RCP Updates Its Popular Vote and Delegate Totals

Real Clear Politics as of 10 pm ET:

  • Votes with Michigan and Florida as cast: Hillary leads by Clinton 303,785.
  • Votes with Michigan and Florida as cast and the cacus states estimates for WA, IA, ME and NV which didn't keep track: Hillary leads by 193,563.
  • Votes with Florida and Michigan, with uncommitted in Michigan going to Obama: Hillary leads by 65,617.
  • Obama is only ahead if you give him the uncommitted in Michigan and count the above caucus states, and then it's by 44,605.


The superdelegates are free to choose their own popular vote totals. They can factor in the votes she got in the Nebraska, Washington and Idaho primaries if they want. They can decide Obama shouldn't benefit from any Michigan votes because Obama removed himself voluntarily from the ballot.

As for pledged delegates from the state primaries and caucuses, not including superdelegates, Obama's lead is 1739 to 1624 -- meaning his lead is only 115 delegates. The superdelegates are free to change their mind or weigh in any time up until the convention.

Seems to me since Obama has a small lead in pledged delegates and Hillary leads in the popular vote, the superdelegates need to turn their attention to the electoral map and who would be the better candidate against McCain.

< More Deep Thoughts | Late Night Open Thread: R.I.P. Yves Saint Laurent >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Don't forget that a chunk of the pledged delegates (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:04:34 PM EST
    came from Edwards, as well as the screwy Texas caucuses after Clinton won the primary.

    Of the votes that have been counted and tabulated independently, Clinton is up by 303,000 votes. Everything else is a guess, and you have to be very charitable to Obama in your guessing to give him the lead.

    Someone just arriving from Mars looking at the results would think that things are at worst a tie for Clinton. Yet the narrative is that she's hopelessly behind. It's very aggravating.

    But Obama wins when you count non-voters (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by Lysis on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:44:46 PM EST
    I can't believe how many of you are forgetting the people that didn't vote.  He really should get some more of Hillary's delegates.  So many of those in the states she won that didn't vote would've voted for him if they'd come to the polls.



    You are kidding, right?? (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:50:55 PM EST
    We should somehow devine from those who did not vote??  Hey, let us just all stay home and have the Rules Comm. assign delegates.  

    By the way, does anyone recall that there was a snow storm the day fo the MI primaries and that can account for the mediocre turnout?


    What about all the citizens of the free world? (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by feet on earth on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:52:11 PM EST
    This is the Leader of the Free World that we are electing? What about their votes?

    Lets give them 10% of Hilary votes, can't disenfranchise them, can we? /dbl snark


    They are giving all the uncommitted to Obama, (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:06:35 PM EST
    not just his share per exit polls. I think she leads if you use only his share. How much benefit should someone be given by not competing?

    As I understand it. The RBC allowed the parties (none / 0) (#40)
    by ProChoise on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:22:05 PM EST
    involved in this dispute to resolve this matter without consideration to the Michigan votes which they considered invalid.

    The only way the allocation of delegates makes logical sense is that if it was negotiated by the Michigan Democratic Party, and the representatives of the candidates.

    The Votes from Michigan were not considered. Like all things political it was a compromise.


    The DNC (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:30:26 PM EST
    does not have the power to ignore or invalidate a state's certified popular vote.

    BTD said in the other thread that (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:37:16 PM EST
    MI's vote was recognized, which might be different from certified. Kinda like the difference between saying sleeping with someone not really lying about sex if you don't actually sleep!! Samantics

    Another definition of samantics (none / 0) (#174)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:17:47 AM EST
    Running for president when you're a conservative senator from Kansas.

    It wasn't a compromise (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:54:19 PM EST
    Obama got everything he wanted and Clinton got what she previously rejected.

    That is. not. a. compromise.


    But his supporters (none / 0) (#157)
    by reslez on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:51:40 PM EST
    so generously helped themselves to only 4 of her MI delegates! According to the report I saw on MSNBC's website, Obama supporters had the votes for a 50/50 split. I interpret that as meaning the MI outcome was essentially a product of brute force. The popular vote never had a bearing on the result. Very eye-opening! The only reason the committee decided to make a fairer apportionment was so the vote tally would look less blatantly split.

    The same report cautions "against counting her popular vote in the state". It looks like the Obama camp is actively encouraging the media to ignore the votes cast by Democrats in MI.  I guess I'm still innocent enough to be shocked by that.  At least we know we can't entirely blame the media for the message. When a parrot says a bad word you look to the owner, not the parrot.


    to an ordinary mortal like me, (none / 0) (#185)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:00:55 AM EST
    none. but then, sen. obama is clearly no ordinary mortal.

    How much benefit should someone be given by not competing?

    Uncommitted proportion (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by zebedee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:06:37 PM EST
    I posted this a few mins ago as the previous thread was closing so sorry to be repeating, I thought it was more relevant to this thread.


    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.

    What is the EV metric for (none / 0) (#23)
    by coolit on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:12:54 PM EST
    Obama vs McCain?

    EV metric (none / 0) (#37)
    by zebedee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:21:13 PM EST
    Allocating the same electoral votes as the GE to the primary winner, on a winner-take-all basis. Just as if they were candidates in the actual Nov election. So winning states like FL and OH become more dramatic, just like in the GE.

    no, what i mean was... (none / 0) (#47)
    by coolit on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:29:17 PM EST
    you said,

    "I think Hillary should make more of the EV metric (she leads 308-224"

    What is the score if you look at Obama vs. Mccain?

    Do we know that yet?


    Highly Speculative Based on Polling (1.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:43:23 PM EST
    If you check out FiveThirtyEight.com it is currently estimated based on state polling that:

    • Clinton leads McCain 290.7 to 247.3;
    • Obama leads McCain 272.8 to 265.2.

    It is very early for such analysis to say much about November. But as it stands now, they would both narrowly defeat McCain. Due to the fact that election day is still five months away, in terms of electability, they are basically tied using these numbers.

    it was in the 250s for a long time (none / 0) (#156)
    by boredmpa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:50:55 PM EST
    some polls came out this past week that put Obama at 272 or 276, but the ohio one clearly looks like an outlier.

    electoral-vote.com is updated daily (none / 0) (#188)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:48:32 AM EST
    Today's estimate:

    Obama 276     McCain 238     Ties 24
    Clinton 327     McCain 194     Ties 17

    If you want to understand the situation in a bit more detail, look at the polling data in the table for states that are close. The map is based on the latest poll in each state, so states that are close sometimes switch sides when a new poll is published.


    Sorry... (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:06:42 PM EST
    ... he doesn't get all of the uncommitted MI vote. Not even close.

    Skepti has been banned (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:13:58 PM EST
    and his/her 100 comments in the past 3 days erased. Skepti was previously banned as Tano.

    Can you do IP bans? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:15:29 PM EST
    Might make re-registering more difficult.

    I don't want to (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:11 PM EST
    give out that information.

    Understood (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:42:50 PM EST
    Please don't do IP bans, I don't have my own (none / 0) (#171)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:12:56 AM EST
    computer to post from.  I sometimes use library access and other shared computers.

    you can change your IP, it isn't (none / 0) (#186)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:03:31 AM EST
    madated that it be static. this person clearly has wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much time on their hands! lol

    THANK YOU (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:19:05 PM EST
    Seriously.  Makes things around here much easier when folks aren't allowed to constantly disrupt threads.

    I knew that was Tano...thanks Jeralyn (none / 0) (#62)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:36:02 PM EST
    Giving all uncommitted in MI to BO is not fair (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:15:19 PM EST
    One cannot give ALL uncommitted to Obama.   I think he should get ZERO since his name was not on the ballot.

    Even 50-70% of Uncommitted in MI - which Obama supporters can argue is fair, is very generous. There were after all other candidates in the race at the time of the MI primary. I believe BTD has proposed such an adjustment. 75% of uncommitted is 178,626 votes and would make a difference by 60k. By that metric, Obama would be behind in that category as well, by about 15k votes.

    I also think that the 110k+ caucus estimates should not be used. Even RCP mentions the lower numbers as reflected by primaries that were held in states such as WA.

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:32:10 PM EST
    At some point someone had done a delegate matchup of if the SDs voted with their constituency and Hillary was ahead, is there a way to find that?  Or did I imagine that?

    I'd actually like to see that as well. (none / 0) (#73)
    by gmo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:40:17 PM EST
    Or if one doesn't exist, we could probably build one.  Would the constituency be by state alone (winner-take-all?) or by congressional district, or...?

    That is the question, the will of your people (none / 0) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:41:52 PM EST
    who are your people?  that is what all the Obama folks, move-on etc were saying.  Now it's just aggregated delegate numbers they are attached to.  Not specific people.  

    Well (none / 0) (#86)
    by gmo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:47:43 PM EST
    Wikipedia has a list of all the 2008 SD's and their names. One could theoretically match each within a certain hierarchy for the type of SD: Reps with their congressional district, senators/govs with their states, etc.  Should only leave a handful of SD's unable to be slated with their constituents.

    If one liked and had an (none / 0) (#88)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:49:48 PM EST
    inclination for such a thing

    Problem is (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:04:53 PM EST
    Many of the SDs are not electeds in the traditional sense.  They're elected members of the DNC.

    How that works in my state, anyway, is that voters actually put people onto the state Dem Executive Committee.  That Committee then elects the handful of people that represent them to the DNC.

