Clinton wins in 3 counts, and Obama wins in 3 counts http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l

I am going to need to change my screen name in two days.

I want to say that Hillary won the popular vote in the states in which she won but if Obama is going to be the nominee, I can't say that anymore.

This is very depressing for me.  I was having so much fun sounding like Alegre.

why do you care? it's not what the voters of michigan want, it's what the rules and bylaws committee decide.

It never mattered.

Delegates were always the coin of the realm.

vote. Get over it and move on.

The only fair resolution to this is to say that it's a split decision.  Clinton is correct that she got more actual ballots from people than Obama.  Obama is also correct to say that he got more ballots if one is only counting competitive races where two or more candidates were on the ballot.

Since one can't dispute either of these two statesments, and neither is ultimately dispositive, it's a draw.

There is no such thing as a popular vote count in a primary election, because there is no common election standard across all the contests. There were 56 separate contests that took place under a mish-mash of different rules. Some states held caucuses; some held primaries. Some primaries were closed, some were semi-open, some were fully open. Some states allowed same-day registration; some did not. And on and on.

Throwing all the vote totals from all the contests into one pile does not give you a fair or accurate count of the "popular vote," because you simply cannot fairly compare the results from one type of contest to the results from another.

If you add up all the votes for all the contests in which both candidates were on the ballot, Obama wins the popular vote.

Some may seek consolation in trying to argue that Clinton won the popular vote by awarding Obama zero votes in Michigan and/or excluding certain caucus states, but that is clearly a misrepresentation of the will of the people who participated in this process.

So what's the harm in granting Clinton the popular vote or calling it a draw? Just take a look at some of the virulently pro-Clinton sites and you'll see plenty of comments from people claiming that Obama's win is somehow illegitimate, that he is being forced upon the people by party bosses and that he is not the true nominee. Pretending that Clinton garnered more support than Obama, which the results show is not true, lends credence to these conspiracy theorists, who may be small in number but outspoken in their frustration.

The fact is that Clinton ran a tough race, picked up incredible steam in the final months and very nearly won. That in itself is an amazing feat and a testament to her popularity. There's no need to embellish her accomplishments or prop up her vote total.

From now on, we suggest that we compute all election results on the basis of exit polls.  Exit polls are a more reliable measure of the votes than the actual votes cast...

Caucus votes where voters can actually end up voting --and changing-- votes several times before the caucus is up?  Yeah, ok...that's legit.  Let's accurately count those, lol when determining popular votes.  

Secondly, did Michigan certify its election results?  If they did, the votes count, period, end of story, over and out.

Obama took his name off the ballot.  No one forced him to.  Can you imagine if the presidential race was determined by popular vote, and a candidate who thinks they are going to get blown out in a state says "gee, I better take my name off the ballot...it won't count!"

And then, using the metric of giving Obama ALL the uncommitted votes in Michigan?  How arrogant is that?  Let's go to the most recent poll prior to the primary (Detroit Free Press):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/el ection2008/2008-01-12-michigan-poll_N.ht m

On the Democratic ballot, only New York senator Clinton's name appears among three major contenders. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, took their names off because Michigan violated national party rules by moving its primary before Feb. 5.

Clinton easily beats "uncommitted," 56% to 30%.

If the other major contenders were on the ballot, Clinton would still win with 46% of the vote. Obama would receive 23% and Edwards would get 13%, the poll indicated.

The poll also shows 42% of the current uncommitted vote going to Obama.

42 percent of the uncommitted vote.  NOT 100 percent.  Edwards was still in the race at that time.  

The 538.com page is so incredibly flawed...Why would Obama ever get all of the uncommitted votes with Edwards still in the race?  And exit polls?  Please...we know how they worked out.  

I'll go by the Detroit Free Press scientific poll taken the weekend before as the most accurate.  Under that scenario, with Obama garnering 42 percent of the uncommitted vote, he'd get 100,000 votes.  By my math, that gives her a roughly 75,000 vote popular vote win.

Just start with this numbers:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_delegate_count .html
where Obama has 1766.5 and Hillary has 1639.5 pledged delegates.
From any reasonable point of view RBC decision about
MI is illegal, so you need to deduct 29.5 from Obama and add 4/2=2 superdelegates to Hillary.
It will give us O1737.5-C1641.5

Now RBC decision to give FL&MI only Half delegates is not illegal, but very stupid.
if DNC and Convention wanted Unity, they have to seat them in Full. This will add to Obama 33.5 and to Hillary 52.5+34.5+2=89 pledged delegates.

Totals now: O1771-C1730.5,
basically draw, leaving decision to supers, which have 10 weeks to change their mind (and they can).

Don't forget those 1771 includes 21 From Edwards and some other from IA and questionable pledged delegates from some caucuses.
I still expect that many uncommitted delegates (if they will be restored into uncommitted state during convention) from Michigan will vote for Obama, so he has very small lead, but overall picture looks like draw only because he got so many delegates from caucuses, which is clearly giving us results, different from primaries results