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

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

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


    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.


    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.



    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

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

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?


    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...

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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"

    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 :)

    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!  


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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. : )

    I'll fix it. (none / 0) (#177)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:36:57 PM EST
    That's fair (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    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.

    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.  


    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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..

    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.



    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


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


    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?

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

    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.  

    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.

    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?

    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.

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

    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.  :(  

    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.


    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?  

    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.


    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?


    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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


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

    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.

    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.


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

    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.

    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.

    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.



    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?

    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?


    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

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


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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
    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.


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


    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.

    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.

    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?


    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.


    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

    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?

    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.

    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:


    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.

    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


    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.


    I just stole this from a Taylor Marsh commenter (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by Firefly4625 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:05:04 PM EST
    - about Donna B - the lying and hypocrisy are mind-numbing! Here's the post:

    From NPR in February: Donna Brazile (the very last paragraph is particularly telling):

    News & Notes , February 11, 2008 · Democratic strategist Donna Brazile -- who managed Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign and is herself a superdelegate -- says she will quit her position within the Democratic Party if her superdelegate colleagues decide the party's nomination.

    "Let's wait for some of these other states to help sort this out," Brazile, a News & Notes contributor, told Farai Chideya.

    As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to run neck-and-neck in amassing the total delegates needed to win the nomination, some have suggested that the party's superdelegates -- comprising party activists and high-ranking officials -- could make the deciding vote.

    But Brazile says the superdelegate vote "should reflect the will of the people."

    Except, Donna, when your candidate isn't the choice of the people any longer, right? You really do think we're stupid, don't you - ever heard of TRANSCRIPTS?


    Link or quote? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by gmo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:05:50 PM EST
    Did she really say that?   If so, she misses the entire POINT of having superdelegates: they are to exercise their free judgement in determining who is the best candidate to run in November; period, end of story.

    I just need to know if there's a direct quote of Donna saying something so silly and irresponsible, and, you know, against the "rules."


    Oh yeah (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:17:26 PM EST
    I remember her saying it but have no link, etc.  I think she may have said something very similar on CNN or This Week as well.

    DB needs to read (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:41:00 PM EST
    her own rules!!  That woman infuriates me.  I get a knot in my stomach every time I see her face on the tube.

    Their heads will explode (none / 0) (#236)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:01:52 PM EST
    When McCain wins.  They will NEVER understand how something like that could happen.  Despite what the rest of the country has seen from Obama, KOS folks still have their fingers in their ears, and their humming at high volume.  

    Jeralyn... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:53:05 PM EST
    ... the numbers you posted are a little out-of-date. With PR fully counted, Clinton is up by 303,000 w/o caucus estimates and 193,000 w caucus estimates.

    Does anyone know where these caucus estimates come from? I just tried to look around for Washington's, and couldn't even find an estimate of total turnout anywhere.

    Given that the WA primary happened only a week later and how much higher turnout than the caucuses, I'd suggest using that for Washington. It also has the advantage of having real numbers.

    The trouble with that idea is, of course... (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Don in Seattle on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:10:09 PM EST
    I didn't vote in our state's primary, because I understood it was a meaningless beauty contest. The state party said the primary results wouldn't count,  and every candidate agreed.

    My situation is just like that of ~1,000,000 Democrat non-voters in Michigan.

    Btw, our caucuses had record turnout, by all accounts: an estimated 200,000. Our meaningless primary, a week later, drew 700,000 voters.


    Don, (5.00 / 7) (#97)
    by dskinner3 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:13:44 PM EST
    I am in MI. The state party was encouraging everyone to vote (they were sure our delegates would be seated) and those supporting candidates who removed their names were told to vote uncommitted. It's not like we had low voter turnout. In fact we had quite and increase from the last primary. I don't know if you are pushing an Obama talking point or playing devils advocate, but MI voters did not stay home just because BO took his name off the ballot.

    Relative to other states... (none / 0) (#121)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:21:13 PM EST
    ... Michigan's turnout was anemic.

    On a percentage basis, it was one of the lowest turnouts for a primary.

    Look it up.  That's a fact.

    Most states had record-breaking, overwhelming turnout.

    Michigan? Not so much.


    Not true (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by Emma on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:16:11 PM EST
    Voters in MI were repeatedly told that our votes WOULD count, that delegates WOULD be seated at the Convention.  There was a big GOTV in MI, led by the Dem Party and Obama supporters like Conyers.

    That's not what Hillary said (1.00 / 0) (#200)
    by Don in Seattle on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:46:33 PM EST
    She herself said at the time that "everybody understands this [Michigan] election isn't going to count."

    The whole quote is (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by dskinner3 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:51:26 PM EST
    too damning to your argument eh? The fact is, she was wrong to say that, and not speaking on behalf of the voters in MI. The voters in MI were told that the DNC would not go to the convention without MI delegates.

    Since you appear to be in Seattle, you may want to get some facts about what was really happening in MI at the time before you try to make your arguments. You have been way off base and don't seem to know much at all about the situation on the ground here.


