Hillary Received More Votes Than Any Primary Candidate in History

The Washington Post agrees it's true.

"17 million Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton...more than for any primary candidate in history" -- a statement that is entirely true.

Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said that "both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have gotten more votes than any presidential campaign in primary history" but added: "We are, however, ahead in the popular vote now and will be ahead when all of the votes are counted Tuesday."


The necessary delegate total is now 2,118 and neither candidate is there. Unpledged and superdelegates are entitled to give equal or more weight to the popular vote than the current pledged delegate count in deciding who to vote for.

Once it is agreed that a candidate has reached 2,118 and the other drops out, then it's over. We're not there yet. And, if that doesn't happen, then there is no winner until the convention in August.

I think we'll have a winner next week, but we don't have one now.

< Popular Vote Total After Puerto Rico | About The Puerto Rico Turnout >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hillary should declare victory! (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:33:55 PM EST
    Seriously, what I would like to see is a coordinated campaign to get SD's to account for the votes, if they are voting against the results of their districts. Given that Hillary lead in the popular vote, AND that she won MA, for example, Kerry  has some 'splainin' to do. Of course, he won't change his vote, but pressure might work on others.
    Make the broad-based case for the whole country, but then target those SD's I mentioned, and publicize their cases.

    LOL, heads would explorde. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:43:13 PM EST
    ...talking ones especially.

    That Would Be A Good Thing IMO n/t (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:06:41 PM EST
    Hillary has won more Congressional districts (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:43:53 PM EST
    May 14, 2008 - http://tinyurl.com/4fjrw3

    >>>More importantly, however, is a number the Obama campaign and many media outlets haven't discussed: Clinton has now won the popular vote in 195 US Congressional Districts. That number is important because of the relative equality of each congressional district. This number is important because too date Barack Obama has only won the popular vote in 187 congressional districts. If you include Florida & Michigan's 2.3 million voters who showed up in record numbers on Election Day despite being disenfranchised, the congressional district victories look like this:

    Clinton - 227 Congressional Districts
    Obama - 195 Congressional Districts


    That's what I thought. Hillary SHOULD be (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:44:49 PM EST
    ahead, if the SD's were voting roughly in line with their constituencies. Seems awfully undemocratic that they are not!

    November --> SD judgment (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Davidson on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:49:24 PM EST
    That will make Obama's GE loss all the more their responsibility since all they can claim now is their independent judgment that he's the best to win in November.

    all the SDs in those districts should have come (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:00:02 PM EST
    out for her

    Obama was the "Six-Week Wonder" (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:52:03 PM EST
    is another way I'd say it.  We're only halfway now from the first primary to the convention, five months along in a ten-month campaign season.  He won the first six weeks, through mid-February.

    Clinton has won ever since, for three months now -- the more crucial months to date, I would say.  So Prima Donna, Pelosi, Dean, et al., ought just stfu and let the second half of the campaign season come out as it will for the next five, long months.  

    That is, if the Dems really want to see who can win in the end.  


    2:38 p.m. PST....Hillary is getting ready to give (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:37:41 PM EST
    her speech in Puerto Rico....VIVA HILLARY

    With an asterisk, of course (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:34:25 PM EST
    That is the state of our "democracy" -- we have now become a nation that cannot pull off a legitimate national election of ANY sort.  And locally it ain't any better.  

    And, again, I would/will vote for Hillary happily if she ends up the nominee, but the reality of this race is absurdity.  Reality is absurdity.  Such is America in 2008.

    talk to Obama (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:50:47 PM EST
    he's the one who gamed the system for delegates - focusing on universities and caucuses in Red states rich in delegates.
    And he began calling for Hillary to GET OUT in mid-Feb after he had "wrapped up" the nomination.

    Has anyone ever (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by makana44 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:34:30 PM EST
    won the popular vote in a primary and not gotten the  nomination?

    Humphry. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:38:35 PM EST
    Eerie, and so many parellels (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by makana44 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:06:32 PM EST
    Doing a quick wiki:

    Humphrey avoided the primaries (and/or was too late to enter them) and concentrated on winning delegates in non-primary states;
    [like a red state caucus strategy, perhaps?]

    by June he was seen as the clear front-runner for the nomination. However, following a key victory over McCarthy in the California primary, it appeared that Kennedy could possibly challenge Humphrey for the nomination. But the nation was shocked yet again when Senator Kennedy was assassinated the night of his victory speech in California.

    With the support of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley,

    Humphrey and his running mate, Ed Muskie went on to easily win the Democratic nomination at the party convention in Chicago, Illinois. (In later years, changes to the party rules made such an outcome virtually impossible.)


    Although he lost the election by less than 1% of the popular vote, (43.4% for Nixon to 42.7% for Humphrey, with 13.5% (9,901,118 votes) for George Wallace), Humphrey only carried 13 states with 191 electoral college votes.

    Obama will be an interesting Wiki entry one day, too.


    Humphrey won the nominatin -- he didn't win the (none / 0) (#21)
    by mogal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:47:17 PM EST

    You're thinking of '68 (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Shawn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:04:52 PM EST
    Humphrey ran for the nomination again in 1972, won the most votes, but lost to McGovern.

    if she's a woman she won't win the nomination (none / 0) (#82)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:21:37 PM EST
    They'll take Puerto Rico off the count too. That'll be 3 States down and more to go....Kentucky and WV don't coumt either (Appalachians don't count)(not cool)....Washington Primary?
    Any more folks?

    but, but - Obama won the most delegates (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:34:33 PM EST
    so it only makes sense that we nominate a candidate who can win caucuses and Red states in the GE.

    lol (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by cosbo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:38:58 PM EST
    thanks for the joke.

    Yeah and collect more delegates in the (5.00 / 10) (#13)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:43:12 PM EST
    Texas caucus when he lost the state by over 100,000

    Great nominating system.


    The final count is not determined yet. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    We're hoping Hillary comes home with all the pork rinds then.

    Remember a voter in Alaska is worth 36 in Ohio. (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:47:46 PM EST
    Oh, and it works out JUST like that in the GE, too...oh, sure, you betcha, you can easily win a WH with a couple voters in powerfull electoralcollege-rich little red states.

    What color state is Puerto Rico (none / 0) (#67)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:48:10 PM EST
    for the GE?

    What colors are... (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Davidson on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:53:52 PM EST
    NC, AK, MS, GA, etc?

    PR doesn't vote in the GE (none / 0) (#93)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:43:23 PM EST
    Watch the news, read the blogs.

    Soldiers Serving and No Vote (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Athena on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:48:29 PM EST
    Obama has gained a lead in pledged delegates from caucuses which deny the military any real option in participating.

    The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan could not participate in caucuses.  Absentee ballots can be cast in the primaries.

    How could this party select a Commander in Chief whose delegate margins were won where soldiers could not participate?

    This is a disenfranchisement of the active military in a time of war that should offend every American.

    Shame on this party.


    Don't forget (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Firefly4625 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:03:22 PM EST
    Many in the military are low-to-middle income "working class" people and families. The Obama camp and their minions in the media have made it very clear the "new guard" - the "new" party of Obama - doesn't "need" those stinkin' low-income voters - completely irrelevant now that Mr. hopey-changey thinks he's in charge.

    And, of course, they've gamed the system to suit their new messiah's demographics. So, in the true tradition of Obama's Chicago-style politics, and knowing he wouldn't get the military vote, it was all so easy to just eliminate another group that wouldn't vote for him. No problem...

    I mean, who's gonna question them? The media? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


    No Regard (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Athena on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:15:18 PM EST
    In the primary/caucus process, there are soldier-eligible and soldier-ineligible states, depending on the format.  The Democratic party will be content to celebrate a nomination won through the soldier-ineligible events?  That's really offensive to me.

    The caucuses simply should not be elevated to the same legitimacy as a primary for many reasons, but in 2008, where the fate of these soldiers was a rallying cry for many, it is particularly egregious.


    The Obama camp and their minions (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Newt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:06:12 PM EST
    haven't called the low-income voters "stinkin'" and hasn't said it doesn't need them.  I'm a low income voter who along with millions of others support Obama.

    I find it very insulting that a blog predominated by rich white Democrats would resort to name calling and pretending the other side actually is doing the name calling.


    Wow (5.00 / 10) (#5)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:35:37 PM EST
    it's ironic that Obama styles himself as the head of a movement and agent for change, yet Hillary has become the voice of the disenfranchised and the true populist candidate.  

    In the words of the immortal John Lennon, Power to the People!

    I cannot believe that Jamal fool on CNN... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:42:53 PM EST
    obama has added Anita Dunn to his staff, so that should help with HIllary voters....puhleeze...has he listened to that dolt at all.

    help with hillary voters? based on what i've (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:47:53 PM EST
    heard them saying, they sound helpless and actually hurtful! yeah, right!

    HILLARY IS HERE.....THEY LOVE HER!!! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:52:39 PM EST
    Good ad, IMO. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by chancellor on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:37:22 PM EST
    Saw some great photos on the web today of Hillary campaigning in Puerto Rico. She looked charming and natural (even sporting a pair of mules!), and all the locals were just beaming at the chance to see her and meet her. She is such a terrific campaigner.

    Besides Hillary, you know who really makes (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:59:42 PM EST
    me proud?  All of Hillary's staunch supporters...everytime she has been down, everytime mud has been flung at her, everytime sexism reared it's ugly head, everytime she needed moral support....YOU/WE/US HAVE ALL BEEN THERE FOR HER.  She is the best candidate for president of the United States and thank the Lord this isn't over until the convention!!!




    You too!! (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:00:47 PM EST
    And....Jeralyn....Hillary is most fortunate to (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:05:57 PM EST
    have you in her corner and we cannot thank you enough for all your hard work AND patience!

    Someone should (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:39:33 PM EST
    interview Al Gore and ask him what he thinks... I am sure this is giving him painful memories....

    i heard brazile threaten to call him for help. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:53:05 PM EST
    i bet he raced over and took the phone off the hook.

    Undemocratic, illegitimate candidate (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by Davidson on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:40:17 PM EST
    The incredible discrepancy between the popular vote total (virtual tie) and the pledged delegate count completely blows the lid off our arbitrary, highly anti-democratic pledged delegate system: it's engineered to pick GE losers.

    When you add the incredible actions taken by the RBC yesterday it makes the Democratic Party and its chosen nominee, Obama, that much worse.

    Does the Party honestly think they won't suffer the consequences in the fall?  That somehow the GOP won't tear Obama and the DNC to shreds on this?  Dean, Brazile, and Pelosi are so confident about Obama they believe they can be arrogant and polarizing.  Not even with Clinton, a sure bet in November, would I be so outrageously stupid.

    it's engineered to pick GE losers. (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:49:52 PM EST
    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Davidson on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:57:10 PM EST
    That bar graph is something.  An almost 2-1 spread due to caucuses alone!  And most of his caucus wins were in deeply red states.

    Imagine if Clinton did the whole, "But what about my voters who intended to come out and caucus?"

    The media will be chewing on Democratic absurdity throughout the GE.


    "No one could have predicted..." (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:08:41 PM EST
    Condi Rice will resign so she can do color commentary on the race.

    Worse (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Davidson on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:22:26 PM EST
    They GOP will push the media narrative to racialize the whole situation.  They'll have all those SUSA polls showing how Obama was unelectable and Clinton was to be a steamroller in the GE, with the conclusion being: the Democrats stole the nomination from Clinton and gave it to Obama, knowing he would lose and she would win, because he's black.  They can continue down the path to say, "The Democrats chose to play the game of identity politics with the voters' and the nation's future when we're facing serious times."

    My worse fear is that they'll expose the Obama camp for smearing Clinton and her supporters as racist.  To me, that's far more damaging than Wright, Rezko, Ayers, or whoever.


    That'll go over well (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:56:47 PM EST
    with the GOP's base of angry white (male) voters.

    Not to mention that will set back Obama's national dialog on race something serious.

    But it's all speculation at this point.  I keep hoping that the people in charge aren't short sighted and self centered as they seem to be.


    Do you really think the media will. (none / 0) (#99)
    by AX10 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:26:54 PM EST
    really not try to blame Hillary for Obama's loss?  I have heard some pundits as well as Claire McCaskill (whom I will work to oust in 2012) claim that Hillary will be to blame if Obama loses in the fall.

    I find it a bit ironic (none / 0) (#68)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:50:15 PM EST
    that you folks are  talking about GE strength and red states while celebrating a primary victory in a jurisdiction that will net no candidates a  single EV in the GE.

    Those voters (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:58:15 PM EST
    have a lot of family state side who DO vote in the GE.

    hype (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by DefenderOfPants on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:41:20 PM EST
    the way the media covers the primaries, you'd think Obama was winning by a landslide.

    And he believes his own hype (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:44:53 PM EST
    Thinks he actually has a mandate.

    Hmmmmm....  Who was the last guy who thought he had a mandate?


    He is winning by a landslide (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:50:35 PM EST
    The media support him by a wide margin. Is there any other kind of support that really matters?

    There's just no precedent for the (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:42:54 PM EST
    "presumptive nominee" walking through the last few primaries with no clothes on while he gets spanked! This is embarrassing.

    funny how Obama is hitching (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:45:36 PM EST
    his wagon to Hillary's "Most Votes in Democratic Primary History" star.  She has the most votes via Popular Vote, ergo SHE has received more votes than any Dem Candidate in Primary History, not you, Mr. Obama.

    There's just something skeevy about a grown man who's so willing to let other people do the heavy lifting then step into the spotlight to take the bow and accept full credit.  And it's even more troubling to see this behavior aided and abetted by the yuckity-yucks in "power".

    Oh well.  Power is an ephemeral thing.  And I suspect Dean and Brazil know that when Hillary gets the nod and becomes President, they're out the door and will have to saddle up for their respective book tours.

    And it's damn hard work, those book tours.  Makes the meeting yesterday seem like a nap in a hammock on a sweet Summer's day.

    Skeevy? (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:11:00 PM EST
    "There's just something skeevy about a grown man who's so willing to let other people do the heavy lifting then step into the spotlight to take the bow and accept full credit."

    What is Obama taking full credit for? Let's review the facts:

    1. Obama has attained 2053 total delegates to date, only 65 short of the 2118 now needed to win the Democratic nomination. Obama is likely to amass the necessary delegates for the nomination in the next week.

    2. Clinton has attained 1877 total delegates to date, 240 short of the 2118 needed to win the Democratic nomination.

    Now who did the heavy lifting to get to 2053 delegates? Why should he not take a bow when he reaches the 2118 number? Are you suggesting that Clinton should step into the spotlight now to take full credit for the delegates that Obama has amassed?

    I think it's his senate record that's in question (none / 0) (#88)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:08:53 PM EST
    Take it to Denver. (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:46:59 PM EST
    Take it to Denver.

    If nothing more than the fact that, on principle, arbitrarily apportioning delegates via "intent" violates the will of Michigan voters.

    As a Michigan voter, I will not, nor ever, support the DNC for violating the will of the voters.

    If rules are rules and the primary was so flawed, you stick with 0% and deal with the public relations heat for not counting the votes.  You do not try to have your cake and eat it too while arguing "voters' intent" and reach some arbitrary decision.

    Hillary is ahead in the popular vote.  She is still the stronger candidate in states such as Florida, Ohio, and yes -- Michigan.

    Take it to Denver, if for nothing else than to correct this injustice and constitutional violation imposed upon Michigan voters.

    take it to Denver (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:07:52 PM EST
    Hillary must go on if she can.  Seems to me that Obama has won all his previous electoral races by forcing the other candidate(s) to stand down before election day. Pity for him that Hillary's a sore loser-don't you think?

    Re: Take it to Denver (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jestak on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:59:07 PM EST
    Hillary is ahead in the popular vote.  She is still the stronger candidate in states such as Florida, Ohio, and yes -- Michigan.

    It is true that Hilary Clinton has a very good chance to pick up Florida based on current polling.  She also polls very well in Ohio, although Nick Silver's projections at fivethirtyeight.com show that Obama also has a legitimate chance to win the state.

    However, it is incorrect to say that Clinton is the stronger candidate in Michigan.  Current polling data show that either Obama or Clinton would have come work to do in Michigan this summer and fall.

    And, of course, one has to remember that polls in June are pretty soft data--there's a lot of potential for things to change in the next five months, whoever the nominee is.


    Oops (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jestak on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:00:18 PM EST
    Correction--that's Nate Silver. :)

    It's kind of funny... (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:48:09 PM EST
    Because of the Michigan fiasco, Obama can claim that Clinton is not really ahead of him in actual votes. But he can't claim that he is actually ahead in votes, either, because he doesn't have more votes. Taking his name off the ballot in Michigan proved a wise move, politically, but it will be hard to convince Clinton supporter's that they should support Obama because he beat their candidate on a technicality.

    A Technicality? (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:19:21 PM EST
    "...he can't claim that he is actually ahead in votes, either, because he doesn't have more votes."

    The nomination will be determined by the candidate who gets to 2118 delegates. Obama currently has 2053 total delegates. Clinton only has 1877 total delegates. Obama can claim an unequivocal and insurpassable lead in the only kind of votes that matters. He will clearly win the nomination based upon the only measurement that matters -- not a technicality.


    That's true (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:40:28 PM EST
    It's as true as Bush winning in 2000 because he had more electoral college votes. Bush won on a technicality - he won the election in spite of having fewer votes.  He could claim an unequivocal and insurpassable lead in the only kind of votes that mattered. Of course, he didn't have to go on and win another election a few months later with the support of his opponents voters.

    The only measurement that matters (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Evie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:00:48 PM EST
    to the DNC may not be the only measurement that matters to many, many Democratic voters.

    I don't get it (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:02:26 PM EST
    Clearly Obama spokesman Bill Burton needs to read TalkLeft, where several visitors a day will inform him that the popular vote doesn't count for anything.  Here he is wasting his time worrying about who's ahead.

    Solid Proof (none / 0) (#55)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:23:07 PM EST
    Thank you. You have just provided irrefutable proof that I don't have a clue what's in the Obama campaign's talking points. I speak for myself only. :)

    This nomination campaign is unprecedented (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by HenryFTP on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:16:54 PM EST
    and it will have repercussions. Although Hillary lost the Corporate Media Primary a long time ago, the Obama team and the punditocrisy are finding it very hard to explain away the depth and persistence of Hillary's popular support, particularly because "everyone knows" how "deeply unpopular" she is.

    I could be wrong, but I don't think even Jimmy Carter was in as much trouble with his own Party in 1980 as Obama is today, or even Jerry Ford in 1976. You have to go back to 1968 to find a Party as divided as ours, and worse, the divisions may be even more acute among the voters than they are among the activists. The activists, after all, can more readily rationalize a vote for Obama come November, but I fear what we're seeing among the voters are genuine doubts about Obama's leadership.

    In the gloom though you can see a glimmer of hope. In 1968, Humphrey's position looked completely hopeless in September; the Democratic Party has still not entirely recovered from that summer's Convention in Chicago, now 40 years ago, and his campaign was woefully underfunded and derided as inept in the media. Somehow, Humphrey and the Party took a step back, revitalized the campaign, and came roaring back from 15 points down in the polls with three weeks to go to a tie by the final week-end. Some classic Republican ratf***king of the Paris Peace talks by getting the South Vietnamese generals to be intransigent let Nixon sneak through by a whisker.

    Times have changed of course, but the key was that Humphrey stopped campaigning as Vice President of the United States and started campaigning like Harry Truman in 1948. I hope the Obama team can take a step back and recognize that while they may have the inside track to the nomination, continuing to campaign the way runs the risk of losing the presidency. While his campaign insiders still seem relatively oblivious, I do see some encouraging signs that the candidate himself recognizes what's at stake.

    Then again, he doesn't have to refer as far back as 1968 for a good example -- he need only refer to February 2008, when Hillary Clinton shed the useless weight of campaigning as The Frontrunner and found her true voice as an authentic Democrat. What a contrast that has been to the pinched, condescending and self-important blather we heard from the DNC's finest yesterday, the sort of blather that has sadly been only too prevalent among our Democratic congressional leadership since the voters gave that leadership the unexpected bonanza of an historic midterm election win in 2006.

    If Tom Daschle has been Barack's Svengali, he sure needs to figure out how to break that spell.  

    We know she's ahead (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by camellia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:27:57 PM EST
    in the popular vote, and although I realise that it's simpleminded of me, I think that means that more VOTERS have voted for her.  I used to think that the person who got more votes won, but now I understand that I was mistaken.   Silly me!  I guess I am too old to understand the New Election Math.

     So, if we want her to keep fighting all the way to the convention, what can we do?  I gave money yesterday, to take advantage of the matching fund thing that expired last night;  does anyone have any useful ideas, email addys, etc. that we can use?  Rushed right now -- I'll be back in a while to check for answers.

    Not compelling enough (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by not the senator on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:06:30 PM EST
    Even if you count the Popular Vote by the way the Clinton campaign wants which says that Obama would have received 0 votes in Michigan but gives her 328,000, they only have a tiny lead:

    17,829,358 to 17,684,116  or just 0.004% according to RCP.

    Since the campaign is about delegates, how is a virtual tie accomplished by arguable reasoning a valid reason for the Super Delegates to overrule the delegate winner? If the popular vote was overwhelmingly in her favor she would have an argument but this is not compelling by any standard.

    Why is everyone in such a bad mood here? (2.00 / 5) (#29)
    by NeoConArtist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:51:04 PM EST
    I'm fired up and ready to go...for a nice run in the park. Both these candidates are great public servants and really care about their country. The differences between the two are inconsequential and promises made in the primary are meaningless when they have to be vetted months and years later by the two other branches of government. Is it too much to ask to stop demonizing both these candidates?

    No. (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:53:57 PM EST
    One just stole my Michigan vote.

    He literally STOLE THAT VOTE.  Based on "exit polls" and the hypothetical of spoiled (write in) ballots.

    If you voted Uncommitted in support of Edwards in Michigan?  It's Obama's now!

    If you wrote in "Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie" in Michigan?  Obama's now.

    He is content with stealing votes.

    No compromise.  Ever.  That is NOT my Democratic value.


    Maybe? (1.00 / 2) (#45)
    by NeoConArtist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:07:52 PM EST
    Didn't supporters of both candidates vote for the automatic sanctions and then for the compromise yesterday? No compromise is a Republican value.

    Wrong. Republicans are compromised (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:23:02 PM EST
    morally, legally, and now politically.

    Of course, I ought add, so are Dems now (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:24:28 PM EST
    with yesterday's immoral and impolitic action by the DNC.

    That's why I now have no party, and may not have a nominee for whom to vote.  I don't support corrupt individuals or corrupt organizations.


    pssst (none / 0) (#94)
    by boredmpa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:51:04 PM EST
    Principled folks know that there's a bar and a karaoke machine hidden under the bus. Come on in!

    And we have (none / 0) (#96)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:26:22 PM EST
    the keys to the White House hidden in our pockets.

    Don't Lie. (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:29:51 PM EST
    This was not an "automatic sanction."

    It was dividing votes for delegates.

    Uncommitted is NOT Obama.

    EXIT POLLS AND HYPOTHETICALS SHOULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED.  But they were.  Which is why Obama now has 4 Hillary delegates.

    The Republicans imposed automatic sanctions from the outset.  50%.  

    The Democrats stole votes.  

    While the Republicans are often wrong, they are 100% correct in how they conducted this primary.


    Oh man (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:32:11 PM EST
    Here we have an entirely typical Obama supporter, failing to think through the implications of what happens when the Republican value is "no compromise" and the Democratic value is "compromise."  Here's what happens, for those who haven't been paying attention: Democrats end up rolling over every time!

    Yes, it is too much. (none / 0) (#101)
    by miriam on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:47:05 PM EST
    Popular Vote - the fair way to count Michigan (1.00 / 2) (#47)
    by lynnebrad on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:10:25 PM EST

    You all are trying to spin this vote count to HC's favor. It is completely disingenuous to change the rules of the game after everyone has agreed to them and say, "Well, the delegate vote doesn't matter because of the popular vote."

    But let's go there...

    If you include all the popular vote of the states THAT THEY COMPETED IN (include Florida, but not Michigan), Obama has more popular votes. Period, end of story. If you want to change the rules and say the delegate vote doesn't count, then THE ONLY MEASURE YOU CAN COUNT AND COMPARE would be the states where they completed. THAT is what the Superdelegates need to look out.

    Or, let's say you want to include Michigan. The only way to do it is to ask yourself, "Would Obama have gotten more then 78,000 votes (current difference) if he had been on the ballot?" That is the margin if you include Michigan and the answer is of course he would have. By any measure, he would have had 75% of her vote (240,000). By this measure, Obama has a 170,000 vote lead.

    If you want to tell a superdelegate to consider the popular vote in contradication of the current rules, then you have to go all the way and say they MUST CONSIDER the number of votes Obama would have gotten in Michigan. You can't have it any other way or the measure of popular vote is not meaningful.

    Can't. (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:14:40 PM EST
    Was not on the ballot.  

    Funny how that works.  Leave name on ballot, get votes.  Take name off ballot, get no votes.  Rules and all that.


    replying to Fabian (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by lynnebrad on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:52:10 PM EST
    Your argument does not make sense. If you want to abide by the rules, you would not bring up the popular vote since it is not the rule. The rule is the delegate count.

    The second you say you want to ignore the delegate count (the rule), then you can't arbitrarily say the "name on ballot" rule counts. Rules work both ways. They can't be ignored by HC when it works against her but then appealed to as a rationale when it benefits her. You can't have your cake and eat it.


    The popular vote is meaningless (1.00 / 2) (#59)
    by digdugboy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:30:01 PM EST
    at this point. Why keep bringing it up?

    Funny (5.00 / 9) (#61)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:37:21 PM EST
    how every time someone brings it up, 20 Obama supporters rush in to assure everyone how meaningless it is.

    Why don't you call up Obama spokesman Bill Burton and let him know the popular vote is meaningless?  It doesn't appear that he got the memo.


    Every vote does count (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:46:37 PM EST
    Every vote does count (within a state) and within a delegate system.  Looking at national numbers doesn't make any sense.

    The problem with her arugment to the American people is that it (at least on its face- you can argue the details) flys in the face of fair play.  Many, if not most Americans grew up playing sports.  We are simple people that know the rules of our sport very well.  If someone changed the metric to which one wins tha game (after the game has started), it just doesn't make sense to us.  This has nothing to do with the media, or Obama, etc., it is just what it looks like.  If you were watching you kid play a little league game, and the ump decided midway through to change a rule or count hits to left as more (and it hurt your kids team) you would be angry.  It is that simple.  

    What will Hilary will do next Wednesday? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Saul on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:51:47 PM EST
    Anybody got it figured out what Hilary will do on Wednesday if Obama is the nominee?  

    Will she take it to the convention and fight for her to be the nominee?

    Will she concede to Obama?

    Will she ask for the VP and then and only then concede to Obama?

    Will she just go away and casually support Obama if he is the nominee and hope for a run in 2012?

    Obama will not be the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:16:07 PM EST
    until August unless Hillary says he can.

    My Take (2.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:41:46 PM EST
    I think Clinton will:

    1. Suspend her campaign and endorse Obama at a high profile event with Obama and Bill;
    2. Announce that she does NOT want to be considered for VP;
    3. Allow her name to be put in nomination in Denver;
    4. Give a great speech at the convention and graciously withdraw her name;
    5. Appear at a Poverty Tour campaign event with Obama and Edwards.
    6. Work hard for Congressional candidates across the country, while giving tepid support for the Barack Obama/Mark Warner ticket.
    7. Cross her fingers in hopes that (a) Obama loses; and (b) she won't be blamed;
    8. Go on to become a senior Senator of great stature in the mold of Ted Kennedy who distinguishes herself during 8 years as President Obama's strongest ally on Capitol Hill; and
    9. In 2016 places in nomination at the Democratic Convention the name of someone we have not yet heard of who will become America's first woman president -- someone who couldn't have achieved that distinction without the example that she provided.

    I think Hillary will make her name by (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:02:30 PM EST
    standing up to President McCain and coast to a crushing win in 2012.
    I like my fantasy better than yours.

    Sorry to put a damper but (none / 0) (#33)
    by Oceandweller on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:55:05 PM EST
    could anyone explain how come we got into this mess.
    after all, those rules set by the dnc are not new, I mean that the demegates thingy was written and sealed bfore the michigan and florida mess ever started so it must be way predating any wrong timing of primaries and no one got thibking ahead , like wait guys, if a state ; or 2 states  or 2 big states get into a mess it will change this and that
    and with the best will I dont see obama planning that
    for all I know hillary certainly did not thibk about that  that far
    so who got that and for how long that has been quietly waiting to erupt
    I hope no one thinks this is trolling, I am just looking at that from my ole blighty side and this looks to be as messy as here
    PR case needs to be cleared ; is it a state is it not
    It cant help but finding it strange that knowing it cant vote at the GE it still can participate in selecting a nominee and I would say the very same if obama had won tonite
    the dems are a weird party
    and dean howard aside of a very skilled screamer does not lokk like a talented chairman becaus a good chairman sees pbs ahead and gets ready for it
    this mess should have been assessed months ago a clear cut as the republicans and so be it or even flat out voided and no delegates and no counts for anyone
    those delays and hesitation waltzing do not endear the democrats to anyone methinks

    Wrong on many counts (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:05:18 PM EST
    from the outset.  What the DNC did in August was new, rather than the 50% reduction in its own rules.  What the DNC did yesterday was so astonishingly new that history books will have to be rewritten.

    If you really are seeking answers, research in the archives here, where we have discussed all this before.


    Anybody got it figured out what Hilary will do on (none / 0) (#85)
    by camellia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:01:05 PM EST
     Wednesday if Obama is the nominee? "

    What are her options?   ( I am asking this seriously, because I really don't know.)

    No matter what Obama says on Wednesday, (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:14:08 PM EST
    he will not be the nominee until the convention in August unless Hillary concedes. I'm answering you seriously, too.  He can act like he's won and see how that works out for him.  She could concede, she could suspend her campaign, she can just hang out until August, or she can continue to campaign.  It's my understanding that beginning on Wednesday, she will be making her case to the superdelegates.

    Thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by camellia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:24:20 PM EST
    That's what I wanted to hear!  Sending more money.

    Options (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:35:36 PM EST
    • Continue campaigning
    • Suspend
    • Concede

    I'm guessing she will suspend in order to open the door for the Republican 527s to unload on Obama for awhile. Don't see her conceding in light of the RBC rulings on Sat. The blow-back if she continues to actively campaign may be too much for her to take.

    The potential game changer is if some sort of June surprise materializes. For example, if the Michelle Obama video surfaces in the next couple of days - all bets are off.


    man, J you certainly (none / 0) (#102)
    by CanadianDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:57:38 AM EST
    do love to selectively qoute...let's read more shall we...

    According to Real Clear Politics, a must-bookmark for political junkies, Obama actually has 166,186 vote lead over Clinton in the popular vote -- 17,267,658 to 17,101,472. If Michigan's primary is included, where Clinton received 328,307 votes and Obama none due to the fact he removed his name from the ballot, Clinton takes a 162,123 vote lead.

    So, there is a bit more dispute about the popular vote leader than might initially be apparent in the Clinton ad. To the campaign's credit, however, the narrator says only that "17 million Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton...more than for any
    primary candidate in history" -- a statement that is entirely true.

    Remember that even if you grant Clinton the popular vote edge -- and many within the party do not do so -- the metric by which the Democratic nominee is chosen is delegates.

    and so there you have full disclosure...refreshing isn't it, well probably not actually, heh.