Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
More People Have Now Voted For Me Than For My Opponent...
So said Sen Clinton this morning in an interview with Matt Lauer. But is it true? Who knows?
Sen Clinton's claim is based upon a popular vote tabulation which
includes MI & FL but omits IA, NV, ME & WA. That is
because those last four states do not release vote totals, just totals
of delegates elected for each candidate. Because no totals are
released from those states, there are no numbers to compute in the
popular vote calculations. That said, some number of people did
actually vote in those states, and Obama won three of those four.
As such, and given the very slim margin of Sen Clinton's hypothetical
popular vote lead (only ~122K), it is entirely possible that even with
MI & FL included and even in light of the PA votes, more people
have voted (to date) for Sen Obama than for Sen Clinton. Indeed,
when RCP sets down to estimate the vote totals in IA, NV, ME & WA and includes those estimates in the count, Obama is back on top by ~317K.
Is it squirrley to include those estimates? Sure, but no more
squirrley than including FL & MI. In other words, Sen
Clinton's assertion is more spin than substance. Given that the
popular vote only matters as a means of convincing super-delegates to
support one candidate or the other, I am not especially impressed that
this is going to make much of an impression on the supers. If you were a superdelegate, would you
be much impressed by a number which is only sustainable if you include
two highly irregular elections but ignore four perfectly honest ones?
Comments (133)
How refreshingly logical!
April 23, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've made a mistake there Greg, and unfortunately it scuppers your argument to some degree.
Including the estimates for IA, NV, ME & WA, Obama is only on top by 317k if you ignore Michigan, according to RCP. If you include Michigan (as Hillary has to, to be on top at all), Hillary is in the *lead* by all of 11,721 votes.
So, to re-adjust your argument:
"If you were a superdelegate, would you
be much impressed by a number which is only sustainable if you include
two highly irregular elections and our best estimates for all perfectly regular ones?"
nb: substituted honest for regular there. THere's nothing inherently *dishonest* about the michigan and florida elections; the discrepancy only arises in how to interpret the results.
April 23, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, good catch there. In any event, I dare say that my broader points still stand.
1) She really does not know if more folks vote for her than for him, because some of the numbers necessary to make that computation are not available.
2) It is hard to believe that this assertion packs much punch even if it is true. As I asked above, would you be impressed by the force of a metric with so many variations? Obama has just as strong a case for the contention that he is winning "the" popular vote as she has for the contention that she is winning. Given the thorough-going ambiguity of the metric, it is hard for me to believe that many supers are going to be swayed one way or the other by this line of argument.
April 23, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"would you be impressed"
I won't say that I'd be impressed, but I'd be *more* impressed than if she had to ignore 4 contests to make it true ;-)
April 23, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you impressed that Hillary is including a state with no other name on the ballot and she still only got 55% of the votes?
45% would rather vote for _____________ than for Hillary. You just have to wonder who they would have voted for if Obama were also on the ballot.
Did you forget that Hillary and Barack both signed an agreement with the DNC:
a) That they wouldnot campaign in those 2 states, and
b) That they agreed that their primaries would not count
Did you forget that?
April 23, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You probably don't care about facts, but just in case, check out this link, in connection with FL and MI:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/23/102017/841
April 23, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll see your silly talking point and raise you a YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg
I'll cut & paste what comes after it:
And she did sign it. Why would you accuse ME of not caring about facts?
April 23, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you read the full text of the pledge so you can see what the candidates specifically pledged to do (or not to do)? Compare it with what Obama and Clinton each actually did do.
Why don't you then read the link and see that it answers the questions about what the DNC rules specifically say or don't say with regard to the outcome of FL/MI elections? That post provides an additional link to the actual rules, if you're willing to go that far.
Once you do that, you will see that the quote you provided is just spin, pure and simple. She didn't sign any "DNC rules" on Sept 1 2007. DNC rules do not require a candidate signature. The DNC rules also stipulate how and when FL and MI will be counted.
April 23, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't participate in an election, you don't get to include it in your numbers. It is like it never happened. Like if you don't participate in a job, you don't earn any money.
April 23, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"campaign or participate (............) as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC. "
Campaigning is very clearly defined. Thanks for ignoring the rest.
April 23, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not talking about campaigning. I'm talking about Participating. Thanks for ignoring that phrase. You have no grounds. Facts are often inconvenient. Truth may also be. Just ask Al Gore.
April 23, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me how "participating" is defined by the DNC rules, please? Anyway, this argument has nothing to do with seating FL and MI.
April 23, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since "participate" is apparently not specifically defined in the DNC rules (as you have pointed out that "campaigning"), one can only assume the definition of participate, in this instance, adheres to a standard dictionary definition of the word, no?
This is dictionary.com:
par·tic·i·pate verb, -pat·ed, -pat·ing.
–verb (used without object) 1. to take or have a part or share, as with others; partake; share (usually fol. by in): to participate in profits; to participate in a play.
This is Merriam-Webster:
par·tic·i·pate
par·tic·i·pat·ed; par·tic·i·pat·ing
1: to possess some of the attributes of a person, thing, or quality
2 a: to take part b: to have a part or share in something
Listen: I can parse with the best of 'em. If you take a pledge to not participate in a primary election, it requires some balls to not only partcipate, but to demand you be rewarded for your participation.
Do I really care that they signed this thing and then participated? Nah.
But you seem really interested in getting to the bottom of what that pledge means. I'm only trying to help. (;
April 23, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
If you want to be thick, you're gonna be thick.
She is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.
No matter how much you spin and parse the words, it doesn't matter: Now, the rules are still what they were then; and they were clearly defined and agreed upon before the campaign started.
If Hillary had gotten less votes than Obama on those non-primaries, she would not be asking for them to be counted.
We all know that exactly because she signed the pledge. If she really believed that MI and FL votes should be counted -no matter who got more of those votes- she wouldn't have signed that pledge earlier on. She wouldn't have been able -in conscience- to agree to those rules.
We are not stupid and every time you insist in using these tremendously boring and absurd arguments you insult your intelligence again.
April 23, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seeing as the caucus states are fairly estimated, which is to Obama's advantage, her statement would have to be accepted as true. The likelihood that any real vote estimate in the caucus states would skew more to Obama than the estimates based on the caucuses doesn't hold up (Texas is a good example of Clinton winning the pop vote where Obama wins the caucus). Also, many of those states do have numbers they could release that would provide an accurate picture but they won't (this would probably favor Clinton heavily).
Nothing is provable, empirically, but we're talking about an impartial best judgment here. Of course, the problem with Clinton's scenario is MI. The only fair thing to do there is give Obama all uncommitted votes or base the split on exit polls and other best evidence. Either way, Obama still retains the overall pop vote lead though not by as much.
The truth of this primary race, and it has been apparent for some time, is that Clinton has been winning the popular vote. CA and MI delegates were always going to be seated and their votes were always going to count, one way or another. Just because the media has gone along with the story that Clinton has been out of it since before Super Tuesday doesn't make it true. She will probably end up winning the popular vote (P.R. will put her over if nothing else) and it will be a legitimate fair accounting that gives her the lead. The "will of the people" constraint on the SDs ultimately boxes them into voting Clinton, which is not what the fair "New Politics" Unity candidate was getting at.
April 23, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
But her argument is hardly worth considering in the first place. This is a delegate race. Those are the rules. She can whine about it, spin it, try to make a different case with the superdelegates, but it won't change a thing. 2025 delegates are required for the nomination. No one knows how many votes are required because it's not relevant.
Hillary epitomizes the term "sore loser."
April 24, 2008 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
And just to re-iterate, based on our best estimates, Hillary's statement appears true, that more people have voted for her than for Barack. Sorry all those looking here for a Clinton lie.
But it's close.
April 23, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not a lie, I agree. That does not mean, however, that what she said is true. The fact is that we really do not know whether what she said is accurate or not.
April 23, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting phrasing, "a Clinton lie"... a special version of a lie, a special version of the truth. It all depends what the meaning of "vote" is, I guess.
Also, I would point out that Clinton is including states that are at best difficult for her (MI and FL) and excluding "small" insignificant swing states without which neither Dem can even get close to 270 Electoral Votes (all four states in which Obama is stronger against McCain than Clinton, a piddling 27 EVs). Clinton's GE strategy seems to depend on getting a great deal of forgiveness from key states and constituencies.
April 23, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eh? Which states do you think she's excluding? I don't think you've been paying attention...
April 23, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen Clinton's claim is based upon a popular vote tabulation which
includes MI & FL but omits IA, NV, ME & WA.
I'm going by what I read here. I have trouble following Clinton math.
April 23, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg made a mistake, as he acknowledged above. If you include Michigan, Florida, *and* best estimates for IA, NV, ME & WA, Hillary's still ahead.
April 23, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah. Can primary posts not be edited either?
In any case, the MI numbers (and Florida) make this claim problematic at best.
April 23, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes yes. It is true that Hillary has more votes from the people!
(as long as you count what doesn't count (MI and FL) and compare apples (primary voting states) to oranges (caucus voting states). It's just that simple.
April 23, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a lie, it's a "mistatement".
April 23, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not close by a longshot:
April 23, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's not lying. She's just not telling the truth. She has no idea how many voters she's trying to disenfranchise by excluding Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington. No one does. But she knows they voted, and she knows she's ignoring their votes to make her case. So when she claims she has more votes, she knows that it's not possible to make that statement with any certainty. It's not exactly a lie, but it will certainly do until one comes along.
April 24, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
only if you give Obama zero votes in MI, which would, of course, be fraudulent. including either MI or FL is fraud at its most basic level, though, so it doesn't really matter.
April 23, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you have no clear argument, obfuscate and bullshit. That's their plan.
If they can confuse enough of the public, than they can create the idea that supers are going against the will of the people. Truth is irrelevant to this gambit.
April 23, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am shocked and awed that Sen. Clinton's statement is "more spin than substance." I mean, if we can trust her to give us the truth and nothing but the truth, who can we trust?
Some other facts the Clinton campaign should spin:
- Hillary has received the majority of votes from people who really, really love America.
- Hillary has received the majority of votes from people who don't watch "The Office."
- Hillary has received the majority of votes from people who left handed.
- Hillary has received the majority of votes from people who've been under sniper fire.
April 23, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that last demographic is not too pleased with Hillary. They call what she did "Valor Theft."
Of course, that was before she went on Jay Leno and joked about being under sniper fire. I think they may have some other descriptive for her since she did THAT!
April 23, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But no matter how you frame it, Obama is the candidate who has not won a major primary since he swept Wisconsin on Feb. 22 by uncharacteristically carrying high-school-educated and lower-income voters. Yes, given his delegate lead, Democratic rules divvying up the primary vote proportionally, and the fact that there are only seven states left on the political calendar, Obama might survive a near-wipeout in the remaining delegate contests. But watching Obama stumble across the finish line as the presumptive nominee is not a formula to inspire the Democrats with confidence heading into the fall elections."
- Walter Shapiro
Here is the link http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/23/pennsylvania/
April 23, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, NC is coming up. That is the last really big state to vote and he is going to win that.
April 23, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Walter Shapiro needs to get his facts straight. I don't know what he considers a major primary, but I consider all primaries major and that much closer to victory. Wisconsins was on Feb. 19. Obama then won Vermont, Wyoming and Mississippi.
April 23, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
If all primaries are major (except for the ones that don't count, of course), are we allowed to call the caucuses minor? :-)
April 23, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
No! :-) Those are major too! They also produce delegates. That is what matters. Regardless of how many.
April 23, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, then you may not like my latest post about just how important (and different) those caucus delegates have been for Obama...
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/about-that-delegate-count.php
(shameless plug)
April 23, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
We could reverse the question and ask why Clinton has failed to win the majority of caucuses? Is it because of intimidation? NO. It is because her supporters didn't show up.
