Mike, this is not a nomination that is decided on popular vote. It's determined by delegates. That's why some states have caucuses, and some states have primaries. The caucus states don't even report the popular vote numbers, because there aren't any. You can't just add up the numbers any way that is of benefit to your candidate and ignore the reality of the situation.

What are you talking about?

Mike, the echo chamber won't allow this sort of talk.

only if you count MI (where Obama was not on the ballot) or FL (where Obama had not campaigned.

Without those two that Hillary herself agreed would not be counted, Hillary still trails in the popular vote

From NBC first read:

That new popular vote total (not counting FL or MI) has Obama leading Clinton, 49%-47%. For those keeping score, that's a difference of 483,129. ... So those remaining contests, per this conservative projection, bring Obama’s popular vote lead to 515,629. If you add Florida, that gives Clinton almost another 300,000 more. So you if you include the Sunshine State, Obama will still lead her by about 215,000 popular votes. No wonder Clinton herself decided to start talking about Michigan again, because she can't "win" the popular vote without it. The problem: Even many Clinton supporters believe it’s not a valid measurement.

What the Clinton campaign is putting out:
Coming across journalists desks this morning was the following e-mail from Phil Singer at Clinton camp with the subject, "More People Have Voted For Hillary Than Any Other Candidate":

"After last night's decisive victory in Pennsylvania, more people have voted for Hillary than any other candidate, including Sen. Obama. Estimates vary slightly, but according to Real Clear Politics, Hillary has received 15,095,663 votes to Sen. Obama's 14,973,720, a margin of more than 120,000 votes. ABC News reported this morning that 'Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama' in the popular vote. This count includes certified vote totals in Florida and Michigan."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

You'd think as democrats having to deal with the dark ages of the Bush administration, that we would be sick of lies and spin no matter who it comes from. But apparently Hillary supporters like a candidate who acts like a republican.

Opus, what rules directed Obama to take his name off the ballot? Can you cite those rules? I know you can't because there was no rule that required him to take his name off the ballot. Obama CHOSE to take his name off the ballot, which is fine, but that choice led him to get no votes in Michigan.

As for Florida, the only candidate who violated the pledge and rules was Obama when he held a press conference and ran television ads. Hillary stayed well within bounds of the rules and won fair and square. I understand that because your candidate didn't come out on top, you're upset. What I don't understand is how so many Democrats are now advocating the disenfranchisement of so many voters who showed up to the polls in record numbers.

mageduley, acting like a Republican would be to deny the franchise to the millions of Democratic voters who showed up to the polls in record numbers in two states to express their preference in their primaries, which were sanctioned by the state. Acting like a Republican would to say that the popular vote doesn't matter. That's Republican.

Opus, so under your standards, didn't Obama violate his own pledge by being on the ballot in Florida? He's such a "dishonest freaking liar."

I don't know where you've been, but the pledge was not to campaign in those primaries. The only person who violated that pledge was Obama, in Florida, where he lost badly. It's arguable that he violated it in Michigan, too, since his campaign's surrogates ran a very effective "vote uncommitted" campaign, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, you're pretty much wrong either way you look at it.

Mikey, Again, there is no popular vote total for Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine.

By your own standard, you are a complete hypocrite.

I haven't done the math myself. If true, Hillary does have a chance as long as she can hold onto the popular vote until the convention.

Actually, Phoebe, Obama violated the rules. You see, he campaigned in Florida in violation of the rules. According to the rules, he should not be alloted any delegates from Florida. It's arguable that his campaign worked in concert with his surrogates in a "vote uncommitted" campaign in Michigan, too. If that's the case, according to the rules, he should be alloted any delegates there either. Basically, the "rules" argument may not be so good for Obama because it cuts against him. Further, there is nothing in the rules that says that Michigan's and Florida's cannot be seated despite their election date. So, go ahead with the "rules" argument, but know that it serves you no favors.

And faboo, it's so despicable when Obama supporters describe Hillary supporters as "intellectually-stunted" or uneducated. I think it's tantamount to Randi Rhodes, an Obama supporter, calling Hillary's voters "white trash." It's disgusting and it needs to stop.

Here is a summary of the rules:

The Rules and Bylaws Committee has the power to lift any and all automatic sanctions along with the power to impose and modify additional sanctions. The Rules and Bylaws committee also has the power to create its own committee to create an alternative process for delegate selection should the state party not cooperate or be unable to resolve the issue on its own.

Also, fooboo, the rules don't state that the delegates will be stripped. They state that 1/2 of their delegates will be automatically stripped and then the the committee can take further action, which is what happened. However, the rules also indicate that they can undo that action taken. So, instead of calling people liars without doing your research, maybe you should stop spewing such vitriol and do your homework.