Dicing the Democratic Vote
EmailHillary Clinton is still contending that she's ahead in the Democratic popular vote, repeating that claim Sunday in a TV ad airing in Montana and South Dakota. But figuring in the DNC's weekend machinations, there are reasonable arguments to the contrary.
As I've been reporting the last few weeks, it's a real challenge to compute a sensible Democratic vote total. But in four ways we've figured it, Clinton leads in just one – awarding her all her votes in Michigan and giving zero there to Barack Obama, who stayed off the Michigan ballot to respect a DNC dispute with the state party.
One bit's easy: Puerto Rico. With all precincts reporting from Sunday's primary there, Clinton won by 141,662 votes. We've added that to the tally below.
A continued problem is what to do with the five state caucuses that didn't bother to tally votes; I've previously proposed a way to handle that (see here for details). I've gone on to propose tallies including Michigan and Florida (where the candidates didn’t campaign, in another DNC/state party kerfuffle), including only Florida, and excluding both.
The DNC's Rules Committee's work this weekend offers another option. It seems fair now to use the popular vote in Florida, since the DNC is seating all that state's delegates (albeit at a half-vote each). The question is Michigan – and given the DNC's action there's an argument now for awarding the uncommitted vote there to Obama.
That's because the Rules Committee gave Clinton 54 percent and Obama 46 percent of the Michigan delegates. Obama didn't actually get any votes in Michigan, but the delegate award suggests that the DNC is allocating the uncommitteds to him (albeit not exactly on a 1-1 basis). The vote in Michigan was 55 percent for Clinton, 40 percent for uncommitted and 5 percent for other candidates. So we've run another calculation below giving the uncommitted vote, 40 percent of Michigan's total, to Obama. That nets him just over 238,000, well, "votes."
It's worth noting that the Rules Committee also didn't allocate delegates to vote totals on precisely a 1-1 basis in Florida (there's a 15-percent threshold to qualify for delegates). There it gave 57 percent of the delegates to Clinton, 36 percent to Obama and 7 percent to John Edwards. The actual popular vote was 50-33-14 percent. Since we're using votes cast rather than votes apportioned by delegate allocations in Michigan, and wherever else possible, we'll stick with that approach in Florida.
As noted, in three of the four scenarios below, we find Obama leading in the popular vote, or "vote," even with Clinton's Puerto Rico blowout. Only in one – counting all her Michigan votes, and zero there for Obama – does she come out on top.
None of this, though, is the final word. As discussed previously, we've done at least a few things here with which reasonable people can disagree. In Washington, where no caucus count at all is available, we've used results of the separate, non-binding beauty contest primary. In Nebraska, where a caucus count is available, we did not include that state's beauty contest primary.
Toughest is Texas, where we've counted both the primary and an estimate of the vote in the state's caucuses, since these separate events both awarded delegates. But admittedly there's a double count there, since you had to vote in the Texas primary to attend a caucus. Take the Texas caucuses out of the equation and Obama loses around 108,000 votes (by our admittedly rough estimate – again see here), moving Clinton slightly ahead, even with 40 percent of Michigan going to Obama.
At the end of the day, what we really learn from all this is that the popular vote in the Democratic primaries and caucuses has been darned close – so close that, with the klugey nature of the vote count, for anyone to claim a clear and convincing lead in the total vote is a dicey proposition at best.
With FL vote and With FL vote and MI uncommited to Obama MI zero to Obama Obama 18,551,043 18,312,875Clinton 18,485,290 18,485,290 Ob +65,753 Cl +172,415 Without With FL, MI and FL Without MIObama 17,736,661 18,312,875Clinton 17,285,995 18,156,981 Ob +450,666 Ob +155,894
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Can’t compare apple to oranges. No one can agree as to who has what. It is a useless exercise, Caucus States, primary states, beauty pageant state, one candidate state.
It is up to the supers now and they are not looking at this by popular vote anyway. They, if anyone, can tell what all this means.