    She said that in NH (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:59:49 PM EST
     and as Blanchard( former MI governor) pointed out, no one in MI saw that little piece of tape until months after the election was held. There was a massive amount of news out in Michigan saying that everyone expected that the delegates would probably be seated in some manner before the convention. All the local politicians were saying it. (And they were right.) Obama and Edwards surrogates were urging people to vote "Uncommmitted".

    I understand that the talking point is that what Hillary said once in NH is supposed to be some kind of "gotcha" moment, but nobody in MI heard her or cared. All they were hearing from MI polls was that at some later date the delegates would be seated so go out and vote.


    WA caucus counts almost impossible (none / 0) (#231)
    by wurman on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:58:48 PM EST
    The WA Democrats meet in precinct caucuses in the respective communities & select delegates for a County Party caucus.  There may be 25 people at precinct 165 who select 5 to go "up;" & a few feet away there may be 60 people at precinct 166 who select 4 to go up.

    Then, at the County Convention, the group will caucus as a whole, but then separate into groups for each state legislative district.  Again, Congressional District 3 may have 50 people from Legislative District 22 caucus to send 9 people to the state convention; a few feet away, 90 people from LD 18 may caucus to send 6 delegates to state & the 15 delegates from CD3 go to state as a group, split proportionately, etc.  Then, maybe off in a corner, a tiny portion of LD 19 may have 8 people caucus to send 1 delegate to state.  While in another County Convention some folks from a different portion of LD 19 caucus to send 8 delegates at the same time as people from another portion of LD 18 caucus to send 3 more to state.

    If you ain't done it, you cain't get it.

    Then at the state convention there are CD caucuses that select delegates to the national & the convention as a whole selects at large & add-on delegates.  And there's more, but this should be enough to demonstrate that the idea of a popular vote count is a joke--meaningless.

    [I purposely disguised these locations for my own reasons.]

    Furthermore, if a good, life-long, dues paid, caucusing Democratic Party member lives in a precinct that doesn't have a school levy or a dog catcher election on the primary ballot, the dude or dudette may ignore the primary since he or she will go caucus & actually select the delegates from his/her LD & CD.  The primary is a US Supreme Court mandated beauty pageant.

    So . . . who do you count, at which level?


    It's all about bragging rights, nothing more (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Don in Seattle on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    The RBC clearly decided that the Michigan primary was so flawed that it was not recognized for delegate apportionment purposes. It is reasonable to think that, if there were such a thing as "total popular vote", the RBC wouldn't count the Michigan primary vote for that, either.

    There were primaries held in Nebraska and Washington state. They were meaningless, too, though at least every candidate was on the ballot. Note that the meaningless Washington primary had MORE votes cast than Michigan, even though we're a much smaller state. (And our primary was just as legal and certified as Michigan's.

    The RBC was stacked with Hillary supporters, including several who backed the compromise outcomes. How long before Bill or Carville starts denouncing these new Judases?

    The RBC doesn't get to decide... (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:58:09 PM EST
    ... whether or not people voted for someone.

    They can change the delegate allocations, apparently, but those people in Michigan and in Washington did vote.


    The RBC does get to decide what election are valid (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ProChoise on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:07:08 PM EST
    for the Democratic National Party.

    This is not the General Election, this is issues related to who the party elects to represents its best interests. The rules that are used in the General Elections and those used in the Primaries are very different.

    I am not departing the spirit of your argument, just the validity of it in this situation.

    I happen to agree with you in the spirit of your argument, just that RBC are within their rights/rules here.


    Interestingly (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:24:09 PM EST
    the RBC accepted the MI proposal which RECOGNIZED the Michigan primary. I am shocked that some people have not recognised that thr BC's violation of the rules actually included an acceptance of the Michigan primary for delegate allocation purposes.

    That was part of the MDP's calculations.

    IT is funny as hell to see people be so freaking stupid now in not realizing what was done.


    A number of arguments were presented at the RBC (1.00 / 0) (#169)
    by ProChoise on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:33:30 PM EST
    session and to be frank, accept for the proposal presented by the Clinton camps all other did not base their decision on the voting results. Since the RBC did not accept that, I believe the RBC decided not to consider the results of the Michigan vote since they considered it invalid.

    You may disagree with this, but they are the RBC and any arguments that should be present following this should note I am analyzing a complex event that resulted in the delegates being divided in a fashion not consistent with the vote that took place in Michigan. The only Logical conclusion is that the RBC did not consider votes they all agreed was not legitimate.


    This is simply false (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:51:13 PM EST
    The proposal accepted came from the MDP, which was primarily based on the results of the January 15 primary.

    My gawd, is the truth just not important anymore?


    Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:05:37 PM EST
    what exactly WAS the rules based basis for the RBC decision on Michigan's delegates?

    Cuz I DO believe that actually, the story told was that the RBC accepted the MDP's calculation which, FYI, INCLUDED the popular vote in the January 15 primary.

    Now that was a travesty and a joke and a violation of the rules, BUUUUT, if the RBC is now the final word on these things, they did IN FACT accept the Michigan primary numbers as part of their delegate apportionment decision.


    I honestly don't know ...But I believe they viewed (1.00 / 0) (#132)
    by ProChoise on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:24:31 PM EST
    This whole election in Michigan invalid and that they did not consider it relevant (since they are the rules committee they have that right and no one objected). It seemed to work as follows.

