home

Hillary's Popular Vote Lead

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:52:39 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Now that the DNC has recognized the Florida and Michigan primaries by agreeing to seat all of their delegates, the party has to recognize the popular votes in those states. The elections are no longer "illegitimate." Flawed, perhaps, but illegitimate, no.

The way I see it, the DNC cannot change the numbers of votes cast the way it did delegates. These were certified state elections with firm vote totals. Barack Obama removed himself voluntarily from the ballot. Hillary has to be allotted her votes, and he has to accept the consequences of his action, which is that he gets none of the popular vote in Michigan.

As a result, by any count, Hillary Clinton now leads in the popular vote. From Real Clear Politics:

Total votes with Florida and Michigan:

  • Hillary: 17,428,986
  • Obama: 17,266,433
  • Hillary leads by 162,553 votes

Total votes with Florida and Michigan and the caucus estimates for IA, WA, NV and ME:

  • Hillary: 17,652,848
  • Obama: 17,600,517
  • Hillary leads by 52,331 votes

There are three contests left. Puerto Rico with 2 million registered voters, expects a turnout of about 500,000. Hillary is expected to win comfortably.

Montana, which allows Independents to vote, will likely go for Obama. South Dakota doesn't have as many voters as Montana, but should be a closer race.

If Hillary is ahead in the popular vote on June 3, there are a myriad of reasons for superdelegates to choose her over Barack Obama. Chief among them are her greater ability to win in November, particularly in the big swing states like Ohio and Florida; the electoral map that favors her; and the fact that she does so much better than Obama with older voters, rural voters, female voters and working class voters.

There are 200 uncommitted superdelegates, but any of those who have previously endorsed Obama are free to change their mind any time up until the Convention. Some may be persuaded to change their votes on June 4.

Neither Obama nor Hillary will have the necessary number of pledged delegates by June 3.

If Obama has not reached the magic number, now 2118, by June 3, there's no reason for the superdelegates to say his pledged delegate lead trumps her popular vote lead.

The point being, the media is fixated on pledged delegates but the superdelegates may not be. The pledged delegate count is one factor but not the deciding one. If neither candidate has attained the magic number, there is no rule that the pledged delegate total counts more than the popular vote total.

At least until the last vote is counted on June 3, this is still a two person race.

It's all up to the superdelegates now.

Comments now closed.

< Obama's Popular Vote Lead . . .? | Puerto Rico Goes to The Polls . . . >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary's Popular Vote Lead | 207 comments (207 topical)
    Dueling Popular vote posts (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:54:13 PM EST
    I like it.

    I changedmy title (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:55:50 PM EST
    just to make it more fun.

    [ Parent ]
    Me Too (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:57:03 PM EST
    I'm surprised you wrote about it, but it makes it more fun.

    [ Parent ]
    and both will agree after PR (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:16:02 PM EST
    I like the two posts too. One gives every advantage to Obama and the other to Hillary. After PR it looks like every way you can count will give the popular vote to Hillary. The will of the people will be clear.

    [ Parent ]
    Not true (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:20:50 PM EST
    I count the primary vote in Washington while Obama fans would count the Washington caucus vote instead. In addition, some have been outrageous enough to double count the vote in Texas including the caucus oount.

    Also,Jeralyn does not count the nebraska primary over the Nebraska cacus.

    I think my count is the right way but neither is the most extreme position.

    [ Parent ]

    good point (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:38:16 PM EST
    I meant they are the reasonable counts from both sides.

    [ Parent ]
    Using Estimates Is Flawed Big time (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by talex on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:39:31 PM EST
    You count this - the other guy counts that. Someone else counts something completley different. It's all crap really. Nice for conversation and argument but useless in the real world.

    Like Jeralyn I like the way RealClearPolitcs went about coming up with the popular vote totals - although they did "estimate" also in part of their presentation.

    Without estimates - which is the only true and official numbers we have Clinton leads by +162,553.

    Estimates are something you get when you are doing home remodeling. They have no place in elections.

    [ Parent ]

    The RCB doesn't agree, obviously (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:54:42 PM EST
    as they used exit poll estimates and estimates of write-in votes that they did not even look at to come up with 69/59.

    [ Parent ]
    Which is why (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by talex on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:59:16 PM EST
    in another post I referred to them as the Un-Democratic Party. I'm appalled that they used any kind of estimates little on 'exit poll estimates' which are undoubtedly inaccurate to a large degree.

