on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:04:42 PM EST

why not?

[ Parent ]

: Hey thanks....here's a few for you too. (none / 0) (#116)
by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:18:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Sure... (none / 0) (#133)
by pb on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:59:41 PM EST

You should be credited some votes if you can make a credible case people wanted to vote for you.

[ Parent ]

We can all make Obama's (none / 0) (#144)
by waldenpond on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:42:12 PM EST

argument. If I go in to the state and knock on a few doors I'm sure we can all get votes. Obama chose to disenfranchise his MI voters by playing games with their votes by pandering to OH and getting the boyz to play games with Clinton's voters. He did this specifically to deny Clinton's voters the opportunity and to smear the legitimacy of MI's vote.

[ Parent ]

So to be clear... (none / 0) (#158)
by pb on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:47:15 PM EST

...you're saying because of Obama's tactics, we shouldn't care about his supporters?

[ Parent ]

He did not care about his supporters. (none / 0) (#161)
by andrelee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:05:23 PM EST

So, andrelee, (none / 0) (#163)
by pb on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:16:08 PM EST

you also agree we shouldn't care about his supporters?

If so, I think that's a sentiment we should get out in the open, since we could then stop having the silly argument about whether it's unreasonable to suppose Obama's voter support was higher than 0%.

[ Parent ]

: He did nothing to help his supporters (1.00 / 1) (#167)
by andrelee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:47:46 PM EST

help him. He did nothing to get their voices heard by getting their votes for him to count for him. Nothing. He made more effort to benefit from obfuscating the number of votes supporting him ("vote for me by voting for 'not me'") than to ascertain it clearly and let the numbers be seen clearly so it would be counted though not 'count'. That is where his care for his supporters is...it is not truly for them. That is the irony that I see while I think about the sympathy deserved by his supporters in MI who were denied by OB himself their rights and ability to clearly show their support for him. If it (the apportioning of MI votes) is determined, however it is determined, it will not be because he cared so much to have his supporters voices heard that he fought for them, the voters and the votes. That to me is the reason HE doesn't deserve their votes but why THEY still should be able to realize their rights.

[ Parent ]

Popular vote close but (3.00 / 1) (#42)
by Rashomon66 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:25:41 PM EST

...it is not enough [in my opinion] to sway the Super Delegates.
They can see the larger poll numbers too.
On Real Clear Politics there is an aggregate of the polls in major states between Obama / McCain and Clinton/ McCain.
What they show is that Obama still beats McCain in every state Clinton beats him with the exception of Florida. However Obama does bring Virginia and some other states into play.
I really think holding out that the Super Delegates will choose Clinton when she wins Puerto Rico is not realistic Especially when you consider that Puerto Rico won't be able to vote in the General Election. One could say they represent the Hispanic vote but the states with the most Hispanics [CA, NY, TX, AZ] will not be in play for the General.

First of all (3.50 / 2) (#96)
by txpolitico67 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:58:35 PM EST

Obama NOR Clinton will take Texas, so get that straight.

Second, if you think that Obama is going to have Latinos just flocking to him after all this, guess again.

I can tell you RIGHT now that I know for a FACT that a number of my California relatives in Chula Vista, National City and Oakland will NEVER vote for Obama. And it doesn't stop there. Spanish talk radio talks MUCH sh1t about Obama.

PR may not be able to vote in the GE, but if Obama suggests that they don't count, you can probably watch NY diminsh greatly in Dem support in the fall (if BHO is the nom) and Latinos in general will go for McCain.

I am a Chicano and WILL vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

Count on it.

[ Parent ]

Where has he said they don't count? (none / 0) (#117)
by Y Knot on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:21:20 PM EST

I understand that his campaign said they don't get to vote in the GE... but that's not offensive or demeaning. That's just true. Obama knows it, they know it, I'd venture to say even Clinton knows it.

He's been campaigning there, as has she, and I've heard he plans to go back. I've seen no evidence of him saying Puerto Rico doesn't count.

[ Parent ]

: i said (none / 0) (#123)
by txpolitico67 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:42:22 PM EST

"if" and "suggests"......

[ Parent ]

Popular vote close but (none / 0) (#84)
by delacarpa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:29:18 PM EST

Does someone know when Virgina has ever turned blue?

[ Parent ]

: The last time was... (none / 0) (#119)
by Y Knot on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:34:03 PM EST

1964, I believe. Prior to that, 1948.
That just means we're due, baby!
(and actually, I'm only half kidding. With the election of Webb, and what looks like a real shot for Warner this year, I think there's a chance a dem could take it again. Not a great chance, I grant you, but a chance.)

