Counting the people

Via the Fact Hub this morning:

After last night's decisive victory in Pennsylvania, more people have voted for Hillary than any other candidate, including Sen. Obama.

Estimates vary slightly, but according to Real Clear Politics, Hillary has received 15,095,663 votes to Sen. Obama's 14,973,720, a margin of more than 120,000 votes [Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA is 13K plus for Clinton]. ABC News reported this morning that "Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama" in the popular vote.

Does that include all 50 states (and then some)? Of course.

Money is not a big deal. Clinton's raised more than $3.5 million since the PA polls closed last night.

The AP asks: "Why can't Barack Obama close the deal?  The contest in PA was the 4th major chance that Obama had to close the deal, and failed again. Anyone who thinks that Clinton is going to be out of the race in May is delusional. For us political junkies, it's quite a fix.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

316 Comments

Re: Counting the people

"Why can't Barack Obama close the deal?"

Um, I am thinking the same reason Hillary Clinton can't.

/Why are reporters this stupid?

by clintonmccain 2008-04-23 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

They have a fiscal stake in this primary continuing... it is good for ratings....  they will posit any talking point that serves his purpose...

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-23 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Interesting on how Hillary loses 12 straight contests and she's, "Still in it!"

But Obama loses a couple of states, and, "Why can't he close the deal?"

Some double standard.... she can lose the majority of primaries and caucuses, but he has to go undefeated for the media to be happy...

by LordMike 2008-04-23 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Not to state the completely friggin obvious, but HE'S the one who has been saying he has this race locked up, not her. And HIS supporters are the ones crowing all over the internets about how the "math" means the race is over, not hers. So the only one to ask the question "Why can't he close this deal?" is Barack Obama. No other candidate for president in his position (clear delegate lead, massive fundraising advantage, lots of chatter about how his opponent can't win) has been unable to end the race in short order. What's wrong?

I'll tell you what's wrong. A big chunk of the Dem base just won't vote for him. And I'm not confident they'll show up in November.

by ColoradoGuy 2008-04-23 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

In 2004, there were 6% of democrats who voted for Bush.  I fully expect that intelligent electorate to fully vote for McCain and give or take an additional 4%.  The good thing for Obama is Independents favor him over McCain so he can overcome that deficit quite soundly.

by clintonmccain 2008-04-23 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Obama can't close the deal because he can't close his margin among white women.  He lost white women again by something like 67% to 33%.  Neither Obama nor Clinton will be able to deliver a knock out punch.  We will just have to wait till June, for the super delegates to decide.

by pdxlawyer 2008-04-23 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Can you cite to where Obama said the race is locked up?  I think he has consistently said that this was going to be a long hard race.

The reason that he loses big Dem states like Penn and OH is because that is where the Democratic party has the most institutional infrastructure and most of the party insiders like Hillary better.  Watch what happens to the "big chunk if the Dem base" in NC, outside the influence of this political infrastructure, for a better gauge of whether Obama can win them over.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-23 08:22AM | 0 recs
Shhhhhh

That doesn't play into their vision of Obama as an arrogant jerk that is trying to steal her rightful place as nominee.

by JDF 2008-04-23 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

He had pretty much implied it when he had that blasé tone in announcing that Clinton shouldn't feel "forced" to drop out.

by bowiegeek 2008-04-23 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Well, thats how I would expect Clinton here to read that statement.

I don't think it is any secret that both candidates wanted the race done quickly when it looked like they would win. I don't remember any complaints around here when Clinton said it would be over by Feb 5.

by JDF 2008-04-23 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Where did she say that?

by bowiegeek 2008-04-23 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

A very weak statement- he had "pretty much" implied- he was basically, almost, sort of pregnant.

by califdem 2008-04-23 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Okay, so then he didn't mean anything by saying Hillary Clinton shouldn't feel forced to drop out. He just felt it important to announce that for no reason whatsoever.

by bowiegeek 2008-04-23 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

"A big chunk of the Dem base just won't vote for him. And I'm not confident they'll show up in November."

There is no part of the Dem "base" that won't vote for him. There are outliers--the "Reagan Democrats"--the ones who voted for W twice--who won't vote for him.

They will be replaced by the millions of new voters that Obama brings in. The brain-donors who vote against their economic interests can reap the benefits of that.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

No guarantee that those "new voters" that Obama brought in would go out and vote in November.

These are people for Obama, not necessarily for the Democratic Party.  That may pose a problem in November.

by stefystef 2008-04-23 08:38AM | 0 recs
Obama's biggest problem

is working class voters, other than African Americans.

I'm just gonna put this on a macro because it bears repeating.

by OtherLisa 2008-04-23 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: it bears repeating

Because?

Because Obama can't improve his standing in that demographic between now and November?

Given his improvement in most demographics that have gone heavily for Clinton in the weeks between OH and PA, it sure seems like he might have a chance to improve his standing in the months befoe November:

                  OH   PA

60 and older      28   38
White             34   38
White men         39   44
White women       31   34
Less than $50K    42   46
No college        40   38
College           51   49
Catholic          36   31
Protestant        36   53

by Joe in Wynnewood PA 2008-04-23 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

"These are people for Obama, not necessarily for the Democratic Party.  That may pose a problem in November."

Only if the nomination is taken from him.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Wait -- I thought that he won 11 straight contests, and those included such all-important contests as the U.S. Virgin Islands and Democrats Abroad primaries. (Not that I dismiss the voters in these contests, but there aren't many of them and I don't think they could turn the election to McCain the way voters from swing states like Ohio, PA, Florida, etc. could.)

by Inky 2008-04-23 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

yes... but aren't Hillary supporters counting on Puerto Rico to give her a nomination clinching victory???

by jturn17 2008-04-23 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I guess Texas isn't major. Oh right, because it's a red state. (I forget to update the Clinton criteria).

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Aside from the fact that there's only been 1 primary in the past 6 weeks, Obama officially won more delegates out of Texas' "two-step" primary and caucus.

by deminva 2008-04-23 08:35AM | 0 recs
MI and FL
Yes, Michigan and Florida have to count. Why is Obama not honoring one of the Democrats' most important principles, that is, every vote counts? It's time for him to bit the bullet and allow the two states be seated in Denver. I watched Obama's speech in Evansville last night. It didn't connect at all. His appeal is limited, and he can't win on November 4. I hope the remaining SDs see that and not be blinded by the need for closure.
by mikelow1885 2008-04-23 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: MI and FL

Those weren't elections. In MI his name wasn't even on the ballot and neither candidate campaigned in either state. In both cases voters were told that their vote wouldn't matter. It's pretty sad that we've got some Democrats advocating that we mimic Banana republics and the Soviet Union for elections.

by Brannon 2008-04-23 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

it's not the same thing, because he's been the front runner and he was polling higher than she was, and he had far more money. He was expected to close the deal, and when that doesn't happen the candidate is viewed as not the right one, and you look to the next in line.  I think it's because he needed a mandate to sell his world view, he's always said he needs to bring congress with him and have the people behind him, in that bottom up way that is the basis of his theory. So even if he squeaked a win, he would have set himself up as unable to get his bottom up agenda underway.  Her message of change is a strong task-master leader who'll make sure things are done properly. He's made a few bad mistakes or errors in judgement. His idea of taxing capital gains like income is a non-started, not only does it bring in less revenue and tax middle and lower income people, it makes it harder to invest, and people do want to invest, it's part of the American Dream as much as home ownership. His health care plan appeals to the very people who want a flat tax on capital gains, so he's lost that advantage.  He can't take advantage of the war issue because her exit plan is more far reaching than his.  Most of his talent is in his campaign and he's not keeping up with world events and national priorities the way she is. She puts out several press releases a day on issues and where she stands, her solutions campaign is contained in her press releases. Also, we  know who her advisors are and where they stand, while his are more academics who haven't taken as many decisions, so not only do we not know much about who advises him, we don't know their advise. he's put that aside with the idea of bottom up, but he doesn't have a mandate from the bottom, what will he do?  We actually don't know, and I suspect he doesn't know either.  His problem in debates isn't that he has vetting issues, it's that he can't speak clearly about what he plans to do.  And his jokes are only understood by academics, when he quipped that she was in her element in debates he meant that she can parry better than he, but most including me heard it that she's a politician and is comfortable in the area of politics. That's good, not a deficit.  If he can't sway anyone in a debate, how does he plan to negotiate with congress and with foreign nations?  The big point is that she's now clearly more qualified, whether or not he denigrates her past experience, her experience shows in her solutions and capabilities.  So, it's a much bigger problem for him, that he hasn't closed the deal. the longer it goes on the less chance he has of recapturing those he's lost much less of gaining any new support.  I hope he gets more practical and starts thinking of the vice presidency. i can see him giving a great concession speech saying she won if, and that means to him she's the right one for the job, and that also means to him that he can learn from her and he'd be proud to run as her running mate.  That would thrill the entire world, and would show that he's a decent man who does want what's best for the nation and who's thus willing to put his ego aside and do what's right.  

by anna shane 2008-04-23 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I commented about that last night, and people started going on about caucuses and how if you count the caucuses, Obama's way  ahead and so on and so forth.

How do you see that?

by Little Otter 2008-04-23 07:41AM | 0 recs
yeah, yeah...

we heard the meme.

Caucus states are insignificant...they do not count.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-23 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: yeah, yeah...

Except Nevada! Don't forget Nevada!

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 08:36AM | 0 recs
sorry...

I forgot to call Mark Penn.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-23 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

No, all these popular vote counts include the caucuses. What the Obama people are trying to argue (very unconvincingly) is that some caucuses didn't fully report participation, which may be true. But caucuses are such low number events (and they're typically in such small states) that all of them together are dwarfed by one large primary. And there's no evidence that Obama would have won by the same percentage in these states had they been primaries (He won Colorado by 20 points, but the last polls of Democratic voters before caucus day had him up within the margin of error).

by ColoradoGuy 2008-04-23 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Wrong.

The Texas caucus counts (1 million voters) are not included in this chart. They went 55-45 for Obama.

by KTinTX 2008-04-23 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

wait you want to count the texas voters twice? That is a STRETCH.

If you are going to do that, I am going to count FL/MI delegates

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Have fun out there in left field by yourself.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

It's two separate contests. Sorry we're unique, but this is exactly the type of reason why basing an argument on an impossible to accurately calculate 'popular vote' is pointless.

by KTinTX 2008-04-23 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Which of course is a good reason why the popular vote argument is inherently weak.  States were told that delegates were what counted, and many chose to select delegates via caucuses.  If they had been told that total votes were what matter, they almost certainly would have chosen primaries.  Some, like Texas and Washington, do both; do votes from both their primaries and caucuses count?

Furthermore, delegates are apportioned by states' and districts' voting histories, so there are some pledged delegates effectively representing more voters than others.  If you decide mid-stream that the popular vote actually matters more than the delegate count, then you're changing considerably both the rules and the logic behind the rules.

And of course, as is his wont, Jerome is counting at least one state where Senator Obama wasn't even on the ballot.  Given that his evidence comes straight from the Clinton campaign, it's safe to assume that they aren't giving Obama Michigan's uncommitted votes (since those aren't votes FOR Obama).  So in other words, Jerome thinks it fair to use the popular vote as a key metric and to count Michigan, where Clinton enjoys roughly a 328,000 to 0 edge over Obama in the popular vote.

I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again: What has happened to you, Jerome?  I've been reading MyDD since 2002, and it saddens me to see you systematically undercutting your credibility.

by deminva 2008-04-23 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

The fact that he would misrepresent reality so far to make things look favorable for his candidate has pretty much destroyed his credibility.

It's sad, actually.

by Darknesse 2008-04-23 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I detect irony in your reply, Darknesse.  I'm keen that way.

I have no problem with prominent bloggers or anyone else framing arguments that cast favorable light on their preferred candidates, as long as their arguments are based upon logic and fairness.  Jerome is proffering an argument so highly partisan that no impartial (or ostensibly impartial) commenters have deigned to give it credence.  To put it simply, only the most partisan Clinton supporters think it reasonable to count popular votes coming out of Michigan.  I hasten to add that, if these partisans are actually well informed, then they must also be unscrupulous, because they will know that Obama's name wasn't on the ballot and that Clinton left hers on the ballot only after explaining that it didn't matter because the Michigan results weren't going to count. It is unscrupulous to suggest that the metric that actually matters is one in which the votes of a single state (which so far isn't counting in the official results) should count for more than almost every other state.  

Jerome has been making these highly partisan, unscrupulous arguments for months now, which I think is a sad way of trashing one's own reputation -- especially his, as one of the earliest leaders of Leftblogistan.  

On the other hand, I've been spitting in the wind at MyDD for months, trying to find a Clinton supporter (any Clinton supporter!) who's actually bothered by Senator Clinton's dishonesty and hypocrisy about Michigan.  The last time I tried, I was told (roughly), "hahahahahahaha, politicians lie!  LOL."  Others have insightfully pointed out that "no one made Obama remove his name from the ballot."

by deminva 2008-04-23 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

there is neither dishonesty or hypocrisy in Clinton's position. Candidates were not asked to take their names off the ballots. There was no notion of there not being an election. Reportedly, the votes wouldn't count, but that was always a long shot - a party can't arbitrarily disenfranchise two states and have the kind of credibility necessary to remain viable. We all know that. There is nothing good to be gained out of not counting those votes.

What you really  should do is consider just how bone headed Obama's action was and really consider if you want a candidate who attempts to win by not allowing people to vote for him and then leveraging that against the candidate who did allow people to vote for them. Clinton was always going to win Michigan. Obama, by  taking his name off the ballot, has the means to claim that Clinton's win shouldn't count. It's both undemocratic and unDemocratic - he's not a healthy candidate with a wholesome plan for winning.