Obama08
Posted by: Thinking | June 1, 2008, 9:34 pm 9:34 pm
Hillary does NOT have the highest popular vote total.
She as always is using “Hillary math” instead of true math.
Posted by: Stacey | June 1, 2008, 9:45 pm 9:45 pm
If BO is the presumptive nominee and has been so since NC, why is he losing KY,WV and now PR by blowout margins? Why are the Democratic votes voting for HRC in large numbers? Shouldn’t he be sewing it all up like McCain did for weeks? Why was the KY and WV white blue collar Reagan Democrat voters even more harsh in their rejection of BO comapred to OH? While PR does not vote in Nov, it indicates that HRC will carry lationo votes while BO will lose them to JM. Why on earth is the Democratic party chosing the best winning moment since Nixon to nominate BO who simply cannot win over key sections of the voters who are going to determine our next President?
Posted by: Warren5678 | June 1, 2008, 9:50 pm 9:50 pm
Who cares about the popular vote any way. It is hard to determine since there were many caucuses which don’t count in the overall popular vote total.
I think that this is a useless exercise.
Posted by: Stacey | June 1, 2008, 9:55 pm 9:55 pm
How can you explain the following.
In Texas:
a 4 point win of Hillary in primary is turned to 12 point loss in caucus
In Washington:
a 6 point win of BO in primary is turned into is boosted to 37 points loss in caucus.
Using caucus winning margin to boost BO’s popularity vote counts is insane. Your Maths is at fault.
Posted by: John_Lai | June 1, 2008, 9:58 pm 9:58 pm
She wishes……….wow glad she is not doing my check book must be why she is so far indebt….
Posted by: older person | June 1, 2008, 9:59 pm 9:59 pm
Problem is, the DNC did sanction the michigan and florida vote. Its official now.
So tap dancing around it is useless.
The only measure where Obama is ahead is where they allocate Obama ALL the uncommited vote.
This isnt possible.
Some would have gone to Richardson, and a noticable chuck would have gone to Edwards.
Obama took his name off the ballot, so the fact you are giving him any votes at all is stupid .
But for arguements sake, giving Clinton 55% of the vote, Obama 28% of the vote, Edwards 15% of the vote and Richardson 2% of the vote seems like the most likely scenerio.
See, the whole point to this article is FORCE the popular vote onto Obama so that there is no CONTROVERSY.
but the fact is plain and simple. More people voted for Clinton.
If Obama left his name on the ballot in michigan, he could have won the popular vote, but he didnt. Plain and simple.
Posted by: cgeast | June 1, 2008, 10:00 pm 10:00 pm
The Obama camp will try to keep the popular vote waters muddy since confusion on the popular vote favors their candidate. So even if you say it was a dead heat on the popular vote ( I think Clinton is ahead in that category):
1) she has a commanding electoral college lead;
2) she beat Obama in all the key states Dems must win;
3) she has the momentum and he is sinking and will continue to sink;
4) he has shown an inability to connect with the working class heart of the Dem base; and
5) his connections to Wright, Pfleger, Ayers etc. are like an open wound on his candidacy that he will not be able to heal.
Posted by: hopesprings52 | June 1, 2008, 10:01 pm 10:01 pm
Who said math was dull? Thanks for so brilliantly illustrating how any attempt to do a popular vote count requires more creative than mathematical skills.
A few quotes:
“Hillary Rodham Clinton’s assertions that she leads Barack Obama in the popular vote are a stretch, at best.”
(Associated Press, May 15, 2008)
“The debt-strapped Clinton campaign is appealing for money with an e-mail telling potential donors that polls “consistently” show she would beat McCain in November, and that she’s leading Obama in the popular vote. We find both claims are misleading.”
(Factcheck.org, May 30, 2008)
“The popular vote isn’t as pure a number as people think. For all the biases of the Democrats’ pledged-delegate selection system—proportional allocation, caucus math, open vs. closed voting—the popular vote has its own inadequacies. Namely, it understates Obama’s success in caucus states.”
(Slate.com, March 12, 2008)
“Here is a little known fact (..) The networks exit polled Michigan voters as they left the polls on January 15 and asked whom they would have voted for had Edwards and Obama been on the ballot. The results, as published by CNN kill the Clintons’ argument.(..)
The results? Clinton 46, Obama 35, Edwards 12.
That’s an eleven point margin for Hillary, out of 595,000 total votes cast, or a 65,450 vote margin. She and her supporters are therefore overstating her margin by 262,589 votes.”
(Slate.com, March 12, 2008)
There is no way to do a reliable popular vote count. Period.
Posted by: El_Pajaro | June 1, 2008, 10:04 pm 10:04 pm
If Clinton would have campaigned in the caucus states, run a better campaign in general, raised more money, had more delegates, etc she would have won. The difference in popular vote is minuscule. So the superdelegates will decide as everyone figured they would.
Posted by: MIguy | June 1, 2008, 10:06 pm 10:06 pm
Cnn already did the popular vote total today.
They even calculated estimates from other caucus states popular vote turnout and added them to Obama’s totals.
Clinton beats him in all the votes , except where they allocat Obama ALL the uncommited votes in michigan.
They are already giving Obama delegates in a state where his name wasnt on the ballot, which of course has never happened in the history of american voting.
now he wants popular vote too?
The uncommited were voting for Obama richardson and Edwards.
Obama cant claim they were all his.
So the bottom line is this is Obama’s fault for taking his name off the ballot.
He may well have edged clinton out in popular vote if he had left his name on there, but he didnt.
So officially, Clinton wins the popular vote.
Posted by: cgeast | June 1, 2008, 10:15 pm 10:15 pm
If BO is the presumptive nominee and has been so since NC, why is he losing KY,WV and now PR by blowout margins? Why are the Democratic votes voting for HRC in large numbers? Shouldn’t he be sewing it all up like McCain did for weeks? Why was the KY and WV white blue collar Reagan Democrat voters even more harsh in their rejection of BO comapred to OH? While PR does not vote in Nov, it indicates that HRC will carry lationo votes while BO will lose them to JM. Why on earth is the Democratic party chosing the best winning moment since Nixon to nominate BO who simply cannot win over key sections of the voters who are going to determine our next President?
Posted by: Warren5678 | June 1, 2008, 10:22 pm 10:22 pm
With FL vote and
MI zero to Obama
Obama 18,312,875(-TX)
Clinton 18,485,290(-TX)
Clinton plus 108,000+172,415 (No double counting TX)
More than 17 million people have cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton, more votes than any candidate has received in the history of the Democratic Party during primaries.
MORE THAN 17 MILLION REASONS TO TAKE THE FIGHT ALL THE WAY TO DENVER!!!
Posted by: Angel | June 1, 2008, 10:24 pm 10:24 pm
The winning margin at caucus states are wrong because they boost up the winning margin unrealistically.
We should go back to one person one vote; the primary system.
Then Hillary’s winning margin is by landslides.
In Washington, the winning margin of BO in caucus boost the actual one by more than 6 times.
In Texas, it even disguises the truth that Hillary win by 4 points;
No vote should be more equal than the other. We are not living in Animal Farm.
Posted by: John_Lai | June 1, 2008, 10:24 pm 10:24 pm
The Democratic nomination is to be decided based on delegates — not popular vote. Those are the rules. HRC should not have had her name on the Michigan ballot in the first place. Obama and the DNC compromised in awarding the FL and MI delegates to HRC in the spirit of ending these controversies and seating delegations from both critical states. These compromises, which Obama could afford because he is decisively ahead, should not be used to try to wrest the nomination away from him at the last minute. If HRC thinks she can take the nomination away from Obama at this point and still win the presidency, she’s badly mistaken. Pursuing the fight in this way is damaging any remaining shred of integrity HRC may still have.
Posted by: Jerry | June 1, 2008, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm
TODAY’S RASMUSSEN
McCain 47% Hillary 44%
McCain 46% Obama 45%
Hillary is not running as well as Obama against McCain in the national polls.
All the electability crap is nonsense.
Both candidates are statistically tied with McCain right now.
Polls mean jack this far from the GE. Electoral guessing maps are also meaningless. No one knows how people will vote six months from now. The ‘experts’ have no idea what will occur during a six moth campaign.
Posted by: SAME STUFF, DIFFERENT DAY | June 1, 2008, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm
There is no question that both candidates have had a lot of people for them. The race, though, wasn’t for votes but delegates. Senator Clinton needs about 90% of the remaining superdelegates. Seems unlikely to me that she’ll get that, but if I were that close (especially going up against a Republican candidate saddled with Bush’s negatives) I would wait until the opponent was over the top before giving up.
Posted by: MIguy | June 1, 2008, 10:27 pm 10:27 pm
There have been a comedy of errors.
-Obama taking his name off the ballot so his supporters in Michigan couldnt even show their support.
-Clinton winning the nevada caucus by 6% , and Obama getting one more delegate
-Clinton winning the texas primary by 4% , then somehow the voters got to vote TWICE , and further astonishing the same voters caucused to a 10% obama win.
How does Clinton win a 4% primary then LOSE by 10% in a caucus later on the SAME NIGHT with the SAME VOTERS.
They need to do something about these idiot methods of determining delegates.
Posted by: cgeast | June 1, 2008, 10:28 pm 10:28 pm
There have been a comedy of errors.
-Obama taking his name off the ballot so his supporters in Michigan couldnt even show their support.
-Clinton winning the nevada caucus by 6% , and Obama getting one more delegate
-Clinton winning the texas primary by 4% , then somehow the voters got to vote TWICE , and further astonishing the same voters caucused to a 10% obama win.
How does Clinton win a 4% primary then LOSE by 10% in a caucus later on the SAME NIGHT with the SAME VOTERS.
They need to do something about these idiot methods of determining delegates.
Posted by: cgeast | June 1, 2008, 10:29 pm 10:29 pm
Angel, you suggest no one in MI would have voted for Obama. While you may want to believe Hillary has Detriot all locked up, we know better don’t we.
There are four ways to count the popular vote. Hillary is winning in only one. Anyway, it’s all about delegtes now.
—————————-
“I intend to campaign hard through February. As you know, it’s the DELEGATES who determine our nominee. I believe I will have the majority of pledged delegate by the end of the races in February”
-Hillary Clinton Dec ’07
“You don’t hear us whining about the press”
- Bill Clinton in PA ‘08
Posted by: SAME STUFF, DIFFERENT DAY | June 1, 2008, 10:32 pm 10:32 pm
Texas is a screwy system by my estimation as well. But the answer to your question on how she loses the caucuses there is simple: they weren’t the same voters. Maybe Republicans who voted for her didn’t want to stick out the caucuses; maybe her supporters were bullied. Doesn’t matter. The Obama campaign managers, whether you like them or not, knew the rules of these games better than the Clinton campaign managers.
Posted by: MIguy | June 1, 2008, 10:33 pm 10:33 pm
MI guy.
Agreed. I have the most enormous respect for Axelrod and Burton. They blew the clintons away on the ground and on the internet.
I do hate Axelrod for several reasons I wont mention here, but he is one wicked campaign manager.
But look at what has happened here.
Its not like 1/2 blacks voted for Obama, 1/2 for Clinton.
1/2 women for Obama, 1/2 for clinton.
Both candidates voted specifically out of identity groups.
If Obama doesnt pick Hillary for the VP spot, then he isnt as smart as we all think he is.
You cant take voter groups like this and simply ‘hope’ they come together.
As for ‘hope and change’ , who is he going to pick who ISNT part of the system ?
He cant pick another woman. The clinton women voters would REVOLT .
I dont know who he could honestly pick that would bring the clinton supporters to him other than Hillary Clinton.
The clinton support is 16 years old. It goes back to 1992.
Posted by: cgeast | June 1, 2008, 10:46 pm 10:46 pm
You picked a real clear politics version of it that doesnt include michigan.
The DNC has offically recognized the michigan vote now.
Clinton egro is the winner of the popular vote.
Posted by: cgeast | June 1, 2008, 10:48 pm 10:48 pm
@cgeast:
I know one thing for sure – I’m certainly not as smart on the delegate/electoral math as the Obama folks are.
It seems to me McCain is making a big mistake by running as a moderate and jettisoning conservatives, evangelicals, and big business (so far). My guess is he backtracks, which he has done a lot of lately, and chooses a conservative for VP. They then paint Obama as a whiny, inexperienced, US hater who wipes his rear with the flag. He needs a VP candidate who helps deflect some of that nonsense.
To me, although it would be historic for Clinton to be VP, I think she would turn it down. I don’t think she did this to make history, I think she wants the powere. The VP spot is a weak position and she would be marginalized. She would be better off as someone in the Cabinet, Majority leader, or whatever (heck, maybe she bargains for Supreme Court justice).
Posted by: MIguy | June 1, 2008, 11:01 pm 11:01 pm
“Angel, you suggest no one in MI would have voted for Obama.”
The Green Party with Nader did not have its name in the ballots of all 50 states (43) in 2000.
Based on Obama friendly media math, should we add to Ralph Nader popular votes total those voters of the states he was not in the ballot but they wanted to vote for Nader?
Posted by: Angel | June 1, 2008, 11:18 pm 11:18 pm
In addition, you have to ask how many DEMOCRATIC votes each candidate got. With Rush Limbaugh urging Republican voters to cross over and vote for Hillary, should you really only count the votes in those states where only Democrats could vote? Wouldn’t that be a more accurate representation of how Democrats feel about the candidates?
Posted by: Chris | June 1, 2008, 11:31 pm 11:31 pm
I changed over to Independent. I would never vote for Obama ever!!! WE aren’t crying. We are mad as hell and will all vote for McCain. So why don’t you get over it. Republicans for 8 more years.
Posted by: Fae | June 1, 2008, 11:41 pm 11:41 pm
With 90% of the Clinton supporters, Obama can still win with inflated youth turnout.
80% , hes going to have to hope there is a major skelleton in Mc Cains closet.
70% or less, he loses .
Obama has to offer the VP spot to clinton. Whether she accepts or not.
She can decline and still campaign hard for him.
If he doesnt offer it to her, he simply does not bring the voters together.
Posted by: cgeast | June 2, 2008, 12:01 am 12:01 am
@cgeast: maybe, maybe not. it’s about the math. say 1/3 of clinton supporters do not vote for Obama, as some polls suggest (but is probably high). Starting at 50% of the total, that’s 16.7%. Then assuming the typical voter turnout of around 50%, that leaves about 8.3% that don’t vote for Obama. That’s probably a high estimate, but it is also fair to assume that many of these 8.3% will write in HRC or vote for someone besides McCain.
So, it will probably work out to 2-6% that Obama loses out to McCain. Now, does he lose any votes by adding her to the ticket? And since the presidential election isn’t decided by popular vote, it is more important to figure this all out on a state-by-state basis.
I’m sure the Obama tacticians have already done this, know which states they must win, and will decide on the person who is most likely to help him carry those states.
It’s not a personal affront if he doesn’t offer it to her; it’s about winning. She would do the same in his position. It could very well be, as you suggest, that she is the right person for VP.
Posted by: MIguy | June 2, 2008, 12:15 am 12:15 am
Are some of you not sick of the MSM spin by now I say let them crown Obama geez lets get this over with, the faster they can do that its the quicker we will find out who was right or wrong.
