home

The DNC Doesn't Want to Count Michigan's Popular Vote?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:32:10 PM EST
Tags: Michigan '08, popular vote (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I love Markos, he's a very good friend, but this has to be the funniest version of the popular vote total.

By the way, in the real popular vote, including Florida which the DNC now accepts, and excluding Michigan, which the DNC now rejects, and including the caucus states (which Clinton and her camp want to disenfranchise), the numbers currently are Obama +183,067.

So, the DNC wants to count delegates from Michigan, including awarding 4 delegates to Obama that Hillary won, but give her none of the 328,309 votes she won in the state certified election?

Telling 328,309 voters from Michigan who voted for Hillary their vote doesn't count because another candidate voluntarily removed himself from the ballot has to be one of the dumbest moves ever.

From the Real Clear Politics popular vote total link that Markos cites :

Total Votes With Florida and Michigan and without the caucus estimates:

  • Hillary: 17,605,496
  • Obama: 17,350,032
  • Hillary leads by 255,464 votes

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

  • Hillary: 17,829,358
  • Obama: 17,684,116
  • Hillary leads by 145,242 votes

Note: Any personal attacks on Markos or his readers will be deleted. We don't do personal insults here.

Comments now closed.

< National Numbers and Trends for the Hispanic/Latino Vote | More Deep Thoughts >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The DNC Doesn't Want to Count Michigan's Popular Vote? | 226 comments (226 topical)
    All I can say is that it's very close (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:35:07 PM EST
    I do assign some percentage of the uncommitted from Michigan to Obama. I know you all will object, and have, but he had support in Michigan, and I'm very touchy about the will of the people.

    If Hillary had squeezed out about 50,000 more votes today, she'd have a clear lead.

    Well, glad someone is...the RBC doesn't (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:11 PM EST
    give a rat's patootie about the will of the people.

    [ Parent ]
    That is true (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:39:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Right now she does have a clear lead (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:40:42 PM EST
    if you substitute WA's primary for its caucus.  Which is interesting.  And something BTD has done before (if I remember correctly).

    You certainly must include Michigan.  I think assigning 100% of the uncommitteds to Obama is not right though.  80-85%, I'm down with (based on write-ins/exit polling).  Giving him all the uncommitteds is unfair to Richardson and Edwards.

    I wonder if Edwards would have continued longer if his name WAS on the ballot in MI...I'm sure he would've done okay in MI based on the particular concerns and demographics of MI that I've heard about thus far.

    [ Parent ]

    About the write-ins... (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by dskinner3 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:45:26 PM EST
    It was very publicly addressed that write-in votes would not count. Not a valid vote. The push was for those wishing to vote for anyone not on the ballot to vote "Uncommitted"

    Everyone needs to stop handwringing about the write-ins since they would not have counted regardless.

    [ Parent ]

    Doesn't that strike you as unfair? (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:03:15 PM EST
    I know I thought so at the time.

    It meant that they were trying to screw around with the results even then.

    Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't find it unfair.. (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by dskinner3 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:06:04 PM EST
    I think it was a gift to begin with that people were allowed to vote uncommitted. Candidates voluntarily removing their names from the ballot do not deserve the opportunity to garner votes IMO. I may be in the minority with that opinion, but it's mine and I stand by it.

    [ Parent ]
    You are not in the minority. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:07:52 PM EST
    This is crap.

    [ Parent ]
    Me too (5.00 / 8) (#87)
    by Emma on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:09:37 PM EST
    I'm with you.  The only way to count voters' intent is to COUNT THE VOTES!!  If you don't vote, you don't get counted.  If you don't turn a valid ballot, you don't get counted.

    [ Parent ]
    Off topic, but (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by dskinner3 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:14:27 PM EST
    is this the Emma I knew from CCN?

    [ Parent ]
    No, sorry. (none / 0) (#232)
    by Emma on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:59:02 PM EST
    Different person.  Nice ta meetcha, though!

    [ Parent ]
    BTW, by unfair (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:17:11 PM EST
    I meant that people couldn't vote for the nominee they preferred, because they were told they couldn't even write in the name!

    Definitely screwing with the election.