What makes you think you'll get any Clinton supporters to vote for Obama if he wins by denying Michigan and Florida? He cannot win in November if those two states aren't counted and included. He just can't.

by Little Otter 2008-04-23 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Clinton's "win" shouldn't count because nobody was allowed to campaign there, and everyone, including Clinton knew it wouldn't count.

Except when she finds herself losing, then it's time to change the rules.

There is a reason only 30 something percent of the people in the country thinks she isn't trustworthy.

Here is the secret: It's because she isn't.

by Darknesse 2008-04-23 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

And yet, the Democratic primary in Michigan saw record turn out - clearly, Michiganders thought their would and should count or they wouldn't have turned out in those numbers. What makes you think we can hold that state in November if we don't count the votes?

Funny how willing Obama is to write off entire states but that's the difference between he and Clinton. Clinton left her name on the ballot and she won. Now she's going to bat for the people who voted. Obama, through his own volition, pulled his name off the ballot and then opposed a revote that would have counted.

I know whose side has the moral high ground and it ain't the guy who took his name off the ballot because he was losing.

by Little Otter 2008-04-23 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

You are flat out wrong, Little Otter.  Clinton stated on New Hampshire Public Radio that the only reason she was keeping her name on the MI ballot was to avoid "insulting" MI voters.  She explicitly said it didn't matter whether or not her name was on the ballot, because "everyone knew" the MI primary wasn't going to count for anything.  She said this as an answer to a caller who asked if her decision to keep her name on the ballot was just another example of a politician "saying one thing and doing something else."  All of this is quoted in the Washington Post.  I'm tired of providing the link to Clinton supporters at MyDD.

Clinton lied about MI.  She has been hypocritical about MI.  

by deminva 2008-04-23 02:13PM | 0 recs
by poserM 2008-04-23 07:42AM | 0 recs
What's amusing...

is that the data that you link to shows Clinton leading in one of the five measures that they have listed. The one she leads on has two asterisks which guide you to this:

**(Senator Obama was not on the Michigan Ballot and thus received zero votes. Uncommitted was on the ballot and received 238,168 votes as compared to 328,309 for Senator Clinton.)

by Obama08 2008-04-23 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: What's amusing...

Guess Obama should have left his name on the ballot instead of attempting to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire. No one asked him to take his name off the ballot anymore than they were asked to in Florida.

He fucked up. It's his own fault. Really - one of the stupidest things I've ever seen a pol at the level do, and indicative of his contempt for letting everyone vote. Clinton was clobbering him in the polls in Michigan, and he wanted a way to deny her the victory. And now it may clobber him instead.

Smart people would see it as one more reason to not vote for Obama. People who use gimmicks to win are rarely worthwhile.

by Little Otter 2008-04-23 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: What's amusing...

They both agreed to not participate in the election.  Smart people would see removing your name from the ballot an appropriate thing to do.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-23 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: What's amusing...

And Hillary herself said MI shouldn't count.

Clinton voters are profoundly stupid.  

by beermeister 2008-04-23 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: What's amusing...

But but but  .....  they did it tooooo?

Relax Obamatons, you'll still win this thing (and go on to hand the White House to John McCain). Your money advantage is too big. And that's the ONLY thing that will win it for you.

by ColoradoGuy 2008-04-23 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: What's amusing...

Huh?  I wasn't making a "they did it too" argument, I was pointing out why it was appropriate for Obama to have removed his name from MI ballot.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-23 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: What's amusing...

At this point I think Clinton has fractured the party enough to make sure McCain wins no matter who gets it.  But then again we are democrats, faced with a no lose situation we once again find away to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

by kasjogren 2008-04-23 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: What's amusing...

The average size of an Obama donation is like $110, what is it for Clinton?

He has more votes. More electoral, more popular. More people want him to be the nominee than Clinton.

Sometimes in elections, you lose, and it sucks, but you still lose.

by Brannon 2008-04-23 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: What's amusing...

so why didnt he take his name off of the FL ballot

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: What's amusing...

He wanted to, but I believe FL state law said he couldn't without withdrawing from the race at the national level.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-23 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: What's amusing...

He tried. They wouldn't let him. They had a law about it.

Low information voters....

by Darknesse 2008-04-23 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: What's amusing...

Why? They weren't asked to remove their name. They were asked not to campaign.  I never heard an inkling that the election wouldn't be held, just that the candidates wouldn't campaign. And they didn't.

Smart people leave their name on the ballot whether they are allowed to campaign or not. Not so smart people take it off while trying to pander.

by Little Otter 2008-04-23 11:33AM | 0 recs
smart people

Smart people aren't going to buy this stupid argument. In fact, I'll bet that even stupid people won't buy it, assuming that they've got some baseline sense of fair play and honesty.

by buddhistMonkey 2008-04-23 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: smart people

Obama took his name off the ballot for not reason other than fact that he couldn't win the state. Then he worked behind the scenes to scuttle a revote and demanded 50% of the delegates. the Obama camp isn't interested in fair play or common sense, or even counting all the votes.

Smart people know that taking your name off the ballot is stupid, Koolaid drinkers argue about what came next.

by Little Otter 2008-04-23 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: smart people

Hey buddhistmonkey - go back into that thread and take off my troll rating.  For correcting grammar?

Please.

by Jess81 2008-05-23 02:19PM | 0 recs
BS.

She pledged not to participate in MI contest. Leaving her name on breaks that.

Yeah, thanks for telling us who the smart people are.

Way to insult millions of people, troll.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-23 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: BS.

so why didnt he take his name off the FL ballot?

Call your BS with more BS

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 08:28AM | 0 recs
oh my god

this has been discussed to death.

He tried, but according to Florida law, the only way    to take his name off the ballot in the primary is to drop out the entire race all together.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-23 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: BS.

Because he couldn't without removing his name from the ballot in November too. No one could so no one did.

by Thadd Selden 2008-04-23 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: BS.

Again. Low information voter...

by Darknesse 2008-04-23 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: What's amusing...
Otter, smart people are voting for Obama. Let us not forger Hillary wins the under educated vote!
So by your standard Hillary is fooling only stupid voters!
by venician 2008-04-23 08:06AM | 0 recs
Follow the rules, you're pandering

Is the Democratic party the party of the Clintons, or not?  They agreed to the rules (kind of, as they always do) until they no longer suited their purpose.

by crabby tom in md 2008-04-23 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: What's amusing...

I actually think Hillary messed up by keeping her name on the MI ballot when EVERYBODY else did not. If she acted in the spirit of the pledge she signed, MI could have had a chance of having a second chance primary because there were no democrats on the ballot.

In my opinion, she single handedly screwed MI out of any chance of having a second primary or even having the delegates seated in any other way than 50/50 split.

by susu1969 2008-04-23 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: What's amusing...

Guess Obama should have left his name on the ballot instead of attempting to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire. No one asked him to take his name off the ballot anymore than they were asked to in Florida.

Sigh, why does this need to be explained over and over again?

The candidates agreed not to participate in the MI or FL contests. Edwards, Richardson, Biden, and even Gavel removed their names from the Michigan ballot. The candidates were not allowed to remove their names from the Florida ballot due to FL state law.

<quote>He fucked up. It's his own fault. Really - one of the stupidest things I've ever seen a pol at the level do, and indicative of his contempt for letting everyone vote. Clinton was clobbering him in the polls in Michigan, and he wanted a way to deny her the victory. And now it may clobber him instead.</quote>

So by this metric Edwards, Richardson, and Biden fucked up too? They also wanted to deny Clinton a victory in Michigan as well? Or were they under the influence of the Obama orbital mind control lasers.

by ces 2008-04-23 10:53AM | 0 recs
Neither here nor there

Despite the fact that the governing body for the nomination process (DNC) doesn't count those votes (MI and FL), the process outcome is determined by delegates, and Clinton cannot win on that most important metric.

by bookish 2008-04-23 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

by poserM 2008-04-23 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

The numbers that Jerome is peddling does NOT include the caucus estimates. It's funny how precious FL and MI votes are but IA,NV,ME and WA can go blow.

Only in HillaryLand.

by JoeCoaster 2008-04-23 08:04AM | 0 recs
what?

have not you got the memo that they are insignificant states. Get with the program!!! ;)

by kindthoughts 2008-04-23 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Let's add another layer of insanity onto this chart.

Texas has 2 separate steps in it's delegate nominating process both of which accord delegates by a vote of the people- a caucus and a primary.

This chart does not include the vote of the Texas caucus which Obama won by about 10 points and in which an estimated 1 million people voted. So that's another ~100,000 votes for Obama which no one is talking about or including.

So the talk about "disenfranchised" voters in contests that neither candidate competed in and were asked not to by the DNC (and they both agreed to) wears pretty thin on me. Update the numbers from Texas, and maybe we can talk.

This all of course ignores the fact that the popular vote in and of itself determines nothing other than a flavor of the day talking point for the Clinton campaign.

by KTinTX 2008-04-23 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

This is fantastic.  I just wish it mattered.  FL and MI will not count until the Credentials Committee say they do, if they say they do.  By that point counting the popular vote will be a purely academic exercise...

by jarhead5536 2008-04-23 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

yeah, as an Obama voter in MI, I know what it's like not to "matter."

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Obama's in big trouble in the states that matter in the GE. That should concern all Dems.

by JFK464 2008-04-23 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

What concerns me is that you still think some states count more than others in the general election...  Every state matters...  

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-23 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

This point you make simply belies the fact that several of the states which are propelling Obama to the nomination are states that he will, under no circumstance, win in the GE, where the votes that matter are the electoral college votes, and dreamy-eyed as people want to be, electoral college votes are not awarded proportionally in 49 of the 50 states.

Like it or not, we are not a direct democracy and so some votes do matter more than others.  If people don't like that, they need to work for change from representative democracy to direct democracy, but until then, accept that some votes matter more than others.

by aggieric 2008-04-23 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

and by extension, some states matter more than others.  It's reality.

by aggieric 2008-04-23 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I accept that we need to work to be competitive in every state... That is how you change from "red" to "blue"... You cannot affect the change of this ludicrous cartography by Crayola concept by saying that some states do not matter....

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-23 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

From someone who loves geography, that post deserves an uprate for the "cartography by crayola" alone.

And I agree with your point.

I'm not sure what should be done with the votes from Michigan and Florida, but I find it offensive that so many Clinton supporters on this board want to disregard the votes from states that followed the rules simply because they are traditionally "red" or they used the caucus system.

Did the Clinton campaign not understand what a caucus was prior to the election?  Or did they ignore them out of hubris?  

And people call Obama arrogant.......

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-04-23 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

so is hillary, that is why they are called toss ups. If you look at MyDD's maps at the top, she is still losing to McCain.  

Its not like she has some magic lock on certain states that Obama doesn't. And btw, you can't say that primary performances translate into general election. Otherwise, we are looking at Dem landslides all throughout the south with....Obama. Yea, not gonna happen.

by edhula3 2008-04-23 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

What does that mean? That Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama? The turnout for Dems have averaged at least twice that of GOP. Even considering many GOPrs haven't voted since McCain clinched the primaries before were still twice as high for Dems.

If the criticism is he can't close the deal, then what the hell is she doing still in the race after almost all the primaries have occurred with her still  trailing after winning the "Big States." She is a spoiler at this point and cannot possibly close the deal unless SD's flip b/c they don't think a black man can win when he has been or that they have some loyalty to Clinton which is inappropriate.

by txexspeedy 2008-04-23 08:11AM | 0 recs
Really, I thought that all the votes

cast so far were by Democrats, this is unless you're saying that those who vote for Hillary are not Democrats, and that leads to the question, why should they be allowed to determine who the nominee of the DEMOCRATIC party should be?

by crabby tom in md 2008-04-23 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Why?  because you say so?

by mikeinsf 2008-04-23 09:05AM | 0 recs
the states that matter in the GE?

Um....

by whose standards?

Because unlike Clinton, and the others in the 50 + 1 Crowd, Obama buys into the 50 state strategy and he is going to have the money to get on the field EVERYWHERE.

I am so sick of this narrative that some states don't matter.

Virginia is going to see a Democratic wave this year thanks to Mark Warner running for Senate and will definitely be in play for either Clinton or Obama (although I think more for Obama.)

Pennsylvania will come home to the Democrats either way (but it will be a fight,) because the machine will be with either candidate, Casey will be out there fighting for our nominee, and because of the change in registration here over the last year.  

Florida is probably going to vote for McCain because a.) it is the oldest state in the country, b.) the disenfranchisement fiasco, and c.) I always expect the worst when it comes to Florida. That being said we will still fight for it.

Ohio is Ohio. I will say this- it has been trending more Democratic recently and I see no reason either candidate couldn't win there. It will take a fight though.

Colorado- both candidates can put it on the map.

Texas- A long shot for Obama but don't say he couldn't do it. Even though he is VERY likely to still lose there he can make McCain spend resources there that he shouldn't have to.

California, New York and other Blue States- Lets quit with the narrative that either candidate would lose any traditionally blue states. It won't happen. (This includes Michigan in my mind- I just don't see them voting for more war and less jobs.)

I know there are other states I could make brief points about but the overall point is this. In the General Election every state matters and many states are going to be in play. If we make this election about PA, OH, and FL again we are far more likely to lose (as the last two races have shown.)

by JDF 2008-04-23 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Another question: Why can't Clinton close the deal?  Why are only the states that massively favor Clinton the ones that are "pivotal"?