Obama say everyone will jump on board he will get all the Hillary supporters to vote for him, the Obama fans says they are going to wipe McCain off the map, well lets get busy now.
Lets see who is going to have the last laugh am sick of all this debating now.
Posted by: SJ | June 2, 2008, 12:21 am 12:21 am
@SJ: Still over 5 months left; lots of debating to go. Sorry, sounds like blog fatigue. Maybe time for a vacation – turn off the computer and TV and come back in November. I’m kinda sick of it too and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Posted by: MIguy | June 2, 2008, 12:25 am 12:25 am
OBAMA WOULD GET ZERO VOTE IN MI ONLY IN AN IDIOT’S/FOOL’S/HYPOCRITE’s CALCULATION.
Posted by: moeen | June 2, 2008, 12:30 am 12:30 am
Hey Moeen,
Obama was the idiot/fool/hypocrite who took his name off the Michigan ballot because his polling told him that he would be crushed. Stick with Obama, though, he needs as many people who think like you as possible.
========================================
What kind of zombie would claim votes that never happened?
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | June 2, 2008, 12:33 am 12:33 am
MIguy I still feel all this pandering to Obama that the media loves to do, they will have hell to pay because he cannot beat McCain.
The media feels this is a joke but there are some very ###### people out there as to what is being done, but I guess the media does not want to notice that, I have read a lot of blogs and I am 100% sure that person and not bluffing with their protest votes to McCain.
Posted by: SJ | June 2, 2008, 12:33 am 12:33 am
Same Stuff,
The poll that would be relevant, and the only poll that is relevant is based on the electoral map. Hillary wins that handily, Obama loses it handily. This explains why Hillary Clinton is the first choice for the MAJORITY of Democrats and Obama is the lesser choice. Buy go right ahead and try to defy history. It will be a learning experience for an entire generation.
========================================
Hillary in ’08 or ’12, the lower the year number the higher the IQ of the Democratic Party!
========================================
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | June 2, 2008, 12:36 am 12:36 am
The fact is Obama doesnt deserve any votes in Michigan.
He agreed that no delegates would be awarded and not to campaign. So did clinton etc………
So he got awarded his share of all the uncommited delegates blah blah, hey, even swipe some from Clinton and give em to obama to boot.
But Obama took the step of removing his name from the ballot. A step nobody asked him to take.
So no, he doesnt get any popular votes because he wasnt on the ballot.
Posted by: cgeast | June 2, 2008, 12:39 am 12:39 am
@SJ: I don’t pay much attention to what goes on in the blogs nor do I trust the media in general. The media has given up objectivity for access and has given up real investigative reporting in general.
As for McCain, he is a nice enough guy and I voted for him in 2000. He’s different now than he was then, though. I think he loses because of the economy: whether one is for or against the Iraq war, the simple fact is that we can’t afford it. His insistence on the war, without offering a new solution for the economy at home will be his downfall. I’m a fiscal conservative and although the Democrats will raise taxes and blow our wad, at least they’ll do it here rather than letting it go to corrupt politicians overseas. $4/gallon gas is painful and people will vote their pocketbooks.
Of course, I could easily be wrong…
Posted by: MIguy | June 2, 2008, 12:42 am 12:42 am
THESE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES ARE NOT YET OVER. IT WILL NOT BE OVER UNTIL THIS COMING TUESDAY AND HOPEFULLY, THEN HILLARY CLINTON WILL BE ABLE TO WIN OVER THE SUPER DELEGATES. IF NOT, THEN I GUESS OBAMA WILL BE THE NOMINEE. HOWEVER, OBAMA SUPPORTERS, FOR YOUR INFORMATION, DON’T GET YOUR GET YOUR HOPES TOO HIGH UP. WHY? WELL, I HAVE A FEELING THAT COME NOVEMBER MILLIONS OF LOYAL REPUBLICANS WILL SHOW THEIR UNDYING SUPPORT FOR THEIR PARTY BY VOTING FOR MCCAIN. AS THIS IS SUPPOSE TO BE A FREE COUNTRY, THESE REPUBLICANS HAVE THAT RIGHT AND PRIVILEGED. JUST AS YOU OBAMA SUPPORTERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO FALL FOR ALL OF OBAMA’S RHETORIC ABOUT HOPE AND CHANGE. A MORE FITTING SLOGAN IS HATE AND CRAP. FROM WHAT I HAVE OBSERVED FROM THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN THEY ARE VERY GOOD AT SPREADING THE HATE AND THEIR CAMPAIGN IS SURE FULL OF CRAP. OBAMA MUST HAVE ACQUIRED THIS BEHAVIOR FROM THE TRINITY CHURCH HE HAS BEEN AFFILIATED WITH FOR 20 YEARS. THEREFORE, OBAMA SUPPORTERS AS I SAID DON’T GET YOUR HOPES UP TOO HIGH, BECAUSE COME NOVEMBER THOSE LOYAL REPUBLICANS WILL SHOW THEIR SUPPORT FOR MCCAIN AND THOSE HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTERS, WHOM YOU HAVE LABELED AS STUPID, UNEDUCATED, AND SORE LOSERS WILL MOLST LIKELY, VOTE FOR MCCAIN BECAUSE THEY DO NOT FALL FOR OBAMA’S RHETORIC AND NONSENSE. SO, I CAN’T WAIT TILL NOVEMBER WHEN ALL OF YOU CRY, CRY, CRY AWAY LIKE BITTER, SORE LOSERS. EVEN THOUGH MANY OF YOU HAVE FALLEN FOR OBAMA’S CRAP, THERE ARE MANY MORE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT SUPPORT HIM BECAUSE THEY SEE THROUGH ALL HIS NONSENSE.
Posted by: MG | June 2, 2008, 12:46 am 12:46 am
@MG: Republicans, like Democrats, are not as mindless as you suggest. Most people want to vote FOR a candidate, not AGAINST another. McCain must provide a reasonable rationale to vote for him.
The trend since 2006 has been clear that people want something different than Bush/Cheney have offered. McCain, whether he likes it or not, is running as the incumbent because of his ties to Bush. That’s why Obama says their two names together every chance he gets. Unless McCain finds some way to divorce himself of Bush, he will lose. (Bush, by the way, is not a real conservative and I don’t consider him a real Republican).
Posted by: MIguy | June 2, 2008, 12:52 am 12:52 am
Hillary math is not a recognized math, but something Hillary cooked up to confuse the superdelegates with.
Posted by: TK | June 2, 2008, 1:47 am 1:47 am
It seems that now Florida has been resolved, with the popular vote tallies upheld. The two questions are:
1) how do you count the caucuses; and
2) how do you count Michigan.
Further on Michigan, the question is do you assume Obama gets all votes cast for uncommitted, some or none. The DNC generously gave him all of the uncommitted and some of Hillary’s votes to boot. That doesn’t strike me as fair.
The simple fact is that more Democrats nationwide cast a vote for Hillary Clinton than Obama. That seems clear. After all, he did choose to take his name off the ballot in Michigan. “Uncommitted” is not another name for “Barack Obama”.
Posted by: hopesprings52 | June 2, 2008, 1:51 am 1:51 am
My name is cgeast, and I speak for the people of Michigan…And I say Oboma does not deserve any vote in Michigan, because no one would have voted for him in Michigan.
Posted by: TK | June 2, 2008, 2:09 am 2:09 am
she knows numbers, that is just her USUAL way to fool voters.
U S U A L
Posted by: Linda, Fl | June 2, 2008, 2:21 am 2:21 am
cgeast and Angel – DailyKos…they have the popular vote analyses there. And it shows VERY clearly that Obama leads not only in delegates, but popular vote as well. Clinton lied…again.
So you can see, in MY math, the totals for the primary contests and then the totals for the caucus contests. So pulling it ALL together (drumroll please):
When you use Clinton’s own criteria and apply that criteria fairly, Obama clearly wins the so-called “popular vote”.
Posted by: NanD | June 2, 2008, 2:26 am 2:26 am
Only an idiot gives all the ‘uncommited’ votes to Obama.
Edwards and Richardson also took their names off the ballot.
He cant have ALL the uncommited . In fact, he took his name off the ballot so he shouldnt get ANY at all.
Its becoming tht theatre of the ubsurd.
Give a candidate delegates even though they didnt get ONE vote nor was on the ballot?
Now you ALSO want to give the guy popular votes for Obama, Edwards, and Richardson combined?
Clinton won the popular vote.
Giving Obama credit for ALL the uncommited votes is not a reality.
Posted by: dummies | June 2, 2008, 4:21 am 4:21 am
Geez, good decision or not it was the DNC that disqualified MI and FL. Obama pulled his name off the MI ballot in recognition of that. So the only reason any candidate is getting any MI/FL delegates is as a concession to try and get the party past this emotional issue. Lets not tear down BO for agreeing to a compromise.
HC is pushing the rules committee, probably too hard. The DNC set the primary rules and both campaigns had an equal playing field. OB’s team out performed HC’s team based on those rules. Agree with them or not, it seems a little late to be changing the rules. But it’s exactly to prevent the primary process from nominating a ‘loser’ that the Demo Party has the superdelegates. So let’s loosen up and let the process work.
Posted by: darklight54 | June 2, 2008, 5:04 am 5:04 am
Obama ‘agreed’ to a comprimise because he could afford to be magnanomous.
But the fact is taking 4 delegates away from Clinton and giving them to Obama was just stupid and uncessessary.
Why not just give the delegates according to the vote ? Then chop them in half.
In hindsight, this is what they should have done.
Strip them of 1/2 their delegates and disallow direct campaigning. But they can still run commericals. They just cant physically enter the state.
They also cannot hold a ‘victory’ party there or anywhere elese. They can just issue a press release.
Now this wouldnt be much fun for the state that wants to move its primary up.
Posted by: dummies | June 2, 2008, 5:34 am 5:34 am
It’s the delegates, stupid.
Because each state rightfully has a unique way of conducting its primary or caucus — within reason, obviously (nods to Michigan and Florida) — that’s why the delegate system was designed. Doh!
Posted by: S.E. Croft | June 2, 2008, 6:57 am 6:57 am
You mean its the SUPER delegates, stupid.
Posted by: dummies | June 2, 2008, 7:04 am 7:04 am
Neither one of these candidates was my first choice.
I understand the problem with Florida was that the Republican majority voted to move the primary date up violating the Democratic party primary rules and the minority Democrats in Florida couldn’t overturn the Florida law of which state’s majority party which was tacked on to a law to have voter paper trail law pass to avoid vote count problems again in another election. A waver should have been issued by the Democratic Rules committee so we wouldn’t have that problem because the state Democrats couldn’t do anything.
Michigan doesn’t make sense either.Most of the candidates names were taken off the ballots and the ballots with write in candidates weren’t counted. So how could there be an accurate count?
Posted by: Julian Kernes | June 2, 2008, 6:10 pm 6:10 pm
Obama is the biggest narcisist I have ever seen. The only time he will do anything for his own benefit. HMM why did Obama leave Trinty? To get to the other side. The presidential side. Leaving Trinity gives him a better shot of the nomination.
Hillary rightfully won Florida. Obama does not deserve any of the Florida votes.
Posted by: Debbie | June 2, 2008, 7:59 pm 7:59 pm
hope…quit hoping…Edwards and Richardson gave their support to Obama
Posted by: truthtell | June 4, 2008, 10:28 am 10:28 am
hope…the reason why nothing heals is that people like you and Hillary keep opening the wounds…She is still trying to pull him down so she can get the nom
Posted by: newvoter | June 4, 2008, 10:31 am 10:31 am