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

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

/Why are reporters this stupid?

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?

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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

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.    

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

2. Popular vote totals from MI/FL
   
3. 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

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.

like this is what keeps me coming back to MYDD!

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?

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.

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.

damn... a storm is brewing.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.      

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.

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.

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.

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.

The whole Michigan thing is too screwed up to count.

Upvote me if you agree.

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

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.  

"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."

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...)

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.

Does Jerome working for the clinton campaign?

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.

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.

Does Jerome working for the clinton campaign?

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.

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.

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

This consistent and brazen intellectual dishonesty disgusts me.  I literally feel ill reading this crap.  I'm done with this site.

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.

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

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.

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.

Does anyone really think that if the Supers deliver the nomination to Clinton, that she'll win?

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

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

   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!!!

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.

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.

please, just please stop already.

Including Michigan in your totals is the most ridiculous biased thing you can write.

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.

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.