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).
Wrong.
The Texas caucus counts (1 million voters) are not included in this chart. They went 55-45 for Obama.
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
Have fun out there in left field by yourself.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