    [ Parent ]
    the final exit polls (none / 0) (#153)
    by boredmpa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:04:33 AM EST
    that i looked up in other primary states were within 1% or exact

    I don't know if they massage them after the fact or not though.  So maybe in this case they really are unknown.

    [ Parent ]

    We only have estimate in IA,NV,ME,WA (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by janedw420 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:19:03 AM EST
    because the states don't release the total votes

    [ Parent ]
    seems odd to me (none / 0) (#226)
    by syrupcore on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:26:56 AM EST
    that you'd want to discount the votes of all of those people.  Estimates are crap for sure but if that's the only way you have to account for a lot of voters, shouldn't you try to use them?

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:55:51 PM EST
    Insert dueling banjos/Deliverance jokes here.  LMAO  :)

    Jackson

    [ Parent ]

    You ain't a goin' no damn wheres! (none / 0) (#86)
    by magnetics on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:33:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    OK. These two posts (none / 0) (#104)
    by themomcat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:41:20 PM EST
    have made me smile. Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    They already distorted the popular vote. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by lansing quaker on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:58:30 PM EST
    They arbitrarily apportioned it.

    It may be good for HRC in the long run.  But it's piss for democracy in any form.

    The delegates did not concern me nearly as much as my actual vote did.

    As a Florida voter (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:14:04 PM EST
    or half a voter now, I guess, I totally agree. And believe me, I feel your pain.

    Being a democrat in Florida is a thankless thing to be.

    [ Parent ]

    As half a voter (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:48:19 PM EST
    I think you should get two votes -- aka The TEXAS way.

    [ Parent ]
    You are only allowed (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:03:09 AM EST
    half ratings...I wanted to rate you five, but I will give you 2.5

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (none / 0) (#110)
    by hillspwns on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:43:27 PM EST
    I suspect you're divided on the issue ;)

    [ Parent ]
    I love that Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:59:58 PM EST
    is leading in the popular vote.  The meme that FL and MI doesn't count is DOA.

    Wonder how Obama supporters feel about that now.

    Here's something I am noticing (and if anyone else reading this wants to back me up, do so).

    When I go to other blogs/new sites/conservative blogs, Talk Left is usually the first blog listed as a Hillary leaning blog.  

    I would be interested in knowing how much traffic has increased on TL since it's getting around that this is the best place for BHO and HRC people to dialogue.

    I think that as this thing heats up TL will become the vanguard site for Hillary.  I hope so.  Jeralyn does a mighty fine job at representing (has her name on it, so I would, too).  BTD is great balance for the site as well.

    Anyway, on to Puerto Rico tomorrow for making that popular vote spread even larger!

    VIVA HILLARY!  SI SE PUEDE!

    What Obama Supporters (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by talex on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:24:36 PM EST
    will argue is that because Obama was awarded unwarranted delegates by the SCOTUS, scratch that, by the un-Democratic Party then the Michigan  popular vote allocation should reflect that. But as Jeralyn said: "the DNC cannot change the numbers of votes cast the way it did delegates". Exactly.

    Now Clinton was on the ballot as was 'Uncommitted'.

    So what I say to Obama supporters is...

    What part of the word Uncommitted don't you understand?

    Uncommitted means NOT committed. Case closed.

    [ Parent ]

    And oh yeah (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by talex on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:28:24 PM EST
    Here is a prediction. It's called the Obama Rule.

    From here on out we will never, ever, in no way see a candidate who is still in the contest remove their name from a ballot ever again - no matter how many rules that state has broken.

    [ Parent ]

    Id say the opposite (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Chisoxy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:57:26 PM EST
    Anyone in fear of losing will remove their name in the hopes of getting a better delegate split down the line.

    Thats the precedent that was set. Who needs the voters? The DNC can predict what wouldve happened.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama suppoerters in Michigan (2.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Xenophon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:39:27 PM EST
    As someone who wanted to vote for Obama in Michigan, this puts me in a pretty difficult spot. According to state rules, you aren't allowed to write in someone who isn't on the ballot, so the only option that we had was to vote uncommitted (or to protest the vote by not going/ruining the ballot by writing in Obama).

    I would like to hear Clinton supporters ideas for making sure that the voices of the Obama supporters in Michigan are heard.

    I find it sort of ironic that Clinton supporters are making two major points. 1) That we cannot disenfranchise any of the voters, and 2) that the popular vote matters.  Yet, implicit in both these arguments is that Obama supporters in Michigan should be disenfranchised both in delegate selection as well as popular vote tally.

    I understand that Obama had a choice about taking his name off the ballot, but conversely Michigan had a choice to not move it's primary forward.  I don't think it makes a very credible argument when you say that only rules that support your candidate should be followed whereas all others should be ignored.

    [ Parent ]

    That's Michigans Problem (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by talex on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:45:30 PM EST
    There are a lot of states with sucky rules. Like how does Clinton win a district by 60-40 and have the delegates split down the middle 50-50? Were the voices of the Clinton supporters fairly registered there? Nope.

    What you need to do is change the way Michigan allows for write-ins.

    But all that said. If there is one person responsible for your dilemma it is the guy who you wanted to vote for because had he not naively taken his name off the ballot you could have voted for him. Not that it would have changed the result.

    [ Parent ]

    A wise woman once said. (1.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Xenophon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:52:26 PM EST
    I think I heard a quote once that went something like this:  [It doesn't matter that he took his name off the ballot] "because it is clear that those votes aren't going to count for anything."

    [ Parent ]
    News Flash!!! (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by talex on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:55:26 PM EST
    The votes did count! Read today's news.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess that destroys that woman's credibility. (1.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Xenophon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:06:52 AM EST
    The point is that when you are making up an arbitrary metric which are supposed persuade super-delegates to vote one way or the other.  You need to at least give the appearance of trying to be balanced in your formulation.  A metric that says that Obama has no supporters in Michigan is obviously flawed, and not particularly persuasive (unless you are looking for an excuse to justify you vote).

    [ Parent ]
    Noone was saying that (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:12:11 AM EST
    everyone knew that Uncommitted would go to convention and vote for Obama even though they included Edwards, Biden and Richardson counts.  So tell me: why didn't the Obama camp agree to settle for 55 delegates today; which were all of the UnComitted?
    Why steal 4 delegates from people that voted for Hillary Clinton ? Why ?

    [ Parent ]
    Because, the results of the primary were flawed. (1.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Xenophon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:24:56 AM EST
    The reason is this: Obama and his supporters do not recognized the legitimacy of a vote that broke DNC rules and only had one major candidate on the ballot. I think it was Senator Levin who said it very well, paraphrasing: We cannot accept the results of a flawed primary.

    A vote where only one major candidate is on the ticket flies in the face of everything that the primary is about, determining the will of the people. What the rules committee did is they found a comprise that won't leave Michigan out of convention, but affirms the fact that the primary was flawed and it's results are not up to the standards expected of a state primary.

    [ Parent ]

    Then return (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:27:50 AM EST
    the 59 delegates to Uncommitted.
    You cannot have it both ways: your argument just doesn't hold any water.

    [ Parent ]
    Correction! (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:28:42 AM EST
    Return the 55 delegates to Uncommitted and give back to Clinton the 4 delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    No, because these are two seperate issues. (1.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Xenophon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:39:20 AM EST
    You just said my argument doesn't hold water because "you can't have it both ways."  But that is exactly the argument: There are two separate issues that are being debated.

    1. How can we makes sure that Michigan is represented at the Convention?
    2. Are the results of the Michigan primary valid, and do the reflect the will of the voters?

    The answer to (2) is obviously that they do now.  Therefore the rules committee had to come up with a way of dealing with (1) without accepting the results of (2).  You can have it both ways, and that is exactly what the rules commit (and many Clinton supporters) agreed to.

    [ Parent ]
    Then arrest your secretary of state (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:06:45 AM EST
    in Michigan for certifying the election as not flawed but entirely legal.

    [ Parent ]
    Your Candidate (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:01:51 AM EST
    did not participate.  He should have left his name on the ballot.  

    [ Parent ]
    Why should Clinton supporters figure (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:04:20 AM EST
    it out? OBAMA took his name off the ballot. Not Clinton supporters, the Clinton campaign or even the woman herself.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree, in a sense. (1.33 / 3) (#167)
    by Xenophon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:14:34 AM EST
    I agree that Obama shouldn't have taken his name off the Ballot, and I was extremely pissed when I heard that I wasn't going to be able to vote for him.

    I just get a little bit upset when I see Clinton supporters acting so righteous, making it seem like they are on a mission to make every vote count, yet at the slightest mention of Obama supporters in Michigan they say: "Well, it's Obama's fault that he took himself off the ticket, and it's Michigan's rules that say that you can't write in a candidate, so we shouldn't worry about representing those people."

    [ Parent ]

    Stop misrepresenting (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by oldpro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:21:59 AM EST
    other people's positions and state your own.  Period.

    Anyone with any clue at all knew the Obama voter in Michigan was supposed to vote Uncommitted.  There was even a CAMPAIGN telling you that!

    [ Parent ]

    Not according to Harold Ickes (1.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Xenophon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:29:02 AM EST
    He seemed to be saying that a vote for uncommitted could not be reasonably considered to be a vote for Obama.  So, according to Clinton's strongest advocate, there was no way that I could express support for Obama in the Primary.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, see that's where Obama's gamble kinda (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:43:17 AM EST
    didn't pan out. He may have told you to vote for him that way, but did he tell ya it would work? Actually, he screwed you when he pandered to Iowa. If he and his buddies would have left their names on the ballot, you would be counted today more than likely. Of course, the DNC might have turned you into a half person . . .

    [ Parent ]
    You don't matter as much as Iowa (5.00 / 4) (#214)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:05:14 AM EST
    according to your candidate.  Yet you still wanted to vote for him?  Then there is no logic that can reach you -- you wanted to vote for a candidate who didn't care about you. Masochistic voting behavior is beyond explanation and a waste of discussion space here.  

    [ Parent ]
    Here's a clue (5.00 / 6) (#176)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:19:43 AM EST
    why donchu ask OBAMA to make sure your voices are heard?

    Let your damn candidate carry his own damn water.....what a stupid comment.  yeah, hillary to the rescue.

    [ Parent ]

    JANE IN MICH (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by janedw420 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:27:13 AM EST
    I didn't vote for Hillary, because I was told at the  poles, my vote didn't count, so I didn't vote fr Hillary...goes both ways

    [ Parent ]
    I have a solution for that. (2.33 / 3) (#200)
    by Xenophon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:31:00 AM EST
    Let's just go by the rules set by the DNC and not count any of our votes. Then we are both disenfranchised equally :) I promise to still vote for the Democrat in the fall.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's campaign and supporters (none / 0) (#100)
    by rjarnold on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:39:52 PM EST
    are going to say that the unwarranted delegates will show that the primary was invalid, and that Michigan shouldn't count in the popuar vote totals. I think that is why they fought for those 4 delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    I definitely like the way Jeralyn counts (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:00:25 PM EST
    better than the way BTD does:)

    Amazingly... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:01:24 PM EST
    they both agree that she could end up with the lead.

    Jeralyn just thinks she's already got it. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    We need some SDs to get on (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:02:28 PM EST
    board though, get some momentum.  I wish some would come out after PR for Clinton...unless they are buying this argument it will be over by Wed or Thur, imo.

    The Popular Vote (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:06:29 PM EST
    I'm torn right now, especially after the Levin Compromise Affirmation today, as to whether or not the popular vote even has a bearing. I think it's clear that half the party wants Clinton, and half wants Obama. The stupid calendar, and the stupid, stupid way that we have a non-uniform way of electing delegates, casting votes, who can, who can't, etc. means that... the popular vote probably doesn't reflect what the will of the voters really is.

    This is why I want a national primary day, and have it be all primaries, all either open or closed to the same degree... have things be uniform so we don't have to have any confusion over this in the future. The fact that you can even look at the popular vote in so many ways is a travesty to me.

    We have no accurate measure for the will of the people, and that is the appalling thing about this whole process to me.

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:08:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    But the problem with a single National Primary Day (none / 0) (#111)
    by blcc on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:44:34 PM EST
    is that it wouldn't have the long vetting process which this extended season has provided.  Obama didn't even begin to be vetted until after Super Tuesday.  Imagine if EVERY state had voted for the blank slate the way Iowa did?  (shudder)

    [ Parent ]
    There are ways (none / 0) (#115)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:46:18 PM EST
    You can vet the candidate without having a primary. Sure, make the process start as early as it did this year in terms of campaigning, hold ten to fifteen debates with all the candidates, make it a requirement by the DNC to release pertinent info like tax forms, medical history, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    national primary day: not a good idea (none / 0) (#122)
    by ibextati on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:49:48 PM EST
    Imagine that after a supposed national primary day,some damaging info about the nominee comes out. You leave no window for other to correct or change the course of the nomination. I think the current way of nominating works well. One possible area of improvement might be getting rid of the caucuses.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd get rid of (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:01:57 AM EST
    caucuses for sure.  

    I like the idea of a National Primary day but I can see problems with it as well.  Maybe if they had something like "regional primary days" it might work better.  

    [ Parent ]

    Better primary system... (none / 0) (#151)
    by travc on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:03:27 AM EST
    Yeah, it really is about getting to the 'intent of the voters'.  But perhaps a slightly more sophisticated and better IMO idea:

    All states us instant-runoff primaries for nominee choices.  Caucuses are perfectly fine for internal party elections and such, but it is also fine to do them in the primary instead (state party's choice).

    The slate of national candidates is set by the national party before any primaries.  The rules can be pretty derivative at first... just get a sufficient number of signatures (or whatever other ballot qualification hurdle) for say 20 states (the specific number isn't too important).

    Specific scheduling is done via random selection or rotation through 'pools' of states with various demographic characters.  

    First 4 primaries are 'up front' separated by 2 weeks each.  A small state, a southern state, a midwest state, and a western state.  No 'big' states in this list... mainly because they are so damn expensive to run in.

    Then a series of 4 big multi-state (something like 12 states each) primaries separated by a month each.  Just randomize which states go on which day.

    This gives a good chance for retail campaigning up front, and even enough time to briefly campaign in every state for the big primaries.  It is all over in 6 months... and the convention can be a month later.  

    Importantly, IRV means votes for candidate which don't make it aren't wasted... just retabulate when a candidate drops out (or falls below threshold).

    Sorry if this is a bit too detailed or not detailed enough (depending on your wonk factor)... the important ideas are there IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    noooooo (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:52:56 AM EST
    IRV is bad. It isn't monotone. That means, essentially, that you can vote for your candidate and cause him (or her) to LOSE.

    [ Parent ]
    Works for me. (none / 0) (#161)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:10:56 AM EST
    Seems to be well-thought out. As long as it's not regional bias, and a computer randomizes the primaries as opposed to anything else.

    [ Parent ]
    Just between us (none / 0) (#155)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:05:45 AM EST
    I belong to the school which says that the popular vote is close enough, and there are enough questions about various aspects of it, that it's impossible to determine a winner.  Call it a tie.

    Obama has obviously won more pledged delegates.  That does count for something.

    If I were a superdelegate, at this point I would cast my vote for Obama unless I believed that Hillary had a significantly greater chance than he does to win in November (which, in fact, I do believe).  The popular vote gives SDs a sufficient basis to vote either way, but I certainly don't think they should be sitting around trying to figure out which candidate is ahead by 12 votes and treating that as dispositive.  There will never be a clear winner.

    [ Parent ]

    I think that Hillary needs to be leading in (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by rjarnold on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:10:32 PM EST
    the popular vote count the way BTD counts it, in order for it to be a more successful argument with the super-delegates.

    i voted for hillary (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by Turkana on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:10:36 PM EST
    and that should be all that the superdelegates need.

    brava! (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:13:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    But I demand that MY vote for Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:13:36 PM EST
    be decisive!

    [ Parent ]
    Turkana's vote (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Prabhata on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:26:17 PM EST
    Is all the delegates need to choose Hillary, but my threat to become and independent and vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee is all the delegates need TO NOT CHOOSE Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    although (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Turkana on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:29:25 PM EST
    if hillary is given the nomination, plenty of obama supporters will mirror that. i'll vote for the democrat. period.

    [ Parent ]
    i vote against anti-democratic practices, period. (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by boredmpa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:27:54 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn is 100% right. (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:11:31 PM EST
    My God I have never heard of such a thing.  You can't give votes to someone not on the ballot.  Popular votes are the results of certified elections.  Again, you can not give someone votes who was not on the ballot.  

    Maybe it's splitting hairs (none / 0) (#198)
    by oldpro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:29:40 AM EST
    but I don't think they 'gave them votes.'

    I think they gave them delegates...who each get to vote HALF A VOTE.

    [ Parent ]

    I will say one more thing... (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:14:00 PM EST
    and that is that as soon as the popular vote argument comes up, the "It doesn't matter11!!!!" population of commenters increases exponentially.

    Perhaps that is because, despite their protestations and exhortations, they know that the Party tends to nominate the popular vote winner.

    I wonder why this worries them?

    Good night, and thanks again to BTD and Jeralyn and BackfromOhio for the amazing work today!

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:14:08 PM EST
    You have a direct line with all of the SDs? You've talked with them personally...and each one has told you that they aren't buying the argument?

    Impressive...

    Why do think he is called (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:18:35 PM EST
    Mr. Intelligent?

    [ Parent ]
    Best change the name... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:21:23 PM EST
    to Mr. Psychic or Mr. Magic 8 Ball.

    Intelligent appears to be stretching just a bit.

    [ Parent ]

    I'd believe him, (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by boredmpa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:07:30 AM EST
    If his name were Mr Fluffer.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:27:35 PM EST
    Paul Kane knows how many super delegates other reporters have been talking to?

    What a silly thing to write.


    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:45:15 PM EST
    I do not know what the SDs are saying or thinking. No idea at all.

    but I found Paul Kane's comment hilarious.

    [ Parent ]

    well... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:31:42 PM EST
    if they've stopped paying attention, then they ought to reconsider whether or not they should be considered SDs.

    Anyhow, that doesn't exactly indicate that they aren't buying the arguments...which was your claim.

    [ Parent ]

    Amazing... (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:41:14 PM EST
    Can these SDs not walk and chew gum at the same time?

    Why just the other day I was able to think about the popular vote argument and still think about the Obama/McCain match-up...and I even managed to do my job.

    I think that Paul Kane has made some basic general assumptions that all of the 280 SDs he "covers" are of one mind.

    [ Parent ]

    BTW... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:46:45 PM EST
    The 280 SDs in Congress, those are the ones Kane's covering...

    They represent less than half of the full contingency of SDs across the country.

    There are 796 SDs out there...

    [ Parent ]

    I mocked that column (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:15:35 AM EST
    here the other day. A WaPo reporter does a live chat and that constitutes fact? Please.

    [ Parent ]
    Why are they waiting for (none / 0) (#71)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:29:41 PM EST
    Clinton to drop out?

    [ Parent ]
    Mr. Intelligent (none / 0) (#183)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:22:45 AM EST
    has been erased. He's previously been banned using two other screen names.

    [ Parent ]
    I really appreciate and respect (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:14:56 PM EST
    the Obama supporters who come her for genuine dialog.  The ones who come here to sh!t on Clinton supporters I just don't get.  In a million years, if Hillary was winning, I can't imagine going to an Obama site to sh!t on his supporters.  I just don't get the motivation at all.

    Thank you! (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:20:01 PM EST
    As a Clinton supporter who is weary beyond words of being dumped upon, I enthusiastically agree with your post.

    [ Parent ]
    It's what the kool-aid tells them to do!!!! (none / 0) (#85)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:33:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If this had been the other way around (none / 0) (#90)
    by Mavs4527 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:34:34 PM EST
    Obama would have been forced out of the race back in early March since it would have been almost mathematically impossible for him to overtake her lead in pledged delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    History say you're probably wrong (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:17:29 AM EST
    Clinton is the only Democratic candidate in modern history  to have been hounded to drop out of the race for months before any candidate has clinched the nomination. She is also running as the strongest second place in modern history. And as an example, when Brown looked mathematically impossible in April of 92, no one forced him out and even after Bill Clinton clinched in June of that year, Brown still kept his fight up to the convention.

    [ Parent ]
    that might be true, we will (none / 0) (#106)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:41:48 PM EST
    never know

    [ Parent ]
    Actually it's outrageous to suggest (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:19:15 PM EST
    giving Obama credit when he voluntarily took his name off the ballot, under no compulsion.
    It subverts the most basic principles of Democracy.
    You know, there are MILLIONS of Clinton supporters who would have voted for her in caucus states, had they been given the chance to vote in a primary. Should we count their intentions also?

    It is outrageous (5.00 / 10) (#46)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:21:12 PM EST
    Obama got more delegates by removing himself from the ballot than he would have if his name had remained. No one is going to convince me that so few people voted for Edwards in MI, when Edwards had enormous backing of labor.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh really? Actually, a consideration of (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:23:27 PM EST
    how people would have voted was central to Obama's arguments.

    [ Parent ]
    I told you so bragging rights (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:21:11 PM EST
    If the SD's still pick Obama after the popular vote lead is made clear and of course as we all know with the electability argument now more clear. Not of course what we would want, but it will put Hillary in a good position should Obama win the nomination and loose the GE. And with that, the stage will be set for 2012.

    Of course it's not too late for the SD's. Only one candidate can win in the general. Only one candidate has the will of the people. Only one candidate can win OH, PA, FL, MI, WV, and possibly other eastern and rust belt swing states. Only one candidate has the experience to be a great president. And that candidate is of course Hillary Clinton.

    i can't overemphasize this (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Turkana on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:32:07 PM EST
    no matter who is nominated, if we don't win in november, the party will be done with both of them, as far as national office is concerned.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually i think Clinton will be quite the (5.00 / 7) (#87)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:33:55 PM EST
    hero if Obama loses in November. By then it will be clear exactly where the blame lies, and it is not with Hillary in the slightest.
    But we shall see. I am looking forward to checking a certain blog at 9 am Monday morning.

    [ Parent ]
    agree (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:42:45 PM EST
    If Obama looses in the GE, no amount of crying, whining, or blaming others will work. Especially not with Hillary saying now she's got the will of the people and the electability, and if you don't choose me, well, don't say I didn't warn you.

    It's clear to the SD's now. If you select Obama, you are selecting the much weaker candidate for the GE. Weaker because he can't compete with McCain, and weaker because he was not the will of the Democratic primary system. Period. So now the know.

    [ Parent ]

    Nice way to treat our presumptive nominee (2.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Mavs4527 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:39:25 PM EST
    Already prepping for their defeat and looking forward to what happens after John McCain is sworn in as President. We sure have some nice, loyal Democrats here.

    [ Parent ]
    Broken record. (5.00 / 6) (#101)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:40:24 PM EST
    Man you guys are as subtle as Donna Brazile. Give it a rest, ok?

    [ Parent ]
    I can't even begin to tell you (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:41:47 PM EST
    how thoroughly the ENTITLEMENT oozes through this comment.

    I'm going to want Obama to win in the fall, but I'm pretty sure attitudes like yours won't help.

    [ Parent ]

    if mccain wins (none / 0) (#117)
    by Turkana on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:46:47 PM EST
    half the party will blame it on clinton. she wouldn't have a whisper of a chance in 2012.

    [ Parent ]
    Turkana is right (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:59:26 PM EST
    there already is a cottage industry in finding excuses for his loss, Hillary, her supporters and the hicks.  

    [ Parent ]
    Half the party (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by Nadai on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:11:14 AM EST
    will blame Clinton if Obama gets a hangnail.

    [ Parent ]
    Some in the media may blane an Obama loss (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:20:47 AM EST
    on Clinton and some on the DNC.  However, you're making a mistake if you think that rank-and-file democrats will follow the media after this crapfest.  

    I also fully expect that there will be some serious house cleaning at the DNC.  If not, the Democratic party may as well disband.


    [ Parent ]

    Turkana, think about how Obama is (4.33 / 6) (#120)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:48:48 PM EST
    going to lose---it is all going to be about HIS  horrible associations. That will kill him.
    Hillary has pledged to campaign for him, and I'm sure she will.
    The way I see it, by November, DEMOCRATS will despise Obama worse than any candidate in memory, even though they vote for him.

    [ Parent ]
    i disagree (none / 0) (#173)
    by Turkana on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:18:29 AM EST
    half the party will worship the ground he walks on, and half won't. but if he loses, no one will want anything to do with either of them, again. everyone will want to put this campaign far behind them.

    [ Parent ]
    Turk, Obama's unfavorability (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:24:31 AM EST
    rating is skyrocketing.  I will bet that he has less than 50% approval from DEMOCRATS by November, if he happens to be the nominee. People hate to see a walking disaster. Once Obama is actually the nominee, and once ALL the nasty videotapes come out, Obama will be the worst loser in decades. Nobody likes a loser.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary message to supporters (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:22:07 PM EST
    was just posted. It reads:

    Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy made the following statement:

    Today's results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party's nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party's convention.  The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly.

    We strongly object to the Committee's decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan's delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.

    The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.
    We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan's delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.
    I hope (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:26:50 PM EST
    they take the MI decision to the credentials comm.  just because of its absurdity.  I don't care if he already has the magic number. This one should not be allowed to stand.  I could have lived with giving him the uncomm, but taking delegates away from the winner is insane.