[ Parent ]

Could AZ be in play? (none / 0) (#88)
by samtaylor2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:37:25 PM EST

Al Gore Understood (2.00 / 1) (#20)
by Michael Masinter on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:00:41 PM EST

The constitution and the party rules govern elections, and neither provides for election by popular vote. Arguments about why Michigan should count bring to mind the sound of one hand clapping.

Senator Clinton ran a hard and dignified campaign; she has lost by every metric unless she can change rules under which she ran and that she endorsed. She can't, and more to the point, shouldn't.

Her legacy should be better than standing outside the inauguration on January 20, claiming she won't stop campaigning because to do so would be to disenfranchise the people of Michigan and Florida who voted in elections held in violation of party rules.

one metric (5.00 / 4) (#26)
by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:04:59 PM EST

the electoral college.

its a glaring warning about how Obama has exploited a lot of second place showings and activist dominated caucuses in red states.

He's feeble, and is only viable because of the weak state of the party in areas like Alaska and Idaho.

[ Parent ]

you are confusing the (5.00 / 4) (#39)
by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:19:42 PM EST

general election and the nomination process.

The existence of superdelegates is a recognition that delegate totals from states is simply not the only metric to be considered. Absent a majority of pledged delegates (a situation that is operative), a candidate is free to make any argument s/he wants to persuade superdelegates. This is not "changing the rules;" it is recognizing them.

While I admire your concern trolling for HRC's legacy, I might suggest that using Gore as a role model for how to behave in the face of "defeat" is tone-deaf, appalling, and remarkably ironic. You should be citing him as what happens when candidates don't fight to count every vote.

[ Parent ]

so- rules are more important (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:25:49 PM EST

than Dems winning in Nov? Apparently, that's what Obama believes.
Obama is not viewed as a lone "good guy" for taking his name off the MI ballot - since he orchestrated other candidates removing their names in an effort to hurt Hillary in Iowa.

Also - when the "new roolz" were made, all the candidates thought a "winner" would emerge by Feb. 5. Obama first began calling for Hillary to GET OUT on Feb. 20 - before Hillary won primaries in states Dems need to win in Nov.

[ Parent ]

super D's (5.00 / 0) (#63)
by isaac on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:48:44 PM EST

can consider many metrics, and since neither candidate will win the required 2209 in pledged delegates alone, popular vote is as good a 'metric' as any, better really, since delegates in caucus states are not even proportional.

[ Parent ]

Was "metric" a term of art from the (1.00 / 1) (#28)
by Shainzona on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:09:19 PM EST

Obama campaign? I want to scream every time I hear it - it sounds like some elitist way of saying "by every standard".

But then, Hillary's voters are such rubes we probably don't understand those big words. Golly, gee.

[ Parent ]

Is it possible... (1.00 / 0) (#31)
by pb on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:11:56 PM EST

...that you're being a little hypersensitive here?

[ Parent ]

Rumsfeld used it. (none / 0) (#45)
by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:27:00 PM EST

way too much

[ Parent ]

Simple words (none / 0) (#124)
by Michael Masinter on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:45:37 PM EST

Here are the words the Clinton campaign used when the Democratic Party Rules Committee stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates:

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and California play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that process."

Or ask Harold Ickes; he was one of the Rules Committee members who on August 25 voted to strip the two states of their delegates.

[ Parent ]

: that doesn't mean they didn't make a huge mistake (none / 0) (#137)
by fly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:09:34 PM EST

or that some on that committee didn't know they were being manipulated or that Dean and Brazile had a plan to use caucus's to steal the primary!..by any means nessesary!
again we are not talking about the voters..the voters have the right to have their votes counted..who the heck is anyone to steal our votes..i don't care what they tell you the rules are..
South Carolina broke the same rules..the only difference is the DNC broke the rules for them..and changed the rules for them ..after they broke the same rules florida did ..now why would that be??????????
and then they broke the rules again, and they weren't sanctioned..
but don't forget the bill that changed our primary date was the bill that banned the DRE voting machines from 15 counties in Fla that used them and mandated voter verified paper ballots..and the primary date was added as an amendment to that bill by our majority republican state legislature...what did South Carolina do to protect their voters ..nothing..they still vote with Diebold..but we in Florida got santioned..wow..
and don't forget the other states that broke the rules as well but got a clearance from the DNC ..after>>>>>>> breaking the same rules Florida was sanctioned for!
Quote:
Two top Michigan Democrats, anticipating that the Democratic National Committee will strip them of all their convention delegates now that the state has scheduled its primary for Jan. 15, sent a letter to DNC chairman Howard Dean protesting the party's "selective enforcement" of its calendar rules.
Sen. Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell, a member of the Democratic National Committee, write that New Hampshire's ostensible decision to move its primary before Jan. 19 -- the day the DNC currently schedules the primary -- violates the same rules that Michigan has run afoul of.
"Someone has to take on New Hampshire's transparent effort to violate the DNC rules and to maintain its privileged position. Hopefully the DNC will, and you will, promptly urge our candidates to stop campaigning in New Hampshire because of the New Hampshire's expressed intent to violate the DNC rules," the two write.
Quote:
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 Iowa caucuses were held on January 3
The Nevada contest was held when it was supposed to on January 19
The New Hampshire primary was held January 8
The South Carolina primary was held on January 26
fly ..a 2004 elected dem delegate for the State of Florida.

[ Parent ]

Agreed that she is casting (1.00 / 3) (#36)
by 1jane on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:16:53 PM EST

a long shadow over her legacy by utilizing her current stategy. The problem for some voters is and has been, Bill, her unmoving favorability numbers, her weaker campaign strategies and willingness to risk damaging the Democratic Party in her quest. Add to that her series of misstatements, one begins to wonder if she is capable of serving in the role she seeks. At the end of the day the delegates at the national convention will decide the nominee for the president.

[ Parent ]

more concern trolling (5.00 / 0) (#41)
by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:20:24 PM EST

tell it to the swing states.

[ Parent ]

Shorter 1jane: (5.00 / 0) (#56)
by cymro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:42:21 PM EST

Some voters don't like Clinton, and we have ways to justify for our opinions.

But the problem is, even more people don't like Obama, as the polls indicate. See electoral-vote.com:

Clinton 319 McCain 202 Ties (MI) 17
Obama 266 McCain 248 Ties (IN, VA) 24

[ Parent ]

Or, Cymro (5.00 / 0) (#71)
by Iphie on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:00:06 PM EST

even more people DO like her.

[ Parent ]

: Indeed. In fact, I am always struck by ... (none / 0) (#128)
by cymro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:49:12 PM EST

... the media's focus on why people are NOT voting for Obama, and their discussions of What is Obama's problem? with some demographic or in some states. I want to point out to them that "his problem" is that Hillary is better than he is!

[ Parent ]

Are ya'll reading out of the same (none / 0) (#108)
by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:09:41 PM EST

play book when you enter this site. So many posts I've read say about the same things. Instead of trying to bring Hillary down, why aren't trying to build Obama up.

[ Parent ]

she is NOT casting a long shadow over her legacy (none / 0) (#159)
by fly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:51:50 PM EST

gee 1jane it seems to me Hillary has gotten the majority vote in this nation..so how is that a long shadow..

and it seems to me she won a vast majority of 1.7+ million voters in Florida..and obama won 3,000 + in wyoming..big difference ...and how many caucused in Wyoming..oh arround 7,000..as opposed to 1.7 almost 1.8 million in Florida and 600,000 in Mi..so how are those numbers working for ya?????????

fly

[ Parent ]

When MI voted, he was more (2.00 / 1) (#23)
by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:01:16 PM EST

unknown then when he protested that in KY he didn't have "name recognition." More probably voted for John Edwards as uncommitted. Only a guess.

Michigan uncommitted vote? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by newms on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:19:05 PM EST

That's ridiculous. Name one state where Edwards got more votes than Obama.

Also for all this talk of disenfranchising voters in FL/MI you dont seem too concerned about the 200,000+ in Michigan who expressly voted for someone other than Hillary. Guess who the vast majority of them wanted to be President? Dont they count too?

Face it. Obama has won by every metric laid down in the rules. The only way you can say Hillary wins the popular vote is by counting only some votes in two uncontested primaries. And even then Obama still has more delegates. Oh and Puerto Rico will be a surprise. No where near 2 million voters and it will be close. The high turnout in PR elections is due to statehood issues being on the ballot. There aren't any statehood issue on this ballot.

[ Parent ]

: How do you know who (5.00 / 0) (#44)
by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:26:34 PM EST

the uncommited voted for in MI. Both Edwards and Obama both took their name off the ballots, as did others (I believe). How do you know, with Edwards having more name recognition, they weren't voting for him.

[ Parent ]
: clearly (none / 0) (#46)
by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:27:05 PM EST

the "metric" trolls are out in force.

[ Parent ]