    [ Parent ]

    Democratic party? (5.00 / 6) (#127)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:23:04 PM EST
    We sure haven't looked very democratic throughout this primary.  It seems all we've done is try to NOT count the votes of the people, with all the caucuses, and Michigan votes not counting, on and on.  We sure can't fuss about anything that happens with voters in November since we don't care about the people and their votes.  Our whole process has made that rather obvious.  We have a party of party leaders who decide, not voters.  Color me bitter about my 'democratic' party that is not allowing the people to vote and decide who they want to be their nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    You can't have it both ways.. (5.00 / 4) (#175)
    by dskinner3 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:36:18 PM EST
    Either you follow the rules or you don't. I'll post it again.....write-ins were not allowed. Every newscast for at least two weeks beforehand were telling the public just that. It was also in print media, radio, online etc...

    For a group that clings to the rules argument, many seem to be willing to ignore those that don't favor their guy of choice.

    [ Parent ]

    Write in's were not allowed (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by DarielK on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:02:07 PM EST
    It was well publicized and was posted at each polling place.  I frankly was very surprised to hear that there were any write ins.

    As a Michigan resident, I am a bit distressed that I won't be able to write in Hillary's name in November if, in fact, Obama does win the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    Look, you moron, (4.50 / 2) (#181)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:38:15 PM EST
    people in MI were told write-ins would be tossed.

    They're tossed.  You have no argument.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: Look you moron (5.00 / 0) (#230)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:58:21 PM EST
    "...people in MI were told write-ins would be tossed."

    People in MI were told that NONE of their votes would count. They were invalid before the election was even held. For you to claim that certain illegal votes cast on that day are valid and other illegal votes cast on that day are invalid is the height of hypocrisy. If your slogan is "Count Every Vote!" how do you amend that to say except those for the other candidate?

    [ Parent ]

    Disenfranchised??? (none / 0) (#226)
    by dskinner3 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:57:20 PM EST
    But what about "teh rulzs?" The only rules that apply are the ones that favor BO right? It was CLEAR that write-ins would be tossed....so much for only Clinton getting the uneducated, low information voters...

    [ Parent ]
    Wait a sec (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by KristenWinters on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:17:19 PM EST
    Are you making the argument that votes of voters in Michigan who took the time to write in Barack Obama's name shouldn't be apportioned to Obama.

    Go stand in front of a mirror and try to say that with a straight face.

    [ Parent ]

    You don't know (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:29:58 PM EST
    what you're talking about, obviously.

    [ Parent ]
    But the write-ins haven't been tallied (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:32:52 PM EST
    so the DNC just allotted them all to Obama.  

    Every.  Single.  One.  Of.  The.  Write-In.  Ballots.

    I am reminded of Karnak the Magnificent holding an envelope to his forehead and, with his psychic powers, divining what was written inside.  Do you think that Donna Brazile has the psychic powers to be able to conclude that every one of those write-in ballots was for Obama?  Or is it that you have said psychic powers to so conclude?  Please explain.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly! (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by dskinner3 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:33:17 PM EST
    Write-ins were NOT allowed. It was well publicized. Too stupid to follow the rules? These weren't the "rulz"

    [ Parent ]
    Heck I knew that and I live in NY (none / 0) (#219)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:54:20 PM EST
    and I knew it before their primary. I learned it on da news :)

    [ Parent ]
    If Donna Brazile wasn't (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:34:37 PM EST
    so in the tank for Obama, she could say it easily. Her mama told her to always play by the rules, and the rules in Michigan say a write-in vote doesn't count unless the candidate registers as a legit write-in candidate. Obama didn't.

    And BTW, all the write-in that were illegible were tallied as write-ins for Obama, according to the RBC hearing yesterday. Ain't democracy grand!  

    [ Parent ]

    Sure (4.33 / 6) (#124)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:22:39 PM EST
    Obama can have every vote where he was written in, even though those votes aren't legal under state law.

    Just let us know how many there were, please.

    [ Parent ]

    No one knows... (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by joc on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:37:22 PM EST
    The number is certainly below 30,000. But since they won't open them up (as no one requested their name to be eligible for write-ins), we'll never know how many went to Obama. Personally, I think it's his own fault. He got what he wanted in terms of delegates; he'll have to pay for removing his name in the popular vote.