    (Mine don't do a great job, but that's a rant for a different day.)  Anyway, it's going to be hard for the average Dem to hold them accountable.

    Plus, you have various offices that get DNC spots, like heads of the state Dem Women's Federation.  Past president of the YDs Jay Parmlee is one of the uncommitteds.  Jerry Lee of TN is the head of the state AFL-CIO.

    It's just going to be hard to make the call on some of them.  

    One saving grace is that I noticed many of the U.S. Reps. still undeclared are in very purple districts.  Will they come out for Obama, knowing he likely will lose their districts?  Who knows.

    Personally, I think many of them have held off to avoid all the badgering.  Why come out early and piss off the other side, and then have to hear all about it for months.  I don't think they want to have to take the heat any longer than necessary.

    I'd like to think the purple-district folks will go for Hillary because she either won their states or is likely to win in November, but after yesterday's RBC fiasco I'm beginning to wonder if the fix isn't already in.

    Anyone hear more Denver talk today?


    Got it. Thanks. (none / 0) (#119)
    by gmo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:08:31 PM EST
    I suppose we could use this list and do some more creative math (winner take all by state, etc) but all those arguments become too muddy for anyone to understand, so they lose their punch, anyway.

    Actually... (none / 0) (#112)
    by gmo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:03:20 PM EST
    demconwatch.blogspot.com  might already have this. Checking now.

    Jeralyn - Some RCP push back (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:35:44 PM EST
    Obama is only ahead if you give him the uncommitted in Michigan and count the above caucus states, and then it's by 44,605

    If the MI uncommitted votes are apportioned between Obama, Edwards, and Richardson in accordance with the published exit polls, Obama's vote total drops by 64,504 votes.

    With this correction/adjustment, Clinton leads by 19,899 votes under the scenario that includes FL/MI and the IA/NV/ME/WA estimates.

    Since the race is so close, I would argue that the RCP numbers need to be challenged.

    Caucus estimates (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by marisol on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:53:57 PM EST
    I also challenge those four caucus state estimates. My state doesn't keep formal vote counts for the caucuses; and if it did the delegate split wouldn't match up with the actual "votes" due to several other quirks in the system.  

    At best, it's a rough estimate that's even less accurate than exit polls.


    I agree 100% (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:53:44 PM EST
    I brought this issue up in another post, and BTW said that lots of people have looked at the numbers. Nevertheless, I srill think that RCP should be transparent about how they've derived their estimates since they seem to have become the de facto gold standard. I wasn't able to find any information on their site, and I don't know of any other competing tabulations to serve as QC.

    that setup would be amusing (none / 0) (#69)
    by boredmpa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:38:52 PM EST
    i'd love to hear OFB saying that the WA primary is more valid than the caucus.

    Don't forget WA & NE (none / 0) (#162)
    by DWCG on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:58:54 PM EST
    He loses 50K more by using the Washington primary results instead of the caucus.

    And 11K more by using the Nebraska primary results instead of the caucus.

    And don't forget that he was polling a lot better in the exit polls than he was actually performing at the secret ballot box, but I'll concede that on rhetorical grounds.  The WA and NE results though, should not be conceded.


    Absolutely (none / 0) (#170)
    by dwmorris on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:11:09 AM EST
    I'm not optimistic, however, that substituting the primary votes will get much traction (i.e. I'm not holding my breath waiting on RCP to post those tabulations). Hopefully Clinton can maintain some margin on Tuesday so that the argument is moot.

    If John Edwards "suspended" his (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:42:22 PM EST
    campaign, and he was part of the "uncommitted" vote in MI, how can they just take whatever portion might have been his and give it away. Does he have to give his permission.

    I've seen the claim (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:52:27 PM EST
    that because he endorsed Obama, he effectively conceded.

    And he's only ahead by one precinct (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:53:16 PM EST
    in Illinois -- heck, by a couple of blocks in Chicago -- ahead even under the popular vote count at RCP that has him less than 25,000 ahead.

    I've noted reading this before, but it's relevant again to point out that even the popular vote count most favorable to him at RCP, the one based on estimates (that seem overstated) in caucus states and based on unopened ballots in MI -- and who knows, maybe some astrologer hired onto Dean's DNC staff now . . . anyway, even the best count for Obama for some time has been entirely owing to only his own home state, and two-thirds of that from Chicago alone.  And how much of that is the proverbial corpses going to the polls in Chicago, who knows?

    So for those who discount Puerto Rico because it doesn't count in the general election, even looking at these popular vote counts before today would have to make sane SDs wonder if they want to bet the whole election on one city, Obama's hometown . . . but it's Clinton's, too, and she would win it just as well.  

    I.e., Illinois is blue, no matter what -- and without it, Obama's argument is 'way too reliant on 'way too many red states, no matter what.  


    Oops, this ought to have been under Chamonix's (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:54:32 PM EST
    comment about Illinois.  I don't know how this comment hopped around with a mind of its own . . . sort of like the SD who switched back to Clinton again. :-)

    LOL (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:00:03 PM EST
    maybe some astrologer hired onto Dean's DNC staff now

    I hear they use a water dowser


    Stop being rational (none / 0) (#187)
    by DWCG on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:10:16 AM EST
    This is the Democratic presidential primary we're talking about here.

    Jeralyn.,.. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:54:34 PM EST
    I know this is off-topic, but...

    There are provisions in the Rules/Charter of the Democratic Party that it operate "in the sunshine".  

    Yesterday, it was glaringly obvious that those provisions were violated with impunity.

    Given that, does anyone who has given money to the DNC have the right to get it back if they demand it back?  Would someone who had given money to the DNC have standing to sue the DNC for the egregious violations of its own rules, and the fundamental principles behind those rules?

    Garbage in, garbage out (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by nellre on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:58:33 PM EST
    The DNC's management of this primary has been so incredibly dysfunctional that the truth is buried along with the unity pony in a pile of manure.

    Given the guesswork to come up with any  metric other than the delegate count... there is a large margin of error... and this race would be declared a tie by an unbiased observer. You'd need somebody not from earth though.

    The delegate count is less ambiguous in terms of counts, but is also patently unfair.

    Prediction is very difficult (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Prabhata on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:58:38 PM EST
    especially about the future - Niels Bohr

    Being in a position of uncertainty is extremely difficult for the mind.  The reality is that we don't know what will happen the next minute.  If Hillary is staying in the race, it's because she is a savvy politician in a game she knows.  We can sit here and guess.  Let Hillary do her job.  Contribute if you have a dollar to spare, and stop predicting.  I'm old enough to know that Bohr is 100 percent right.

    There was a thread by Jake Tapper (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:00:49 PM EST
    in which he had two mathematicians extrapolating  based on the fictional nonvoters in MI by comparing actual voter turnout in other states with the variable being overall population.

    When it gets this complicated, you know you are in trouble.  Counting votes of those who did not vote is crazy.  Count the votes as voted.  If someone stayed home, so be it.  Others voted.  If someone withdraw his name from the ballot, then he needs to live with that choice.

    This could be such a clear and clean perspective and really the only honest way to view it.  Leave the "uncommitted" as just that.  Let Obama contact them, if they support him, fine.  If they do not, then that is fine also.  

    Too bad the Rulz Comm does not agree.

    stunning wins for four months in a row (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:34:01 PM EST
    is what's really amazing and I think unprecedented here. We have the presumptive nominee loosing the votes for four months in a row. And not just any four months, but the last four months of the party primary. That says a lot about what the voters want, and who has the momentum, and who can win in November. I don't think this level of loosing has ever happened by someone who eventually was the nominee.

    It's clear that Obama got a head start with some brilliant campaign strategies of storming the caucuses and mostly going after red states that are usually ignored. Quite clever. But when the real politics hit the road, he has failed. We see his limits. He can't compete in the contests that are the most important in a general election. And he can't withstand the scrutiny of his voting record, his personal circle of friends, or controversial things in his background. I'd wager that if there was vetting early on in the campaign, we would have seen every month be like the last four months.

    The bottom line for SD's is that the last four months of the campaign should be weighed more heavily than the first months. These last four months show the voters preferences after they have gotten to know Obama a little. Imagine the voters preferences after they get to know him a lot more (via Republicans).

    "Four months in a row": Reality Check (none / 0) (#190)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:46:36 AM EST
    Presumably you mean the months of March, April, May and June.

    • Today is June 1. Forgive me for being fussy, but in my book 'the first day of a month' does not equal 'a month'.

    • The last primaries in the whole contest are on June 3. By my count, four months before June 3 was February 3, so the last four months of the contest really include Super Tuesday, as well as Obama's 11 straight wins to close out the month of February.

    • Understandably, you would prefer that people not consider February. I hope I can surprise you a bit here: OK. (Like Obama, I can afford to be magnanimous.) OK, let's only consider, as you say, Obama's losing streak -- only the contests that took place after February.

    I will omit nothing:

    March 4: Obama won Vermont. Clinton won Rhode Island. Clinton won Ohio. Obama narrowly won Texas. (Yes, I know; I'm sorry, but he really did. We keep score by counting delegates won. Your candidate should try it sometime.)

    March 8: Obama won Wyoming.

    March 11: Obama won Mississippi.

