home

Obama's Popular Vote Lead . . .?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:44:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Yes, it is the delegates, pledged and super, who decide the nominee. But the popular vote remains an important metric to me at least. Now that Florida and Michigan have had their delegations seated, we can discuss the popular vote a bit more concretely.

RCP is the semi-official keeper of the numbers, but, as I have stated, I have problems with their numbers. [More...]

Unlike RCP, I include the Washington state primary numbers and I assign the uncommitted vote in Michigan to Obama (there is a good argument that he should have only 75% of the uncommitted vote based on exit polling of those voters, this would narrow Obama's lead by about 60,000 votes.) I also include all caucus votes where there was not a primary (with the exception of Nebraska, whose primary was much later in time than its delegate selecting caucus.) With those adjustments, my popular vote totals have Barack Obama with a 112,000 (or 62,000 if you only allocate 75% of the Michigan uncommitted vote as discussed above) vote lead out of a total of over 35,000,000 votes cast. By my calculations, that gives Obama a 0.3% (0.15% if you allocate 75% of the Michigan uncommitted vote to Obama) lead in the popular vote with 3 primaries to go. Puerto Rico votes tomorrow and will likely push Clinton into the popular vote lead. We are hearing rumblings that South Dakota is a close race while Montana seems a safe Obama state.

While Obama is almost certain to be the nominee, there is a decent chance he will lose the popular vote to Hillary Clinton.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Things That Happened Today | Hillary's Popular Vote Lead >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Popular Vote Lead . . .? | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Comes down the Puerto Rico (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:47:41 PM EST
    /broken record.

    BTW, the popular vote is dead as a metric. Thanks in no small part to the mother-talker-upper.

    BTW (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:48:38 PM EST
    I used "the rules are the rules, except when they're not" to explain what happened today to my mom. She liked that.

    [ Parent ]
    Good for you... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:50:16 PM EST
    you will make a fine lawyer. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    heh. Hopefully it will be for other reasons (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:52:30 PM EST
    than just using a good line, but thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    A good lawyer (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:58:52 PM EST
    knows a good argument when he hears one. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    I am hoping for a big PR turnout (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:49:12 PM EST
    to put Hillary over the top.  I am starting to wonder if the Obama really does have the SDs he needs waiting in the wings.  I believed it yesterday, but today I am not so sure otherwise I think they would have let FL have all their votes.

    Maybe... (none / 0) (#31)
    by k on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:01:20 PM EST
    From the NYT:

    ...
    "A number of people have reported that various members intend to endorse AFTER the last primary," said one e-mail message to wavering delegates from Mr. Obama's supporters, its warning barely couched. "Those members need to understand that they won't get any visibility from that."

    Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who endorsed Mr. Obama nearly two months ago, recently called Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, who has yet to endorse a candidate. "Hey, Ritter!" Mr. Richardson said. "After June 3, it means nothing. Those who take a little bit of a risk, he'll remember you."
    ...

    Promises, promises.

    [ Parent ]

    Richardson: (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:27:22 PM EST
    Come on, get on board and curry favor before it's too late!

    What fine principles that man has.

    [ Parent ]

    Principles? (none / 0) (#113)
    by hillspwns on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:03:15 AM EST
    Hey, they're politicians.  What do you expect?

    [ Parent ]
    Shorter bill richardson... (none / 0) (#127)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:38:36 AM EST
    we don't want those nasty puerto rican and south dakotans and montanans screwing things up for us...

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder.. (none / 0) (#121)
    by daria g on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:21:39 AM EST
    if it isn't more that Pelosi has them and is holding out for some reason or another.

    [ Parent ]
    to be fair (none / 0) (#147)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:57:24 AM EST
    which ever way they choose, I believe the principled thing IS to wait till we voters have voted.

    So I respect those Supers that did not try and sway us mere mortals.

    Remember to sway them though everyone:lobbydelegates.com is very busy, (I got through while everyone was watching the meeting)

    If they live in that media bubble, they simply may have no idea about our existence, with our uncool old party needs, such as for a fair fight with no thumb on the scale. (Look at Dean, thinking its the kids turnout...the Supers are low info voters in that bubble.)

    [ Parent ]

    No, he doesn't get the uncommitted votes. (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:50:46 PM EST
    There's just no way of knowing.  You can only count votes cast.  Hillary has and will retain the popular vote.  Personally, I don't really like counting "votes" from caucus meetings.  I don't think they accurately compare to primary votes in terms of the "will of the people".  But, fine, I'll give you the caucus meeting votes, but not MI.  No way to know.

    This was the one area (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:54:21 PM EST
    Where the ruling today probably affected how we tally popular vote. If Obama gets 59 delegates, and not Uncommitted, then to me, there's a strong argument for giving him the Uncommitted vote--at least 75% of it.

    [ Parent ]
    There is nothing the DNC (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:56:33 PM EST
    can do to allot votes or delegates to a person who was not on the ballot.

    It's simply not acceptable in any way.

    I am shocked that anyone would support this perversion of democracy.

    [ Parent ]

    In my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:00:32 PM EST
    The day could've ended a lot worse. There could've been no democracy at all, with no delegation seating for either FL or MI. And that would've been a travesty. I'm not happy with 69/59--I'd rather have 73/55, but it IS a self-described compromise, and that's what compromises are.

    Democracy is all about doing what the people want. And I can guarantee you, unequivocally, that more than zero people in Michigan wanted to have Obama as their candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    Then he should have allowed (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:05:05 PM EST
    his supporters to vote for him. He didn't want to lose, so he played games with their votes.

    And that's okay?

    We are rewarding his behavior and punishing HRC.

    For what?

    She played by the rules. She wanted every vote to count. He did everything, every g-d thing wrong and he is being handed the nomination on a silver platter!

    [ Parent ]

    That is not (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:16:25 PM EST
    okay that is called : vote stealing. That is what happened today with the MI allocation.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, we are. (4.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:10:27 PM EST
    But if we punish Obama for doing this, then by extension, we also punish the voters for his mistake. Which is what we're arguing against in FL and MI--that the voters should not be punished for something dumb the leadership did.

    Yes, it was his mistake. He made a bad move. An understandable one, but a bad one, in hindsight. If we could punish him for that without punishing his voters, I'd say let's do it.

    But by no means can we or anyone else punish voters for any reason. That's what democracy is supposed to be about.

    [ Parent ]

    We are punishing HRC's voters (3.80 / 5) (#58)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:18:43 PM EST
    by giving her elected delegates to Obama. AND telling her she can't count her own G-D votes from Michigan.

    Why doesn't that ever get mentioned?

    Why is that okay?

    And by the way...why must we protect Obama's supporters from his actions? Shouldn't they know why they couldn't vote for him? Because he WOULDN'T LET THEM?!

    Obama is punishing his own voters. He should be fine with that since it was entirely his own ffffing choice.

    And if they still want to support him after that, so be it.

    [ Parent ]

    I was for 73/55. (4.50 / 2) (#66)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:22:32 PM EST
    But as far as Michigan goes, let's see whether or not Michiganders are okay with the decision made today. I'm sure there will be extensive polling on the matter.

    If Michiganders by and large accept what happened today, I say we drop it, since they're the ones that matter, not Clinton, Obama, or the DNC.

    [ Parent ]

    The principle matters. (4.00 / 7) (#73)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:26:04 PM EST
    You do not give votes to a person who was not on the ballot.

    If Obama is the nominee, he is illegitimate because he gained the nomination with fake delegates and made-up popular votes.

    Period.

    You think we're going to unite behind an illegitimate nominee?

    Don't think so.


    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#154)
    by DWCG on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:28:06 PM EST
    Why not just take the 50 delegate hit and claim the legitimacy as the nominee, instead of these games?  (We all know the answer - the media is in the can - at least for now - and won't claim that the decision taints his legitimacy).

    He's scared, and he's weak.  I just hope he's not too weak to win in November.

    [ Parent ]

    What you will find.... (none / 0) (#152)
    by pb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:04:52 AM EST
    ...is that a lot of Clinton supporters get incredibly upset whenever a voter is disenfranchised unless that voter supports Barack Obama.

    You are, of course, correct, that hundreds of thousands of MI voters wanted to support Obama.  Ignoring their will - disenfranchising them for something entirely outside of their control - is at least as undemocratic as anything the RBC did.

    [ Parent ]

    That's not completely true (none / 0) (#155)
    by DWCG on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:31:00 PM EST
    Obama could have always gotten delegates by simply showing up as the local conventions and running for the Undecided delegate positions.

    [ Parent ]
    It gets mentioned about (none / 0) (#142)
    by independent voter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:32:16 AM EST
    a million times a day on this website.

    [ Parent ]
    which does not exist (none / 0) (#148)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:04:01 AM EST
    the blogger boiZ pretend their opposition is Hillaryis44.com.

    The original corp media (now kos takes oil co. ads) likewise.

    Name and link one media outlet that publicized that fact.

    [ Parent ]

    Frankly... (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:29:45 PM EST
    ... while I understand and respect your decision, to me giving Michigan zero delegates would have been fairer than the arbitrary 69/59 divided by two.

    Saying the election was too early and therefore doesn't count is much better than making results up out of whole cloth. That's just ridiculous.

    [ Parent ]

    I totally agree with you. (none / 0) (#143)
    by independent voter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:35:08 AM EST
    I did not like that resolution at all. I also felt that Bob Wexler should have argued to seat all the delegates. He could have done that without damaging Obama, there is no way the RBC would have seated veryone without penalty. It was a missed opportunity to take the high road.

    [ Parent ]
    Wexler (none / 0) (#146)
    by PamFl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:51:33 AM EST
    is MY congressman. Our district voted for Sen. Clinton 2-1. We were absolutely stunned when he refused to answer "yes" to the question about seating 100% of FL. delgates, with FULL voting rights.
    For the past year, Wexler has preached that he would work to ensure the seating of ALL FL. delegates. Typical political pandering-like his much publicized speeches for impeachment. JUST WORDS.
    He is up for re-election in Nov. We hope to defeat him.

    [ Parent ]
    Equitable disenfranchisement, as horrid as it is (none / 0) (#153)
    by DWCG on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:23:58 PM EST
    ...is much better than vote stealing.

    It's not possible to count votes not cast, for people not on the ballot, and to do so is to STEAL.

    A vote for undecided, is a vote for undecided.

    If they wanted to seat the delegate with half a vote they would have seated the delegation:

    73 Clinton Delegates with 36.5 votes
    55 Undecided Delegates with 27.5 votes

    That's democracy and application of the RULES OF THE DNC!

