« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Importance of the Popular Vote on Legitimacy
I posted this commentary on Greg Sargent's thread about Hendrik Hertzberg's analysis of the popular vote but felt that it merited it's own thread...
There has been much debate about the popular vote over the past couple of months. The vote only affects the outcome of the primary insofar as it moves superdelegates to vote for one candidate over the other. There are two obvious ways in which the popular vote might rationally influence superdelegates:
1) It reflects electability
2) It offers legitimacy
The popular vote totals of both candidates are so close that 1) is a wash. The Democratic electorate is almost evenly split. Other factors, like demographic appeal, campaign organization, fundraising, etc. should be considered much more significantly in gaging electability.
The second reason is the rub. Legitimacy is a construct, meaning that it has to do with perceptions. No candidate deserves to win an election in any absolute sense outside people's perceptions of just deserts. Americans, in particular, tend to believe that legitimacy is conferred by the one-person, one-vote principle. Never mind that our electoral systems only approximate the principle and that in a very close race, it is practically speaking impossible, even with a coherent voting system, to honor the principle completely. If a case can be made that the loser of a race has won the popular vote by even one vote, the loser's supporters will feel that their candidate was robbed of a rightful victory. There can, however, be a conflict because many Americans also believe that electoral rules confer legitimacy. When those standards of legitimacy conflict, chaos is bound to ensue.
The Democratic Party doesn't want chaos, and it's important that the nominee be perceived to be widely legitimate, or millions of voters will be angry and alienated. That's why Clinton is arguing so strenuously that she has won the popular vote. It's a claim to legitimacy. She is simultaneously trying to count MI & FL in order to undercut Obama's claim to legitimacy via the rules for apportioning pledged delegates.
If she had a clear popular mandate, there might be something to her claim, but then the superdelegates and the party would be forced to navigate conflicting standards of legitimacy: the rules (pledged delegates) and the popular vote. Fortunately for the party, Clinton's claim to the popular vote is so strained that it cannot lead to a widespread perception of legitimacy, leaving Obama with a clear win in terms of pledged delegates and a more widely accepted win in terms of the popular vote. Indeed, Obama's claim to legitimacy is so strong that were Clinton to somehow succeed in persuading enough superdelegates to give her the nomination, there would likely be massive outrage and alienation of Obama supporters, who would perceive Obama to have been robbed of a rightful nomination.
One might contend that the superdelegates are part of the process. Therefore, their votes confer legitimacy on whomever is selected. That's true to an extent, but for better or for worse, superdelegates are not perceived to offer the same level of legitimacy as pledged delegates. While technically within the rules, they are at the same time perceived to act as external forces, and I doubt that such arguments would comfort those who would feel alienated by superdelegate-determined nomination of Clinton.
For these reasons, I cannot see a large majority of superdelegates risking the ire of Obama supporters. Clinton's quest to demonstrate legitimacy is therefore hopeless. Worse, it is dangerous for the party. Clinton cannot win the nomination but the better job she does convincing her supporters of her own legitimacy, the more alienated they will feel when she doesn't get the nomination. This will not only hurt Obama's chances but also the chances of all Democratic candidates in Congress and state and local governments if alienated Clinton supporters refuse to go to the polls.
Comments (79)
Your 1) isn't a wash, it's completely bogus. It might have some bearing if there wasn't an Electoral College. But there is, and the EC makes it quite possible (not necessarily likely) for the EC winner to lose the popular vote. And because electability is all about November, popular vote in Dem primaries is bound to be seriously misleading.
Your 2) is spot on though. Dark times ahead, courtesy of the Clintons.
May 27, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the Clintons are banking on that and there is going to be a lot of discussion about it, I suspect.
And there shouldn't have ever been the need - the Clintons did that by saying Popular Vote enough times that it sunk in and the pundits from every media went along and kept talking about it and gained validity.
So yeah, this was her strategy from the first time her campaign uttered the phrase "Popular Vote."
and now we're mired in it.
May 27, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always thought the Clinton media strategy was brilliant (possibly not entirely intentionally). They whine and whine and whine about the media being "unfair" to them, and at the same time they keep repeating their bullshit talking points until the media swallow them hook, line & sinker. It's just fascinating.
The FL/MI flap is a perfect case in point. In January, it was accepted that the states didn't matter. The DNC said so, the candidates said so. But when the Clintons realized that their excellent "it's gonna be over on Super Tuesday" plan failed spectacularly, they started yammering about MI and FL and bitching about it over and over and over. So now when some joker like Lanny Davis comes up with demands that are simply ridiculous, instead of just laughing at him and never letting him speak on teevee again, everyone actually listens. It's just mind-boggling.
I think the Clinton media strategy is in fact exactly what the Republicans have been doing for years.
May 27, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
O it is the Repug strategy and I don't think it's tinfoil territory to look in that direction. Carville is married to that Rightwing Horror, who sits on Dick Cheney's lap, after all.
May 27, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
what a truly vile pair - have you ever seen the HBO series "K Street"?
May 28, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your blog and the comment.
I have been concerned about a bogus popular vote strategy for months. I wrote several blogs on the topic, one back in early March. Here are a couple:
The Popular Vote Myth (or why caucuses may be hazardous to your representation)
http://msa4.wordpress.com/page/2/
"Snapshot Polls and the Popular Vote: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
P.S. I accidentally posted this below. I meant it as a reply to HusseinTenaX and Ghengis
May 28, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your final paragraph sums it up nicely. The last blog post I wrote on TPM was urging Obama supporters to chill on the primary campaign debate because it is over and Hillary's campaign had clearly waved the white.
In some ways, the Clinton campaign continues waving the white flag, rarely mentioning Obama in ads or in public anymore. But what that has evolved into is deeply disturing to me now and you get right to the heart of the matter - they are sowing the seeds of questions about the legitimacy of Obama's nomination. Bill Clinton's tlak of a cover up was particularly troubling.
What I hope will happen (two weeks ago I would ahve said what WILL happen) is that Hillary will enthusiastically endorse Obama when she bows out and will rally her core supporters to him. Now, I'm not as sure, but still believe she'll come through.
May 27, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see the point for Clinton to question Obama's legitimacy once he's got the delegates. My only concern is that is that perhaps she really believes that his nomination is illegitimate and won't let it go out of a sense of having been wronged. I don't think that will happen--I believe that Clinton's party loyalty, practical concerns for her career, and interest in achieving Democratic objectives will prevent that even if she did believe it, but I do worry sometimes.
May 27, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes - I think we agree. I don' think the Clinto's are intentionally trying to undermine Obama's credibility for the general election. It just might be a by-product of their whole popular vote arguement in addition to the FL/MI debacle.
What's so sad in retrospect is that we were painfully close to having a clean end to the primary - had Obama won the Texas primary or had Obama won Indiana he would would have knocked her completely out of the contest. Instead, she always had some small victory as a reason to continue on even if the math was against her.
May 27, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Painfully close in Texas" With the news out at Politico that it looks like Canadian conservatives leaked that misquoted NAFTA memo to U.S. press via the son of a republican congressman with the intent of messing with the Texas/Ohio primary AND Rush Limbaugh's chaos mess started there----------One has to wonder just how many of the 5 pledged delegates net that Mrs. Clinton ended with after all the votes were counted from those two states--were actually won on her merits. Survey USA and Pollster.com are listing most recent polls showing Obama is beating McCain in NY, PA, OH, VA, WA, OR, MA, MN, NJ, CA, IA,WI etc. Also showing statistical ties in MI and NM. Poll shows FL in even split between those who prefer Obama to be nominee and those who prefer Clinton. The super dels were supposed to cover emergencies when it was pretty obvious to everybody that a mistake had been made. This isn't one of those and the super dels know it. This is just a close difference of opinion and one candidate out campaigned the other and out fund raised the other. That's part of being the most electable.
May 27, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC's best hope for the WH was in 2004 when she didn't have the balls to run against GWB. 2008 was her last chance and she lost it... old, angry white women do not matter anymore.... HRC is the perfect example of pride preceding the fall... she didn't have the brains or modesty to contemplate an Obama... Fortunately, for the country, she will never be president... thank god.
May 28, 2008 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, the last paragraph is brilliant.
This is where Chris Matthews' response might be effective when Bill or Terry MacCauliffe pretends that she's being told to quit. Chris says "You're arguing with no one Terry!" or "Bill is talking to an invisible Harvey" when claiming there's a "cover-up."
We have to wait until June 3rd or 4th, and we'll see what happens. Yoda's right, there's no point in arguing until then. I too hope she comes through and legitimizes Obama's victory then.
May 27, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a little ironic that we both have such difference posts on the same topic (and I admit my post is actually a re-post from another blog). However, it seems to me that your argument rests on the delegate count as a starting point and then looks at popular vote as the icing on the cake. Recommended, nonetheless.
May 27, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Lalo. I appreciate your recommendation and congratulate you on your recommended post. It's nice to see you engaging in substantive dialog with us Obama folks.
May 27, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
My fear is that she has long been headed in this exact direction.
May 27, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 27, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the popular vote count is based on illegitimate elections (FL and MI) then there is NO way that their inclusion can contribute to legitimacy. My friend in Grand Rapids didn't vote for president, only voted down ticket. She would have voted for Obama if he had been on the ballot. My 82-year-old great aunt in Ft. Lauderdale didn't feel she knew Obama well enough to vote for him--he had not campaigned in the state--so she left that blank. She might have voted for Obama had she been more exposed to him. And she says she will vote for him in the fall. So these scenarios played out over and over mean that HRC's claims to counting those votes as is are not, and can never be legitimate. End of story. It's not just about the numbers, but how they were accumulated. That said, thanks for the post!
May 27, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Legitimacy is a construct and highly variable according to one's perspective. To you and to me and, I hope, to many Clinton supporters, the MI vote does not confer any legitimacy on Clinton's campaign. But some people think it does. These people don't have the power to deny Obama the nomination, but they could possibly sit out the general election if they believe that Obama's nomination is illegitimate.
May 27, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Help! Can someone tell me how to use the stupid blockquotes properly, so they don't include my entire post?
Signed,
Internets Illiterate
May 27, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do the following, but instead of "quotation marks" use the greater-than and less-than signs:
May 27, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I.e., like this:
<blockquote>insert text here<\blockquote>
You can copy and paste that line above, and it'll look differently when you post it. :)
(That's because I used < and > instead of < and >, respectively.)
May 27, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if you do copy & paste, make sure to change the backslash to a forward slash...
May 27, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh.
At the beginning of the quote text you put the word "blockquote" enclosed in those little bracket thingies (), and then at the end of the text you put a backslash thingie ( / ) in front of "blockquote" (no space in between), and enclose all of it in those bracket thingies.
May 27, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, crap. My greater-than and less-than signs didn't show up.
What allsburg said. His directions are clearer.
May 27, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what it's worth ... you can get "those bracket thingies" to show up in a comment by typing > (>) / < (<)
* CaliforniaPaige goes away and stops diverting the thread now.
May 27, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you did wrong was you surrounded the quote with two blockquote tags instead of an opening and closing tag. The opening tag is just the word "blockquote" inside two angle braces. You did that part right, but you got the closing tag wrong. It should have been "/blockquote" within the braces. You forgot the "/". Make sense?
May 27, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno Genghis. It's not just the "popular" vote issue. There is also a matter of the National head-to-head Polls. Hillary is out-polling Obama.
That fact, along with winning the "popular vote," is what gives her some legitimacy going in to the convention.
Also, it's worth noting that the "unity" ticket wins hands down. I know folks don't like it, but we do want to win.
I'm just horrified that ANY democrat is polling so close to McCain.
Let alone both.
:(
May 27, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary needs to be out-polling Obama in Dem nomination polls. Is she?
I'm just horrified that this nomination train wreck still isn't over.
BTW you know what I'd do if I was a Hillary supporter and someone asked me who I'd vote for in McCain v. Obama? I'd tell them I'd vote for McCain. I wonder how many of Hillary's supporters actually do this.
May 27, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anh! Don't worry too much about that. We haven't focused on McCain yet. Once we do, his poll numbers are going to plummet. He's got nothing to sell the public.
May 27, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Once Obama can focus on McCain and the public can compare the two candidates head to head, those poll number are going to change significantly in the places that matter.
McCain has already tied himself to Bush, he has an (R) behind his name, he won't have an energized base to mobilize voters, and he's going to struggle to raise funds to fight an expanded electoral map.
May 27, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leading the unfocused vote!
Leading for the vote of Senator John McCain! (same thing?)
Leading you all!
Much Love,
Hillary.
May 27, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely done.
May 27, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls, however, are most certainly the weakest metric by which to determine a nominee. Polls change from week to week, month to month. 6 months is an eternity in politics, and much can change - for better or for worse - between now and then.
May 27, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have long argued that match-up polls are virtually meaningless before the end of the primary season, but in any case, I agree that there are other electability issues. Indeed, I argued in my post that the popular vote in this primary is irrelevant to electability because the candidates are so close as to render the differences meaningless. The only import of the differences has to do with perceptions of legitimacy.
May 27, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The popular vote in any particular state becomes immaterial once the delegates are allocated. What the Clinton campaign is trying to do is confuse the issue by making people believe that this is a national election. It isn't--it's a primary. And the rules concerning primaries are clear and well-established.
The popular vote is meaningless at this point. The only thing that matters is the delegate count.
May 27, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This trumps ALL:
mischief:" Obama is not stealing this election. He successfully campaigned and has won the majority of pledged delegates based on the rules that EVERYONE agreed to at the beginning of the process."
I will keep posting the above from time to time for anyone who forgets.
As I stated numerous times, I did not vote in the FL primary because I was told the delegates would NOT be seated. Many other Obama supporters did not vote for the same reasons. I, and many others like me, will be disenfranchised of my vote if HRC shoves a stick up FL's ass and calls it hers.
Punished for following the rules that HRC and Ickes SIGNED TO UPHOLD because she FAILED is F***ing moronic, unfair, blatantly pathetic, and very telling of how this bitch rolls.
May 27, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Concur. These popular votes essays are absolute and utter comedy. And bad comedy, to boot.
Three months ago, this woman had double digit leads and SHE BLEW THEM ALL. Now she's scrambling to manufacture new rules and goalposts and shuffle them around in some crazed combination of kubuki theater and Most Extreme Elimination Challenge.
I'm a Michigan native, and my friends and relatives are so angry that they keep being lumped in Hillary's column that they're ready to pull out their teeth. Michigan was one of the only state in the Great Lakes region where turnout wasn't through the roof. Hillary's "victory" there was a scam. Her people signed off on the rules and she broke them. If anything, Hillary should be stripped of every delegate she "won" in MI.
May 27, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here here!
May 27, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Legitimacy", such as it is, derives from the principle of "one man, one vote". However, that principle can only apply when the right to vote is uniform across states. That is obviously not the case. Some states have caucuses with far lower voter turnout. There's also the difference between open and closed primaries. This is why delegate count is preferable - it evens out the irregularities between states to give a true measure of voter preference. Clinton has been pushing popular vote as a measure on equal footing with delegate count, but it's not. It simply disenfranchises voters in caucus states.
Furthermore, the voters in MI certainly did not have the same opportunity in their choice of candidates as those in other states had.
May 27, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I made this point. As did Hendrik Hertzberg in the quoted article. But Clinton is in a perceptions battle, and true to form, she's spinning story in the most flattering light. I believe that there is no risk that many superdels will be moved by her version due to practical reasons that I outlined in my post. My chief concern is that many Clinton supporters will be moved by it and come to the conclusion that their candidate has been wronged by the superdels and the party.
May 27, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I,
, your legitimate future president, hereby gladly accept this endorsement.Leading the external agent vote!
Leading the blockquoting vote!
Leading you all!
Much Love,
Hillary - the candidate still alive in June.
May 27, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brava!
Fab performance!!
May 27, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well done Genghis - have you thought of sending a version of this to the undecided super-delegates? Just a thought.
May 27, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Daddy. I appreciate the compliment, but I expect that most of the undecided superdels understand these issues better than I do and that they barely read anything that anyone sends them these days.
May 27, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I read a while ago that Obama has strongly made the case to the SD's that, had the popular vote been the metric, he would have organised his campaign very differently. Thus to change the metric now would be absolutely unacceptable.
May 27, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Genghis--
Do you think that all the trouble the Clintons are stirring up--inciting doubt in the legitmacy of the Democratic Party's nominating process, exploiting rifts in the Democratic Party's voter blocs--is probably pissing off a good many of the superdelegates and members of the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee? If so, what do you think their goal is? What do you think is the plan here?
May 27, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they're desperate.
May 28, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The popular vote has no legitimacy, because the race wasn't run based on popular vote, it was supposed to be run based on who got the most delegates, and the Clinton campaign said as much in January.
It's not Obama's fault that Clinton and her stupid advisors ran the wrong race, and decided to not contests all those races where Obama got huge wins.
Clinton has been making this bogus argument for 2 months, and in the last 2 months the superdelegates have gone to Obama +70, so what exactly is she trying to do except try to delegitamize and hurt the Democratic nominee?
May 27, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
BINGO! Well said, jerrybaker.
Too many want to play the academic game of "this is fair, this isn't". The real world works this way:
If you don't like the rules, you can try to change them for next time. But that has nothing to do with the present election at hand.
Now you know why the best generals go for UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. You only show mercy for the opponent once they themselves acknowledge they have lost. In the meantime, you continue to pummel them.
I hope Hillary (and now Bill) get politically beaten to a pulp to ensure they are never considered a force again. So much is perception -- and they know it. If the coverage reflected her true irrelevance at this point, she would be.
Instead we have this type of confusion. The DNC is not doing the party any favors. For example, why are people in Puerto Rico needed to "count"? They can't even vote in the GE! Perhaps we need to figure out who the EU prefers in this election?
May 27, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, Hillary Clinton, your future president, hereby gratefully accept your concession that if you add the EU vote and PR vote, subtract the YMCA vote, divide through by the AUMF vote over the RNC vote, and add the square root of 42, I clearly am the stronger candidate in November against RFK.
Leading the EU delegate vote!
Leading the Unconditional vote!
Leading you all!
Much Love,
Hillary.
May 27, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice! Hard to argue against your "new math". Thanks for putting this in its' proper perspective!
May 28, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say you hit the nail on the head there, Genghis. It's all about legitimacy, and the perception therein. And your post raises the question again of whether Clinton is truly trying to destroy Obama's chances at winning this thing in November. If enough of Clinton's supporters feel alienated, then there's going to be problems, right? I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
May 27, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her supporters will feel alienated regardless. The truly hardcore loonies are not going to get over it, regardless of how often and gently their bunyuns are rubbed.
All these discussions of "legitimacy" as it relates to the popular vote succeed in doing is confirming to those who might otherwise be swayed that their paranoia is real. These hand-wringing, popular vote discussions are the equivalent of feeding garbage to bears, an act of misguided kindness that condemns the wandering scavengers to death.
Obama's victory was legitimate.
Stop feeding the animals.
May 28, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care about the loonies. They're loonies after all, and there aren't that many of them. But Clinton has many supporters who are not loonies but will feel alienated if she persuades them that she was robbed of a "legitimate" victory. That is in her power.
May 28, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree, Genghis. At the beginning of this primary, both my wife and my mother were strong Hillary backers. As this thing progressed, they became more and more displeased with her to the point that they're now firmly in the Obama camp.
And, please note, these Hillary-loving females have evolved into Obama-ites while in the presence of the most boisterous, opinionated, gloating, and downright obnoxious Obama supporter of them all... me, Lamont Williams! So much for the theory that the behavior of Obama supporters is driving people away from him, but then again, these are highly educated women who could not be persuaded, either by me or by Mrs. Clinton, to cut off their noses to spite their lovely faces. I have digressed...
Those who aren't similarly intelligent will not be persuaded to abandon their whiny grudge fuck vote no matter how often we coddle them with cuddly pink bunnyfarts about the popular vote and other measures of victory or "legitimacy" that simply did not exist before this contest began and only exist now because Hillary is a sore loser.
I don't wish to single out your post, Genghis. It was well-composed, reasonable, and intelligent. I just reject the premise, and see no reason to continue coddling those who appear to have entered a race with no consideration to the fact that they might lose it. When they start cutting their noses off, my fingers are staying out of the way.
May 28, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has never been about what is right, what is fair or what was the will of the people.
Bill and Hillary decided that she would be President and they counted on it. They expected all of us to fall at their feet, and unfortunately, Hillary proved to be a lousy candidate. She could not dance around answers like Bill always did, she said dumb things, she got tired and when things were going bad, Bill stood up and said even worse things.
The tantrum that is occuring now between the DNC and the disenfranchised Clintons is one of selfish want. They wanted this, they are mad they are not going to get it, and if they cannot have it NOBODY can.
I was one of their biggest supporters. I defended them throughout a lot of Bill's shenanigans. I am looking at them with a different lens now and have to look and say that I think I might have been wrong. This is not an ethical couple that is being picked on, this is a very self-centered couple that honestly believe that if they want it it, they should get it.
Hillary's worst moment in this entire campaign occurred after her horrible mention of assassination. The fact that she stood there and never ever said the words I AM SORRY to Barack Obama and his family, and all the Kennedys, showed me a total lack of character and judgement. If she cannot admit her flaws and apologize for her errors, I do not think she should be anywhere near the presidency anymore. She is a very flawed and I think, troubled human being.
May 27, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pablano had a nice analysis on DailyKos. He used the exit polls from Michigan to determine how people would have voted if Obama had been on the ballot. Since there really aren't any good polling data (it is all much earlier or much later) this seemed like the most accurate way to come up with some numbers.
Obviously this skips over all the problems about Obama not campaigning in Florida and Michigan and 1 million Michigan voters not bothering to vote who probably would have, Caucus states being under-represented etc. etc. etc.
Pablano caluclated that had Obama been on the Michigan ballot he would have received 228'717 votes to Clinton's 277'646 votes. Note that exit polls showed that 11% of Clinton voters prefered Obama but voted Clinton because Obama wasn't on the ballot. This would put the popular vote out of reach for Clinton assuming you do your best to count all the other states.
May 27, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ghenghis: I've lost some interest in the nominating contest as it winds down to its near-certain conclusion, which has made the continuing Hillary hate-fest over here even less interesting than before. That, and my responsibility to the good citizens of this city to keep our criminals on the streets has kept me off the boards for a bit. (I'm sure no one noticed.) But I still find a handful of commentators thought provoking and reasonable, even when I disagree. You have made the Guerilla's exclusive list. And there isn't much here for me to disagree with. Hillary is trying to make her best case for the nomination but it is less than convincing. Her success in the traditional swing states and in states that have held primaries makes her a formidable candidate. But this isn't enough to confer the elusive legitimacy she would need. By the rules of the game both parties played, Obama deserves to win.
One word about legitimacy. The nominating process has never been truly democratic. It has been gradually broadened, true, but only in recent times has the electorate played a direct role in selecting the nominee through primaries. In the past several election cycles, we've had the nomination pretty much sewn up early on in the process, the winner declared by the media, and we haven't had the opportunity to see the sausage factory in action in all its ugliness. Part of the problem here is that the system itself allows both candidates to claim some mantle of legitimacy depending upon the metric used. If the goal of the process is to select the nominee with the best chance of winning the election and governing successfully, Hillary has an argument to make, albeit one that is, as you point out, strained. If it is to select the nominee according to the will of the participants in the process, as measured by the delegate selection system, she really doesn't have a let to stand on.
May 27, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Armchair, you're on my list too. Always have been.
The goal should be to select the nominee with the best chance of winning (and governing). But that has been lost in the shuffle. With party members almost evenly divided, that popular vote in this case tells us little about electability in anyway. Intended or not, primary voters have the perception that every vote counts. Some see that reflected in the pledged delegate count. Others see that reflected in the "popular vote". (Quotes indicate that such a count is incredibly problematic.) If the supers were to pick a candidate based on their perception of electability, against the obvious will of the voters, there would likely be hell to pay.
If the majority of voters on both sides believe that their candidate has the support of the voters, i.e. is "legitimate", there could be hell to pay no matter who is nominated.
May 28, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
But what happens if the pledged delegate count does not reflect a nominee's true level of support? That's the argument Clinton has been trying to make. The root of the problem is a system that is so haphazard that it is almost guaranteed to produce results just as confusing. To take the most readily available example, Clinton received more votes in Nevada, but fewer delegates. The Texas prima caucus was similarly skewed. Lalo's post on this subject crunched some numbers to show pretty convincingly how Obama has won more delegates per vote than Hillary under some pretty Byzantine rules. The resulting confusion allows both parties to claim some mantle of legitimacy. However, as you point out, Hillary has the weaker claim because it's not clear that she's ahead even according to her own metrics. And Obama can legitimately say that he played the game the way the rules specified and if you don't like it, change the rules next time.
Still, I strongly disagree with those who say the popular vote doesn't matter. Obviously, in a system such as this where there is no consistency as to how delegates are awarded, both sides will try to spin the results in order to break what is very close to a tie in their favor. And since we agree that the goal here is to pick the nominee with the best chance of winning, HRC's primary wins in traditional swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio are powerful arguments for her candidacy. I just don't think it's powerful enough to overcome the legitimacy Obama earned through his clear win under the party rules.
May 28, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
One last point before I retreat into the jungle. I'm not terribly concerned about HRC's legitimacy argument undermining Obama in the Fall. I think there's very few Clinton supporters who will feel she was robbed. Far more serious are the feelings that she was mistreated and her supporters ostracized.
May 28, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the optimism. I agree with you though I get anxious every once in a while. As long as Clinton doesn't keep pushing the legitimacy claims after the primaries are over, I think it will all be OK.
May 28, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some good news for Obama today. Finally electoral-vote.com has Obama beating McCain in the electoral college: 266-248
For the map:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May27.html
May 27, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
For a while, Obama was beating McCain earlier as well.
However, these maps must be taken with a grain of salt as some of the state contests are based on data over a month old. Once Obama is declared the nominee (probably next week), more polling at the same time, in each of the states, will make the maps more valuable.
Either way, the Vote Master is the best website on the Internet to follow these sorts of things.
May 27, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
But isn't picking the person that can win, the whole point of primaries not being democratic?
I always thought so. I don't mind the move towards having a broader process, at all. Consent of the governed kinda thing. Party bosses and elites may not have a clue as to the needs of the general populace, so it's good to include them. er, us.
That said, there does need to be a process, based on careful deliberation, to decide tie-breakers. I think (unfortunately) this race qualifies. It's probably going to the convention, though I'll be happy to be wrong.
May 27, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, reply to Armchair Guerilla
May 27, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. The plan is that once Hillary manages to undermine Obama's legitimacy, leading to massive protests at the convention, I, along with a small but loyal cadre of peasants from West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Western Pennsylvania will seize control of the floor, where we will implement a media strategy that will make our platform known to the rest of the nation. A general strike will be followed by a coup, then perhaps a putsch, and the formalities of democracy will give way to a truly legitimate government by and for the people, led by me, of course. You, Workerbee, will serve as my Minister of Labor with responsibility for rounding up disloyal elements on left leaning message boards.
May 28, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
:D
I dunno, I'm better at rounding up pollen and baking. I could think of a few folks around here who'd really pour their heart and soul into that line of 'work.'
Good Luck with the coup. I hope it works out better for the workers then the last one.
May 28, 2008 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
To the two points.
1) It reflects electability
2) It offers legitimacy
Sorry, my feeling is the popular vote in a 5 month primary/caucus/prima-caucus season does neither. We have primaries, some open and some closed. We have caucuses, some firehouse and some not. we have prima-caucuses. We have 5 months between first and last voting - and shifts in between. we have some states putting special initiatives on ballots which drive up turnout and some not.
So, I argue BS to both of those. It is hugely inaccurate method to predict what voters will do come November to say he has X% and she has y% of votes from a variety of types of contests spread over five months.
The system is set whereby delegate totals are the sole winning criteria. Obama's team had a plan for this. Clinton's had one that relied on no serious contender.
I make no judgments on popular vote, even in my candidate, Obama, ends up ahead.
May 27, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
MMW: What you are saying is that you would rely on delegate totals even where those totals do not reflect the will of the voters? Such as, for example, where HRC got more votes in Nevada but apparently won fewer delegates? Or the prima-caucus in Texas? Do you see any parallel with GWB's "victory" in 2000? The popular vote is plainly a relevant measure. The question is how relevant. Ghenghis makes a good point that HRC's "lead" in the popular vote, even by her somewhat skewed counting, is only enough to make that category a wash. I wouldn't go that far. Many of Clinton's votes and her biggest wins came in states that the Dems will need to carry in the Fall. Lalo's post breaking down the votes as translating into delegates is interesting reading. There are a lot of stats there that I'm totally unqualified to take apart, but the gyst is that Obama has managed to get the most delegates per vote, by far. Also, MMW, the rules you extol do not make delegate totals the sole arbiter - unless you include superdelegates, who are free to vote however they wish based upon whatever criteria they deem appropriate. That said, I agree with Ghenghis - if the supers were to hand the nomination to Clinton it would be widely perceived as illegitimate and her candidacy would be crippled from the start.
Just a few minutes in and I'm already engaging these issues I'd rather put behind us. Alas.
May 28, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will Russia and China also allow Hillary to change the rules when she gets herself in a pickle?
May 27, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely they will let Hillary have her way when she points out how sexist they are and how she's being victimized?
What do you mean, "hahahaha"?
May 28, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your blog and the comment.
I have been concerned about a bogus popular vote strategy for months. I wrote several blogs on the topic, one back in early March. Here are a couple:
The Popular Vote Myth (or why caucuses may be hazardous to your representation)
http://msa4.wordpress.com/page/2/
"Snapshot Polls and the Popular Vote: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
May 28, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
As referred to upthread there are actual facts that refute this idea of the popular vote having any significance. I'd like to add my pissed off two cents.
The popular vote does not include any total of any kind from any state that had a caucus. Those states do not publish the numbers of people participating, they only publish the number of delegates selected.
I live in Washington. We had RECORD numbers of people voting 68% for Obama. WE will be counted NOWHERE in the construct of a popular vote, hundreds of thousands of us. This is the same story in every single state that held a caucus. This concept of a metric disenfranchizes and eliminates the votes of millions of people.
Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and the media know this. The Clinton campaign does not care. The media only mentions it once in a while, and they do not mention it enough to combat the number of times this hideous lie has been spread to the American public.
The idea of this hideous lie being legitimate is what most of her believers are hanging on for hope. Their list of rationalizations is amazing. Blinded by their greed, the bottom line that millions of people are left out of the process carries no significance. Every time I hear her go one about Florida and Michigan, the level of hipocrasy makes me want to SCREAM. AM I SCREAMING LOUD ENOUGH? I AM SICK OF ANYONE GIVING THIS ANY CONSIDERATION AT ALL, OTHER THAN TO REFUTE IT, LOUDLY.
Thank you for letting me vent. I hate caps, but I am that pissed.
May 28, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo! The media clings to the extended race, just as they reported HRC's resounding "win" in Texas. Hopefully, the superdelegates are paying as much attention as we are--I'm sure they are--so this is not lost on them.
May 28, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. I'm concerned about this, too.
I would add, though, that there are limits on the Clintons' ability to control these perceptions. I think the details of the popular vote argument will get more responsible scrutiny from the media once that's the only reason left for her trying to claim their attention. And once Obama has clinched the nomination through delegates, most organizations will probably stop polling her, removing that piece of her electability portfolio. Her high-profile supporters may become increasingly unwilling to tie their political fortunes to her cause at a certain point, too, which could also influence public perception of her claims.
I could be wrong about some or all of these developments, but I do think in general it will get harder and harder for her to control perceptions going forward (assuming agreements are reached on MI and FL on May 31; not a completely safe assumption, I admit). This should mitigate the damage finally done to Obama in the general.
May 28, 2008 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Completely agreed on your conclusion, Genghis. Hillary has successfully convinced most of her supporters that Obama is simply not experienced enough to be president. A totally bogus claim, but they've swallowed it--hook, line, sinker and fishing pole. Not a big deal if she wins, but she's not going to win, so now it's completely destructive. And when Obama wins the nomination, Hillary can just hand that one to McCain (who actually does have more experience than Obama) and McCain can run it past the goalposts.
The problem with the Clintons is that they're short-term thinkers. Obama sees the bigger picture. The reason he didn't get into a pissing match with Hillary on the experience argument--even though he's served in elected office longer than she has--is because he knew that the Republican nominee would have both of them beat in that regard. For Hillary to claim her years as First Lady as "experience" is pathetic and laughable. The Republicans would have used her phony "experience" claim to rip her into tiny little shreds.
It's now up to Obama to quit fighting with McCain over experience (Barack: nobody cares that your grandpa fought the Nazis) and get back on message. And the message is that John McCain wants to carry on with Bush business as usual, and that can only bring this country to destruction.
May 28, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama addressed the issue of his background of patriots and moral thinking with the comment about his Granduncle.
Polar opposite of McCain's with his warmongering military heritage.
May 28, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hearby nominate Genghis to fill the open position at TPM.
Any seconds?
May 28, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment