MyDD :: Final Popular Vote Tally (Real Clear Politics)

but they did give Obama a bunch of uncommitted votes that DIDN'T vote for him. Take out the uncommitteds for Obama and put in the caucuses, HRC still won the popular vote. Besides, caucuses are not fair popular elections- why should they count at all in a POPULAR VOTE tally?

by linc on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:40:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh (2.00 / 3)

Give it up already. Caucuses have been around for decades and there is nothing unfair about them. They're a standard democratic process with their own advantages and disadvantages.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:46:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just (2.00 / 2)

because they have been around for ages doesn't make them fair. That is a ridiculous argument.

by linc on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:54:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just (2.00 / 3)

But you are not including any votes from Washington at all, and they did have a Primary Election just as invalid as the Michigan Election.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu

by Tumult on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:05:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is really starting to weird me out (none / 0)

Are all Obama supporters so insistent on being absolutely correct and victorious all the time or is it just the blogs? I am going with just the blogs all though I have met some pretty cocksure street supporters as well...

by linc on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is really starting to weird me out (none / 0)

You have a problem with correctness? That weirds me out.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -Voltaire

by kydoc2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:53:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's just the blogs (1.00 / 0)

And it kind of bums them out that Hillary won the popular vote.

by catfish2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:11:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's just the blogs (none / 0)

If you ignore four states.

It bums me out that people would actually do that.

We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.

by Jess81 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just (none / 0)

LOL, it's funny to hear you talking about "fair" while simultaneously trying to advocate a tally that gives Hillary a 300,000+ vote handicap.

Trying to tout a popular vote victory for Hillary is like bragging about winning a foot race without mentioning that you started 2 meters ahead of your opponent.

by Rhizomorph on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just (none / 0)

Not being on a ballot or being able to campaign in a state makes it a fair contest?

Why would you even make an assinine argument like this? It has no bearing on anything and makes you come off as bitter.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh (none / 0)

Many caucuses are included. The only ones not included are the ones where no official tallies were gathered and certified by the Secretaries of State: Nevada, Washington, Maine, Iowa.

Hillary won Nevada, and the spreads in Iowa and Maine were really low. Washington was a big win in the caucus for Obama and a very narrow win in the primary.

But the popular vote has never been based on "estimates" from the media. Certified results only. That's why in every legitimate tally, Hillary is winning, even when you wave the magic wand and give Obama all of the Uncommitteds in Michigan.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:15:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Certified results" (none / 0)

from illegitimate contests have no legitimacy. That's a big FAIL for your "hillary is winning" BS.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -Voltaire

by kydoc2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh (none / 0)

"That's why in every legitimate tally,..."

According to the RBC, MI was a flawed election. The popular vote metric was deemed an ambiguous reflection of the intent of the voters - thus, the compromised delegate allocations. You can't get a "legitimate tally" from a flawed election.

by Rhizomorph on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:00:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh (none / 0)

No, it looks like the Michigan election was the basis for the delegate apportionment, with a little "bonus" for Obama.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:04:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh (none / 0)

That "bonus" is exactly what invalidates the accuracy of the popular vote totals. The fact that the delegate apportionment was NOT a direct reflection of the popular vote implies that the popular vote was seen as ambiguous, and thus inaccurate, to begin with. In other words, the MI popular vote is an estimates of the intent of the voters. If we are to include that estimate, then why not the caucuses?

by Rhizomorph on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:13:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh (none / 0)

That's a good argument, but it's too transparently part of an effort to impute imaginary votes to Obama. The media has been generous enough in giving him some Michigan votes and sometimes imaginary estimates from the four non-reporting caucus states.

It's essentially a foregone conclusion that Hillary won the popular vote. History will note it.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:52:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Let me clarify (none / 0)

You either have some sort of official tally, such as the certified results from (actual) primaries (to include illegitimate primaries is obviously not appropriate for 'official' results), or if you're also interested in the popular support each candidate had in states from which you did not have contests with official popular vote results, i.e. MI, FL, and the four above-mentioned caucus states, then you do your best to estimate that popular support from those places as well. To count unofficial results in your "offical" tally, or to leave states out of your unofficial estimation of popular support, is deliberately misleading.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -Voltaire

by kydoc2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:03:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let me clarify (none / 0)

Certified results is the consistent thread. I don't agree necessarily with the imputation of MSNBC-esque "esimtates" from caucuses. Who knows how large the margin of error is there? Obama got 100,000 votes because... Andrea Mitchell said so?

No thanks.

This isn't a point worth arguing though. It's an increasingly accepted fact that Hillary won the popular vote. You can attack it as "meaningless" but her supporters have every right to attack Obama's delegate lead as "meaningless" as well.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:08:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh (2.00 / 2)

or better yet, take out michigan entirely and just admit that the whole election there was fubar.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:50:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh (2.00 / 1)

Or perhaps, it wasn't even a sanctioned election? I don't care whose name was on the ballot or not -- MI & FL were not DNC-sanctioned contests (witness the prohibition against participation) and don't count as anything more than beauty contests.

by Twin Planets on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:30:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

By that logic (none / 0)

why would Michigan count in a popular vote tally? They held no actual primary. The candidates pledged not to participate. The caucases were much, much more representative of the actual will of the people in a given state than what you're arguing for. Why do you care so much about the numbers from an unsanctioned race without most of the candidates being on the ballot, but so little about the ACTUAL POPULAR SUPPORT each candidate had in the state?

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -Voltaire

by kydoc2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:01:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh (2.00 / 1)

Neither was Florida and Michigan a fair popular vote tally, so why include them at all?

And even assuming a decrease in his win % in caucus states, he would have picked up more popular votes from a primary election than he did from a caucus.

And if you are counting invalid beauty contests like Florida and Michigan why arn't we counting invalid beuaty contests from the caucus states?

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu

by Tumult on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:03:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No he would not have (none / 0)

every state that has had both a primary and a caucus shows a huge closing of the gap between Obama and Clinton in Primary results. It is truly amazing to have a candidate on a Democratic ticket that half the party refuses to be critical of, even in the slightest way.

by linc on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:06:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not true (none / 0)

Many of Obama's supporters have been and will be critical of him on things that matter. A disputed vote from 2 states that thumbed their noses at the Democratic party is not on the list of things that matter.

I fault Obama for over-religiosity. As an atheist, I do not want to see any degree of religious expression in public life.

I fault Obama for being a poor extemporaneous speaker. He put in "uh" every 4th or 5th word, and his debate performances are mediocre.

But he is our nominee and I have been and will be supportive of him on things that matter. Ending the Iraq war and re-establishing our standing in the world are two things on my list of things that matter. I look forward to him achieving both.

by edg1 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:22:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No he would not have (none / 0)

That accusation cuts both ways.

by Skex on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:25:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No he would not have (none / 0)

But the states that had a non binding Primary, and a Caucus, even with the gap closed he would have picked up more popular vote. Which is what you are talking about here. Washington for example which he is being given no votes from in your "count every vote" popular vote total, he came out 38,000+ ahead of Clinton in the Primary. Even though he lost several % from the Caucus.

My point is if you are giving votes based on invalid elections from Florida and Michigan. You should also add non-binding Primary votes from Caucus states.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu

by Tumult on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:31:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No he would not have (none / 0)

Isn't that like counting those voters 2x?

Obama is the nominee, but the popular vote was somewhere around 50-50. Since we don't have a very reliable measurement of exactly what it was given the caucuses and MI and FL, I'd say we just leave it as a tie, which is essentially what it was. Was Clinton ahead by 2k votes, or Obama by 5k? Who cares - they both ran good campaigns and it is time to get past that. It was close enough that either camp could argue that they are the rightful popular vote winner.

Hopefully the party will have a better measure of the popular vote and a better nominating process by 2012 or 2016.

by mikes101 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:25:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No he would not have (none / 0)

It would only be counting the votes twice if the people pushing this argument were counting the Washington votes once. They aren't. They aren't counting them at all.

unapologetic Obama supporter

by dantes on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:01:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wait, there are still votes to count! (2.00 / 1)

They conducted a straw poll in my nephew's third grade classroom. Hillary beat Obama 11 to 7. (Six kids voted for Spongebob....)

Chalk up another four net votes!

by reconad on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:09:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure (none / 0)

as soon as your State's Secretary certifies it.

by linc on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah (none / 0)

an election doesn't count until the Katherine Harrises of the world say so.

by JJE on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:30:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

but if you, you know, count all the states (2.00 / 3)

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 18,107,710 48.1% 18,046,007 47.9% Obama +61,703 +0.2%

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -Voltaire

by kydoc2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:38:30 PM EST

That count (2.00 / 1)

gives Obama a bunch of votes that weren't his in a state that he took his name off the ballot.

by linc on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:41:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so does the diarists' (2.00 / 1)

count

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:43:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

was I defending the diarist's count? (none / 0)

by linc on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:45:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The count you would presumably prefer (none / 0)

Gives Clinton a bunch of votes which, according to exit polling, would have gone to Obama had he been on the ballot(in a contest that both had pledged to not participate in). Most of the uncommitted voters, and a fair number of the Clinton voters, would have voted for Obama in a real primary, which everyone knew this wasn't.

Seriously - no legitimate primary happened in Michigan. Remember that. So in estimating the popular vote, and estimating is the only thing you can do, the 'uncommitted votes to Obama' approach is a conservative estimate of his support in the state, and the tallied votes for Clinton are an overestimate of her support in the state.

So unless you're concerned with using the so-called popular vote for some other reason than to represent each candidate's popular support, your position is transparently wrong.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -Voltaire

by kydoc2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:50:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To be fair, (none / 0)

the Michigan uncommitteds should be viewed as "Not Clinton" votes that rightfully should go to Obama at this stage. In all likelihood, the overwhelming majority of those voters were for him.

by lombard on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:51:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Even some of those who voted for Clinton (none / 0)

have said they would have voted for Obama in a real primary.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -Voltaire

by kydoc2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:56:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sigh (2.00 / 6)

Can we please just agree that these 2 candidates were separated by a tiny fraction of 1% and call it a day? We'll never arrive at the best way to arrive at the true popular vote. Can we agree that Obama won this VERY CLOSE RACE and that he needs Clinton's supporters to win this thing?

No more bickering... truce. UNITY!

"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008

by twinmom on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:42:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, is this determined assuming (2.00 / 1)

..not a single person in Michigan--none of those black folks in Detroit, none of those students at Ann Arbor wanted Obama? None of the Uncommitteds were intended for him?

And the 4 caucus states? No votes for Obama there?

Real solid figuring, there.

by rhetoricus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:38:33 PM EST

The uncommitteds to Obama are included (none / 0)

by lombard on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:49:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

but not the caucus states. (2.00 / 1)

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -Voltaire

by kydoc2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:51:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think it's best now to consider (2.00 / 4)

stopping picking at our wounds. Let's get on with the business of putting a Democrat in the White House.

That's it, baby; let's go win this election!

by Beltway Dem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:39:22 PM EST

Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine don't count? Nobody voted there? No voices heard?

The history books will forgot about those states?

Seems sad.

by neonplaque on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:39:47 PM EST

It's as fair as the fiction giving Obama over 200,000 votes that were never cast for him in Michigan.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:16:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly. The Michigan results were inherantly flawed. They should not count towards any popular vote total.

unapologetic Obama supporter

by dantes on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:03:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nor should the caucus estimates. Michigan's results are certified by the secretary of state there. That may not be good enough for Donna "anything for Obama to win" Brazile but for the rest of the world, we can't bury our heads in the sand and pretend the election never happened.

Hillary won the popular vote.
Obama won the delegate count.

It was a split decision. We have as much right to attack Obama's delegate lead (see Texas caucus fraud) as you do to dissect her PV victory apart. Let's just leave the above as is and stop attack each other's equally impressive victories.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:55:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nothing to chew on here but misrepresentation and the sowing of dissent. You omit the caucuses.

by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:40:18 PM EST

Time to move my friends. This horse is dead.

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

by jsfox on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:43:24 PM EST

In all fairness, you should use the complete tally (2.00 / 3)

The complete RCP tally includes an estimate of the four caucus states that didn't have individual vote tallies. That one also gives Clinton her Michigan votes and awards the uncommitted votes to Obama.

Obama: 18,107,710; 48.1%

Clinton: 18,046,007; 47.9%

So, Obama won by about 60,000 votes out of over 36 million cast. Essentially, the popular vote was a tie.

by lombard on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:48:24 PM EST

Well, darn close to a tie, anyway (2.00 / 1)

Amazingly close considering the unprecedented participation.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -Voltaire

by kydoc2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:53:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, darn close to a tie, anyway (2.00 / 1)

For sure. And after watching this election I now realize why it is a delegate election and not a vote total. It is so easy for something to be messed up or misinterpreted in the current system (including caucuses etc) to make the vote totals suspect to interpretation.

by herenow on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:07:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good point (none / 0)

by lombard on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:26:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If clinging to faulty (2.00 / 1)

math makes you happy -- go for it. Our nominee is already moving full steam ahead towards the WH with millions of supporters who are contributing to history.

by gchaucer2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:48:35 PM EST

As we learn with the Electoral College... (none / 0)

the popular vote is NOT the crucial factor.

In the Primary it's delegates.

In the GE it's Electoral College votes.

The first key to winning is understanding the scoring system.

Obama won by over 200 delegates out of 4,000+.
He won by 5%!

FIVE PERCENT!

If you want to argue that victory then change the rules... and good luck to you. Caucuses exist for a valid reason in smaller states. Study electoral politics and see why... and accept defeat graciously.

Ask Al Gore about unifying voters after a hard election.

A 5% Victory over HRC. That's what Obama could brag about but watch him extend courtesy to a decent opponent.

by mcdtracy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:50:19 PM EST

What are you ranting about? (none / 0)

The poster gives and estimate of the popular primary vote without any inference about what should have been the final nomination outcome. The only fault I find with the poster is that the best, bottom-line estimate of the popular vote was not selected. That one gives a very slight edge to Obama of about 60,000 votes.

by lombard on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As we learn with the Electoral College... (none / 0)

Except taht caucues don't always exist in small states. Texas has one this year, too.

by Mayor McCheese on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:55:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They also have (2.00 / 1)

this number:

Popular Vote Total 17,535,458 48.1% 17,493,836 48.0% Obama +41,622 +0.1%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,869,542 48.2% 17,717,698 47.8% Obama +151,844 +0.4%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l

by Tatan on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:55:09 PM EST

That tally is older or incomplete (none / 0)

The latest and most complete tally is given by me and kydoc2 in this thread.

by lombard on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:59:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That tally is older or incomplete (none / 0)

It's on their website. Check the link.

by Tatan on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

her win was stolen by RBC

Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties

by engels on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:15:31 PM EST

As they say on the front page here, "one RBC meeting that changed the history of the entire universe!"

by username on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:30:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am a working class woman who voted for Obama and know lots of latinos who also voted for him.

by Spanky on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:30:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh no (none / 0)

You're gonna get in trouble... didn't you get the memo. All women and Latinos are with Hillary. You could be fined for not supporting her all the way to the convetion.

What are the names of your latin friends? They must be brought into compliance and vote for McCain (like engels will) if Hillary concedes.

by Tatan on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Seems to me that about half voted for Obama and about half voted for Clinton. I wonder how many Clinton voters will now vote for Obama in the GE. Perhaps those voters will "just get over it" and fall in line with Obama, but I really wonder about that.

Some Obama supporters have been really nasty toward Clinton supporters and Visa versa, so will those wounds heal? Well only if the O supporters begin to get off their own nasty high horse, and I don't see that happening any time soon. Without that, I can't see how this party will heal enough for Obama to actually win this fall. Many Clinton supporters didn't care for the cult like atmosphere of the Obama support. Perhaps that is one reason that it will be difficult, even if Clinton wants to bring all those voters to Obama.

Many older voters who don't blog, don't feel the rock like impulse, don't find that to be sufficient. I do know that it is the older voters who actually elect presidents. If Obama is going to win, he will have to find a way to get those voters. At this time, he doesn't have a clue how to do that. Big rallies will not work. Those voters are actually turned off to that kind of appeal.

democrat voter

by democrat voter on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:19:11 PM EST

Troll (1.66 / 3)

Pro-tip: only Republican stooges use "Democrat" as an adjective. Dipshit.

by JJE on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Troll (none / 0)

And only a total asshole would say something as inane as you just did. Grow up.

by DaTruth on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:05:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why not chew honestly?

by username on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:23:50 PM EST

From what I saw Obama won by .04 (this includes caucus states except for Texas and Idaho) which should be included.

by Spanky on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:28:15 PM EST

Its over. HRC lost. (none / 0)

Deal with it. Party unity doesn't mean you can come back with a cherry picked number that implies you were robbed.

Give it a rest.

"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"

by xenontab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:35:09 PM EST

Every vote counts. Screw the causus states. (none / 0)

Doesn't make sense, but propaganda often doesn't.

by Garret on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:55:17 PM EST

If you REALLY want to include MI, then at least acknowledge that Obama did not participate in it at all. And in that case, recognize that Hillary's vote total represents the votes from 54 contests, while Obama's only represents the votes from 53 contests. Given an unequal number of contests participated it, it's more accurate to talk about the average number of votes PER CONTEST.

Counting MI for Hillary, and giving Obama ZERO...

Obama: 17,535,458 / 53 = 330,858 votes per contest
Clinton: 17,822,145 / 54 = 330,040 votes per contest

Obama received 812 more votes per contest than Hillary.

by Rhizomorph on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:22:45 PM 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.