MyDD :: It's NOT a tie.

It's NOT a tie.

by Virginia Liberal, Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:29:00 PM EST

The nomination process held every four years by the DNC is a race for delegates, not a race for the popular vote. The DNC (and RNC) does not have a "one vote - one person" nomination process. In a race for delegates, the popular vote is, and has always been, a meaningless metric.

This isn't a surprise to the Clinton campaign. Snipped from Mark Nickolas - April 23:

Clinton Conference Call With Reporters, January 9, 2008 [held by Communications Director Howard Wolfson, Campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe, and surrogates]:

WOLFSON: I guess one other thing I'd add is that, as you know, this is a race for delegates. And we currently enjoy a lead in delegates, thanks to the great -- some of the great super delegates that we have on this call and around the country.

EXHIBIT B: Clinton News Teleconference, January 9, 2008 [held by Finance Director Jonathan Mantz and Campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe]:

MCAULIFFE: Well, I mean, sure that's possible. I mean, anything's possible in this business. I've said from day one, and this is the point I tried to make yesterday on television when everybody was asking me questions about after Iowa and New Hampshire what happens, I've always viewed it sort of as a 27-state contest.

But, listen, I always said we're going to win some, we're going to lose some. And at the end of the day it's getting a basket of delegates.

EXHIBIT D: Clinton Conference Call With Reporters, February 6, 2008 [held by Communications Director Howard Wolfson, Chief Strategist Mark Penn, and National Political and Field Director Guy Cecil]:

...CECIL: I would make two additions to what Mark is saying.

Certainly, we are not writing off any state. I think one of the things that we have all seen in this process is that it's not only about winning or losing states, it's about delegates. And we think that over the course of the Chesapeake primary that the delegate margin overall would be within 15 delegates.

Barack Obama is ahead by 126 pledged delegates, and by 260 delegates overall, with the overall count increasing every half hour.

I know this is a close race. But there not a tie, there is a clear winner - the Democratic presumptive nominee Barack Obama.

The general election is coming up in November. Obama and McCain are going to be competing in a race for electors, not in a race for the popular vote. Our general election, like our primaries, is also not a one vote - one person election. It won't be a "tie" if one is ahead in the popular vote, and the other has more electors because the popular vote is a meaningless metric. The candidate with the most electors will be the next president. Until the system is changed, this is just the way it is for the primaries and the general election.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, delegates (all tags)

Permalink :: 37 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: It's NOT a tie. (none / 0)

If it's not a tie it's pretty damn close.

by TaiChiMaster on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:32:18 PM EST

Re: It's NOT a tie. (1.60 / 5)

Not close at all, Shew is almost 300 delegates behind.
There is a winner and there is a loser.

by parahammer on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:34:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In my book (2.00 / 4)

winners who make a point of calling the loser a loser, are really the losers.

by linc on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:37:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In my book (2.00 / 1)

losers who force the winners to call the losers losers just so they, the winners, can successfully win...are losers squared!

by Metrobot on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:49:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In my book (none / 0)

You know that diary the other day about Supporters and "Supporters"? Do you think there are losers and Losers? This isn't snark - I'm just honestly wondering, and I mean no disrespect to anyone here, or either candidate, but what do you call the person who is, well, not the winner of a contest?

Rahm Emmanuel said a few weeks ago something to the effect of "Whether the winner wins depends on how the loser looses." I don't think he meant to imply that either of our candidates would be a "Looser" with a capital L....

What is the politically correct way to say it? "The one who did not succeed in winning"?

Halp!

by Virginia Liberal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:03:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A loser (none / 0)

but grace would inform you (the informal you) that a winner just doesn't call the their losing opponent a loser. I would also refer to it as being an adult.

by linc on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:44:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A loser (none / 0)

Fair enough. But the winner did not and has never called this particular candidate a looser.

by Virginia Liberal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's NOT a tie. (2.00 / 3)

Bewildering.

I suppose your point is that if BO has 2200 delegates and HRC has 1950 delegates, BO has won and should act as if he has an overwhelming mandate to run the HRC scoundrels out of the party.

What a disasterous idea.

For my own part, if Hillary asks me to support Obama, I will. If she asks me to fight on to Denver, I will. If you want me out of the party, take a few swipes at Hillary.

by mdFriendofHillary on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:45:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's NOT a tie. (2.00 / 1)

I mean no offense, but let me see if I have this straight: You're basing your continuing support of the Democratic Party based on the comments of complete strangers?

Whether I choose to defend Sen. Clinton or, as you say, "take swipes at her," it shouldn't affect how you vote.

Also, please note that Sen. Obama was nothing but classy last night in his speech regarding Sen. Clinton.

by BenderRodriguez on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's NOT a tie. (none / 0)

Nothing personal, and I want us to unite behind our nominee, BUT ARE YOU A COMPLETE IDIOT ?????

Who said anything about drumming Hillary supporters out of the party?

All we are saying is that the primary election is over, that the person with the most delegates wins, and that Obama has the most delegates. And that you need to accept that fact.

by DaveG on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:58:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's NOT a tie. (2.00 / 4)

Plenty of ballgames are won 4-3. Those wins don't count any differently in the standings. We've got to get on with the general and take care of business. There's a nominee. There's an election. And there is an enormous amount at stake.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:36:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's NOT a tie. (2.00 / 1)

I don't think that's the point. The point is that Obama supporters shouldn't be so dismissive of half the party. We laughed in 2004 when Bush beat Kerry 51-48 percent and Bush claimed he had a mandate. Here we have the same situation: Obama has beaten Clinton in pledged delegates 51.9% to 48.1% (and by a narrower margine, if at all, in popular vote). To scoff at HRC supporters and talk down to them as second class citizens is absurd.

by slynch on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:06:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What was it that you found dismissive? (none / 0)

by Virginia Liberal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was it that you found dismissive? (2.00 / 1)

I'm talking more generally about the Obama supporters on this site. Calling HRC supporters deadenders, telling them it is over so get over it, telling them that Obama doesn't need them, etc. etc. etc. is dismissive.

by slynch on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:05:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was it that you found dismissive? (none / 0)

Please don't judge all Obama supporters by the actions of a few. I don't judge Hillary Clinton by the few, fringe supporters I have found offensive.

by Virginia Liberal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:12:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's NOT a tie. (none / 0)

Actually, I have been gracious, compassionate, and empathetic up until now and have been sincerely so. I am not being dismissive. On the other hand, HRC and some of her supporters seem to be working overtime at this point to prove the worst estimations of her character correct. It's not about a mandate. It's not about the careers of Barack or Hillary, or the supporters who have lost perspective on the distinctions between them and their candidates. It's about a political agenda and a responsibility to the interests, even more than the emotions, of Americans across the country. I understand the pain of losing quite well. But HRC did not lose a playoff match-up to a division rival. She lost a primary to represent a party that stands for certain principles in an election where the opponent stands against those interests and principles. I am beginning to lose track of where the demand for respect ends and the need for attention begins. I would like all of us to begin to move forward with the maturity and commitment that does credit to our democracy, a system that both fosters and pre-supposes engaged citizenship. This was not a popularity contest, but an inter-organizational struggle to configure ourselves for a political struggle.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:05:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not really. (2.00 / 2)

Due to proportional apportation, 150 pledged delegates is a nearly insurmountable hurdle.

She had to win every contest by something like 20% after Wisconsin to even things out and maybe secure a win.

The liklihood of the superdelegates deciding this differently than the result of the pledged delegates was always extremely minute.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:38:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's NOT a tie. (2.00 / 1)

That's what I said, not a tie but very close.

but feel free to argue against the obvious.

by TaiChiMaster on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:47:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's NOT a tie. (none / 0)

Close does not make it a tie.

by Virginia Liberal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:56:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's NOT a tie. (2.00 / 2)

Clinton ran a close race but she lost, period.

by skywaker9 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:35:20 PM EST

Obama is now the nominee (2.00 / 2)

We have a nominee.
He will be President of the United States in January.

And the time to come together around our party's nominee is now.

Because we have some Republican ass to kick.

Obama 08!

by denniswine on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:35:54 PM EST

How long will we stay at denial? (2.00 / 2)

Barack Obama is the nominee of the Democratic party. It's June. The election's exactly five months away. It's about time we moved to acceptance.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:36:22 PM EST

Re: It's NOT a tie. (2.00 / 1)

Rec'd for a reality based argument.

by NewOaklandDem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:38:07 PM EST

Thank you. (none / 0)

My first diary...

by Virginia Liberal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:50:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's NOT a tie. (2.00 / 1)

Just as important, Obama can claim a popular vote victory according to all but the most unfair metrics. From poblano's site:

However, we can probably narrow things down from the 972 scenarios that we described before to just a relative handful, all of which center around Michigan. At this point, there is very little argument not to include Florida at full weight. Nor is there any credible argument not to include all caucus states as best as we are able, even if our vote estimates have a margin of error around them. The more exotic scenarios like counting the Texas caucus vote or excluding Puerto Rico and other territories can probably also be discarded.

That leaves eight potential ways that we can handle Michigan.

1. Ignore Michigan entirely. That gives Obama a win by 155,782 votes.

Count Michigan at 100 percent and give no votes to Obama. That gives Clinton a win by 172,527 votes.

Count Michigan and give all uncommitted votes to Obama. Obama +65,641.

Count Michigan and give all uncommitted and write-in votes to Obama. (Note that we have included a new option to treat Michigan's 27,694 discarded write-in votes as uncommitted). Obama +93,335.

Count Michigan and allocate uncommitted votes based on the preferences of uncommitted voters in exit polls. We have that total at Obama +6,961, however it is so close that it can essentially be considered a tie.

Count Michigan and allocate uncommitted and write-in votes based on exit polls. That gives Obama a "safe" win by 28,008 votes.

Count Michigan and allocate all officially-recorded votes based on exit polls. This may be a truer reflection of voter preference because roughly 20 percent of Hillary Clinton's voters indicated in exit polls that they'd prefer to have voted for another candidate. Under this scenario, Obama wins by 90,398.

Same as above, but also include write-in votes in the total that we divide among the candidates. This is actually my preferred solution, because write-in voters were almost certainly included in exit polls even if they weren't included in Michigan's official tally. Counterintuitively, Obama's margin goes down slightly if we take this approach (because we are giving the majority share of a slightly larger pie to Clinton). But we still have Obama winning the national popular vote count by 87,351.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/f inal-popular-vote-estimates-obama-wins.h tml

Of course, all the popular vote arguments are problematic, since there is so much variation across the different contests. But, because the popular vote case is a moral argument about representation of the popular will, it's ludicrous to count Michigan without awarding some votes to Obama. Moreover, 20% of Hillary's votes indicated (based on exit polling) that they would have prefered to cast a vote for someone else.

by DPW on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:03:51 PM EST

Re: It's NOT a tie. (2.00 / 1)

If the popular vote is that close; at the very least it needs to be recognized that there are many voters who strongly prefer her over the alternate. Further, from a votes perspective, even with all of the extra fundraising, a more favorable media & the DNC support, Obama barely received more numbers in terms of actual votes. To pretend that isn't so, isn't being positive; rather it is called turning a blind eye to reality.

by jrsygrl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:17:22 PM EST

Re: It's NOT a tie. (none / 0)

I don't think anyone is saying it was NOT close, nor dismissing the record breaking number of votes that both candidates earned in this primary.

My point, however, is that it is not a tie. I will clarify - this diary is in response to another that put forth the argument that this primary had ended in a tie. That argument "turns a blind eye" to the reality that this is a race for delegates, and that this race has not ended in a tie.

by Virginia Liberal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:22:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's NOT a tie. (2.00 / 1)

In considering that there are only a few thousand votes that separate them, from a vote standpoint it is a virtual. As far as the delegate argument goes - you are correct that is all the matters & technically then ANY candidate who gets the SDs is who wins, irrelevant of who the voters want. I'm not sure if that is necessarily right but that is the truth. So technically if someone was a true insider they could manipulate things to appear much more favorably to their benefit to justify SD support, I would presume. I am NOT making any specific speculation, I am just saying the overall lack of attention to how close the votes are is a bit - strange in trying to justify how NOT close this primary is. Basically it comes down to the supposed political NON insider got the most support from the party insiders, while the supposed political insider is virtually tied in the amount of support received from the voters.

by jrsygrl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:04:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's NOT a tie. (2.00 / 1)

You are correct-- it's not a tie.

It can't be a tie, because the superdelegates haven't voted yet.

We'll just have to see how they vote in Denver before we know who wins.

Good luck to your candidate!

by leisure on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:21:09 PM EST

Re: It's NOT a tie. (2.00 / 1)

No Republican delegates have voted yet, either. Let's focus on Huckabee, quick!

by Angry White Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's NOT a tie. (none / 0)

Oh, did Huckabee win the official popular vote total too?