I can say that caucuses, if voters have a true understanding of them, are the most democratic in terms of selecting a candidate. If all states were caucus states, this would have been over a long time ago. It's interesting that caucuses were never a problem in previous years.
April 23, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are subscribing to Clinton logic and disingenuousness here. Texas has a two part primary, not a one part one. Clinton won one part, Obama resoundingly won the other: result is he picked up more delegates and won the Texas primary.
April 23, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so tired of the spin from Clinton and her supporters. It is so dishonest. You have a great explanation of the popular vote and hopefully Clinton supporters will see it as it is. This is a contest about delegates. Facts are facts and rules are rules. And no...they're not made to be broken and that includes MI & FL. Surely SD's will follow the rules.
April 23, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I hope the SDs follow the rules also. And as you know the rules are that they vote who they want to vote for. Personally I hope they follow the popular vote, whoever has the most popular votes should win the election but unfortunately, they arent bound to do that.
Beyond 08, I hope we can make this nomination process a bit clearer next time. I am suspect of caucauses, not because that is where my candidate doesnt do so well, but more because of the fact that a small group of supporters can pressure other voters. That doesnt happen in the privacy of a voting booth. I think the Dems can learn a great lesson from this for the next go round.
April 23, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, they are not bound by any rules. I do agree with you on that, but this popular vote theory isn't logical. Help me understand this theory, please. Especially, after reading this post.
Also, as a voter from Texas (a caucus state), I understand your desire for reform. This was my third presidential primary caucusing and I have never seen anything like I did this year. Usually, it is just a handful of people that would show up, which I also thought was odd. So, I agree that we need to look at the rules for next time. The only thing I do like about caucuses is that it really is the most democratic way of voting. In my opinion.
April 23, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly agree with you that supers are allowed to vote however they like and ought to vote however they like. I cannot agree with you that there is any principle at stake which requires that the supers validate the popular vote ("the" popular vote is a myth, for one thing; there are as many different formulations of this metric as there are teeth in my mouth), but I would be delighted if such an idea actually took hold. By the time voting is finished Obama will win the popular vote no matter how you tabulate it (with FL, with MI, with MI & FL, etc).
April 23, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a fact. The Democratic nomination is determined by whomever can get 2025 delegates. Not whomever is ahead. 2025. Can Obama get 2025? No. Spin is spin. Obama's spin is that he wins because he's ahead. It's a good argument, as decent as any other, but it's just spin and from the other side it looks just as dishonest.
April 23, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey that was supposed to be in reply to a comment above. Not what you said. Sorry.
April 23, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. The rules are 2025 delegates and he won't get it with out SD's. I can see where that would look dishonest. My apologies.
April 23, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct, but if the DNC determined that FL and MI would not be counted in the total, then shouldn't the number of needed delegates be reduced porportionally to adjust for that? If they leave the needed at 2025, it sets the bar higher than was intended.
April 24, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
2025 is 50% plus one of the delegates without MI and FL. If they are included the mnumber goes up. The DNC did not set a number. The rules say that the candidate with the votes of 50% of the delegates plus one wins. since there are 4048 delegates the magic number is 2025. Cange the number of delegates and you change the magic number.
April 24, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bull's eye, Greg. Score 1 for intellectual honesty. Something that was rare before Penn., became even rarer during Penn., and will certainly be on the endangered species list as we move to NC and IN.
As an Obama supporter, I was obviously disappointed with last night's results. I, too, want a knockout blow from him and am getting tired of the "Why can't he close the deal?" questions from the Clinton camp. I was pleased that he said beforehand "a win's a win" and "a loss is a loss" and wasn't going to try to spin a narrow loss into a victory. I can't imagine the Clinton camp being so, well, intellectually honest.
None of which changes the delegate math -- nor even the popular vote math, which you hit on in your post.
I'm hoping/looking for a wave of super D's to come forward this week to help make the case this thing is all but over. I think they give Clinton her 48-hour victory dance but then they move in with the cold hard truth.