    March 12 - April 21: In these six weeks -- fully half the three-month period you want to focus on, Obama recorded not a single victory. Not a one. This is indeed shocking and unprecedented -- how could a supposed front-runner go six weeks without winning a thing? [What's that you say? No contests were held in that six-week period? Oh. Well... Never mind.]

    April 22: Clinton won Pennsylvania.

    May 3: Obama won Guam.

    May 6: Clinton narrowly won Indiana. Obama won  North Carolina.

    May 13: Clinton won West Virginia.

    May 20: Clinton won Kentucky. Obama won Oregon.

    June 1: Clinton won Puerto Rico.

    June 3: Obama is expected to win South Dakota and Montana.

    In all this 3-month period, Clinton will have won seven contests, and Obama will have won nine. (OK -- throw out Guam, where he won by 7 votes and they split the delegates evenly.) Any way you cut it, her longest winning streak during this whole period has been three contests (IN, WV, KY). And remember, it was just after her famous Indiana victory that Tim Russert declared Obama the nominee.

    Since then, Obama has effectively stopped running against Clinton, choosing to begin his GE campaign against McCain instead. He has barely shown his head in WV, KY, or that critical swing state, PR. I think that was a mistake on his part, but what do I know? Anyway, Clinton racked up a lot of delegates in those 3 primaries. Congratulations on those wins.

    This ignores the superdelegates. Talk about burying the lead! In the last four months, Obama has steadily, inexorably gained more superdelgates than Clinton. Four months ago, he was about 100 superdelegates behind Clinton -- now he's about 45 delegates ahead (more like 60 ahead if you take into account things like the Pelosi Club and Obama's advantage in unnamed Add-ons).

    Remarkably, through this prolonged dry spell, Obama has consistently gained on Clinton in the one metric that really counts: total delegates. You can crow about your Joe-mentum all you like -- that's the story.

    That's the cold reality: Your preferred candidate is not going to win the nomination. It's not your year.

    It sucks, I know. Ever since 1984 (not counting 1996), my preferred candidate has lost the nomination:

    • 1984: Hart
    • 1988: Babbitt, then Gore
    • 1992: Tsongas
    • 2000: Bradley
    • 2004: Dean

    What can I say? Take it from a survivor: Life goes on.

    But the Pledge Delegate Count IS wildly at odds (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by DWCG on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:39:30 AM EST
    If the results had been wildly at odds with the pledged delegates, Clinton would have a viable argument to bring to the convention.

    But they are.

    For argument sake lets not count Michigan one of three ways:
    a) without caucus
    b) with caucus
    c) in states with caucus and primary using the primary results

    "A" yields Obama +24,000 votes out of 35,000,000 cast (+0.1% Obama)

    "B" yields Obama +134,000 votes out of 35,000,000 cast (+0.4% Obama)

    "C" yields Obama +63,000 votes ("B" minus 50K for WA and minus 11K Nebraska) out of 35,000,000 cast (+0.3% Obama)

    And yet in all scenarios out of 3346 pledged delegates, Obama leads by 120 delegates:
    1709.5 Obama (51.1%)
    1589.5 Clinton (47.5%)

    So what is under the best scenario for Obama ("B") a 0.4% advantage in votes, is a 3.6% advantage in delegates.  Understand that's a DIFFERENCE BY NINE-FOLD!

    If the allocation were equitable the delegate count would be the same as the popular vote and Obama would not have be up 51.1-47.5, he'd be up 49.5-49.1, in which case the breakdown would be:

    1656 - Obama
    1643 - Clinton

    He'd be leading by 13 delegates instead of 120!  Again, a difference of 9-FOLD!

    And with the guy losing every competitive contest since March, all the big states (except his own), all the swing states and performing poorly in major demographics and matching up worse in swing states against McCain vs. Clinton the Superdelegates would be just stupid to not compensate for the 13 vote pledged delegate advantage and nominate Clinton-Obama as the ticket.

    No sane human being is going to believe what the Clinton campaign's numbers are asking them to believe: that Obama has no base of support in Michigan.

    The point is - you can't count votes not counted.  It's like counting the disenfranchised voters who were scrubbed by Diebold as felons in Florida 2000 and claiming Gore victory on that basis.  Otherwise Edwards supporters could go to the convention and argue about how many votes and delegates he would have had he not dropped out before Super Tuesday.

    Then the Kucinich supporters, Richardson, Biden and Dodd start making their claims.  Heck even the Draft Gore folk count the votes based on polling.  

    "I mean really this whole voting and counting the vote thing is so darn complicated, taxing and waste of time, lets just let the computers and polls do it all for us."

    Should read... (none / 0) (#183)
    by DWCG on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:42:33 AM EST
    "For argument sake lets not count Michigan, and count the remaining of states the following three ways"

    (among other typos)


    I am concerned that SDs won't (4.60 / 5) (#4)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:00:27 PM EST
    calculate in the pop vote unless it is overwhelmingly clear that CLinton won it (which of course it is to us), but I mean to everyone out there in MSM.  There is enormous pressure to crown Obama at this point.  CNN did a good job today talking about pop vote but...  I guess I am losing hope as the day goes on and the realization sinks in that she did not get the 200,000 vote difference that might have swayed some SDs.  And South Dakota is supposed to be close but still leaning some toward Obama, and he should win MT.  

    I will be amazed (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:02:59 PM EST
    if Obama doesn't win SD by 10 points. If Tom Daschle can't deliver his home state. . .

    exactly, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:05:23 PM EST
    so how do we start to make this transition if that happens, as expected?  I mean I can't just jump on the bandwagon on Wed or Thurs.  I am not sure what I am trying to say expect that I feel like a death in the family is going to happen any day now and there is nothing I can do about it.

    I can't even spell tonight (none / 0) (#16)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:06:54 PM EST
    t-o-n-i-g-h-t (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:34:06 PM EST
    very funny (none / 0) (#59)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:34:53 PM EST
    thanks for making me smile

    yer welcome.....my pleasure.....buck up bjorn (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:40:23 PM EST
    It will work out (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:08:36 PM EST
    You don't really have to do anything.

    Tom Daschle (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:05:26 PM EST
    Daschle couldn't even deliver South Dakota for himself in 2004.

    Daschle and the Native Americans (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:46:12 PM EST
    They did not back him in the voting booth. That is how he lost.  Russell Means was disgusted with him and openly endorsed Thune, the Repub., who won.  While several of the tribal leaders backed Daschle, they never rallied their voters at all.  It was an endorsement without meaning.  Daschle has made a lot of enemies in SD.  Over the past few years he has been working on some projects with the tribes to gain favor.  Not sure how well that has worked out.  I know someone who works on one of the reservations.  She is Clinton all the way.  

    If you ever listen to Limbaugh... (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:16:35 PM EST
    ...and I do, the 'drops' (audio spots he uses on the internet where commercials would be on radio) he has about Daschle are laugh-out-loud funny. Even if you like Daschle, they are hilarious.

    Most of them revolve around the fictitious "Tom Dachle" Radio Show. The show has no advertisers, and can't pay it's announcers, etc. In the bits Tom is now doing radio full-time as his calendar is a somewhat...freer...than it once way.



    EDIT (none / 0) (#130)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:17:44 PM EST
    "is somewhat...freer...than it once was."

    True (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:07:37 PM EST
    but the primary should be much easier. One would have thought that he would have some influence with the Democrats.

    Objectively... (4.80 / 5) (#25)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:14:00 PM EST
    I'd have to think that Ted Kennedy should have had more influence in Massachusetts than Daschle will have in South Dakota.

    Who knows, though. Not me, certainly.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:16:41 PM EST
    John Kerry and Gov. Deval were for obama (none / 0) (#76)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:41:15 PM EST
    too and he couldn't carry MA.

    Yes, but you must understand (none / 0) (#193)
    by TomLincoln on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:52:12 AM EST
    that when the people of Mass. heard the "Just words" campaign stump speech, they recognized it for what it was, and knew who it came from (well, maybe they did not know it was Axelrod, and thought it with Deval Patrick's). In any event, that has to have hurt Obama there, since it is my understanding that Deval Patrick has not turned out to be such a hot ticket. So they perhaps saw "Just words!" from Obama and that was it.

    perhaps.... (none / 0) (#202)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:41:33 PM EST
    Tom Daschle couldn't deliver (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:21:38 PM EST
    SD for himself!!

    Tom Daschle couldn't even deliver SDak for himself (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by jackyt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:49:08 PM EST
    in 2004, so it may be possible he doesn't have the clout to do it for Obama this year. Kennedy and Kerry are (presumably) popular in Massachusetts, and still they were unable to deliver.

    don't lose hope (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:03:49 PM EST
    you assume the SDs are only getting their info from the MSM, but you're forgetting we also have Clinton and others from her campaign working the phone as well as other SDs who support Clinton talking to Uncommitted SDs or shaky Obama SDs looking to switch back (and they're out there, trust me).

    Not everyone relies on CNN, MSNBC or FOX.


    Looking at that list (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:16:56 PM EST
    I see several names I know for a fact are Hillary's.

    Folks are holding back for different reasons.  My guess is the "electeds should vote their districts" argument is going to hold more water than Obama expects.

    And as I look at this list?  A lot of people are from states Hillary won.


    Absolutely.. (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:22:04 PM EST
    I'm going to vote against my rep. if he so much as even breathes the O. name around here.

    I've let him know that already.


    Bah (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:38:51 PM EST
    I'm in a GOP district, so I can't vote against anybody.  However, I'm gonna write another bunch of letters TOMORROW to all the undecideds in my particular state, many of whom I know personally.

    HRC 659,512 more votes than Obama From Mar to June (4.50 / 8) (#3)
    by GeekLove08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:59:13 PM EST
    Of the states that voted in March, April, May, and June:

    Hillary won 8 states with 1,125,125 total votes(659,512 more than Obama):

    1. Ohio (by 228,781 votes) ;
    2. Rhode Island (by 33,635 votes);
    3. Texas (by 95,731 votes, reduced by 5,298 caucus votes won by Obama);
    4. Pennsylvania (by 214,224 votes);
    5. West Virginia (by 147,551 votes);
    6. Indiana (by 14,195 votes);
    7. Kentucky (by 249,346 votes); and
    8. Puerto Rico (by 141,662 votes).

    Obama won 6 states with 465,613 total votes:

    1. North Carolina (by 222,859 votes);
    2. Oregon (by 108,458 votes);
    3. Mississippi (by 100,123 votes);
    4. Wyoming; (by 2,066 caucus votes);
    5. Guam (by 7 caucus votes) and
    6. Vermont (by 32,100 votes).

    The people have spoken. Too bad the DNC can't take the votes that she won away from her like they did delegates in Michigan. For the Democratic "presumptive nominee" this is just pathetic.

    For links see: http://comealongway.blogspot.com/200...ost-votes.html

    Wow, she's leading him about 16 opoints (4.20 / 5) (#5)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:01:38 PM EST
    since February then.

    Yep, he was the Six-Week Wonder (3.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:37:51 PM EST
    from January to mid-February.  Then, the Rev. Wright videos surfaced in mid-March -- and it has been an implosion in Obama's campaign ever since.

    Thanks for these exact numbers; I did a quick scan earlier today but only with rounded numbers.  This exact tally is useful work, and I'm saving it.


    Hillary clearly has and will retain (4.20 / 5) (#1)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:56:05 PM EST
    the popular vote, folks.  You have to jump a lot of hoops to give it to Obama.I understand the desire to legitimize Obama but that dog won't hunt.

    I said this in the last post, just as (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:29:58 PM EST
    comments were being closed. In MI, the state of MI was punished, the voters in MI were punished, Hillary was punished, and Obama was rewarded!@!}\
    I guess what that says is for the next election if you wanna game votes and not waste your time participating, take your name off the ballot.

    Well, It's Easier (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by creeper on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:21:26 PM EST
    if you can just have all your opponents tossed off the ballot, but withdrawing is a good second option.

    The handwriting is on the wall for superdelegates and it says Hillary is clearly the better choice.  Now we'll find out if they're illiterate.

    In the meantime, the favorite media story today seems to be what Clinton will do if she loses the nomination.  No mention that I could find of the possibility that she might win it.

    Damndest thing I've ever seen...totally biased reporting without so much as a hint of shame.  


    alternate view (1.42 / 7) (#126)
    by TheElectricMessiah on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:15:58 PM EST
    Hillary clearly has and will retain the popular vote only if you reject the rules that the DNC set down way back in this campaign.  Hillary is fighting for MI and FL only because they benefit her.  Barack took himself off the ballot because of the rules.  

    Now  Hillary is concerned about MI and FL?  

    Would she be concerned if hers and obama's positions were reversed?

    Hillary agreed to the DNC rules way back when, but now she's trying to drum up support for a break in those same rules?  Please.  

    If you want to talk about disenfranchisement, let's talk about all the Obama voters who would've came out, but did not because their candidate took himself off the ballot.  And did so by abiding by DNC rules.


    You don't even realize (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:17:39 PM EST
    that the rules committee met this weekend, do you....go do a google search and you'll see.

    yep (1.00 / 3) (#138)
    by TheElectricMessiah on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:26:32 PM EST
    you don't even realize that the rules were stated prior to the MI and FL primaries.  Those states chose to hold their elections outside of party rules, and each candidate agreed to those rules.  Why change now?

    I can understand the disenfranchisement argument in favor of Hillary.  I really can.  But how about all the voters that did not come out because their respective state broke the rules?  Do you really believe that Hillary should get all the delegates in a state that broke the rules?


    Sorry, but you're way off base here (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by stevenb on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:11:06 AM EST
    You are forgetting that while Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot to appease Iowa and other early voting states, his campaign ACTIVELY encouraged his supporters to vote Uncommitted in protest in MI.  This is common knowledge.  

    There has never been an argument for Clinton to get ALL the delegates, only her voted share.  And, in the case of MI, she had 4 delegates TAKEN AWAY and given to Obama, for no valid or rules-based reason.  That is completely undemocratic, any way you shake it.

    And, as we have seen over the last weekend, the RBC doesn't even abide by their own rules: they are making it up as they go along.


    False statement (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:18:52 PM EST
    Obama chose to take his name off of the ballot at almost the last minute. No rule required him to do so.

    You are way late to this discussion (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:21:41 PM EST
    and don't know what you are talking about. The rules didn't require Obama to take himself off the ballot. He chose to do that to ingratiate himself with the Iowa caucus goers, and because he knew he was going to lose the MI primary.  Get your facts straight. Clinton broke no rules.  

    rules (2.50 / 2) (#145)
    by TheElectricMessiah on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:34:12 PM EST
    Nowhere in my post did I state that the rules required Obama to take himself off the ballot.  

    What I did say was that Obama took himself off the ballot because of the rules.

    Can you honestly say that Hillary would have won ALL of the delegates if MI had been run like any other primary state?

    I am not stating the Clinton broke any rules, and please stop with the strawman argument.  I am a Democrat through and through, but Obama has won this election, fair and square, by the rules.  If Hillary had won, more power to her and I would be her biggest supporter.


    you're posting disinformation (none / 0) (#192)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:51:45 AM EST
    >>>>Barack took himself off the ballot because of the rules.  

    There were NO rules stating candidates could not be on state ballots. Obama disenfranchised his MI supporters by taking his name off the ballot to hurt Hillary in Iowa - and orchestrated with other candidates to do the same. FL also "broke the rule" so why didn't Obama take his name off the ballot there?

    >>>Now Hillary is concerned about MI and FL? Would she be concerned if hers and obama's positions were reversed?

    Hillary was concerned about MI & FL before their primaries were held! But Obama has always maintained MI & FL voters "didn't count."

    Salon, Jan. 2008

    Obama spokesman Bill Burton offered a reminder that the primaries in Michigan and Florida will "have no bearing on the Democratic nomination contest" because the states won't have any delegates at the national convention.

    Not so fast, says the Clinton campaign. In a memo just circulated in response..."While Sen. Clinton will honor her commitment not to campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge, she also intends to honor her pledge to hear the voices of all Americans," the campaign says. "The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of any state that their voices aren't important ...


    One thing about RealClear's Number (4.00 / 3) (#151)
    by DWCG on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:43:28 PM EST
    Even the one number that puts Obama on top is flawed because it:

    a) Counts the Washington caucus vs. Washington primary: a 50K vote advantage for Obama

    b) Nebraska caucus vs. Nebraska primary: a 11K vote advantage for Obama

    Using those primary results (obvious better metric of the will of the people) and Clinton is ahead by 15-16K votes, EVEN WHEN YOU GIVE OBAMA ALL THE MICHIGAN UNDECIDEDS (i.e. STEAL VOTES FOR OBAMA)

    That makes no sense...... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:51:56 PM EST
    It was the Caucus that were official, the primaries were non-binding.  You always go with the official vote that counts toward the primary, not the non-binding one.  

    Except for the little fact (3.50 / 2) (#172)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:16:19 AM EST
    that the primaries in both cases were far better attended than the caucus -- by a factor of two, at least, I gather.

    So which represents the will of the people -- the "official" one with far fewer people voting, or the unofficial one with far more people voting?

    I think more people, more legitimacy, more "will of the people" -- it's as simple as that.


    The simple reality too (none / 0) (#175)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:19:53 AM EST
    is that the popular votes derived from the caucus states clearly gives more votes to Obama than he would have received had their been primaries instead.

    In all four instances in which a state held both a caucus and primary two facts held:

    1. Far more people (a factor of two at least, I'm pretty sure) registered their vote in the primary than in the caucus

    2. The primary result nonetheless gave Obama fewer popular votes than the caucus -- obviously because caucuses distort who shows up, favoring Obama supporters.

    Sorry, you're wrong about the WA primary (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:50:00 AM EST
    Washington State Democratic Primary Results

    Candidate          Votes    %
    Barack Obama       339,166    51%
    Hillary Clinton      303,151    46%
    John Edwards         11,359    2%
    Dennis Kucinich       3,833    1%
    Bill Richardson        1,948    0%
    Joe Biden               1,813    0%
    Mike Gravel            1,015    0%
    Chris Dodd               587    0%

    When you say "The primary result nonetheless gave Obama fewer popular votes than the caucus" you are misstating the truth.  There weren't 300,000 voters at the WA Democratic caucuses, so obviously Obama got many more popular votes at the primary.

    What RCP says, and what I think you meant to say, is that Obama's popular vote margin of victory was smaller by 50,000 than his margin of victory in the caucuses. That would imply Obama's margin in the caucuses was 86,000 (36,000 + 50,000). Since Obama won the WA caucuses bt about 2-to-1, an 86,000-vote margin estimates our caucus turnout was about 260,000.

    * * * * *

    You say "obviously caucuses distort who shows up, favoring Obama supporters." I could just as well say, beauty-contest primaries distort who shows up, favoring people who aren't paying attention to which contests are meaningful (i.e., have delegates attached to them), and which ones are not.

    Take me. I proudly turned out for our state's caucuses, as I have every presidential year since 1984. I spent the better part of two hours there. It was time well spent, debating Clinton supporters, and participating in a real political give-and-take, at the most grass-roots level.

    A week later, I skipped our primary. It would have meant another trip to that same elementary school, another five minutes. Why bother? It was, I knew, meaningless. Besides, I had the county and district conventions coming up in a few weeks. (I was named an Alternate at the precinct level. Thank you, thank you. Please hold your applause.)

    I put it to you: Which of the two contests better reflected the real sentiments of WA Democrats? The one on Saturday afternoon -- the one that counted for delegates -- the one thst by its nature attracted the more dedicated partisans of both Clinton and Obama -- the one where you could by persuasive arguments sway real votes -- the one where Edwards and Richardson and Kucinich supporters could make their best case too, and then, if their first choice wasn't going to get to the 15% threshold, could switch their vote if they liked, to a viable alternative?

    Or our pointless primary? You make the call.


    Thanks for basically (1.00 / 1) (#196)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:51:02 AM EST
    making my point for me.

    Yes, I meant, as you suggest, "margin of victory" in my point 2, when I said "The primary result nonetheless gave Obama fewer popular votes than the caucus".

    And with that clarification, your entire argument against me falls apart, and, in fact, your own numbers make it more detailed.

    By your own account, about 670K voters showed up for the primary, and only 260K showed up for the caucuses: a factor of 2.57 to 1. Yet somehow you imagine that the vastly smaller turnout for the caucus is a better reflection of the will of the people? And while you want to talk about how people can be persuaded at caucuses, does it even occur to you that there's a reason one has a secret vote in a real democracy, and that it is considered the gold standard for democracy? Perhaps so that ugly social pressures can't be applied to get someone to vote against their true will (what if one must vote in the presence of one's boss, one's spouse, one's neighbor?)

    Of course, what does democracy mean to you? Not terribly much, if it's not good for your idol.


    Oh, goodness (none / 0) (#201)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:54:59 PM EST
    Lighten up, frank.

    I'll stipulate that it's easier to vote in a primary than a caucus, and that primary turnout is invariably higher as a result. Further, you can't vote absentee in a caucus, at least in WA.

    All true. And yet, you all act as if Obama devised the caucus system in some back room, as if Bill Clinton and every other nominee in history hadn't run successfully in caucus states.

    If you want to count the popular vote from primary elections that didn't decide any delegates (like those in WA, NE, and MI), go ahead. I can't very well stop you. Count whatever you want: online polls, American Idol votes... Count your toes, if you like.


    I'm confident (none / 0) (#179)
    by phat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:33:48 AM EST
    that the Nebraska primary was more representative of Democratic opinion than the Nebraska caucus.

    I would hazard to guess that if Nebraska Democrats had had their primary in February on the day of the Nebraska Caucus that the numbers would be similar.

    I think it is possible (and this is ridiculous speculation on my part) that if there had been no caucus in Nebraska, Clinton would have won the primary, no matter what date the primary occurred.


    unfortunately i have to respectfully (3.75 / 4) (#33)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:18:51 PM EST
    disagree. too many supers are going against the popular vote in their districts. also i would like to see more information about financial support from the obama campaign. personally i think that should be banned.

    The point you made about the Super's supporting (none / 0) (#49)
    by ProChoise on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:30:16 PM EST
    the popular vote in their district is 100% Correct in spirit and should be easily practicable. But, the rules (I am sorry beforehand for stating rules) are clear on this the SD can go whatever direction they wish or move back and forth until the convention.

    However, your second point about Financing I wish to decline to comment on because I don't fully understand what the implications are.


    yup, maybe btd or jeralyn (none / 0) (#72)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:40:13 PM EST
    will do a diary on that for us in the near future. it is an important component.

    There's a lot of not understanding each other here (3.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Siguy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:06:51 AM EST
    I'm not gonna make a long argument, but I just want to say one thing.

    People here are posting their own numbers and thinking "My god, why can't these idiots on the other side understand my position which is so obviously and completely correct! Maybe if I post one more time..."

    Well, in my personal opinion, Michigan is completely uncountable from a popular vote perspective because it's a one-person ballot that distorts the true will of Michigan beyond all recognition. I'm not asking you to argue back about Obama taking his name off or why it's not their fault the DNC punished them or how it's a democracy and so every vote should count no matter what and even if turnout there was absolutely terrible compared to everywhere else this year. I'm saying to you, something that you think is obviously true, is obviously untrue to me, and it's not because either one of us is insane.

    So given that we can passionately disagree about these things and none of us believes that we are insane, maybe, just maybe, these issues are not half as clear cut as they seem during the heat and fire of the argument itself and whatever imperfect result is eventually reached is just that, an imperfect result.

    Um (none / 0) (#168)
    by phat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:11:00 AM EST

    Once you said (none / 0) (#197)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:34:56 AM EST
    it was a "one person ballot" anything else you wanted to say was tainted by misinformation. How many times must if be said that it was not a one person ballot?  Only Edwards and Obama took their names out of contention. It was their choice. They tried to "game" the system and in the long run should have been punished for doing so. Instead the DNC decided to "take" aka "steal" four delegates from Senator Clinton and "give them to Obama. Not a democratic or a Democratic act in many of our minds.

    If Obama does get the nomination and Senator Clinton is out of the race do not expect that all the Democrats that are so outraged are going to get over that outrage quickly or in some cases at all. Much of the rage is now aimed directly at the Democratic Party and it's hypocritical and dimwitted leadership.


    So RCP (2.33 / 3) (#104)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:56:20 PM EST
    has 3 metrics that show Obama ahead and 3 metrics that show Clinton ahead?  How is that conclusive?  You can say that the metrics that favor Obama are not relevant but it is just as easy for Obama supporters to say the same about the metrics favorable to Hillary.

    And there is still no evidence whatsoever that the supers are swayed by popular vote totals at all.

    they shouldn't be... (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:22:12 PM EST
    overall popular vote totals are almost as irrelevant as the delegate count.  They're like national polls...fun to talk about, but pointless in determining who will win unless the advantage is so enormous its gonna be a landslide.

    The state totals and exit polling numbers is where the action is.... as a general rule, the candidate who does better in a given state would do better than his/her opponent in that state against the Republican, and the candidate who does better in a given demographic would do better than his/her opponent in that demographic against the Republican.


    Why do we care about popular vote? (2.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:24:57 PM EST
    I see it helps the Clinton cause, but to me it seems kinda silly.  I look at this system like the basketball playoffs.  When the Celtics played the Cavs, the Celtics won the series 4-3, but the Cavs actually outscored them for the whole series by 9 points.  Does that mean the Celtics really won?  You try to win the game you're playing.  I understand we're talking about votes here, and it can show the will of the people, but it's not the game we're playing.  It's the one problem I really have with this, I understand what the Clinton supporters are doing, but I think these arguments make us look stupid.  We don't appear to be a "party of rules," or  "law and order," but rather a party of "fairness."  I just think this whole thing makes us look silly, that out rules committee sets rules, and then we take the sides the people who don't follow them, because it didn't seem fair.  Just my take though.  

    I suggest you read some of BTD posts on rules vs (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Rhouse on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:33:10 PM EST
    ROOLZS.  You'll soon get a feeling that the party doesn't even know what their own "rules" are.

    The sports analogy is inapt here (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:35:59 PM EST
    Neither can win on pledged delegates alone, so the contest goes to the SDs.

    In most sports, the final score is the only thing that matters.  The SDs however can consider many factors -- anything they want, really.

    The popular vote is one of those things.  The difference in the pledged delegates vs the popular vote, among other things, points out the weakness of the pledged delegates as the way to pick the best candidate to win in the GE.

    And just because the popular vote does not make the entire argument for Clinton does not mean that it is  irrelevant.

    Although, to go back to the sports analogy, the proper analogy is NOT to a championship game but to selecting a sport's MVP.  Several factors involved there.  Obama's arguing because he has the most assists (pledged delegates), he should get it.  Clinton's argument is that she wins on every other stat -- popular vote, electability, most likely to hold voters from defecting to the other team, etc.


    With some of the people posting (none / 0) (#89)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:50:17 PM EST
    here, it seems as tho' they are following a script. One asks a question, the other answers and explains and then the other thanks them and they and others start again. Quite amusing!!

    You noticed this to? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:04:17 PM EST
    I thought I was just being paranoid, but they really are out to get us.  :-)

    I wanted to hear responses. (1.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:56:08 PM EST
    I still think the whole popular vote discussion is kinda silly (especially when we use caucus's and don't have any idea how people would have voted in Michigan), but I wanted to hear why people consider it important in our nominating process when we don't decide things based on it.

    Even though you are playing dumb (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:11:17 PM EST
    I'm going to answer anyway.

    The popular vote is what matters.  It is the will of the people.  It is democracy.

    All the baloney about pledged delegates, superdelegates, electoral votes is just how we've decided to measure it, none of them are the thing in itself.

    In a country where principles mattered, it is the only thing that matters.

    Are you writing a paper for school or something?  Maybe go crib off of some other sites for a while.  


    The popular vote is important (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:14:11 PM EST
    for the SD's to consider, as well as the states that each candidate has won. This is a very tight race and I would want my party to nominate the candidate most likely to win the Electoral College and that looks like HRC. Something for those SD'd to mull over between now and the August convention.

    Thank you! (none / 0) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:55:19 PM EST
    Rules say (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:36:18 PM EST
    that the nomination is determined by the total number of pledged delegates and superdelegates that vote for a candidate. Neither Obama nor Clinton has enough pledged delegates alone to win the nomination. So superdelegates are going to determine who wins the nomination. Superdelegates can use any reasoning they want to decide whom to vote for. This is where "fairness" or popular will comes into play. Super delegates can take this into consideration in deciding their vote.This is all 100% within the rules.  

    The primary is less like a basketball series and more like a beauty contest. You have to do well in the swimsuit contest and the evening gown and the talent portion a well. Sorry, I know its a bad analogy for a sports-minded guy but its the only one I could think of off the top of my head.    


    SD's (1.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:43:21 PM EST
    Yeah, I can see your point.  I don't pay much attention to the SD's on this because they are going to go with who has the most delegates in end.  They really have to.  You can use the other arguments, about looking at electability and popular vote, but going against the committed delegate totals looks like political suicide to me.  It would give the Republicans something to go off on, about how thier party is really the paryt of "fairness" because they don't have any "elites" choosing thier candidate.  God damn this screwy system.

    Not necessarily. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:08:19 PM EST
    Many SDs will go with who won their state.  Don't underestimate the anti-Obama sentiment that's out there, particularly in the South (and depending on who you ask, in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania as well).

    Why should they endorse someone who won't win, who will be tarred with an endless supply of character assassination attack ads by the Republicans, and who they'll be tied to anyway by dint of Party affiliation?

    I think more than a few people won't want to adopt Obama's questionable baggage.  And there could well be more feathers hitting the fan in the days ahead.


    Giving him 59 delegates he didn't earn... (none / 0) (#166)
    by DWCG on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:07:04 AM EST
    ...while in the process taking 4 delegates away from Clinton isn't political suicide and doesn't reak of super-delegates STEALING an election?

    From RealClearPolitics article Obama's Pyrrhic Michigan Victory:

    But the Michigan decision is a jaw dropper. By setting aside election results to Hillary's disadvantage, the DNC has saddled its likely nominee with an enraged opponent who now has every incentive to carry the fight through the summertime. Simultaneously, it has told Michigan voters that the DNC - and by extension, its nominee, Obama - is willing to set aside election results it does not like. That cannot have a positive effect on Michigan swing voters - and Obama needs to carry Michigan in the fall to have any shot at victory.

    The Clintons' unwillingness to accept defeat is legendary. Yet the DNC has thrown sand in the face of a candidate who is already claiming sexism underlies the opposition to her campaign. Never underestimate the fury of a woman scorned, the adage goes.

    Now she can stay in the race with yet another rationale for her candidacy - she is fighting for democratic principles. And her working class voters in Michigan will hear that message.

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#80)
    by ProChoise on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:43:13 PM EST
    Your pageant analogy was very funny and made my evening complete.

    Have a great evening everyone.


    With Respect I will disagree with you (none / 0) (#75)
    by ProChoise on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:40:35 PM EST
    The popular vote should count. This is the United States of America, one vote for each of its Citizens in selecting our leaders.

    Popular votes does matter and it should matter, because the person with the most people supporting them should win this is the essence of elections. However, we have decided as a party/country to use the proportion/electoral collage system which does not discriminate against smaller states with smaller populations.

    Therefore, unless we to change the system we use to elect our leaders it is difficult to argue that we should award this nomination to the person with the most popular votes. This cannot be done retroactively.

    Furthermore, the popular vote argument is made moot by the Michigan votes, and caucuses we used in this primary. sorting through all of these issues is not one that I would undertake without serious consideration to the future of this party/nation.

    Can we stand here in good conscience and argue about the popular vote?


    They already changed the system (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:48:14 PM EST
    by creating the SDs.  They are just as much a part of the existing system as the proportional system.  They can consider anything they want.  They are supposed to consider factors contributing to electability.  The popular vote matters because it speaks to electability.

    Are you seriously asking whether discussion of the popular vote is against 'good conscience'?

    To that I can only answer:  Good grief.


    Actually........ (none / 0) (#95)
    by Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:52:37 PM EST
    The funny thing is that the electoral college was create for the same reason we have super-delegate.  The powers that be think we're CRAZY.  It is a check to make sure we don't elect unsuitable people.  Remember, our constitution was constructed that we basically on directly elected local people.  Others (Presidents and Senators specifically) were decided by the different local people we had trusted (electors and state reps).  I think its funny that they trusted us to elect someone we knew, the local guy, but not those who we couldn't (the national figures).  It's funny how deep down, the powers that be never really trust the people.

    An SD's Fact Sheet (2.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:28:32 PM EST
    1. Obama has an insurmountable lead of 116 pledged delegates with only 31 more to be apportioned;
    2. Obama has growing lead of 40 among committed superdelegates;
    3. Obama only needs 46 more delegates to secure the nomination among the 234 left to be apportioned -- about 22%;
    4. Clinton needs 202 of the remaining 234 remaining delegates -- about 85%;
    5. Obama has built a small donor fundraising operation of unparalled success. He will have no trouble raising money for his campaign and his party in November.
    6. The Clinton campaign is deep in debt and would be declared insolvent were it not for the candidate's own contributions.
    7. Obama currently leads John McCain in the RCP national poll index by .7% Clinton leads McCain in the same index by 1.8%, an inconsequential difference in early June.
    8. Conclusion: Obama is close to having the nomination wrapped up; will bring a significant fundraising capacity to the race and is equally -- if not more -- electable in November. The race should be wrapped up ASAP and the party's focus must shift to beating McCain and the Republicans in November.

    Ok, now let's add a couple of biggies (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:34:04 PM EST
    1. Clinton leads in, you know, POPULAR vote. The will of the people in a democracy and all, and

    2. Look here, she is much better bet electorally.

    So if I was a republican SD I would go with the clear winner. But hey I expect democratic SDs to look at who will win and pick the other guy. Its genetic.

    Re: Ok, now let's add a couple of biggies (none / 0) (#177)
    by Jestak on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:28:29 AM EST
    Look here, she is much better bet electorally.

    The electoralvote.com projections which you link to give Obama 276 electoral votes.  They give Clinton 327, but  over half of her edge over Obama is due to their assigning her Kentucky, North Carolina and West Virginia.  In each case, they do so based on just one poll showing Clinton with a lead--in the case of WV, it is a single poll taken in February.  All three states went heavily Republican in 2004; prudence would suggest a little caution in assuming that Clinton will carry all three.

    Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com has a much narrower advantage projected for Clinton at this time; he projects Obama to win 273 EV's and Clinton 291.

    It seems a little excessive to pronounce Clinton the "clear winner" for this fall at this point.


    dont bother (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by boredmpa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:36:30 PM EST
    with talking point BS here.

    We all know clinton has a sizable chest for the GE.

    And we all know she leads significantly in EV match-ups VS McCain. Obama does not and is usually behind McCain.

    So either correct your memo, or get rated one.  I'm not here to listen to half-thought-out talking points that assume I'm a no-information voter.


    if that is a real memo... (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:03:31 PM EST
    or the best "non-offensive" (and I appreciate that it doesn't include an attack on Clinton) argument that the Obots can come up with, its an extraordinarily weak case even without a rebuttal.

    I mean, I'd look at that and say "well, Obama might be good for raising cash for my party organization/re-election campaign.  And that it."

    given the craven nature of most politicians, that is probably enough...but in terms of an argument, its really disgustingly lame.


    Do you seriously think that Obama's ... (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:38:59 PM EST
    electability will not be severely eroded once the Republican 527s go to work on him?

    Yes, in fact I was thinking... (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:12:02 PM EST
    ...one of the canards being deployed against Clinton's obvious EV superiority vis a vis Obama is that Kerry led Bush in EV maps at this stage, too.


    BEFORE the swiftboating began he led. And that was a Purple Heart guy who got swiftboated.

    Anyone think these things will lead to more devastating swiftboating of Obama and thus correspondingly a greater tumble in the EV's for him, making the Kerry/Bush comparison even LESS apt:

    Typical white person
    Granny under bus
    Wright under bus
    Trinity under bus (turning back on friends)
    The Obama Doctrine (meet with Iran, ...)
    Substance history
    MI & FL
    Michelle "for the first time...proud...country"

    Metaphorically speaking, you don't get a more target-rich environment than that which Obama provides. This is going to be child's play for the GOP 527's.

    What happened to Kerry will look like nothing after this season is over.

    And that is why the EV comparison between HRC/BHO to JFK/GWB is totally flawed and inapt.


    No More than Clinton (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:46:33 PM EST
    That's a cop out (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:50:25 PM EST
    They've worked on her for a couple of decades (with recent help from the Obama wing of the Democratic party). People have already made up their minds about her ... and she's ahead of Obama in the polling data.

    Wishful Thinking (1.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:53:40 PM EST
    If you don't think the right wing 527s will have new material just check out Vanity Fair.

    New material is irrelevant (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:33:22 PM EST
    She's already been accussed of everything under the sun. Most reasonably objective people are already innoculated. The MSM has been trying relentlessly for months to destroy her and she's still getting stronger.

    That is correct (none / 0) (#181)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:38:14 AM EST
    "Clinton Scandal Fatigue"

    The Arkansas Project already tried everything. It didn't work. It's over.


    Electability (none / 0) (#117)
    by Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:05:02 PM EST
    Not a great way to look decide who your nominee is.  Remember, everytime we picked the more "electable" candidate (Mondale, Kerry), we've lost.

    Talk about your circular logic (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:13:26 PM EST
    Now the Obama people are encouraging supers to vote for Obama because he's unelectable?

    Good grief.  (slaps forehead)

    (Seriously, I don't think what killed Gore or Kerry was the "electability" metric.  It was what each of them did with their strategies - all of which is shockingly obvious in hindsight, but some of which made sense at the time.

    E.G. Gore didn't campaign in his home state of TN.  He'd won there by 80% margins for each of the last few elections, and Clinton/Gore won in '92 and '96.  We now know that was a stupid move, but in a way you can't blame him.)


    I'm not saying that....... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:18:03 PM EST
    All I'm saying is that we aren't good at picking "electable" candidates.  I'm not saying choose Obama because he is unelectable, that is idiotic, what I'm saying the is not to look at electability, because history shows we generally get that wrong.  Rather, look at who you think would be the best President be it Obama or Hillary, and then fight to get them elected.  You can never predict what will happen in a general election.

    I think you have a valid point.... (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:35:41 PM EST
    in general.

    But I think Hillary Clinton is "special"

    First off, she's been through it the worst they can hit here with -- and she's still here -- and better than ever

    Second, America has heard it all before.  Saying crap about Clinton is ambient noise to them at this point.

    Third, she's been focussed on November for eight years now.  Her entire primary election strategy has been ABOUT November -- and she accomplished the goals she set for herself on Super Tuesday (DOMINATE the important states for November) and has been proving that she can adapt to changing circumstances, and kick butt.

    In purely political terms, NO ONE has ever come even close to Hillary Clinton in my estimation.  Bill was a natural who learned how to exploit his gifts -- Clinton has LEARNED how to do all the stuff that came naturally to Bill...


    BWAH (none / 0) (#128)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:16:51 PM EST
    So your argument is that we should pick the less electable candidate because that will win the election?

    Oh my, I have to go lay down for a minute...


    If memory serves me right ... (none / 0) (#148)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:39:39 PM EST
    we won last time we went with a Clinton.

    Also, Mondale and Kerry won with pledged delegates (something Obama has obviously failed to do). They won. They weren't picked by super delegates. This is the first time as far as I know that the SDs have had to pick the winner.


    True..... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:46:10 PM EST
    But the main strength they both had in the primary was the idea that they were more electable than their competition (especially with Mondale v. Gary Hart).  But, you never know how voters will act in the general and what issues they care about.  My point is you can't gauge electability because you can't gauge what people are going to want in a candidate come November.

    With that logic we might as well just flip a coin (none / 0) (#164)
    by dwmorris on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:00:58 AM EST
    Estimates of electability projected into the future are all that we have to hang our hats on. Saying that we sometimes get it wrong, or can't project accurately, in no way absolves the super delegates from the responsibility of making their best judgment. If individual super delegates want to take the easy way out and rely on some simple metric or algorithm feed to them by one of the campaigns, then that's their prerogative ... but I'm hoping that most will make a good faith assessment of electability come August when they actually vote.

    My favorite part about your post... (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by jeffhas on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:00:47 PM EST
    Is where you mention that Hillary has been presumed dead for the last 3 months, yet she has beaten Obama handily in the contests during that same time period.

    You'd think Obama would be able to beat a corpse.

    I cannot even imagine why your not the least bit nervous about your candidates limping to the nomination.... it is SO CLEAR who the stronger candidate is today.

    Oh well.. on to the GE - I'm sure the denial factor  will have to be confronted at some time.


    SD's Fact Sheet=Troll's Talking Points (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ap in avl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:03:52 PM EST
    good try

    Where are you getting your numbers? (none / 0) (#92)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:51:17 PM EST
    They don't agree with what MSNBC had posted on their political page.

    It doesn't matter (2.00 / 5) (#71)
    by digdugboy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:39:45 PM EST
    It seems as though some believe that by repeating "popular vote, popular vote" enough times the popular vote can somehow be imbued with relevance. These popular vote totals, for whatever they are worth, are not going to persuade superdelegates to give the nomination to Clinton. The nomination is about delegates, not the popular vote.

    In other words (1.00 / 3) (#111)
    by s5 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:02:50 PM EST
    When you cast the widest net to discern the will of the voters who showed up to the polls, Obama is ahead, with two elections left that favor him.

    Widest net? (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by ap in avl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:10:04 PM EST

    you mean making sh*t up?
    extrapolating from caucus results?
    exit polls?

    Oh sorry I forgot....counting the non-voters......


    So what do you use (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:23:58 PM EST
    to discern the will of the voters?  A divining rod? ;-)

    A fishing net might work. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:59:48 PM EST
    What? (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by DWCG on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:37:21 PM EST
    You have to GIVE him votes THAT HE DID NOT EARN (Michigan undecideds).  

    And just in case you want to go the "exit poll" argument, lets not pretend like he was at that point polling much better in the exit polls than he was actually performing in secret ballot primaries!


    Popular vote? (1.00 / 4) (#133)
    by smg77 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:20:45 PM EST
    I love how all of you claim that Clinton is ahead in the popular vote only by discounting all of the caucus states. So much for your "every vote counts" ideal...

    I guess in your world a vote only counts if it's for Hillary Clinton?

    Clue for you (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:26:36 PM EST
    The only caucus states that aren't counted in Jeralyn's numbers are the one's that didn't actually publish a number. That's 4 states. RCP has made estimates of those numbers and even with those estimates Clinton is still leading.

    and, IIRC.... (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:41:22 PM EST
    there is no way to tell who a caucus goers first choice was in a caucus.  This was especially true in the early states -- yet the data that the caucuses estimates are based on assumes that everyone showed up and cast their FIRST vote for the candidate they wound up supporting.

    Caucus numbers can easily have very little relationship to who people showed up to support.  VOTERS don't get a "second choice".


    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by DWCG on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:49:04 PM EST
    Which is why I have a big issue counting caucus results in popular vote count.

    Plenty of people end up being counted for a candidate that WAS NOT their first choice, but their first choice was not viable (Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson, Biden).  

    If the caucuses (especially the early ones) were a primary everyone's popular vote total would go down and the 2nd tier candidates would have gone up.

    And counting these "second-choice, would have never been counted if it were a primary" votes results in a substantially more favorable popular vote result advantage for Obama given that he cleaned up the caucus states.

    But even WITH THOSE votes, as I stated below, by counting the primary results in the states that had both, and STEALING VOTES for Uncommitted in Michigan and GIVING them to Obama, and CLINTON IS STILL AHEAD


    From the article: (1.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:22:49 AM EST
    "As for pledged delegates from the state primaries and caucuses, not including superdelegates, Obama's lead is 1739 to 1624 -- meaning his lead is only 115 delegates."

    Except for omitting a key word (it should say "Obama's insurmountable lead is 1739 to 1624") this is correct. Obama's lead is only 115 delegates -- if you ignore his hard-won superdelegate lead.

    Does (none / 0) (#2)
    by sas on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:58:09 PM EST
    this include her win in Puerto Rico?

    Great post! (none / 0) (#18)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:08:21 PM EST
    That's as clear as water. SD know what is the right choice they have to be very narrow minded not to understand what the GE electoral is shouting at them.

    Why was turnout in PR so low? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Raven15 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:10:50 PM EST
    Maybe I'm paranoid about vote-fixing after yesterday, but it was so low as to be almost suspicious. Someone please ease my mind if you can. I apologize if a discussion of turnout was on earlier posts.

    there were no local issues on the ballot (none / 0) (#22)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:12:15 PM EST
    and they were probably impacted some by the meme here on the mainland that it is over.  I have not heard any comments about anything suspicious.

    I'm not suspicious... (none / 0) (#28)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:15:35 PM EST
    BTD can talk much more knowledgeably about Puerto Rico politics, but I get the sense that mainland primary races aren't the most important things there.

    As I understand BTD's earlier explanation (none / 0) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:20:38 PM EST
    turnout in PR is totally dependent on party machine politics.  Both parties were for different reasons sort of incapacitated, so no GOTV efforts happened at all.

    From his analysis, sounds like the turnout was actually quite high under the circumstances.


    It was also Gay Pride in San Juan...you know (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:37:40 PM EST
    that had to be more fun than voting...seriously, other than the primary for prez nominee, there wasn't much else to vote on.

    The explanation from the news (none / 0) (#43)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:25:29 PM EST
    media was that the PR vote was lower because there was nothing else on the ballot.

    zfran, gyrfalcon, etc. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Raven15 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:33:02 PM EST
    Thanks! I also managed to scroll down to BTD's previous thread. TL has been stellar all weekend, verdad?

    this sounds correct to me (none / 0) (#32)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:17:28 PM EST
    Clinton signaled in her speech today that she would not want to be in the shoes of the SDs, having to make this choice...which to me is Obama - the person with the pledged delegate lead, or Clinton - arguably the person with the best chance to win.  

    Is this also an open thread, (none / 0) (#41)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:23:37 PM EST
    or is one coming?

    I'll do an open thread within an hour (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:59 PM EST
    Thank you. (none / 0) (#55)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:33:24 PM EST
    numbers.... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Chamonix on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:34:44 PM EST
    Looking at the hard numbers, Obama is really lucky that Illinois
    came through for him. He BEAT Clinton in popular votes there BY
    639,109 VOTES. He took 104 delegates to Clintons 49. It's almost like Al Gore losing Tenn.

    the best part is... (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:15:44 PM EST
    that when Obama did have the popular vote lead, and it started shrinking, his response was to denigrate the popular vote and say that if he'd known it was about the popular vote, he would have put more effort into getting out the vote in Illinois.

    Look at Clinton's numbers in New York.  Its pretty clear that she made NO effort there... she knew she'd win, she knew she had nothing to prove there about her ability to win in the GE in her home state, so her time, effort and money went elsewhere.

    But its pretty obvious that Obama DID make an effort to GOTV in Illinois...

    Total Illinois primary vote was about 2.1 million
    Total Illinois 2006 general election vote for Kerry was 2.9 million.

    Total New York primary vote was 1.7 million
    Total NY 2004 GE vote for Kerry was 4.3 million

    In other words, Obama did considerable GOTV in Illinois, and there was only 800K more democratic voters for him to turn out.

    There were 2.6 million more Democratic voters for Clinton to turn out in New York.

    Does anyone else think that Obama is full of it.... that if popular vote had been an issue, that Clinton could not have gotten a HUGE advantage in New York with minimal effort?


    IMO nobody saw this coming (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Chamonix on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:29:37 PM EST
    the only way the popular vote has any significance is when things are this close and to many of those closed minds, they wouldn't  care if Hillary is ahead by 1.5 million in the popular vote, but what those people are forgetting is this is the whole reason there are super delegates. Why else were super delegates ever created? If super delegates were created to just follow the will of the people, Kerry and Kennedy and many others have a lot of splainin' to do. Winning the popular vote and Hillary beating Obama in swing states and also having the polls say she kicks McCodger's butt in said swing states is just proof that many democrats have spent the past several months embarrassing themselves. It is humiliating that so many have been calling for her to drop out. These are the same voices that were screaming that Gore and kerry didn't fight enough. It is enough to make me lose interest in helping them fight the good fight.

    Exactly. The only reason for superdelegates ... (none / 0) (#189)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:16:52 AM EST
    ... to exist as a class of delegate is to allow for the possibility of reversing the pledged delegate totals. And the only reason the party provided for that possibility is so that there would be a way to select a candidate that could win the GE when, for whatever reason, the primary process favored a candidate that could not win the GE.

    This year, for the first time, we have an opportunity for the superdelegates to perform their duty under that provision. I hope to see a lot of discussion of this as we approach the Convention and as more and more polls emerge showing that Clinton, not Obama, is the only Democrat who can defeat McCain.


    how to count the uncomitted vote in MI (none / 0) (#155)
    by MichaelJoe on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:50:41 PM EST
    Since the democrats use a mix of caucuses and primaries, its not easy  to define (let alone compute fairly) the "popular vote" in their primaries. Here's my take: Try to detect intentions of the voters who voted, as accurately as possible. This suggests:

    1. count all the votes in Florida. all candidates were on the ballot, and no one campaigned.
    2. In Michigan count HRC's votes, and attribute to BHO a fair share of the vote for the "uncommitted" slate.
    3. Include the estimates for the "vote" in the 4 caucus states which do not release raw vote totals
    4. Unfortunately there's no way to estimate the intentions of potential primary voters in MI and FLA who didn't vote because of expectations that the results would not count. But this concern should not nullify votes that were actually cast. (For what its worth, its was widely reported at the time that the DNC expected to eventually find a way to include representatives of both stats, once the outcome of the contest was decided, as had in fact now happened).

    Data from RCP:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

    With all votes in FLA, HRC votes in MI, no votes attributed to BHO from "uncommitted, including PR results today:

     BHO   17,389,116     HRC   17,692,901      
    HRC margin   +303,785

    Add estimates of  "popular vote" in IA, NV, ME, WA*

     BHO   17,723,200     HRC    17,916,763      
    HRC margin   +193,563

    In Michigan the "uncommitted"  slate was promoted  by BHO's supporters (not directly by his campaign, which honored the DNC rules) . It received 238,168 votes. How much of this represented support for BHO?  At that  point (January 15) Edwards and other candidates (Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson, Gravel) were still competing.  One way to estimate is to use the results the week before in New Hampshire. The total non-HRC votes in NH  (January 8)  was 171,283. Of these, BHO received the bulk: 104,815, or  about 62%.

    If we attribute the same percentage of the uncommitted votes in MI to BHO we get:

    238168  X   .62    =  147664   attribute to BHO for MI

     This produces totals for each candidate, including FL, MI as estimated, and the 4 caucus states that do not report vote totals

    BHO                17,870,864

    HRC                17,916,763

    HRC Margin           45,899                

    For these calculations to produce a margin for BHO, one would have to attribute to him at least 81.3% of the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan  (i.e. 193,563/238,168   ). On the other hand, the results in Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday may well restore the lead for BHO. On yet another hand, as the note from RCP below points out, WA had both a binding caucus (which BHO won) AND a non-binding "beauty contest" primary, which HRC won. If the RCP estimates for the WA caucus were replaced by the actual votes in the WA primary, HRC would add about 50,000 votes.  

    RCP note
    (Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals. RealClearPolitics has estimated the popular vote totals for Senator Obama and Clinton in these four states. RCP uses the WA Caucus results from February 9 in this estimate because the Caucuses on February 9 were the "official" contest recognized by the DNC to determine delegates to the Democratic convention. The estimate from these four Caucus states where there are not official popular vote numbers increases Senator Obama's popular vote margin by 110,224. This number would be about 50,000 less if the Washington primary results from February 19th were used instead of the Washington Caucus results.)

    You're wrong about the WA primary ... (none / 0) (#178)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:28:47 AM EST
    Obama won our meaningless primary, as well as our caucuses. It's just that his margin was somewhat smaller in the primary.

    As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up."


    No, it's nothing to do with what you say (none / 0) (#161)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:58:06 PM EST
    -- it's how often you're saying it here.  You like rules?  Read the ones for this blog.  Cheers.

    read the rules (2.50 / 2) (#173)
    by TheElectricMessiah on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:17:10 AM EST
    So I read the rules, and I can't find any apparent violations, except for maybe commenting too many times.  I might be able to understand the "too many troll comments" argument, if I had been trolling. But my few comments are far less than yours, which at last count were 53 for June 1st.

    I'm just making a logical argument for the presidential candidate of my choice.  I would hope that I could get the same from you and anybody else who comments. . .

    If you'd like to troll-rate me or flag me for abuse. . . Then I will accuse you of being a republican troll.

    Fair enough?


    how would any "rational" person (none / 0) (#184)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:53:19 AM EST
    be expected to interpret this statement:

    Barack took himself off the ballot because of the rules.

    * emphasis mine.

    other than that the rules required him to remove his name from the ballot, which they clearly didn't.

    you aren't even a very convincing troll. what sen. clinton may or may not have said a year ago is irrelevant, with respect to the "rules"; she didn't make them, and the DNC didn't even bother to follow them.


    Electric Messiah (none / 0) (#200)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:48:00 PM EST
    has not violated the rules except for one: posting false information. There was no rule requiring candidates to remove themselves from the Michigan ballot.

    New users are limited to 10 comments in a 24 hour period.


    Math problem and fairness issue (none / 0) (#195)
    by russius on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:13:03 AM EST
    It is amazing how some of you count because no matter YOU or HRC count, SENATOR Obama not only is ahead in the popular vote and delegate count. Do you really want someone who cannot count to manage our national budget? Or do you want someone who cheats to win? If you do, allow me to race you for a million bucks. Whoever crosses the finish line wins... First we must agree not to run. You do not run  based on this agreement, but I run anyway. Would  you pay me when I tell you I won?

    Baseball (none / 0) (#198)
    by whecht on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:44:13 AM EST
    Can someone explain to me why any estimate of popular vote matters?

    If the Yankees play the Cubs in the World Series and win the win the first three games by scores of 8-0, 13-3, and 12-2 and then lose the next three games by the scores of 3-2, 4-3 and 3-0 the the Series is TIED.

    The winner of game 7 wins because the contest is to see which teams wins 4 games.

    I don't know how often the winner of the World Series scores fewer runs.  I don't think it really makes any difference.  I do know which team won 4 games.

    Look, I voted for Clinton in February.  I'll vote for Clinton in November if she is the nominee.  However, right now, I support Obama because he has the most delegates and, in a few days, will clinch the nomination because he will have a majority of the delegates.

    Mkay (none / 0) (#199)
    by Regency on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:20:16 AM EST
    Let's be clear on this. Majority doesn't win. The magic number wins. When that magic number is reached and votes are cast on August 26th we've got a nominee. Until then we've got an assumption.