Why isn't NC framed as must-win for Clinton?  Without a NC win, she has no chance at either the popular vote or the pledged delegates.  If Obama wins it and even partially nullifies her PA win, what's her path to the nomination?  Obama will be ahead in pledged delegates, total delegates, popular vote, and states won.  

The SDs just need to get off their asses and finish this.  I fully expect them to after IN+NC.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-23 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Obama has the money, so with him having a lot more money that her, not closing the deal is bigger failing. He spent $11m in Pennsylvania. She spent just over $3m. So, he has the upper hand with that kind of money. Why isn't he clobbering her?

She's now ahead in popular vote. If you count Florida and Michigan, she's probably ahead in delegates as well.

And Florida and Michigan will be counted. The only way they won't, is if their inclusion isn't decisive. There is no way the Democratic party is going to give the nomination to a candidate who wouldn't be the candidate if all the votes are counted.

Obama has an incredible base of support. But above and beyond that base, his performance is lackluster.

by Little Otter 2008-04-23 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Institutional advantages are far more important than money.  Either would have the Democratic machine in states like PA on their side in the GE.  You spend money to keep the margins close and force the other person to exhaust their own resources.

by rfahey22 2008-04-23 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

So, he has the upper hand with that kind of money. Why isn't he clobbering her?

Because, quite obviously, money doesn't compensate for demographics.  PA is an enormously favorable state for Clinton.  Obama kept it under 10 while investing a lot in a state that will be important in the general.

And, Clinton's in a worse place today delegate-wise than she was yesterday.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-23 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

The flaw in your assumption is that Obama doesn't receive any delegates in Michigan.  He picked up most of the uncommitted delegates at the district conventions

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=5260

Popular vote totals are an inconsistent measure anyways.  It completely invalidates any caucus (MN becomes 1/4 of what MO is), and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI.

All this is about is finding some sort of measurement that Clinton can argue is a reason to overturn the will of the states.

by spiteface 2008-04-23 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

If you count FLA you need to disenfranchise the 280K who voted but not for Hillary. If you don't count FLA then the 300+K who voted for Hillary (unopposed) are disenfranchised. So the delegates will probably be seated and allowed to vote at the convention but it won't make a diff. She will not have a lead in PDs with or without FLA and MI.

by txexspeedy 2008-04-23 08:16AM | 0 recs
He'll close it out in NC

His win there will pretty much wipe out her gains in PA.

In my opinion, the harm being done by continuing this process is greater than the party building in individual states that results from  it. Clinton has just about passed the point where she can exit gracefully, so she's risking the party, the presidency, the nation and the Clinton legacy (whatever's left of it) by "fighting" a war she can't win.

She's either blind, stupid or arrogant, or possibly a combination of all three.

by bookish 2008-04-23 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I don't know, why can't Clinton raise more money?

Clinton's support is clearly just a little more lackluster than Obama's, wouldn't you say? So why hand her the nomination?

She's not ahead in anything. Counting FL & MI is an absurd departure from reality. Do you really think that if we held an election in MI today that Obama would receive 0 votes?

Then why do you think that the MI popular vote is a reasonable thing for the Supers to take into account in order to hand the nomination to Clinton?

by Brannon 2008-04-23 03:14PM | 0 recs
pivotal states

Which of the states that Obama has won are pivotal?

by del 2008-04-23 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: pivotal states

Washington, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota... all states Hillary would lose in the general right now...

Oh, and Missouri, too!!!!

by LordMike 2008-04-23 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: pivotal states

And which states that Clinton has won are pivotal?

by del 2008-04-23 08:08AM | 0 recs
Clinton

did much better in the suburban/rural areas of Missouri.

She will not lose the cities, she is stronger there than Obama if you want to count the primary as an indicator.

That is also good for downticket races. Same with Ohio and PA.

Obama won big in Philly, but guess what, Fattah isnt losing his seat to a repug.

And the dem is going to still take Philly, whoever it is.

She is stronger than he is in PA, same thing happened in Ohio. Columbus isnt going to McCain and she did better throughout the state than he did.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-23 08:34AM | 0 recs
Obama's campaign is saying

Obama's top strategist tries to downplay his candidate's losses.

Tells NPR: "The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those
votes."

And my response to that is, how many presidencies have we won without them?

by del 2008-04-23 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Don't forget that Clinton stands to pick up 250-300,000 vote margin in Puerto Rico right near the end.  That will more than overcome any vote advantage for Obama from NC.  That should put her over the top with the popular vote, and within about 120-140 delegates of Obama's total.

by PracticalMagic 2008-04-23 09:27AM | 0 recs
Counting Michigan.

Counting Michigan is bullshit and you know it.

If you give Clinton votes you need to at the very least give Obama the uncommitted votes. Problem is you can't really do that. You can't count Michigan and have any kind of relevant popular vote count. Saying otherwise is pretty stupid.

by Obama08 2008-04-23 07:43AM | 0 recs
Counting Michigan.

Well here is the thing, remember at the convention the undecideds can vote for Obama if the want. His supporters ACTIVELY campaigned for him against her.

by del 2008-04-23 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting Michigan.

They won't; "undecided" is filled by the state party which moved their primary up and which backs Hillary Clinton.

It's not like it's just a bunch of schmoes.  They're political operatives.

by Mostly 2008-04-23 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting Michigan.

Obama has won 35 of the 36 uncommitted delegates available in MI at the county conventions, so he certainly should get the proportion of the popular vote based on that count...

...at the very least!

by LordMike 2008-04-23 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Yeah, I really don't feel like running another McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis.

If the superdelegates don't look at the facts on the ground and see that HRC is clearly better positioned to compete in the general, I want some of what they're smoking.

by hornplayer 2008-04-23 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I'm looking at the facts...

30% of Americans don't trust her... her negatives are close to 60% and she loses IA, WI, MN, OR, WA, and maybe a few more...

Rasmussen says she even loses AR...

Those are the facts on the ground...

by LordMike 2008-04-23 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Actually...

Only 30% think she's trustworthy.

by beermeister 2008-04-23 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

The high negatives and untrustworthy meme don't  seem to be translating into no votes for Hillary.

by JustJennifer 2008-04-23 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

It does if you count the GOP crossovers which came out in the open primaries and apparently closed ones. http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/poli tics/15960382/detail.html

--But not everybody registered so their favorite Democrat would win. By some estimates, hundreds of Republicans switched parties to keep the feud going between Clinton and Obama.

Republican Dave Rotigel is one of them. While voting on Tuesday, Rotigel wore a shirt that read, "Operation Chaos," which was inspired by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

"Now that Hillary is running, I decided to register Democrat so I could vote for the woman," said Rotigel, who said he does not like Clinton. "We need to keep this Democrat family feud going as long as we can. Hopefully, it will go to the convention floor and destroy the Democratic Party for five decades."--

by txexspeedy 2008-04-23 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I understand that it is very hard for some people to accept that people are actually voting for Hillary because they really want to.  

by JustJennifer 2008-04-23 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

"Only 30% think she's trustworthy."

Yes, that's what I meant... still very tired from yesterday..

Thanks for the correction! :-)

by LordMike 2008-04-23 08:39AM | 0 recs
we are looking

at facts.

The facts say Obama is a better candidate.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-23 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: we are looking

yeah, all he needs now are votes ;-)

by campskunk 2008-04-23 08:28AM | 0 recs
yeah...

because you know...he is behind in everything but the superdelegates. No....wait that Hillary.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-23 08:29AM | 0 recs
I love this argument

"Obama can't win, so let's nominate the candidate that's losing to him!"

by Angry White Democrat 2008-04-23 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

1) Higher negatives than Obama.

  1. AA vote will be sooooooooft
  2. Support by new, younger voters brought in by Obama will be soooooooooft
  3. She has the emnity of the anti-war/left vote

The only thing good about a Hillary nomination will be that the party's long, increasingly unhealthy relationship with the Clintons will have run its course.  With them no longer looming over everything like they own the damn party, we can move on.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-23 09:09AM | 0 recs
Thank you for putting out the facts..

The spin that is going on with Obama Supporters and the MSM would be funny - if it weren't so sad.

I woke up this morning surprised to see that Hillary had lost PA - only to discover that the facts prove otherwise.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-23 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for putting out the facts..

Really?  I woke up this morning and the NY Times, CNN, MSNBC all said Hillary won Penn.  I didn't check fox news though

by clintonmccain 2008-04-23 07:46AM | 0 recs
You wouldn't know it from MoDo and

the NYTimes editorial.

When did advertising competitively against your opponent become "negative"?  If BO thinks the campaign has been tough, he's in for a very rude awakening IF he becomes the nominee.

And the picture that MODO paints of her candidate is pretty unflattering - except to a few people who prefer weak, ineffectual candidates.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-23 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: You wouldn't know it from MoDo and

The New York Times editorial?  Are you serious???

Since when did Frank Rich or Maureen Dowd become the bastion of the free press?

Advertising against your opponent isn't the problem; the problem is adopting tactics the Republicans used against the Clintons, which they are so gleefully using against a fellow democrat.  Obama is not their enemy, but they seem to forget that

I was against it when it was done to them and I am against when the Clintons use it on a fellow democrat

by clintonmccain 2008-04-23 08:05AM | 0 recs
That wasn't the point of my comment...

but you can rant all you like!  Hope you feel better for it.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-23 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for putting out the facts..

LOL! Jerome knows that total is NOT for all 50 states. It does not include the caucus estimates. Can we have a little honesty around here?

by JoeCoaster 2008-04-23 08:00AM | 0 recs
Can we have a little honest here?

When it comes to supporting the candidate of your choice the answer to that question is usually no.

(I don't mean this just for Jerome- I mean it for almost everyone here both who supports Clinton and Obama... the number of people who can't see the reality for all of the spin surprises me to no end. We are smarter than this and we should be better than this...)

by JDF 2008-04-23 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for putting out the facts..

Didn't you read? It was from 50 states AND SOME!!

Even those that haven't voted yet somehow!!

/Snark

But seriously, Jerome.. It's sad now. What are you going to do when he finishes her off?

by Darknesse 2008-04-23 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for putting out the facts..

I woke up to a bunch of diaries that really believe that superdelegates are going to overturn every metric in these primaries.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-23 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

The metric may change.  Neither campaign is very intellectually honest about metrics.  They push whatever favors them.  

The only metric that truly counts is the vote in Denver.

by TomP 2008-04-23 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

How has Obama been intellectually dishonest?  AFAIK he's always stuck by the rules established and agreed to at the beginning of the contest.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-23 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

>>How has Obama been intellectually dishonest?

- His campaign claims that he won Texas, when he lost by 100k votes. (I believe his website said the same thing about NV but I could be wrong?)

  • His campaign and surrogates argue that he is a better candidate in Missouri based on a .1% win there, even though he now trails Clinton in head to head polls with McCain in that state
  • He worked behind the scenes to quash revotes in Michigan and Florida
  • His campaign is now trying to spin a loss by 10% in PA as a win... because he was really down by 30 points 4 weeks ago... right.

Call it dishonest, call it politics - call it what you wish.  Doesn't seem like "the politics of hope" to me.

by mikes101 2008-04-23 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

1) The race is counted in delegates, so claiming a TX win is, in fact, accurate.  It's not a popular vote win, obviously, but I don't think he ever claimed it was.  She may have had more yards of offense, but he had the higher score at the end of the game, to put it in football terms.

2) Clinton publicly quashed caucuses in both states, even though they're the cheapest option and the easiest to run on a short timetable.  Both MI and FL ended up determining that conducting revotes weren't viable, and no funded, fair plan was ever presented to the candidates.  Obama didn't kill the revotes.

3) Keeping PA to single-digits is a good performance for him.  It's not a win, of course, and I don't see anyone for the Obama camp claiming that it is.  But the reality is that Clinton's victory doesn't really help her.  She needs a bigger percentage of remaining delegates today than she did yesterday, for example.

I don't see anything intellectually dishonest about any of your examples.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-23 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

1) >>She may have had more yards of offense, but he had the higher score at the end of the game, to put it in football terms.

The problem with your example is that people like me see the popular vote as the truest metric of who should win the nomination.  So, to me (and millions of others like me), winning the popular vote means Clinton had the most points.  And yet Obama walks away claiming his record is 1-0.  Doesn't make a lot of sense.  If you think he got the most points, it is because they are counting something weird as points - like if the NFL counted sacks as 1/3 points.  Nobody has protested the system before because we've never had such a close race.  We saw the same thing in 2000 - people were pissed and rightfully so at the electoral college results.  The difference is this time, this is our party and we have the power to nominate the rightful candidate.

2) >>Clinton publicly quashed caucuses in both states

Caucuses are not fair.  Period.  Nor are they used in the GE.  Obama should get used to winning 1 person 1 vote because so far he has not proved to me that he can do that.

3) Missouri

You didn't respond that Obama keeps arguing that he is the better candidate becase he puts more states in play, when in fact Clinton is better in Missouri, Arkansas, and other states as well as the traditional battlegrounds.  Listen to the Obama camp and you would think Obama is the better candidate in Missouri - that's just spin.

4) >>Keeping PA to single-digits is a good performance for him.  It's not a win, of course, and I don't see anyone for the Obama camp claiming that it is.  But the reality is that Clinton's victory doesn't really help her

The effects of her victory remain to be seen.  But I don't think many super-delegates drank the kool-aid that said that Clinton had to win by 25%.  A 10% victory in PA and OH (and likely a 10% victory in FL if you want me to do a re-vote in my head) is devastating to Obama if I am a superdelegate.  How can I vote for the guy that does so horribly in these states if I want to win the GE?  Saying that a 10% victory for Clinton is not significant is wishful thinking, or dishonest, in my book.

by mikes101 2008-04-23 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people


1) Well, that's fine for you, but it's a little late to change the rules.  The nomination process is based on delegates, not popular vote.  Obviously the popular vote is a factor when superdelegates come into play, but overall, the race is about delegates.

2) Caucuses are absolutely fair -- everyone knew the rules going into the contest and agreed to them, and everyone knew that some states used caucuses.  They may not be as REPRESENTATIVE as you'd like.  Regardless, if you think it's fine for Clinton to "quash" caucuses because they're not fair/representative, then you should have no problem with Obama's issues with primaries that exclude many of his supporters, right?

3) I don't know anything about Missouri, and haven't heard anything about it recently, so I can't comment there.  The Obama folks definitely aren't making it a centerpiece of any argument though.

4) Primary performance is not indicative of GE performance.  It may indicate a slight advantage to one candidate or the other, but it's extremely hard to gauge the significance of that at this point -- how many of the losing candidate's supporters are going to come around and support the winning candidate?  Hard to say.

If I'm a superdelegate, the question first and foremost in my mind is: "how in the world can I give the nomination to the candidate that trails in votes, delegates, cash, and new voters?"

With the possible exception of the MO thing that I don't know anything about, I STILL don't see any examples of intellectual dishonesty from Obama.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-23 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

>>1) Well, that's fine for you, but it's a little late to change the rules.  The nomination process is based on delegates, not popular vote.  Obviously the popular vote is a factor when superdelegates come into play, but overall, the race is about delegates.

My point remains - Clinton can say she won Texas to superdelegates - by over 100k votes.  Obama can claim Texas if he would like, but to me he has a really lame claim that he won Texas - and at this point this is about convincing super delegates as to who won.

>>Regardless, if you think it's fine for Clinton to "quash" caucuses because they're not fair/representative, then you should have no problem with Obama's issues with primaries that exclude many of his supporters, right?

The main problem here with your argument is nobody said that primaries exclude anyone.  People have said and demonstrated a clear bias that caucuses are exclusive (see my other posts and note the bias in Texas / Washington results which had both caucuses and primaries - in Texas it was from among the same set of voters and the bias wsa 15% pro-Obama).  So why not support the fairest measure and take a re-vote?  If I am a superdelegate, I'd want to know why you opposed that.

>>If I'm a superdelegate, the question first and foremost in my mind is: "how in the world can I give the nomination to the candidate that trails in votes, delegates, cash, and new voters?"

I will give you the "votes and delegates".  Cash and new voters, they could care less.  But the vote total is now in contention - and Clinton should be expected to keep gaining through May - the schedule is favorable for her from here on out.  If the popular votes and delegate counts do not agree with each other, I would sure hope the Democratic party would go with the popular vote winner.  God knows we do not need another electoral college type system that we impose on ourselves precluding our best candidate from winning.

>>With the possible exception of the MO thing that I don't know anything about, I STILL don't see any examples of intellectual dishonesty from Obama.

Just because the dishonesty may be subtle does not make it any less dishonest.  We haven't even started to touch on all of the dishonesty in Obama's attacks on Clinton's policies - including nasty mailers - I am just keeping this conversation focused on dishonesty related to election results / expectations.

by mikes101 2008-04-23 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

1) Sure, Clinton can say she got more popular votes than Obama in TX.  But she didn't win the state.  In the primary race, which is based on delegates, Obama won it.

2) "The main problem here with your argument is nobody said that primaries exclude anyone."

Sure they did -- the primaries in MI would have excluded anyone that had originally voted in the Republican primary, many of which would have preferred to vote for the Democratic candidate.

Like I said, neither state ever presented a funded, fair revote plan to the candidates.

3) The vote total isn't in contention.  Obama's still up by over a half-million votes, and the remaining states don't favor Clinton overall.  PA was her big shot to take a bite out of Obama's PV lead, and the bite wasn't big enough.

The only way to even make it remotely close is to include the bogus elections in FL and MI.  And acting as if they should count at this point is the single most intellectually dishonest thing in this entire campaign.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-23 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

>2) "The main problem here with your argument is nobody said that primaries exclude anyone."

>>Sure they did -- the primaries in MI would have excluded anyone that had originally voted in the Republican primary, many of which would have preferred to vote for the Democratic candidate.

>>Like I said, neither state ever presented a funded, fair revote plan to the candidates.

Give me a break - 15% bias or people who voted in the Republican primary aren't eligible to vote?  I will take the primary system.  And you are saying that Howard Dean and Barack Obama did everything in their power to secure a re-vote?  I don't buy it - they sat on their hands and hoped it would die so that they could run out the clock.

>>The only way to even make it remotely close is to include the bogus elections in FL and MI.  And acting as if they should count at this point is the single most intellectually dishonest thing in this entire campaign.

That voters should count or at least get a re-vote is dishonest?  Wow - you've really taken me for a spin.  Not only is not counting them dishonest, it is also quite possibly the single dumbest thing the Dems could do in this entire primary season if we want to win these states in the GE.

by mikes101 2008-04-23 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Mike,

1) If this were a popular vote contest, I assure you that we'd see a different campaign from both of the candidates.  Neither candidate would ever have stepped away from the top 50 population centers.  But it is not a popular vote contest and even if it were, Obama LEADS the popular vote.
2) You don't get to choose the way a state votes.  They do.  They make the rules.  The candidates play by those rules.  The candidates don't play by a popular vote total either.  The electoral college determines the presidency.

by zadura 2008-04-23 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Zadura,

I understand the rules.  Fortunately we were smart enough to allow superdelegates the flexibility to interpret the results in our system (unlike the electoral college system).

Unfortunately for you, Clinton will lead the popular vote totals by most counts by June.  And like it or not, it is going to be hard for the supers to interpret that as a reason to nominate Obama.  Heck, the big states argument alone may convince the supers.

by mikes101 2008-04-23 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I am not sure why you believe that Clinton will lead the popular vote.  She is not leading it now and has no new big states.  If this is  the metric you want to use, you lose.  But you knew that right?

by zadura 2008-04-23 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

>She is not leading it now and has no new big states.

This is already in dispute, as this diary points out.

>>If this is  the metric you want to use, you lose.

And the voting's not over yet... WV, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, Indiana will all add to her lead.  Not to mention if Obama loses NC then it's all over for him.

by mikes101 2008-04-23 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

It's dishonest to even consider polls with McCain when neither Hillary or Obama has actively started campaigning against him. Both are basically even with McCain despite the negative attention the media has given both Dems and the free pass McCain is enjoying right now.

by txexspeedy 2008-04-23 08:26AM | 0 recs
Obama is prefect. I forgot.

Please go back to your picture of Barack on the wall and pray some more.

by TomP 2008-04-23 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

ok, jerome, we all know that quoting facthub is bound to attract lots of obama-supporting spammers who ask why you can't write your own material. prepare to be abused ;-)

well, as a florida voter, it's nice to see my damn vote up on the board. FINALLY. we florida democrats don't have it easy; we got a double dose of the bush family vision for america over the last ten years.

by campskunk 2008-04-23 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Do you think the FL results fairly represent the will of the voters of that state?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

For the last fucking time, YES.  Over 90% of those who participated in the primary thought it was legitimate and over 80% of those who voted did not feel that the lack of the campaign affected their vote.

FL is Hillary country, just based on demographics alone.  Even if we had that re-vote with a campaign, Obama can't poll above 38% for the GE against McCain, or above 40% for the primary.  ANY contest here would result in a huge win for HRC.

by hornplayer 2008-04-23 07:52AM | 0 recs
by kindthoughts 2008-04-23 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

No shit the people who voted thought that.  What sort of argument is that?

by rfahey22 2008-04-23 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

For the last fucking time, YES.  Over 90% of those who participated in the primary thought it was legitimate

Hahah -- you DO realize how ridiculous that data point is, right?  Of course a big proportion that participated in the election thought that it was legitimate.  They took the time to participate, after all.

The real question is how many people who DIDN'T participate thought it was legitimate.  Something tells me that number wouldn't be 90%, and given that there's absolutely no way to guess at how many people didn't participate who otherwise would have, the election is quite obviously entirely bogus.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-23 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Elections are decided by people who vote, not people who don't.  What a ridiculous concept.  Everyone involved in the FL primary encouraged people to vote, in spite of the ridiculous DNC ruling.  If they chose not to, their loss.

by hornplayer 2008-04-23 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

It's my undertstanding that people chose not to vote because they knew it would not count.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Yes, of course, but telling people that an election won't count obviously leads some people to not vote that would have otherwise.  And, of course, there's no way to gauge how many of those people there are out there.

So, again, the election is utterly bogus.

Everyone involved in the FL primary encouraged people to vote

Well, except the DNC, which told people their votes wouldn't count.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-23 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

So you don't believe that campaigning has an effect on the numbers?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

It can.  I don't think it would have that much effect in FL, where the demographic lines clearly favor HRC.

Ultimately, the people who voted don't feel that they were cheated by the lack of a campaign, so why is it even an issue?

by hornplayer 2008-04-23 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

The demographic lines clearly favor her in PA and he made up 8 points by campaigning there.

Though I haven't seen any numbers on your claim, what about the people who chose not to vote? Do they think they were cheated?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

And you do not speak for all Florida Democrats either....  

I was not happy with the DNC's ruling, but saw that it was necessary, lest we have chaos the next time around... There are rules and they need to be followed.

I don't want the delegates counted... you can give them chairs and all, but to allow them to influence the race is exactly what they were trying to do in the first place...  If there are no consequences, we will have primaries as early as Halloween in 2012...

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-23 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

The truth of the matter is that if Florida and Michigan are decisive, then they must, and they will,  count. Otherwise, you're handing the nomination to someone who really didn't win and we won't win in November.

What percentage of Clinton voters do you think would turn out and vote Democratic in the presidential race if they perceive that Obama only one because two states weren't counted?

Clinton voters are in blue states and Obama will need their vote in November, if he's the nominee. By not counting two states in order to take the nom, he's pretty much writing off their support from the get go. You might want to think about that.

by Little Otter 2008-04-23 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

The truth of the matter is that if Florida and Michigan are decisive, then they must, and they will,  count. Otherwise, you're handing the nomination to someone who really didn't win and we won't win in November.

But how are we to know if FL/MI are decisive?  They didn't have real or fair elections.  We don't know what they think.  Without revotes, which both states determined weren't viable, it's not possible to figure out which candidate they prefer, and by how much.

It sucks, but FL/MI are out of the picture at this point.  There's just no way to accurately gauge their preferences.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-23 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

So you are basically saying that Clinton voters could give a damn about rules...?  I am exaggerating what you said, but follow me...  

The DNC announced at the end of summer that both states would be stripped of their delegates because they violated DNC rules and moved their primaries up.  Everyone accepted this decision....including the candidates, including Clinton.  Now, both states wanted to have an impact on the selection process, that is one of the reasons why they moved up the primaries...  Now, because the race is close, there is pressure to count the delegates for both of the states... EXACTLY what the states wanted in the first place....

And to be honest, you are telling me I may want to think about Clinton voter turnout for Obama if FL and MI are not counted...  that is just one of the myriad of excuses I have seen for why Clinton votes will not support Obama... which I find to be foolhardy to say the least.  But this is even more so... Clinton voters will not support Obama if FL and MI are not counted... which is a decision the DNC handed down months ago... which everyone agreed to months ago.  If this is true, I doubt they would support Obama regardless.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-23 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

And Clinton would need Obama voters. You think AA's are going to vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination despite trailing?

It'll need to be worked out in a way that's fair not just in a way that benefits Clinton.

MI & FL had no campaigning. When Clinton campaigns she gains little ground since she's a known quantity when Obama campaigns his gains greatly. As they stand the results from MI (obviously) and FL are unfair and they won't be seated as they stand currently. But they will be seated in some capacity.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Barack Obama ceased being an "unknown" after Iowa.  To say anything otherwise is a farce.

by hornplayer 2008-04-23 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

OH YEAH! So campaigning never improves his numbers!

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-01 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

It's good to see at least one realistic Florida voter.  After what happened in 2000, you went ahead and voted for Bush in 2004, and you elected his brother twice.

Forgive me for not taking Florida seriously.

At all.

by Ray in AK 2008-04-23 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Um... Wake-up call... your candidate is using Bush-Rovian tactics.

I'm embarrassed that this pathetic Clinton campaign is ruining HIS legacy.

Nice job!

by cotasm 2008-04-23 11:52AM | 0 recs
One more time...

 Again, Fl and MI are black boxes at this point. I know you'd love to see them count as is, but it ain't gonna happen. 50/50 is the best deal either candidate can expect, and factoring in the popular vote from those wholly unrepresentitave contests is wishful thinking at best. If we could do it all over again, I don't doubt Clinton would do well in MI, but I live in FL, and I gotta tell you it would be a toss-up here. And, btw, quoting ABC numbers on Clinton is like quoting FOX numbers on McCain. It does not advance your argument.
  Anyway, congratz on the win, and on to NC/IN...

Obama 08

by Kordo 2008-04-23 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Obama can't close the deal because he has only the caucuses to fall back on and this was a rigged process. There is virtually no state in which if the contest was a closed primary, Hillary wouldn't win.    

by linfar 2008-04-23 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

rigged? right. we now know that caucuses were put in place so Obama would win.

If anything, thank goodness for caucuses. It allows for candidates to begin building up the necessary infrastructure needed for the GE. Airing t.v. ads is simply not enough and good for Obama for dotting the "i"'s and crossing the "t"'s.

by alex100 2008-04-23 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Again:

Texas popular vote: Clinton 51 Obama 47
Texas caucus results (from the same set of voters): Obama 55 Clinton 45

So do we use 1 person 1 vote or do we use some other paradigm where we end up with a 15% swing in Obama's direction?  Maybe it's not rigged, but at the very least it is a horrible measure of the will of the people.

by mikes101 2008-04-23 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

our nation never had a 100% turn out model.

I'd hold your opinion highly if that was the case.

by alex100 2008-04-23 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

>>our nation never had a 100% turn out model.

>>I'd hold your opinion highly if that was the case.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.  In Texas we have clear evidence of a 15% bias in the caucus system.  In Washington state, although their primary results did not count for the allocation of any delegates, I believe the bias was similar.  What does this have to do with 100% turnout?  Shouldn't we assume that our primaries are more akin to the GE one-person one-vote paradigm?

by mikes101 2008-04-23 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

my point is there is no such thing as a pure democracy.

It's a wonky system but it has been accurate, surprisingly enough.

Interestingly enough, some of the best popular vote totals I've seen in this primary have included Washington caucus votes but not the primary votes. His overal net vote gain is considerably larger in the primary.

by alex100 2008-04-23 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

The thing I don't get is, why is anyone under 60 allowed to vote.

There is virtually no state in which if the contest was only open to those over 60, Hillary wouldn't win.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-04-23 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

LOL.  That means McCain would still be elgible to vote for Hillary.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-23 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Terry McAuliffe could have changed the caucus process as head of the DNC... he did not do so... Now he is against the process...?  Because, this year it is not favoring his candidate?

Gee, that's genuine....

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-23 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Bill Clinton never had a problem with caucuses... He won them handily.  Did you complain then?

by LordMike 2008-04-23 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Interesting... the same comment got recommended on another thread, yet troll rated on this one...

It's a valid point... If the Clintons hate caucuses so much, why did they have no problems with them when they won them?

by LordMike 2008-04-23 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

That's like saying, "if you hate traffic so much, how come you didn't have a problem with it when there wasn't any traffic?"

Problems are sometimes revealed only under stress / close situations.  Witness the GE 2000 debacle.  Witness Democratic primary 2008.  

by mikes101 2008-04-23 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

If you believe that, I hope you will spend a great deal of time working to reform the system for 2012.

Go ahead.  Close the primaries.  Ban the caucus system.  Institute a rule that you have to be the spouse of an ex-president to get on the ballot.

I really don't care.

JUST STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE RULES AND METRICS IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS ELECTION BECAUSE YOUR CANDIDATE IS BEHIND IN DELEGATES.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-04-23 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

No one seemed to have a problem with caucuses before Iowa.  I know Bill Clinton didn't when he won them. It's just when you lose them that ou start bleating about the unfairness of a process that everyone knew about and agreed to coming in. Very transparent.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-23 09:14AM | 0 recs
The real question is: If Obama sucks so

bad and his lead is so small why can't Clinton catch him?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-23 07:48AM | 0 recs
You are losing credibility

Jerome keeps pushing the new math envelope at an exponential rate. Yesterday it was the double-digit lead (oops that is 9.2%-9.4%) and now out of all possible metrics he picks the only one that suits the Clinton spin. At the same time Obama is closing the super-delegate gap. This is getting entertaining. Again, this will be over by June. But if not, we can all meet in Denver.

by hania 2008-04-23 07:49AM | 0 recs
better check if it's &quot;All 50 states&quot;

Those numbers only seem to be true if you don't count caucus events as votes.

by John DE 2008-04-23 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: better check if it's &quot;All 50 states&quot;

woah there comrade, caucuses don't count because they don't favor Hillary.

/Bill loved them in 92 and 96

by clintonmccain 2008-04-23 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: better check if it's &quot;All 50 states&quot;

I checked the realclearpolitics link upthread and it had an additional estimate that included MI, FL and estimates for the caucus states that don't report popular vote totals - Clinton leads by 8,000 in that estimate.

But I had the same thought as you, and didn't understand why Jerome's supporting link for counting all 50 states was to a diary about Fl and MI.

by Mobar 2008-04-23 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

This close the deal bullshit is the 2nd dumbest argument I've heard during this campaign (the first being the electoral vote count).

Seriously? We award nominations to "the other guy" because one has a problem closing the deal?

Jerome, you and the rest of the Clinton supporters here knew that PA was a state that Obama could almost certainly not have won. She is a strong candidate who is still in the race so why wouldn't she win her states where the demographics mirror her base?

Will you say the same thing if Clinton doesn't win NC? I don't think she can win in a state that is so reflective of Obama's base. And if race was tied, I'd think keeping it close would be fine for her. But its not.

Clinton must win IN and NC to have any shot at the nomination.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-04-23 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Let's all bombard the press with Why cant Hillary close the deal when she loses NC.

by Pravin 2008-04-23 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I agree.  Let's start now.

by Mostly 2008-04-23 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

i completely agree. You have to be severely myopic to believe in such a rational.

by alex100 2008-04-23 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I just think it's dumb because it's completely a product of the calender.  If these states had gone before the February states we'd be right in the middle of an Obama sweep and everyone would be like, "wow he's really closing this thing out."

It's such a farce.  Anything to keep the storyline going.  The meme 2-3 weeks ago was that Clinton needed to win PA by 15% to stay viable... she didn't do that. Yet she's still somehow going to continue on and win the nomination, yet I don't quite understand how.

by jturn17 2008-04-23 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Jerome, that may be true. But you know very well that Michigan shouldn't count into that total. There was only one major candidate on the ballot. It might count for the eventual seating of delegates, but it shouldn't count in the popular vote margin. A lot of Democrats in Michigan who supported Obama or Edwards didn't bother to vote, and a lot crossed over to the Republican side. It wasn't a legitimate popular vote outcome.

I mean, petty dictators like to cite their 100 percent popular vote victories, too, but no one calls those legitimate outcomes.

Also, I'm curious, does the number you cite above include caucus turnout estimates? It might not close the gap, but it would be interesting to know whose votes Fact Hub counts and whose it doesn't.

by Fitzy 2008-04-23 07:50AM | 0 recs
Actually, It Isn't True At All

As mentioned upthread, Hillary/Jerome's calculation doesn't include an estimate of the people who participated in caucuses. Obviously the caucus state voters don't count toward the popular vote.

And that's not even mentioning the Michigan thing, which to be even remotely fair should count "unaffiliated votes" as Obama votes.

Sweet, sweet delusion.

by Hatch 2008-04-23 07:56AM | 0 recs
Why didt Hillary close the deal months ago?

Hillary had all the advantages in the world at the beginning of this primary. She didn't close the deal. Just spending money alone will not magically help Obama erase a 20% lead. He screwed up with the remarks but he still did enough to erase half of the lead.

by Pravin 2008-04-23 07:51AM | 0 recs
How do you count the people?

Some states have caucuses - if you are turning this into the popular vote tally contest not the delegate counting contest then all of those caucus states have basically become meaningless.  (Not coincidentally, Hillary has lost most of them).

Also - this counts Michigan (where Obama wasn't on the ballot) and Florida (where Obama didn't campaign).  

If you're going to move the goalposts to be a "popular vote contest" you should at least be fair and report 3 distinct numbers:

1) Popular vote totals in contested primaries (and number of these primaries)

  1. Popular vote totals from MI/FL
  2. Number of raw votes at the precinct level caucuses in each of the caucus states (and number of these caucuses)

Then you can report the sum, which I believe is what you're doing here.  But then any observer can see that the only way Hillary is ahead in popular vote is giving Obama a zero for Michigan, and that Hillary got skewered in the Caucus states.

Had the campaign been about total number of votes, then Obama would have campaigned harder in California, New Jersey, and New York vs. campaigning harder in the caucus states.  The rules are based on delegates, so the campaigns went accordingly.

-Fred

by FredFred 2008-04-23 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

by poserM 2008-04-23 07:53AM | 0 recs
so you are counting caucuses as zero votes

from your own table.  nice.

by John DE 2008-04-23 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Please stop pasting in the same image that we can all visit the website to see over and over, without actually contributing anything to the thread.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-23 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Jerome is misrepresenting that the numbers include all 50 states. As the chart shows, they DON'T include the caucus estimates.

Jerome please correct your diary....thanks.

by JoeCoaster 2008-04-23 08:07AM | 0 recs
why?

by kindthoughts 2008-04-23 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Folks,

One thing to keep in mind here is an excellent point that Jay Cost raised to me in an e-mail over four weeks ago.  He said then that, as long as the results in remaining states were competitive, both sides would lay claim to having received the "most votes".

This ambiguity certainly benefits Clinton, and it is one of the reasons I have asked intelligent, fair-minded Obama supporters to appreciate the importance of finding a legitimate solution to MI and FL.  In a contest this close, it is vital, and in the best interest of all parties, that both sides feel the results of the contest are fair.

I am far less interested in arguing with fellow Democrats over which "math" is "better" than I am in seeing fellow Democrats empowered and enfranchised to vote and exercise their judgement in that fashion.

by bobbank 2008-04-23 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

We were both empowered and enfranchised...  I know, I voted....

Let us save our outrage about disenfranchisement of fellow Democrats until this summer when the GOP attempts to do it for real....

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-23 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

We agree then - the Florida primary was a bona-fide contest.

by bobbank 2008-04-23 08:08AM | 0 recs
Thanks

I wish that certain members of our party, who are Obamacrats first and Democrats second, could appreciate the need to find a Democratic solution to these two states.

I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I feel personally slighted by the party's course of action on this issue.  I wonder if an Obama nod without my two home states being heard is enough to keep me home in November.  Imagine how swing voters in these states feel?  Why are the Obamacrats so eager to force our party to shoot itself in the foot, simply because it favors their candidate?

In the end, not hearing the voices of FL and MI really helps no one.   The sooner we realize it, and stop playing politics, the better of we'll be.

by hornplayer 2008-04-23 08:00AM | 0 recs
Value Added Insight

like this is what keeps me coming back to MYDD!

by The Animal 2008-04-23 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome You Hack

Stop With The Popular Vote Crap. You claim to be a progressive and you seek to disenfranchise voters under the guise of being pro popular vote.

The only way Hillary has the popular vote is if Obama gets 0 votes for MI. I guess it's okay to disenfranchise all of Obama's supporters in MI. Huh? As well as those in Iowa, NV, Maine and Washington. But never mind.

The popular vote metric is NOT used for a reason. That reason is because:

It would penalize every state that had caucuses, as well as those that were not open primaries.

It would mean that less populace states would have little to no say in who was the nominee.

It would focus all of the attention on urban voters.

The whole point of pledged delegates is to give voice to voters - not drown them out.

In other words, in order for the popular vote to be fair to use now - we would need to go back a redo the entire primary season. What?

by CB Todd 2008-04-23 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome You Hack

As someone noted above, Obama obtained most or all of the "uncommitted" delegates in Michigan.  Therefore, I'm going to make the bold prediction that the popular vote totals are flawed and that he does have at least 1 supporter in that state.

by rfahey22 2008-04-23 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

O! has the advantage of more money and the backing of the majority of the media, and yet he can't close the deal. Super Ds are obviously aware of this.

by jen 2008-04-23 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Okay, assuming what you say is true... certainly is from the $$ perspective, I could argue about the media, but than, when don't I..

Why are the Super Delegates not rushing to endorse her then?  Why is she, the frontunner for quite a while until recently, not able to close the deal?

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-23 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Because there's still plenty of contests left.

by hornplayer 2008-04-23 08:02AM | 0 recs
yes, yes there are

lets talk after North Caroline.

Then we will see what kind of spin you guys will come with.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-23 08:16AM | 0 recs
That's why he is closing the gap: down to 23

by hania 2008-04-23 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

How can you say he has the backing of the media?

The MEDIA is the one that is allowing her to remain relevant. All they have to do is point out the fact that she can't catch up and it would be over.

Trust me, if the situation was reversed, Obama would be treated like Don Quixote by now. Instead, the "Clinton Mystique" kicks in and they pretend that Don Clinton has a chance still.

by Darknesse 2008-04-23 09:33AM | 0 recs
Obama is polling even or ahead in MI

but he wasn't on the ballot and hasn't campaigned there. You don't include caucus states. This is not an accurate representation of the will of the voters. This is win at all cost and everyone else be damned.

by grasshopper 2008-04-23 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

damn... a storm is brewing.

by amde 2008-04-23 07:58AM | 0 recs
Nice Spin but are the supers buying?

Using tainted results when you are down is a hard sell. Hillary's strength include geriatric base , middle aged white women, blue collars (easily influenced by Republican wedge issues as Hillary has demonstrated). Obama is selling YOUNG energized voters, liberal/progressives with deep pockets and activists. I wonder which is the better sell to the supers. Based on supers endorsements since Super Tuesday I don't think  the supers are buying or likely to buy Hillary's story.

My guess is Hillary is just prolonging the inevitable.

by KosTexasliberal 2008-04-23 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice Spin but are the supers buying?

Again that is spin. Obama does not have that much power. He was involved in the decision but thats likely to be a plus with the supers. They don't need the divisive fight that would ensue.

The decisive factors are going Obama's way and its only a matter of time before he "closes the deal".

Her window shrunk considerably with yesterdays "win". Once the "glow" of victory wears off all thats left is she is losing the nomination.

by KosTexasliberal 2008-04-23 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Help me figure this out... You write

Does that include all 50 states (and then some)? Of course.

Fine, I think that adding 320,000 votes in Michigan for Clinton and 0 for Obama isn't a great argument, but its one that can made.  I get that.

However, you claim that that a total for Obama of 14,973,720 takes into account all 50 states.  However, according to real clear politics, his total is 15,307,804 if you account for IA, NV, ME, WA.

There is another poster that is making the argument that Clinton leads the popular vote, who is also confronted by the issue of "disenfranchising those four states" and the argument is ignored.

The argument for counting Florida (which I accept) and Michigan (less so, more below) is that voters of the state should not be punished or have their votes ignored because of the decisions of the state or party leaders... Why is it acceptable to punish these four states, but not only not counting them, but then making a big deal about how this count includes all 50 states, when it includes nothing from them?

by labor nrrd 2008-04-23 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Following up on why the Michigan argument that Clinton should get 320,000 votes and Obama 0 grinds my gears.  It depends on "well it was Obama's fault for taking his name off the ballot", but if we are concerned about elections as representing the will of the people instead of just a contest between two individuals, its a little sketchy.  And counting MI and FL depends on the importance of democracy, which I do think is a strong argument.  I don't think you can have it both ways, the voters must be respected, except any Obama supporters in Michigan, because of his choice.  How is that different than not counting MI and FL at all?  Isn't it punishing Obama supporters for decisions that were out of their control?

by labor nrrd 2008-04-23 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I'm going to take this from a slightly different angle.  I think supers declaring now is a big mistake in regards to party unity.

The reality is this - HRC has come off a win and the two camps are showing the stark divides in the Democratic Party.  Like HRC, Obama has flaws that he has yet to answer completely.  To have supers come out and essentially force HRC out, I think that's going to have a negative consequence.

I've been pushing this - you still have to sell the economic vision.  For Obama, he has two critical weeks left.  I agree he has sharpened his economic message, but overall, it still has not reverberated.  Much as we would like to assume that the blue collar voters will flock to us in the fall, you still have to sell.  These are individuals that, if you give them another reason to vote, they may not flock Democrat as much as we think.  Keep in mind the polls awhile back that suggested most Americans expected the economy to approve in a year.

The supers need to let this play out two more weeks, despite some Obama supporters that seem to think otherwise.  Because pushing blue collar voters, voters we've had trouble with, might be dangerous.  Let's see where things stand in two weeks.  Two weeks is not going to hurt this party's chances.  Maybe HRC runs dry.  That's clearly possible.  Maybe Obama has some problems.  Maybe Ace Smith pulls off a surprise.

One thing I will say is that I think Obama needs to somehow stop the negative campaigning, because this gives HRC the opening to go negative.  Look, she's not turning around her negative favorability and so forth.  It is what it is.  The only person hurt, I think, is Obama.

I'm a realist.  The chances of supers going to HRC will only occur if she pulls off Indiana, and perhaps NC.  Even today, the announcement of Brad Henry supporting Obama is a bad sign for her.  But I think having supers come out now completely is the wrong move for party unity, and this thing needs to play out 2 more weeks.

by toonsterwu 2008-04-23 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Hillary can pull off IN, especially after this big win in PA.
She will win WV, KY, and PR.

She will have a strong showing in NC, not so strong in OR or SD (Dashcle will be pushing Obama).

By June 3rd, Hillary will be on top.  I'm sure she will be much kinder to Obama than Obama would be to her.

by stefystef 2008-04-23 08:35AM | 0 recs
You don't give a fuck about the people

Jerome Armstrong you are playing with fire here. You count MI as is and don't take into account caucuses. In my book, you are asking for a serious fight. If the super-delegates do not see through this (which they actually do and that's why the gap is down to 23 as we speak), we can resolve this in Denver. I will be there.

by hania 2008-04-23 08:04AM | 0 recs
Keep on dreaming - ain't gonna happen

NOT THIS TIME. The super-delegates are seeing through this clearly. The gap now is at 23. Deal with it.

by hania 2008-04-23 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Jerome,

If you are going to repeatedly press this argument, I think you should at least be up front about what you're doing.  Hillary is now "leading" if you don't include any votes for several caucus states and if you give Hillary credit for pitching a shutout in Michigan.  

If that's your argument, fine.  I think it's ludicrous, but it's your site and you can argue whatever you want.  But at least put it out there so people can judge your logic on its own merits.  As your post reads now, it is highly misleading, whether you intend it to be or not.      

by HSTruman 2008-04-23 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I agree.  You can't count MI votes for Hillary and give Obama a zero on that.  The popular vote in that instance can only be used for FL.

by venavena 2008-04-23 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Jerome is dishonest and not to be trusted. Very simple, actually.

by SeanF 2008-04-23 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I'm not saying that, just to be clear.  

I've always been a fan of Jerome's work, and that hasn't changed just because he and I disagree regarding who the stronger nominee is.  I just think it's irresponsible to make arguments like this one without being transparent about the assumptions one has to make to buy into it.  

by HSTruman 2008-04-23 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Fair enough.

I want to like Jerome, but too often, there's this slight of hand, painting very different things with the same brush, that makes me cringe.

And when I read stuff like this... I just can't trust him.

by SeanF 2008-04-23 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

First off, I don't think Obama is in trouble in these largely democratic states come Nov. if he's the nominee.  Right now, they have to choose between two great democratic candidates, even if they don't get the one they've voted for, they're still most likely to vote dem. in the general.  That's kind of non-issue for me.

Secondly, as far as the Obama can't close the deal stuff, it's not like Hillary is some average schmo.  She has run her campaign well at all, but she's an excellent politician and I think he's got a little bit too defensive trying to just maintain his lead.  He has to go on offense and still not get into dirty politics, otherwise that goes against his message.

I think it's going to get really nasty in the next few weeks and neither candidate may be electable by the time they get done with each other.

by venavena 2008-04-23 08:06AM | 0 recs
Jerome just couldnt stand the facts about her

Taking up the top spot on MyDDillary.

Explain to me how the Clinton math in MI is at all fair.  

MI needs to have a revote with both names on the ballot if they're to be taken seriously.

by beermeister 2008-04-23 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome just couldnt stand the facts about her

Obama doesn't want a revote in MI or FL.
If he felt confident about it, he would push for it.

But I guess Obama is only for uniting Americans who vote for him.

by stefystef 2008-04-23 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Why couldn't Hillary have closed the deal on Super Tuesday?

The freshman senator with no name recognition, Washington outsider, and first black man to ever have a seious shot at the presidency, came into this battle as - and still is the underdog. She underestimated Barack...big time.

He is the fighter...winning against all odds. Not her.

by april34fff 2008-04-23 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

He's "winning against the odds" with a 3 or 4:1 spending advantage. Yeah, right.

by ColoradoGuy 2008-04-23 08:16AM | 0 recs
how about this

She polled at 20-25 ahead before they started campaigning. She had the local establishment machine (Ed Rendell, anyone?)

He still cut that down to what currently 9.2% and she will net no more then 12 delegates.

Does that clear it up for you?

by kindthoughts 2008-04-23 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: how about this

Oh, I'm clear.
Obama can't beat Hillary.

Now he's trying to spin a loss into a win.  Sounds like old-school politics to me.  I guess he learns well from the Chicago Democratic Machine.

by stefystef 2008-04-23 08:32AM | 0 recs
lets see

she had the name recognition, the long time connections, the party local machine and he still cut her lead in half (she was polling as high as 25 before they started campaigning)

She won no more then 12 delegates.
She needed a 20% win in PA.

Do you know what percentage of pledged delegates she  needed to win before PA so she could catch up to him?

it was 65%.

Well after this 10% landslide, its 71% now.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-23 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: how about this

Have you not been paying attention?

He IS beating her.

He HAS BEEN beating her.

She IS beaten.

by Darknesse 2008-04-23 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I would suggest amending the title of this post to either Counting the "People" or Counting the People*

This kind of math reminds me of Dick Cheney's claim that Bush had more people vote for him than anyone else in history.  Or the Bush admin's claim that more minorities became homeowners under their watch than ever before.  It's true, but only if you squint and keep the blinders on tight.

by enozinho 2008-04-23 08:09AM | 0 recs
Include FL but not MI

The whole Michigan thing is too screwed up to count.

by professor 2008-04-23 08:11AM | 0 recs
Jerome is a hack

Upvote me if you agree.

by beermeister 2008-04-23 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Um, before last night it was 6 weeks since the last primary where anyone won anything, so your point is?

by mady 2008-04-23 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

hahaha

by clintonmccain 2008-04-23 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

yeah, wisconsin was february 22nd. obama is definitely getting antsy. two months without a victory is enough to make you nervous.

by campskunk 2008-04-23 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

He won Texas and Vermont 6 weeks ago, what are you talking about?

by kasjogren 2008-04-23 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

he "won" by getting less votes.  we're talking about november standards- the person with the most popular votes gets the electoral votes.

by campskunk 2008-04-23 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

..which is why we had President Gore--right?

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Obviously you weren't around 8 years ago :D

by kasjogren 2008-04-23 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Mississippi isn't a state anymore?

by bawbie 2008-04-23 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Jerome how can you include FL and MI but not Iowa, Nevada, Washington etc.?

by Bobby Obama 2008-04-23 08:14AM | 0 recs
You are pissing us off Jerome

You are doing a huge disservice to your candidate. You are seriously pissing us off. Keep it up and then we can talk bitter and angry.

by hania 2008-04-23 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

by hania 2008-04-23 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Hillary winning dirty- by counting Florida & Michigan- will simply ensure a Republican White House. Current polling of the number of Obama supporters who would refuse to vote for Hillary doesn't factor in the blowback from a stolen nomination.

by wrb 2008-04-23 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

If you don't count MI and FL today, don't count on those states in November.  The Republicans are already moving in and making the moves on voters.

If Obama won MI and FL, he'd be fighting for those votes to count too.  Obama is being disingenuous.  

by stefystef 2008-04-23 08:30AM | 0 recs
Jerome is brilliant

...the most provocative metric than can be had, he leads a diary with it here, and what happens...

The site is buzzing. It's a smart move, except..

1. POPULAR VOTE: In a month or so this will be over; let's see the popular vote tallies then. Any net gain Hillary gets last night will be eroded by NC and Indiana.

If you're so hooked on the PV, let's see where it goes

2. NO VOTER LEFT BEHIND; talk about disenfranchising the voters in FL and MI. Yes, what about the Obama supporters who couldn't vote because he wasn't on the ballot. The many in Florida who thought their vote wouldn't count. And ALL the caucus states.

This argument is not practical, only an attempt at moral blackmail. And at its heart it is morally bankrupt

3. CLOSING THE DEAL: Hillary failed to close the deal super tuesday. Soon after Obama took the delegate lead, and it has hardly varied.She should have won by now: she didn't.

The fighter argument - Hillary has kept fighting and kept losing.

by brit 2008-04-23 08:17AM | 0 recs
Yeah, yeah....

We all know that if you count the states Obama didn't campaign in and took his name of the ballot because the party asked him to, Hillary has a fake lead.

An honest and responsible blogger with political acumen would be embarrassed to post a diary like this.

by Kobi 2008-04-23 08:18AM | 0 recs
You are DAMN RIGHT

by hania 2008-04-23 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, yeah....

I believe that ONE state that Obama took his name off.
He was on the ballot in FL.

Obama followers need to stop spinning, you are getting dizzy.

by stefystef 2008-04-23 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, yeah....

Clinton supporters need to stop trying to use elections which were known at the time of the vote not to count to try to steal the election for their candidate.

If when people are expected to go vote, they are told their vote isn't going to count, then it's not a valid election.

Period.

by bawbie 2008-04-23 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, yeah....

I assumed everyone knew he was on the FL ballot. But he and hillary  agreed not campaign there because they both agreed it wouldn't count.

Spin is saying that primaries which both candidates agreed wouldn't count now should. Pure desperation.

And they won't count toward deciding the nomination, so it's all really just a lot of bitter hot air from Kamp Klinton.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-23 08:33AM | 0 recs
Face it...

Hillary will never get those votes and delegates until the nomination is officially Obama's.

Counting them for her is just mental masturbation.

by Kobi 2008-04-23 09:25AM | 0 recs
just to let you know

we do know you are teh same guy and "John Harding was a friend too poor"

Yo should really change your commenting style after being banned.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-23 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

The AP asks: "Why can't Barack Obama close the deal?

It's a mathematical certainty that Obama will close the deal.

What history will ask is, with every possible advantage in name recognition, fat cat donors, political machine, and institutional support, why couldn't Hillary close the deal?

I expect the conclusion will be that people wanted change in 2008 and the Clintons were as past as it gets.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-23 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Normally smart people are citing a total vote metric in which they count votes for a candidate in which the other candidates were not on the ballot.

I really feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

by bawbie 2008-04-23 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

And other normally smart people are citing pledged delegate counts and "the math" from a system that looks like it was designed by 5th graders.  Are we really interested in nominating someone based on pledged delegate tallies from a system that does not make any sense, or based on the popular vote and who can beat John McCain?

by mikes101 2008-04-23 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

It doesn't matter if the system were designed by tripping sea monkeys, it's the system that was agreed upon when the contest started and that is all that matters.

The weaknesses of the system should be addressed for next time, but you are NOT allowed to change the rules in the middle of the contest.

by bawbie 2008-04-23 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

>>It doesn't matter if the system were designed by tripping sea monkeys, it's the system that was agreed upon when the contest started and that is all that matters.

>>The weaknesses of the system should be addressed for next time, but you are NOT allowed to change the rules in the middle of the contest.

Nobody said we are changing any rules for this time.  What we are saying is that the superdelegates should not have a "strict interpretation" of the results thus far and should understand that these are the results of a system designed by sea monkeys (especially the caucus results).

The superdelegates should do what they want, in other words.  And I have every confidence that they see that the people want Hillary, and they will back Hillary.

by mikes101 2008-04-23 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

The superdelegates should do what they want, in other words.  And I have every confidence that they see that the people want Hillary, and they will back Hillary.

Sure they should. And if Hillary Clinton can convince roughly 85% of the remaining uncommitted ones and/or convince a sizable percentage of those who have already endorsed Obama to switch, well, then she can win.

But it sure isn't very likely.

by tysonpublic 2008-04-23 09:49AM | 0 recs
&quot;Close The Deal&quot; - Rovian Talking Point

Nice how the Clintons have got the entire corporate media parroting the same semi-nonsensical talking point.

Put that up there with "turning the corner" in Iraq, or "bush is reducing the deficit."

by bernardpliers 2008-04-23 08:31AM | 0 recs
RIGHT ON!!!!

by txexspeedy 2008-04-23 08:31AM | 0 recs
Psssst..

Obama won Texas.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Psssst..

Uhhh.... the networks had Texas in HER column last night.

by SoCalHillMan 2008-04-23 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Psssst..

Just goes to help prove the pro-Clinton bias of the networks at the moment (and before you jump on that too much, it'll shift again... was pro-Obama in early April, pro-Clinton late April, probably pro-Obama in early May again).

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-23 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Psssst..

..Which, along with the networks' inane habit of "rounding up" Clinton's numbers last night and today to put her in the double-digit column, totally obliterates the absurd Clinton claim that the "media" is somehow against her and pro-Obama.

Obama got more delegates than Hillary in Texas.

Back when rules mattered and weren't constantly being changed to favor Clinton, the pledged delegate count was what went toward selecting the nominee. (And the caucus is important, because it weeds out spoiler "Limbaugh liberal" votes and measures strong support as opposed to soft support).

by rhetoricus 2008-04-23 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Any popular vote count that takes Michigan into account is invalid.

by wasder 2008-04-23 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Does anyone (not counting H'08 people) feel like this foggy haze has descending over the media and commenters? Has the collective memory been erased or attacked by selective amnesia as to all the reports that a win in PA was expected for Hillary but was also absolutely necessary to just "STAY ALIVE!" in this race. The win was not the deal closer or even proof that she could take the nomination. The reports were she needed to win by 15-20% to even have a shot at the "perfect storm" she would need to beat Obama.

by txexspeedy 2008-04-23 08:40AM | 0 recs
Jerome's lack of information

It behooves Jerome to include an entire list of vote totals instead of cherry picking the one he likes, otherwise he loses credibility. I saw the RCP list and the one that strikes me as best sampling is the second one to last which includes everything but Michigan. I mean Obama would have gained a least one vote in Michigan- right? That total shows Obama ahead by 1%- what that means is that the race is very close- nothing more nothing less (note how I do not impugn my own credibility by claiming something that is not there). If I was a delegate I would not look kindly at a campaign that was trying to pass false information.  

by RAULC 2008-04-23 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

"Why can't Barack Obama close the deal?"

Oh noes, here comes the sports analogy-- with the clock running out and a comfortable lead and sufficient resources, Obama is acting as all front-runners are supposed to and Not Foul.  Over the next two weeks, his time to "close the deal" will come.

The demographic data suggests that he is picking up strength in some key voter groups. Pennsylvania was an 8.5% loss vs. the 20% loss that once was possible. The worst thing he could do right now is get into a negative fight for primary voters. For now, he gets to pick his battles, rather than Hillary pick them for him. As the sports caster says, "It's his game to lose."

by shermandem 2008-04-23 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Everyone is missing the er um "elephant" in the room.

Hillary can no longer win the pledged delegate contest. It is done. She would need 80% of the remaining delegates to win (impossible-that means 80% precincts and vote to get 80% delegates). Obama can stay were he is and only need to when 40% of the SDs remaining.

by txexspeedy 2008-04-23 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

>>Oh noes, here comes the sports analogy

More like he is playing "prevent defense" and Hillary has the ball on her own 20 with 2 minutes to go, down by 4.  He is hoping he can run out the clock because he has already won, Florida and Michigan be damned, debate in NC be damned.  Many of us feel otherwise - and feel that he is shooting himself in the foot in the process.

I don't think prevent defense is a good idea in football or in political campaigning.  The only time I would play it is against a hail mary.  And Hillary is not throwing Hail Maries right now - she is in this to win!

by mikes101 2008-04-23 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

And this is why sports analogies are foolish arguments (for which I apologize). ;-) You see a football game and I see a basketball game. In basketball, you don't use a prevent defense so much as maintain your lead by trading baskets and not fouling. Obama was a basketball player, I might add.

If you want to stick with football, though, the ball is not on the twenty and Hillary is not down by 4. The challenge ahead for her is much tougher than that. The number of plays left, specifically, is not her friend.

by shermandem 2008-04-23 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Hehe... granted, this is a silly argument and I apologize for it as well, but just to make a point on the appropriateness of my analogy (which is more of an argument about sports than politics):

>>If you want to stick with football, though, the ball is not on the twenty and Hillary is not down by 4.

This is generally regarded as a pretty damn difficult situation to be in in football.  But one in which great quarterbacks like John Elway, Brett Favre, or the like demonstrate that they can win in - few others can.  Kind of like being down by 10 with 2 minutes left in your basketball game - not many plays left, not much time.  But it can be done - and the great ones do persevere (and get lucky sometimes).

by mikes101 2008-04-23 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Except that she is down by 15 and he gets 6 points for every TD she scores.

by Darknesse 2008-04-23 11:15AM | 0 recs
Oh dear

You're counting those 'elections' again.  I'm not saying FL and MI shouldn't count, but any election that wouldn't get certified by the UN if they were in the third world probably shouldn't swing things.

(I know... I know... all-powerful Obama magically stopped new elections...)

by mikeinsf 2008-04-23 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I am all for an honest victory. Clinton definitely won last night, and should be congratulated. She truly pulled it off and looked great during her speech.

But when the Clinton camp and her supporters start saying, we've won the popular vote--if we count FL and MI--then I start to think all of you are just a bunch of dishonest liars.

It's about legitimacy. I want a legitimate nominee. You and your candidate are not legitimate when you behave this way.

by SeanF 2008-04-23 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Does Jerome working for the clinton campaign?

by er1975 2008-04-23 09:16AM | 0 recs
ABC Disagrees

Clinton Camp Misrepresents ABC News Report

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/04/clinton-camp-mi.html

April 23, 2008 12:03 PM

In today's edition of "The Note," ABC News' Rick Klein wrote that "By one (rightly disputed) metric -- the popular vote, including Florida and Michigan -- Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama. But without the rogue states, Obama is still up by 500,000 -- and if you can find another objective measurement by which she's in the lead, let us know."

Including the popular votes from Florida and Michigan -- which were not sanctioned Democratic National Committee primaries, where the candidates did not compete, where Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois was not even on the ballot in Michigan -- is a sketchy notion, and Rick was conveying that with the proper air of skepticism.

Somehow, the Clinton campaign took his report and twisted it into this: "ABC News reported this morning that 'Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama' in the popular vote."

That is a false reflection of what ABC News reported.

by nextgen 2008-04-23 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

This is really pathetic. Exclude caucuses, which are normal elements of the nominating process, and include state pseudo-elections which don't meet any of the basic standards for fair and free elections and Clinton has more votes.

Very, very sad.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-23 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Does Jerome working for the clinton campaign?

by er1975 2008-04-23 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I would guess only as a volunteer.

by Kobi 2008-04-23 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Essentially yes.  The more Jerome writes nowadays, the more I want to contribute to Obama.  Damn that there is that $2300 limit per person.  

by sbbonerad 2008-04-23 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

You've got to wonder where someone who has touted party unity gets off saying the things he does about the all but confirmed nominee Obama.

The question was whether he works for Hillary, but it could be asked if he works for McCain.

by Kobi 2008-04-23 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Thank the Almighty that Jerome is posting the obvious:  Obama cannot be sold, where it matters most--in big state America.

Hillary's map of primary victories thus far would already give her the Presidency.  Obama's string of primary and caucus victories would bring him nowhere close.

The great tragedy of the Obama camp is that they live in a bubble.  In their echo chamber, which is fostered and abetted by the long Clinton-hating American media, they cannot comprehend the gravity of him having lost every major state save his own--and even if you give him that near-draw in Missouri, his record in big-state America is dismal.

Were this any prior Democratic presidential election cycle, Hillary's wins would have been winner-take-all, reflecting the reality of the Electoral College.  But this is Howard Dean's party now, run by losers like Ted Kennedy, Bill Bradley, Bill Richardson, John Kerry and the like, and of course Dean himself.  And they, like the media itself, are all about stopping the Clintons.

The Obama money is hugely overrated.  For all of his investments of megamillions, he has still lost most of the major states by double-digits.

Obama's endorsements are hugely overrated.  Most newspapers have been trumpeting him, and few voters have paid any attention.

Obama's party elder endorsements are hugely overrated.  Massachusetts, home of the Kennedys, went by 59% to Hillary--as did neighboring sister state Rhode Island.  In these states, all the trumpeting by Kennedys, John Kerry, Deval Patrick and company, meant almost nothing at all.  And all those who have stumped for him elsewhere have done little to sway Clinton enthusiasts.

Witnessing this election cycle has been both tragic and amusing.  It is tragic because, what should have been a slam-dunk Democratic year, will, if Obama is the nominee, send millions of bedrock Clinton Democrats into the John McCain column in the fall.  And that is even if the Clintons endorse Obama.  Exit polls have been revealing just that fact, but of course the bubble crowd of Obama are oblivious.

Yet it has also been amusing.  In their fawning bias for Obama (the ABC debate was his first real challenge--he performed miserably, so badly is he prepared for a general election run, and so badly is he prepared to be anywhere the Presidency), most pundits, pollsters, and print and blogger media, have become caricatures.

Obama wins a big caucus in Iowa.  And he is instantly proclaimed a prohibitive favorite, though not a single primary vote has been cast.

Hillary wins the first primary in New Hampshire, beating all pollsters expectations, and surely her win must have been an anomaly.  A recount is demanded.  But her victory proves real.

Obama will surely win the Nevada caucus, as he has the backing of the all-powerful Culinary Workers Union.  Hillary prevails by six points, but KOS and fellow media believe it nets Obama one more delegate, even though official delegate selection there would not occur for months.

Hillary takes Michigan, handily.  But as only her name is on the ballot, even though Obama forces were openly soliciting for voters to cast for the "uncommitted slate," her win there is judged meaningless.

Hillary loses South Carolina by a wide margin to Barack Obama.  Again the MSM touts Obama as the prohibitive favorite, and when former President Bill Clinton points out the obvious--that Jesse Jackson himself twice bested Obama's margin of victory--he is judged a racist.

The Kennedys come out big-time for Obama, just before Florida.  Florida casts big-time for Hillary instead, with Obama winning a very tepid 33%.  The Obama crowd, and their media outlets, proclaim Florida meaningless.

SuperTuesday is supposed to be big wins for Obama in big states.  Pollsters have him surging in New Jersey; Zogby in particular has Obama up by 8-13% in California.  Instead, most all big states that evening (save for Obama's Illinois and his near-draw in Missouri) go Hillary's way--and with big margins.  She coasts to California victory by double-digits.

Then begins the Obama eleven-state victory romp.  He prevails in caucuses (note, not primaries) in Washington and Maine, wins heavily independent and cross-over Wisconsin, and the lion's share of African-Americans in Potomac River and Southern States.  

The fact that most of his mountain and Southern state wins go inevitably Republican means nothing to the pro-Obama media.  Hillary should get out.  Oh, and by the way, one should not be counting either Florida or Michigan--they violated the rules and they knew it.  Voters there only went to the polls for meaningless exercise.

But Hillary, ever villified if not excoriated, stays in it.  Now, says the MSM, she must win both Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4.  And on March 4 she handily wins in bell-weather Ohio, winning 83 of 88 counties and by double-digits statewide.  She easily prevails in Kennedy country Rhode Island.  And she takes the Texas primary, having been outspent there and elsewhere by three to five-to-one.

Now, says the MSM (no longer bothering with either Michigan or Florida) she "is still too far behind to catch up."

Obama expectedly takes heavily African-American Mississippi and prevails in the solid GOP Wyoming.  But, big whoop, not even the MSM can spin those victories as meaningful.

Which brings us to Pennsylvania.  Five weeks of campaigning, overwhelming the state with flyers and television ads, outspending the Clinton camp by better than three to one, and Obama still loses almost every Pennsylvania county, and like Ohio, by double-digits, and, well, reports the ever anti-Clinton MSM (and still not counting either Florida or Michigan), "Hillary is still too far behind."

That is the truly amusing aspect of this race.  Witnessing the MSM and their punditocracy make absolute fools of themselves.  

Once at least moderately respected talking heads like Keith Olbermann and Brian Williams, have joined their fellow Clinton-hating pundits Tim Russert and MSNBC company in an Obama love-fest that everyone from the cast at "Saturday Night Live" on down, views as beyond ridiculous.

Caroline Kennedy and Uncle Ted traipse around the country telling everyone that Barack Obama is John and Bobby Kennedy reincarnated.  Nobody listens, nobody cares--especially in Massachusetts, whose voters should know if there is such a comparison.

Oprah Winfrey forever ceases to be a serious journalist, and goes out on a limb for Barack Obama.  Her viewership sharply declines.  She becomes a sort of silly acolyte, embracing Obama with the same fervor she once championed the later admitted-lying author of "A Million Little Pieces," and her passion for a South African school, although with a molester on its staff.

Dozens of politicians fall on their swords for Obama.  Not just the Kennedys, but Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Bill Bradley, John Kerry--all of whom are either losers, also-rans, or never possible-runs.

KOS, MoveOn.org (inaugurated as an anti-Clinton impeachment site), and Michael Moore all use their websites to promote Obama.  The money pours in, yet team Obama almost universally loses every major state in the country.

Now, STILL not counting Michigan and Florida, the yet-trying to get-the-Clintons-out forces, discount Hillary's huge (and by all standards, her win was huge indeed), again tell us she is simply too far behind.

Behind, how?  In delegates?  But STILL not counting Michigan and Florida.  In popular vote?  But STILL not counting Michigan and Florida.  In number of states?  But what does that have to do with the Electoral College, which is all about where a candidate wins, not by how much or in how many states?

So, will the MSM and Obama crowd yet achieve the #1 objective of the 2008 campaign: driving out the Clintons?

Will the Howard Dean reconstituted Democratic Party achieve their #1 objective: driving out the Clintons?

Because 2008 was never about electing Obama.  Big state America has already determined that he'll never go further than Senator from Illinois.  The Obama bubble will burst when that sobering fact hits home hard come November.

But as for the Clintons, ever castigated, ever dismissed, always counted for down-and-out, one would be foolhardly to believe that they won't prevail in the end.

Bring on all the Clinton-haters.  The more the merrier.  They have survived Impeachment and Ken Starr; they have even won over one of their most vociferous opponents--the owner of the "Pittsburgh-Tribune."

Still, for the MSM, its all about getting the Clintons.

Time alone will tell who has bested whom.

I believe the Clintons will, as they have in the past so many times before, endure and prevail, against seemingly insurmountable odds.

And of Barack Obama?  He'll never go further than being a Senator from Illinois.  Compared to the Clinton tandem, he is little more than one of the many also-rans who tried to best the Clintons, and failed.

The anti-Clinton forces never learn.  Even when the clear majority of voters in big-state America tell them otherwise.

And that is both tragic and amusing indeed.

by lambros 2008-04-23 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

This is ridiculous.  Obama wasn't even on the MI ballot.  She is included that state in her popular vote totals and thats the only way she would have more votes because he wasnt even on the Ballot.

by afr114 2008-04-23 09:30AM | 0 recs
Dishonest narative

Since you are counting Michigan votes, where no other candidates ran, and where Hillary herself said that the votes would not count, this count is in no way a indication of who can be elected.  

Do you expect McCain to leave his name off the ballot in a major state, and not campaign in another state.  The supers are not going to swing on this erroneous analysis.

It would be better to say that Hillary closed the gap by 212,000 votes in states where normal campagning occured.  That is a positive.  By stating that she has more votes than Obama, you just subject yourself to ridicule

by xenontab 2008-04-23 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonest narative

But you know what?  That's all Jerome and the Clintonistas can hang their hats on nowdays.  It's pathetically sad!!!

by sbbonerad 2008-04-23 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

This consistent and brazen intellectual dishonesty disgusts me.  I literally feel ill reading this crap.  I'm done with this site.

by chinapaulo 2008-04-23 09:56AM | 0 recs
Please dont go!

Think of your duty to bring sanity to those less fortunate

by xenontab 2008-04-23 10:12AM | 0 recs
Intellectually Dishonest

Giving Hillary Clinton 328,309 out of Michigan and Barack Obama 0 is probably the most transparently dishonest number I've seen on this site since Universal was unbanned.

by wengler 2008-04-23 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Intellectually Dishonest

he was unbanned?!  Say it ain't so!!!

by Skaje 2008-04-23 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

This is why I will NEVER vote for Clinton. She is SO DIRTY and a LIAR. How can she count FL and MI? I know she has to make a statement but to make it in such DEFINITIVE way? Obama was not on the ballot and she agreed to not count FL and MI in November and again in January.

CLINTON = BUSH

by comingawakening 2008-04-23 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

How can any Clinton supporters not feel disgusted to have this person represent you? No one is 100% innocent but this is what Clinton is all about. Lies and spins. Poor thing.

by comingawakening 2008-04-23 10:20AM | 0 recs
No it does not count all the states.

Read RCP politics.

The metric you are using ignores IA, NV, ME, and WA.

With those added in, Obama is still ahead even with Hillary getting MI and FL.

by auboy2006 2008-04-23 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: No it does not count all the states.

The Clintonistas are only left with "IFs". If you count MI and Fla. If you don't count Caucuses. If Obama can't win "The only states that Clinton claims are important". IF, If, if. Pretty pathetic

by eddieb 2008-04-23 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: No it does not count all the states.

IF we count delegates Obama is ahead by 161 pledged and behind by 23 superdelegates.

Obama has 1494 pledged to 1333 for Clinton.
Obama has 233 superdelegates, Clinton has 256.

No "if you includes" there.  Just delegates.  Every state that had fair and sanctioned contests is on equal footing.

The dishonesty of people who would ignore caucus states, disenfranchise closed primary states, and count mock elections in MI and FL just to pull one metric out of their ass that shows Clinton ahead is saddening.  Especially coming from the site owner.  It's going to be hard to take Jerome seriously once Obama is the nominee in June.

by Skaje 2008-04-23 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Does anyone really think that if the Supers deliver the nomination to Clinton, that she'll win?

by dmc2 2008-04-23 10:55AM | 0 recs
Directly Quoting Kos:

Which means that in Clinton and Jerome's world, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote only IF you exclude four caucus states, IF you include two unsanctioned states, and IF you "disenfranchise" every voter in Michigan who voted against Hillary Clinton.

That takes a new and particularly audacious level of chutzpah

by steampunkx 2008-04-23 11:28AM | 0 recs
Thank god

Markos has called you out for your obvious intellectual dishonesty on this. Good to see the saner and more highly traveled roads of the net aren't buying into your "facts".

by bookish 2008-04-23 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank god

Markos "Half the party should leave" Big tent Moulitsas?  Yeah, he's the voice of sanity here.

by mikes101 2008-04-23 12:03PM | 0 recs
I'd love to see the source

for that "quote".

Nothing?

That's what I thought.

by bookish 2008-04-23 12:57PM | 0 recs
This is about the stupidest argument so far!

Ok, let me see if I have this right: We count all the popular votes up to now, including in PA yesterday. We add the vote totals from Florida. Then we add the vote totals from Michigan, giving Hillary the ones she got, but giving Obama ZERO (not even the "none of the above" vote). Oh, and while we're at it, we do NOT count the estimates from the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

And then... looky here! Hillary has the lead!!!

Do I have that about right?

I'm sorry guy, but this ain't gonna fly. You might think the only people you need to convince is some guy who just crawled out of a cave somewhere. But, unfortunately for you, the ONLY people who can help you are the superdelegates. And guess what? This ridiculous argument that you (and some in the Hillary camp) are putting forward is just gonna make supers laugh at you.... as they continue to march toward Obama.

by ratmach 2008-04-23 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

I'm fairly sure Jerome was intelligent enough to see the ridiculousness in this argument, since it required including Hillary's votes in Michigan, and assuming that Obama had literally 0 people supporting him there. So although he definitely shares some of the blame for repeating the lie, Jerome is just parroting what Hillary is spinning.  It was her press release that claimed she had 'overtaken' Obama in the popular vote.

by Wayward Son 2008-04-23 11:57AM | 0 recs
Hillary's war on &quot;math&quot; and voters

Fact flub more like:

That count is PA added to the popular vote and the vote totals from the (no contest) contests in MI and FL.  AND it excludes 4 caucus states!  

Remember the "uncommited" or "anti-Hillary" votes on the MI ballot?  Well Jerome apparently hasn't, because they weren't added to anyones total. Those voters don't seem to count.

Oh well maybe next election.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-04-23 12:03PM | 0 recs
Popular vote - either a wash or Clinton victory

Even if you take away Michigan right now, Clinton is only down by 315k votes.

I think it is reasonable to expect that the popular vote will either be in Clinton's hands or will be a wash by the time all is said and done.  

If you don't want to include Florida either, I suggest that the supers be asked to consider the hypothetical results of Michigan and Florida given the demographics of both states (Michigan would be a slight Clinton victory - probably 1-5%, and Florida likely a 10-12% victory).  Or they can use whatever figures they would like - but I think my margins are reasonable.

Then the supers will have to go with their gut - who do you want fighting for this party in November?  Who can bring home all 50 states, including Michigan and Florida?  If I were considering that right now, and getting rid of obvious losers like the solid Republican South, my answer would have to be Clinton.

by mikes101 2008-04-23 12:14PM | 0 recs
Memo to Caucus States


   from Hillary Clinton and MyDD...F*** You!!

  That's what they both seem to be saying.

  Obama's lead in the popular vote was over 800,000 before Pennyslvania.

  Now it's less, but by no means is he ahead. Unless of course you count FL and MI and don't count the caucus states.

  Imagine my surprise!! Clinton surrogates thinking that's a fair and accurate assessment! Shocking!!!

by southernman 2008-04-23 12:28PM | 0 recs
Citing FactHub?

I feel like I;m at Taylor Marsh, NoQuarter or hillaryis44.

Great stuff, Jerome. You're not much of a humorist, but your unintentional attempts such as this gem are beginning to reveal a certain Forrest Gump-like ability to accidentally turn out funny stuff.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-23 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

It's odd that I have to explain to the site admin why popular vote is not a fair metric to use.

Caucus states are penalized.
Closed primary states are penalized.
Semi-open primary states are penalized.

If every single state ran the same type of contest (such as during a general election) then the popular vote would be a useful metric.

But it isn't for our nominating contests.  We use delegates to pick our nominee.  Arbitrarily counting the popular votes from Michigan (where Obama wasn't on the ballot) and Florida while ignoring caucus states that don't even report their totals is about as useful as counting number of states won, or number of counties won.

Obama is in the lead.  Fuzzy math isn't going to change that.

by Skaje 2008-04-23 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: NOT: Counting the people

please, just please stop already.

by Skaje 2008-04-23 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Including Michigan in your totals is the most ridiculous biased thing you can write.

by chewie5656 2008-04-23 02:00PM | 0 recs
MyDD:Only counting the people-who count

But how sad for all those poor caucus states who've found out this primary season that they aren't allowed to be part of our democracy.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-04-23 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Lots of high emotion here. Might it not be time, long, past time, to take a deep breath and think do we really want another four years of the Bush Administration? Obama and Clinton both have great appeal and serious weaknesses. Obama, supporters, can our guy really win if he can't appeal to working class voters, especially to women? Clinton supporters, do you really think she can win when she's alienated a big chunk of the party from Moveon.org to Sam Nunn? I think it's time that we all started pressing for the logical grand compromise: If Clinton wins Indiana (probably the last state too close to call right now) then let's call for a Clinton-Obama ticket. If Obama wins Indiana, then it's Obama-Clinton. But for God's sake, let's stop playing games with numbers, as though though they were equivalent to the Revelation at Sinai. There's just too much ambiguity to them.

by Reference Librarian 2008-04-23 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Counting the people

Chris Bowers has an exceptionally well reasoned piece on this at Open Left. See http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=5338

Here's some key points:

"
Yet another annoying, but almost certainly true, prediction for the primary season is that, over the next six weeks, we are going to here a lot of electability arguments. When hearing these arguments, keep in mind that any general election electability argument based on results of Democratic nomination events is nonsensical. No matter how high turnout has been, and no matter what states or demographics either candidate has won, the simple fact is that neither of them have won the voters necessary to win the general election. It will take at least 62,000,000 votes (Bush's 2004 total) to win the general election, and so far neither candidate has managed even 25.0% of that total. Further, the voters in primaries are in no way representative of the voters in general elections. For example, winning Iowa or New Hampshire in a caucus or primary does not mean someone can win Iowa or New Hampshire in a general election, because you are dealing with entirely different electorates in general elections than in primaries and caucuses. The same holds true for demographic groups. Winning white Catholics, or Independents, or Latinos, or high-income voters in a primary or caucus is not reflective of an ability to win those groups in a general election, because you will be dealing with entirely different sets of those voters in a general than in a primary or caucus.

The real electability we should be worried about are not asinine arguments over how nomination event performance reflects on general election performance, but rather how we make sure that no matter how long the nomination campaign goes on, that Democrats win the general election. Here are six simple steps we can take in order to make this happen.
1.Superdelegates should endorse by July 1st

2.Edwards and uncommitted delegates should endorse by July 1st

3.Campaign delegate transparency

4.Stop all public, intra-party attacks on June 4th

5. Combine Field Campaigns after June 4th

6.Combine anti-McCain paid media campaigns

Chris concludes:
"A seventh and final step that the two campaigns could take would be to pledged to transfer all of their available cash on hand to the DNC in the event they do not become the nominee. The guaranteed joint ticket should also be considered. While that might seem unworkable now, if the campaign is dragging into August, if the public attacks stop, and if the other coordination is already taking place, a joint ticket might seems like a no-brainer.

I think this is all doable. If we can pull it off, then I will be quite confident in our ability to unite the party and defeat John McCain in November, even if the nomination campaign goes all the way until the convention. Hell, if we can pull this all off, then I might even be in favor of it going all the way until the convention."

Now isn't this something worthwhile to press? Or is venting righteous wrath much more important? You pays your money, you make your choice.

by Reference Librarian 2008-04-23 06:03PM | 0 recs
Throwing numbers from caucus states

Makes the math hazy to get an accurate count.

by optimusprime 2008-04-23 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: As usual, Kos has this one right

Yo, Pin - -

You've been here all of a week and you violate the FAQs for troll rating.

I see you wish to have people take you seriously,
but you do not extend others the same courtesy that you expect for yourself.  
That, in and of itself, is a large part of the problem in this primary season.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-24 01:34AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads