MyDD :: On the popular vote totals

On the popular vote totals

by Jerome Armstrong, Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:45:58 AM EST

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.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Permalink :: 287 Comments :: Post a Comment

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

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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

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

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 ]

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 ]

YAWN

Are people STILL talking about the 2008 primary?

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

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

agreed.

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

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 ]

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.

[ Donate to Barack Obama ]

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.

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.

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

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.

No Way. No How. No McCain.

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 ]

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

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

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.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

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

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 ]

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 ]

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.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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

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 ]

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.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

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

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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!!!

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:52:22 AM EST

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

"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 ]

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 ]

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?

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

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

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

Exactly.. just like your point was irrelevant

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

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 ]

* 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.

[ Donate to Barack Obama ]

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 ]

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 ]

They are grasping at straw votes.

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

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 ]

SUSA has Obama up by 8 in Ohio!