« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Popular Vote numbers based on CNN & RCP.......
6 different ways to count the popular vote....
1. Popular vote (which does not included Michigan/Florida/Caucus states).... Obama is winning by 1.4%
2. Popular vote (which includes caucus states, but does not included michigan or florida)....Obama is winning by 1.6%
3. Popular vote (which includes florida, but does not included michigan or caucus states).... Obama is winning by .05%
4. Popular vote (which includes florida and caucus states but does not include michigan)....Obama is winning by .07%
5. Popular vote(which includes both Florida and Michigan but does not included caucus states)....Clinton is winning by .04%
6. Popular vote (which includes both Florida and Michigan and includes all caucus states).... Clinton is winning by .03%
Since we are 50 states, I believe that #6 is the numbers that super delegates and people living at home should use to determine who is winning the popular vote.... Obama chose to remove his name from the michigan ballot, he got no votes but since the dnc ruled giving him some delegates, the 600,000 people who voted should count in the popular vote total.
Hillary Clinton after winning huge in Puerto Rico and moving towards montana and south dakota where it could be a toss-up between Clinton & Obama as to who is going to win those two states, I believe however that by June 3rd, Hillary Clinton will be winning under all 6 metrics that are being used on CNN and RCP..... More people are going to vote in Puerto Rico then in Montana & South Dakota.
Super delegates should vote for the person who on June 3rd has the most popular vote totals.......why over turn the will of the people.
Comments (22)
If what you are suggesting is correct, then there is no need for superdelegates at all. Or pledged delegates for that matter and especially caucuses too.
But the fact that the system is designed with these metrics is proof that the popular vote is not a factor.
June 1, 2008 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, I don't know what we'll do without our regular dose of unreality and delusion when HillaryClinton08 finally gets with the program.
June 1, 2008 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic Party has certain rules and guidelines. Accept them for this nomination and finally bring our party together, please. Changes are possible (and possibly necessary) for upcoming nomination battles. But for today -if only today and this nomination - please just be quiet and let it be.
June 1, 2008 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm at the point where I just find these pro-Hillary posts highly amusing, nothing more.
But I still want Lalo's hat.
June 1, 2008 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Popular vote (which does not included Michigan/Florida/Caucus states).... Obama is winning by 1.4%
2. Popular vote (which includes caucus states, but does not included michigan or florida)....Obama is winning by 1.6%
3. Popular vote (which includes florida, but does not included michigan or caucus states).... Obama is winning by .05%
My thoughts about your idiotic post: "which does not included"..."but does not included"....
You lost me right there.
Nice try, though. By the way, do you have a hat?
June 1, 2008 4:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Say hello to Energizer Bunny.
June 1, 2008 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The rules committee and the state parties of Florida and Michigan all just agreed that a primary in which Obama did not campaign, and where voters were told did not count is inherently flawed. Therefore any popular vote totals that include those states are also inherently flawed.
Giving caucus states popular votes based on how many showed up at the caucuses is also unfair. Caucuses only measure people with both the time and enthusiasm to show up at a specific time and go thru a bunch of hassle. In Texas, where we had both, only a million people showed up to caucus, while 3 million voted. So I guess you should triple the number who caucused, to be fair to those states. OR U COULD JUST GO BY THE RULES THAT SAY THE POPULAR VOTE IS NOT THE DECIDING FACTOR. Changing the rules after you lost is, like grandma said, cheating.
June 1, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
here are three reasons why hillary clinton has not dropped out of the race.....
1. she is hoping that the super delegates will rewarded her by making her the winner, because she cared the popular vote.
2. If number 1 doesn't work, she is hoping that by winning the popular vote, it will cause obama to pick her as his vp
3. if number 1 & 2 don't work, she will use the popular vote against Barack Obama.... to claim that he stole the election process away from her and when he loses the general election.... she will claim that if they had gone with the popular vote winner, which would have been her.... she would have won the general election.... it puts her in a spot to run again in 2012.
Hillary is smart..... its politics..... always have to think ahead:)
June 1, 2008 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Just wow. So you think if Hillary manages to fuck up the election for Dems in 2008, that puts her in an excellent position in 2012? Or did you mean she's going to run on the Republican ticket?
They'd take her you know. She's proven she's a good Republican.
June 1, 2008 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the nomination process started, did the rules say: whoever wins the popular vote, gets to be the nominee. If Obama had an overwhelming, unassailable popular vote lead, but were trailing in pledged and overall delegates say by 5 to 10, guess what Mrs. Clinton would be telling you right now?
May we paraphrase the "famous" ex-ex-prez Bill Clinton, campaigning ca. 1992 A.D.: "It's the rules, stupid!"
June 1, 2008 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Follow the asterisks at RCP and use some intellectual honesty:
The popular vote totals assume ZERO for Obama in MI. They are NOT counting the uncommitteds for Obama in the popular vote total.
Because it would only be reasonable and fair that ZERO people voted for Obama in MI, right?
Obama leads in popular vote by 185,837.
June 1, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe she's been told this about a dozen times, but I'm willing to tell her another dozen times if need be.
HC08: If you factor in just 1/4 of the MI uncommitted votes for Obama, he wins on points 5 and 6 above, as well. So, unless you're going to somehow argue that MI was an anomaly and that most of the people who were voting against Hillary weren't actually voting for Obama (or that even 1/4 of those people weren't), you're being very intellectually dishonest.
June 1, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry but i'm not dishonest......
the dnc was dishonest and not fair when they gave obama 4 of hillary's delegates and they weren't fair when they gave obama all of the uncommitted delegates when in fact, we don't know how many actually voted for him, edwards etc.
since he chose to remove his name from the ballot, that is not hillary clinton's fault.... he made a stupid move and should pay for it.
and after puerto rico, montana and south dakota vote.... hillary will lead in all popular vote metrics even those that don't included michigan.
Obama stole this election and the dnc is helping him.......
SEXISM is still among us, whether you like to admit it or not.
June 1, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does that have to do with the error in your "popular vote" argument? Are you really suggesting that it's even possible that less than 1/4 of those voters who voted "uncommitted" wanted their vote to go to Obama?
If so, then you're not being intellectually dishonest with your previous argument, but you are being willfully ignorant.
If not, then you are being intellectually dishonest when you ignore it.
It's really pretty much of an either/or.
June 1, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry but obama chose to remove his name from the ballot that was his stupid fault, not only that but there is no way we can know how many voted uncommitted for obama, edwards etc..... and since the dnc gave him 4 of hillary clinton's delegates, we should be able to count vote for hillary, all of them.
whether michigan is included or NOT.... she is going to claim the over all popular vote after puerto rico, montana and south dakota vote.
Obama should speak out and say that he doesn't want hillary's 4 delegates.....
what a stolen election....RULES MY ASS
June 1, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
A few weeks ago, before it was so apparent how far she was losing by, Hillary was advocating for Obama to get the uncommitted delegates. She said something to the effect of, "Obama was encouraging his supporters to vote uncommitted, so I think that's fair."
Of course it's not fair. It's ridiculous. The whole thing is a sham. Those delegates were never Hillary's to lose, because the election was just a straw poll, no more real than the straw poll primaries in Washington, etc, that Obama won. (I don't see anyone calling for those votes to be counted--those people did come out to vote, yes?)
You have no way of knowing who voted uncommitted because they wanted, Obama, Edwards, or Richardson (though since the other two candidates have endorsed Obama their delegates would likely go to him anyway) and you have no way of knowing who voted for Hillary just because she was there and avtually preferred another candidate, and you have no way of knwoing who stayed home because they believed their votes would not count. You simply cannot tell someone their votes are not going to count, hold an election, and then say, "Guess what? They count!" And anyone arguing for fairness and yet implying this vote should in any way be legitimized needs to look very deeply at their motivations.
I truly cannot imagine the hysteria if the situations were reversed, if Obama had kept his name on a ballot and then argued the results should be legitimate. We would hear such cries of sexism and stealing elections and cheating. And it would actually be cheating and I would lose respect for him if he did it.
June 1, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
So by your viewpoint is that democracy is best served by including the election where only one major candidate was on the ballot to vote for?
Why don't you move to Burma, you'll feel more at home.
June 1, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry but again i will say .... OBAMA REMOVED HIS NAME FROM THE BALLOT..... WHO'S FAULT IS THAT..... I SAY BARACK OBAMA'S.
June 1, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
So much for counting every vote and being oh so concerned with voter intent.
June 2, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is-it's not a popular vote race. And that's not a technicality--we're trying to nominate a candidate here, and part of a good candidate is one who understands and works the system. They are not going to change the rules in the GE, as much as Hillary likes rule changing. She failed. With all the support and resources and inevitability on her side, she blew it. She took her victory for granted and didn't bother to run a campaign that would have won, and so there's no evidence she can.
Also, given Hillary is trying to convince superdelegates to overturn Obama's delegate lead, she should probably not argue too loudly about the will of the people.
June 1, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I admire for being the last man standing. I really do. But if you go any further you'll just seem like a dead man walking.
June 1, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Attn: HillaryClinton08 aka sore loserman,
you lost it's over buh-bye.
June 1, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment