Hillary's Popular Vote Lead

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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

    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?

    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  :)



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

    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.


    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.

    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

    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 ;)

    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!


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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."

    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.

    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).

    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 ?

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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."


    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!


    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.

    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 . . .

    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.  

    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.


    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

    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.

    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.

    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. :-)


    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.

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

    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
    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!

    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.

    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.

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


    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?


    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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...


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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
    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    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?

    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.


    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?

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

    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?


    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.


    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.

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

    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.

    Yup (none / 0) (#132)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:54:17 PM EST
    Lean it in High School here.

    nice bit of history there, thanks (n/t) (none / 0) (#133)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:54:35 PM EST
    You know what is untenable? (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:26:29 PM EST
    So many people will not support Obama in the GE.  I think he has his followers now and that is it.  He has peaked.  

    The magic number is still 2210 until August (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:28:18 PM EST
    Hillary has reserved the right to appeal the RBC ruling, so the finish line remains the same.

    As much as the DNC, MSM, and Obama camp would like to redefine winning to expedite their shared agenda, Clinton has sufficient grounds now to stay in the race until the convention in August.

    I have a hunch that next week could be a PR nightmare for Obama, and hopefully the SDs will think twice before rushing to judgement.

    That's one biased hunch you have there (none / 0) (#126)
    by Mavs4527 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:50:50 PM EST
    Hillary has a right to protest the RBC ruling. It won't change the result however. The makeup of the credentials won't be any better than that of the Rules Committee and it was the chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party that offered the proposal that the Rules Committee adopted.

    How are you going to speak to the disenfranchised people of Michigan when that state's Democratic Party proposed the deal to begin with?

    Hillary can suspend her campaign, endorse Obama, campaign for him, and if disaster struck with Obama as a candidate before the convention, guess who likely gets a bunch of superdelegates and gets the nomination? If she pursues this fight to the convention, no matter what happens to Obama's candicacy, not too many people in the party not supporting her already are going to support her under those circumstances.


    Super Delegates are not valid (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:28:44 PM EST
    until they actually cast their vote at the convention. They endorse, but they aren't pledged.

    Not going to matter.... (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Oje on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:50:25 PM EST
    There is nothing to indicate that the party apparatchiki regard "will of the voters" as a meaningful concept.

    In Michigan, the state party leaders acted and legislated in a manner that nullified the state's voters "will" to influence the primaries in January/February. Then, the DNC empowered those same state party leaders to allocate delegates based on "compromise" as 69-59 - the "popular will of the voters" entirely neutralized and then constructed by the state party.

    In Florida, by Germond's argument, the DNC acted inappropriately to strip Florida of all its delegates in January, but having done so, the DNC made the Florida primary into a "beauty contest."  As a consequence of the DNC's actions, Florida's vote is a "beauty contest" that does not reflect the "will of the voters," therefore the DNC cannot re-instate 100% of the delegates. But, the DNC deeply apologizes for stripping all of the Florida's delegates, here are the 50% you should have had in the first place!

    It is amazing how each of the actions that the DNC took in the past 6 months just happened to work against Clinton, and for Obama. They must truly be vexed that Clinton was such a strong candidate to have brought the inner workings of the Democratic party into the open in June. However, like Republicans in the 1990s, these folks regard themselves as the aggrieved party (for being exposed!) and regard Hillary Clinton as the enemy of the party (for winning the party's primaries well into June!).

    Looking forward, Clinton will need to build an entire argument against the party primary system to demonstrate that Obama benefited inappropriately at every undemocratic turn in the primary system. But again, she runs into the problem that she is speaking to the architects of the undemocratic system...  Even before she has to consider the role of the media as one of the articulated array of forces that have aligned against her. It is lose, lose for Clinton all around, from party insiders to media/blogospheric  outsiders. The progressive bloggers clap loudly for having defeated an insider??? We are post-Enlightenment, but not in the way that Somerby meant....

    The DNC actually disregarded the will of voters (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by SamJohnson on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:43:56 AM EST
    The incessant, ever so helpful Obama  sentinels are trying to make a point about today's rulings very clear. In order to disassociate actual votes from delegates received, which would lend support to a popular vote case being made, they specifically gave Obama four delegates from Clinton by claiming that no votes were valid votes. This is what Levin and Company of the MDP asked for - and they got it as a stab at avoiding ongoing Party schisms and anger.

    They very much did this at Clinton's expense, intentionally. So, although the popular votes certified by the states are what they are, the DNC now has more publicly stated that delegates are in no related to the popular vote of any contest. Not that they ever were in the minds of the DNC, who most likely wasted all of our time by not saying beforehand that they had decided that they were not going to go with Clinton anyway.

    I think that is where most of the anger is rooted, as it should be. It's part of the  "republicanization" strategy of the DNC. That 50 state purple state morass of policy that enables all to believe that they are hearing what they want to hear although noting is really being said.

    Any ruling today was only an estimation of the spirit of the law, so to speak, since they didn't break any codified laws, although the advice of their lawyers counseled otherwise that redelegating pledged delegates would be illegal. They chose to pick and choose from that advice what they wanted anyway.

    They justified it - to whom I'm not sure since they had every intent of doing exactly what they felt was needed anyway - by accepting Michigan's proposal. This has been the MO of both the Obama campaign and the DNC from the start - don't take responsibility for a flawed primary system but work the rules, and don't ever take responsibility for any direct or indirect consequences of mistakes or failed strategies.


    They're beyond illegitimate (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by Dadler on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:56:39 PM EST
    They are completely self-destructive.  Even if we win the GE, this will always be the day the Democrats decided to cut democracy in half for the sake of ego and expedience.

    I mean, for good God's sake, it was the REPUBLICANS who changed Florida's primary and we STILL decided to give our fellow Democrats there the big middle finger.


    MI and FL regular delegates are free (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:02:00 AM EST
    to change their votes to Clinton as well by the way. We know nothing until August. I know if I were them, especially the MI ones, I'd switch to Hillary because of how my voters and my state were treated. And let's not forget who blocked the re-vote.

    And as has been mentioned before, no matter what the SD's say in the next week or two, they don't vote until august, and what they say isn't binding.

    Buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride to Denver.

    Obama will select those delegates carefully (none / 0) (#154)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:04:53 AM EST
    though I'm sure. I just thought of that after I posted the above message. But his campaign can't catch everyone and really know what they're going to do. Here's hoping.

    doesn't this make Obama's campaigning for Pres. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by thereyougo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:03:15 AM EST
    like not happening? And now mcCain's attacks on Obama seem to be for naught since Hillary is still in this thing.

    I mean that's got to rankle his camp big time especially since he's called the primary march to the nomination the Bataan March.

    This has to be frustrating Obama big time, I think I see egg on his face since he's been crowning himself the presumptive nominee didn't they say they were going to claim victory on Tuesday?

    Oh what a ride!

    4 delegates = 600,000 Voters (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:14:40 AM EST
    That point needs to be STRESSED, as Ickes made clear today. The Rulz Committe stole four delegates from Hillary and gave them to Obama. But, when it's only put in terms of four delegates, it sounds less significant. Keep asserting that it violates the express will of 600,000 VOTERS. That's the good stuff.

    Specifically, 287,366 -- make it specific (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:22:24 AM EST
    Not some round number that included Republicans.  Make it specific, make people start to put faces to these numbers -- as best I can figure them quickly from available numbers of MI Dem voters and without exact numbers on those write-in ballot numbers:  Four delegates is about 18,750 Michiganders who cast their ballots for Clinton but now find they voted for Obama.  The rest voted for Uncommitted but now find they voted for a guy not even on the ballot.

    It's the Chicago Way.  But in Cook County (and Gary), they move numbers from one candidate's column to another candidate's column in smoke-filled back rooms.  The DNC plays it the Chicago Way on national television -- and tells itself what a democratic party it is.

    Enjoy the Chicago Way, folks.  First, Cook County -- next, the country.  Notice how many Chicago politicians are in jail or on the way there?  This could be a colorful four years to come in the courts. . . .


    You're a really big f***king joke. (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:19:44 AM EST
    You know, Obama is always saying "no one has done more for X than me".
    Well, no one has done more to split the Democratic party than Obama, and no one has done more to set race relations back than Obama.

    No one has done more without (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:23:23 AM EST
    even being on the ballot than Obama.

    I think we need bumper stickers.


    If I were a more vindictive person (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:25:59 AM EST
    I could say the same thing about minority candidates who cry "racism" and encouraging their ardent supporters to do the same setting back racial relations in national politics at least 20 years.

    But, of course, I wouldn't ever be that petty.

    Scream then (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:27:45 AM EST
    but keep your f@cking bullsh!t to yourself.  Sick joke.

    Fly, why do Obama supporters waste so (5.00 / 5) (#201)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:34:18 AM EST
    much time trolling around blog posts that are supportive of Clinton?

    I see no need, whatsoever, to go to an Obama blog. If I want to hear what you folks think, I watch cable or networks news for 15 minutes, and I've got more than my fill.

    Do you come here because you want to know what some pro-Hillary folks are thinking; and you just can't find that ANYWHERE in the MSM, or the ELITE blogs?

    Poor you.

    They've already dimmed those lights... (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:42:16 AM EST
    Haven't you been paying any attention over the last year? What woman in her right mind is going to want to run for president and put up with the abuse that Hillary has had to face from the media and the hateful bloggers? Did any of them incur any wrath from you? You're blaming the victim here.

     So one woman got mad as hell and didn't want to take it anymore? You think that is going to ruin it for all women, who of course, up to now, would have coasted on petals of roses to the Presidency, right?

    My guess is that you've been angry at Clinton for a while because she's daring to oppose your preferred candidate. Hey, if a female is ever going to become  President she's going to have to go up against someone's preferred candidate. If the female candidate is supposed to give up every time someone gets mad at her then we are never, ever, going to get a female President. Clinton is showing us all how to have courage and stamina and staying power. You don't like it. Get over it. Did you swear off ever voting for a man when Jerry Brown took it to the convention in 1992? Or when Bill Bradley waited until the day before the convention to endorse Gore and free his delegates? No, of course not. You've got a different standard for women then you have for men. Double standards are what will keep us from ever having a female President, not some irate woman on youtube. You should be angry at your own reaction, not someone else's.    

    The SD won't have the guts to do the right thing. (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by Saul on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:34:19 AM EST
    It's the main reason they were created to choose the best candidate regardless if it looks like they are taking the election away from Obama.

    Unfortunately, they will not have the guts to do what is right for fear of repercussions politically and historically.  Or looking like they are racist.
    They are going to risk loosing this election even though deep down inside they know they should back Hilary who they know is the stronger candidate to win the GE.

    Remember Lewis SD from Georgia (correct if I am wrong) who said switching to Obama once for Hilary was a harder decision than the Selma march.

    You lose all credibility... (3.00 / 2) (#220)
    by Lupin on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:21:35 AM EST
    When you write:

    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.

    It is this kind of insanity that is driving quite a few "neutrals" like myself into the arms of the Obama campaign.

    It is obvious that SOME Michigan voters favor(ed) Obama; hence, because the slim margin, Obama DOES have more popular support (not a lot, but more) than Clinton.

    That doesn't mean much in my book, but that is a fact.

    In effect, you're the one advocating thwarting the will of the people.

    heh I think they would say not so fast (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by TruthMatters on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:10:01 PM EST
    * UPDATE * Also, according to those with knowledge of the Michigan agreement, it is fair to claim Clinton the winner of Michigan. But they caution against counting her popular vote in the state.

    per MSNBC.

    WTH is "they"? (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:12:09 PM EST
    well MSNBC (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by TruthMatters on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:15:23 PM EST
    doesn't say who they are quoting they just say sources,

    so who ever it is they are quoting they are the THEY.

    if you want just read the they as sources then.


    Oh please.... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:16:39 PM EST
    These people are incredible.  They don't want to count votes from legally certified elections because Barack Obama played politics and took his name off the ballot?  Unbelievable.

    So the RBc has jurisdiction over (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:15:43 PM EST
    the popular vote count too now?

    The RULZ!!!


    Why would there be any issue (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:18:31 PM EST
    against counting the votes? even by their own admission the delegations have been seated in full.

    The DNC has no jurisdiction over state certified popular vote. Discounting, not allowing to be counted, those votes will not only kill the unity pony but effectively split the party wide open, with no hope of healing.


    MSNBC? (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:18:39 PM EST
    Ha! now there's a source for you.  Let me guess... it's favorable to Obama or negative about Clinton?  Yes? No?

    I don't see that today's decision (1.00 / 2) (#42)
    by seesdifferent on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:19:39 PM EST
    gives any validity to the popular vote idea. The committee confirmed that the vote was not valid. They divvied up the delegates in a way suggested by the state committee. The vote, such as it was in Michigan, is not valid.

    My understanding is... (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:27:13 PM EST
    that the votes already counted...but some folks tacked on an * next to them.

    Now that some of the delegates have been brought into the voting process, that * is now gone re: the votes.

    I have heard that Dean said that the votes themselves were already in...but I don't recall where I read that.


    Well (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:29:20 PM EST
    Since you say so, that is that.

    I'll never bring it up again.


    it's as if you're talking to a child (snark - n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:50:09 PM EST
    If the vote was not valid, (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:31:07 PM EST
    then no one should get delegates.  Jeez.

    Only if You Give Obama ZERO Votes in Michigan (1.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Heather on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:23:18 PM EST
    This only works if you give Obama ZERO votes in Michigan. And who in the world would do that? Even my 11 year old is offended by how unfair that would be. And in case you forget 10 and 11 years olds spend 90 percent of the recess discussing rules and what's fair and 10 percent playing.  Its what they live for.

    Zero votes isn't fair.

    And how many votes, did he get? (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:24:31 PM EST
    Zero. Your point?

    My point is that (1.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Heather on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:29:40 PM EST
    No one will ever buy that Hillary won the popular vote when it is predicated on Obama getting ZERO votes in Michigan. No one.

    Actually it's the simplest argument of (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:31:36 PM EST
    the whole primary season. I am surprised that you have difficulty with it. Obama chose not to get votes in MI, as a political calculation. He ended up with zero votes. He should be awarded no votes in a popular vote total, unless you want to use polls for caucus states as well.

    Care to consider something else (1.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Mavs4527 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:00:35 AM EST
    That Obama also removed his name from the ballot in Michigan because he may have considered it part of his pledge not to participate in the unsanctioned election there. Let's not forget 3 other major candidates (Edwards, Biden, and Richardson) did the same thing in removing their names from the ballot. Call it calculation all you want now, but it may have actually been out of principle considering the pledge made regarding Michigan/Florida.

    Thanks for the laugh. No, (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:06:57 AM EST
    I don't care to consider it, for several reasons.
    First, there was no requirement at all to remove his name from the ballot---none. It was entirely predictable that doing so would cause problems in delegate apportionment later, making it a very boneheaded move.
    Second, there are several sources who say that Obama convinced the others to remove their names in order to deprive Hillary of the appearance of a victory in MI.
    Third, Obama could have taken his name off the ballot in FL but chose not to.
    Fourth, Obama advertised heavily in FL, and campaigned there, so obviously the "rules" meant little to him.

    one little thing (1.00 / 1) (#170)
    by maladroit on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:16:29 AM EST
    I hear you Mark, but nobody could take their name off in FL, there's some rule/law saying you can only take your name off the primary ballot if you won't be there for the general, or only if you're no longer running for the position, or something along those lines - that's why none of the candidates took their name off of the Florida ballot. :)

    Actually someone covered that in (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:17:21 AM EST
    a comment today. Apparently what you have been told is false---another talking point from the Obama crowd.

    Pleas, it wasn't principle (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:17:07 AM EST
    it was gaming the system. The four of them made a deal in order to make Clinton look bad. Please don't even try to put noble reasoning on that decision by any of them. It was politics, plain and simple. OLD politics, by the way, not the new shiny kind your candidate keeps claiming he supports and then shows otherwise.

    Not to mention Obama flat out lied to Debbie Dingell until the week before the primary, swearing he was NOT going to take his name off the ballot. And then he did.

    His supporters knew about it so again, it's b.s. that no one knew about it and thus didn't vote. John Conyers and his wife were on the radio telling Obama's supporters to vote uncommitted rather than not vote. There were also handbills from both the Obama campaign and Edwards saying the same.

    It was a ploy. Nothing more. Again, nothing even remotely noble about it.


    I say bullcrap to that. (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:18:34 AM EST
    If you think they did it for some principle, wow. They're freakin' politicians! That's not the argument that's going to fly . . .

    Certified election results are what they are. (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:31:38 PM EST
    I WILL (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:32:10 PM EST
    he didn't get any votes in Michigan because he told them he didn't want their votes when he removed, by choice and free will, his name from the ballot.

    By taking his name off (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:52:00 PM EST
    the Michigan ballot, Obama proved without a shadow of a doubt, that he isn't a long-term thinker.

    I do. Ooops, there goes your argument. (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:29:11 AM EST
    And a lot of others here also think that if a candidate wants votes, he ought to stay on the ballot.  And if a candidate wants Michigan as much as he wants Iowa, he ought to stay on the ballot.

    Your candidate told Michigan it didn't matter.  Yet you think he deserves votes out of thin air there?  You no doubt even agree with that inane argument today that he ought to get votes of nonvoters.  So how many votes of nonvoters ought he get in your state, too?  

    We seem to have found, at last, the way to shorten campaigns.  Don't get on the ballot, don't go to a state, and don't even have voters show up -- but just give a candidate votes that didn't happen.  Uh huh.


    It is not predicated on Obama getting zero (none / 0) (#88)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:33:59 PM EST
    Obama gets "UNKNOWN" "UNCOMMITTED" just as he opted.

    Nobody? Here is one: me. (none / 0) (#197)
    by feet on earth on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:29:14 AM EST
    Many more here said the same thing.  So stop your untruths.  

    P.S.: Jeralyn, please note: I did not use the L word. I'm learning. :0)


    Neither is stealing delegates you didn't win. (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by Eleanor A on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:30:25 PM EST
    You guys are the ones so obsessed with rules.  He took his name off the ballot.  Don't come crying to us when he gets zero votes because of it.

    we cannot just make votes appear that were (5.00 / 9) (#83)
    by Chamonix on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:32:35 PM EST
    not cast. How on earth can people not understand that Obama received ZERO votes in Michigan. ZERO. Nada. Zilch. People are losing their minds and forgetting REALITY. If Obama's name was not on a ballot then he could only receive ZERO VOTES. Ask your 11 year old to look up the definition of Uncommitted in any dictionary in the world and if it say's Barack Obama then I will give you the votes. Obama should not want this stain on his nomination.

    Okie dokie... (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:36:23 PM EST
    Then heck, I want 4 delegates as well.  Hell, let's just throw a big lottery for them or something.

    Look, Obama made a pure political gambit to fluff some corn cobs in Iowa by dissing MI, and he did so.  Now, that the gamble cost him something, he wants to go back and get ALL the uncommitted and STEAL, yeah, I said it and I'll say it again, STEAL 4 delegates from a candidate who paid a political price in Iowa for not pandering to the residents of that state.

    Hell, HRC gambled on ending it on Super Tuesday and got bit over it, so now can our side go back to all those Red State Caucuses in Feb. that she really did not contest and STEAL some of Obama's delegates?  I'll take a flawed election victory in MI over a perfectly legit win in Idaho every time and twice on Sunday.  Obama will lose the majority of the states that he won in the Primaries, yeah, that's one helluva candidate we have there.  Well, that YOU have.  I voted for Dukakis once before, and I won't be doing it again.



    Did you explain (5.00 / 7) (#92)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:36:34 PM EST
    the DNC charter and that there was absolutely no rule that allowed them to steal Clinton's delegates?  Maybe if the teacher takes her lunch and gives it to the child next to her she would understand that one.  

    If your daughter isn't on a ballot, are you going to tell the principal to make her prom queen anyway?

    Did you explain that under the state law that uncommitted is a legally defined vote?  If she and 'no one' are on a ballot for teacher aid and she gets one vote and 'no one' gets 30 are you really going to insist to the teacher that she be rewarded?  Really?

    I taught my child rules and laws are important and that life is not always fair.  Most important?  Do not steal.  Ever.


    NO NAME NO VOTES (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by janedw420 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:54:11 AM EST
    Awe, zero isn't fair? (4.20 / 5) (#63)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:27:59 PM EST
    Take that up with Barack Obama.  He disenfranchised his supporters by playing politics and removing his name from the ballot.  

    Fairly weak argument (1.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Mavs4527 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:30:40 PM EST
    First of all, we don't nominate our candidates for president based on the popular vote results, just like in the general election with the electoral college. Disagree with the system all you want, but you can't start out saying it's a fight for delegates, then when you start losing, say it's the popular vote that matters. Also, to get that number you have to include the results of a state where one of the major candidates wasn't even on ballot (thus giving him zero for that state) and exclude all the caucus states (which can't record popular vote totals).

    Hillary can argue electability all she wants to any remaining undecided superdelegates to sway them her way, she's entitled to do that. She can't, however, use the popular vote argument, especially like the numbers you just used that comes with qualifiers attached.

    The only alternative given is the (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:32:48 PM EST
    pledged delegate count, which is actually a far worse measure of voter support than the popular vote count.

    Of course she can (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:53:47 PM EST
    You are wrong.... Of course she can argue the popular vote. I say she can.  You want to buy in to Obama's (and the suck up media) 'pledged delegate' meme, go ahead.   I don't.  Neither was strong enough to get over the finish line on their own and the SDs will decide it based on what they want.

    One other point... she can argue to decided delegates too.  Pledged/unpledged/ decided/undecided... each and every one of them, up until the votes are cast at the convention. Those are the facts.  


    Actually we DO nominate on popular (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:19:47 AM EST
    vote results. The pledged delegates are apportioned according to a scheme that takes a somewhat faulty account of the popular vote by precinct or county. I say faulty because the arcane rules sometimes give an even delegate split even when there is a significant difference in vote percentages. If it wasn't a faulty system then the pledged delegate difference and the popular vote difference would mirror each other exactly.

    The superdelegates are able to vote for any candidate for any reason they choose. Popular vote is certainly a reasonable metric to use. In fact, it used to be the metric that certain Obama supporters claimed MUST be used, back in the days when Obama was leading in the popular vote. Clinton is certainly allowed to use any argument she feels would be persuasive with the superdelegates. Being as how the Obama campaign thought the popular vote (i.e., "the will of the people") was the gold standard for superdelegates, there's no reason to pretend that the rules have changed just because Clinton may  now be leading in that metric.


    Weak Talking Point (1.00 / 3) (#181)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:21:31 AM EST
    The popular vote is little more than a weak talking that will be swept aside by the inevitability of Obama's nomination in the week ahead. It's weak for three reasons.

    First, delegates are the metric that matters and Obama maintains strong leads in both pledged delegates and superdelegates. The popular vote has no official standing as a metric of performance. It isn't going to convince remaining SDs to sign on with Clinton.

    Second, the only way Clinton is only ahead now in popular vote is if you count Michigan. To include the popular vote for a state where Obama was not even on the ballot is not compelling and only undermines the credibility of the argument.

    Third, Puerto Rico will swell Clinton's popular vote total. But SDs won't find that compelling because Puerto Ricans can't vote in November. Strength there is meaningless in the fall.

    Speaking of weak (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:30:21 AM EST
    To include the popular vote for a state where Obama was not even on the ballot is not compelling and only undermines the credibility of the argument.

    Then why was Obama apportioned delegates from Michigan?  Oh that's right they just gave them to him for no effing reason.


    To Quote John Lennon (none / 0) (#6)
    by kaleidescope on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:59:00 PM EST
    Whatever gets you through the night, it's all right, it's all right.

    3 primaries to go (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:17:36 PM EST

    But the vote in Puerto Rico could (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:17:57 PM EST
    /broken record.

    Can anyone explain how you count caucuses? (none / 0) (#41)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:19:19 PM EST
    How do you translate them into "popular votes"??  

    Most of them have reported their actual votes (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:24:55 PM EST
    only 4, Iowa, Neva, Maine and Washignton have failed to report the actual vote counts.

    Washington had a primary at the same time so I believe that is the right number for the popular vote anyway out of Washington.

    Iowa, Nevada and Maine just have refused to report the totals. My surmise is it is because the numbers are much lower than actually trumpeted.

    what has been done is to take the reported total turnout and assigned the percentage of delegates won in the caucuses. Given the 15% viability rule, this certainly favors Obama in all caucus calculations.


    You would think they would have to (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:30:07 PM EST
    disclose actual numbers as a matter of law!  How else could you ever know if there were voter fraud?  This is just awful!!  And, if the numbers are very low, that is incredibly relevant.

    Are Iowa, Nevada and Maine (none / 0) (#94)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:38:03 PM EST
    required to give their totals at the convention?

    What concerns me (none / 0) (#109)
    by Makarov on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:42:54 PM EST
    is how close Obama is to 2118. If the next 3 days go as expected, he's within 30-40 supers of a majority of total delegates. That's just not that many, especially since there were a few "undecided" supers on the RBC today that voted his way three times. I think the popular vote argument is compelling, but I'm mentally struggling to find a way that Obama doesn't reach 2118. I can just about name 10 off the top of my head that are going to endorse him, or they've been playing the biggest con game ever (hi Nancy, Howard, Jimmy, and Donna for starters).

    What BTD said in the live blog today made an impression on me. If FL had been seated fully, if Clinton had argued more strongly they should be (because of - not in spite of the rules), I could see her carrying that case to the convention floor. Upping the requirement to 2165 would've made Obama need about half of the remaining supers. Under those terms, I can see him having difficulty reaching a majority.

    It just seems to me, with the weak argument employed in favor of FL, with her campaign's continued recital of the "we expect there to be a nominee in June" mantra, that she has no intention to fight to the convention. I suppose she could merely suspend her campaign, but waiting for Obama to implode between now and August doesn't sound too promising to me. I think his campaign could probably even survive NoQuarter's apocryphal October Suprise video at this point.

    I hate to be a nay sayer, to be negative at this point, but I expect Obama to hit 2118 this week or next, and I expect Clinton to withdraw or suspend at the same time. 50% of FL and MI just wasn't enough.

    Maybe I'll wake up in the morning and feel differently.

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by maladroit on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:26:09 AM EST
    one thing that makes me think the campaign may indeed continue on 'til August is the reserving of the right to challenge in the Credentials Committee.

    Time will tell.


    seems unfair (1.00 / 1) (#205)
    by travc on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:42:07 AM EST
    Restating full votes for MI and giving FL .5 votes seems unfair, especially since the MI Dem party was culpable while the FL party was at least less so.  I'm with you on that.  The FL delegation should get full votes, and we can argue over full or 1/2 for MI... the other way around fails a smell test.

    Please just don't fall into the inane popular-vote crap.  'MI counts but only for Clinton' is a sure fire way to piss off anyone who is moderately independent and has half a brain.


    I have no way of knowing (none / 0) (#121)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:48:52 PM EST
    but I think the dye was cast so it would not have mattered what she argued.  But I think you are right. I hope we both wake up in the morning and feel differently.  A blow out in PR would help too.

    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)

    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.

    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.  


    More time to get Her Michigan (none / 0) (#136)
    by janedw420 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:54:57 PM EST
    delegates back...
    As much as I believe the "Safe Harbor" Rule was neglected in MI & FL, the pop vote was awarded. Obama should NOT have received ANY Michigan votes. INSANE, that he can be given votes in a state his NAME INS'T ON THE BALLOT! Sorry, Just Moved to Michigan from OREGON-- "liberal" is a bit different here.

    This does give more time for a Credentials Committee review AND a few more YOUTUBE videos! FOX (I can't believe 'm watching this station) has been running Obama and his Rev's and earmarks most of the day.

    Wish Molly Ivans was still with us...

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Regardless of the arguments (none / 0) (#160)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:09:44 AM EST
    for and against Clinton or Obama, Hillary still needs to win 80% of the remaining delegates to overtake Obama.

    Of the remaining 86 pledged delegates it is very unlikely she will win more than 55% of them.  Even if she wins 60% of those delegates she will still need to win 90% of the remaining SDs to get the nomination.

    Hillary will be conceding by June 10th.  That still hasn't changed.

    Yet (none / 0) (#164)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:12:04 AM EST
    you managed to call out 2 separate people for being chatterrers.  Quite the public servant you are.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#166)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:13:51 AM EST
    Missed the lessons of 2000, and math class (none / 0) (#185)
    by travc on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:24:23 AM EST
    Come on!  Could people really failed to learn an important lesson of 2000.  Let me be pedantic and lay it out.

    Voting is a measurement system.  We are tying to measure the intent of the votes (duh).  Like all measurement systems, it isn't perfect...  some votes are miscounted, there are biases in how outside influences keep people from participating, and lots of other 'stuff' going on which makes the totals not exactly equal to the actual intent of the voters.

    The popular vote arguments just piss me off at this point.  The honest answer is 'we don't really know with any confidence'.  Fl was bad enough with the 'it won't count', but perhaps that was mostly equal in effect... a wash (I personally don't think so, since the demographics of people more likely to vote even in a contest which presumably doesn't matter favor Clinton.)  But MI is completely crap.

    'Uncommitted' = really uncommitted despite the state party and the vocal supporters of two campaigns telling people otherwise... this is incredible dishonesty.  Really, count all the votes, so long as they are for my candidate... anyone remember dimpled chad?  Add in 30K+ write-ins that are not and never will be (by law) counted and anyone saying either candidate is 'clearly ahead in the popular vote' by 10s of thousands is seriously either dishonest or stupid.

    Oh, and there is of course the little factor that votes taken months ago are a little stale.  How much new information, positive and negative, has come out about both candidates?  How many candidates have dropped out?  What is the will of those voters in FL and MI "now"?  Who knows...

    The state parties put together pretty reasonable guesses as to how the delegates should be allocated.  Sausage making as it was, they are reasonable guesses.  Guesses about the popular vote totals are much more of the 'pulled out of my a$$' sort (sorry for the crude language, but that is a term-of-art I can't think of a synonym for.)

    The "Pledged delegate" count is (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:25:27 AM EST
    even more annoying. That is a much worse metric for the SD's than the popular vote count.

    Voting systems (none / 0) (#213)
    by travc on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:04:27 AM EST
    I could go on and on about voting systems/methods and which do a better job of measuring the will of the voters.  At this point though, it would be beside the point.  The current Dem primary system tries to balance the voters with the 'will of the party'... making things even worse.  (Though the GOP is even worse, as usual.)

    Maybe we can turn this pain into something useful.  The Dems could adopt a sane voting system for their nomination process, and give us a good model to point to for general election reform.  Probably won't happen though.

    The pledged delegate count is roughly a weighted (beats me how the party decides how many delegates per state) sum of the primary/caucus results.  So long as the real distortion (the weighting) isn't being generally accepted, it is a quite legitimate metric.

    I wonder what it would look like if the best-guess proportions (primary results and caucus proportions) were extrapolated weighted only by a state's population.  Of course, this wouldn't be a good measure of the candidates' support... somehow you would have to weight by the number of people who are going to vote D in Nov... which is an even harder measure to get at (we would know the result of the general election after all).


    vote totals (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:54:53 AM EST
    Guesses about the popular vote totals are much more of the 'pulled out of my a$$' sort

    Guys, the arguments are just getting more and more ridiculous here. Vote totals are available for all states except 4 of the caucus states(for which there are estimates and for which totals could be published by those 4 states). They are certified by each state. If any state doesn't have popular vote(primary or caucus) totals it can't even begin to determine pledged delegate totals. The pledge delegates are based, somewhat inexactly, on popular vote totals. To try to now claim that these certified vote totals are unknowable is ludicrous. Kool-aid worthy, in fact.  


    No kool-aid, statistics (none / 0) (#217)
    by travc on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:12:07 AM EST
    I'm arguing, not I know, that the uncertainty in the vote totals swamps the proported differences people are throwing around as if they were the gospel.

    The key realization is that a voting system, any voting system, as a margin of error.  People should have learned this in 2000.

    Now, the way delegates are allocated (or the electoral college works), as many problems as there are with that, factors out a lot of that uncertainty (rounding subtotals effectively).  The overall popular-vote totals have no such luxury... and an uncertainty of 5000 votes in CA or NY or wherever contributes directly to the uncertainty in the overall total.

    Please, you can argue about lots of details, biases, whatever... just don't pretend (or delude yourself) that the answer is clear cut.


    [edit] (none / 0) (#218)
    by travc on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:14:17 AM EST
    Sorry, critical typo: (need an edit option)
    The first part of the above post should read:

    I'm arguing, no I know,...


    wrong (none / 0) (#225)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:45:33 AM EST
    Now, the way delegates are allocated (or the electoral college works), as many problems as there are with that, factors out a lot of that uncertainty (rounding subtotals effectively).

    This is where you are way off base. Pledged delegate allocation factors IN additional inequality, rather than factoring OUT uncertainty. BTD's explanation of some of the inequality here will suffice:

    Both in ways intentional and unintentional, votes are diluted and over represented. And in many cases in contradictory ways. In Nevada and Iowa, rural voters are given extra weight, in Texas, urban voters given extra weight.

    And just by awarding delegates by Congressional district, the DNC has chosen to dilute votes - 2-2 districts versus 3-2 districts is the most obvious example. A candidate can win 61% of the vote in a 2-2 district and get a split of the delegates while another candidate could get 50.1% of the vote in a 3-2 district and get a 3-2 split of the vote.

    There are inexactitudes in counting votes. Those inexactitudes are magnified and distorted by the pledged delegate apportionment system. Yet it is the approved system for the pledge delegate totals. There is no reason why the more definitive popular vote should not be used as a basis of consideration of the will of the people. In the end, inexact votes determine who is the winner no matter what. I think we should strive for the most exact count that we can get to determine the will of the people. Thst is the popular vote total, not the pledged delegate total. The pledged delegate totals are already used to determine that part of the nomination process. It behooves us to use the more accurate popular vote totals as a metric for the superdelegates to consider.  


    vote totals (none / 0) (#227)
    by travc on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:00:23 AM EST
    Tree, I do understand rounding error vs measurement error (hell, I even grok sampling error).  I'm a geek.

    I wouldn't claim that pledged delegates is a more accurate estimate of will of the voters, but it is less uncertain.  Hell, all of this hierarchy is a historic legacy anyway, and I'd love it if we would do something better.

    What I will claim, is that when we have different voting systems in different places voting at different times, just summing up the totals is not a generally valid methodology.

    I'll go farther to point out:
    The difference between the number of people who intended to vote for each candidate and the number of votes counted for each candidate (regardless how you do the counting) is almost certainly far larger than any 'popular-vote lead' either candidate's supporters may claim.

    That is what I mean by uncertainty.  So lets be a little less dogmatic.  

    BTW: The four delegates 'stolen from Clinton' in the MI compromise were not clearly hers to start with; they were delegates not going to the convention... anything past that is an imperfect compromise.

    By any count? (none / 0) (#228)
    by KristenWinters on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:57:57 AM EST
    Even buying in to your terribly flawed logic in which you accept that Obama gets 59 pledged delegates---while not apportioning the corresponding popular vote, you are not giving Obama credit for the 30,000 write-in votes that he received in Michigan?  How is that "fair reflection"

    To Xenophone in MI (none / 0) (#230)
    by melro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:09:15 AM EST
    I voted in MI too, but for Hillary. The reason you weren't able to write in Obama's name is because he failed a second time at getting on our ballot by not filing papers to be a write-in candidate, that's why you had to vote uncommitted. Obama could have been a write in just 10 days before the primary. So not once but twice this man was uncommitted to people in MI.

    Michigan Could Go Red (none / 0) (#231)
    by melro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:19:21 AM EST
    I'm not as sure as everyone that they won't screw around with the popular vote too. Obama was planned from the beginning because the Repugs can beat him--especially in Michigan because:

    He insults the auto industry the two times he's been here and is totally unempathetic to anyone suffering here because of it. Construction skilled trades workers are not voting for Obama, they sense he could care less about them. The blue collar workers in general do not like him for the same reason. Our black columnists in the Detroit Free Press have called Obama out on his neglect.  

    Other things about MI most don't know is that we are not a solid Blue state at all. Without the blue collar crowd, our state could easily go Red since the SW side is DeVos/Blackwater/Cheney country, we have a super strong Repug senate, and our Democratic House Leader should have been recalled long ago. He and 10 other democrats play footsy with Bishop the Senate Leader all the time. To top it all off, we have a really bad habit of electing Repug governors like that piece of s--- Engler, not once, twice, but three times!  

    Michigan could really flop over Red with this fiasco, and I'm afraid it's going to happen.

    counting votes (none / 0) (#232)
    by tammy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:44:42 PM EST
    I'm wondering about the people that didn't vote  in M and F because they knew their vote was not going to be counted. How do we make them feel like they have been heard?

    I just don't understand why some people think that M and F can be solved to everyone's liking?  Or why their way of seeing things is the RIGHT way. The problems with voting in M and F provide us with lessons to be learned.

    All those running for the Dem nomination when M and F were 'punished' agreed to what was going on at the time.

    It was then that this stupid arrangement should have been called out, not now.