    The RBC said Michigan violated the Rules and a penalty was imposed and no one objected. Really Strong Candidates removed their names from the ballot, the reasons I don't know if it was stupid or Genius strategy Sen. Obama was using but the result is the delegates were seated and the popular vote was disregarded in a fashion, this I get from the delegate allocation.



    The vote was not disregarded, it was (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:31:59 PM EST
    allocated incorrectly by giving him ~18,000 of hers.

    I could accept that, but I think by not accepting (1.00 / 0) (#190)
    by ProChoise on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:41:41 PM EST

    The proposal from the Clinton Camp they decided that the votes in Michigan would not count. It would have been a spectacular display of bad judgment for the RBC to incorrectly allocate 18000 votes from one candidate to another. I think Occam's razor applies here "All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to often be correct"

    I may have reached my 10 post for the day so if you receive no further post from me this evening have a good evening and a great Monday morning.


    You're right (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:46:30 PM EST
    You honestly do not know.

    Wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:57:45 PM EST
    If the RBC accepted the delegates as requested by the MDP -- that allocation has to be based on the votes! That acceptance wss implicit, even though they did not argue that fine point on Sat. to my knowledge. The popular vote was not disregarded as you say -- it was implicitly accepted!

    What else could be the basis for the 69/59 division they came up with.. just what they rolled in their private dice game?

    And no party, even the Democrats -- would be stupid enough to say these are the delegates we send from MI to the convention, but the pop. vote is zero-zero! We have truly entered silly season if that is the case.


    If they accepted popular vote in the MI primary, (1.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Don in Seattle on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:28:22 PM EST
    then the party that really got shafted was "Uncommitted". They got 40% or the votes, and now they get NO delegates??

    The Michigan primary was a farce. We are all wasting a perfectly good evening in our lives arguing about it. It's done.


    Harold Ickes in the HOUSE!! (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:45:40 PM EST
    Tell me smart guy, what DID the MDP base it on?

    I have a question (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:12:10 PM EST
    If WA and NE were going to have actual primaries with dem presidential nominees on the ballots, why did they have a caucus for delegate selection?

    What was the point of holding BOTH methods?  The primary results in both of these states didn't prove anyting except that the caucus results didn't reflect the actual will of the people of those two states.


    In Washington, at least (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:20:49 PM EST
    the primaries are state mandated.  The caucuses are held so that the parties can have "more influence".  

    The Republicans take half the vote from the primary and half from caucuses.  The Democrats use only the caucus (of course -- because Democrats are soooo Democratic!)


    The system in Washington (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by JustJennifer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:36:55 PM EST
    is totally screwed up.  I hope they change it.  I think there was a lot of confusion just based on my small sampling of the people I know.

    Same in Nebraska. (none / 0) (#179)
    by phat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:37:39 PM EST

    Nonsense (1.00 / 0) (#183)
    by Don in Seattle on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:38:54 PM EST
    The WA caucuses were perfectly valid in 1992, when they went for Bill Clinton. (I myself voted for Tsongas.)

    Now, this year, HRC doesn't bother to organize for the caucuses, arguing from the start that "insignificant" states like mine can't possibly matter.

    And you guys lap it up.


    Tsongas. (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:59:17 PM EST
    Your pick says it all, man.

    I don't care much what she has to say. I have my own opinion.  My OPINION  is that something has gone deeply wrong and there's no fixing it.


    RealClearPolitics has updated the (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:59:17 PM EST
    popular vote total. Even giving Sen. Obama all the uncommitted votes, Hillary leads by 50,000+.

    This is the biggest problem (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by dskinner3 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:02:05 PM EST
    I have with the whole mess:

    Even giving Sen. Obama all the uncommitted votes

    The man didn't even earn the votes, he's being given them against the will of voters like myself.


    It's true. (none / 0) (#108)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:17:30 PM EST
    However, on the bright side, even making this dubious move of giving him all the uncommitteds, the overall will of the people (Hillary winning the popular vote and delegate totals) still remains intact.

    RCP needs to be called out on this ... (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:33:28 PM EST
    At the very least, they should apportion the votes in accordance with the exit polls.

    According to Chris Bowers on 5/11/08

    The only fair and democratic way is to give Clinton all of her Michigan votes, and then to allocate the uncommitted votes based on exit polls of Obama, Edwards and Richardson support, as those were the three candidates who removed their names from the ballot. So, 173,664 is the total for Obama from Michigan.

    I checked the data and the Bowers calculation looks good. The RCP methodology gives Obama 64,504 votes that rightfully belong to Edwards and Richardson.

    Definitely not cool!


    they effectively said Michigan's primary was so flawed it doesn't count at all.

    "They" being the Michigan state party itself. The RBC, by accepting the state party's compromise solution, agreed with them.

    So do I.


    Flawed only in that (5.00 / 6) (#129)
    by dskinner3 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:23:19 PM EST
    candidates removed THEMSELVES from the ballot. Therefore, they have no one to blame but themselves. The voters who got shafted by the RBC are not to blame, yet we pay the price. I'm glad you are OK with stealing votes Don. I see which side of the coin you are on.

    Harold Ickes himself voted (none / 0) (#224)
    by Don in Seattle on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:55:55 PM EST
    to strip Michigan of 100% of its delegates, nearly a year ago. So did every Clinton member of the RBC. The vote was 29-1, and the lone dissent came from an Obama supporter.

    The personal attacks are not appreciated.

    The MI primary was, excuse me, a giant cluster-f%$#. No one is blaming the voters for that.


    Hunter S. Thompson had a book. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by AX10 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:03:58 PM EST
    about the 72' election.  I will have to find the name of it.  He claimed that there were "McGovern Republicans" whom were nothing more than Republican operatives who infiltrated the McGovern campaign in order to sabatoge his campaign and help Nixon.

    Rove got his in politics start doing that (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:13:31 PM EST
    as a college republican, from what I've heard.

    Fear & Loathing (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:13:49 PM EST
    on the Campaign Trail.

    Fear and Loathing: On The Campaign (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:19:56 PM EST
    Trail '72

    Sorta like Obama telling Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:23:08 PM EST
    to be a Democrat for a day, is that what you mean?

    Someone please tell Russert and Shieffer (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:14:45 PM EST
    that FL and MI popular vote can be considered now.  They seemed just shocked by the very idea this morning.

    If all of those people who voted in (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:16:14 PM EST
    MI are not counted, then how can their non-vote be divided in the first place. Saying the popular vote doesn't count, at least to me, is saying there was no vote to count!!!!

    Funny, MI the state was penalized, (5.00 / 4) (#225)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:56:36 PM EST
    MI voters were penalized, Hillary was penalized in MI and Obama, well Obama was rewarded!!! I guess it pays to voluntarily take your name off of a ballot. Remember that for the next election!!!

    what people are missing (5.00 / 6) (#112)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:18:24 PM EST
    is -- and this is just a very strong suspicion of mine -- the more Brazile and Dean bend the rules (sorry, rulz) to help their guy, the more chance they have of really, REALLY pissing off SDs who may actually want to WIN in November and may have Constituents to explain the DNC's actions to.

    Think about it:  you threw your support to the guy who was a phenomenon in February and, quite honestly, it looked like Hillary had no chance.  Then, he peaked and not only started losing races, but also started coming off as arrogant, dismissive, unable to answer questions in debates or with reporters (would rather eat his waffle, I guess) and was clearly rattled by the kinds of scandals all politicians usually deal with at one time or another.

    And the other politician who was on her way out?  A remarkable comeback.  Successfully making her case, winning Primary after Primary, holding her (and the Dem's) demographics strongly and turning into quite a campaigner.  One the people -- yeah, those people we need to vote for us -- are really responding to and pulling for.  Oh, and she leads in the current Electoral Match-up with impressive numbers against the Republican Nominee.  The Chosen One?  Um, not so much.

    So, you start to have doubts.  And your doubts grow as the DNC takes very public, obvious, embarrassing steps to help out "their" candidate ... even going so far as to not only give him delegates from his opponent, but to also tell a whole Swing State that although we will assign your delegates as we see fit, we don't recognize your vote.  Doing so wouldn't help "our" guy, so ... sorry.

    I wouldn't be surprised if there were many, many SDs who are really thinking hard about switching back due to Brazile and Dean's DNC follies.  

    How strong of a Nominee IS this guy if he needs a constant leg-up and hand-out?  Talk about Buyer's Remorse!

    I have (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:32:16 PM EST
    to wonder where the DNC's head is in all this stuff. They had to realize that giving Obama delegates he didn't earn would cause nothing but even more problems. Sometimes it just seems unfathomable to me that the party honchos are that incredibly stupid. Then other times I think perhaps they really are that inept. That's why we lose all the time.

    but that's where I think (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:50:45 PM EST
    we may be wrong.

    What if the SDs are seeing the Head Honchos like we are -- inept and overtly biased -- and decided they want nothing to do with it.  What if enough SDs who were for Clinton, but switched when Obama was at his peak, have decided any candidate who needs the DNC's help to basically cheat his way to a win isn't the best candidate to run against McCain and the republicans.

    Like I said, I strongly suspect there are a lot of nervous SDs who are now becoming angry at Brazile and Dean for the position their actions are putting them in:  supporting a candidate who apparently can't honestly beat his opponent for the Nomination and, because of that, will not have the support of those Demographics we absolutely must have to win.

    In the end, I trust many will switch back to Hillary as even the AAs become embarrassed by Obama's delegate- and vote-grabbing via his buddies at the DNC.  Yes, an AA President is important, but not one who can't win it fair-and-square without obvious cheating.


    Obama still leading in popular vote count by 14759 (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:19:58 PM EST
    After taking into account 100% of Puerto Rico results, counting FL, IA, NV, ME, WA and Michigan (Obama gets 75% of Uncommitted votes based on exit polls + 30000 votes that were discarded because the voters wrote Obama in the ballot), Obama still leads by 14759 votes. So unless HRC can win by a margin big enough in South Dakota and Montana, Obama will win the popular vote count (not that popular vote matters)
    Ofcourse Obama also leads in the only metric that matters, i.e. the delegate count. He should reach the magic Number of 2118 delegates in a few days and clinch the nomination.

    They never counted the write in votes. They (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:26:34 PM EST
    admitted that yesterday. Plus, in MI write in votes aren't counted period. Other states have that rule. The voters in MI were told this specifically.

    Why count the write-ins?? (5.00 / 4) (#207)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:50:14 PM EST
    They were told not to write-in.  If this were not a disputed constest, write-ins would never be counted.  The only reason to include them now is to give votes to Obama, that under all other circumstances are illegitimate.    

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#221)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:54:49 PM EST
    But you forgot all those folks in Cuba who wanted (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:29:42 PM EST
    to vote for Obama.  And all those people in California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana and Kentucky who forgot to vote......

    Give me a frickin break.  All of those discarded and uncomitted, etc., are not Obama's to take.  You forget:  you have to earn a vote in this country.  You make me sick.  


    Sorry... (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:32:23 PM EST
    Of the votes that were counted and validated independently, Clinton is ahead by 303,000 votes, which is quite a substantial number.

    Everything else is just a guess. I understand we have a problem because

    1. Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan and then blocked a revote.

    2. Four of the caucus states have not reported any vote tallies.

    3. Various other miscellaneous errors here and there.

    We can try and guess numbers for these latter two cases, but we can't start adding in numbers wherever we feel like it. Were there any write-ins for Clinton in any of the other states? What about Clinton supporters who went home because caucus sites became disorganized messes, or couldn't go at all because they had to work?

    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:43:07 PM EST
    The chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party sat there and said, clear as a bell, that no one had been allowed to inspect the write-in votes.

    And yet today it's a standard-issue talking point among Obama voters, one after the other, claiming there were 30,000 write-in votes for Obama.

    Here's the thing: trying to create your own reality turns real Democrats off.


    There were 30,000 (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:50:30 PM EST
    total write in votes. You cannot assume they are all for Obama since they were never opened and they cannot be counted since it is illegal in the state of Michigan.

    So, taking those away then by your own count Hillary leads in popular vote.


    everyone agrees it's all about the popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:21:14 PM EST
    which is great. Now that all sides agree about that, we can argue the details of what it is. And funny enough, any way you slice it, it's about tied. As we saw with CNN, their 3 scenarios for counting the vote have Clinton winning by two of the three scenarios, and Obama wins by one of them. I personally think Clinton wins this argument. But it's up to the SD's to decide. But at least we have everyone agreeing that the popular vote is the thing and is how you measure the will of the people. Unity perhaps.

    Not At All True (1.00 / 0) (#150)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:30:23 PM EST
    The delegate count is the only think that matters in determining the nomination. And that isn't tied. Obama has a significant lead. There is no agreement that "it's all about the popular vote." The popular vote is potentially a talking point to convince the votes of superdelegates. If they don't find it convincing, it means NOTHING.

    that's what people mean when talking about (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:37:43 PM EST
    the popular vote.  Yes, the delegates are what determines the nomination.  But, NOT the PLEDGED delegates.  And the popular vote is a good argument to make to the super delegates.  So are all the polls showing Clinton outperforming Obama against McCain.  So is the swing state argument.  So is the electoral map argument.

    I can't think of one argument that Obama can make to the super delegates OTHER than the lead in pledged delegates.  And a lead in pledged delegates has never been the determining factor for the nomination.

    The Obama camp likes to make the argument about turning red or purple states blue.  But, the curent electoral college polls don't show that happening for him.  IN fact those polls show Clinton adding more states to the blue column than Obama does.


    I would not call (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:54:16 PM EST
     a lead of about 120 pledged delegates significant considering how many we started with.

    Where did he got the info. (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:22:56 PM EST
    about the DNC not wanting to count Michigan??

    Haven't heard that one ":officially" anywhere... what a joke!

    gee, I find the best way to estimate what will (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:24:41 PM EST
    happen in Nov is to look at the current polls for the electoral college results and NOT the national poll numbers.  Obama leads McCain is SOME national polls.  But, those polls don't reflect electoral college numbers at all.

    Every electoral college poll shows Clinton way ahead of McCain.  And, those same polls show Obama losing to McCain or maybe tied with him.

    As to my selectinf the black vote as the ones the super delegates are afraid of....  I did that because that is what the Obama supporters keep threatening them with.  And, they keep claimimg they don't NEED Clinton's supporters to win.  Or, tey claim the Clinton supporters will come back and the blacks never would for Clinton.  And, I guess that is because Obama did such a good job of falsely painting Clinton as a racist

    Doesn't dividing the delegates (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:25:05 PM EST
    (fairly or unfairly) legitimize the votes in MI, thereby making the total votes actually count? When was this decision made?

    Kos (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:28:12 PM EST
    I don't love Markos.
    I can't even look at DailyKos.

    Ditto (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by flashman on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:41:50 PM EST
    Don't understand why he should get respect here that he wouldn't give.

    To me, it comes down to the presentation! (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:29:05 PM EST
    RCP may have decided that MI was messed up, but what they are now doing is totally unacceptable. Here's how I suggest the data should be presented (since the DNC RBC has voted to seat MI and FL, their vote totals should be counted as stated).

    Hence RCP should present the data as:
    1, Popular Vote total - Clinton by 303,785
    2. PV + Caucus Estimates - Clinton by 193,503

    Then modifications that people might consider
    1. PV - Michigan - Obama by 24,524

    Caucus estimates give an edge to Obama by 110,222 votes but only 60,222 if WA primaries are used, and the number goes down even further if ID,NE primary numbers are used.

    Just my opinion.

    Where does the WA caucus estimate come from? (none / 0) (#174)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:36:00 PM EST
    I can't find any guess as to how many people turned up. Not even the news accounts from the day after venture a guess.

    agree.. (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:48:32 PM EST
    The only counts that one can get are these.. Delegate counts

    BTW -- I should have been clearer. There is no way Obama leads the popular vote except by removing ALL the MI votes from the Clinton column (I have a spreadsheet -- that essentially has their numbers, and it is clear from their own numbers). The fact that they (RCP) are reporting a 49-state total as THE popular vote total (on the first row) does not seem right.

    And the caucus estimates do not change this.. as can be seen from the first and second rows on the RCP table, Obama only eats into Clinton's lead by 110222 votes using the most generous interpretation of the results.

    So .. what's wrong w/ my thinking on this. Am I totally missing the boat here?


    Why is this election so close? (5.00 / 7) (#159)
    by OxyCon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:32:09 PM EST
    The media and 80% of the left wing blogs have been Swiftboating Hillary since last October, yet here she is, running neck and neck with Obama, and finishing alot stronger than he has.
    Why is it that she is doing so well against all of these relentless attacks?
    And since Obama is now wilting, and no one has even laid a glove on him yet, how will he hold up under the same scrutiny (and sleazy attacks, many of which came from liberal blogs) that Hillary has endured?
    We're going to find out.

    "Swiftboating" Is Spot On (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by flashman on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:44:15 PM EST
    Hillary still has (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:47:24 PM EST
    "most" of Democratic base who supported Gore and Kerry.

    Obama (except for solid AA support) is getting former Republicans and Naderites and guys who just cannot vote for a woman.


    and outspent (5.00 / 4) (#217)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:54:14 PM EST
    don't forget that part. In addition to everyone being against her like you said, the Obama campaign outspent her in every state, some on the order of 4 or 5 to 1, and the race is still statically tied. What does that tell you. She can handle everything you throw at her and still come out strong.

    And contrary to what Obama supporters well tell you, Obama has been treated with kid gloves by the Hillary campaign and by the media. The exposure of Trinity and the like, through very damaging, could have been treated much worse by the media. If Obama wins the nomination, he's going to be in for a rude awakening on how the treatment changes, and how differently the repubs treat him compared to Hillary.


    All of this back and forth about the popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:34:13 PM EST
    count versus the delegate count versus the pull the numbers out of your a$$ count is why I will be voting for McCain in November.  The DNC wants to use the pull the numbers out of your a$$ count so that Obama gets the nomination.  The people want Hillary.  The republicans for a day and the DNC want Obama so they can celebrate getting rid of the Clintons.  But they do not have the foresight to see that they are breaking the Democratic party and that they will lose in November.  

    Following Obama's lead (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:47:15 PM EST
    Obama doesn't think they count either. Nor does he think Florida's popular vote counts. He thinks since he chose not to campaign the popular votes don't count.

    The Buzz
    (this was prior to the RBC meeting but he doesn't say they don't count because they have no delegates but because he didn't campaign):

    "Look, I think it's fair to say that in all these races if I didnt campaign at all and this had just been a referendum on name recognition, Sen. Clinton would be the nominee. That's true in Iowa, that's true in practically every state we've won. It's pretty hard to make an argument that somehow you winning what is essentially a name recognition contest in Florida was a good measure of electoral strength there. It"s even tougher to make that argument in Michigan where my name wasn't even on the ballot.

    So if I'm following everything correctly, if you don't campaign in a state the popular vote doesn't count. If you remove your name from the ballot, you can get votes without earning them, heck even some of your opponent's delegates. Man, that is one sweet system.

    That whole bunch on that blog have adopted (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by thereyougo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:48:45 PM EST
    tortured views of reality.

    I'm just giving them time to fully implode. This primary has done it for me and huffpo.

    Let them stay in their echo chambers, fawn over their 'progressive' "ideal" quest for better democrats, whatever that may be.

    Thats what happens to former kid Republicans who haven't totally lost their spots.

    What I dislike about those kinds of comments from big O, is that they're downright disrespectful of a fine lady like Hillary Clinton and its an ongoing campaign since day 1 to discredit her.

    Kos was the one who kept saying she'd sunder the party--and still is, and other of juvenile rants.

     Just look at the diversity at the RBC this weekend. Could you honestly call Hillary racist? Yet they were part of that smear throughout this season.Markos called the voters of Kentucky racists. I mean, is that necessary?

    Consequently,  no respect for them here. But I will say, they write well.


    Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:54:21 PM EST
    Malcolm X, in explaining why he did not consider himself to be an American, used an analogy. He said that he was like someone at a dinner table with a group of people. All of them had food on their plates except him. He asked if he was expected to think of himself as a diner?

    That's the way I feel about todays' Democratic party.
    They don't pursue the impeachment of those who have committed manifestly criminal acts.
    They don't aggressively pursue actions to end the war in Iraq - which they were elected to do.
    They vote for anti-democratic garbage like the so-called Patriot Act. (A more unpatriotic bit of drivel would be hard to invent.)

    So I am sitting at the table with my fellow democrats, feeling absolutely nothing in common with them, and am then expected to pull the lever in their behalf?

    Fascinating exercise in recent history (5.00 / 2) (#238)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:09:56 PM EST
    Random googling of popular vote vs. Super delegates, you will find some interesting arguments:  

    The Nation, Kathrine Van Tyranny of the Superdelegates
    From a comment, and standard fare of that time against the delegates choosing the candidate without the popular vote.  

    If Hillary wins the nomination by securing the super-delegate count, even after losing the popular vote of most Democrats, so you think Democratic voters will be motivated to vote for her in November?

    I think the party establishment should chew on that because the last thing we need is an "illegitimate" candidate, like George Bush in 2000, as the Democratic party nominee.

    Foolish and anti-democratic to (4.20 / 5) (#93)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:12:11 PM EST
    give Obama the uncommitted votes in his pop total.  Now I am sorry he disenfranchised his own voters, but then it did help him win Iowa.  But we can not assign votes based on how we think people would have voted.  We have to count votes as they were certified by the various states.  Again, if I am an MI Hill supporter maybe I don't go to the polls because I know Obama and Edwards have withdrawn from the contest, therefore I know my candidate has won.  If I go and vote uncommitted, well, maybe had all the names been there I would have voted for Hill ultimately, we know late deciders break this way. We can only count cast votes.  That's how democracy works.

    Kos is your friend and my foe. (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by AX10 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:37:03 PM EST
    The election in Michigan was certified to be valid and legal.  Therefore, the votes cast do count in the popular vote totals.

    I said this before Jeralyn.  I will be supporting McCain in the fall if Obama is the nominee.
    I am optimistic that he will take Charlie Christ or Sarah Palin as his VP.

    When that day comes (if Obama is the official Nominee), I will not be around here from that time forward.
    I understand that you want to support a Democrat for the Whitehouse, I respect that.  I am a moderate, and I have many problems with Mr. Obama.  Given the choice of these two, I will take McCain.  Fortunatly the GOP did not nominate some thug like Romney.

    What if Romney is his VP? (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by leis on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:01 PM EST
    AX10 is right.. was visiting Michigan when (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by gabbyone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:43:33 PM EST
    they certified the votes and the papers in
    Detroit said that the DNC has no control over the votes.  It is a state's rights issue and even
    if the DNC had refused the delegates, the popular vote would count. If the DNC tries to do this, I think they will have a battle on their hands.

    We will not support McCain (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:44:23 PM EST
    and while you can support who you'd like, TalkLeft will probably limit McCain chattering once the nomination is decided. Why? See the comment rules about chatterers.

    I was trying to be kind. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by AX10 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:58:59 PM EST
    because talkleft has been far more tolerant of those who do not blindly embrace Mr. Obama.  I used to post at Democraticundergound, but nothing short of blind adoration of Mr. Obama is tolerated there these days.

    I said that I will NOT be around talkleft if Obama is the official nominee.  I will be supporting most Democrats down ticket though.


    I'm begging you (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:04:04 PM EST
    Jeralyn, could you give a shout out to skepti... he is my personal pet peeve.  He's been here for 4 days, keeps violating the 10 comment rule... I think he's probably at 25 or so already ... he's been told of the rules multiple times and just gets pissed off.... also he's got to have over 50 1s for the day.

    I'm sure I get annoyed more easily than the norm as I work as an analyst (a.n.a.l) but he's driving me up the friggin' wall.


    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:40:19 PM EST
    McCain won't need Crist.  He needs someone from Ohio or PA.  Rob Portman, perhaps.  Or Romney.  He brings a lot to the ticket, lots of conservatives love him.

    I have too many problems with Obama to vote for him.  I'm voting for McCain if Obama is our nominee.  I so hate it, but I just do not trust Obama to keep us safe.  He's too inexperienced to be President.  Other problems too.  I do so wish he waited and/or democrats had been more skeptical of him.  He should have been vetted.  Too many democrats fell for him without knowing anything about him.  Shame on them.  

    Who is Sarah Palin?  


    It's a delegate race (2.00 / 4) (#8)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:59 PM EST
    the popular vote lead (in both the primary and the general) and about 4 bucks will get you a nice Starbucks latte.

    Yeah, who cares about the actual voters? (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by leis on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:41:16 PM EST
    Brilliant strategy for the GE.

    And I know you are aware of this but the delegate number is only one aspect or there would be no need for SD's. Right?


    The delegate race is a stalemate. (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:44:34 PM EST
    But you knew that.

    The nomination now depends on the political judgment the superdelegates make in August ... and in that they are entitled to consider any data they find relevant.


    The thing about the popular vote... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:10:27 PM EST
    ... is that it means nothing, or everything, not based on the rules, but based on whatever the superdelegates decide. Markos isn't wrong to define it how he wants to, nor is Jeralyn to define it how she does. There is no absolute answer. If I were a superdelegate, the results as I evaluate them would tell me Hillary is the better choice for the party, and at least arguably the preferred choice of the party, so I'd vote for her. But those who choose to follow the pledged delegates, those who follow the voting in their own districts, those who just support who they like better, and those who trade their votes for political favors are all also operating within the rules. It looks like that will be enough to give Obama the nod, whether I like it or not.

    any criteria is just as valid as any other. (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:24:57 PM EST
    you could throw darts blindfolded I suppose. Oh wait that is what they are doing.

    This (none / 0) (#102)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:16:08 PM EST
    type of thinking is pure speculation, and speculating along racial lines this way isn't helpful.  It's inflammatory.  We've gotta move away from this type of thinking.

    this is NOT specualtion (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:30:23 PM EST
    it is what the Obama supporters have been saying for quite some time now.  They have made the argument that blacks will NOT vote for Clinton.  And, they were making that claim before the same claims were being made about female Clinton supporters.

    The Obama fringe (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:35:22 PM EST
    may threaten mass defection on the part of AAs, but I think polling supports that most AAs would vote for Clinton, and want her on the ticket.  And I do think that saying the DNC is afraid of black people is speculation.  

    the threat seemed to work (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:41:06 PM EST
    pretty well when Jesse Jackson Jr used it to get black super delegates to SWITCH their support from Clinton to Obama.

    yeah (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:54:59 PM EST
    when Barack was at his peak.

    Now he's just a guy who's losing Primary after Primary and needs his buddies help at the DNC in order to cheat his way to the Nomination.

    Not exactly the precedent I suspect most AAs would want to set for the first AA President.


    you do realise... (none / 0) (#120)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:20:59 PM EST
    that you misspelled your username, right?

    Oh...and a fact based argument cannot, as yet, be presented that Sen. Obama will lose in Nov. In part, because it's a speculative argument on an event that has yet to happen.

    Over a period of time, with various and sundry pieces of polling data as well as some other pieces of evidence, it's possible to write a logical argument that it's possible that Sen. Obama will not win in Nov.

    But a full "he will lose" argument is unavailable at this point as it's opinion based on a possibility.

    Real Clear? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:25:25 PM EST
    As I interpret the all-inclusive, up-to-date Real Clear Politics popular vote analysis, Obama is still ahead by 45K votes. It will be up to SD and MT to determine who will win the popular vote. Not that it matters, UNLESS the superdelegates decide that it matters. And that is doubtful.

    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:38:26 PM EST
    First off, I don't think it's reasonable to give Obama all of the MI uncommitted. Edwards, Richardson, and at least one other candidate were still in the race then.

    Second, I want to know where these caucus estimates come from. A strong argument can be made that the Washington primary should be considered, given that it actually has real results and several times more people participated in that than in the caucuses.


    Too Many Numbers (none / 0) (#213)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:51:24 PM EST
    There are too many sets of numbers for this to have any impact other than to create confusion. If this line of thinking is to have any impact on the votes of Superdelegates, they will be looking for an impartial set of numbers. Those numbers won't be provided by the DNC because the popular vote has no official standing as a metric in the nominating process. Therefore, the media will be the arbiter and within the media many seem to give credence to RCPs numbers. By their analysis, Obama still holds the popular vote lead with two states to go.

    Uncommitted proportion (none / 0) (#234)
    by zebedee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:59:39 PM EST
    The only way for Obama to be in the lead is if he gets the caucus estimates of 110,222 (which may be fair, although the unfairness overall of caucuses is well documented) plus ALL the MI uncommitted. In the exit polls, he got around 70% of the non-Clinton votes) so one were to give him anything for MI it would have to be 70% of the 238K of uncommitted (about 166K).

    This leaves Hillary 27K ahead. After Montana and S Dakota this particular count will be almost tied, depending on turnout (probably 200K-400k combined) and margin.

    Of course, as far as actual votes cast (which is how she usually expresses it) she is safely ahead. It's telling that the only way he can actch up is to be given votes he didn't receive.

    I think Hillary should make more of the EV metric (she leads 308-224) and say the other metrics (pledged dels and pop vote) are essentially tied. He will still get the full benefit of his small pledged del lead as the threshhold for SDs is higher for her than him.

    It doesn't matter... (none / 0) (#239)
    by smb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:38:41 PM EST
    I don't understand why anyone is getting worked up about all the ways you can tabulate popular vote. Its so incredibly far from being relevant that I puzzles me why Kos would even waste his breath on the issue. I know it must be hard for some to believe that in fact this race is over and must come up with some sort of criteria where Clinton is ahead so there is some reason to continue to fight. But lets all be honest here, her having more popular votes is just about as important and meaningful as Al Gore's national popular vote lead in 2000. Kinda cool, but doesn't amount to anything. Its like a football game where one team gets three touchdowns and the other team gets six field goals. Sure you scored more time, but you still don't end up winning.

    I know la la la, the super delegates should be swayed by this, but they clearly aren't.