I cannot believe I got on here today and people are still debating the popular vote in a diary here today.

Look, no matter who you supported in the primary, this debate is not good for our party.

Obama won the majority of delegates in the primary race and is now our presumptive nominee.

As to the popular vote claims of everyone here, there are decent arguments on both sides.  

But, you know what the key thing is?  

It doesn't matter now.  

Whoever got the popular vote -- congrats, good show.

Just stop freaking hashing over it.  It only seeks to inflame anger and resentment on both sides and doesn't matter in our fight against McCain.

If you were a Clinton supporter and think she won the popular vote, be happy with your belief and move on.

If you were an Obama supporter and think he won the popular vote, be happy with your belief and move on.

Time to compete against McCain and fight for the values Clinton and Obama stand for.  If you continue this stupid fight you are only holding up the healing of the party and the defeat of John McCain.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of Sen. Clinton's closest supporters, kept pushing the false "Clinton won the popular vote" meme today on This Week with George Stephanopoulus:

"Hillary Clinton is well known, certainly she had the popular vote in this election."

Politico reports:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein reiterated that Clinton had won the popular vote -- an assertion that is not accepted by Illinois Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's camp and one that, if repeated often, could harm Democratic attempts to unify behind him.

If this meme keeps getting repeated, it will metastasize the (largely justified) disappointment and hurt that Clinton supporters are feeling right now and will solidify for them the notion that Hillary was somehow robbed of the nomination.

[Cross-posted to my blog]

 

Unlike in the general election where every state has their citizens cast a ballot for President, the democratic primaries involve both primaries (where each person casts their vote) and caucuses, where people gather in a room, express their support for their candidate and, from such internal voting, delegates for each caucus are apportioned to the state convention.  As a result, the popular vote numbers that you see are not apples-to-apples comparisons.

Now add to the mix that Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan (from which state Clinton supporters continue to unfairly insist that Obama got zero votes, even though the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee reached a compromise and apportioned all of "uncommitted" delegates to Obama).  In addition, none of the candidates were allowed to campaign for votes in Florida.  Further stir into the Michigan and Florida equation the fact that hundreds of thousands of people did not vote because they were told that their vote would not count at the Convention (as reflected in the fact that both states' voter turnout was far lower than expectations) and you get a highly polluted set of data from which to draw "certain" or "unquestionable" conclusions.

Final data point.  In Washington, Iowa, Maine and Nevada, these states did not release an official estimate of voter turnout.  However, Clinton supporters like Sen. Feinstein are content to completely disregard any tabulation or estimate of the turnout in such states in order to make the damaging argument that Sen. Clinton somehow "won" the popular vote.  Are voters' voices in Washington, Iowa, Maine and Nevada not supposed to be heard?

 

From the above analysis, I hope most of you will agree that the fairest assessment of the popular vote is to give the "uncommitted" Michigan votes to Obama and give both candidates the estimates of voter turnout in Washington, Iowa, Maine and Nevada.

There are only two conclusions to draw:

1. If you tally up the popular vote in the fairest and even-handed way described above, you'll see from RealClearPolitics that Obama is ahead of Clinton by 61,703 votes.

2. If you decide to tally up the popular vote in some other skewed and selective manner, the vote tally you come up with is too questionable to be asserted by our nation's respected leaders as unquestionable fact.

 

Here is where we stand:

Obama is now the presumptive nominee.

Hillary Clinton has suspended her campaign and endorsed Obama with a ringing call for party unity.

In the interest of party unity, as so eloquently expressed by Senator Clinton yesterday, we all need let the whole popular vote argument go.  It can only serve to make people angry, prolong the grieving process and hurt the Democrat's chances in the fall against John McCain.

FiveThirtyEight supplies eight different ways to evaluate Michigan, and who wins and by how much under each of those methods.

Under seven out of eight scenarios, Obama wins.

     
                                                                Obama                            Clinton
Popular Vote (w/MI
Uncommitted to Obama)*            17,773,626    48.0%    17,822,145    48.1%

Of course popular vote doesn't matter any more than it did in 2000, but just something to chew on.

*Source (Real Clear Politics)               

This diary has come out of a discussion about caucuses, but my response has become too long for a response so I have changed it into a diary.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/4/17544 3/8888

1.  Forcing a reform of this nature will not be received well in states that are used to holding primaries and caucuses by their own rules, and their respective ties to historical precedent.

2.  Caucuses are not in and of themselves elitist.  Caucuses are not a measure of the same thing that a Primary is.  This is the fundamental flaw with trying to consolidate the caucus results and the primary results.  Caucus measure excitement/activism for a candidate.  Primaries measure overall support for a candidate.  A candidate needs both overall support, and strong activism to win.

The Caucus is a valid measure for whether a candidate will be a good candidate in the GE since it is the strong activism (people that caucus) that will be most active in supporting and furthering the cause of the candidate during the campaign leading to the election.  This is true above and beyond what most people who vote in a primary would be willing to do (i.e. not get involved beyond the final vote).

There are really a series of complicated issues that need to be dealt with when reforming the primary system.

1.  Popular vote doesn't mean anything in the current system.

For good or bad, this is the case due to the mixed nature of the primaries.

Options for fixing this issue:

a.  Eliminate Caucuses entirely. (Mentioned above and with reservations)

b.  Eliminate Primaries entirely.  (Same sort of objection as above)

c.  Make every state run a binding caucus and primary (like Texas).

Option c. allows every state to retain their traditional selection type while allowing delegates, superdelegates, party insiders, and the country at large to gage both popular vote and activist support for each candidate in each state in an apples-to-apples comparison.  In order for this to work some delegates from each state would have to be won under each contest.

2. Popular vote tallies and contests are not consistent because the contests allow people to participate in different levels.

Primaries allow the following:

a.  Only Registered Democratic voters

b.  Only Registered Democratic voters that voted democratic in the last contest.

c.  Only Democratic and Independent voters

d.  Any voters

As you can see, this variety again imposes an uneven standard to the popular vote and makes the comparison between the votes impossible.  This is just like trying to add fractions without figuring out the common denominator and normalizing them so that they can add up correctly.

The solution, again, is to force one methodology on all of the states so that the contests can be compared evenly.  States will have the same objection to this as they will to other changes (like dropping the caucus system all together), but unfortunately there is no other way to fix this issue without a national standard.  I propose that it become a part of the Democratic Party Charter and that all states vote on the method thought to be most in line with Democratic principles.  This way all states would then have to comply (or suffer the fate, sanctions, of a state that has violated the rules).

3.  US territories that have no effect on the election of a president (since their states command not electoral votes) get greater representation than states that do.  The problem with allowing this is that since the election is won on electoral votes, the party is handicapping their possibility of winning by giving such a large say to territories rather than emphasizing the wishes of those whose votes do count towards the election of a president.

These territories have no reason to come into the fold of the US if they can enjoy the same or greater privileges in terms of candidate selection as do states (and DC) who have to play entirely by federal rules as states.  If they want a say they can join a state, or become a state.  Perhaps have a reduced voice, but this voice should never be larger than states that command actual electoral votes as they are the ones (at this time) that decide the president.

4.  The Number of Superdelegates, and their influence needs to be put into check.  The party has a rightful place in helping to select the best candidate. This becomes necessary from time to time under extreme circumstances.  However, as we have seen in this primary, their influence is far too great.

a.  SDs can give one candidate a lead before any voting has occurred.  This is undemocratic and should be admonished by the party.

b.  SDs comprise 20-25% of the total delegates.  This outsizes and outweighs the legitimate choice of the electorate.  The SDs do not like the role they were forced into this year.  They don't want the power to decide who the nominee is above what the electorate has chosen.  So why are we giving them such a strong say in the decision, it makes no sense.

c. SDs votes are always non-binding, but they cannot effectively be locked in at any time before the convention allowing the present situation to occur again.  That is to say, encouraging a bitter convention floor fight that will doom the party's chances to win the election.

5. Last but not least, the calendar needs to be revamped so that all of the states feel they have had their fair shake at selecting the nominee, while not making things so states feel their history is trampled, and allowing for a diverse section of the populace to influence the early selection process.  This, by far, is the most difficult question politically since states get pitted against states.  I do not pretend to know what the best solution is, but here are some that I thought were interesting:

a.  National primary (everyone goes at once).  

Pros:  no one has an unfair advantage in selecting (or eliminating) a candidate from the running.  Addresses basic fairness issues about which states go first.

Cons:  Small States get overshadowed; Historical precedent for select states is trampled.  Does not allow for enough time to put campaign pressure on candidates to see if they can handle the heat (Vetting).

b.  Regional rotating primaries.  States are divided into 4-6 primary regions and each region rotates from election to election as to which goes first.

Pros:  This levels the playing field, and allows for easier travel (is less cost or wear on candidates).  Addresses basic fairness issues about which state goes first.

Cons:  Tramples historical precedent for some states.  Small states could be overshadowed.

c.  Rotating initial primaries (As we have them now before super Tuesday but with rotating states)

Pros:  Similarity to current familiar system, allows diversity into early nominee selection process.

Cons:  Tramples historical precedent for some states.  Doesn't address the basic scheduling issues and allows for an uneven campaign with inordinately long lulls and ultra-packed periods of time (which at times doesn't give states enough time to consider a candidate seriously).

d. Retain the current system.

Pros:  Familiarity.

Cons:  The current system.

Anyways what do you think?

Congratulations to both Democratic frontrunners!

Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote by over 300,000 votes.  Barack Obama has won 130 more pledged delegates.

Here are the final totals:

POPULAR VOTE  (all primaries and caucuses)
Hillary Clinton: 17,785,009
Barack Obama: 17,479,990

PLEDGED DELEGATES
Barack Obama: 1766.5
Hillary Clinton: 1639.5

Currently, 2118 delegates are needed to win the nomination, according to the DNC.  A successful appeal of the RBC's recent decisions on Florida and Michigan would change that threshold to 2210, but that's less relevant now because the pledged delegate allocations are fairly final (pending completion of state conventions) and, again, neither Clinton nor Obama will have enough pledged delegates to reach either 2118 or 2210.

Since we got a lecture from party  member and SuperD Donna Brazile Saturday at the RBC meeting on the importance of her momma's lesson about following the rules, let's review the DNC's rules for winning the nomination.

It's not complex.  In a nutshell:    If a nominee does not win a sufficient number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination, the automatic (or "super") delegates must vote to determine who the nominee will be.  The automatic delegates, who are elected and unelected party officials, can use any criteria they each find appropriate when voting, but the original intent and purpose of the super delegate system was to ensure that the party nominate the most electable candidate for the general-election battle.

Most importantly:  The automatic delegates cast their votes at the Democratic National Convention along with the pledged delegates.  This year the convention will be on August 25-28 in Denver.  It will certainly be an historic event as presidential conventions go because of the extraordinary task at hand for the automatic delegates.  Their votes, by the way, will be cast by private ballot.

That's the status of the Democratic Presidential nomination process.

Now, Barack Obama can "declare himself the nominee" (FOX News characterization last night), he can throw all the big parties and make all the pretty speeches in as many hope-change-unity rallies he wants.  He can campaign with vigor against John McCain.  (And so can Hillary.)  The Clinton-hating party clique can "proclaim" that Obama is the nominee; the mainstream media can continue to ignore reality...None of this is surprising, and none of it matters...

Because there will not be a nominee until August.  There will not be -- there cannot be -- any nominee until August.   And even the "presumptive nominee" status is a stretch because normally that claim is made by a candidate who has reached the required number of PLEDGED delegates (as John McCain did).

And anyone who thinks that Hillary Clinton supporters don't understand all of this...is delusional and seriously underestimates the loyalty and passion of her quiet yet determined army  (although some of us aren't that quiet).

We are informed and engaged constituents committed to a brilliant and inspiring leader.  We are NOT going to fold our tents and hop on board Obama's train just cause that's what we are told to do by people who, frankly, are experts at losing elections.  NO.  We have collectively determined that we'd actually prefer that the Democrats win the Presidency this year.  No more McGoverns, Carters, Kerrys, Gores, Harts, Deans....Nothing personal, guys, but your track record stinks.

In the 2000 Presidential Election, Al Gore won about 550,000 more votes than George Bush.  Given the consequences of that election fraud, I thought it would be a cold day in h**l before Democrats would let anyone steal the election from another Democrat...But then again, these are the General Election losers running our party so...

So, while Obama is zipping around the country and world celebrating "victory," let the rest of us remain sober and focused in respect of these basic and indisputable FACTS:

1. Hillary Clinton has now officially won more votes than any person to seek the presidential nomination of EITHER political party in history, and her candidacy accurately represents the will of the people who voted in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.

2. Hillary Clinton won ALL of the major states except Illinois.

3. Hillary Clinton finished the primary season with momentum, out-performing expectations in several races such as, most recently, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, and South Dakota (see Obama's predictions spreadsheet); Obama, in contrast, is wheezing across the finish line with a downward trajectory that bodes poorly for the general election.

4. Hillary Clinton assembled a coalition of loyal voters that can guarantee victory against McCain, including white women, hispanics, catholics, jews, and lunch-bucket workers.

5. Barack Obama is still a relative unknown, remains unvetted by the media, and is teetering on the brink of being clobbered by the GOP, RNC, 527 Oppo Teams due to his treasure chest of bizarre skeletons.

In light of these cold, hard facts, Hillary Clinton bloggers and supporters will continue doing what we've been doing:  Passionately making the case that Hillary Clinton will be the best President, that she has a superior chance of beating John McCain. It's do-or-die for us, and for the country. And we have every intention -- indeed a duty -- to carry that message all the way to Denver.

Note:  popular vote totals from ABC News and pledged delegate totals from Real Clear Politics.

Cross posted at TexasDarlin
TexasDarlin, all rights reserved

As this historic and unbelievably close Democratic primary season winds down, let's take a step back and consider what a stunning situation we have found ourselves in.

Right now, we have one candidate who leads in elected delegates and another who leads in the popular vote. It's almost unprecedented, and no one could have guessed we'd be in this position a year ago. Next to Florida in 2000, this has been the most incredible election contest I have ever witnessed, and it's not even over yet.

In August, it will be the Democratic superdelegates who will decide this contest with their votes at the convention. So...what's the most democratic way to determine the winner here? And, all essential questions of electability aside, who has the democratic moral high ground as the voting comes to a close?

Barack Obama's lead in elected delegates is impressive, but I believe it is an extremely flawed measurement. You see, delegates are malleable. With the right strategy and pressure, they can be changed at will. These changes can occur at local conventions, in DNC meeting rooms, or simply in the brain of an elected delegate with a change of heart. The will of the voters often has nothing to do with it.

There are many examples that prove this point, and here are a few of them. (Delegate totals courtesy of CNN).

Certainly popular vote holds merit. It is intended for the superdelegates. Remember in January when the Obama people said the supers should follow the will of the voters. Well it is time to stick to the word. We have to remember that Obama cannot win the nomination without the supers. So it's all fair game. Forcing the supers to pick Obama is undemocratic and will make this election cycle illegitimate.

As for counting the popular votes, we should just follow what the state decides. If we want to consider things like caucus, open primaries, closed primaries for the popular vote, then why not do the same for the pledge delegates where we take the primaries rather than the caucus results (for those states that held both). If we want to be fair, we have to be truly fair and not be fair to one candidate and unfair to another. This will not bring about unity as dedicated supporters of the that candidate will feel disfranchised and cheated. Remember that millions of people dedicated so much of their time and money investing on their candidates. The investment and time by the people is unprecedented and therefore very unique. Assuming that the party will come together once we get a nominee without resolving the problems is a fairy tale. Never once in our nation's history have we had a primary like this.

In this case, Hillary decided to give up on the caucus states and that's for her to lose. She made a strategic blunder and it's no one's fault but hers. This goes with Obama as well. Obama decided to team up with Edwards and Bill Richardson to pull their names out of Michigan. Out of 8 candidates, 4 pulled their names out. These 3 candidates did distribute fliers and such asking the voters to vote uncommitted. Dennis Kucinich even campaigned in Michigan. So it is their strategic blunder and therefore should not have gotten any popular vote. As painful as this might sound, we have to be fair. The RBC made an unprecedented precedence by allocating delegates to Obama even though he was not on the ballot and they awarded him more than he should have received. The RBC's job is to adjudicate instead of playing politics. They failed in their job and with this hundreds of thousands of Hillary supporters had felt the nomination stolen for her. Rules are rules. If the DNC decided to cherry pick rules, then we had become the entity which he pledge to get rid off and is no difference than the Republican party.