April 23, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Squirrels have been the subject of too much abuse this election season.
However, were I a squirrel, I'd infinitely rather being slow-cooked in a popcorn popper than to be used as an adjective to describe Hillary's bullshit.
Hillary's supporters will have a cow if Hillary's bullshit is called out, and we must not anger them. Squirrels, on the other hand, cannot defend themselves by means of the keyboard when they are compared to the Clinton campaign.
April 23, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Squirrels are wretched, evil, brutish, disgusting little beasts for whom being deep fried in a popcorn popper is too good a fate. They deserve none of your concern. The stupid little $#!^s ate nearly every last tomato in my garden last year (and not even the whole tomato; one stupid bite and then they move on to the next one).
April 23, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great. One more thing to worry about. Mine are already struggling.
April 23, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then your analogy does hold if your tomatoes are to be viewed as caucus states.
April 23, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
We had a similar with problem with squirrels when we lived in the Twin Cities. Our "organic" solution...we planted some red chili peppers. That taught them...sort of...they did learn, in time, to leave them alone. For what it is worth.
And nice post, Greg. You always seem to bring much more light than heat to these discussions. You are an exemplar of a "virtuous blogger."
[This is supposed to be posted by Greg's squirrel rant. Apologies if it is out of order and/or posted twice. My original post never seemed to make it.]
April 23, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. I don't buy the argument that primary losses in PA and OH necessarily equate to GE losses. Most Democrats will vote Democratic in the GE -- certainly more than are claiming they will do so at the moment. My concern is more with the specific demographics (read: white conservatives, Catholics, the 65+ crowd) -- I see race at play here and that's worrisome on any number of levels, the least of which being electoral politics.
That said, how can Obama be in a worse position than John McCain, who, if you look at last night's results, managed "only" 73% of the vote? Such a big total for Paul (16%) and even double digits for Huckabee -- in a state that was by-and-large ignored by the Republicans -- shows a real weakness for McCain in the conservative base. This is a weakness that is accentuated if Obama is the Dem nominee and alleviated if Clinton is the nominee. That should be part of the equation for the Super D's moving forward.
April 23, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which of course means that Dr Hillary Strangelove Clinton, who has learned to stop worrying and love the bomb, has also gotten more votes than John McCain. Cancel the election. Coronate Queen Hillary, now!!!
April 23, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the most optimistic count Obama leads by +2.0%, by the other camp's most optimistic reckoning it's Clinton +0.4%. By no reckoning of the popular vote does Obama garner more than 50%. There is no consensus. There is no mandate. There is no "will of the people" clearly discernible. Yes, Obama leads in delegates, but yet he cannot get enough to reach 2025 which is what is required to claim the nomination. By every possible metric the party is split. The message Obama supporters need to take away from last night is this: Obama has not, and cannot, win the nomination on his own.
April 23, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, bro-cro, what do you suggest the implications of that should be? That the Super D's should flip coins? That they should choose based on who gave them their first leg up in national politics? That they should vote alphabetically, or girl-boy-girl-boy, or age before beauty, or rock-paper-scissors, or what?
The bottom line is that one of these two candidates has won more contests, does hold more pledged delegates, has much more money, has brought more people into the Democratic party, has run a much smoother/successful campaign ... no matter the metric you choose, one candidate is clearly on top. That has not changed. That will not change.
The Super D's will decide this, for sure. The question is do they decide it based on facts or based on smoke-and-mirrors spin?
April 23, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, as far as it goes. I would scarcely cavil with your conclusions.
April 23, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as someone who doesn't really care who gets the nod, I'd have to say that Clinton including all the votes for her, even in Florida and Michigan is pretty smart.
Those votes were cast by actual people, after all, and I'm sure they appreciate being recognized by her.
I wouldn't make a big deal out of this, really. It'll only give substance to her spin about Obama not "caring" about those voters, which is horsepucky, too.
I think Obama is smart by going after McCain, and if I was him, I'd totally ignore anything else being put out there by Clinton. It's just bait to try and make him look bad.
Edwards should have stayed in the race, whatever he skimmed off would have made for a clearer winner, and I think it probably would have been Obama, as Edwards did well with white males that then went to Hillary.
Just my two cents.
April 23, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, no argument there (at least not from me). The popular vote is only of importance insofar as it can be used in a pitch to the superdelegates, and if you are making a pitch it is only natural to give yourself the best spin possible. My only point is that this is transparently spin (just as it would be spin if Obama were to make a pitch based on omitting FL and MI) and I am hard pressed to believe that the supers are really as naive as you be necessary for them to take this pitch at face value.
April 23, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Virtually everything Clinton says these days is more spin than substance.
April 23, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And she always says it with such a straight face. Scary.
April 23, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
and she and her surrogates spin with too much frequency.
April 23, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if it's a tough question, she just bursts out with a creepy inappropriate laugh.
April 23, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
so florida and michigan count, but iowa, maine, nevada and washington dont?
i guess hillary really doesn't have a problem with voter disenfranchisement, as long as it happens in states she didn't win....
April 23, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
You make good arguments and you've always been intellectually honest. But I watch Terry McAulliffe, Wolfson and even Clinton herself make these arguments knowing full well it's Bullshit. I realize your point, they should push their positives...but those aren't really positives, it's all Bullshit. My view has always been, if you have to push Bullshit to make yourself look good, you've already lost.
In the end, I think SDs are pretty good political operators, or they wouldn't be SDs. Unless the Clinton campaign is completely incompetent, and I think they've proven they have a few skills, they know as well as us they can't pull off a victory with pledged delegates, or even the popular vote, even when you include MI & Fla. They know the SDs won't just forget causcus states to make a decision. The Clinton campaign must know the SDs won't buy this Bullshit, so who are they pushing it to? I'm thinking something is indeed rotten in Denmark.
April 23, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
In any case, Clinton has two weeks to push this. The forces of reality have two weeks to correct her. Then, North Carolina and Indiana vote and once again put the popular vote count out of spinnable range.
April 23, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and the more successful she is in selling this point, to the SDs and the media, the harder it bites her in the ass after NC (big Obama), IN (probably a tie), MT and OR (both solid Obama).
April 23, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of making a thorough-going nuissance of myself, I will repeat my bold assertion - IN will not be a tie. In will go for Obama by ~5 pts.
April 23, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Greg. Happily, I doubt that we will even have to get into this, as Obama should be back on top by all counts after NC/IN. You were probably one of the only people that read my previous post on popular projections:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/projecting-the-popular-vote.php
I was off by 50K in PA, but if the polls hold in NC, Obama will win by 240K, more than the 200K that Clinton won by in PA. So she'll be back where she started.
Not that I think that any superdels will count MI anyway.
April 23, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Botox helps that way.
April 23, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was supposed to be a reply to Arugula's observation that "she always says it with such a straight face."
April 23, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Real Clear Politics has a popular vote breakdown here, which includes estimates for Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington. Interestingly the totals for those four states combined came out nearly identical.
Counting Florida and Michigan, the site does show Clinton ahead by over 100,000, but that's only if Obama does not get any credit for the "uncommitted" voters in Michigan, who presumably were voting for him (that's what Obama supporters at the polls there were asking) and at a minimum weren't voting for Clinton. If those uncommitted votes go to Obama, he's ahead by about 100,000, not her. I think it would be pretty hard to defend weighing Clinton's Michigan votes but not the uncommitted who appear to be Obama votes.
April 23, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those votes would all have gone to Mike Gravel.
And Greg put the real clear politics link in the original post.
April 23, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Foreigner noted above, that 100K lead is only true if you leave out the estimated totals for IA, NV, ME & WA. If you include those estimated totals then she is only ahead by ~11K, not 100K. As you noted, however, even that ~11K lead assumes that none of the uncommitted votes were cast for Obama.
April 23, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize we're digging deeper into counterfactual land, and that just gets headspinninger and headspinninger, but you figure if MI hadn't been so screwed up, if HRC got 55%/350K votes running unopposed, Obama would've gotten at least 100K, and she would have gotten a damn sight fewer. Probably a lot fewer in FL, too.
April 23, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, which is precisely why I doubt that the superdelegates will be much impressed with her popular vote pitch. That said, she does not have a better argument to make for her candidacy at this point, so she might as well go with this one, silly though it may be.
April 23, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a Clinton supporter, but I agree with you here. Counting Michigan is questionable period, but to count only the Clinton, but not the uncommitted votes is unfair.
I think Clinton has to win the popular vote counting Florida, but not counting Michigan. Without that she has no case to make to the superdelegates.
Of course Obama supporters would say she has no case even if she wins all the remaining primaries except for North Carolina.
April 23, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she wins the rest of the primaries and has a huge popular vote lead, even though there might be problems with how they're counted the vastness would definitely have to be considered, I would be very receptive to these arguments. But that doesn't look very likely, in fact, it looks impossible. And they have to know this. They've already conceded the pledged delegate race, now it's a SD race.
OT, isn't it interesting how suddenly the primary system has been turned on its head. Now it seems these last few primaries are pretty damn important and the first few aren't as important as they usually are. Ironic that MI and Florida chose this election to try and move up their primaries!
April 23, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd also throw in the observation that if anyone thought ahead of time that the nomination was going to be based on popular votes, campaign strategies would have been altered accordingly and we'd be looking at a different set of results.
"In other words, Sen
Clinton's assertion is more spin than substance."
As is the case with almost every word coming of her mouth.
April 23, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how she thinks it is fair to count two tainted primaries, but not count four legitimate and fair caucuses. And let's take a trip down memory lane:
"I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/04/pennsylvania-results.html
Hmmmmmm....Hillpocrisy much?
April 23, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
A slight error. You wrote:
"That said, some number of people did
actually vote in those states, and Obama won three of those four."
In fact, Obama got more delegates out of each of those four states.
April 23, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Delegates are irrelevant to the point I am making. My point is that Clinton is claiming "more people have now voted for me than have voted for [Barack Obama]." The arithmatic by which she arrives at this conclusion, however, pretends that nobody voted in IA, NV, ME & WA, when of course people did vote in those states and Obama got the majority of those votes. The delegate totals in NV are irrelevant to this point.
April 23, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, if this spin is really designed to convince superdelegates, we are well and truly f*****.
Seriously, are the supers stupid enough to fall for that nonsense? Hey, if they want to vote Clinton, fine, whatever, but the logic of that argument goes something like this:
Hey, if you ignore these "uncountable" vote totals (that might help my opponent) but include these uncountable (at least in Michigan's case) totals that help me look at how much I'm leading by!
Here's a "super" question, why can't Hillary08 deliver on their inevitability strategy without breaking the rules?
We've seen 8 years of an executive branch that couldn't govern without breaking the rules (rules being a polite euphemism for LAW),
been there...
had that done to us...
got the jumpsuit.
April 23, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I may offer a different view: I was not at all disappointed by last night's result. 9.6%? That is an ass whooping by Obama against Clinton. Let's review: Love of all things Clinton is practically a religion in Penn. She had a 16 year head start on him. She had a 25 point lead in the polls three weeks ago. She had the KKK/Aryan Nation vote (which we are now learing is HUGE in Penn) in the bag. The elderly are her strongest demographic, and Penn is the 2nd oldest state in the union. She had the endorsement of every major politician (save two) in the state right down to friggin' dog catcher. She had the endorsement of the state party (which was totally inappropriate). She has three and a half major networks actively campaigning for her with donated air time. And despite her cries of no money, she has vendors who are willing to work for her knowing they will never be repaid, whereas Barack actually pays for the work of those whose help he seeks. What fucking excuse does she have for not blowing him out by 25 points? Are you fucking kidding me? 9.6% percent, down from 25 points three weeks ago? Yeah, she's a great candidate. Here is the difference: She always maintains or loses her numbers, Barack always ma