The Popular Vote Six Ways: Where We Stand Today

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?


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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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:



    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!

    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.  


    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.


    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.  


    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.

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

    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?"


    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.


    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...


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.    


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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! :)

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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?


    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.



    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.

    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.

    What about Obama's MI votes? (2.00 / 1) (#81)
    by hilldemgoneindie on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    1. 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.
    2. why is that concept so difficult for obama supporters to get?
    3. 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)

    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."  


    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?

    Since we're giving them away, (none / 0) (#100)
    by Iphie on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:04:42 PM EST
    why not?

    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
    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.

    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.

    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?

    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%.


    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.

    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.


    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.


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

    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?

    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.)


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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?

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

    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.  


    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!

    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.
    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.


    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.

    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.

    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


    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.

    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!

    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.

    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?????????



    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.


    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.

    clearly (none / 0) (#46)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    the "metric" trolls are out in force.

    your second comment was deleted (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:45:22 PM EST
    for referring to points of view here as "lunacy." Name calling and personal insults aren't allowed. Read the comment rules. New readers are limited to 10 comments in a 24 hour period.

    And don't repeat yourself. Once you've made your point, move on.


    that is for newms (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:45:48 PM EST
    Not always.... (none / 0) (#154)
    by EddieInCA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:20:28 PM EST
    Name calling and personal insults aren't allowed unless they're by BTD or other "regular" posters and they're aimed at Obama supporters.



    god forbid... (none / 0) (#86)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:32:48 PM EST
    that anyone should look at an exit poll...

    voters in Michigan were asked who they would have voted for if everyone was on the ballot.  The results were

    Clinton 46%
    Obama 35%
    Edwards 12%

    18% of those who said "Obama" cast their ballot for Clinton. 79% voted "uncommitted".


    We've got some data to use... (3.00 / 1) (#29)
    by pb on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:10:24 PM EST
    The Columbia Journalism Review figures about 40,000 of the 238,000 uncommitted votes were for Edwards:

    CJR story

    They also point out that it looks like more than 6% of Clinton voters would have chosen Obama if he'd been on the ballot.


    Woulda, coulda, shoulda (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:49:59 PM EST
    who knows. For all your survey shows, more coulda, woulda' shoulda' gone to someone else.

    Just a Talking Point (2.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Spike on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:58:02 PM EST
    The total delegate count -- pledged plus superdelegates -- are the only thing that matter in the Democratic nomination. Obama now has healthy leads in both.

    The popular vote per se is meaningless. At best, it is simply a talking point that might influence the decision of superdelegates. As you've indicated, there are six ways to count the popular vote, with Obama head in 4 of the 6.

    So for Clinton supporters, it comes down to grasping a very slender reed. As you're behind in both measures of delegate count, you are forced to embrace a particular formula for calculating the popular vote that provides what is, at best, a very weak talking point.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:20:58 PM EST
    But when great evidence suggests that HRC wins in November and Obama does not - all other talking points are moot.

    No Definitive Evidence (none / 0) (#176)
    by Spike on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:29:55 PM EST
    Polls taken in May are not predictive of voter behavior in November. And the current polling doesn't even clearly demonstrate that Clinton would be stronger against McCain. Clinton would probably be stronger in some states; Obama stronger in others. And in true blue states, like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California and Illinois both would do very well.

    totally misses the point (3.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:20:08 PM EST
    there are 200 superdelegates still out who may declare based on popular vote. That affects the ultimate delegate count for the nomination.

    Question? (none / 0) (#90)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:45:10 PM EST
    Has anyone done an anaylsis of the demographics of districts of those SDs that are elected officials or of SDs that hold their place because of an elected official (and thus are beholden to the elected officials constituents)?  I believe this would help people predict which of the 6 scenarios is "correct".
    In fact, it would be an interesting exercise to look at the demographics of each SD, and then pick which scenario they will be more likely agree with, and then count the number of SD that would be in favor of the popular vote count that favors Obama vs. Clinton.  I am not sure it would say much, but it would be another talking point at least.

    I Didn't Miss the Point at All (none / 0) (#175)
    by Spike on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:23:39 PM EST
    That's exactly what I said. The popular vote has no meaning except as a talking point to get superdelegate support. And the only way Clinton supporters can even use that talking point is by employing a highly selective definition of the popular vote to give Clinton the lead. It's a very weak talking point. Obama was far behind in superdelegates and has recently built a sizable lead. There is no good reason to believe that superdelegates will suddenly shift to Clinton because she has demonstrated popular vote support in Puerto Rico -- which has zero electoral votes in November.

    Since the remaining 200 (2.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Valhalla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:10:20 PM EST
    Have not yet declared for Obama, despite overwhelming media pressure and pressure from the DNC, there's every reason to think that most if not all will break for Clinton, given a (or any) legit reason to do so.

    One of the implicit but wrong assumptions among both Obamabots and many reasonable folks who support either candidate is that the percentage breakdown for already-declared SDs foreshadows the breakdown of the not-yet-committed SDs.  This is an error of data interpretation, however.  The remaining SDs are very unlikely to be blank slates

    If your an SD that supports or plans to support Obama, why on this green earth would you not have declared for him by now?

    The only reason I can think of that is not because you support Clinton or have doubts about his electibility would be if you're trying to run up the value of your support by holding out.  Since the DNC doesn't have the equivalent of eminent domain to seize your support, that could work.  But it's an awfully risky strategy, bc if BO were to go over the top without you, you support would be worth 0.


    Sorry, maybe you're not paying attention (4.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Seth90212 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:41:01 PM EST
    Carter is "undeclared." Today he called on Clinton to quit. Most of the remaining 200 will cast their votes for Obama. Follow the trend lines. Also, which camp is asking these SD's to withhold their declaration until after the primaries? Let me give you a hint, it's not the Obama camp. Clinton is asking them to wait because she knows what they will otherwise do.

    The question really is: if they are leaning Clinton, why haven't they declared for her to save her campaign?


    that's your opinion (3.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:54:54 PM EST
    on what the remaining sd's will do. It hasn't happened yet and it's not fact. Don't present it as fact please.

    Sorry, that's 'If you're' not 'If your' (none / 0) (#110)
    by Valhalla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:12:13 PM EST
    I hate when I make that mistake.

    Too bad the (1.00 / 0) (#32)
    by cdelarge on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:12:07 PM EST
    Democratic nominee is not selected on popular votes - delegate count has and will always be the metric for how we pick our nominee.  No matter how you slice it, Hillary has lost her bid for the nominee this year.

    Delegates AND superdelegates (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:46:57 PM EST
    can change up until August, so slice and dice away, it still doesn't make your assumptions right.

    yeah, too bad (none / 0) (#65)
    by isaac on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:49:58 PM EST
    super delegates can consider anything they want, and no matter how you slice it, she has won the popular vote.

    Actually, it's too bad... (none / 0) (#104)
    by NotThatStupid on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:07:59 PM EST
    ... that the Obama camp has been pushing the "SD's must not overturn the will of the voters" theme for months, now.

    It seems to me that the popular vote total is a much better indicator of what the "will of the voters" is than the "delegates won" metric could ever be, even if you don't take into account the flaws in the caucus system.

    I still don't think that Senator Obama is qualified to be President, and I won't vote for him in any case.


    Anyone who pretends (1.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Tano on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:58:16 PM EST
    That Obama had ZERO support in MI, is being totally dishonest. That means you Hillary.

    It doesnt matter that Obama took his name off the ballot. We are not adding up these votes to determine some "official" winner of the popular vote. The whole reason we are discussing PV is to get a sense of the relative levels of support for the two candidates amongst the voters.

    And by that criterion, anyone claiming Obama has ZERO support in MI is a liar.

    There is no way Hillary will end up winning the popular vote, not by any honest assessment. But it will obviously be very close.

    Tano, don't you get it??? (none / 0) (#152)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:16:25 PM EST
    Obama took his name off the ballot!  He didn't have to but he did!  Too bad for him, actions have consequences, he gets nothing.  The rules are the rules.

    Except DNC rulings about the validity of state primaries, that even Clinton campaign members voted to enforce.  Those should be tossed out because otherwise it's just like Zimbabwe.


    Excuse me (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:42:11 AM EST
    2.5 million people have never voted in a Puerto Rico election ever. They won't on June 1.

    Let's say a million may vote and leave it at that.

    I changed it to (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:46:24 AM EST
    up to 2 million. There are 2.5 million registered voters. 1 million voted in 2004, but there may be greater interest this year.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:52:47 AM EST
    2 million voted in 2004. Here are the stats which I printed yesterday. So 2 million may vote on June 1.

    BTD - (none / 0) (#21)
    by EddieInCA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:00:55 PM EST
    I agree with this.  

    I think it will be 1 Million tops, because no governors or Puerto Rico issues are at stake.  

    There is no national holiday, like normal PR elections.

    I think 1 million is a good number, and Obama is going to do better than expected.

    Just sayin...


    Not enough interest in 2008 primary? (none / 0) (#27)
    by wurman on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:05:27 PM EST
    About 1.97 million voted in the 2004 general election.
     Aníbal Acevedo Vilá PPD 953,459 |48.4%
     Pedro Rosselló PNP        949,579 |48.2%
     Rubén Berríos PIP            52,660 |2.7%
     Others                             15,601 |0.8%

    So your estimate is for about half that?


    Results from this year's local primaries in PR (none / 0) (#120)
    by TomLincoln on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:34:44 PM EST
    Reflect that at the PNP level, were there was a contest for gubernatorial nomination they voted as follows:

    Fortuño:  445,026
    Rossello: 306,590
    Total:    751,616

    In the PDP, where there was no gubernatorial primary, but only for legislative and some mayoral candidates, the turnout was a lot less, although I cannot find the figure. Let us be real generous and say 500,00 voted in PDP primaries (it was actually a lot less) that would add up to 1,251,616 voters for both parties.

    Now, it ought to be expected that the turnout for this Democratic primary will be a lot less, precisely because PR will not get to vote in November and somehow this translates into being somewhat of a farce to them. Also, many in PDP, who is recently pushing for a greater degree of sovereignty, do not believe party members should participate in national party primaries. And then in the PNP you have the following taking place: first, there are both Obama and Clinton supporters in the leadership, but the gubernatorial candidate is Fortuño and he is a Republican; the PNP is not putting any institutional resources behind either candidate; and the PNP also has a large number of persons identifying themselves as Republicans who will not be going to vote in this Democratic primary.


    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#37)
    by talex on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:17:22 PM EST
    is right on with her numbers as she documents in her response.

    Another reason more Puerto Rican's may vote is because it would be in step with the record turnouts this primary season. A season that has extended well beyond New Hampshire by which you predicted the nomination would be over. And which I said would extend well into the primary season because there would be record turnouts based on the fact that it was quite evident that people and States wanted to have their say and influence in the nomination process.

    I think it is great to think that 2.5 million Puerto Rican's are registered to vote out of a population of 3.6 million people, and that 2 million have already voted in an election and that many may vote in this election.


    Numbers seem odd... (none / 0) (#105)
    by oldpro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:08:25 PM EST
    3.6M population of whom 2/3 are not only old enough to vote but are, in fact, registered?

    Is the birth rate that low?  The registration rate that high?  Life expectancy also high?

    Seems strange to me...


    About (none / 0) (#156)
    by talex on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:26:47 PM EST
    About 2.7 million Puerto Ricans also reside on the US Mainland. I'm sure many of those can still vote in PR.

    My PR turnout estimate: 600,000 max. n/t (none / 0) (#107)
    by TomLincoln on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:09:05 PM EST
    Superdelegates (none / 0) (#30)
    by creeper on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:11:11 PM EST
    There are almost 200 superdelegates yet to weigh in.

    If the ones who have previously committed to Hillary Clinton don't quit jumping ship for stupid reasons she could win all two hundred of the ones left and still not the nomination.

    Dennis Cardoza's defection to Clinton citing the flimsy excuse that he believes Obama will be the eventual nominee (notice there is no reference to the candidates' qualifications by Mr. Cardoza) is only the latest in a string of switches by superdelegates who evidently don't have a clue what they are supposed to look for in a candidate.  

    The more she wins, the more she loses.  WTF?

    Fraudin slip, creeper (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:13:54 PM EST
    "Dennis Cardoz'a defection to Clinton"..actually he switched to Obama!

    Ooops. (none / 0) (#40)
    by creeper on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:19:45 PM EST
    More like wishful thinking.  

    For the life of me I can't understand why Clinton keeps racking up the big numbers in popular votes and yet is still bleeding superdelegates.

    What is going on with this?


    imo (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:29:06 PM EST
    the Washington establishment that supports Obama has more power to offer deals to SDs - especially Congressional reps.

    Once Again (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by creeper on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:32:59 PM EST
    Money and power trump ability.



    Power and money trump ability? (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by newms on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:40:23 PM EST
    Obama has pulled off the biggest upset in nomination history. Bill and Hillary were the democratic party!! Hillary raised 110+ million in 2007 and had twice as much money on hand at the end of 2007 as Obama!!!

    Hillary did better than Obama towards the last part of the primaries yes, but it doesn change the fact that Obama has won 30+ contests and he won 11 races in a row, blowing out Hillary by 17% or more in every one of them! It like being up 30 points in the final quarter of a basketball game and your opponent outscores you by 15 in the fourth quarter. Did your opponent win the game because they won the fourth quarter???


    Washington establishment? (none / 0) (#59)
    by newms on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:45:46 PM EST
    the Washington establishment that supports Obama???

    Obama is a freshman senator. Hillary and Bill Clinton have been the most powerful forces in the Democratic Party since 1992. Hillary had a superdelegate lead of over 100 in January. I dont see your logic at all. Maybe Cardoza just realises that Obama has won the race and that its time to support the nominee?


    Obama is supported by (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:47:46 PM EST

    That's the Washington establishment


    yep.all the losers!! you got that right!! (none / 0) (#126)
    by fly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:46:05 PM EST
    the washington insiders who all lost!

    great ones to follow eh?????????



    Hillary and Bill (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by stillife on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:49:00 PM EST
    have been loathed by the Washington establishment since 1992.  They were viewed as rubes and outsiders from the beginning.  Obama was pushed to run this year by the Washington elite to take down "the Clintons".  

    Ask the question: (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:57:43 PM EST
    why is a freshman senator this close to the nomination?  Because the DC establishment and dem party echelon chose him to try to stop Clinton.

    Again, look at the popular vote totals.  Obviously, it's not working.


    the problem is... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:16:00 PM EST
    >>>>Did your opponent win the game because they won the fourth quarter???

    Obama's scheming helped him win a playoff game - but it's doubtful he can win the Super Bowl.
    Plus, it now appears the "unity" candidate only had a 50-City strategy, not a 50-State strategy that would include ALL Democrats.


    No - Obama has not! (none / 0) (#87)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:33:52 PM EST
    >>>Obama has pulled off the biggest upset in nomination history

    He's been given a free ride by the media that's part of the DC establishment.
    Do you really think he would have won Iowa if the Wright tapes had been on TV in December??
    It's obvious why Obamedia didn't air them - nor Fox News.
    Both want Obama to the nominee, but for different reasons.


    And if that is congressional reps criteria for (none / 0) (#98)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:02:30 PM EST
    whom they should back, then it is our duty to get them out of office next time around.  obama wants change politics, but not if they don't benefit him, otherwise status quo is just fine with him.

    Not that I know Cardoza... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:38:30 PM EST
    ...but I believe his reasoning was that, while he had preferred Clinton and had not come to change his mind on her qualifications, Obama has a narrow but insurmountable lead and has the greatest likelihood to be the nominee.  And it behooves us to rally around the eventual nominee sooner rather than later.  This is basically why I switched to Obama and encouraged those I know who also supported Clinton to do the same.

    since when does someone (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    being ahead mean that we should just quit?  That's un-American; and I don't use that phrase lightly.  Americans don't just throw up their hands and quit because the road ahead looks tough.  I cannot believe what it happening to this country.  It was bad enough when Gore (and Brazile) surrendered because they didn't want to look like they were being ungentlemanly.  Look at how close this thing is.  Look at the popular vote totals!  these are small percentage points.  Why on earth give up when the score is almost tied?

    This sort of thinking is absolutely ridiculous to me.  When did it come acceptable to bow out even when you can win?  No wonder we're turning into an international joke.

    PR, please come through for out girl.  We need you!


    I just donated to (none / 0) (#106)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:08:43 PM EST
    Clinton again.  After I saw the jack@ss statements by Bill Burton.  :)  I donate every time someone from his camp says something especially asinine.  I have to be getting close to being maxed out.  

    Mark Penn says "Thanks for the check." (none / 0) (#143)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:35:58 PM EST
    Typical for other candidate (none / 0) (#147)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:50:09 PM EST
    to pay for campaign debt.  Clinton supporters would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your many donations to Obama that have allowed Clinton to keep fighting against him.

    Axelrove thanks you for donating to his astro-turf consulting agency.


    You missed the point (none / 0) (#153)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:18:55 PM EST
    ...which is that a lot of Clinton's loss owes to forking over monthly six figure checks to weasels like Penn instead of plowing that money into building up state and local campaigns.

    Shows ya (none / 0) (#112)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:13:28 PM EST
    just how much we really want a Democrat with a "spine". Liberals/Progressives/Democrats whine constantly about how "spineless" the Democratic Party is and how they don't care if the Dems win just so long as they put up a fight.

    Then the Lady in the Pantsuit comes along and doesn't know the meaning of the word quit and pandemonium ensues. Quit now so you don't damage poor fragile Obama doesn't seem like an idea conceived in courage. Then there's always the "How dare she keep fighting when the all mighty media has told her to quit."

    Maybe that's the reason so many of the Obama supporters and surrogates keep insisting that Senator Clinton isn't a real Democrat. They're not used to seeing a Democrat that stands up, fights back, doesn't curl up in a fetal ball every-time someone calls her a name, and gives as good as she gets.  


    Re: since when does someone (none / 0) (#142)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:34:49 PM EST
    being ahead mean that we should just quit?

    When there is no chance of overtaking the lead in delegates.

    Look at the popular vote totals!

    Which one?  There are at least six different numbers floating around.  And that's not how this process works anyway.

    Why on earth give up when the score is almost tied?

    Because she can't overcome his lead.


    No (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:17:11 PM EST
    He's not qualified.  Frankly, after this campaign, I can't stand the guy.  We aren't to call the candidates names out of respect for the site.  I'll be polite and say I would never vote for him.

    You rally before (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by oldpro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:17:08 PM EST
    all the votes are in and counted?

    Sometimes I wonder...

    Were you a Democratic voter in 2000?

    If so (or not) do you remember the problem for Dems at the end of the race...or did you read about it?

    Let me borrow a line from Bill Clinton's '92 campaign and update it for today:

    "It's still the votes in Florida, stupid!"

    (Don't take that personally...it's the new bumpersticker I'm having printed for our Dems picnic next month).


    Re: You rally before (none / 0) (#145)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:46:52 PM EST
    all the vote are in and counted?

    No, I've said before that the primary season should wrap up, and that there needs to be some compromise on FL and MI.  I know lots of people are calling for her to drop out immediately but I'm not one of them.

    There really isn't much comparison between Florida 2000 and Florida today.  There's no basic American right to vote in a private political party.  I think they should seat 50% of the FL delegates and call it a day.


    OK.... (none / 0) (#172)
    by oldpro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:31:58 PM EST
    Thanks for responding.

    FYI... the connection in the pblic mind between 2000 and today are the words 'Florida' and 'count the votes!'

    Your suggestion that 1/2 the delegates be seated would be commensurate with the actual rules for punishing states that disobeyed the calendar ... until the current rules committee decided to go overboard and strip them of ALL delegates in a big power play.....forgetting, evidently, that after the primary there is a GENERAL ELECTION to win where we'll need those voters!  Hello?

    Common sense seems to have gone out the window with the "rulz are the rulz" crowd, more interested in punishing the misbehavior than winning an election.  

    Gawd...I'd hate to be their kids.  Imagine the freakout when one gets caught with a beer or a reefer.


    Re: OK.... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:15:31 AM EST
    I was originally one of the "rules are rules" advocates, but comments from people here made me look at it a little differently.  While I think it is disingenuous for anyone to say that they were really for counting the votes in FL/MI all along, as Clinton is now saying (her actions just don't support that story), I do think that some kind of compromise is not just possible, but essential.  What I don't agree with is some here, and the Clinton campaign itself, demanding for full 100% seating.  There needs to be some kind of penalty for jumping the gun.

    Florida is an easy fix; it just remains to set a reasonable number of delegates for Obama in Michigan, so that Obama voters there don't suffer the same disenfranchisement that concern Clinton voters.

    Thanks for the response.


    yes - but (none / 0) (#83)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    >>>Obama has a narrow but insurmountable lead and has the greatest likelihood to be the nominee

    Obama obtained that "lead" prior to WrightI, Wright II,
    Bitter/Cling-gate, his flip flops on major issues, brushing off major chunks of the Dem Party...


    I think you need to ask Ted Kennedy why he (none / 0) (#103)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:07:49 PM EST
    took his race in 1980 all the way to the convention when he was 750 delegates behind or Jerry Brown in 1992 when he ONLY had 600 delegates and took it all the way to the convention...did anyone ask them to drop out or just roll over and die.  Let me help you....the answer is NO.  Why the double standard for HIllary?

    Kennedy '80 and Brown '92 are your models? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:28:10 PM EST
    I admire Kennedy, but his 1980 campaign helped usher in Ronald Reagan's America.  And Brown in 1992 was a demagogue who lost big time.  Is this where you want Clinton heading this year?

    Simply stating that they took it to the convention (none / 0) (#164)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:22:48 PM EST
    as did Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart...the point is that they were not asked to drop out like Hillary repeatedly has been.

    Re: (none / 0) (#182)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:24:58 AM EST
    Okay.  But I think that none of those candidates, except maybe Kennedy, were seriously contesting the nomination at that point.  Their delegate deficits were just insurmountable.  They were doing it more as a show of support for their loyal supporters, i.e. laying the groundwork for a shot at it next time.  This is different.  The fear by everyone is that Clinton is going to drag this onto the floor, a bloody war breaks out, and whomever wins is irreparably tarnished and has half the electorate hating him or her.  That's the nightmare scenario: a forced conflict leading to a Pyrrhic victory which dooms the general campaign.

    No Matter....as even Cardoza can end up (none / 0) (#97)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:00:40 PM EST
    voting for Hillary at the convention....that is the only thing that counts now...the vote at the convention, not which SD says what.

    My sentims exactly. (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by feet on earth on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:30:07 PM EST
    At the convention, in the anonymity of their votes both the super and pledged delegates can vote as they please.

    I would not come out today and be called racist.  Or have to publicly admit that the guy has become unelectable.

    Many of them know that he will be shred as a piece of paper in thousands and thousands little corianders by the Reps. and the media.

    She has the perfect set up to go to the convention by not accepting anything less that how the votes were casted in MI and FL. Full recognition of every thing, included the no vote for the no-name candidates.  That way she goes to the convention and she'll win.

    The beauty of it is that it is logical, a clear path for that allows delegates super and regular, to vote without loosing face pr being targeted individually.

    It would be a Master Peace of Theater, and a great way our for everyone (including Obama who could then run in 8 years)


    It's not going to the convention (1.00 / 0) (#125)
    by Seth90212 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:45:49 PM EST
    unless Hillary wants to end her political career and destroy her legacy. I'm afraid it ends early June. Once Obama hits the magic number it's over. At some point we have to start the GE campaign. The sooner the better. The dems do not intend to start in Sept.

    once? (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:04:15 PM EST
    If he hits the number, it's over. Similarly, if she hits the number, it's over.

    Your concern for HRC's legacy is much appreciated.


    Correct. And there is no actual count until ... (none / 0) (#173)
    by cymro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:08:39 PM EST
    ... the convention. Before that, any delegate can change their mind.

    Just keep telling yourself that (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:24:18 PM EST
    all-knowing one.  It's not over til the lady in the pantsuit says it's over.  The only legacy going on the trash heap from this election is the DC elites.  Either they get beat and have to pick a winner or they put up another loser in the fall.

    The topic here is vote totals (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:40:57 PM EST
    take other subjects to an open thread.

    Party rule vs state law (none / 0) (#121)
    by gandy007 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:39:40 PM EST
    or territorial law is a distinction that is not being clearly articulated, in my opinion.

    I think too many people have confused, deliberately or otherwise, the control over delegate allocation that is solely within the purview of the political party with the validity of popular vote counts. This is a matter in which the party has no say and no right to question its legitimacy.

    As a matter of state/territorial law, as I understand it, the elections were legitimate and legal. The results were certified as such by the respective Secretary of State of each state, not only in Michigan and Florida, but in all states where primaries were held.

    In my estimation, the Clinton campaign has inadvertently fostered this misapprehension. I have not heard from the campaign a clear articulation of this distinction.  In the frenzy to argue the unfairness of the rules, or the political ramifications of ignoring millions of voters, which is to a great degree subjective,  the fact that the allocation of the popular vote is unalterable and a legal fact has been lost in the shuffle.

    I think the Obama Nation believes that the popular vote is somehow questionable, an opinion that in fact is a delusion, IMHO.

    Makes no difference (none / 0) (#129)
    by gandy007 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:51:28 PM EST
    in other words, whether the Michigan or Florida delegates are seated or not, and this needs to be said.

    The total votes are what they are and all states must count, as well as the territories.


    Legal, but not legitimate (none / 0) (#162)
    by negriotude on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:12:26 PM EST
    Ultimately the Democratic Party decides whether the contests are legitimate. The state of Michigan may certify that the election was conducted correctly (i.e that only legitimate voters voted, the voting boxes were secured, etc.), but that does not mean that the election gives a fair representation of what the Democratic voters of Michigan think. If we accepted this line of thinking, we'd have to conclude that Obama has absolutely no one in the state of Michigan who supports him.

    And I think the distinction between state and party 'jurisdiction' has been clearly articulated, especially in response to legal action along these lines in FL, were some sued to forcibly have their delegates seated at the Democratic convention. I believe the ruling was that parties have the power to decide such matters according to their own whims and processes. Obviously I'll have to find a link to that...


    commenter negriotude (none / 0) (#170)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:56:31 PM EST
    is a new user limited to 10 comments in 24 hours. He now has five.

    I actually didn't say the name Obama in my post (none / 0) (#131)
    by Y Knot on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:57:25 PM EST
    Not even once.  You're assuming that I'm spouting his talking points, when really, I'm just musing.   I did, after all, say I was half-kidding.  So just relax, there's no need for your venom.  

    Also, I hate Starbucks.

    I deleted the insult to you (none / 0) (#183)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:31:36 AM EST
    please ignore it.

    The popular vote means more in a general election (none / 0) (#138)
    by negriotude on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:15:47 PM EST
    One problem I have with Clinton's belated use of the disputed popular vote total is that it confuses two separate aspects of our political process: the private sphere in which citizens assemble and organize, and the public sphere where the leadership of government is conteseted and decided.

    It's not that the popular vote total is meaningless, it's that its application as a rule is out of place. This is a nomination process, not an election. A nomination process is private (ostensibly), and an election is public.

    Private parties can govern their internal processes however they like, and the process is inherently restricted to those who belong to the group in the first place. This is at the core of the constitutional rights to assemble and to exercise free speech. This makes it possible for citizens to organize their power to influence government.

    However, this same right to assemble and organize according to the desires of private citizens cannot be the guiding principle of the greater democratic process of deciding the nation's federal leadership. Private political parties approach each other on equal footing, and so no private set of rules can fairly judge a winner. All participate in a popular vote to decide.

    The idea that the popular vote of the many should somehow decide the leadership of a private entity such as the Democratic Party reverses the whole logic of the relationships between private citizens, political parties, and government.

    With apologies, (none / 0) (#155)
    by gandy007 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:21:38 PM EST
    I say gobbledegook and obfuscation. In addition, I'm not sure how belated it is and whether that is relevant.

    In addition, see my post above.  I don't see how disputed or disputable the popular vote totals are.  The elections took place, were certified and legal.  What is disputable is the degree to which delegates attached to that popular vote should be allocated in an equitable manner and the timeliness of their being seated to insure the seating is meaningful.  That is a matter of party rule, equal treatment of all states,and some consideration as to, at least in Florida, the degree to which Democrats had any say in the setting of the primary, and the political fallout from ignoring millions of voters.   These are all issues that are conveniently being obscured.

    I don't believe many conscientious and thoughtful people are saying the popular vote should be dispositive of the issue.

    However, in a democratic society, I should think that it should be a factor which would be given major consideration.

    You say:"it's that its application as a rule is out of place. This is a nomination process, not an election. A nomination process is private (ostensibly), and an election is public."

    I disagree.  Here, the primary elections and the nomination process are inextricably entwined.  The private process, the decision of how many delegates are allocated is a direct function at least in the non caucus states, of the number of votes received.

    Unlike the disfunctional Electoral Vote process, where it is all or nothing in each state, there is  in my opinion an inference that the will of the people as reflected by popular vote merits consideration.


    parties have a right to decide their own rules (none / 0) (#160)
    by negriotude on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:58:03 PM EST

    I simply make the point that it doesn't make sense to hold the conduct of the internal politics of a political party to the same standards as the functioning of the mechanisms of the federal government. This is because we recognize that there are different levels of responsibility and accountability between governing private assemblages and the governance of the entire nation.  

    Clinton's attempt to apply the popular vote total is out of place, not because such a concept is illegitimate, but because the group she belongs to has already decided that that will not be its criterion for deciding this, or any of its contests. The fact that they could decide things this way, to not use the popular vote as the ultimate norm, is not anti-democratic, but reflects the active functioning of the democratic principle, that private citizens can assemble according to their own motives and participate in public life to achieve their commonly held goals.

    Lastly, if it's about the will of the people, then how can you allow the people in Michigan who want to vote for Obama, to not have their votes counted?

    I'm hoping that we can get past a disturbing tactic I've seen people use to circumvent this objection to the use of MI in its present form: writers will switch from the pro-democracy count all votes line of thinking, to one where they agree that Obama deserves to be punished by not having potential votes counted, for the mistake of taking his name off the ballot. If people take this approach, then how legitimate can their support be for the position that it is paramount that the will of all the voters be counted?


    I believe your criteria are too rigid (none / 0) (#174)
    by gandy007 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:10:45 PM EST
    You say:"to not use the popular vote as the ultimate norm"

    Only a few would say the popular vote should be the ultimate norm.  I clearly said that I believe it should only be an important factor. I happen to think that tips the balance in her favor, considering big state wins and the map in addition.

    To talk in specific terms, Obama was the one who torpedoed a revote in Michigan. Although I have some problem with the issue of intent, go ahead and allocate all the undecideds in Michigan to Obama. With that scenario, Clinton would be behind by about 175,000 I believe.  A big win in Puerto Rico still would make her the overall winner.  That is in a light way more favorable to Obama than what most are willing to concede.

    Also you say:"but because the group she belongs to has already decided that that will not be its criterion for deciding this, or any of its contests."  I stand to be corrected, but as I understand it,  the DNC and individual  SD's in whose hands this nomination lies have said that there are several extrinsic factors that will  affect their votes including electability, etc.

    I believe you are dealing too much in abstractions.  Just look at the flimsy reasoning already exhibited by SD's in explaining their choices.  More than a few have hemmed and hawed.  Rather than saying they are choosing the one who will make the best President, they have said such things as choosing Obama basically because they feel he will win and/or they feel it's time to end this campaign and the easiest way to end it is by choosing Obama.  We are dealing with humans with all their weaknesses, biases, and flimsy judgments; so politically one looks for the button that might work.  What better button than the will of the people.


    So... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:10:40 PM EST
    ...racism cost a popular GOP Senator in VA his seat two years ago, and that only goes to show that Obama has no chance in Virginia, even though the state has a Dem governor, is probably going to elect a second Dem senator, and has a state senate controlled by Dems.  Hard to argue with that logic!

    I love how hardcore Clinton fans have so quickly embraced GOP plain-folks camoflage.  Starbucks indeed.

    So what? (none / 0) (#157)
    by Laureola on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:26:53 PM EST
    Give Hillary the most favorable circumstances, and her winning margin is inconsequential.  Even if it mattered, it's a statistical tie in regard to "the will of the people."  

    The delegate count is determinative - by the number, and by the rules.

    laureola (none / 0) (#168)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:49:41 PM EST
    is way over limit for chattering. He's been suspended. I'm pretty sure he's been banned before. If that's the case, all his comments will be erased as well as his account.