    [ Parent ]
    As per the MI rules (none / 0) (#130)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:23:46 PM EST
    write ins did not count. Their rules.

    [ Parent ]
    Your sig line makes is hard to read (none / 0) (#158)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:32:09 PM EST
    your comments. : )

    [ Parent ]
    I'll fix it. (none / 0) (#177)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:36:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That's fair (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:44:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I Think All Primary Results (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by BDB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:18:35 PM EST
    Should be substituted for caucuses.  I don't know what it does to the totals, but I think primaries are a better judge of the will of the people given they let more people participate and have a secret ballot.  I'll also note that after listening to people lecture me on how important all those voters who did not show up to vote in Michigan and Florida were - more important apparently than the voters who did show up - I don't think Obama or the DNC is in any position to insist that caucuses, with all the voters who did not show up, should be counted instead of primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's obvious (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:29:59 PM EST
    that Clinton would be the nominee if this was an all-primary election.  I don't know if that has any significance for the super delegates.  I'm not sure if we should consider all the primaries, or even WA's, which seems the most legitimate as it was held a week after the caucus.  But then again, considering Obama took his name off the ballot in MI, why should we consider allowing him any of the uncommitted votes?  Taking his name off the ballot was a political ploy; why reward it?

    I think if your notion here is an abstract notion of the will of the people, it must include both the WA primary and the MI uncommitteds at some high level for Obama.   You can't ignore how many more people voted in the WA primary (Obama and Clinton supporters), and you can't ignore how many people came out to vote for uncommitted.  

    [ Parent ]

    Except.. (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by JustJennifer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:33:11 PM EST
    I live in Washington.  People were told the primary didn't count and you had to caucus.  I went to caucus but didn't vote in the primary.  I know a lot of people who didn't mail in their ballot or go vote in the primary.

    [ Parent ]
    And there were 4 times as many who (5.00 / 6) (#185)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:40:12 PM EST
    voted in the "menaingless" primary as participated in the caucus. If the primary vote was not representative of will of the people, then the caucus was even less so. That's why you really don't want to be making that kind of an argument, unless you want people to realize how unrepresentative caucuses are. And if they do, then Obama loses the "will of the people" argument badly.

    [ Parent ]
    typo (none / 0) (#188)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:41:04 PM EST
    "meaningless"

    [ Parent ]
    if you want to include the WA primary (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:58:11 PM EST
    for the popular vote, then you MUST adjust the number of delegates Obama got from WA and lower it to the number of delegates he would have gotten based on the primary instead of the caucus.

    [ Parent ]
    Given that there were two different (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:41:42 PM EST
    campaigns running the "Vote Uncommitted" campaign, I'm okay with them either staying in the uncommitted column or splitting them in some way (exit polls??) between Edwards and Obama.

    Those uncommitteds don't all belong to Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    I am not okay (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:45:28 PM EST
    with Obama getting any of those votes. He took his name off the ballot and denied his supporters the chance to vote for him. Then, he blocked the re-vote. He denied them TWICE.

    It is not a good principle to grant votes to someone who is not on the ballot. In fact, it is a terrible idea and blatantly un-democratic.

    [ Parent ]

    Totally agree. (5.00 / 7) (#81)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:06:39 PM EST
    We all know why he took his name off the ballot. Edwards was also wrong to do this, and I know people who wanted to vote for him.

    This is effed up for sure.  But Obama should not be getting primary votes, since he wasn't on the freaking ballot.

    [ Parent ]

    They claimed yesterday that Obama (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:48:35 PM EST
    had some 30,000 write-in votes. That can be verified for accuracy of number, but if MI doesn't allow write-in's it is up to the state to determine whether those can be counted.

    They are the only votes that have a proof attached. Anything assigned to him from the uncommitted cannot be verified, and therefore, anybody's guess using whatever terms they wish to assign.  Personally, I think we've had enough of that strategy this primary season.


    [ Parent ]

    Yes, the rulz crowd (5.00 / 9) (#41)
    by dskinner3 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:50:09 PM EST
    seemed to ignore the fact that write-ins were not valid votes. Only the rulz are the rules..

    [ Parent ]
    They claimed that?! (5.00 / 5) (#157)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:32:03 PM EST
    Oh, wow.

    Michigan voters were told that write-ins would not count.

    Unbelievable.


    [ Parent ]

    Er (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:39:20 PM EST
    they claimed there were 30,000 write-in votes, period.  No one knows who they were for, because no one is allowed to inspect them since they weren't legal votes.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe someone can answer this (5.00 / 5) (#196)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:44:28 PM EST
    question...Dean said this morning that they decided MI by what MI wanted. Did MI also ask that their popular vote not count? Was that part of the deal? To me, this is not a "compromise" as Donna B talked of today, this is a whitewash of rules, regulations and voter fairness.

    [ Parent ]
    Wait a minute (5.00 / 4) (#198)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:45:48 PM EST
    I thought the Michigan guy said they didn't know how many of the writeins were for Obama because they weren't able to actually look at them or something.

    In any case, since the writeins wouldn't not have counted no matter what, they can't be assigned to Obama.  You can't just count votes when he's in the race.  

    I agree the writein rule in MI is bad, but the remedy for that particular bad is not making a special case just for Obama.

    Interestingly, my local state rep was unable to get on the ballot for our (Sept) primary and now is running a write-in/sticker campaign.  Should he get some random number of votes based on exit polling, plus some that his opponent wins?  I don't think so, and I support this guy.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't dispute that he may have had (5.00 / 11) (#40)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:50:03 PM EST
    support in Michigan, but he thwarted the will of the people when he made a political and strategic decision to take his name off the ballot.  He did that knowing that however many people who wanted to vote for him would not be able to do so.  He did so as part of a calculated strategy to try to to leave Clinton as the voters' only choice, in an attempt to de-legitimize Michigan's election.

    Please tell me under what principles this decision gets rewarded by assigning to him some arbitrary number of votes that were cast for "uncommitted."

    I am sorry, but in my book, Obama has no standing to make any "will of the people" arguments; he has proven to me repeatedly that it is not something he holds in especially high regard.

    As for Markos, there really are no words.

    [ Parent ]

    No Validity (5.00 / 6) (#110)
    by Athena on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:17:57 PM EST
    Obama blocked any revote.  That meant he willfully refused to ever submit to the MI voters.  He only competed in 49 states.

    As for Kos, it's beyond recognition to me over there - his front page report on Hillarys' speech said "blah blah blah."  He's regressed into the deep comfort of the frat house.

    [ Parent ]

    revotes would be bad. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:30:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    her best argument (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:51:42 PM EST
    is the wipe-out she created in the electoral college. Obama was defeated repeatedly in battle ground states we need in november.

    He failed to sell himself on his own term.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree. (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:59:55 PM EST
    So much for the huge Obama sweep in November, eh?

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by KristenWinters on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:18:35 PM EST
    that is her strongest argument.

    [ Parent ]
    He can't sell an empty suit (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:30:43 PM EST
    There is no there, there.  The more people find out about Obama, the more they realize that there's just nothing there.  He's a typical politician, without much experience at even that.  

    [ Parent ]
    A clear lead? (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Lil on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:15:59 PM EST
    I've been waiting for the will of the people to emerge since NH. Clinton started rising a little too late. I think if the primaries were held today she would emerge with a clear lead. In  essence they are both tied, at best.

    [ Parent ]
    If she would lead today........... (none / 0) (#143)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:28:49 PM EST
    Doesn't that mean that she is the candidate who most democrats believe has the best chance to win in November?  Don't they SD see that?  Don't they see the polls for who can win?  Don't they visit electoral-vote.com and the other sites that PROVE Hillary is the strongest candidate?  Or are they so in Obama's pocket, and so afraid of the AA vote, they'll shoot themselves in the foot, and lose the White House again?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, the Dems want to lose the WH (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Mike H on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:33:26 PM EST
    It's really the only conclusion.  They are so enamored of Obama that no fact, no logic, no poll, is going to sway them from taking us down this path to defeat.

    [ Parent ]
    As for your last question: (none / 0) (#152)
    by Lil on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:30:24 PM EST
    Yes, IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    The party of wimps (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:32:23 PM EST
    That's what we are proving ourselves to be.  A bunch of wimpy losers, and that's what we will be in November too.  :(  

    [ Parent ]
    no politician (5.00 / 6) (#144)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:29:03 PM EST
    who took his name off the ballot should be given votes.  

    He took the gamble.  It paid really nicely in terms of momentum and primary wins.  

    You are giving in to bullies.  That's all.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly right (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:33:57 PM EST
    Like everything Obama does, it was a political calculation.  Why should he get votes for that?  

    [ Parent ]
    According to CNN earlier (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:42:33 PM EST
    I typed as Wolf Blitzer presented them (from my earlier thread):

    Scenario 1: Hillary ahead by almost a few hundred thousand, including FL/MI, giving Obama uncommitted MI votes, not caucuses.

    Scenario 2: Same as above, with best caucus estimates, he leads by 50,000.

    Scenario 3: Not giving Obama uncommitted MI votes, she wins by 200,000.

    [ Parent ]

    It's mind-numbing (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:01:42 PM EST
    the extent the media and the opposition will go to just to push Hillary away from the nomination.

    Are any of these numbers reflective of only those votes that states have certified?

    The caucus votes this season concern me after all the goofy antics people have said they witnessed.

    But, votes that the states have actually confirmed and certified? What else is legitmate to include?

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:44:45 PM EST
    I've actually been looking at this with SD and MT predictions included, so that makes some sense.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw that; wish I could find video (none / 0) (#191)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:41:47 PM EST
    of the pie charts but so far no luck on cnn.com.  I think those compilations made more sense than the ones at realclearpolitics.com -- although even there, she is ahead in half (and the important half, with more states) of the popular vote categories now.  The Puerto Rico turnout and margin was sufficient to do so, after all.

    [ Parent ]
    Is this with MI? (none / 0) (#60)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:57:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Killjoy. I had a really wicked personal (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by leis on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:36:21 PM EST
    attack ready to go.  Kidding!

    Jeralyn, you are a class act. I wish others followed your lead.

    Respecting your request... (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:36:54 PM EST
    I will simply say that what I have to say re: kos and the DNC's desires to not count a whole bunch of people...including my best friend and her family (all of whom voted)...is unpostable.

    OMG...will it ever end....and do they really (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:37:21 PM EST
    think the electorate isn't on to what they are doing?  I see lots of buyer's remorse in the future.

    Through the looking glass (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:40:14 PM EST
    This is quite bizarre.  While obviously some voters in MI would have voted for Obama, he really should have to bear some responsibilty for taking his name from the ballot.  Any one should have to pay the consequences for their considered actions.  If not, he will never be a legitimate nominee.
    Both the delegate count and the popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by barryluda on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:41:04 PM EST
    are so close that I wouldn't think either could really be used by the Super Delegates as decisive.  But if Obama is seen to have "won" both, then I guess that might come across as decisive, so I suppose it's still important.  Still, rather than looking at either, it comes down to each SD deciding which would be the best POTUS and which has the best chance of beating McCain.  Lots of good arguments here for why Clinton should be the answer to both of those questions, but I think reasonable people might disagree.  In any event, if Clinton had to convince "only" 75% of the SDs of this, I'd think she'd still have a chance, but I think it's not likely she'll convince 90% of them.

    Where does he get (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by dskinner3 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:42:45 PM EST
    "the DNC now rejects" in reference to MI votes? Just making sh1t up I assume, or they have to claim that since they can't justify the numbers with the delegates distributed. We can't count the actual votes, it opens the curtain on the backroom deal that was made.

    and Kos even encouraged messing with MI (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:50:48 PM EST
    I wonder how many Kossacks voted for Romney, as Kos suggested.


    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure many did, (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by dskinner3 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:52:52 PM EST
    it's too bad they didn't respect their votes enough to support their candidate of choice...oh wait...he removed his name..no wonder he didn't get and "real" votes.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:09:01 PM EST
    MarKOS communicates with the DNC.  I've little doubt that he's reflecting their viewpoint.