    [ Parent ]

    I have to say... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Y Knot on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:01:37 PM EST
    I agree.  I voted for Obama, and I still hope he wins, but today's ruling did not sit well with me.   There's a right way and a wrong way to win, and this just looks wrong.

    I think after this year, the Democratic nomination process needs a major overhaul.

    [ Parent ]

    yes (none / 0) (#149)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:16:48 AM EST
    it needs to have delegate allocation that mimics the electoral vote allocation.

    That Obama got 95% of his 136 delegate lead in those caucuses with fewer than 1 million people total is wrong.
    And then to casually strip her of 600,000 votes as well!
    (That his wins were mostly in red states that we will never win, is just tragic)

    Because this caucus easy win creates a candidate poised to be unelectable in the GE.  There will be no DNC thumb on the scale to help in the GE.

    Theres only one way to win. Win swing staes, like she did. Its hard work, but you have to go in front of swing state voters and find a way to convince them you can bring help. He wouldn't.

     

    [ Parent ]

    I would argue (4.33 / 6) (#47)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:08:40 PM EST
    Obama is allowed to cheat only once.  He already stole 59 delegates including 4 that were clearly for Clinton.

    I would say that is enough fraud already.  He purposely removed his name from the ballot when it was not requeired not asked to do so. So Obama gets ZERO from the popular vote in MI.

    [ Parent ]

    i like your logic (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:11:21 PM EST
    it works for me

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! That's a laugh RIOT! (4.20 / 5) (#40)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:05:19 PM EST
    Apportioning votes from a certified election because the DNC rule and by-laws committee says so.  Sorry, my friend, I don't think so.

    [ Parent ]
    It's clear to me that Hillary is putting (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:50:53 PM EST
    all her eggs in the popular vote basket; otherwise, her camp would have used different arguments today.
    I don't think (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:54:15 PM EST
    any of her arguments had any chance whatsoever of convincing the DNC to seat FL and MI fully.

    The arguments her representatives made were strictly for the ears of the voters (of FL and MI especially) and the SD's IMHO.

    The decision was already made. The fix is in. Obviously. I've never seen anything like the incredible blindness and bias of the DNC.


    [ Parent ]

    What other arguments could she (none / 0) (#61)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:20:58 PM EST
    have used?

    [ Parent ]
    rules (none / 0) (#74)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:26:08 PM EST
    See BTD's posts about the rules and how if you are a stickler for them, you have to come to some really fun conclusions. Kind of rub their faces in it.

    [ Parent ]
    Denver (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Sweet Sue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:52:15 PM EST
    Remember when the likes of the despicable Randi Rhodes were ranting about the sacred popular vote and the perfidy of super delegates? How there would be blood on the streets if the all powerful sd's ignored the will of the people and awarded the nomination to someone else?
    This feels like Florida 2000 all over again but, this time, it's my own party that's knifing me in my heart.

    She can and should claim victory (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ajain on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:55:16 PM EST
    Even if she doesn't become the nominee.

    That will not only give her a lot of bargaining power, it will ensure a big role for her going forward.

    She should also make a big push for nomination procedure reform.

    She'll have even more clout (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by themomcat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:56:45 PM EST
    in November if McCain is elected.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:02:45 PM EST
    2000 delegates must count for something.

    [ Parent ]
    The 51% solution again (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:06:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I sincerely doubt that (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ajain on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:04:18 PM EST
    But try holding that line through November and see what comes out of it.
    Disrespect her more and smear her more and you will be crying in the streets in November.

    [ Parent ]
    This is going to be a long, hot Summer (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by themomcat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:55:23 PM EST
    If the Republicans are smart they will hold their ammunition until September and October after the Democratic Party has handed the nomination to Obama. I am still hoping that they will come to their senses in August but even if HRC has the popular vote, my guess is that BHO will have the nomination.  I had hoped that after the last four years we would be able to reclaim democracy but obviously the DNC had other ideas today.

    The fix is in (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:04:29 PM EST
    and I don't think there's any chance of HRC being given the nomination now -- believe me, I wish it were not the case. Unless BO manages to do something so heinous that he has to withdraw, I don't think it'll happen.

    Pelosi is already claiming that on Tuesday she's going to go with the winner with the most pledged delegates and that she's got the rest of the uncommitted superdelegates in Congress behind her. I'm guessing Reid will push for the same in the Senate. It's a sham and a perversion of what Superdelegates are supposed to be for but clearly, they'd rather lose with Obama than win with Clinton.

    The Democratic Party, once again grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. And people wonder WHY I am walking away from this party...

    [ Parent ]

    As far as I am concerned (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by themomcat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:26:12 PM EST
    the Democratic Party lost me today. I will always support Sen. Clinton as my representative and I will continue to support the Democratic candidates who represent my interests and values. What happened today was not democratic by any stretch of the imagination, especially regarding MI. I will not and cannot vote for BHO if he is the nominee. He is as bad as McCain. I have resigned from the Democratic Party and have refiled as an Independent. This election was the Democrat's to win. With BHO as the nominee, they have lost it to the Republicans.

    [ Parent ]
    Same here (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:35:47 PM EST
    I've been teetering for a long time. I've been a Democrat since I was five, been a Democratic voter since I was 18 (and am now 45). I have fought for this party, worked hard for them when I could, defended them when no one else would (like during the Reagan years). I kept hoping beyond all hope that despite it all, the RBC would do the right thing. And they failed me.

    After hearing Donna Brazile call us cheaters, after hearing Robert Wexler stab the voters of Florida in the back, followed by David Bonior doing the same thing to the voters of MI, I've had it. Maybe the Republicans I knew in the past weren't so wrong about the Democrats anyway.

    I will continue to support and vote for the candidates who share like values with me that I think can do the job (and being in the NYC area, that's almost certainly Democrats). But I'm going to be unaffiliated now. I dont want to be a part of a party that doesn't want me and doesn't have respect for anyone other than a select few.

    This has been a long time coming (the treatment and lack of support for Bill Clinton, the treatment of Al Gore, the treatment of Howard Dean in 2004, the wussiness of Kerry, the caving in to Bush over and over again, the absolute lack of spine once they took over in 2006...). But it's happened. Ditto my parents (both lifelong Democrats). I suspect a good number of people will be doing the same.

    [ Parent ]

    I will be retiring (none / 0) (#111)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:02:14 AM EST
    next year from my NYC job. I will be living in Paris, Fr with my husband and working for an international NGO full time. I am also a French citizen. I had hoped to see a Democrat in the White House before I left, sadly, I do not believe this will happen because of today's event and the machinations of Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi and others who have been in the tank for Obama. Pelosi's statements that she will "end this" are undemocratic and unacceptable to me. I hope she loses her seat in the primary to anyone of her challengers. Sen. Reid is no better.

    [ Parent ]
    Pelosi is a power-hungry freak (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by blcc on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:08:40 AM EST
    Who died and made her Queen of the Convention?

    [ Parent ]
    Pelosi's position (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:15:33 AM EST
    as Chair of the Convention behooves her to remain neutral. She is not the "decider". I am very disappointed in her leadership and I hope that she will not retain it after this November. The Democratic party will be lucky to hold on to the majorities they now have with Obama at the top of the ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    Pelosi's days are numbered (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:31:37 AM EST
    She's been an ineffectual Speaker of the House who has pandered to the Republicans and done nothing she's promised. She's one of the main reasons the Congress has such a low approval rating. She has no time to deal with the impeachment issue or anything important, but she can interject herself into the nomination?

    Hopefully someone will challenge Madame Chair ASAP and get her out of there. Hopefully Cindy Sheehan.

    I haven't liked Pelosi since she put in her pet Steny Hoyer rather than Jim Murtha (who, of course, is a Clinton supporter) as Majority Leader. The sooner she gets out of the way, the better.

    [ Parent ]

    He is WORSE than McCain (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by blcc on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:01:02 AM EST
    At least McCain isn't a race-baiter or a nobody with a resume the size of a postage stamp.  He actually loves this country, and more importantly he has good judgment.  McCain knows enough to LIKE AND RESPECT HILLARY.  Frankly, with all the misogyny in this electoral season that is MUSIC TO MY EARS.

    [ Parent ]
    The Misogyny (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:03:22 AM EST
    in this campaign has been a grating on my soul.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree on McCain (1.00 / 1) (#135)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:38:58 AM EST
    I'm voting for him.  I care most that my children and grandchildren have a future, that they aren't killed by some loony terrorist.  If my kids aren't safe, nothing else is going to matter.  I simply do not trust Obama to deal with foreign leaders.  I do not trust him to keep us safe.  McCain is better than many other republicans, (although there is plenty I don't like about him) and he's better than Obama.  I hate to do it, but my party has screwed this nomination 6 ways to Sunday.  I am NOT putting my children at risk because my party screwed this up.  I'm going to hold my nose and vote for McCain.  For the first time in 40 years, I'm voting for a republican for President.  I suspect that I won't be the only democrat who does that.  

    [ Parent ]
    Let's see what happens (none / 0) (#41)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:06:16 PM EST
    when the MO video comes out.

    I am very, very curious how that will be defended by our august Party Leaders.

    [ Parent ]

    I first read that as "MY video" (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:07:14 PM EST
    heh.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:08:39 PM EST
    I wish I had a video that would be a game-changer!

    Somehow I don't think my baby pix would do it. ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Luckily (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:22:34 PM EST
    none of my more questionable exploits ever wound up on video tape. Somehow I always had the foresight to avoid that sort of embarrassment.

    I just wonder whether whatever Larry Johnson comes up with will have any effect. No matter what happens, people just make excuses for BO's behaviour. Even this woman on Fox today didn't seem to understand about his connection to Pfleger or why it was so appalling. "But he was a guest at the church -- Obama had nothing to do with it!" as if he hadn't been on the website, listed as a spiritual advisor, friend for 20 yrs etc.

    It'll be harder for BO to throw Michelle under the bus but I can already hear the excuses about how they've left the church, it was out of context, it's misunderstood and when all else fails, screams of racism again. ::sigh::

    [ Parent ]

    Rat F@#& (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Chamonix on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:13:23 PM EST
    I have never seen such a Rat F&%$ in my life. How apt that "Recount" is playing now on HBO. How can they just make up numbers? Numbers out of thin air? They are just divining votes for one candidate. And now I'm reading that they almost just split Michigan 50/50. It is clear who the loser is, the democrat's in Florida and Michigan that went to the polls and voted during their primaries. Why would Obama want this stain on his nomination?

    Let's let MI (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:23:53 PM EST
    Decide if they were disenfranchised or not.

    [ Parent ]
    So move on (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:33:16 PM EST
    As for who didn;t vote, well we'll never know who those people were or why. Could be that a million extra clinton voters did not vote and we are understating her numbers.

    [ Parent ]
    Funny that the ballots in your state said (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Chamonix on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:03:07 AM EST
    you may vote for a candidate or you may vote Uncommitted The choices were Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, or Uncommitted. I also believe that someone added up all the votes because I can see on Michigan's SOS website that the votes were counted and the numbers were official as of Feb. 4th. Now excuse me while I go put my tooth under my pillow so when i wake up I will see how much the TOOTH FAIRY will have left me.  "Harvey is a RABBIT. A big Giant RABBIT, with WHISKERS." Now go back to your crystal ball and tell me how many people checked off Obama's name on that Michigan ballot. That ballot where his name did NOT APPEAR. This is Fantasyland people.

    [ Parent ]
    troll alert (3.66 / 3) (#80)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:28:06 PM EST
    One candidate on the ballot. Hmm, sounds like you weren't really there. Try harder next time.

    [ Parent ]
    Did you vote? (none / 0) (#100)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:41:18 PM EST
    If so, you may have noticed there was more than one candidate on the ballot. You may want to take it up with one of the ones who took their name off if you had a problem with your selection.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry BTD..... (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:27:03 PM EST
    But a vote is a vote, and Obama got 0 votes in Michigan.

    If we get into the whole "voter intent because the primary was flawed" argument, we wind up in a morrass.  

    For instance, assuming everyone's name was on the ballot AND the primary had counted, Obama's PERCENTAGE of the vote would probably have been higher, but Clinton's RAW VOTE MARGIN could have been higher even if you give Obama a higher percentage of the votes.

    And lets not forget that allocating votes based on a flawed process opens up a whole 'nother can of worms because caucuses are more flawed than the Michigan primary....

    personally, I don't think that ANY caucus results in which attendees were given a chance to realign can be considered valid.  Certainly, in Iowa, the way that the "votes" are apportioned based on "estimated caucus attendance" bears NO relation to reality in terms of voter intent ENTERING the caucus.

    But a vote is a vote.  Obama got O votes in Michigan -- because he CHOSE to get 0 votes in Michigan.  It was a mistake on his part, because he didn't know that 'the popular vote' would suddenly become an issue, but Clinton has had to live with her mistakes in this campaign as well.

    Oh, BTD... (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:31:07 PM EST
    since I wasn't here, can you point me to the point in the live blog where your head exploded.  

    Mine exploded three times -- when Herman said that there was no prohibition on candidates campaigning in sanctioned states (turns out she was protecting Obama on that one), Bonier's presenation, and when I realized that they were actually going to ignore not just the bylaws, but the Charter, and steal delegates from Hillary.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:34:49 PM EST
    My head was ain a million pieces all day.

    [ Parent ]
    We noticed (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:37:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Reality came along (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:30:23 AM EST
    and hit me in the face. I realised that the Democrats were in no way considering Clinton's candidacy. They had already closed ranks behind Obama.
    I have been a Democrat for a long time now. I remember feeling very upset over McGovern losing, then over a whole strew of other candidates all losing. I felt amazed when Gore lost, thrown down for 2 weeks when Kerry lost. But now I know-those Patrician Democrats really don't care if they win or lose.
    Hillary will get the popular vote, but no-one will listen. Tainted caucus delegates are far more the Democratic way.
    Congratulations DONNA, you and your momma and your cookery, just lost the Dimmicrats yet another election... (Do you do it on purpose or is it a natural kind of knack?)
    What about my caucus vote being counted????? (3.00 / 4) (#72)
    by kraftysue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:25:54 PM EST
    I live in Kansas which is a caucus state. I waited 2 1/2 hrs outside on a misty cold (37 degrees)night along with over 37 thousand other voters. According to HRC, our vote doesn't get counted. Only the popular votes are currently important. I just don't get it. If that was the parameter to win the contest, then ALL the caucus votes should be counted. My vote has been disenfranchised by HRC.  
    Until the rules change and I believe they should be--making all states count the same way, we should play by the current rules which is delegate selection.  

    Give me a break (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:13:35 AM EST
    I live in California which is a primary state. I voted along with 4.8M other Californians. Unlike KS, which got 1 delegate per 1,146 votes, we in CA only got 1 delegate per 12,960 votes.

    Accordingly, your vote (which is included in the RCP tabulation BTW), counts 11.3 times more than mine with respect to Obama's self-proclaimed metric for mesuring the "will of the people."

    So, if anyone should feel disenfranchised ... it's certainly not the red state caucus voters.

    [ Parent ]

    yeah but... (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:58:54 AM EST
    he waited outside in the cold for 2 and a half hours.  

    To attend a caucus.

     That had a specific starting time.  

    And he didn't have the sense to get back in his car instead of freezing his butt off until the doors were opened.

    [ Parent ]

    oh, and did I mention... (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:02:42 AM EST
    that not only was HE standing outside in the cold for two and a half hours for no conceivable reason....

    ALL FREAKING 37,000 caucus goers in Kansas stood OUTSIDE, in THE COLD, for TWO AND A HALF HOURS...

    and they did so everywhere in the state.  because there were caucuses all over the state.  And all 37,000 of them were standing out in the cold.

    For two and a half hours.

    For no rational reason.

    I think I figured out why Hillary didn't bother to try and organize the caucus goers in the plains/mountain states....

    according to this Obama supporter, the people in those states are DUMB AS ROCKS!

    [ Parent ]

    Is kraftysue a he? (none / 0) (#137)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:48:57 AM EST
    Be careful, you don't want to be accussed of being both racist and sexist at the same time.

    [ Parent ]
    Um I do count it (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:31:04 PM EST
    as does RCP.

    does anyonen actually read the posts before commenting anymore?

    [ Parent ]

    Forgive this bit of bias-ism (2.33 / 3) (#12)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:51:15 PM EST
    But I hope that Obama wins the popular vote. I hope to God turnout is PR is what they're expecting--pretty low, and that MT and SD Obama supporters come out big for their candidate.

    I don't want to deal with the headache of our nominee not having our popular vote. If we think we've had it bad now, then just wait and see.

    I have not heard they are expecting (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:53:15 PM EST
    a low turnout. I have heard it could be over half a million voters tomorrow.

    [ Parent ]
    In PR (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:55:10 PM EST
    They're expecting roughly a 30% turnout--which by PR standards, is shamefully low.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you have a link? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:56:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    PR has (none / 0) (#71)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:25:23 PM EST
    2.4 RV .  If they expect only 500,000 that's about 21%.

    [ Parent ]
    This is Puerto Rico's big moment (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Y Knot on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:57:25 PM EST
    They don't get to vote in the general.  So as a rule, they tend to vote pretty heavily in primaries.  And all the focus on them this year will probably only increase their numbers.  Tomorrow's turnout is going to be huge.

    [ Parent ]
    I know what you mean... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:32:19 PM EST
    If the outcome is already determined, then hopefully it at least looks legitimate.

    It's sort of what I thought after 2004. I figured if Bush was going to be president anyway, I was glad that he won the popular vote, so I wouldn't feel as cheated as I did in 2000.

    Having said all that, I hope Clinton crushes him in Puerto Rico and holds on enough in South Dakota and Montana to win the popular vote. I want to see exactly how far the Democratic establishment will go to pretend she doesn't exist.

    [ Parent ]

    I cannot buy into popular vote metric (1.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Arabiflora on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:09:32 PM EST
    Surely this is an old argument, but let me prop it up once again: The popular vote DOES NOT MATTER. Had that been a metric worth caring about, it is quite likely that the various campaigns-- Obama, Clinton, Edwards, et al., would have configured their strategies accordingly. Case in point, Obama would likely have directed more resources and effort at securing a greater share of the CA primary votes. Instead, his campaign made the STRATEGIC decision to allocate resources elsewhere in order to secure the delegates necessary to win the nomination.

    It seems to like grasping for straws to now say that the popular vote total-- especially since the metric is so ill-defined-- matters even a little.

    It is old and still false (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:12:41 PM EST
    Explain what move made that would reduce anyone's popular vote total in order to raise their delegate total. Just name one thing. anything at all.

    [ Parent ]
    magic (none / 0) (#83)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:30:58 PM EST
    you're just not drinking the right drink. snark

    [ Parent ]
    Are you serious? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Cugel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:31:40 AM EST
    Either you're not thinking or you're just being snarky, I can't tell which. Surely it's abundantly clear how a candidate can maximize his delegate count at the cost of securing more votes?

    By campaigning in other states where delegates were yet to be decided, smaller states especially.

    If Obama wanted to maximize his vote total, he'd do things like campaign heavily in states where he had a significant lead (say North or South Carolina for instance where black voters dominated the primary and supported Obama by over 90%).

    So would Hillary. She'd have spent more time in Kentucky and West Virginia trying to milk more votes.

    The POPULAR VOTE MEANS EXACTLY NOTHING!

    Nobody in this campaign was going for popular votes, they were trying to win the most delegates.

    Trying telling Al Gore that the popular vote matters in elections!

    [ Parent ]

    Try telling Democrats in 2000 that it didn't (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:37:23 AM EST
    You know, come to think of it, some people did--they were called Republicans.

    I know I believe the same thing about the popular vote today as in did in November of 2000. Do you?

    [ Parent ]

    You're confusing the electoral college (none / 0) (#62)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:20:59 PM EST
    and the Democratic nomination process. The nomination process is not winner take all like the general is. Anything that would have gotten Obama a higher popular vote in California would have likely gotten him a higher pledged delegate count as well, and vice versa.

    [ Parent ]
    law of diminishing returns... (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:19:55 AM EST
    there is a law of diminishing returns in terms of the popular vote vs the delegate allocation in most states.

    Delegates are allocated by congressional district (75%) and at large (25%) and all you need to get ONE delegate from a district is 15% of the vote. In order to win a second delegate, you might need as much as another 20% of the vote, depending upon how many delegates are availabe in that district.

    In other words, a 5% increase in the popular vote will get you 5% more of the state's at large delegation, but that is only5% of 25% of the delegation, not 5% of the state's pledged delegates.  (then there are elected Pleos...of course).  In most districts, and extra 5% of the vote won't get you another delegate.

    But as a metric in deciding who deserves the nomination, the popular vote is more reliable than the delegate count BECAUSE of the way that delegates get apportioned.  

    Ultimately, the REAL criteria that the SDs are supposed to use in the event that neither candidate is the consensus choice of the party has nothing to do with either delegate counts, or the popular vote.  It should be based on a combination of electability and suitability for the office of President.  

    [ Parent ]

    not that I expect anyone to understand.... (none / 0) (#122)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:23:47 AM EST
    or care about my latest comment above, but Pleos are part of the 25% of the at-large delegation.

    [ Parent ]
    More on that (none / 0) (#145)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:11:04 AM EST
    I'm thinking that you may be the poster that laid out the count and the amount re how each state was alloted delegates, according to electoral votes, changes in voting patterns etc.

    If so, I've been looking for that very good post(some weeks? ago) that explained all that. Could you point me to that comment, please? (i tried the search)

    thanks

    [ Parent ]

    I was wondering (none / 0) (#1)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:46:40 PM EST
    if any "official" decisions were made today concerning the popular vote.

    It appears not?

    Not an official metric (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:48:04 PM EST
    so you can count it however you want. I like BTD's method.

    [ Parent ]
    Good... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:48:43 PM EST
    I like HRC's method.

    Quelle surprise. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    I think at this point, if Obama goes (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:52:53 PM EST
    over the top Tuesday or Wednesday, I can move on, but I really want him to ask Clinton to be his VP.  And if he doesn't it will just take me a lot longer to get on board with any enthusiaism at all.

    [ Parent ]
    Bjorn- did you get Anita Dunn's (none / 0) (#38)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:05:01 PM EST
    e-mail I left you?

    [ Parent ]
    yes, thank you (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:07:37 PM EST
    I emailed, but no response yet!

    [ Parent ]
    So move on (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:52:55 PM EST
    who's stopping you?

    [ Parent ]
    I deleted your comment (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:04:19 PM EST
    because it broke the margins. BTW you're still being in the thread sort of proves you have not moved on by my lights.

    [ Parent ]
    Fat chance (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:22:10 PM EST
    but thanks for playing

    [ Parent ]
    I was replying to the person (none / 0) (#130)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:56:11 AM EST
    that posted something HRC Senate seat being in jeopardy in NY.

    Why is my comment (above) here? ??

    [ Parent ]

    Sparring? (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:38:25 PM EST
    You mean you are throwing pinches? I hadn't noticed.

    [ Parent ]
    OMG... (none / 0) (#60)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:20:48 PM EST
    she is not falling out in NY, that is absolutely a ridiculous lie.

    Enough with the bullying and threats. We're not impressed.

    [ Parent ]

    She's got 4 more years (none / 0) (#76)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:26:26 PM EST
    on her term as Senator. She's not in big trouble at all.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD: Why is my comment above (none / 0) (#128)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:54:24 AM EST
    there?   I was replying to someone else. It looks weird there
    seems as if I am answering to you when I wasn't...
    Could you please erase it? Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, the Democratic Party does go (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:07:26 PM EST
    by the delegate count. And all the delegates haven't voted yet. They don't vote until the convention. It's not over until they do and settle on a candidate. Right now, Obama has a delegate lead, of declared delegates. Even pledged delegates, never mind declared, are not obligated under the rules to vote for the candidate they are pledged to.

    So Obama's delegate lead is not set in stone, it is not even certain, given how many unknowns there are. And since there have been lots of things coming out about him that he has not handled well at all, it is going to be interesting to see who comes out ahead with votes from the delegates at the convention. That is where is matters. Not in a blog, or a newspaper, or on TV. It doesn't even matter if Obama announces that he is the winner.

    The only thing that matters is the vote of the delegates at the convention. And until that happens and those votes are counted, it's not over. If I were you, I would be prepared to be disappointed.

    The Democrats are going to have to decide whether they want to win the election or nominate Obama. They can't do both.

    [ Parent ]

    He will lose because he (3.66 / 3) (#92)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:35:06 PM EST
    is associated with some very wrong people, like Louis Farrakan, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and similar types. He is knee-deep in the Chicago Combine sleaze, and has no ability to formulate and articulate his policies. The GOP will shred him and use the pieces for McCain's inauguration confetti.

    There will be so many 527 ads running about him, his wife, his past lack of action on behalf of his constituents, his manufactured "credibility" in the Ill. Senate, his presence at some of the nasty sermons(he is on the tape), and his waffling and uh'ing on every issue that comes up. People will find out more about Obama and the way he does business than they ever wanted to know.

    He can't win against the GOP machine. He doesn't have the credentials, the armor, the debating ability, the ability to come out fighting when it's needed. I could go on all night, but I won't. Obama should have stayed in the Senate. He is way out of his league. He can't win the GE.

    He has alienated most of the country's demographic groups. The solid voting ones, anyway. And most of them aren't coming back out of loyalty to a party that threw them under the bus because they didn't vote for the Party leaders' new pet. He has fractured the Democratic Party and alienated huge numbers of long-time Democrats. The "new coalition" won't make up the difference.

    He will lose. And lose badly, whining every inch of the way. Ick.

    [ Parent ]

    Gee, I read today the Sen. Obama (none / 0) (#68)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:23:18 PM EST
    favorable rating was 56%. Is that high enough for you?

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me, his UNFAVORABLE (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:25:16 PM EST
    rating is 56%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

    [ Parent ]
    Rasmussen (none / 0) (#82)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:30:39 PM EST
    has his unfavorability at 53%, one point higher than Clinton's.

    [ Parent ]
    Worst yet (none / 0) (#133)
    by gandy007 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:00:58 AM EST
    This is the worst unfavorable rating of the year and the spread between favorable 45% and 53% unfavorable is also the worst yet.

    Also his 25% very favorable to 37% very unfavorable is pretty underwhelming.

    [ Parent ]

    You Are More Than Welcome To Move On (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:55:11 PM EST
    The NEW Democratic Party now has the opportunity to prove that their new coalition consisting of the AA community, youth and the "creative class" is viable. Have at it.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD, from your typing fingers to Gods Mouth (none / 0) (#3)
    by athyrio on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:47:57 PM EST
    because I hope and pray she gets it...

    RCP is not necessarily neutral ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:16:14 PM EST
    As a consequence, it would be prudent to do some due diligence on their "estimates" of the votes from IA, NV, ME, WA before placing too much faith in their numbers.

    Has anyone QC'ed their data analysis? Have they made it public?

    Lots of people (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:32:06 PM EST
    Thenumbers are favorable to Obama imo, as it does not take into account the second choice issue. thus Obama's vote is almost certainly overstates but it is the best we have.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#109)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:56:04 PM EST
    Good to know the numbers are getting independently examined.

    Re: the Obama bias, given that it is both documented and significant, it's hard to justify assigning Obama the MI uncommitted votes without taking the exit polling data into account.

    [ Parent ]

    regarding the exit polling... (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:32:16 AM EST
    if you use the exit polling, Clinton should actually do slightly better than Obama.

    The exit polling tell us that 46% of voter preferred Clinton, 35% preferred Obama, and 19 preferred someone else.

    Now, we have NO way of knowing who the second choice of those other 19% of the voters would be, and there are two way that they can be apportioned sanely

    1. 50-50 giving Clinton 55.5% and Obama 44.5%

    2. by the proportion of the first choice vote, which gives Clinton 56.8% to 43.2%.

    So I don't see how they rationalized giving away Clinton delegates...

    [ Parent ]
    Fair application of exit poll data (none / 0) (#131)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:58:34 AM EST
    My position is that Clinton should get 100% of the votes that were cast for her in MI. If Obama is to get any votes from MI (I personally like the argument that it is inappropriate to assign uncommitted votes to any candidate), then the uncommitted votes should at least be apportioned to Obama based on the exit polling data (according to Chris Bowers, this algorithm would give Obama 173,664 uncommitted votes from MI with the remainder rightfully "belonging" to the other candidates not on the ballot).

    The point I was trying to make is that there is a huge amount of pro-Obama bias already built into the popular vote count, so it is absolutely unwarranted to add additional bias by giving him all the uncommitted votes in MI.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton did not make an argument in this post (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:33:52 PM EST
    I did.

    You are suspended. Comment no further.

    good to see these numbers (none / 0) (#94)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:36:09 PM EST
    giving Obama a number of advantages including MI uncommitted and the undemocratic caucuses. And I think it's just super cool that PR can decide this. If they come out in big numbers (not expected), then Hillary gets the popular vote by most any count. Fingers crossed.

    I do understand some hoping we don't have the delegate count/popular vote count split because of what it can do to the party. But I disagree. I think it's an excellent opportunity and test for the Democratic party to show what it's made of after what happened to it in 2000. They get to show the quality of their character to us all.

    I'm fairly confident (none / 0) (#104)
    by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:45:57 PM EST
    That the primary vote in Nebraska is as representative of the electorate in this state as any other number you'll find.

    I understand the hesitation to use the NE primary results.

    Either way, it won't likely have much influence on anybody. The lines have been drawn and the conventional wisdom has been solidified.

    BTD I know this is off topic (none / 0) (#115)
    by Rhouse on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:05:56 AM EST
    but Unity was closed and I couldn't think of any other way to bring this post from ABCs' Political Radar to your attention.

    http://tinyurl.com/56gsyc

    The title is: "Obama Won't Wait for Clinton Concession".  They're still finding better ways to bring us togeather.

    Why in the world is he doing this in Minn? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:18:59 AM EST
    Why not Illinois or even Denver? He is so in your face about everything.

    [ Parent ]
    He will be in the location of the Rep. (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:24:53 AM EST
    convention.

    [ Parent ]
    If my recollection is correct, Bush didn't wait .. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:44:30 AM EST
    for Gore's concession either. It's what all "uniters, not dividers" do.

    [ Parent ]
    30,000 write-ins for Obama (none / 0) (#140)
    by s5 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:36:02 AM EST
    I guess there are also the 30,000 write-in votes for Obama in Michigan that we just learned about today. As long as you're adding unofficial counts, estimates, and non-binding primaries, where do those fit in?

    My view of the popular vote is that it's essentially a tie, regardless of who comes out slightly ahead. And in a tie, the individual judgment of the delegates will break the tie.

    I'd be willing to count those 30,000... (none / 0) (#144)
    by NotThatStupid on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:07:45 AM EST
    ... write-in votes on condition that all the caucus states count all the people: out-of-state military, peace corps, and foreign service; invalid; elderly; workers of two-jobs; shift workers unable to get time off; poor families unable to afford baby-sitters; et al who were not allowed to mail in an absentee ballot in order to participate in the process of nominating a candidate for President.

    Since the Democratic Party now has a precedent for  deciding how people would have voted - without actually casting a ballot - let's figure out how those folks would have voted and include them in the popular vote total, too.

    Senator Obama may win the nomination, but he has no mandate, even among Democrats.

    He is not qualified to be President, and I won't vote for him.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's Popular Vote Lead . . .? | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment