Popular Vote Total After Puerto Rico

The number I care about is the popular vote total after Puerto Rico. If Obama hasn't reached 2,118 pledged delegates when the votes are counted tonight, that number should be as important to superdelegates as the pledged delegate total. With Obama ahead in one and Hillary in the other, they now need to consider electability in November and the electoral map before making a final decision.

If the exit polls are correct, she beat Obama by 40 points, 70% to 30%.

If 400,000 people voted, she got 280,000 votes, while Obama got 120,000. That gives her a 160,000 vote popular vote boost.

Isn't she now indisputably the leader in the popular vote as of today? While we still need to wait for S.D. and MT where Obama is expected to win,those are small states. [More...]

Based on the numbers below going into today's Puerto Rico primary, if the CNN projections are correct, Hillary will have either a 322,000 lead or a 212,000 popular vote lead over Obama.

Total votes with Florida and Michigan (From Real Clear Politics):

  • 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

Note: These include the actual vote count for Michigan. Obama cannot count any popular votes from Michigan in my view since he removed himself from the ballot. The DNC can do what they want with delegates, but they cannot change the actual vote totals of certified state elections. Now that they have agreed to seat all the delegates based on the January results, they must also count the popular votes. The election may have been flawed, but it has now been legitimized.

As I wrote last night:

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 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.

Other facts:

For the primaries held in April and May and June, Hillary won five while Obama won three, including his 7 vote win in Guam.

If the Nebraska and Washington state primary numbers with far greater turnout were used instead of the caucus numbers, Hillary's lead in the popular vote would be even higher. See this post here.

It's all up to the superdelegates now. Will they please put on their thinking caps?

Update: See also,

Every superdelegate should read Peniel Cronin's report on caucus vs. primary results (pdf). If you know any superdelegates, send it to them (don't put their email addresses in the comments though.)

< Clinton Wins Puerto Rico By Wide Margin | Hillary Received More Votes Than Any Primary Candidate in History >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Roland Martin (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:45:31 PM EST
    "popular vote means nothing."  Couldn't disagree more strongly.

    because (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:21:19 PM EST
    his candidate loses that way.

    Too bad for Roland, but that's the SD's call, not his.


    Jeralyn, you are 100% correct. (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:45:31 PM EST
    We can not allow guessing on voter intent.  It's a horrible precedent.  We can only go with results from certified elections.  Face it, people, Hillary won more votes.  I know the desire to legitimize Obama, but it's wrong.  It's undemocratic.  It's a dangerous precedent.

    I think that TV advertising in selected (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:48:34 PM EST
    states is a logical step for Hillary. This may be unusual, since the primaries are over, but ads in states where SD's support Obama, against the will of their voters, and against the popular vote, could be effective. What do you think?

    The SD though will not have the guts (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Saul on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:50:17 PM EST
    Yes the popular vote should be a major issue with the SD but  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.

    Howerve,if they took it to Denver, there might still be a chance for Hilary.

    Wait Till August (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Athena on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:54:50 PM EST
    The argument for Denver is that 3 more months would further expose and solidify Obama's weaknesses - and the data on which to vote for Hillary would be even more persuasive - and accurate, coming about 10 weeks before the Nov. election.

    Does the DNC remember its rule that the nominee will not be selected until August 27, 2008?


    That what I am saying now and have alwasy said. (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Saul on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:00:07 PM EST
    Time has always been on Hilary's side.  The more you wait the more negative things pop up on Obama's side.

    He only has 1723 pledged delegates (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:33:17 PM EST
    right now. He is far enough away from the total needed that it is a very lame argument to claim it represents the "will of the people" or that he has earned their support.

    There's a worksheet for calculating how many deductions to take on our W-4 forms. The SD's need to come up with a smart formula worksheet to figure out how they should weight the various factors that contribute to their SD vote, too.


    Obama sound so silly saying he's won (none / 0) (#168)
    by thereyougo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:32:44 PM EST
    when he's only ahead.

    He just doesn't like campaigning and it shows. Its like a chore to him.

    His supporters sound so mean and vicious that Hillary has the audacity to keep chugging along. Not counting on the shout downs and keeps her compusure.


    More Valid (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Athena on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:50:38 PM EST
    Well stated.  The pledged delegate metric had power if it alone conferred the nomination.  Otherwise, it's a flawed proxy for the popular vote.

    And - aren't caucuses pretty close to the non-verified ballot which has no real record to go back to?

    Any proxy system (pledged, etc.) will be at best an imperfect estimate of popular sentiment - even more so here - where Democratic delegates were apportioned so wildly and unequally based on previous voting patterns.

    Jeralyn is right! (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by mkb662 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:52:44 PM EST
    Jeralyn:  The problem is that she wins these states, KY, WV, TX, OH, and IN and now Puerto Rico but when she wins, she loses because the media spins her victories as a loss.  It is unbelievable, watching CNN with Roland Martin, Gloria and Donna, you would have thought this was a big day for Obama.  Democracy no longer maters, its all Obama all the time.  Yeah, she got more votes but who cares says Roland Martin.  Yeah, they took delegates away from her in MI but who cares says Donna.
    I don't know what we Clinton supporters are supposed to do.  We work hard phone banking, going door-to-door, and then the media spins a win as a loss.  Frustrating.

    it's 2000 all over again (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:55:33 PM EST
    and all the media pundits want to have a beer with Obama.

    No, McCain... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:57:23 PM EST
    Obama being the nominee is the only way their dear beloved McCain has a shot at the Preznitcy.

    I watched some of ... (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:11:42 PM EST
    Tweety's NBC show this morning, and it does seem like the McCain Stream Media is already beginning the shift.

    Of course they are. (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:14:10 PM EST
    There was absolutely no evidence that they would ever do anything but this. Heck, there's even a book out called "McCain's Free Ride," about how the media has never held him accountable for anything and has given him overwhelmingly positive coverage no matter what he does.

    No one gives Tweety more of a thrill up his leg than John McCain.


    agree (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by mkb662 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:58:19 PM EST
    I totally agree with that.  The media is falling all over Obama, not because of any policy position but because of his alleged likeability.

    he's probably has nice snacks on the unity bus. (none / 0) (#169)
    by thereyougo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:35:17 PM EST
    and the press goes ga ga over a snapple. Obama knows how to play the game.

    frusrtating, yes (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:15:03 PM EST
    but, on the other hand, if people listened to the media as much as you fear they did, they would have stopped voting for Hillary long ago.

    You see, people don't always blindly follow the likes of Blitzer or Brazile or whoever is on the TeeVee that morning.  They talk to neighbors, co-workers, friends, family and make up their own minds.  If that weren't the case, Hillary wouldn't have been on this winning streak she's been on since early-March -- a period when she was SUPPOSED to have been finished, washed up and over.

    All the spinning in the world isn't going to legitimize an Obama Candidacy, especially after the sham we witnessed yesterday.  The American Voters have chosen Clinton and the media is sitting in full sight, fingers in ears singing la-la-la-la-la ... and voters around the Country are turning the channel or turning them off.

    Keep up the phone banking, the work, the support.  It makes a huge difference.


    hey thats so right, one of the RB committe (none / 0) (#170)
    by thereyougo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:38:32 PM EST
    members kept talking about all the emails and letters they got swayed them.

    It works for those SDs. The best thing is that the people are engaged and they love Hillary.



    I agree! (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:54:04 PM EST
    Granting uncommitted votes in MI to Obama -- where he wasn't even on the ballot is just bizarre.

    Unfortunately, this argument has become a technicality -- and the SD's (like Obama supporters) seem to have their fingers thrust firmly into their ears and are loudly chanting blah-blah-blah-blah.. as they march us all toward the Nov. precipice.

    Have you all seen any evidence that votes actually MATTER to this party?  

    The New Plutocratic Party... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:55:31 PM EST
    Democracy for, um, MOST!

    "most' being defined as less than 50% (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:11:51 PM EST
    in newspeak...

    Hillary wins PR by WIDE MARGIN!! (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:00:11 PM EST
    ....a dogwhistle to SDs to roll out for Obama.

    Down is Up, wrong is right, fiction is fact....

    It's 50/50 (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:03:16 PM EST
    I don't think there is any other way to look at it.  This election has gone back and forth so long, it's virtually a tie. One will end up slightly closer than the other, but neither candidate will have enough of a win to be a valid representative in the general election without the other.

    All of the "unity" candidate supporters seem to be ignoring this. They take the attitude of the Republican Party after 2000: We won. You lost. Suck it up. That attitude works if you have undisputed power, but not when you need the support of the "losers" to achieve further goals. I would seriously wonder if all of the people whining about Clinton supporter's weren't Republicans trying to undermine the Democratic Party... except that many of them have been prominent progressives for years.

    We have a choice. All of us can settle down and support each other, or we can lose the election. One side is not going to cave in and admit that the other guy won - the numbers don't support that, for either candidate.

    Something that I'll continue to talk about (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:08:37 PM EST
    What with respect unity, and coming together to support each other.

    The attack on Clinton was and is character based.

    The attack on Obama was and still is experience based.


    And should HRC be the nominee (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:11:27 PM EST
    I have no doubt that she, as she has been doing all along, will reach out to Obama's voters and take their suggestions as to how she can unify the Party.

    This is SOP for her.

    Can you imagine Obama doing that? LOL!

    It's going to be, "Shut up, get over it, I'm the nominee, you have nowhere else to go anyway, you bitter, racist, white, female, old people!"

    Yeah, that'll work.


    Unity does not mean the (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:15:29 PM EST
    obliteration of dissent.  

    It's not a tie (2.33 / 6) (#54)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:10:52 PM EST
    Obama needs 65 of the remaining 305 delegates to get to the magic number.  Hillary needs 240.  

    After today Obama will need about 40 of the remaining 245 delegate, or 17% of the remaining delegates.  Assuming he splits SD and MT that will be another 15 delegates mean he will need 25 of the remaining 210 SDs or 12% of the remaining SDs.  Obviously that means that Hillary will need to win almost 90% of the remaining supers.  This is highly unlikely.

    The fact that there is no agreed upon popular vote metric makes the popular vote irrelevant, as the superdelegates have already shown.


    I said "virtually" (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:27:23 PM EST
    The vote is about 50/50 and the delegate count, even though it is distorted in Obama's favor by his performance in caucuses, is not that far off. This isn't about wining a primary - it's about winning a general election. How is Obama supposed to win the general election when many of Clinton's supporter's do not consider him a valid candidate and will not vote for him? How would Clinton win the general election under the opposite conditions? They won't. If all you care about is the primary, hang onto that delegate count with all your might. If you want to win the general, you'd better start thinking differently.

    And if Hillary somehow (3.00 / 2) (#108)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:34:25 PM EST
    were to win the nomination there would a large group of Obama supporters who would feel it was stolen from him and not vote for Hillary.

    This notion that Hillary needs to be nominee because some of her supporters will refuse to vote for Obama is an indictment on her supporters.  And it is an utterly uncompelling argument.  


    Flyerhawk vs. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:11:55 PM EST

    This notion that Hillary needs to be nominee because some of her supporters will refuse to vote for Obama is an indictment on her supporters.  And it is an utterly uncompelling argument.

    Barack Obama:

    I'm confident I will get her votes if I am the nominee. It's not clear that she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee.

    Did Barack Obama indict his own supporters at the same time he made an utterly uncompelling argument?  You make the call.

    I would have hoped Obama was above insulting his own supporters but, if I'm to believe Flyerhawk, I guess not.


    Yes (none / 0) (#173)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:09:53 PM EST
    I think it is ridiculous for any Obama supporter to suggest that they wouldn't vote for Hillary.  

    Petulance is a poor excuse for voting for or against someone.


    nope (none / 0) (#135)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:51:03 PM EST
    polling shows that it is much less an issue for Obama supporters.
    There are Clinton supporters who will not vote for Obama because of his behavior in this race.  But there are many more who are swing voters, who vote republican from time to time and do not like Obama and it has nothing to do with Clinton.  They will just prefer McCain.

    Which is what I said. (none / 0) (#141)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:00:57 PM EST
    Read, then post. I'll repeat for your convenience:

    "How is Obama supposed to win the general election when many of Clinton's supporter's do not consider him a valid candidate and will not vote for him? How would Clinton win the general election under the opposite conditions? They won't."

    Neither can win without the support of the other's voter's. Neither will have a clear enough majority to be considered valid by the other's supporter's It's a bit of a conundrum, isn't it?


    I agree that we would have to deal with that (none / 0) (#148)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:08:20 PM EST
    But I think Hillary would be willing and able to unify the party, and I don't think Sen. Obama wants to or can. Even now, his campaign is saying that it's up to Hillary to do the unifying.  Ok, I'm down with that. If it's up to her to unify the party, then she must be the better leader and therefore she should be the person on top of the ticket.

    If Hillary were to win the nomination, you can be certain that I would be contacting every friend and family member who I can't talk to right now and working to bring them over to her camp.

    She's willing to do the work. I'm willing to do it if she's on top of the ticket. I don't see the same willingness from the Obama camp.


    The first step is Hillary's (none / 0) (#174)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:11:31 PM EST
    The reality is that Obama won't be able to do a thing until Hillary concedes.  Until that time her most strident supporters will continue to believe that the fight is going to Denver.  

    Once she does that it will be up to Obama to bring them into the fold.


    395 pledged delegates to go (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:41:17 PM EST
    Obama is 395 short of the "magic number". The superdelegates can change their minds right up to the moment they vote.

    If you look at how many pledged delegates Clinton has (1613 v 1723, before PR delegates are split tonight), they are only 110 apart. That's considered a virtual tie.

    Had he done what previous nominees have done before him and actually gotten 2209 pledged delegates (you can see where that is possible with the total number available), he could now be declaring himself the presumptive nominee.

    But, he hasn't. He's nearly 400 delegates away, with no chance of achieving it prior to convention.

    I hope that helps give you a more clear understanding of why Hillary and her supporters do not see this race as a done deal.


    Right (2.00 / 4) (#128)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:47:23 PM EST
    So some of Hillary's supporters advocate for a scorched earth approach for the next 2 months in the hope of convincing supers to vote for her?  

    Luckily Hillary isn't willing to destroy the Democratic Party on the unlikely hope that things will turn in her favor.


    Did I miss something? (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:02:35 PM EST
    Who said that? I have been following pretty closely, and I don't recall any Clinton supporters advocating for "a scorched earth approach". Do you have a link of this?

    at every opportunity, at yesterday's RBC meeting (none / 0) (#172)
    by thereyougo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:01:09 PM EST
    Obama's reps kept up the political cheap shots, flyerhawks mentions. They mentioned Obama will be the next president, blah blah. They never missed the opportunity.

    They were the talking points passed out ad naseum throughout his campaign on the blogs tv, everywhere there was media.

    Hillary's people never once mentioned her name. The State Sen. Joyner talked about the historical significance of the vote and not once did she mention Hillary's name as it should have been.

    Obama's people including the prima donna of cnn, brought her momma into it, as to why follow the rules. Instead of being professional,she actually sounded  too juvenile for me to consider listening to her in the future. I hope if Hillary gets in, she will not be among the other more respected diverse RB committee members in the future.

    And I hope the kids with computers and blogs get carded before they're allowed any cred. I know I'll just drive by but thats all. I'll stay at TL with the adults.

    and thank you to those above thread who are kind enough to explain the real metric from both sides until the convention votes to nominate in August.


    It would seem (1.00 / 2) (#70)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:18:47 PM EST
    that some people really don't like to hear reality.

    Good job on the low rating, madamb and robot porter.  Much easier than countering the numbers I posted, which are essentially incontrovertible.


    flyerhawk... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    your post is BS as usual.

    You can yell "pledged delegates" till you're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that they will not decide the election.

    You refuse to acknowledge this fact. That's why I give you ones sometimes.


    and also... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:23:41 PM EST
    the superdelegates have "already shown" nothing.

    the nominee is not chosen until August.

    a lot can change between now and then.


    Oddly enough (1.00 / 2) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:29:51 PM EST
    my comment did not mention pledged delegates at all.

    Delegates decide the nomination.  You really need to learn to accept that.  

    Obama will almost certainly reach the magic number by Friday.  He'll get about 40 from the remaining primaries and the remaining 25 will be from SDs(5 undeclared SDs have stated they will endorse the pledged delegate leader).

    The actual nomination may not happen until August but Hillary will not be able to continue on simply on the hope that delegates will change their mind.


    Hijacking the thread with this argument (none / 0) (#150)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:12:56 PM EST
    doesn't serve you well. If you want Clinton supporters to respect your argument, you need to present it without insulting Senator Clinton, and once in awhile you also will need to acknowledge we, too, have a point of view that has merit.

    What? (none / 0) (#175)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:14:56 PM EST
    Where did I insult Hillary?  Seriously, where did you see that?

    I'm not the one troll rating your comments simply because I disagree with them.  I understand your POV even if I disagree with it.

    However it doesn't change the numbers.  And while you can disparage talking about the numbers, at the end of the day, it is the numbers that decide who will be the nominee.


    It's not really BS (none / 0) (#115)
    by Claw on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:41:05 PM EST
    The problem is that we don't decide anything by popular vote.  In the byzantine dem primary system we have pledged and super delegates, in the GE we have the electoral college.  
    Certainly you can make an argument that we should decide everything by popular vote, but it's academic at this point.  

    On a national level election (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:16:02 PM EST
    that is sort of true. On a state-by-state level, that is not true.

    It is the popular vote in each state that determines who gets what at the national level.

    In state elections, it certainly is popular vote decision.

    Popular vote will always, always be a valid metric in a democratic country.


    This is true (none / 0) (#153)
    by Claw on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:28:04 PM EST
    However, Obama is leading McCain in swing states Clinton won.  Clinton may, in some cases, have a bigger lead but Obama still wins.  We would do well to remember that we are still in the midst of a primary fight.  I think this hurts both Clinton's and Obama's polling numbers.  

    The problem with your numbers is (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:29:30 PM EST
    that they are not "incontrovertible", they are fiction until the delegates VOTE AT THE CONVENTION. Because until that happens, no one "has" any delegates. They just have a rough idea of how many votes they can get if they don't screw up too badly. Guess who has gone from one screw-up to another?? Not Hillary Clinton. So don't count your chickens before they are hatched, and don't count your delegates before they vote.

    I think we all realize (2.33 / 3) (#103)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:32:15 PM EST
    that the delegate counts aren't official until August.  But there is no evidence to support the notion that vast numbers of Obama delegates are going to defect.  And until that is in evidence, there is no reason to believe it will happen.

    There is no reason to believe... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:08:00 PM EST
    ...it won't, either. Nobody really knows what will happen before the convention. I'm the first to admit that Clinton has been a longshot for a while. How about just letting the process happen?

    Yes it is 50/50... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:48:56 PM EST
    ...which is why it is so infuriating that the Obama camp, the Democratic party leaders, and the media act as if Obama has won in a landslide. They are the ones who are disconnected to reality in their desire to paint this as the last gasps of a madwoman. If just a couple of things ohad swung the other way, Hillary would have had this wrapped up by now. But instead of telling the true story, that Obama has probably won this in a sqeaker, they try to tell the story that they prefer...which is that Clinton has been handed a humiliating defeat. It so reminds me of trying to pretend that Bush's 2000 selection was a mandate.

    you misrepresent what I wrote (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:04:31 PM EST
    Read it again.

    Misstate what I wrote again, and you're gone from here.

    Wrong on several counts.. (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:11:03 PM EST
    Please read the RCP link that Jeralyn posted.
    My read is that Hillary comes out ahead even if you grant some of the uncommitted MI votes ro Senator Obama (I presume that's what you meant to say in your point 1 above, and not ALL of the uncommitted vote across all the primaries and caucuses since that would be one hell of an idiotic argument to make, even for an Obama supporter :). RCP has estimated the caucuses too.

    No one here said MT or SD should not count. But you betray how your candidate and his campaign treats voters by your last point 5 above.

    This just in (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:12:56 PM EST
    The DNC has issued a press release saying that Obama will be awarded 25 extra delegates because of all the people in Cuba who didn't get to vote in a primary but sorta kinda almost certainly might have voted for him.

    Funny, but you do know (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:43:49 PM EST
    (or, maybe you're hoping) that Obama supporters could take that comment and report it as true...after all, they saw it at TL.



    You are right (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Lil on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:22:55 PM EST
    and the establishment is handing it to Obama anyway, I believe. PR feels like a moral victory and should be viewed as a real victory, but I haven't seen much the party has done for her except try to get her out of the race. Sickens me as I write it.

    Obama takes another line from Hillary. (5.00 / 10) (#80)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:23:15 PM EST
    The one about whatever differences we have pale compared to John Mc. Then he says McCain is running for Bush's fourth term. Thank God I missed the third one.

    Teresa, (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Lil on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:26:20 PM EST
    Very funny line!

    Oh no, we have another fainter now. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:28:59 PM EST
    I was stunned by that (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:31:21 PM EST
    What the heck is up with the fainting thing???

    Obama sounds really bad today for some reason.  He stumbled over himself several times and then said McCain is running for George Bush's fourth term.  I guess it's been a long primary.


    It appears that Obama does not hold up well (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:46:56 PM EST
    under pressure. Not a good sign.

    It's hot there (none / 0) (#134)
    by JustJennifer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:50:58 PM EST
    I went to see both Bill and Chelsea and Obama in Oregon two weekends ago.  Both times I thought I could faint from the heat so I can see it really happening.  Plus you end up waiting for these guys forever.  I think it's weird that he keeps talking before they know if the person is ok though.  

    D'oh (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by JustJennifer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:28:12 PM EST
    LOL I heard the fourth Bush term thing too.  Made me laugh.  He also said "GI bill for the 21st century"... totally stole that from Hillary too.

    I suspect he will sound more and more (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:30:05 PM EST
    like her in terms of words. They will lack the meaning/intent though.

    Maybe he was running the other 7 states (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:28:44 PM EST
    while Bush did the original 50?

    He just can't resist competing (none / 0) (#126)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:46:20 PM EST
    He wants a book written about him just like Bushisms and Quayleisms.

    He is putting himself in embarrassing company all by himself, too. Wonder who he thinks he can blame when he's the one speaking.


    It will take guts for an SD to hold out (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by makana44 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:42:29 PM EST
    The Obama campaign has been in a full court press for a long time, leaning on SDs to come out for Obama. The Times had a quote illustrating how it's done:

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

    On the other end of the line, Mr. Ritter demurred, saying he had pledged to remain neutral until the primary season ends.

    OK for a Gov, but a party apparatchik? And even for the Gov, for how long?

    For the present it won't likely look too good. Yet we all know lot can happen between now and the convention. According to the U.K. Telegraph, the Obama campaign is going to try to take her completely out of contention:

    Hillary Clinton will be offered a dignified exit from the presidential race and the prospect of a place in Barack Obama's cabinet under plans for a "negotiated surrender" of her White House ambitions being drawn up by Senator Obama's aides.

    Hold on Hillary!

    no way in h-e-double hockey sticks (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:04:48 PM EST
    Clinton will be making an exit -- dignified or otherwise -- after what happened yesterday and the fact that Obama is circling the drain (electorally as well as public perception-wise) as we speak.

    She'll say "no, thank you", stay in, take her strong MI case to the Credentials Committee (I heard they're more likely to be open to her case;  any news on this?) and take it to the Convention IF the SDs don't see the blinding light of day before then -- and, yes, that WOULD be a McCain train barreling down the track -- and throw their support to the one who can actually, you know, win in November.

    Yeah, win in November.  Novel concept, that.


    I'd like to read this, (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:42:49 PM EST
    but it could use a little more punctuation and some paragraphs. No offense meant.  I know you're excited for us to read this, but you've made it difficult.

    oops sorry (none / 0) (#139)
    by Oceandweller on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:58:44 PM EST
    I am a poor typist , plus typing with 1 hand, dont worry this should not last long I plan to get back the missing hand soon but admittedly I prefer typing letters than commas...

    Just in case (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Amiss on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:45:41 PM EST
    I dont mind rewriting some parts of the constitution but that cant be done now

    In case you didnt happen to see the RBC meeting yesterday, that is exactly what they did. They re-wrote the rules to benefit Obama. It was Michigan voters' votes stolen yesterday, tomorrow, who knows, it could be yours and mine.

    After yesterday's debacle (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by miriam on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:49:06 PM EST
    It's clear, to me at least, that the majority of Democratic party "leaders" have already chosen their candidate.  I don't think, after yesterday, that any argument for Hillary Clinton will make them change their collective mind.  Look at the problems surrounding Obama!  Would any other candidate have survived them?  I've been a registered D for 47 years and I'm depressed and disgusted.  I've finally figured out that my "down feeling" for days is a sense of loss over this...the complete loss of  respect for this party.  Does anyone else share this?  

    It's beyond rational belief that a party which has lost so many presidential elections by running weak candidates is about to do it again.  For months Obama has been losing voters in states that must be won to succeed in November.  The electoral map says it all.  But the DNC doesn't care about electoral numbers, doesn't care how many supporters it insults/infuriates, and doesn't care about fair play...giving votes Clinton won to Obama who didn't even contest the Michigan primary?  It hurts to say I no longer care about the Democratic party, but it is no longer the party whose core beliefs I once championed. I can only hope that out of the ashes of this election will rise a new party that we can respect and believe in.

    Here is where I strrongly disagree (3.00 / 2) (#62)
    by KristenWinters on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:14:25 PM EST
    "National Popular Vote" is not an official count.

    If I was a non-partisan and undecided Superdelegate who wanted to use the national popular vote as my #1 factor in deciding who to support, in the absence of an official count, I would need to uses estimates on caucus states that don't release their tallies and estimates for Obama's actual popular support in Michigan at the time of the primary.

    Since the "national popular vote count" is not an official tally, why wouldn't a non-partisan superdelegate want to be as inclusive as possible in trying to assess the votes of all of those voters who came out to vote in the primaries?

    In my opinion, a stronger argument for Hillary is her electibility and the fact that since March 1 she has won the majority of the primaries by over 500K.

    I don't think that the "national popular vote" argument that estimates 0 support for Obama in Michigan will hold water with any superdelegate who isn't already in Hillary Clinton's camp, in other words, not an "undecided superdelegate."

     Just my opinion.

    Yes, we get it. (5.00 / 10) (#74)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    Stealing delegates from HRC and apportioning votes to Obama based on exit polls is just dandy with you.

    Unfortunately, it's not dandy with me and many others.

    We believe in principles over personalities, you see.


    Not an either/or choice (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:19:50 PM EST
    The electability and the popular vote arguments COMPLIMENT each other.

    If BTD and Jeralyn can't agree on (4.00 / 2) (#86)
    by KristenWinters on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:26:52 PM EST
    the definition of the "national popular vote" how can you expect approximately 200 superdelegates to be swayed by that argument.

    Electibility is a much stronger argument because I think it is indisputable.

    Right now BTD has Obama ahead in the national popular vote as he defines it while Jeralyn has Clinton ahead.  It is not clear cut.  If it is not clear cut, it will not be a powerful enough argument to get Superdelegates to come over to Clinton in the 85%-90% that she would need to get to the finish line.


    Actually, since there is no obvious bias (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:24:56 PM EST
    for Hillary in the distribution of primary states, the primary state vote count should indicate Obama's  percentage of popular vote rather well.

    Wait (none / 0) (#1)
    by neoliberal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:44:20 PM EST
    We don't know the vote totals from several caucus states. How can one declare a popular vote winner before all the votes are counted?

    I provided alternative numbers (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:45:28 PM EST
    she's ahead whether you count them or not.

    You are comfortable (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by neoliberal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:50:52 PM EST
    using estimates instead of real, actual votes?

    I'm sure Jeralyn would be happy (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by chancellor on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:55:09 PM EST
    to use actual votes if the caucus states would provide them. If you had been following this issue here you would know that the caucus states have not released actual numbers; therefore, estimates are being used by most organizations that tally these numbers.

    Caucuses (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Athena on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:58:49 PM EST
    Further evidence of the total derangement of the caucus system.  

    4 hours in a room, with no real record.  Oh, that's credible.


    "intent to vote" (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:07:59 PM EST
    under the new standard, we need to take 4 delegates from every caucus for the Clinton voters who were basically intimidated by the caucus format.  We do have the data on caucuses, so I think we need to apply it.  

    So (none / 0) (#32)
    by neoliberal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:59:56 PM EST
    why not wait till they DO release the votes? Why the rush?

    They are NOT going to release the vote totals (none / 0) (#109)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:34:29 PM EST
    they don't have any.
    I would be happy to eliminate counting those votes at all considering that you don't like estimates.  

    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:48:17 PM EST
    As BTD has pointed out many, many times on this blog. They have the totals they have just chosen not to release them.

    Probably because they are laughably low.


    when there are no real actual votes (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Chisoxy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:55:13 PM EST
    the state estimates are the best we can do.

    Or we could just pick a number and say this is how we think they wouldve voted, much like MI was split.


    That really isn't much different than (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by KristenWinters on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:05:21 PM EST
    estimating what percentage of the Uncommitted Voters in Michigan supported Obama.

    Clearly, any estimate of Obama's actual popular support in Michigan will not be perfect, but it will be closer to correct than the "0" that Obama is using.

    I do not think BTD agrees with Jeralyn on this.


    You mean as opposed (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:06:05 PM EST
    to using exit polls and a magic eight ball to divine voter intent like the RBC did for Obama yesterday?!?!?

    Obama supporters don't have any santimonious ground to stand on when it comes to 'estimates'.


    If the RBC is comfortable (none / 0) (#99)
    by Amiss on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:30:08 PM EST
    with using exit poll data to assign delegates, then why shouldnt everyone else be able to do that? After all this is the Democratic Party.

    You say: (none / 0) (#143)
    by miriam on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:04:24 PM EST
    "After all this is the Democratic Party."

    Yes, and the numbers that should really concern the Democratic party are those that represent long-time reliable, dollars-donating members like myself who are fleeing from it.  If a substantial number of women and men leave and become Independents, this presidential election will be won by McCain.  But, like everything else regarding Obama, the party simply refuses to recognize it.


    Great, but no matter what math you use (1.00 / 9) (#5)
    by Mavs4527 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:48:01 PM EST
    It doesn't change the fact that our system is based on delegates, not on popular vote. Just like with the electoral college, if you don't like the system, you change it before the next election. Don't play the game 99% of the way and then at the end say you're actually leading because the way the score being kept is unfair to you.

    Stop the divisiveness. It's over on Tuesday. Let it go. It'll be easier the sooner you do.


    Stop the nonsense. SD"s are free to use (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:50:24 PM EST
    any reason they wish to decide. The popular vote is a MUCH better reflection of the will of the people than the pledge delegate count. Heck, the PDC sometimes doesn't even reflect the will of the people on caucus day, when the final determination is made.

    The PDC from Texas (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:52:31 PM EST
    is still being decided.

    The Obama trolls really, really don't like it when we bring up the popular vote count, do they?

    Nothing must threaten the ascendancy of Barack Obama - not even the voters!!!111!!!


    yes, and our own TxPolitico67 (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:57:08 PM EST
    predicts Hillary will end up with a large margin in delegates, because the old-hand Hillary supporters will be running the show, and will simply throw out the Obama supporters if they break the rules.

    I'm at the convention next week so I'll be able to (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:43:43 PM EST
    report what happens.

    Making iBots talk PopVote till August will be like (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:08:17 PM EST
    ... forcing them go to summer school for math.

    Why didn't someone tell me that being a bad monster white bitter lady was kind of fun!


    LOL (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:52:13 PM EST
    I'm torn between chagrin at the wrongness of your comment and the joy I feel knowing that it hurts Obama's chances in the General Election.

    The name of the game (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:52:16 PM EST
    is magic number.  Neither Obama nor Clinton have hit it yet.  The superdelegates will get them there, and it's up to each candidate to argue for the super delegates vote.

    Counting the votes isn't divisive.  It's an argument.  This is the process.


    Facts are stubborn things... (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by santarita on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:00:55 PM EST
    Looking at either the "pledged" delegate count or the popular vote, it remains clear that this is a close race.  Obama had some early wins and has been trying to eliminate his competition since February by having the media and his surrogates anoint him as the presumptive candidate.  It's a great tactic.  But the fact that she keeps winning in big and small states even after the anointment should tell people something.   And it's not that her tactics are working so much as he is not the overwhelming choice of a large part of the voters.  

    At best Obama is getting a TKO with the aid of a favorable ref.


    misreading the argument (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:02:28 PM EST
    You are misreading the argument.

    The argument is that superdelegates may give equal or more weight to the popular vote total in deciding who to vote for. They can decide or change their mind any time up until the convention.

    Their delegate vote, combined with the current pledged delegate vote, could give Hillary enough delegates to win the 2118 and the nomination. Until Obama has 2,118 delegates, he hasn't won the nomination.

    Is it likely to happen? No. But it's a possibility and one I endorse.

    Please don't post misinformation here. It will be deleted.


    who do you think that you are fooling? (1.00 / 2) (#122)
    by manish on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:45:05 PM EST

    With all due respect, who do you think that you are fooling?  I realize that in your mind that assuming that Obama has zero popular support in MI is reasonable to you, but do you really think that any un-pledged super-delegate is going to buy that argument?  Even if a handful do, do you really think that 95% of the un-pledged super-delegates are going to say let me support Hillary and rationalize such decision by disenfranchising all of the Obama supporters in MI.

    This election is about delegates.  If it were about popular vote, all of the caucus states would hold primaries.  By making it about popular vote you are diminishing the influence of states with caucuses.  The real story about the caucuses is the Clinton campaigns poor GOTV.  They got their voters out to Iowa and Nevada, but screwed up in places like Idaho and Washington.  There is no reason for Obama to have gotten almost 80% of the vote in Idaho other than poor on the ground organizing by the Clinton campaign in that state and many others.


    voters.. (3.00 / 1) (#136)
    by manish on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    let me add...the rally cry is that its not about the DNC, the states, or the campaigns but about the voters.  Is it really about the voters by assuming that none of the voters in MI supported Obama?

    If Barry gets 2118 dekegates (none / 0) (#165)
    by seeker on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:35:58 PM EST
    before the convention, and many of those are unpledged, has he really won the nomination?  The unpledged can change whenever they wish, and so can the pledged.

    How should Hillary play it if he gets 2118 in the next few weeks?


    the system (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:15:05 PM EST
    based on delegates has not gotten a Dem into the WH.

    That is why the popular vote is important.

    My question to you is how bad do YOU want a Dem in the WH? Enough to take a look at her argument?


    always been about the delegates (2.00 / 1) (#140)
    by manish on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:59:35 PM EST
    conventions have always been about the delegates.  Thats they only metric that matters in coming up with a nominee.  Bill Clinton won the delegates in 1992, Carter won them in 1976, JFK won them in 1960 and on and on.

    Having said that, every contest taken all the way to the convention has lost for us.  Bill Clinton was unopposed at the conventions of 1992 and 1996.  Ted Kennedy took things to the 1980 convention, Jesse Jackson took things to the 1988 convention.  None of these worked out well for us.


    But... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:25:21 PM EST
    Carter and the Duke were lousy candidates, and Kennedy and Jackson were thousands of delegates behind and far behind in popular votes, HRC is what, about 150 behind or so and basically split the popular vote.  Those are the key differences.

    My feeling is that Obama can win if he is really lucky, but that Clinton will win even with the entire MCM against her.  The minute the MCM turns on Obama (and they will except for Olbermann and his gal Friday Maddow) he will sink in the polls like a stone.  I think for the most part we are severely underestimating McCain, the media has fluffed him for years and they will not be nasty towards him at all.  The minute Obama shows weakness, they'll crush him like a bug, especially if he is arraogant with them.  (BTW, that is Obama's main problem, his breathtaking arrogance, he needs to keep that in check.)



    Well, this is the year for CHANGE (none / 0) (#154)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:31:41 PM EST
    Maybe this is where Obama needs to acknowledge he has contributed to the change mantra.

    Super Delegates are free (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:18:58 PM EST
    to vote for the candidate THEY BELIEVE WILL BEAT McCAIN IN NOVEMBER. They are NOT required to let Obama twist their arm to choose him just because he wants them to.

    That isn't how it works. Since ROOLZ matter so much to Obama supporters. You MUST follow the Super Delegate ROOL too.

    Obama will have the Majority of delegates, but Hillary will have the POPULAR vote and an electoral map to argue her case. SHE is the ONLY candidate that can beat McCain in November.

    The delegates may endorse him now, but all of them are free to change their votes until they cast them at the convention.

    Stop the divisiveness. It's over at the Convention. Let it go. It'll be easier the sooner you do.


    It's actually not over at the convention (none / 0) (#161)
    by Mavs4527 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:01:20 PM EST
    It's going to be over either Tuesday night or Wednesday morning when Obama reaches the 2118 mark.

    How did yesterday's (none / 0) (#13)
    by mattt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:52:22 PM EST
    RBC decision and the positions stated there (especially by the representatives of the states) affect the "fair" PV count...if at all?  Turnout was discussed but I didn't hear much about how the PV should be counted.

    popular vote "doesn't matter" (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:10:30 PM EST
    that's why the elite Washington establishment backs losers that win Primaries with sufficient delegates, but can't win the GE.
    But with an extended Primary this year - we have proof Hillary would be the better nominee.

    If I were a SD, at this point (none / 0) (#16)
    by akaEloise on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:53:21 PM EST
    I'd be going to both campaigns and saying "I'll vote for whichever of you promises to pick the other as a running mate".

    If I were an SD (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by lobary on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:06:08 PM EST
    I with BTD in my belief that there is very little chance that HRC will win the nomination. Therefore, if I were an undeclared superdelegate I'd make it clear to the Obama campaign that my public declaration of support is contingent upon his campaign offering a sincere apology to the HRC forces for the treatment the candidate, the campaign, and her supporters have endured over the last few months.

    You want unity? Stop being a sore winner.


    If I were an SD (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:08:45 PM EST
    I'd ask HRC to suspend her campaign, but not concede.

    Then I'd wait to see what happens with Obama as presumptive nominee. Can he survive the right-wing scream machine?

    If I didn't like what I saw, I'd cast my vote for HRC in August.


    That would be smart (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:19:47 PM EST
    If Clinton agrees not to make public appeals between the last primary and the convention, in exchange for  the superdelegates not coming out on either side until the convention. Obama gets to make his case as if Clinton were out, but she is not forced to concede when she hasn't actually lost.

    Obama won't go for it, though. His campaign is too hung up on the delegate count, and too fearful of losing to Clinton at the convention. They don't want a chance to make their case - they want Obama to be declared the victor, as if that will make it easier to win in November instead simply alienating Clinton supporter's making it harder. They simply can't get past the idea that if Obama wins the nomination, the ge is in the bag.


    they've been declaring Obama (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:29:58 PM EST
    the "Winner" since February 5th, so whether Hillary is officially "in" or "out" doesn't really make one iota of difference to them.

    The only reason they'd want Hillary to concede or at least have the appearance of conceding is so they could dance on her political grave, shout "I told you so" and officially "beat" the mean old lady who made Precious work for his Nomination.

    But declaring him the Winner?  They've been doing that every week since early-February.  And, no, it hasn't really been working out for them.  She keeps winning and keeps giving the SDs something more to think about when it comes to who SHOULD be the Nominee.

    And I still think she's going to pull the Political Upset Story of the Century.


    Conceding (1.00 / 2) (#78)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:22:27 PM EST
    does not preclude Hillary from getting the nomination if something were to happen to the Obama campaign.  



    Yes, it does (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:58:22 PM EST
    No. She just needs to go on vacation... (none / 0) (#97)
    by cosbo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:29:58 PM EST
    the Far East, preferably. She's just gotta say...it's been a long hard year and a half and right now, I'm just taking break. An eight week break. Just step away from it all while her surrogates continue working on the supers. Obama can play presumptive nominee and we'll all see how that works out.

    I hope she makes it a family vacation (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:37:50 PM EST
    She should take Bill and Chelsea with her, but leave James Carville behind.  8^)

    I agree (none / 0) (#104)
    by Amiss on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    I dont want her to concede, I would much rather she "suspend" her campaign.

    I don't see (none / 0) (#145)
    by Nadai on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:05:09 PM EST
    why she should do either.  She should go on vacation, hold some fund raisers, give some speeches, and smile serenely whenever people ask her if she's quitting and say it will all be sorted out in Denver.

    Suspend? (none / 0) (#105)
    by creeper on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:32:58 PM EST

    Winner Take All in Puerto Rico? (none / 0) (#25)
    by dazedreamer52 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:55:40 PM EST
    Does anyone know if Puerto Rico is a 'winner take all per district' primary?

    If you look at the samples on the Puerto Rican Election Website the two choices on the ballots list all the delegates for each side, possibly meaning that the winner of the district receives all the delegates for the district.

    I know that the winner take all idea has been discussed in the blogosphere (DemocraticUnderground.com), but i'm still not sure how they allocate delegates. Can anyone help?

    It is against DNC rules (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:04:08 PM EST
    to have winner take all districts.

    'At Large Winner Take All' Is Against Rules (none / 0) (#56)
    by dazedreamer52 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:11:20 PM EST
    My Understanding that it is against DNC rules to hold a winner take all primary statewide, but is it true per district. If it is can you direct me to anything that says so. Thanks!

    Puerto Rico used to be winner take all, (none / 0) (#68)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:18:36 PM EST
    butr changed in either '80 or '84, IIRC, when new guidelines from the DNC came out... can anyone back this up, or is my memory playing tricks on me? I need my bible and a gun, I suppose...

    Donna Brazile said she would cast for Hilary (none / 0) (#29)
    by Saul on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:58:10 PM EST
    If the squabbling by Ikes on the 4 delegates given to Obama would stop them from fighting for it at the convention.

    Brazile (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by mkb662 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:02:19 PM EST
    FYI: I was at the RBC meeting.  Donna Brazile was out of control. She was hugging all the Obama campaign staff, rolling her eyes at Ickes and other Clinton RBCers, and telling Gov. Blanchard that HRC was "cheating."  It's probably a good PR move for her to say that on CNN but she is an Obama supporter, it is clear as can be.

    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by Amiss on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:36:48 PM EST
    had a lot of nerve bringing up cheating from anyone with what the RBC did yesterday, IMHO of course, the only cheaters were the RBC and the ones being cheated were the voters. And it is beyond me why she continually says all she wants is Unity.

    Does Donna Brazile think she gets four votes? (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:07:17 PM EST
    That's what it would take to offset. But, even so, we should fight for the principle. What they did was outrageous.

    She's scared of what will happen at the convention (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by felizarte on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:07:28 PM EST
    is what that statement would signify.  All the way to the convention, HILLARY!

    apparently principled issues are not important (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by kimsaw on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:14:40 PM EST
    to Ms. Brazile. I can't believe that any Dem. would support Obama getting delegate votes that belong to another candidate. It is stealing votes and disenfranchising voters in an illicit manner. The RBC's actions on behalf of their party elite is an assault on the very liberties and principled foundation of our nation. Principles that American soldiers have fought and died for. No Democrat or American should be proud of this.



    What Brazile learned in 2000 (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by gmo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:45:41 PM EST
    Sadly, I think Donna learned the wrong lessons from the 2000 election:  that it isn't about principle, it's about power.   It's not about the rules, it's about the power to arbitrarily exercise those rules that fit your needs.

    Katherine Harris got away with it in FL and wound up with a plum job and congressional seat, so why can't Donna do it in 2008?    


    Dissenting Posts don't last long, do they? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Curious on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:02:37 PM EST
    even when stated without offensive language.

    if they insult (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:05:37 PM EST
    or provide false information, no they don't.

    If they disagree civilly, they stay.


    Not dissenting posts... (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by gmo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:07:23 PM EST
    ...just misinformed ones.

    Look at past threads (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:10:16 PM EST
    There is plenty of dissent. Insults aren't tolerated. It's kind of novel until you get used to it. The moderator's here expect people to be civil and respectful, even if they disagree vehemently with each other. It's not like most of the rest of the net, where the average level of discourse resembles ... good grief, I can't even think of a real world comparison where adults insult and attack each other as readily. If people talked that way in the real world, they would end up in the hospital or in jail.  

    I am new to this site (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Amiss on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:39:38 PM EST
    Just been around just a few weeks or so, I really appreciate the adult discourse here without all of the name calling and bashing that goes on at other sites.

    It is the best run site IMHO of course, around.


    Judging by (none / 0) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:19:21 PM EST
    what's come in already, I think turnout will be less than 300,000.  

    Teresa, per Kos' sources in PR, there were (none / 0) (#88)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:27:41 PM EST
    huge lines right at 3:00. We may not know for a while on turnout. They probably only have numbers from the small polling places right now.

    I suspected as much. I know my people. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:55:22 PM EST
    ...times flows a little bit different on the island.

    So far, yes... (none / 0) (#90)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:27:55 PM EST
    Right now, extrapolating from the CNN numbers with 9% in, we're looking at turnout just north of 200,000, with about a 70,000 vote net gain for Clinton.

    All I can do is hope that the later precincts (barrios?) are bigger.


    Now, with 14% in... (none / 0) (#100)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:30:14 PM EST
    The projection is 237,000, with about an 80,000 net gain.

    Precinct counted (none / 0) (#110)
    by zebedee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:34:55 PM EST
    Isn't what they're showing the % of precints counted? Don't know how close this is to votes, probably is if precincts are roughly equal size

    Yes... (none / 0) (#117)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:41:18 PM EST
    So it depends on whether big precincts or small precincts report first. I'm not sure what is customary in PR.

    Good for you...and thank you. (none / 0) (#81)
    by mogal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:23:41 PM EST

    A thought (none / 0) (#84)
    by garage mahal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:25:36 PM EST
    Has anyone contemplated that the 4 delegates stolen from Hillary might put him over the top to claim the nomination? Oy.

    No doubt (none / 0) (#89)
    by tek on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:27:49 PM EST
    Donna Brazile will say that since PR doesn't vote in the GE, that popular vote that Hillary won today doesn't count.  Then she'll give Obama an extra 300,000 votes to add to his popular vote totals just to make sure Hillary can't win.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:33:17 PM EST
    DB had some very nice words for PR and the other territories, talking about how they're over in Iraq and Afghanistan just like the rest of us.  She said, loosely paraphrasing, it's great that Hillary has been campaigning so hard there because those voters deserve to have a voice in the process.

    With 22% in... (none / 0) (#114)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:40:25 PM EST
    ... projected turnout is at 256,000, with a net gain of 87,000 votes for Clinton. At 9% in, this was 209,000 and 70,000 respectively, so at least things are moving in the right direction.

    With 27% in... (none / 0) (#130)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:48:35 PM EST
    We're projecting 277,000 total votes, and a net gain of 94,000 votes for Clinton.

    As more precints come in (none / 0) (#157)
    by jfung79 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:34:34 PM EST
    Hillary's projected pickup from Puerto Rico continues to grow.  I'm relieved, I think she might get to a 150,000 or 175,000 vote pickup.

    Separately, right now the idiots on CNN are talking about how Bill Clinton wasn't a help this campaign.  The rural and small-town landslides for Hillary owe a lot to Bill Clinton, and it is typical media elitism to dismiss him going to these areas.


    Yeah, I think counting (none / 0) (#155)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:31:49 PM EST
    any of the uncommitted vote for Obama in MI has no real justification, given that he took his name off the ballot.

    I've made the following argument before, but now is perhaps a good time to repeat it, given its potential relevance.

    I think the best example of why it is not legitimate to accord Obama any popular vote in MI is the very case in which Obama himself won his election against Alice Palmer, by taking her name off the ballot.

    Yes, most people do feel that it's not quite right for Obama to have won an election like that, but the fact is that everyone recognizes that in our democracy, if your name is not on the ballot, nonetheless the votes must be counted as they are cast. The only "intent of the people" that counts, the only expression of the will of the people that counts, is that which is captured by a ballot cast in someone's name. No one says that the Alice Palmer election must be thrown out because her name was not on the ballot. No one says that, because, counterfactually, the people might have voted for her in great numbers had her name been on the ballot, the election is not legitimate. It is simply accepted that the outcome is legitimate, and does express the will of people.

    Insofar as we accept as legitimate the Alice Palmer result, and many others like it, I don't see how we don't accept that Obama should be accorded none of the votes in MI. This point should indeed be most obviously true for Obama supporters, who surely see little wrong in his win over Alice Palmer.

    And of course the case of MI for Obama is only worse than that of Alice Palmer: he voluntarily took his name off the ballot, whereas Palmer's was taken off very much against her will; and Obama actively blocked any efforts to have a revote in MI, which would have remedied the situation.

    problem with Popular vote argument (none / 0) (#156)
    by Kevin on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:32:42 PM EST
    is that even if she is ahead, it is not even 1 percentage point (same goes for Obama).  The spread is so small overall that it is quite difficult to make the argument that you are the overwhelming pick of the people because you got .03% more of the vote.  Of course, she is also ahead only when you take the position that Obama get's none of the Michigan votes, which you may be fine with, but most people find a silly and transparent argument.  

    So what your left with is two candidates who are essentially tied, but one has far more pledged delegates.  For her to win, Obama would almost have to win no more pledged delegates and she'd have to win nearly all the remaining SD's.

    Unlikely, and if it did happen, I doubt she'd have the easy march to the White House some people over here envision.

    actually this is a bit incorrect.. (none / 0) (#160)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:52:28 PM EST
    Party systems (esp. the caucus system and proportional rules that the Dems have) are flawed (otherwise we'd have won far more than we have lost in the past forty years). I'm sure the Democrats tinkered with these processes -- with entirely good intentions to maximize their chances in GE's, but to me when such an imperfect system puts forth a popular vote winner -- AND that candidate's winning is correlated with performance in swing states -- I'd take it very seriously, no matter what the spread.

    Party officials that ignore that signal, in favor of a lead in pledged delegates -- do so at their peril.


    No. It's somewhat silly. (none / 0) (#158)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:37:05 PM EST
    Pledged delegates from caucus states also reflect electability in a GE in November only marginally.

    Does your argument extend therefore to discounting all pledged delegates from states that will be solidly Republican in November? If you are making a principled nit-picking argument, then re-compute the actual delegate counts that Obama has truly won that will matter to the Democratic party in November.

    I have a different principle at stake here, that every vote should count. PR votes count. Senator Obama gets 0 votes in MI. Period.

    IMO, the electability argument does not rest merely on the popular vote lead that Senator Clinton has. It really is an argument based on looking at our nation, and the nomination process from a more holistic perspective. Who is the best candidate the Dem. party can field against Senator McCain?

    For eg; on PR --

    Others have mentioned both the importance of PR to the US (BTD has a post with a link to an illuminating article on the statehood issue), and the number of Puerto Ricans who have relatives in the US.

    To me, Puerto Rico counts because it shows the level of Hispanic support Senator Clinton has (w/ or w/out Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama).  It shows her ability to cross ethnic and class lines (look at the demographics and income ranges in PR) and appeal to a wide coalition of voters -- no matter where they are. Senator Obama is going to find out how solid his new voter and emerging co-alition strategy is in November. That's the real argument here -- and last but not the least -- Senator Obama has shown a singular lack of ability to expand his base for the Fall, and seems  uninterested in reaching out to the Clinton base without which he'll fail in November. PR provides more evidence of this fact for the SD's to consider.

    Just my opinion.

    As long as the media continues to buy into (none / 0) (#159)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:37:29 PM EST
    whatever the Obama campaign decides is the metric-of-the-day for determining who should be the nominee, it is going to be a fight to make the argument to the superdelegates that more than just the delegate count should be taken into consideration.

    Remember, when Obama was racking up wins, it was all about the "will of the people."  When he lost Massachusetts, and they realized that Kerry, Kennedy and Patrick would have to commit to Clinton under a will-of-the-people argument, they shifted to delegate counts.  They will brook no discussion about the popular vote - and this message has been beaten to a fare-thee-well ever since.

    I think it ought to be obvious to anyone whose eyes are open and who can round up a quorum of brain cells: Obama has been in a downward spiral since Super Tuesday, has lost one bedrock state after another - some by eye-popping margins.  If this is a football game, Team Obama's playing prevent defense to protect a lead - and doing it poorly - while Team Clinton has the momentum, continues to march the ball down the field and score points; Team O's looking weak.  Sure they might be able to hang on until the clock ticks down to 0:00, but can they beat their next opponent?

    I have to believe that if the SD's were so convinced that Obama is the better candidate for defeating McCain, they would have ended this a long time ago.

    The question is, will the allow themselves to be bullied or threatened into committing to Obama, and can they hold them off past Wednesday?  Given that there is a remarkable weakness in the spines of far too many Dems, I'm not all that confident that they will be able to do that.  

    Yeah, I know it isn't officially over until August, but consider that if Obama has the delegates he needs, and there are no more primaries in which he can suffer embarrassing losses, it is going to be unbelievably hard to get enough of a shift at the convention for this to go Clinton's way.  There will not be one iota of support for even saying Clinton's name in the media, much less making an argument that she is still technically in it.  Once he has the delegates, it is going to be McCain-Obama, general election coverage - the "fight" for the nomination will be over, as far as the media is concerned.

    The only thing that will move Obama out of the nomination, once he gets the delegates he needs, will be a significant scandal, or continued flubs and flip-flops, or failure to open up a lead on McCain.

    I just don't know how we keep Clinton in it once Obama has the SD's he needs.

    counts every single vote! that what she (none / 0) (#162)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:02:53 PM EST
    says. count those votes now! we won't forget.

    Please cite a source. (none / 0) (#164)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:35:42 PM EST
    The current tally from PR stands at Clinton +101071 votes (See reported numbers thus far).

    RCP has Obama by +183,057 including IA,NV,ME,WA.

    Even if you grant ALL uncommitted in MI (238168) -- as  I'm sure Obama and the DNC are wont to do -- that will reduce Clinton's win to +90,141 in MI.

    Can you do the remainder of the math? (Her margin is likely to grow since PR is now at ~75% reporting).

    I agree w/ you that this is likely to be a moot issue, since the SD's are going to go with their flawed caucus process that has been manipulated to produce a lead for an inexperienced and unelectable candidate in the Fall. But Jeralyn is right -- as was BTD last night (I think) when he said that after PR, Clinton will lead in the popular vote even taking MI into account -- and awarding ALL uncomitted votes to Obama! (Which I personally do NOT think is right).

    BTW.. (none / 0) (#166)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:40:47 PM EST
    That just isn't enough to justify what will be widely perceived as overturning the will of the pledged delegates.

    Let's just agree to disagree. I'd say it exactly the opposite way. (i.e. There just isn't enough margin in the pledged delegate lead for Senator Obama for the Superdelegates to overturn the will of the people and the strengths of the coalitions that Senator Hillary Clinton has demonstrably put together in swing states for the Fall Election).

    SD's that look to Obama's pre-Wright flash-in-the-pan strength, are, as I have said before, preferring a Pepsi candidate based on a taste test. Some of us prefer.. the Real Coke!

    Baseball (none / 0) (#171)
    by whecht on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:39:40 PM EST
    How often does the team that scores the most runs lose the World Series?

    The answer is...

    I don't really care.

    The object is to win 4 games not score the most runs.

    The object of the candidates is to get the most delegates.

    Obviously, scoring a lot of runs is important in winning baseball games.  Just as getting a lot of votes is important in winning delegates.

    However, votes are a means to an end.

    I hope and pray that every Democrat votes the the Democrat for President this year.

    I already cast my vote for Clinton back in February.  I will vote for her again in November if she is on the ballot.

    However, I expect that I will vote for Obama because Obama will have the most delegates and have won the nomination.

    Delegates (none / 0) (#176)
    by TRVLR on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:55:07 AM EST
    If each state had a winner take all primary, does anyone know where the delegate count would be now?

    Obama is fading fast (none / 0) (#177)
    by OxyCon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    Since March, he has either lost primaries he figured he'd win; done worse than he projected; or been blown out.
    Not once, or perhaps rarely, has he beaten expectations.
    The more people see of him, the less they are inclined to support him.