    [ Parent ]
    so bizarre and so close WHY (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Chamonix on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:23:38 PM EST
    would either of them say they are the nominee when it could all change on convention day? So let's say the media anoints Obama the nominee this next week. And Obama runs against McCain as this is happening we start to see indies start to favor McCain, and Dem voters who supported Clinton are flocking to McCain. This is all happening in July. For whatever reason, it is happening. Then the convention comes and the delegates vote for Clinton over Obama. This would mean that Clinton would be the Democratic Nominee?  The way our world has been going lately, I would expect nothing less. Could this really happen?

    imo (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:26:07 PM EST
    No.

    [ Parent ]
    well then why does this diary say that (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Chamonix on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:37:01 PM EST
    any delegate can change their mind until the convention. What if an illegitimate Obama baby is discovered in July?

    [ Parent ]
    Ma Ma where;s my pa? (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:42:09 PM EST
    gone to the white house Ha Ha Ha.

    sorry, could not resist.

    It is my opinion that there will be nothing to sway them before the election.

    [ Parent ]

    November (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Davidson on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:51:19 PM EST
    What will happen to Obama, Brazile, Dean, Pelosi, and the superdelegates who endorsed Obama if he loses horribly in November?

    [ Parent ]
    that's for their voters to decide (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:56:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not funny (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:44:59 PM EST
    And imo, more likely for McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    It is very funny (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:47:42 PM EST
    and historical. James g. Blaine used that against Grover Cleveland who had an illegitimte child while he was President.

    You do not know that story?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, I do know the story (none / 0) (#127)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:50:57 PM EST
    ^^^^^^^American history major.

    Funny in the past, not so funny for now. His "former" pastor is bad enough.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama does not have a illegitmate child (none / 0) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:54:47 PM EST
    for crissakes.

    [ Parent ]
    I know (none / 0) (#140)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:57:05 PM EST
    but the joke. . .

    [ Parent ]
    Here you go (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:49:59 PM EST
    It was in the July 21st edition that the Buffalo Evening Telegraph dropped a bombshell into the presidential campaign of 1884. Under the banner of "A Terrible Tale," the Telegraph announced to the world "The Pitiful Story of Maria Halpin and Governor Cleveland's Son." The story was that Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland, a bachelor, had had an affair resulting in the birth of a son.
         Cleveland's primary supporters and campaign staff asked if it was true, and he said that it was indeed so. When asked how to handle it in the campaign, he said, "Tell the truth." The relationship was admitted
    but downplayed. After all, they said, Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton were capable but wayward men as well.
        The actual story was that Maria Halpin, a widow in her mid-30s, had moved to Buffalo, New York, in the early 1870s. She became involved with a number of men, including a 36-year-old attorney named Grover Cleveland. By the end of 1873 she was pregnant.
        Maria claimed that Cleveland was the father, although there was no way to prove it one way or another. However, Cleveland was a bachelor while the other paternity candidates were married. When the child was born in September 1874 she named him Oscar Folsom Cleveland. (Oscar Folsom
    was Cleveland's law partner.)
        Despite uncertainty Cleveland decided to accept paternity. He had less to lose than other possibilities. He acknowledged the boy and provided for his support. When one of his campaign leaders tried to publicly blame the deceased Oscar Folsom as the father, Cleveland had the story squelched.
        Not long after the birth Maria began drinking heavily, and Cleveland had a judge commit her to an insane asylum and the child to an orphanage. He paid the orphanage expenses of $5 per week. When Maria was released, Cleveland had her set up in a business in Niagara Falls. Later she tried unsuccessfully to get custody of her son, and he was placed for adoption with a family. Cleveland paid her $500 and she left town. The son grew up to become a medical doctor.
      The Republicans used the campaign slogan, "Ma Ma, Where's my Pa?" The controversy about public service and private morality raged across the nation. The choice was between a man of personal immorality and public service integrity (Grover Cleveland) and one of a model family man guilty of using public office for personal gain (James G. Blaine). Cleveland narrowly won. After his election the Democrats answered the Republican ditty with "Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!"
        On June 2, 1886, 49-year-old President Cleveland married 21-year-old Francis Folsom. She was the daughter of his deceased law partner. Francis knew of the relationship with Maria Halpin and forgave her husband for it. The marriage resulted in five children. Once he took his wedding vow, Grover Cleveland never strayed.

    [