On the popular vote totals

Some math on the popular vote equation, following KY & OR:

Hillary Clinton netted approximately 150,000 votes and is now poised to finish the primary season as the popular-vote leader. In some quaint circles, presumably, these things still matter.

Real Clear Politics keeps track of six versions of the popular-vote total. They are, in ascending order of inclusivity: (1) the popular vote of sanctioned contests; (2) the total of sanctioned contests, plus estimated votes from the Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington caucuses; (3) the popular vote plus Florida; (4) popular vote plus Florida and the caucuses; (5) the popular vote plus Florida and Michigan; (6) popular vote plus Florida, Michigan, and the caucus estimates. After Tuesday, Clinton now leads in two of these six counts.

If you believe that the most important precept in democratic politics is to "count every vote," then the sixth category is the most inclusive, and here Clinton leads Obama by 71,301 votes. Of course, this includes the Michigan result, where Sen. Obama had removed his name from the ballot. So while it may be the most inclusive, it may not be the most fair.

The third and fourth counts - the ones which include Florida - seem more fair. Here, Obama is clinging to a slight lead of 146,786 votes (257,008, with the caucus estimates). However, with Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota remaining, he will almost certainly finish behind her in these counts, likely by a few hundred thousand votes.

But could Clinton take over the lead in all of the popular-vote tabulations? Quite possibly. In Puerto Rico's last major election, two million people voted. Let's assume that turnout for this historic vote - Puerto Rico has never had a presidential primary before - will be equal to or greater than that turnout.

If Clinton were to win Puerto Rico by 20 points she would pick up at least a 400,000-vote margin. This would allow her to swamp Obama in the popular-vote counts, which include Florida, making her the leader in four of the six permutations of the popular vote. At that point, Obama would be left clinging to the least-inclusive count, which he now leads by 441,558 votes (551,780, including caucuses).

To understand how razor-thin this majority is, consider that if the Puerto Rico turnout is slightly larger than we have imagined - or Clinton's margin is slightly greater - then Clinton would finish the primary process leading in every conceivable vote count. With two million voters, a 28 percent victory would put Clinton over the top even in the count, which excludes Florida and Michigan and includes estimates for Obama's caucus victories.

Clinton is heading over to Puerto Rico, and I've seen reports of Obama going there as well, and that makes it hard to doubt that the turnout will ramp up in Puerto Rico. Though we've only had one poll out of PR (Clinton 50, Obama 37), it goes along with the notion that Clinton is favored there.

If turnout is 2 million, a 14 percent win puts Clinton over the top in 4 of the 6 tallies. That will happen on the day after the ruling that will likely restore MI & FL legitimacy via some counting (full or percentage) of their delegates (based on their previous vote), making those two least inclusive counts even less so.



Display:


Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 5)

Jerome,

I was in PR and it is not a lock for HIllary. All of the folks on the ground think it will be in low single digits or an Obama victory.


by sweet potato pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:48:27 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

Who are 'all the folks in the ground'? Those wouldn't be Obama's folks in the ground right?


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:55:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

No, that would be PR political analysts who KNOW the history of Puerto and have close contacts with the government and not the diarist.


by sweet potato pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:00:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Where are they saying these things?


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:07:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

You know what they say, "As goes Puerto Rico, so goes Puerto Rico."


by niksder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:02:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Winning a baseball game by a touchdown (2.00 / 1)

They're saying these things because they want to bypass the pesky process of election reform that would have to take place before the rules could be changed from delegate race to popular vote tally.

Since Hillary's losing the game according to existing rules, they're arguing that if we were playing by other rules, she'd be ahead - pretty much the same as claiming to have won a baseball game by scoring more touchdowns.

Problem is, while there still seem to be a handful of people willing to shout what they surely must know is a bogus argument from the mountaintops, there's virtually nobody dumb enough to actually believe it.


Not this time.
by jedley on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oops (none / 0)

sorry, put my comment in the wrong place...
cheers
Not this time.
by jedley on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

How is the government of PR predicting the primary results??


by JustJennifer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:06:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

In from everything I have heard .. SD & MT are favored for Obama .. .so I don't know where Jerome gets his numbers from .. sounds to me like he is still in denial stage


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:05:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

I did pause for a moment when I saw the quote about "with PR, SD, and MT remaining..."  Puerto Rico has been much-discussed in this thread and elsewhere as being anywhere from a Clinton blowout to an Obama 10-percenter, but South Dakota and Montana have to be considered to favor Obama at this point.  Going by Electoral-Vote.com (as does the front-page Electoral Maps), I see Obama with a 46-34 lead in South Dakota in the most recent poll.  Judging from his past performance in all the surrounding states, a 12-point lead may wind up underestimating his ultimate victory.  Montana is the same - no recent polls, but if it's anything like North Dakota, Idaho, and Wyoming, it should be an Obama blowout.  Obviously, neither state is especially rich in hard numbers of voters, but I can't see how Obama doesn't gain ground on Clinton in those two states.  Let's hear it for Puerto Rico!


When I grow up, I want to be a superdelegate!
by robitude on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:17:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

YAWN

Are people STILL talking about the 2008 primary?


by gil44 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:48:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

He pulled those numbers out of his ass.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:08:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

I understand Bill Richardson's going there (or is already there?)to stump for Obama.  I never thought PR would be a lock for HC - thanks for the info!  

Oh - and love your sig!


"Not only do I want an elite president, I want someone who's embarrassingly superior to me." -- Jon Stewart, 4/15/08
by JulieinVT on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:23:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Richardson won't matter a bit there. He's a Mexican American and not even many know he's that. The odds that he'll sway many in Puerto Rico are pretty slim.


by Mayor McCheese on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:48:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Ah, I see. How silly of me.


"Not only do I want an elite president, I want someone who's embarrassingly superior to me." -- Jon Stewart, 4/15/08
by JulieinVT on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:05:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

agreed.


by Mayor McCheese on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:45:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Lovely.  


"Not only do I want an elite president, I want someone who's embarrassingly superior to me." -- Jon Stewart, 4/15/08
by JulieinVT on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:36:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

I thought so.


by Mayor McCheese on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:33:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama wins if you count CAUCUS votes in the tally (2.00 / 1)

Why do you omit the CAUCUS votes from the 'popular vote' tally?

If CAUCUS voters are counted -- they stood in long lines in many states to vote, in caucus, for Obama and Hillary -- then OBAMA is the  winner of the popular vote.

Please don't buy the false tally and omit all those voters!


by MS on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:58:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins if you count CAUCUS votes in the ta (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, Jerome.  Those caucus states don't count.  It's not like HRC signed a pledge not to campaign in those states, even though Mike Henry may have recommended such a strategy.


by niksder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:04:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Caucus votes are in the tally (none / 0)

If you read the footnote at real clear politics, caucus vote are in the tally except only four states where no total was reported so those are estimated.


by del on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:21:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

except (2.00 / 1)

one caucus vote does not equal one ballot.  If these states held a straight primary, there would me many, many more votes cast than there were caucusers.  Yeah, caucuses suck, but they've always sucked.  The appropriate outlet for your rage is to pressure the Democratic leaders to do away with them next election.

This whole thing is apples to oranges.  You can't count caucus cotes like they're ballots.  It's just dishonest.


by semiquaver on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:50:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Give her eleventy billion votes! (2.00 / 8)

It's still a delegate race, man. We don't count the winner of the Superbowl as the team more people wanted to win, and we don't use the PV in a delegate-based primary. Them's the breaks.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:49:06 AM EST

Re: Give her eleventy billion votes! (2.00 / 4)

The very nature of the primary/cacus system makes the popular vote argument without merit as it ignores the underlying votes to win cacus votes.  

It's a handy metric if you want an excuse to continue a failed run and a great populist talking point but it's without honesty.  

Here is the funny part, it only feeds into the "say anything, do anything" perception that will endure beyond this primary season.  


"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody
by nextgen on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:31:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give her eleventy billion votes! (2.00 / 5)

My response to this is "So what?" isn't this one hell of a masterbatory non sequitur from the whole discussion of the nomination.

We could also count straw poll votes while we're counting votes from fictional contests (when 40% of peoples' votes cannot be ascertained and thousands more did not participate when they didn't think it was real - that's a fictional election) and also making estimated counts from caucuses whose goal is to measure intensity not breadth.

If we were going to make this about popular vote, why did Jerome post delegate counters on his blog all that time?


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:43:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give her eleventy billion votes! (2.00 / 1)

LOL @ "masterbatory non sequitur"


by devoted1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:46:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give her eleventy billion votes! (2.00 / 1)

What troubles me most about all these popular vote (i.e. mental masturbation sessions) is that none of these scenarios account for Clinton's very heavy support among hedgehogs.

Hedgehogs have been breaking for Clinton nearly 4 to 1 in this primary, and nobody seems to give a shit.  Is this not a democracy for all?!?

ONE HEDGEHOG - ONE VOTE!

P.S.  Staty tuned for my diary on the demographics of the entire animal kingdom.  I'm pretty sure it's the one place the goal posts haven't been moved to yet.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:59:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give her eleventy billion votes! (none / 0)

Well with that in mind I shouldn't bother voting at all...I mean it IS a delegate vote folks they are going to do what they want at the end of the day & they favor Obama who is still somehow perceived to be candidate outside of the DLC mainstream.  Still can't get over that paradox.

So let's give her 11 gazillion votes it doesn't matter what people REALLY want just the delegates...

Of course these were the same arguments used by the GOP during Gore v. Bush IIRC...But always glad to see Republican talking points on a progressive blog @@


by jrsygrl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:12:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Didn't Wolfson remind us this was about DELEGATES? (none / 0)

Just asking.

Because if we keep moving the goals posts it won't be long before the new argument is that HRC should be the nominee because the population of the states she won primaries in is actually higher.

And then the new argument will be that, oh, well it will be something. Or another.

Please just give it a rest. It is over. We are now in the general election.

Please try to support the nominee. He is a good guy and will represent us well as nominee and as President.

It doesn't make your case any stronger to keep changing your arguments while the supers keep breaking toward the leader in the elected delegates. Your case looks weaker every day. The primary season is now over.


by denniswine on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:11:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give her eleventy billion votes! (none / 0)

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Yes, the nomination race is about delegates, but it's not about getting the most delegates, it's about reaching the required number of delegates -- whatever that turns out to be after FL and MI are resolved.

And part of the delegate process involves the supers voting based on any factors they choose, including the popular vote totals. That's why the popular vote is relevant. If the supers choose to ignore that factor, so be it. But claiming that the popular to has no relevancy because this is a delegate race, seems to miss the point entirely.


by ryeland on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:50:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't PPD boycotting in PR (2.00 / 1)

I read where turnout may be just 400K.


by parahammer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:50:22 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)


by parahammer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:50:47 AM EST

Re: meaningless totals (2.00 / 3)

The superdelegates aren't going to give it to Clinton because Puerto Rico pushed her "over the top."  They're going to give it to Obama because he won more states, ran a better campaign, has the majority of pledged delegates, raises a lot more money and is better for down-ticket races, particularly in the South where black voter turnout is crucial for Dem candidates.


by megaplayboy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:51:10 AM EST

Re: meaningless totals (none / 0)

I'll give you every point except 1) he won more states -- this is as irrelevant as popular vote totals, 2) is better for down-ticket races -- not really true.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:57:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: meaningless totals (2.00 / 1)

I think Al Gore would beg to differ on your point 1.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:44:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: meaningless totals (none / 0)

Not for the purposes of a primary.  The GE is winner take all - primaries aren't.  It doesn't matter how many states you win.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:57:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: meaningless totals (2.00 / 1)

You're wrong there! Obama cleary IS better for downticket Democrats.

1. By raising a lot more money he can attack in far more states. This greatly broadens the playing field and forces the Republicans onto the defensive in many places. They will be trailing badly in fundraising for their Congressional candidates and have to rely on McCain's appeal to buttress a badly tarnished party image.

2. By having more support among independents (See Gallup Poll for details) Obama also supports the ticket in places like Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico, Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina. All places where Obama will help the down-ticket Dems, whether he wins those states or not.

Hillary is stronger in Appalachia, Ohio and Florida. But, there are far more districts in play in the west, and northwest. Right now Obama (although he will never win) is within 5 points of McCain in Montana, which is increasingly a purple state (see Sen. Hester).

Colorado -- another western state which is simply not in play for Hillary, but is Obama country (he's currently up by +6 in the last Rassmussen poll here. This will be important to help pick up Colorado's 4th congressional district which Marilyn Musgrave only won by fewer than 6,000 votes.

There are lots of states like North Dakota, Montana, etc. where Obama won't win, but will do well enough to make downticket races competitive. Hillary's strength is concentrated in fewer big states. That doesn't help build towards a 50 state permanent Democratic majority.


by Cugel on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Transparent Attempt to Discount the Caucus States (none / 0)


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 3)

Quick!  Email the SD's!  Someone must let them know about this information.

Seriously though, most sentient human beings know that the popular vote is a metric so flawed it just plain doesn't matter.  How do you calculate popular vote when you have some caucuses, some primaries, some open, some closed.  

It's idiocy to push this talking point.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:51:43 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

It's not idiocy. If you're trying to determine how many people voted for whom, it's a completely legitimate argument. Caucus estimates are provided, and whether a primary is open or closed has nothing to do with vote totals since ALL primaries have provided vote totals.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:58:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 2)

The same person who resides one state may be disenfranchised in another. (open/closed,primary/caucus) This makes counting the total popular vote ridiculous.

Also, some of the caucuses have not put out estimates.

I humbly submit that total landmass won is a better metric than popular vote in this contest.


by nwodtuhs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:11:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

The same person who resides in one state may be disenfranchised in another? Oh, you mean, like normal election law where you can only vote in one place?

ALL caucuses have estimates.

If total landmass won is better metric than popular vote, then we should have had and should have nothing but Republican presidents for the previous 100 years and the next 50 years.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:21:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Ponder this then - if CA could vote again now, Obama would have faired much better, as polls there now suggest.

There's some many "what if's" - the fact that Hillary stayed in long after she'd worn out her welcome, and long after anyone else with any dignity would have, suggests only to me that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

She's lost.  It's over.  Period.


"Not only do I want an elite president, I want someone who's embarrassingly superior to me." -- Jon Stewart, 4/15/08
by JulieinVT on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:28:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Ponder this as well -- if the primary was a year ago, Hillary would be the nominee. What's your point?

Hillary 'wore out her welcome'? Where do you see that? Is it in the polls showing the vast majority of Democrats want her to stay in the race? Is it the donors who keep donating millions to her campaign? Is it the fact that she had her third-best ever fundraising month in April?

She probably lost, but it's not over. She has earned the right to finish it on her terms, not on the small minority of Obama supporters who want her pushed out.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:33:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

Oh, but we don't want her "pushed out." We want her to gracefully accept defeat and withdraw. We're just afraid she'll keep spinning ever more ridiculous fantasies like she "won" the popular vote -- as if that were a reasonable metric. As Obama points out, he would have campaigned very differently to build vote totals in areas that support him strongly rather than trying to campaign strongly in every state where he might win delegates.

He played by the rules and he won the majority of the delegates. He's outpolling Hillary by 11 points nationally (53-42) in the latest Gallup poll. The fat lady done sung!

But, nobody with a grain of sense is so completely wrapped up in the personality of their candidate that they can't see the other side. (There are lots of people I admit without sense -- including tons of Hillary supporters). Nobody needs to jeer or mock Hillary now that she's lost.

I don't like Hillary because she voted for the war and never admitted she made a mistake. But, if she had been the nominee, I would certainly have voted for her. What sensible person could sit out the race in a pout and take the chance of 4 more years of McBush?


by Cugel on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How do you measure the 'will of the people'... (2.00 / 2)

... when different states are using different methods.  Using the popular vote is like adding fractions without finding the common denominator.

And that really is what we are concerned with here, the will of the people, right?  Popular vote is an accurate measure of that only when all the states are having the same sort of primary, otherwise you are undervaluing the caucus states.

Try this thought experiment:  Assume every caucus state instead had a primary.  Now assume Clinton does better in primaries and adjust the percentages based on the difference int he TX primary vs caucus.  Now take the estimated turnout of each state and multiply by your estimated percentage results.  In almost every conceivable scenario like this, even when Clinton gains delegates, Obama gains in the popular vote because of higher primary turnout.

Because of the difference in primaries vs caucuses, you need some sort of conversion factor that maps the results to the 'common denominator' that adjusts for the size of each state.  THAT is the purpose of delegates.


by protothad on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

If you're trying to determine how many people voted for whom, it's a completely legitimate argument.
Yes, if you're trying to determine how many people voted for whom, actually counting how many people voted for whom is an excellent methodology.  The fallacy, however, is in trying to assign meaning to those totals or considering them as a statistically significant comparison of the two candidates.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:18:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

I'm not trying to 'assign meaning to those totals' or using them as 'statistically significant comparison' of the two candidates. I'm simply saying what you quoted. Which you don't seem to disagree with.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:20:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Since there's no meaning to the totals why are people pushing that line of spin?



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:25:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

It's not 'spin' but simply trying to gauge who received more votes. That's the case that Hillary is making with the popular vote total. That she has received more votes. It's true. Does it determine the winner of the primary? No. But it doesn't take away her point.

As for the 'meaning', here it is: Hillary Clinton has received more votes in the primary than Barack Obama.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:28:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

It's not 'spin' but simply trying to gauge who received more votes.
Okay, fine; but what is the point?  What do these totals mean to you?  Do you think these totals should have any influence on who should be the nominee?


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:33:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

The point is that the popular vote total measure will let us know who actually received more votes in the primary.

What these totals mean to me is that Hillary received more votes than Barack Obama. I think it's something the superdelegates should consider, simple as that.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:35:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Alex, think about it (none / 0)

Even if Clinton does lead in certain interpretations of the popular vote, does it mean that she is actually a stronger candidate, or that they are roughly equal in strength?

We have this faulty belief in popular vote winner-take-all for the primary; how Clinton "won" Nevada despite Obama netting one more delegate, or that Obama "won" Missouri despite the fact that they got the same number of delegates.

Who wins the popular vote is insignificant in the face of the fact that both of them are blowing McCain out of the water in terms of voter excitement, fundraising, and turnout.

This is one of those "all else being equal" scenarios in terms of the popular vote.  If the popular vote is roughly equal, the superdelegates really have no reason to overturn the pledged delegate leader.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:57:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alex, think about it (none / 0)

I did think about it, and I agree with everything you said. All I said was that I was concerned with who actually won more votes -- which Hillary has. That's the only point I've been making here. Somehow people have a problem with that. I'm not equating winning more votes with winning the Democratic nomination, since we obviously know that's not true. All I said was that she has won more votes period, and superdelegates should feel free to consider that in their calculations. That's all.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:59:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fair enough (none / 0)

I see a lot of Clinton supporters saying that it should be the only thing tha they consider, which is preposterous.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:37:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

But the SDs apparently don't buy the popular vote argument. They have been going to Obama in large number for months now.


by Theis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:58:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

Only if you include sham soviet-style elections that don't count.


by CaptainMorgan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:50:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Which elections are those? I'm including anyone who voted for President in the primary. I'm not including any 'Soviet' (it's Russia now by the way) elections.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:54:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He's talking about Michigan (2.00 / 1)

Where Clinton was the only top-tier candidate on the ballot.  It's hard to derrive true meaning from the numbers in that election, since, much like the Soviet style, only one name was on the ballot.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:59:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's talking about Michigan (none / 0)

Alright, I probably wouldn't include Michigan either.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:05:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then, she's no longer leading... (none / 0)

The only way she can gain a lead in the popular vote is if you include a contest where the presumptive nominee received no votes.  That's why we are so dismissive of the popular vote metric.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:42:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 2)

It's all they have.  I guess they think the SDs will switch back to Hillary en masse when the "popular vote" is won by Hillary.


by Becky G on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:00:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm tired of this.... (2.00 / 2)

Don't forget "electability" and all the strange metrics that some Clinton backers pull "out of where the sun don't shine" to support that one.


by emptythreatsfarm on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:05:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

Dennis Cardoza apparently thinks the delegates matter more than the popular vote.
http://thepage.time.com/obama-campaign-r elease-on-california-superdelegate-endor sements/
Stop the racism. Fight the smears.
by CrazyDrumGuy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:03:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You really need to stop posting things like this: (none / 0)

Seriously though, most sentient human beings know

And just say this:

I'm trying to pass my pro-Obama opinion off as fact, and I do so by insulting the intelligence of people with different opinions.

Seriously, I've noticed a pattern with you, couching your opinion in fancy words like "sentient", and thinking that by using said fancy words, a magical elf will use fairy dust to turn your opinion into a fact.

Of course, since I'm not an Obama supporter, I must not be "endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness", huh?


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:07:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

stop posting things like this: (2.00 / 2)

Thanks for the constructive criticism.  I'll try to work on my tone.

As for the "popular vote" spin, I was just pointing out why it's not a valid metric, although the fact that it hasn't been working with the SD's sort of proves that for me.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:12:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Damnit, don't go and be nice and make me feel bad! (none / 0)


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:13:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Internets = bad communication (2.00 / 1)

Forums are a really bad place to communicate.  No matter how hard you try tone is going to degrade because of anonymity and disagreement.  Everyone needs a reminder now and then.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:20:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed. Now can I bicker at you again? nt (2.00 / 2)


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:30:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

The third and fourth counts - the ones which include Florida - seem more fair. Here, Obama is clinging to a slight lead of 146,786 votes (257,008, with the caucus estimates). However, with Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota remaining, he will almost certainly finish behind her in these counts, likely by a few hundred thousand votes.

Really?  Almost certainly?  I think thats a fairly big assumption.

Then again, I guess the road to the White House goes through Puerto Rico right?


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:52:03 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

For Democrats the road to the White House does go through Puerto Rico. It is one of our rules, and it is the right thing to do.


by souvarine on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:59:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

How many electoral votes does Puerto Rico have?

Not to denigrate PR or its people, but why should an entity with ZERO electoral votes tip the scale in either direction?


by KTinOhio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:55:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe they'll have some, soon (none / 0)

If I recall correctly, the pro-statehood party is supporting Obama.  We may see a 51st state under his presidency.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:01:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Because Democrats believe that all U.S. citizens should be represented in electoral votes and with voting representatives in Congress. We try to design our rules to be consistent with our beliefs.


by souvarine on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:02:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

So then why is there any reason to vote there at all if they REALLY don't count for anything?  


by jrsygrl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:14:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

So then why is there any reason to vote there at all if they REALLY don't count for anything?  


by jrsygrl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:15:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

The poll is almost 2 months old... From what I'm hearing on the ground in Puerto Rico her recent "Pick me!  White people like me!  I love being white!  White people are more important!" comments haven't gone over very well there.  Bill Clinton's visit went over like a lead balloon.  Obama has the support of all the mayors, and Richardson's been down there already for weeks.  The Hispanic community there is different from the one here... they have greater ties to the African American community.  In fact, Puerto Rico voted for Jesse Jackson in 1988.

I think that Obama has realized that being nice to the Hillary campaign, has only resulted in her playing rope-a-dope with him, and will now gear up fully to win this thing.

It's not over yet!!!


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:52:22 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Why do people keep quoting these mysterious 'people on the ground'?


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:58:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

I was there helping volunteer and also you should really read the PR newspapers to confirm what I and others are saying about on the ground reports. The folks in PR laugh when they watch the media here because they said it is simply not true that Hillary is guaranteed a victory here. Obama is far better organized, he has more offices here, he has the machines behind him, etc.


by sweet potato pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:03:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Obama was also far better organized, had more offices in Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Texas. That made a lot of difference.

Feel free to post links to these PR articles, though.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:08:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

It's a completely different culture. The one thing you are missing is that there are LOTS of black puerto ricans. Most puerto ricans are mixed and have strong ties to the black community.


by sweet potato pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:22:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

"Most Puerto Ricans are mixed and have strong ties to the black community".

I'm Hispanic and I can tell you that's a very inaccurate statement, bordering on ignorance. But your statement has nothing to do with Obama having more offices and being better organized and still losing in those states.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:26:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

My boyfriend is a black puerto rican. He does not consider himself hispanic but Afro-latino. Are you puerto rican?  There is a huge difference between Puerto Ricans and mexicans.

Too bad you will just be proven wrong about Hillary blowing Obama out come June 1st.


by sweet potato pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:27:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Well, don't let me get in the way of what your boyfriend thinks.

And it's funny you happen to think that Puerto Ricans and Mexicans are the only Hispanics. I've worked organizing the Hispanic community in Florida where Hispanics of all kinds -- not just Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, there are more of us -- exist.

Since you can see the future, can you let me know what Obama's losing margin in Florida in November will be? I'm really curious.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:30:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Take it easy, Alex (2.00 / 1)

I'm not sure there's a lot to be gained about inter-culture squabbles on this subject.

How about we all agree to just call it a wash, go check out some Puerto Rico news, and come back when we have more solid information?


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Nothing like fact to chew for a while...

As a Chilean Latino  I agree that Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and almost all Hispano-American have different idiosyncrasy

here is the 2000 census
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTT able?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US72&-qr _name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&-ds_name=DE C_2000_SF1_U

80%  consider themselves white... that is the number you have to consider.


by el mito on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:54:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Did you read what you linked to? Hispanics had to choose "white" on the top line and if you go further down there is a complete Hispanic breakdown with 95.1 percent considering themselves Puerto Rican hispanic and only 1.2 percent considering themselves non-Hispanic whites.

It doesn't actually tell us anything.


by wengler on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:20:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Puerto Ricans have a pretty strong history of interracial relationships. It's a lot more color-blind then what you'll find in the Southern U.S. as well.

I'm Latino and lived with two Puerto Rican's during my undergrad. One thing is for sure, Puerto Rican's are culturally very different then the Latino's who backed Hillary in Texas or California.

Therfore the original poster has got a very good point that doesn't border on ignorance.

Still, you're right in that Puerto Rico will probably go to Hillary. This isn't a sure thing but I wouldn't bet on Obama winning a state in which the Clinton's have traditionally been well received.


!
by alex100 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Should we list all the other states where that was true where obama blew hillary out of the water?  It's a long list


by CaptainMorgan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:27:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

No, we shouldn't, since that would be irrelevant to the conversation.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:30:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Exactly.. just like your point was irrelevant


by CaptainMorgan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:52:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Maybe to you, but not to the larger question of who received more votes. Glad you think that doesn't matter, though.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:53:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

* her recent "Pick me!  White people like me!  I love being white!  White people are more important!" comments **

Please provide a link showing where HRC made these comments.


by J Rae on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:47:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

par·a·phrase (none / 0)

[par-uh-freyz]
verb, -phrased, -phras·ing.
-noun
1.    a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording.
by semiquaver on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:54:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: par·a·phrase (none / 0)

Ahhh I see......A lie.

Pretty nasty lie too.


by J Rae on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why does it matter? It's not a pop vote race. (2.00 / 1)

If it were they would campaign differently and the small states would get ignored.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:52:24 AM EST

Re: Why does it matter? It's not a pop vote race. (none / 0)

Sounds a lot like, say, James Baker circa December, 2000.


by dcg2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:15:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 3)

Last time i checked, we picked our nominee based on delegates, why do you keep posting about the popular vote?  Particularly when only some states had primaries?


by Bobby Obama on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:52:40 AM EST

Because both candidates require SD's, and (none / 0)

SD's may choose to use the popular vote to determine which candidate to support.


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:08:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They may... (2.00 / 3)

... but there is absolutely no evidence that they will. In fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary: direct statements from the supers themselves, recent superdel movement to Obama, the fact that no part elder has stepped in to tell him not to make transition plans for the DNC, etc etc.

In short, the data strongly suggests that we may reject the hypothesis that superdelegates will be swayed by this argument.


"Mom, baseball, apple pie, and a unified Democratic juggernaut."
by Purplepeople on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:49:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They may... (none / 0)

Right the popular vote may not sway the superdelegates at all. And as you say they seem to favor Obama, the supposed DLC outsider, regardless. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad that people actually have accepted that meme.


by jrsygrl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:17:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They may... (none / 0)

Well, they favor him now at any rate. That certainly was not true at the beginning of the race. I still remember trying to understand why CNN was reporting Obama as 150 delegates or whatever it was behind Clinton right after Iowa.... that was the first I (and I suspect most of the country) had ever heard of superdelegates.


"Mom, baseball, apple pie, and a unified Democratic juggernaut."
by Purplepeople on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:44:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They may... (none / 0)

At the beginning of the race the meme was Clinton v. Obama with a ton of enthusiasm about Obama from people that were very much political insiders, all the while pushing the perception that he was the dark horse running when the reality was much different.  Sadly this is the tactic usually employed by the GOP & yet the party seems to be jumping all over it now.  And the calls for Clinton to drop out are not exactly recent...


by jrsygrl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:36:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Evidence? (2.00 / 1)

Considering that Clinton was being presented as the inevitable candidate due to her massive fundraising advantages and connections to the party structure, I am very skeptical that Obama was in any way the candidate of the political insiders.

People only seriously started to call on Clinton to drop out after she went 0-12 in the post super Tuesday primaries. I think there was a lot speculation her campaign was dead after Iowa (which was absurd) but I don't recall anyone saying she should drop out.


"Mom, baseball, apple pie, and a unified Democratic juggernaut."
by Purplepeople on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:45:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Evidence? (none / 0)

What are you talking about? Did you turn on your TV back then AT ALL?  It is just revisionist history that is being practiced when everyone acts like Obama was the poor candidate on the outside of the political loop & Clinton was the political insider who would run right over him with her insider influence. However if she was such an insider he wouldn't be getting SOOO many endorsements & SD support from insiders - you know the people she supposedly has so much political influence over @@


by jrsygrl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:29:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let me get this straight (none / 0)

You are asserting that Hillary Clinton was not the candidate supported by the party machine at the beginning of the campaign, and this perception is simply revisionist history?

If you have actually managed to convince yourself of this I don't know that there is a lot of point in continuing this discussion. It flies so firmly in the face of the facts and common sense that I truly can't think of anything I could say to convince you otherwise.


"Mom, baseball, apple pie, and a unified Democratic juggernaut."
by Purplepeople on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:43:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let me get this straight (none / 0)

I find it very disconcerting that just because people SAY someone is politically on the inside (note that DOES NOT always = the person who has been around the longest) that it must be so.  I'll say it again people have had a harder time maneuvering through corporate politics to get a promotion into middle management then Obama, as a supposed outsider in one of the biggest political machines, did in getting insider support.

I don't care what EVERYONE says; I am looking at it objectively.  Very few in the DLC have even come close to standing up for Clinton; there certainly has been little in the way of advocacy for her like one would think there would be if she was really so entrenched in the machine.  These other political insiders have been hop, skip and jumping for awhile to get behind Obama, with major calls for quite some time that Clinton should just shut up and get out of the way, like she is some sort of nuisance.  And then to top it off people discuss how much of a corrupt insider she is, when DLC party support has not exactly been brimming in her favor; rather it has been much more slanted towards Obama.


by jrsygrl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:01:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because both candidates require SD's, and (none / 0)

It's such a self-interested frame though. Similarly, if we calculated it by number of hours participated in voting- the caucuses would weigh disproportionately. This spin is no more ridiculous than popular vote when the goal of a state's system is not necessarily to generate the broadest participation. In some cases state parties want caucuses to identify and integrate activists for the fall.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:50:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

They are grasping at straw votes.


by kitebro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:55:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

yawn


by aaaa05 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:53:09 AM EST

How insightful. Thanks for contributing. nt (none / 0)


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:08:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

SUSA has Obama up by 8 in Ohio!

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/ 05/23/ohio-vp-matchups/

there goes that Hillary talking point!


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:54:23 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 2)

Don't you understand the game by now? Ohio -- or any state -- only matters if Sen. Clinton is winning!

You say Sen. Obama is winning Ohio? Irrelevant!


by BenderRodriguez on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:55:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

FP map needs to change.


by parahammer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:56:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 2)

Fun. The internals on that poll are whacked though.

Dems are 52% of the makeup, and though McCain is up 10% among Indy's against Obama, and has a better Dem crossover than does Obama from Republicans, the partisan skew gives it to Obama.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:11:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

There may be disagreement over the internals, but I'm willing to give SUSA the benefit of the doubt in Ohio-related matters for the rest of the election cycle.  They wound up with the most accurate final primary result in Ohio out of everyone who polled the state, and while it may be a case of apples-and-oranges to compare the primary to the general, SUSA's primary result is enough to make me think they've got a decent sense of what's going on in that state.


When I grow up, I want to be a superdelegate!
by robitude on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:33:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Many of these partisan IDs are a result of the recent primary where TONS of people re-registered as Democrats to vote in the primary. Ohio has always had a big Democratic registration advantage - but many Dems cross over in national elections. Ohio was an open primary so re-registering wasn't important. But major voter registration efforts by both Clinton and Obama ramped up Democratic registration anyway.


by elrod on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:36:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

You had to register as a dem to vote dem in the primary...  but, you could switch the day of voting.  So, there is a huge increase in democratic registrations now... even though, many are Limbaugh republicans that help put hillary over the top.


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Well, it also has McCain getting 17% of the African-American vote in a general election.  No way that's happening.  I'd be surprised if he gets in the high single digits with this group.

Also, I could see Democrats making up 52% of the vote.  Don't forget that many Christian conservatives may be sitting this one out.  I doubt the Republicans get the kind of turnout this election that they did in 2004 in Ohio.


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:41:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

hey jerome,

care to cast any aspersions on the rasmussen poll showing obama up in new hampshire?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/new_hampshire/election _2008_new_hampshire_presidential_electio n

i assume you do, since it doesn't show a clinton lead...


by scorinaldi on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:44:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

These polls are complete crap.  But if it shuts up the Clinton Campaign and their "I'm more electable, look at these totally inconsequential polls" talk, I'm all for it.  


by reggie23 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:10:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 2)

NH too.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/new_hampshire/election _2008_new_hampshire_presidential_electio n


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:16:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 6)

Please, for the love of all things sensible, stop pushing this popular-vote nonsense, which, by the way, Sen. Obama is leading by more than 500,000 votes.

The cumulative popular vote spread out over the six-month primary/caucus schedule has never decided a party's nominee.

To paraphrase the 1992 Clinton "war room": It's the delegates, stupid.

Sen. Obama will make a damn fine president, and the Clintons' actions since the South Carolina primary just keep breaking my heart.


by BenderRodriguez on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:54:38 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (1.50 / 2)

For some of us, Sen. Clinton has been and continues to be a source of inspiration and determination. The same could be said about Sen. Obama. So instead of denigrating Sen. Clinton, maybe you should stick to saying nice things about your candidate?


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:00:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 2)

As I said, the Clintons' actions have been heartbreaking to me. Allow me to further explain.

I was an ardent supporter of and volunteer for both of President Clinton's campaigns. Simply put, I think he was the best president of my lifetime, and I will always defend his terms in office.

When this primary season began, I felt that as Democrats we were blessed with an abundance of good candidates, all capable of leading our nation forward.

But the fact of the matter is this: Sen. Obama has outworked and outsmarted Sen. Clinton, who has resorted to Republican tactics time and again. If you don't believe me, read the words of her longtime friend Robert Reich.

Sen. Obama has won two-thirds of the states and has clinched a majority of pledged delegates. He also leads in superdelegates, which is nothing short of remarkable considering the lead Sen. Clinton once possessed among SDs.

I don't mean to get into an argument with you. I'm sure you and I probably agree on 99% of the issues.

It just saddens me that the Clintons are going down such an ugly path. I hate it. My criticism stems from sadness, not from hate.


by BenderRodriguez on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:30:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

While it might be more appealing to use popular vote tallies rather than delegate ones, those aren't the rules.  As Obama wrote in his letter to the superdelegates, if the contest were about winning the popular vote, he would have run a different race, making that, instead of delegate totals, his goal.  You can't change the rules in the top of the ninth inning just because you don't like the score then.


by frazer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:55:18 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Yeah, it'd be like deciding that the team with the most hits wins rather than points.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:01:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

This argument is silly.  Your source comes up with 6 different ways of counting something which doesn't matter (last I checked, the primary and the general are both counted by delegates) and decide one candidate may win the majority of ways to count something unimportant.  You know what? This may be right.  However, it simply doesn't matter.  One candidate has an insurmountable lead following the clearly understood rules of the game.  

  Trumping up her "chances" by pointing out a worthless statistic does nothing to help democrats get elected in 2008.  


by reenactor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:55:28 AM EST

Its about the SD's, who may choose to make Hillary (none / 0)

the Democratic nominee based on popular vote totals.  Assuming you want Obama elected, I would further assume that the fact that popular vote totals may cause him to lose would make popular vote totals important to you, no?


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:10:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its about the SD's, who may choose to make Hil (none / 0)

See, the difference is that SDs are familiar with the system and not stupid.  The fact that we have caucuses irrevocably destroys any popular vote argument as it drastically under represents those states.  I'm not worried about this, because I know it's a red herring.


by reenactor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:14:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They're familiar with the system and not stupid, (none / 0)

but based on my experience as an attorney dealing with judges, I would assume that many SD's are going to choose the candidate they personally want to win, and will then weigh the "evidence" (i.e. popular vote, caucus vote, primary vote, pledged delegate count, etc.) in such a manner as to justify their preconceived notions.

So, if an SD wants to declare for Clinton, he/she will proclaim the popular vote is important, and if they want to declare for Obama, they'll point to the delegate lead.  


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:33:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They're familiar with the system and not stupi (none / 0)

All right, so what you've just asserted is that the popular vote doesn't really matter to them, but they'd use it as an excuse to vote the way they want.

I agree with you.  If they didn't have popular vote to lean on, they'd just pick something else.  So I'll continue to not get worked up about it :-)


by reenactor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:54:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its about the SD's, who may choose to make Hil (none / 0)

They're not exactly rushing to do that though, are they?


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:17:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, but I have a theory on at least some of them. (none / 0)

I think some of the AA superdelegates (I have no idea how many there are), felt forced to come out for Obama (I can think of one of them offhand.  What's his name? John Lewis?), but would be willing to change their pledge to (or back to) Clinton under the right circumstances at the convention.


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:36:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, but I have a theory on at least some of th (none / 0)

Not a chance.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:03:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 3)

Jerome,

After Obama goes over the top in delegates are you going to switch from the "popular vote" spin to the "delegates don't really vote until the convention" spin, or will you get behind our nominee?



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:55:31 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

I'm looking forward to seeing the MI & FL SD's resolved and counted. You don't need a timeline from me, but thanks for asking.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:03:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 2)

I'm hoping they are seated in full on May 31st, even though I think the elections were flawed and the states deserve some penalty.  

That way this doesn't drag out any longer than it needs to.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:09:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

2m voters is a fantasy.


by Theis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:56:43 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

Big assumptions.

Assuming she will win big in PR is highly questionable. Even considering not counting the votes of the caucus states in question is absurd, so 1, 3 and 5 have zero legitimacy.  So including Florida, she has to make up about 250,000 votes.  This is still not really legitimate, as FLA and MI were unsanctioned contests.

Basically this:  this metric is so watered down and convoluted that it is absolutely meaningless, save for Clinton devotees to attempt to hang pathetic last minute panic arguments off of it.


by nwgates on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:57:07 AM EST

But "popular vote" totals (2.00 / 1)

are fatally skewed and unfortunately meaningless.  Because caucus states have inherently lower participation, popular vote totals there, even when counted, substantially underrepresent the electorate in those states.  Candidates who win, even convincinly, in those states, receive substantially fewer votes than a close race in a primary contest.  The vote differentials are significantly skewed to primary contest winners.

All of the scenarios offered ignore that glaring error in methodology and compare apples-to-oranges as though it were statistically significant.  It is not.  

Despite all of the pseudomathematical gymnastics, the popular vote totals as representative of the so-called "will of the people" is a statistical sham.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:58:26 AM EST

Re: But "popular vote" totals (none / 0)

Not to mention that some races are closed and some are open (allowing for more votes).  And we ought to know, via operation chaos, that the PV will never be a reflection of the "will of the people."  Exit polls for both candidates, throughout the primary season have shown that people have voted for both candidates while truly wishing McCain to win.

Furthermore, including FL and especially MI cannot be considered a "will of the people" argument.  Lots of people didn't vote because they thought it wouldn't count.  I think we should include them so that there can't be any whining in the end, but our system is simply not set up to give a clear picture of the "will of the people."


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:38:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Theis (none / 0)

Theis your candidate getting elected without Ohio or Florida is a fantasy.  


by nzubechukwu on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:59:16 AM EST

Re: Theis (2.00 / 1)

Check the latest OH poll.


by parahammer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:01:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Theis (none / 0)

Not to worry. SUSA has Obama up 8 over McCain in Ohio.

SUSA poll


by Becky G on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:05:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Theis (none / 0)

Actually it's 9 point up.


by Theis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:10:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Theis (2.00 / 1)

Poblano over at fivethirtyeight.com gives Obama a win percentage of 51,6.

Realclearpolitics have Obama leading Hillary nationally by 12 % on average, and Obama leading McCain by 5 % (compared to Clintons 1.5 % lead).

Plus, you can't make the argument that Clinton's more electable if you don't factor in the backlash from the way she has to win the nomination.


by Theis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:07:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Theis (none / 0)

After todays great polls Obamas win percentage is 53,7.


by Theis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:44:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A Super Switch today (none / 0)

http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/23/frida ys-super-battle-2/

From her to him, CA.


by mady on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:01:11 AM EST

Re: A Super Switch today (none / 0)

The tide is turning.


by parahammer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:01:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Super Switch today (2.00 / 1)

?  How can the tide be turning if he was already winning?


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:40:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Super Switch today (none / 0)

The tide has turned but Hillary Clinton and her supporters are predicting a superdelegate tsunami.


by wengler on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

I've got terrible news for you, Jerome.
Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Not that he is the best possible nominee. Not that the nomination system in the Democratic Party is nothing if not convoluted.  Not that caucuses disenfranchised many.  Not that registered Democrats strongly favored Clinton.

Yet, even Clinton would not have been the best candidate that the Democrats could have offered.  How is it that the Democratic Party - in a year when it should be leading by 20 points - has one candidate with an extremely thin resume and another one with a resume filled with negatives?

The nomination process is broken.
It needs to be fixed.


by johnnygunn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:01:21 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

I predict that PR will go for Obama.  Michelle was there for a few days, and Obama himself would not be going there if he did not think he had a shot.  So, I believe that in the end Obama will have won the most delegates, most states, and the popular vote.  Obama will be able to pick any VP he wants.  I believe that Obama will do what is right for the democratic party, and I also believe he will ask Hillary if she wants to be VP?  I also believe he will offer Hillary other things also.  I don't think it is necessary a given Hillary wants to be VP.  The Clintons might be more interested in getting a position for thier daughter than for themselves.


by Spanky on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:01:23 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Yeah, but if Obama wins the PR primary, then we shouldn't count the popular vote.  They don't vote in the GE.


by reggie23 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:14:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

You're terrible.  Poking the trolls like that is mean.


by reenactor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:00:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 2)

My cat's breath smells like cat food.


by DeskHack on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:02:26 AM EST

Fl election was a bad straw poll and Mi (2.00 / 1)

is even more invalid. PLEASE stop trying to use such a obviously flawed results to justify a case for the DELEGATES to overturn the results of the sanctioned contests. Yes I know a lot of you folks are NOW against caucuses yet very little complaints were being made until Hillary lost so many of them. This constant refrain that the contests was unfair to Hillary when her surrogates were responsible for their implementation is wrong and dishonest. I expect these arguments from Republicans who want to win at any cost. We were supposed to be better than this


by KosTexasliberal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:02:34 AM EST

But I thought it was over. (none / 0)

Why is he going to PR?

Because it is over after all the votes count then the supers will give it to Obama like two today in Cali., a State she won.

Proving this Dem election is bs.


by gotalife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:04:20 AM EST

Re: But I thought it was over. (none / 0)

Do you really want all the supers to go the way of their state?  That doesn't turn out well for your candidate.


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:42:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll tell you (none / 0)

He's going there because the dude deserves a vacation.

I wouldn't mind being in Puerto Rico right about now, either.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:12:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Popular vote totals + PR (none / 0)

If you want the metric to be the popular vote then campaign for the rules to be changed next election and have caucuses banned. In this election it is a secondary and not a deciding nor accurate metric considering the number of caucuses and the FUBAR of FL & MI. However, the supers can take any metric they want in to account in any way they want and they have been breaking overwhelmingly for Obama.

On the PR primary in gubernatorial elections turnout is 80%+ close to  2 million voters. But driving that are the incredible GOTV efforts of the PDP and PNP. At stake is not just the office of governor but control of patronage. The government employs close to a third of the workforce by some estimates and your job security is dependent on your party being in power.

The Democratic party has no party machine on the island and the Puerto Rican parties have no dog in this fight. So the GOTV operation and high economic stakes of local politics will not be a factor. Hillary has a name recognition advantage but commands no loyalty like local political parties do so that the name recognition can be overcome if Obama chooses to devote the resources to the island.

So the outcome in PR is really unclear and if I were Hillary I would not be counting my chickens. Especially after her "I'm the great white hope" remarks and considering the fact that Obama has pulled ahead of Hillary among Hispanics in the Gallup tracking polls.


by hankg on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:04:41 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 0)

The argument that the leader in delegates needs to be the same as the popular vote leader is, from where I'm sitting, only significant if it's all or nothing - either Clinton leads in all counts or Obama does, and trying to argue that the nomination of the delegate leader is illegitimate based on a 5-1, 4-2, or 3-3 split is not helpful in the least, for anyone.  If we want to split hairs, option #4 - all sanctioned contests, the Florida result, and the caucus estimates - is probably the best compromise metric, and if Clinton is in the lead here, then she can make some kind of case. (Leaving out the caucus estimates is in no way keeping with her recent "let every vote count" message - if any of her supporters want to make the case that we shouldn't count these estimates, I'd love to hear a valid argument.)  But in the aggregate, only a 6-0 result in either direction should give the popular vote talking point any validity for any undecided superdelegates.


When I grow up, I want to be a superdelegate!
by robitude on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:06:28 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Thanks for pointing this editorial out...I just wrote the following to Mr. Last:

Dear Mr. Last,

You state an admirable goal for this democratic primary process -- to "count every vote."  And yet you disenfranchise the hundreds of thousands of Michigan voters who voted for "uncommitted," most of whom clearly prefer Mr. Obama to Mrs. Clinton.

Most things in politics are not black and white.  But this is black and white.  "[M]ay not be the most fair" is a gross understatement, and you owe an apology to those Obama supporters who made their preference known in the ballot booth.

And while you may argue that your editorial stuck to simple facts, your title implicitly endorses this grossly unfair count.

Sincerely,


by randomscientist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:09:17 AM EST

We've got a lot Bush Republicans On MyDD... (2.00 / 2)

...Today.

Remember, just eight years ago, many of you were fighting mad over Al Gore winning the popular vote but losing the presidency to George W. Bush.

Some of you even advocated abolishing the electoral college and electing the president by direct popular vote.

Now, 8 years later, you're saying that if your candidate loses the popular vote, then it doesn't matter because it's the delegates that count.

It's funny, I seem to remember a lot Bush Republicans making that same argument 8 years ago.

All I'm going to say is this...

...Remember what happened in Rocky II?  Apollo Creed beat Rocky but Creed received hate mail from people saying that he may have retained the world heavyweight title, but he didn't win.  He didn't beat Rocky and was given the edge by the judges because he was the reigning champion.

Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest to you that if Barack Obama loses the popular, a similar "Rocky/Apollo Creed" argument will be made.  There will be several people who will say that although Obama got the nomination, more people voted for Hillary Clinton so he didn't beat her.

Losing the popular vote dogged George W. Bus for 4 years until he won it in 2004.  Likewise, losing the popular will also dog Obama.


by andrewalker08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:09:44 AM EST

Re: We've got a lot Bush Republicans On MyDD... (none / 0)

There where no caucuses and no elections where the candidates could not campaign and the voters were told there votes would not count.

The problem with Bush v Gore was not that Bush won the electors and Gore the popular vote. It was that Gore won both. He won Florida and therefore the electors of Florida but his win was overturned by fraud.

If Gore had really lost Florida the election would have not been unfair or stolen even if he had won the popular vote.

So your comparison does not hold water.


by hankg on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:20:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We've got a lot Bush Republicans On MyDD... (none / 0)

Assuming we all wind up agreeing on the definition of what the popular vote constitutes, or that one candidate wins in all the popular vote metrics that have been put forward, that is.  Otherwise we'll have surrogates flying out of the woodwork with all kinds of specious sleight-of-hand, arguing whose votes count and whose don't (FL/MI vs. caucus estimates).


When I grow up, I want to be a superdelegate!
by robitude on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:24:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No problem with Kerry winning in 2004 (2.00 / 1)

The popular vote meme is a scam.  I wrote a diary about this the other day.  In 2000, democrats were upset that Gore won the electoral college and yet that victory was stolen from him through Florida and the Supreme Court's intervention in the Florida recount.

And democrats would have been thrilled if Kerry took Ohio and won in 2004 despite LOSING the popular vote to Bush by 3 million.  


by ProfessorReo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:27:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No problem with Kerry winning in 2004 (none / 0)

Excellent points Professor. Please keep hammering these points. Dems would have no doubt been pleased to win the 2004 election despite losing the popular vote. Why is it that the popular vote keeps coming up as an argument in a battle that is fought over delegates and has already been decided.


by wasder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:27:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We've got a lot Bush Republicans On MyDD... (2.00 / 1)

Now, 8 years later, you're saying that if your candidate loses the popular vote, then it doesn't matter because it's the delegates that count.
That would be a reasonable charge IF the "popular vote" as presented here were as valid as the 2000 GE.  Unfortunately, it is not.  Not all states held primaries.  Counting caucus votes on an equal footing with primary votes is a badly flawed methodology.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:27:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We've got a lot Bush Republicans On MyDD... (none / 0)

There would also have to be a national standard with regard to open/closed primaries.


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:45:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We've got a lot Bush Republicans On MyDD... (none / 0)

Based on their comments they were either too young to care eight years ago or they thought appeals to the popular vote were crass and emotional. These are not the Democrats of 2000. Same media though.


by souvarine on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:32:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We've got a lot Bush Republicans On MyDD... (2.00 / 1)

I was pissed off because of the shenanigans in Florida and the blatantly politicized SCOTUS decision to hand the presidency to the Idiot-in-Chief.  Everybody went in understanding that the electoral college system was the way the president is elected.  Were the rules such that the president is elected on the basis of popular vote, then both campaigns would have campaigned very differently.  W--who was (it's hard to believe now) very popular in Texas in 2000 spent very little time there.  In a popular vote situation, he would have camped out in Texas for a week pushing up his vote totals there.

Similarly, in the NBA often the team that loses has actually put the ball in the basket more times than the opposition.  It's just that the opposition chose to attempt more 3-point shots than 2-point shots.  Do you want to go back and argue that these results should be overturned?  Do you think that knowing whether there is a 3-point line before the game begins will have a little bit of an impact on the strategy of the teams.  You'll never hear this conversation on an NBA bench:

Player 1: "Damn, they've scored only 44 buckets, while we've scored 50.  I can't wait to celebrate our victory tonight!"

Player 2: "Yeah, but they're ahead by 110-104, because they've hit a lot of three-pointers."

Player 1: "Still, I don't think it's fair to us since we have hit more buckets.  We should win."

Player 2: "I guess you're right; let's phone the league office and let them know that they should be using a different metric to determine the winner.  This one just isn't fair."


by oneangryslav on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:08:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

((((((((((((sigh))))))))))


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:10:20 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

1.  I just spoke with a pollster on the island, and he says it is currently Clinton +13.

2.  Something unique to Puerto Rican politics.  There are NO midterm elections or local elections of any kind.  In the general election, every office on the Island, from Governor to the dog-catcher of Arecibo, is on the same ballot, once every four years.  So "the last major election" is simply the last general election, 2004.  Everybody votes, because it is the only day the circus is in town for the next four years--turnout is always, in every election, 85%+. Turnout cannot go up from 2M, only down. Almost exactly 2M voted last time.  Expect about 1.5 M votes for this unusual intervention of gringo politics onto the boricuan scene.


by Thom on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:13:05 AM EST

Good point (none / 0)

that I think the Philly columnist missed, though I think the turnout is generally closer to 82%. This isn't the ritual timing for elections in PR, and in other cases, such as referendums, they've seen a 10-20% dropoff in participation. And don't forget the patronage factor, as well. There are a huge number of people in government jobs in PR (over 250,000), and  they tend to vote in heavy numbers to insure a continuance  of their employment.


by bookish on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:35:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

The 13% numbers is the last poll from two months ago - 50-37. Nobody has done any polling since. And El Dia, which conducted that poll, had no real idea how to sample for it.

The "no local elections" point is flawed. PR HAS had elections that don't fall along the lines of the regular governor's and mayor's races. Yes, the governor's and mayor's races get 82% participation. It's a holiday in PR for Election Day. But there HAVE been other elections since, notably on "status." And in the status elections (statehood, commonwealth or independence) the turnout has been closer to 22%.

Why the difference? It's the machines! PR is a very machine-run island, and the machines get their votes out in full for patronage-rich governor and mayor races. 300,000 boricuas work for the government, so patronage is a big deal. But the machines are not active for the Presidential race. This is partly because the Democratic/Republican split doesn't jibe in Puerto Rico where you have different political parties. But it's also because with this Presidential primary there is no patronage to give out.

Turnout will not exceed 25%.

And nobody really knows who will win.


by elrod on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:45:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Also, I agree with "hankg" above


by Thom on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:14:32 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

The last election that did not involve the Governor and all political offices had around 500,000 participating. Without PDP and PNP GOTV getting their voters to the polls they might be hard pressed to match that number. So I can see how a forecast of around 400,000 would be reasonable.

If the candidates go all out and spend a lot of time there and it seems like the entire USA is hanging on what PR votes maybe that number could be higher.

The majority of mayors of both parties and the current Governor have declared for Obama. Jesse Jackson won PR but that was not with such a large participation of voters. The polling data is very thin. So anything could happen.


by hankg on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:32:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

What a surprise.  The SUSA poll of Ohio flips the EV math to show Obama winning and Jerome comes out with the Clinton campaign popular vote argument.  There might have been a day when he would done minimal research about Puerto Rican politics before following the talking point of a vote of 2 million, but those days are long over.


by Piuma on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:18:02 AM EST

Puerto Rico (none / 0)

Yeah, it is going to be those 8 EV that PR has that will put os over the top in November.

Oh wait, PR citizens do not vote in the GE.

I have no issues with counting their delgates to the convention, but it is beyond moronic to use their popular vote totals to determine the nominee.


by monkeyga on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:18:19 AM EST

Need to fix the process (none / 0)

I've been looking at the primary results and delegate allocations.  In Mississippi, e.g., Obama netted 7 more delegates than Clinton.  And he won the popular vote big.  In Missouri, they split the delegates.  Obama won a squeaker in the popular vote.  Now the polls are saying Clinton would win Missouri and Obama would lose it.  Both would get soundly thrashed by McCain in Mississippi.  I don't understand how the Democrats got themselves in such a box -- whether you're pro-Clinton or pro-Obama.  It seems to be they've ended up with a screwy allocation process that may (let me emphasize the may) lead to them nominating a candidate who will lose in Nov.


by katmandu1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:18:31 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

It's even more important to understand that the Democratic primary is a DELEGATE RACE, and that the "popular vote" is simply irrelevant.  It isn't even tabluated.

So this diary is nothing but more navel-gazing and idle speculation.

http://hillaryis404.org


by baghdadjoe on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:18:32 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

PR has big turnout because they vote on everything all at the same time, so it's part of the culture to vote on this big day. She'll be campaigning there, and as usual the more voters see of her, the more they like her. And since she's the real uniter, willing to put him on her ticket, and since he's clearly not happy with being forced to unite, it's looking very good for the girl. Odds are going up for her to win the primary and if she's our nom, there is no way she won't win big, She would also carry Barack, unless he has more secrets that he hopes won't come out. I wish he'd been more forthcoming about his past 'secrets,' and that he were better able to campaign positively, we might be able to both believe him when he says he's vetted and be confident that he's able to unite. A guy who holds grudges can't unite.  So, we''ll see, fasten your seatbelts, it's Mr. Toad's Wild Ride.  


just say it: Medicare for All
by anna shane on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:20:49 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

I honestly can't tell whether this is snark or sincere.


by ChrisKaty on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:29:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

no, it's a reality that not everyone agrees matters, but the polls, and her momentum with voters show it. You'd never know from cable news, of course. That makes her strength even more amazing, she does not have the media or party insiders behind her, this is really people powered. It's funny, it's what Barack intended to be, and what no one predicted a year ago would be her.  It's fun, it's democracy.  


just say it: Medicare for All
by anna shane on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:39:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

No, it's hard-working white, Appalachian people-powered.

Clinton won OH and PA because of her strength in the Appalachian counties.

IN was basically a tie, with her winning southern Indiana (like Kentucky) and him winning northern Indiana and central Indiana.


by elrod on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:48:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Seriously? (1.50 / 2)

If you actually believed 1% of what you wrote I think you might be in for a sad surprise in two weeks time.

I know in the end you find whatever you can to latch your hopes on to to believe your reality still exists, but this may be the single most reaching comment I have seen yet.  I dont know whether your just being willful (I hope) are whether you are so far gone you actually believe this (I hope not).

Your tone is very odd and denigrating and your content is childish and somewhat ill-informed (yes PR votes for everything on one day, but the dem primary day is not that day).

Shes the uniter?  I guess if its opposite day.

I like the scare quotes on secrets as well.

I will agree, if she were the nom, she would win big though.  Just as Obama would.  The D's are going to crush this year no matter what.

But I am willing to wait until June 4 and I am confident in where the race stands and that Obama is our nominee.  As always the hand is extended halfway, were one big team and together we will bring this across the line huge.


by pattonbt on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:45:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

The rules, they keep on changin...

So the moment Hillary fell way behind in the pledged delegate race, her supporters started the chorus about her lead in the superdelegates.

Then that disappeared, and we started hearing about the irrelevant 'popular vote'.

Now, they're not only discounting 4 entire states, more than half of Michigan and a good percentage of Florida.. but just-as-happily relying on the votes of more than a million people who won't be allowed to take part in our Presidential election.. to determine the nominee.

I get why Hillary is grasping at any straws that are offered.. she has personal loans to repay.  But her supporters?  This is just pitiful.  Grow a backbone, admit you lost, and work for the Democratic Party in November.  


by Wayward Son on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:23:05 AM EST

Jennifer Grenholm (none / 0)

She is the main reason that Michigan is not counting.  The DNC told her not to force its hand and buck the rules, but she ignored them.  She was offered bonus delgates if she held the vote later, but she ignored that too.  She did all of this to try and help her candidate Sen. Clinton.

Grenholm is the reason that Michigan is not counting.  If the people of Michigan want to punish someone for causing them representation in Denver, they need to punish her.  I do hope that another Democrat runs against her when she is up for re-election.


by monkeyga on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:55:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting (none / 0)

I was wondering why they were so intent on pushing the issue after backing down when McAluffe threatened half their delegates in 2004.

Similarly, it's pretty obvious that Crist finagled the Florida primary on behalf of McCain, with the Florida Democrats complicit... I believe they support Clinton for the most part as well.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

Remember, in 1972, the popular-vote winner in the primaries was Hubert Humphrey, but the nomination went to George McGovern, and didn't that work out well in the GE?


by Pol C on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:24:50 AM EST

give me a break (none / 0)

No one was going to beat Nixon in 1972. Humphrey had a shot in 1968 when conditions were much more favorable, and still didn't do it.

If Sen. Clinton was such a lock she would have won it on Super Tuesday.  She had the name, the money, and the entire party hierarchy behind her.  Jerome even said so much in most of his posts last year.   This was her election to lose and she lost it.

As much as you want to say about the polls, Sen. Clinton does not improve her vote totals.   Every primary has been about whether or not she holds on to the massive leads she has enjoyed since early 2007.  In most cases, she could not.


by monkeyga on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:34:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Is this the next arguement?  Because this is just like 1972?  Ummm... not really, but reality hasn't stopped the goal posts yet, so why should they now.


by mcnugs75 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:46:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 2)

Here's what an informed diary about Puerto Rican politics looks like:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5 /21/19300/9054


by Piuma on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:26:10 AM EST

Thanks (none / 0)

That's an awesome link.  Very helpful, not to mention entertaining.

Mongo!


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

I do think the popular vote matters quite a lot, and I also note that Clinton is already ahead in the popular vote by the most inclusive counts.

That being said, I consider it highly unlikely that she's going to pick up huge margins in Puerto Rico.  Turnout will be smaller than in general elections there, and, if she wins at all, it might be by a small margin.  Obama has some potent institutional support there and also has more money available for advertising.  I will be pleasantly surprised if Clinton wins the state, and even more pleasantly surprised if the margin is as much as 100,000 votes.


by markjay on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:29:53 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

How many electoral votes does PR have?  Zero?  They are having a primary why?  They get more delegates to the convention than many states why?  Florida and Michigan, if seated at all, should be split in the same ratio as the legal delegates.  The rules are the rules, you don't like them change them next time, not in the middle of this time.


by surakmn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:30:27 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

According to one of the Inspired Ones over at FDL, who wants change and unity and is full of hope, the only way Clinton supporters can see her winning the popular vote is if they stand on one leg with their head tilted sideways and with one eye closed while looking straight into the sun.

This unifier also kindly and generously warned Bill Clinton to not let the door hit him on the ass on his and Hillary's way out.

This change is going to be monumental!  I can tell!


by Juno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:30:33 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

SO because a few idiots said completely tasteless and stupid things all Obama supporters and Obama himself are this stupid and tasteless?

Way to take a gigantic logical leap there- that seems completely reasonable of you.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:37:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

thank you.  I do consider myself to be a reasonable person.

Oh, I've seen plenty of it, not just this one guy.  Seems to contradict Obama's very candidacy.

And yes, I have a problem with it.


by Juno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:41:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Btw, I'm confused by your post. PLease point to where I say "all Obama supporters..." are anything.

Thank you.


by Juno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:42:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

By commenting "The change is going to be monumental, I can tell."

You are implying that the idea of Obama's candidacy in regards to change, which is why many of his supporters are his supporters, is false- therefore it can be extrapolated that you feel these few morons, and I agree with you that there are morons out there (on both sides of this fight really,) somehow speak for all of Obama's supporters and Obama himself.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Well, considering the fact that there have been a ton of articles written about how Obamans need to change their tune toward Clinton and her supporters in order to woo them to him, I'd say I'm not alone, or irrational, in thinking that there has been enough nastiness from his camp to warrant criticism of it.

I honestly can't think of one response to any post I've made on any site from an Obama supporter that hasn't been downright nasty and full of intolerance.

They are nasty to Clinton. they are nasty to her supporters. they are nasty to McCain.

Point being, they are NOT inspired to the change Obama speaks of!


by Juno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:11:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Oh you'll fall in line. At this point (given the shameful behavior of Clinton and those who still defend her) it's more your job to come back to intellectual honesty land than it is for the Obama supporters to coddle your childish behavior.

I'd be much more interested in negotiating and reengaging with Clintonistas if I thought they were honest brokers. With this kind of specious nonsense (popular vote, Appalachia should pick the nominee, cherry picking metrics) I kinda say either deal with reality or get out of my face.

=)


by Metrobot on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Ah yes, another Inspired One, bringing on that hope and unity and change!

woo hoo!


by Juno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

that's your rhetorical get-out-of-jail-free card, isn't it? Say any claptrap you want, then deflect with a hope/unity move. That way you NEVER have to be responsible for what you say. Brilliant!

Well, think of me as your tough love Inspired One. Here to bring the hammer of hope/unity down on your deluded soul!


by Metrobot on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Have I been downright nasty and full of intolerance in your mind?

Because I certainly don't feel I have...

and I know for a fact I have never been nasty regarding Clinton...McCain is another story.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:55:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Read the comments at hillaryis44.org. There has been sufficient nastiness on both sides.


by jere7my on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:29:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

btw, interesting you didn't comment on the FDL's comment about the only way CLINTON SUPPORTERS...

No problem with that generalization, which really WAS a hyperbolic, ad hominem attack.


by Juno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:12:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

I don't read every comment on the site- and yes when I see an Obama supporter say somethng stupid I let them know it.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:17:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

A very informative diary over at DKos, linked by Piuma up above, stated some really good reasons why turnout will not come close to 2 million.

The main points:

1. High turn-out comes only when there is a governor's race, which seems like is their version of the presidential elections.  People have a day off to vote on that day, and it's treated like a holiday.  Turn-out is about 82%.  But, when there is no governor's election, turn-out plummets.

2. The primary is being held on Sunday, June 1.  The diarist says that non-gubernatorial elections held on Sundays typically have very low turn-out compared to gubernatorial elections.  People would rather be picnicking or going to the beach than going to the polls.  Add the fact that June 1 signals the first day of the summer season, lots of people are going to other things to do, especially since people are realizing that the race is all but over.  

The diarist predicted a turn-out around 650,000 or so, which matches the last election on a Sunday not involving a governor's race.  

I don't know much about Puerto Rico politics and culture, but, the diarist is from Puerto Rico and so I'll take his word for it.  I think turn-out may be a bit higher since it still is a pretty big election, even if only a symbolic one.  But, I don't think you'll get anywhere near 2 million voters turning out on a beautiful, summery Sunday.


by ProfessorReo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:34:38 AM EST

Puerto Rico and the popular vote (none / 0)

Personally I think it is awesome that Puerto Rico is part of our primary process this year and I wish they had MORE of a vote than they do (but that would require state-hood, or something similar.)

That being said, considering the fact that Puerto Rico lacks a spot in the General Election how relevant is it to the popular vote totals? If Clinton leads with Puerto Rico but not without it will that matter in the minds of Super Delegates? Will they consider the popular vote total at all?

I doubt this will be talked about much because I can see how bringing it up will be considered by some as tasteless- but from a purely political perspective this is what I have been wondering about the primary there.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:35:17 AM EST

Re: Puerto Rico and the popular vote (none / 0)

It's a good question.  I think the nets have decided to avoid the landmines by simply not covering the primary.


by TL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:50:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A tale of two pundits (none / 0)

Jerome Armstrong or Jonathan Alter?

I'll take the one without an axe to grind.

Popular Vote Poison: How Hillary's "Math" Now Hurts the Party


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:37:05 AM EST

Re: A tale of two pundits (none / 0)

the one without the axe to grind is the one you happen to agree with, right?


by Juno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:38:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A tale of two pundits (2.00 / 1)

The one with the axe to grind is the one you happen to agree with?


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:41:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A tale of two pundits (none / 0)

Just like an Obaman to plagiarize!

I didn't make any comment about Alter or Armstrong.  You did.


by Juno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:59:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A tale of two pundits (none / 0)

Your comment was so vacuous and lame that mocking it was the only sensible thing to do.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:03:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A tale of two pundits (none / 0)

Hmmmm...mocking people is an Obama trait now?

Unity, huh?  Inspiration?  Change?

Where? Where?

Let's see: Armstrong has an axe to grind because he supports Clinton.

Alter, who clearly backs Obama, doesn't have an axe to grind.

Okay.

Obamans have a very Bushlike view of the world. They create their own reality, and that's the one the rest of us will accept, dammit.


by Juno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:07:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A tale of two pundits (none / 0)

Um we are not making up realities that include hillary being nominated.

It was over weeks ago, put your guns down.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:46:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

I just want to point out, once again, that if the candidates believed that it was a popular vote race, they all would have had much different campaign strategies.  I think Obama spent one day in California, for example.  The popular vote metric is basically a distant cousin of the "big states" meme that Clinton tried, and which failed to gain traction, earlier in the nomination battle.

It's not surprising that when the rules are shifted mid-game, the party that changes the rules is the one that benefits.


by rfahey22 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:40:45 AM EST

Just call it a tie and move on. (none / 0)

Since it doesn't matter anyway.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:42:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not-So-Deep Thought For The Day (none / 0)

If the popular vote mattered in the Democratic nomination contest, the caucus states would've reported their vote totals.


When I grow up, I want to be a superdelegate!
by robitude on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:45:21 AM EST

Re: Not-So-Deep Thought For The Day (1.00 / 1)

Actually, none of the caucus states would've held caucuses.  That's what makes everybody pushing this argument either disingenuous or stupid.


by The Animal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:51:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

I love it.

Giving Obama zero votes in Michigan - not one single Obama supporter counted - is the "most inclusive" total.

Awesome.

The Florida outcome is "fair", too.  Even though a candidate with a huge, huge advantage in name recognition was on the ballot against a challenger who was not allowed to campaign there.  I love it!  What could be more fair than that!  That FL and MI were two of only four states where Republican turnout was larger than Democratic turnout?  That couldn't possibly be a sign that Dem turnout was depressed or that a lot of voters stayed home.  It's a fair representation of the voters' will to count that vote.

And then there's the cherry on top.  The path to her majority, per this post, depends on a big victory in Puerto Rico.  She'll lose the popular vote in the United States, but never mind - P.R. will put her on top!  No knock on PR, but they aren't U.S. citizens and don't choose our President any more than Canadians do.

Oy. Oy. Oy. Oy.


by TL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:48:15 AM EST

0 in Michigan is outright impossible (none / 0)

As pocketnines has pointed out on Dailykos, Obama CANNOT get fewer than 31 delegates from Michigan as the local level uncommitted delegates have already met and determined their affiliation. So forget about 0, that's just another bit of obfuscatory nonsense from the Clinton camp.


by al1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:53:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

0 in Michigan is outright impossible (none / 0)

As pocketnines has pointed out on Dailykos, Obama CANNOT get fewer than 31 delegates from Michigan as the local level uncommitted delegates have already met and determined their affiliation. So forget about 0, that's just another bit of obfuscatory nonsense from the Clinton camp.


by al1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:54:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Every uncommitted Delegate in Michigan should be given to Obama.  Sen. Clinton was the only name on the ballot.  This was the perfect example of an up or down vote.    Do you want Sen. Clinton or not.    45% of the voters said not, so those delegates should go to Obama.

If they were to have gone to Sen. Clinton, then those voters would have supported her at the time. But, those chose to go to an election 'that did not count' just to vote against her.
We need to make sure that we honor the wishes of those voters


by monkeyga on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:59:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

That's a tempting argument, but Edwards was on the ballot, too and it's certainly possible that some of his supporters ranked the candidates Edwards-Clinton-Obama.  Not a majority, I wager, but certainly some.

I think the larger point is that we can't know what the "real" vote would have been if they had actually held a primary, which makes splitting the votes down the middle the best available compromise I've heard.  It's bound to make everyone at least a little unhappy, and it's not based on very compelling logic, but it seems like a reasonable enough kluge for politics.


by TL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:01:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

PR + Red States arguments don't mix (2.00 / 2)

Clinton campaign can't have it both ways - if they want Puerto Rico to be a "significant state" for its potential contribution to their popular vote statistics they can't at the same time argue, as they have been doing, that Obama's wins in "Red states" should be discounted because Dems will not be competitive there in the GE. Since Puerto Rico will not get to vote at all in the GE, surely by this logic it should be even less relevant than Obama's wins in places like Nebraska or Georgia? I think they gave up on logic a while back, though...


by al1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:50:58 AM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

What is the point. This is over. She won't get the VP slot.
by french imp on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:59:47 AM EST

Maths suddendy popular with Clinton supporters! (none / 0)


by french imp on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:00:55 PM EST

Re: Popular vote suddenly unpopular with Obama (none / 0)

supporters!


by Juno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:05:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

It's a bit hard to think that the vote total for the June primary will be as high as the vote total for the 2004 gubernatorial election.

For the sake of reference, the 2004 election had a turnout of 2M.

I'd imagine the turnout is around 400K to 800K


by RBH on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:01:30 PM EST

I'd imagine the turnout is around 400K to 800K (2.00 / 1)

At which time a new convoluted metric will emanate from Camp Clinton.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:06:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just plain sad (none / 0)

What is just plain sad? The intellectual dishonesty, oozing from the pores of those who are obviously smart enough to know better, about the popular vote measurement.

It's shameful.



McCain
by Black Anus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:05:57 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Meanwhile..on another front..
you know the delegates..
Earlier today two supers (including 1 who switched from Clinton to Obama..see Diaries)announced.
Now 2 NH Edwards delegates switched.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Two _New_Hampshire_Edwards_delegates_0523200 8.html

New Delegate total so far so far today ?
Obama +4
Clinton -1


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:08:10 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

I'm sure the superdelegates are taking your concern seriously, Jerome.  Keep up the thoughtful and intellectually honest analysis.


by Pat Flatley on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST

Snark? (none / 0)


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:28:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes! (none / 0)


by Metrobot on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:28:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank goodness (none / 0)


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:31:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so.......who cares? (none / 0)

you're as well equipped to figure out as i am that there is no way to judge a popular vote leader in the democratic nomination contest.

there are caucus states, remember? how to count those votes? do non-democratic votes from open and hybrid primaries count? if so, then how do we compare them to votes from states with closed primaries? should we re-do the all the states so that they're open primaries? or re-do them all so that they're closed? and michigan? huh? did i mention the caucus states?

this metric has meaning for determining the winner of the primary only insofar as it can convince super-delegates to break for clinton. they're not doing that. and for good reason.

but hey, it's your right to keep the story alive. after all, penn's been muzzled and there are plenty of mydd'ers who need the moral support.


by j cantarella on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:20:13 PM EST

Re: so.......who cares? (none / 0)

so far today, it's obama +2 supers, one that switched from clinton, for a net gain of 3. and then 2 edwards delegates just endorsed obama.

that's obama +5 today.

the popular vote argument has been out there for weeks, and no one is biting. well, no one outside of mydd.


by j cantarella on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

after all, penn's been muzzled (none / 0)

But he's still getting paid. It was reported on TV that Penn was Hillary's largest expenditure last month, to the tune of $3M.

SEND MORE MONEY! PENN IS STILL HUNGRY!


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:26:48 PM EST

Clinging to Metrics that don't matter (none / 0)

If it were to have been a popular vote tally, there would have been no caucuses. It wasn't and there were. The purpose of the primaries is specifically NOT to count votes. It's not a purely democratic process. The idea of caucuses is to give more voice to party activists than random drive-by voters. You can argue about the wisdom of that, but that's what it is.

So trying to do popular vote tabulation is like trying to show how your essay grade of a D- is really an A. If you only do word count and forget about...oh the substance of the essay.

Pathetic.


by Metrobot on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:28:19 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (2.00 / 1)

I can't rec or rate and now I guess I will be banned. Your logic is at best tortured,while I understand your desire for the Dmocratic party to win in November and your belief that HRC is the  person that can win, I am distressed at your less than'quaint' use of polls to put forward your preferred candidate.


Ida B. "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"--F.D.R.
by Ida B on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:29:59 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Giving Obama no votes in MI, when it is clear that the uncommitted vote was a proxy for him and others that were not on the ballot is complete and utter bullshit, and you know it, Jerome.
GeauxBama!
by DailyKingFish on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:31:05 PM EST

Did I miss something?` (none / 0)

I thought we nominated based on delegates?

Damn I feel dumb, I had no idea popular vote counted.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:36:03 PM EST

Re: Did I miss something?` (none / 0)

It was the popular vote that counted when Clinton had more SDs but Obama was thought to have the pop. vote.

The argument from the Obama camp was that, because he had the popular vote, the SDs should heed the will of the people.


by Juno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:52:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did I miss something?` (none / 0)

No, it's the electoral map, 7 months before the general election, that determines our nominee.  But it's a little more complicated than that alone, because there will also be a "who is winning more swing states at this moment" pop quiz that you have to factor in.  Extra credit goes to the candidate who correctly identifies whether or not Virginia is a swing state.


by haystax calhoun on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:01:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

I doubt the RBC is going to seat the delegates in a way that would negate Obama's current position.  Clinton just met with them BTW, boy would I have loved to have been a fly on that wall.


This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!
by venavena on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:39:15 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

This is a silly and pointless argument. There is no way to count the popular vote accurately, and the popular vote was never accepted as the way the nomination is decided.


by wasder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:42:59 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Not so fast on PR.  I think she'll win it but not by nearly as much as one might expect.


by skywaker9 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:49:17 PM EST

psssst (none / 0)

In other Hillary PR blitzes we learn that cauliflower tastes like chicken, soft is the new hard and hard working whites (as opposed to hard working minorities) are the new "cool".


!
by alex100 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:49:19 PM EST

Re: psssst (none / 0)

And we've learned that "change" means turning Democrats into rabid Clinton haters, a la the GOP.


by Juno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:53:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: psssst (none / 0)

Hillary rule #4:
if you say so, it must be fact.
!
by alex100 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:59:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: psssst (none / 0)

Um, you're the one creating a claim of her saying cauliflower tastes like chicken.

There is certainly more evidence of nastiness of Obamans toward Clinton (you, for example) than there is of her saying cauliflower tastes like chicken, no?

Interesting, huh?


by Juno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:12:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On Puerto Rico (none / 0)

No one knows how the Peurto Rico vote will turn out. On one hand, Clinton does well with Latino voters, but on the other hand, Obama does well in the territories and abroad.  The only poll taken a few months ago had Clinton with a 13% point lead.

According to Manuel Alvarez-Rivera, a Puerto Rican election expert, he expects turnout for the Democratic Party primary to be about 600,000. Thus, Clinton will probably win by about 60,000 votes.

Puerto Rico is an island with a population of four million people (about the size of Kentucky). A turnout of two million in the Democratic Party isn't likely.


Dizzy Zzyzzy
by Zzyzzy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:54:16 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

OH for Obama is the news of the day. Should get a front page diary (where is Singer).

Seems that the key for Obama in polling might be leaving Hillary off the questioning. 2/2 now we've seen Obama's numbers surge when she's left off the ballot.


!
by alex100 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:55:15 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

The continuing problems I have with using the popular vote total as the metric for selecting our nominee is that

1.  we can't ever really get to a true vote total given the caucus states,

2. the fact that in Michigan and Florida a number (who knows how many) of voters didn't bother to turn up to vote,

3. the fact that Limbo ran "Operation Chaos" which means that some number of votes weren't really Democrats at all but rather Repugs who were causing mischief, and

4. the official  metric is the number of delegates accumulated by the candidates.  This is the basis for how the Obama camp has conducted its campaign.  I'm sure that if the metric had been popular votes they would have run a much different campaign.

Finally, changing the rules of the game in midstream is just not fair, moral, or right.


by marcirish on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:09:38 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Marcirish-
I agree.  

Jerome continues to push the popular vote metric, but consistently fails to address the concerns you raised.

I think it is crucial that you continue to make these points to counter the weight that Jerome and mydd continually give this talking point.

Thank you!


by chrispy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:32:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

I hate the way the number 1 and number 2 are written so as to imply that the Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington contests were somehow not-sanctioned. Those four states simply did not count the participants they way other caucus states did. Count  number 1 is as illegitimate as those including Michigan.


by lukeness on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:19:32 PM EST

Re: So?! (none / 0)

So what?  The primary is decided by delegates. Right now we're waiting on 90+ superdelegates to show they have a spine and announce for Obama. I'm calling those listed on Huffpost and requesting they make up their minds before May 30th (right before the meeting on FL and MI).  Then they can give Clinton everything she wants, but OBAMA is still the VICTOR.  Then who cares about anything other than taking on  McSame?

Get out of denial gang.  It's over.  Obama is going to be the nominee and Clinton is going to show she's a true dem and help out, or she's going to go off on  her own.  She did not run a good campaign.  She's definitely qualified, but the best CANDIDATE won (note: no gender reference!).

Go Dems! Take the W.H., then get a supermajority in the Senate!


by citizensane on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:35:24 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Breaking: MyDD declares Gore winner of 2000 election by 500,000 votes! Yay Al!


by kitebro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:38:12 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)


by kitebro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:38:45 PM EST

Right now we're waiting on 90+ superdelegates (none / 0)

Still afraid of the Clintons.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:49:57 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

And if Clinton takes the lead in these popular vote estimates then what?  Do you suppose then enough superdelegates will flock to her side to put her over the top and win the nomination?

If so then make some popcorn and get a ring-side seat to the holy war within the Democratic party that will certainly ensue.  What gives you the idea that Obama's supporters will ever see that as a legitimate result?  

Since so many pixels are spilled gaming out the scenario where Clinton takes the lead in the popular vote estimates and sails on to a nomination, tell me what happens next if your dream comes true.  What is your strategy for avoiding a complete meltdown in party unity?  


by PaulDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:04:53 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

You certainly aren't wrong, so maybe the best thing is for her to not gain the lead in the popular vote.

But you'd have to admit that if she finishes all of the nominating contests with more votes than Obama, that she has a pretty legitimate claim to the nomination.  Probably wouldn't be enough to sway superdelegates (especially if she only has the lead if you count Michigan), but it would certainly become virtually her singular claim to the nomination and a legitimate one at that.  

I will say this -- if Hillary wins the popular vote, Obama  be wise to suck it up and pick her as Veep for the sake of party unity or I suspect she'll have a lot of embittered supporters who feel it was stolen from her by arcane rules.


by dcg2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:31:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Also don't forget:  Hillary Clinton is leading by 80 points in states that only have her name on the ballot.

That's an important new demographic!

http://hillaryis404.org


by baghdadjoe on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:05:51 PM EST

More precisely... (none / 0)

She is ahead by that margin in states where Obama was dumb enough to take his name off the ballot in order to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire voters...


by SaveElmer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Ha! A few more states like that and it's in the bag! No one can argue with that ;).


by platy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:29:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ummmmmmmm... (none / 0)

The fact that there are at least six different ways to calculate popular vote should tell you something.

This is a delegate race.

Carry on...


by platy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:20:49 PM EST

Poor, poor Jerome (none / 0)

PR will be close, and Montana and South Dakota are going to be big wins for Obama.

I hate even arguing these kinds of threads, because the premise is flawed.

The race is a contest for delegates, not the popular vote.

Seriously, dude.  Give back the money.  Small vendors in Iowa still need their cut.


Howard Dean is my go-to guy
by lojasmo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:20:56 PM EST

How about their popular support NOW? (none / 0)

Because, you know, Obama leads Hillary by 52% to 40% in the current RCP average.

Obama's led in the RCP polling average almost continuously since mid-February.

There's your 'will of the voters.'

The way we actually decide the nominee is through a delegate selection process that is a rough approximation of popular support.

You can go to an alternate metric if you want, in order to convince...well, I don't know who anymore, because it isn't working on superdelegates.

But if you use the popular vote itself as your convince-the-rubes metric, it's starting to get past its expiration date, and more current polling should be regarded as more accurate.

And that polling confirms what we already know: Obama is the candidate that Dem voters prefer.


by RT on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:30:50 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Time to get behind Obama and stop the nonsense. Hillary got beaten, deal with it!


by JOEL1954 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:31:23 PM EST

Ohio (none / 0)

Obama up 9 in Ohio?!?!   That must be a mistake.  Senator Clinton has told us that those Ohio voters will not support Obama.  I guess they must be wrong


by monkeyga on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:40:09 PM EST

Besides the fact that counting michigan is a joke (none / 0)

Adding up vote totals when some states have caucuses and some states have primaries is flawed as a matter of statistics and common sense.  The contest is for delegates.  The states aren't running comparable delegate selection processes.  Adding up votes is simply incoherent.

If you're point is that Clinton came very close to winning, obviously that's correct.  You don't need silly math to reach that conclusion.


by snaktime on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:09:58 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Count any way you want, either Obama or Clinton has the
weakest support possible for a nominee:  just about 50% of the votes cast in the Democratic Primaries & Caucuses.  Again, only half the votes!

Many Democrats will not find it hard to vote for McCain.
 JOHN MCCAIN WAS JOHN KERRY'S 1ST CHOICE FOR VICE PRESIDENT in 2004 - Kerry was for McCain before he was against him?"

Presumptive nominee Obama has a long way to go to build a majority in the Electoral College. Calm down-I say "presumptive" because a nominee is not official until votes are cast at the Convention in August.
All the "progressive" past, present and future screeching against Hillary-Democrats will not help him.


by CLK on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:24:57 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

"In some quaint circles, presumably, these things still matter"

Dear Jerome:

Actually, it never mattered.  If we lived in a straight democracy al gore would be finishing up his second term.  your posts get increasingly ridiculous.  I hope your sanity (and validity) return when the primary ends (soon!).


by bluedavid on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:40:11 PM EST

Aren't they missing the most logical way to count? (none / 0)

Shouldn't we count the Washington Primary, instead of the caucus because it better expressed the will of the electorate.

Seems to me that the fairest way to count would be the results of all primaries, plus the estimate of those three other caucuses (not Washington), and also including Florida and/or Michigan.  

So if she leads in the popular vote counted that way even without Michigan, then I think she has a pretty legitimate claim that more Dems want her as the nominee than Obama.  

If she leads in that vote count only with Michigan then, but trails without it, then I still think she has a legitimate claim, but she's probably in the same boat as Gore in 2000, where the media has basically declared a winner regardless of what's right and her claim isn't quite sound enough to overturn that.

And for the record, I have no idea what counting the Wahsington primary instead of caucus does to the vote count (I think it helps Obama).


by dcg2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:21:28 PM EST

Re: Aren't they missing the most logical way to co (none / 0)

Seriously -- count the Washington primary?  Nothing says democracy like counting the results from a non-binding contest where the people are told in advance that the votes don't count.

And the comparisons to 2000 are entirely fallacious.  The 'popular vote' in the democratic primary is non-existent.


by pablocruz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aren't they missing the most logical way to co (none / 0)

But if you are trying to divine the will of the public, don't you count the contest when significantly more people express their will?  

I mean, when many, many more people show up to express their will in a non-binding (supposedly) meaningless vote than those who show up for the caucus, that should tell you something on its own about how to count the votes.


by dcg2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:06:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Truly amazing (none / 0)

I just want to add how truly amazing it is to read these comments.  

It's like being transported back into 2000, with the Obama folks assuming the Bush-bot role of arguing against counting the will of the voters with all the "it's not a contest for the popular vote" stuff.  


by dcg2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:24:17 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Last time I checked Puerto Rico doesn't vote in the general election so I don't think that Hillary winning more votes there will sway any super delegates. Also from what I have heard, Hillary is not polling anywhere nearly as well now as she was 2 months ago.

Given her remarks today I also don't think she will be getting many more super delegates from here on out.


by Bruce HB Lee on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:37:19 PM EST

That is not democracy (none / 0)

How can anyone, in clear conscience, dishonor the voters in two of our United States who voted in legitimate primaries, and yet, honor the "vote/delegates" that came out of corrupted caucuses.  

I'm not referring to the fact that caucuses are corrupt to begin with because all voters are not able to vote - working people, seniors, handicapped, house-bound, out-of-town, etc.

I'm referring to the Obama thugs who went into the caucuses and pushed, pulled, blocked, accosted, and threatened people into leaving without voting.  I'm talking about stealing paperwork, fraud, and every type of corruption imaginable.

TX is a prime example of all this fraud and corruption.  Hillary won the legitimate primary, and Obama's thugs stole the delegates.

That is not democracy.  That is shameful and un-American.  And, not worthy of being counted.


by john5750 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:28:51 PM EST

Re: On the popular vote totals (none / 0)

Jerome, you're a liar and a fraud. Have you not noticed that not even your loyal readers are going along with you here? Of course not; you wouldn't. Chris and Matt attracted an audience with brains, and somehow you haven't managed to lose them all yet.


by epenthesis on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:17:12 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.