    [ Parent ]
    maybe he is misreading Hillary's (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:21:51 PM EST
    statement.. "[But] we strongly object to the committee's decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan's delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan."

    to mean rejection of the popular votes

    [ Parent ]

    Wow, Kos' writing is .......(stay positive!) (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:43:10 PM EST
    incomprehensible?

    After stating that each state choose thier own wya of voting, he concludes:

    The states are not on equal footing, hence any effort to tally the the popular vote is not an apple-to-apple comparison.

    The states are not on equal footing! Yes! That's what Clinton supporters have been saying all along!

    All The Primary States Are (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by talex on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:19:39 PM EST
    on equal footing because everyone who wants to vote gets to vote. It is the caucuses that are undemocratic and exclude voters.

    [ Parent ]
    that's the circular argument they like to use (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:49:22 PM EST
    they claim a causcus represents the will of the people until you want to use the number in the populat vote total, then they want to complain about the small number of people who show up for caucuses.  And, I'm not talking about the four caucuses who don't report the actual voter total.  When anyone complains about low turnout at a caucus, Obama supporters like to say people could have come if they wanted to.

    You can't have it both ways.  In states that hold a caucus and do report the actual voter totals, then those are the actual number of people who showed up and it is valid to use that number in the popular vote.

    I mean if they want to adjust the popular vote of caucus states, then I think we should adjust the delegate count for caucus states that held a primary afterward like WA and NE to reflect the actual will of the people.

    [ Parent ]

    oops (none / 0) (#36)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:00 PM EST
    as is my spelling.

    [ Parent ]
    TheDNC now accepts the popular vote (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:43:20 PM EST
    as an official metric? This is a breakthrough!!

    I think we need a Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting about it.

    I'm sure Donna has an applicable story (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:45:57 PM EST
    about her mother.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:46:23 PM EST
    You beat me to the punch.

    [ Parent ]
    I figure her next book (and you know there (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:56:29 PM EST
    will be one) will be entitled: Cooking the Election: First, You Have to Kill the Party.

    Ugh.

    [ Parent ]

    Since Donna (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:10:23 PM EST
    and her DNC are so omniscient, so able to divine the will of voters, do you think they can tell me tomorrow's lottery numbers?

    [ Parent ]
    BTW (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:45:57 PM EST
    I missed the motion where the RBC voted that the Michigan popular vote would not count.

    Did thy cite a rule for THAT? OR was that another new one they made up.

    What was it that Donna Brazile's mother said?

    [ Parent ]

    I didn't see a link (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:47:56 PM EST
    to the statement in his post that the DNC had taken an offiical position on the popular vote scenarios. Do they even do such a thing?

    [ Parent ]
    Of course not (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:51:42 PM EST
    But they are not above saying it off the record. Donna Brazile certainly would. And in fact, Chuck Todd said something to that effect. Chuck has lost all perspective. HE did not even think to ask how in the world the RBC thinks thy get to say something like that.

    [ Parent ]
    They couldn't possibly. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:51:42 PM EST
    Hillary can use any count she wants when it comes to actual voters, don't you think?

    [ Parent ]
    You're right... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:17:34 PM EST
    ...that she can use any count she wants.

    Of course, the Super Delegates don't have to pay attention to it.

    But I'm having a hard time understanding why so many on Talk Left are blaming Obama for what the RBC did in regards to Michigan.

    It was the Michigan delgation's position.  The RBC just voted on it.  

    Again, they APPROVED the position that Michigan requested.  Many on Talk Left are arguing a remedy   for which Michigan itself didn't argue or request.

    I find that very interesting.

    [ Parent ]

    As a MI voter, (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by dskinner3 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:20:15 PM EST
    I did not support this. It IS NOT the will of the people, those of us who actually did vote. I am upset that the RBC decided who I coted for.

    [ Parent ]
    We are blaming Obama (5.00 / 8) (#138)
    by talex on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:26:10 PM EST
    because he should have maned-up from the beginning and accepted responsibility for taking his name off the ballot. In addition he should have fought for an equitable solution for the voters and the delegates. He did neither of those things. In the end he just ran out the clock and got more than he deserved. Far More than he deserved.

    So with Obama there is lot of blame to assign to him.

    [ Parent ]

    Manned up? (none / 0) (#202)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:47:20 PM EST
    Okay... Fair enough.

    How should he have accepted responsibility for taking his name off the ballot?

    How should Edwards, Dodd, and Richardson have taken responsibility for taking their name off of the ballot?

    The MAJORITY of the RBC were Senator Clinton supporters. How is their decision Obama's fault?  

    How did he "run out the clock"?  Did he create the schedule?

    I understand emotions are running high, but so many of the arguments being presented don't hold up to scrutiny and the facts.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope, it was the MI "delegation" (none / 0) (#211)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:51:02 PM EST
    position.  It was the position of the chair of the MI Dem Party.  Others from MI disagreed with it.

    [ Parent ]
    Cx: It was NOT a "delegation" position (none / 0) (#215)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:52:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    BTW J (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:53:52 PM EST
    As a lawyer don't you love when the opponent has agreed to argue about the issue YOU want to talk about?

    See, if I were you, I would have congratulated Markos for recognizing the importance of the popular vote and respectfully disagreed with his method of calculation.

    But that is just me.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    Let's have a very long discussion as to what version of the popular vote is the correct one. We'll invite all the superdelegates.

    [ Parent ]
    They were talking about it (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:58:35 PM EST
    extensively on CNN this afternoon. I think that's good news for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:07:58 PM EST
    That's just what I said in the other thread, when Bill Burton claimed Obama was ahead in the popular vote.  Thanks for conceding that it's relevant.

    [ Parent ]
    Steve (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:26:57 PM EST
    We have mind melded of late.

    Unfortunately, Ickes did not mind meld with us.

    [ Parent ]

    his mind is a rat trap (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:44:24 PM EST
    almost sounded like a 1930s socialist to me.  He was so disgusted by Wexler, he didn't even deign to comment on the clown. Ice in his veins.

    This is all up to the SDs now. They should not like what they are seeing in Obama's gamesmanship.

    McCain can run a very dirty election now.  All sorts of disenfranschisement will be okayed and teh debacle in Michigan will be invoked when ever Obama howls about underhanded tactics.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, this gives McCain a big boost in MI (none / 0) (#223)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:55:27 PM EST
    as we can just write the ads, telling Michiganders that only the GOP will guarantee that their votes matter, etc.  

    Kos is doing the GOP's work for them, but I gather that from his history as a Repub, that comes easily to him.

    [ Parent ]

    thi is the basis of your media theory too. (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:12:03 PM EST
    It's what you are talking about, not how you are talking about it.

    I do think Obama will have his MSNBC ripped from his grasp soon enough though.  They can't keep covering for him for long ans maintain good ratings.

    Leaving his church is a really bad sign.

    The true nature of the Southside's Theology is about to ruin the chances of a win in Novemeber.

    [ Parent ]

    Chuck Todd says so is where it's coming from. (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:53:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I know (5.00 / 9) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:54:59 PM EST
    My question to Todd is did he ask who gave the RBC jurisdiction over determining the popular vote and oh BTW, do we NOW all agree the popular vote matters? Good.

    Clinton has just won some ground if you ask me.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh no, anything but that :-) (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:55:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Do Jeralyn and you agree on the (none / 0) (#125)
    by KristenWinters on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:22:40 PM EST
    definition of "national popular vote."

    If you two can't even agree on how the national popular vote should be tabulated, how does Hillary expect the 85-90% of uncommitted superdelegates she needs to see her point of view, which if I know understand correctly, does not include votes of voters in Michigan who took the time to write in the name of Barack Obama.

    That is not a winning argument with anyone but the most ardent Clinton supporters.  It is certainly not a metric that an uncommitted super is going to find attractive.

    [ Parent ]

    We do not (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:25:19 PM EST
    We DO agree that it matters.  A lot. NOw Markos agrees too.

    [ Parent ]
    Well Truth Be Told (none / 0) (#146)
    by talex on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:29:32 PM EST
    Markos' opinion means very little. He is not a political genius. And he damed sure is not an opinion maker.

    [ Parent ]
    As if you have any idea (5.00 / 4) (#216)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:53:14 PM EST
    what the SuperDelegates are going to find attractive; especially since you are now repeating the useless write-in vote talking point that has already been debunked. LOL!

    I'll tell you one thing: they haven't all flocked to Obama despite his declaring victory continuously for months now.

    So something is holding them up. It could be the scandals, it could be the loss of momentum and the giant margins by which HRC is beating him in swing states, or it could be gasp! the popular vote.

    Why does that thought upset Obamans so much?

    [ Parent ]

    The popular vote just supports her (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:57:34 PM EST
    electability argument.  Right now, Hillary crushes McCain in the GE and McCain beats Obama.

    This is before the Republicans have even gotten going on him.

    Even if you count the popular vote such that Clinton doesn't win, it's by the tiniest of margins, given that it's out of 36 million voters.  She can carry the party.  That is the practical argument.

    Winning the popular vote has a traditional and hugely symbolic value attached as well, given that we live in, you know, a democracy.  If the SDs have forgotten that, it is their failure.

    It doesn't matter that Jeralyn and BTD don't agree on the exact counts (if that's even true); their disagreement does not diminish the importance of the popular vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Meh (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:46:59 PM EST
    What? You don't think rigging the primary so that it is beneficial to your chosen candidate even if it isn't a true reflectin of his electoral chances as smart politics? Someone pass Jeralyn the Kool(kids) Aid.

    Hey if Markos wants to follow Obama off a cliff who am I to criticize him? I wish him lots of luck and hope he packed some rappeling gear.

    the party is Basejumping (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:55:36 PM EST
    weeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    [ Parent ]
    Look! (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:12:30 PM EST
    Is that a shark?
    Are those water skis?

    [ Parent ]
    My favorite thing about this meme (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by hitchhiker on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:20 PM EST
    has to be the very unsubtle message embedded in its delivery.  To wit:

    By the way, in the real popular vote . . .

    It's got to be "by the way" because this is, dontcha know, a throwaway comment, not meant to require anything tedious like details.  And notice the elegantly innocent "real" . . . again delivered as if honest people couldn't possibly disagree.

    I'm an honest person, and I disagree.  Possibly because I live in WA, where both a caucus and a primary were held.  I was at my caucus, so I know exactly what at least one subset of those "real" numbers represents.  By the way.

    the topic is the popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:29 PM EST
    Please stay on topic

    No way. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:36 PM EST
    Markos can't possibly be saying that.

    I'm trying to figure out what they're trying to do here.

    I could write in Hillary, if that's an option, vote for McCain, or leave the top space blank.

    There's a method to his madness, but I'm all for kneecapping him.

    The method is to scream (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:06:00 PM EST
    loudly over and over in hopes that folks that oppose your position tire and that the uninformed masses take what you are saying as fact without aplying logic. The GOP does it all the time. It was very effective all the way until they got power and it became apparent that they were all talk.

    [ Parent ]
    More Democratic Disunity from Time magazine (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by Mrwirez on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:52:01 PM EST
    I am convinced the republicans are playing the DNC like a fiddle. Apparently TIME magazine thinks so too. TIME also thinks the party is fractured now..... I think I agree, damn Obama's whole campaign has been about disunity. He had to fragment the Democrats to beat Hillary Clinton. Imo, In the end they both lose.

    An interesting read:

    http://tinyurl.com/49jj98

    I'd love a thread to explore this personally (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:59:12 PM EST
    I rember a time when WE were the side giggling because the conservative and the religious portions of the GOP were at odds. Ah, the good ol days. Sigh.

    [ Parent ]
    According to Donna Brazille (i know,i know) (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by kenosharick on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:52:15 PM EST
    The SDs do not and shoud not care about popular vote- they MUST base theirvote on whoever is leading in pledge delegates. I cannot believe I used to respect this woman. I think that Kos and his ilk may literally keel over of shock when mccain wins in Nov.

    they should vote according to (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:00:48 PM EST
    the conscience. using their best jugement.

    The results of the primaries were not conclusive

    [ Parent ]

    She forgot to tell the SD (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:00:56 PM EST
    who was on C-Span's Morning show. Cause he said that there were a number of different factors that go into determining who the SDs should support.

    Delegates was only one factor among many discussed.

    [ Parent ]

    I just stole this from a Taylor Marsh commenter (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by Firefly4625 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:05: