I don't have any independent knowledge about whether Schumer's been trying to forge a compromise. But it sure wouldn't surprise me. I'd be more surprised, given what we now know about the lack of votes (or, more precisely, what we've pretty much known but have had confirmed today), if Schumer were not trying to find a compromise. Somebody's got to. This isn't one where you get to just pick up the ball and take it home with you. You still have to play, even if the outcome is guaranteed to disappoint.

David Kurtz just blogged this.  I'm sorry to have to disagree.  I've been taking the need to compromise position on health care all year with people insisting on a more left-wing bill.  And I might even still support whatever Schumer comes up with.  But there has to be a stopping point.  It's ludicrous to say we have to accept whatever garbage is dictated to us to by the four most corrupt, frightened, reactionary, whatever Senators in our supermajority caucus.  Nor is it ok to meekly accept that Democrats get to filibuster what may be their party's most crucial legislation of this generation.  At some point we have to pull out of the "game," take our ball and live to play another day.  Or change the idiotic, undemocratic rules, i.e., kill the filibuster.  If we can't get the votes for a decent bill, we've lost and need to acknowledge our defeat and try an entirely new approach.  Of course we need to exhaust every alternative first.  But pretending a defeat is really a victory is hardly the mature approach.

Not everyday that a City Council race in my old stomping ground in eastern Queens, NYC gets this interesting.  My brother, a childhood friend and supporter of the Democratic candidate made me aware of what's going on.  It actually seems like an interesting race, with potentially broader implications, but it's also just bizarre.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/31/a-pagan-republican-trick-or-treat/

One thing I've never quite gotten about the U.S. is that policymakers and lots of ordinary folk don't consider it a moral responsibility of government to guarantee the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter, and yes, medical care to everyone.  It's stunning to me.  I totally get, and to a large extent, share the desire not to support freeloaders.  If I have to work to have a decent life, so should you.  That's why I'm only talking about necessities.  But for everyone, even able-bodied, childless adults.

I personally have no problem with a guaranteed national income set at the subsistence level, plus free health care, no strings attached.  But I understand people who would insist on looking for work, education or training, "workfare", or the like as a condition for cash aid (essentially what I believe the UK and Canada do).  Public shelters/soup kitchens would be made available for people who don't meet the conditions.  The basic payment would be gradually phased out for those who work, providing both work incentives and income support for the working poor.  The parameters would be set so that anyone who works full-time at the minimum wage would be out of poverty.

This is a wealthy country -- we could easily afford such a guarantee.  While we all are substantially responsible for our fate, with enough bad luck anyone who isn't independently wealthy could end up on the street.  Most who do are no lazier than the average person, bigger "screwups" maybe.  But even if they are, laziness should not be punished with death.  I think a lot of thinking on this subject hearkens back to an earlier time when there was less to go around, possibly not enough for everyone.  Perhaps this is still the case in some Third World countries today, I don't know enough to say, though I suspect at least the richer ones could also afford such a guarantee, given the cost of necessities is cheaper in poorer countries.  (Helping the Third World poor is another important moral imperative, but deserves another post.)

Thinking about the Politico story linked on the TPM front page about the Washington Post selling lobbyists access to their reporters, but also administration officials, members of Congress, and other movers and shakers.  This is obviously twisted and evil, but I think the participation of the government officials is of greater import than the sale of the reporters.  Why would Obama officials participate?  They can obviously talk to lobbyists anytime they want.  What, if anything, does this tell those of us pushing for progressive health care reform?

This story really disturbed me.  The following is an email I sent to the president.  I sent similar ones to my members of Congress.

Dear Mr. President,

I read with horror of the case in Pennsylvania where two judges sentenced juveniles to imprisonment for trivial offenses, in return for kickbacks from private prison companies.  Here is a link to the New York Times article.

While obviously the individual evil involved in this case is immense, it made me think of the truly twisted incentives involved in running private prisons and youth detention centers.  Putting prisoners in the hands of profit-maximizing companies is an invitation to the worst kinds of abuse.  The entire system of private prisons practically begs for corruption.

I'm a strong supporter of yours, and contributed money and days of my time working for your election.  I had hardly considered this issue before, but I have been shocked into action.  I'm not sure what the federal role is, but I urge you to do what you can to eliminate private prisons in the United States.  At the very least, private federal prisons should be eliminated as quickly as possible.  I would also suggest that federal criminal justice funds be denied to states and localities that use private prisons.  Something has to be done.

The private imprisonment of juveniles is particularly disgusting.  The cases described in the article sent chills up and down my spine.  If not for luck, it could be your kids or mine.

Thank your for your time and effort.

Sincerely,
Dan Edelstein

While I disagree radically with Limbaugh on just about everything, I actually have no problem with his wanting Obama to fail (that doesn't mean I don't think we should use it against the Republicans).  I wanted Bush to fail, and I think in very much the same way.  I'm not proud of it, but there were even times I found myself hoping for people to get hurt so the public would turn against him and his allies.  Does this make you want to run from me screaming, or can you relate?

I've heard different versions of this story, but it goes something like this.  A group of progressive activists once met with FDR, pushing him to support their cause.  FDR listened patiently, then closed the meeting by telling them: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

Since the election, this and other liberal boards have been filled with endless speculation, worry, and argument about the state of Barack Obama's mind and soul.  Is he a "true progressive" or a "corporate Democrat"?  An idealist or a power-hungry politician?  This afternoon, with the Daschle and Gregg stories, this sort of discussion has reached a fever pitch, including some downright hysterical commentary.

I'm a "true progressive," at least according to my own definition.  I voted for Obama in the primary and general.  I have a favorable impression of him.  But I don't know the answers to these questions, and likely no one else does either, possibly except the man himself.  I hope for the best, but fear the worst.

I've engaged in plenty of this sort of speculation myself, and will again.  It relieves the nerves and can be entertaining.  But it doesn't accomplish a damn thing.  If he's truly fixed on certain policies, there's not much anyone can do about it, for good or ill.  The same is true for other powerful people in D.C.  If his mind is not made up, though, anything that can convince him that activists, donors, and the public want him to be progressive can only help.  No matter who he really is, he wants and needs to be popular and re-elected.

So let's spend less time arguing about what Obama really is after, and more making him be after the right things.  That's how successful movements work.

First, I am neither thrilled nor horrified by the Obama campaign's strategy and tactics to this point.  Anyone can have an opinion on such things, and I doubt much can be proved about what works.  The "ground game," get out the vote, etc., is much easier to quantify (and control), and so is worth devoting lots of resources to, as I'm glad to see Obama is doing.

I have no problem with people posting suggestions as to improved strategy.  But we need to be clear-headed about a major factor in this election that neither Obama nor we can do anything about, that's in poll results, and will be there on election day, before we demoralize ourselves and each other.

The simple fact is that a large but unknown number of Americans, White, but also Hispanic and Asian, simply will not vote for a black person for president.  An even larger number might, but blackness is a negative for them, greater or smaller.  This second group is open to persuasion, and in fact how many are persuaded will decide the election.  That's what the campaign, and all of us where we can, have to do.  But best case, many will not be persuaded.

While Obama's blackness obviously helps him with Blacks and a few others, the net effect is certainly negative and large.  The idea I've heard that racists are all hard-core Republicans anyway is ludicrous.  Anyone who's ever spent time with large numbers of non-liberal intellectual White Americans in the suburbs of typical blue states knows this as well as I.  I'm 42, and was raised in a mostly Jewish neighborhood in an outlying part of New York City (Queens).  The level of racism among kids I knew (down to a few years younger than me) would probably shock some people here.  The "N" word was a standard way to refer to black people (older folks said "schvartze").  The overwhelming majority simply believed that black people were genetically inferior, and particularly less intelligent and more violent.  They were disliked if not hated, and feared.  There might be some "good ones," and you might even vote for one, but in general they were threatening, both personally and politically.  My friends and I were no worse certainly, than our parents, but no better either.  Our grandparents were a bit worse.  I'm not so in touch with these people anymore, but I've no doubt most have not changed their views substantially.  The Catholic kids in nearby neighborhoods were at least as bad.  And everything I've learned since says that the same is true in Detroit, and St. Louis, and whoknowswhere, Pennsylania, and all across all the swing states.  The under 30 crowd seems better, but they certainly have their racists too, and they're a minority of voters.

My point in all this is that Obama can certainly win, but he's not going to win big, and he's not going to open a big lead in the polls, even if he runs the most brilliant campaign ever.  So we can't expect it, and shouldn't run around in circles screaming about how his campaign sucks when it doesn't happen.  His campaign needs to be better than Kerry's just to eke out a victory.  Under the circumstances, 52% would be a landslide.

So let's work hard and push the campaign to be better.  But keep our expectations grounded in reality.

I take an in-between position on this.  On the one hand, I don't think an orgy of speculative posts full of arguments about whether she or her daughter "look" pregnant is either useful or right.  On the other hand, some people on this and other boards seem to be taking what I consider a self-righteous and politically mistaken view against even thinking about this.  I think it's a legitimate story.  Personally, I'm not sure how much it should matter, beyond a vague sense that if true, it seems freaky and puts focus on the scary world of the religious right.  I definitely think that it would matter to many voters, and would be a net negative for the GOP ticket.  Mattering to voters is my criterion for whether legitimate news sources should investigate a story.  And that's what I think they should do, right now and thoroughly.  I certainly hope and expect that the Enquirer is on it.  So don't bloviate about it, but push for it to be looked into and confirmed or not.  Here's my vote for at least TPM to get started.

I take an in-between position on this.  On the one hand, I don't think an orgy of speculative posts full of arguments about whether she or her daughter "look" pregnant is either useful or right.  On the other hand, some people on this and other boards seem to be taking what I consider a self-righteous and politically mistaken view against even thinking about this.  I think it's a legitimate story.  Personally, I'm not sure how much it should matter, beyond a vague sense that if true, it seems freaky and puts focus on the scary world of the religious right.  I definitely think that it would matter to many voters, and would be a net negative for the GOP ticket.  Mattering to voters is my criterion for whether legitimate news sources should investigate a story.  And that's what I think they should do, right now and thoroughly.  I certainly hope and expect that the Enquirer is on it.  So don't bloviate about it, but push for it to be looked into and confirmed or not.  Here's my vote for at least TPM to get started.

I take an in-between position on this.  On the one hand, I don't think an orgy of speculative posts full of arguments about whether she or her daughter "look" pregnant is either useful or right.  On the other hand, some people on this and other boards seem to be taking what I consider a self-righteous and politically mistaken view against even thinking about this.  I think it's a legitimate story.  Personally, I'm not sure how much it should matter, beyond a vague sense that if true, it seems freaky and puts focus on the scary world of the religious right.  I definitely think that it would matter to many voters, and would be a net negative for the GOP ticket.  Mattering to voters is my criterion for whether legitimate news sources should investigate a story.  And that's what I think they should do, right now and thoroughly.  I certainly hope and expect that the Enquirer is on it.  So don't bloviate about it, but push for it to be looked into and confirmed or not.  Here's my vote for at least TPM to get started.

I have updated my estimates of the popular vote including caucuses to include Mississippi.  For background and an explanation of methods and data see my previous post at http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/popular-vote-estimates-includi-1.php

The updated results are:

Total without Michigan and Florida
Clinton 12,803,453 (46.5%)
Obama 13,609,562 (49.5%)
Obama lead 806,109

Total with Florida but not Michigan
Clinton 13,674,439 (46.7%)
Obama 14,185,776 (48.5%)
Obama lead 511,337

Total including Florida and Michigan
Clinton 14,002,748 (46.9%)
Obama 14,345,636 (48.1%)
Obama lead 342,888

Here is the breakdown of primaries versus caucuses. I am only showing the results without Florida and Michigan, but you can easily calculate the primary results for the other versions by simply subtracting the caucus results from the totals above.

Without Michigan and Florida
Primaries
Clinton 12,349,804 (47.1%)
Obama 12,854,603 (49.1%)
Obama lead 504,799

Caucuses
Clinton 453,649 (34.7%)
Obama 754,959 (57.8%)
Obama lead 301,310
12,803,453
12,803,453

There are various popular vote totals for the Democratic nomination race floating around. MSNBC's has gotten a lot of attention in particular. While they aren't clear about what their methodologies are exactly, they all miss at least some of the "popular vote" in the caucuses. So I decided to do my own calculations from scratch, for both primaries and caucuses. Wherever possible, I used official figures, the state election agency for primaries and the Minnesota caucus, state Democratic parties for the other caucuses. Altogether, I was able to find official results for 30 of the 45 contests held so far (through the Wyoming caucus, March 8). For the other 15 I used media sources (mostly the New York Times), and other web sources (mostly Dave Leip's excellent presidential election page: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/). I have not included either the results from the Washington state "beauty contest" primary, or the Texas caucuses. In the former case, it's hard to know what to make of the results, and in the latter the available results are not even close to complete. In any case, I have included the Washington caucuses and the Texas primary, and avoided "double-counting" either state.

I know you are all anxious to see the results (below), but this is a somewhat tricky and controversial endeavor, and the following is the minimal explanation necessary to read the results intelligently. Gary Rees has posted his own estimates here (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/the-popular-vote-obama-leads-b.php) using a very different approach than mine.

While caucus results in terms of votes are often described as impossible to obtain, this mostly isn't actually true. The situation is certainly confusing, and the media hasn't helped. For example, for Kansas, the New York Times presents the results as state delegates, when they actually are the popular vote. For Washington state, they make the opposite mistake. However, it actually isn't that hard to get most of the popular votes, with a little digging. For 12 of the 16 caucuses so far, the state parties have released the numbers. For the other four (Iowa, Nevada, Washington state, and Maine), they have only released counts of delegates elected to state or local conventions; the popular votes are either being withheld or were never even collected. For these states, I have estimated the popular vote by multiplying the percentage of state or local delegates for each candidate by the total turnout. I am aware this isn't a perfect method, but I'm confident it's a reasonable estimate. Luckily for three of these states, the state parties did release precise turnouts. The Washington state party only gave the turnout as "more than 250,000," so I have used 250,000 in my estimate, to be conservative.

I have presented three sets of results, one without the Michigan and Florida primaries, one with Florida and not Michigan, and one with both. I don't want to get into a discussion as to the legitimacy of these primaries here, with one exception. For my estimate that includes Michigan, I have made an estimate of Obama's vote (method described below) rather than giving him zero votes. A result giving Obama zero votes in Michigan seems to me to be clearly worthless and misleading. Obviously, many of the people who voted for "Uncommitted" would have voted for Obama had he been on the ballot. I can't think of an ideal way to estimate his "fair share" of Uncommitted. Obviously at that point in the race, some of the Uncommitted vote would have gone to Edwards, and a tiny share to other candidates. What I did was assume that the Uncommitted vote in Michigan would have split among the four candidates not on the ballot (Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson) in the same proportions as their actual votes in Florida. This gives Obama just over 67 percent of the Uncommitted vote, or 159,859 votes in Michigan. I won't even pretend that this is "right," but I can't think of an obviously better method, and it does seem plausible to me. I welcome suggestions of better approaches.

Here are the results:

Total without Michigan and Florida
Clinton 12,647,767 (46.7%)
Obama 13,353,753 (49.3%)
Obama lead 705,986

Total with Florida but not Michigan
Clinton 13,518,753 (46.9%)
Obama 13,929,967 (48.3%)
Obama lead 411,214

Total including Florida and Michigan
Clinton 13,847,062 (47.0%)
Obama 14,089,827 (47.9%)
Obama lead 242,765

Here is the breakdown of primaries versus caucuses. I am only showing the results without Florida and Michigan, but you can easily calculate the primary results for the other versions by simply subtracting the caucus results from the totals above.

Without Michigan and Florida
Primaries
Clinton 12,194,118 (47.3%)
Obama 12,598,794 (48.9%)
Obama lead 404,676

Caucuses
Clinton 453,649 (34.7%)
Obama 754,959 (57.8%)
Obama lead 301,310

As you can see, despite the hugely greater number of votes cast in primaries, Obama's large percentage lead in caucuses allows him to nearly double his overall popular vote lead.

I think that this is the best possible way to calculate the popular vote. I am well aware that if the caucus states had held primaries instead, the results might have been very different (certainly turnout would have been much higher), and I am not brave (or foolish) enough to attempt an estimate of what they would have been. This estimate is my best attempt to count the actual votes, for better or worse. I welcome comments and constructive criticism.

The spreadsheet that contains the raw numbers and calculations is available for download at: http://arc1.uwindsor.ca/~dedelste/popular_vote_dem_primary_08.xls
I have not attempted to clean it up. I think it is reasonably self-explanatory, except for the "scratch" tab that contains unidentified calculations for various random states. You now have everything I do.

I leave you to contemplate the sad fact that around 250,000 people voted in the Washington state Democratic caucuses, that actually chose that state's delegates, while almost 700,000 voted in the meaningless Washington state Democratic primary. I hope that whatever our allegiances, we can all agree that the current system of choosing nominees desperately needs reform.

Disclaimer: I have tried to be as objective as possible in this exercise, and especially to be clear as to methods and assumptions, and to present alternate sets of results to allow people to decide for themselves which they consider most valid. I am a former strong Edwards supporter who now supports Obama cautiously. I would vote for either Obama or Hillary over McCain without doubts, but not necessarily with enthusiasm.