Wow - just wow! :o)
By what metric has she retaken the popular vote lead...? I'm honestly curious... is this by counting MI solely for her..? Florida is included, I would assume...
I think ABC had something up yesterday or the day before.
Anyone got that link?
Estimate w/ FL, MI, IA, NV, ME, WA
Obama 17,014,911 (47.7%)
Clinton 16,934,160 (47.5%)
Spread Obama +80,751 +0.22%
If you're going to count MI and FL in the spirit of not disenfranchising voters, then have the decency to count IA, NV, ME, and WA. Or do they not count?
Source: RCP
That makes sense...
By some measures, I heard the caucus votes were not being counted and that MI was only counted for Clinton, so I was curious....
IIRC, the caucus votes are counted in states that provided a tally. Not all of them did. I know there is considerable discussion and analysis of this on TalkLeft if you want to know more.
IA, NV, ME, and WA amount to 27 electoral votes, the same about as FL.
Does that MI count include 0 for Obama, or does it give him all the Uncommitted votes?
Any popular vote count that pretends that Obama has no supporters in the state of Michigan is automatically bogus.
but Clinton supporters would have us believe that they care about the voters of MI and FL, it's all about voter disenfranchisement they say... yet in the same breath, they manage to discount the caucus states that didn't report popular vote totals. This to me is the epitome of hypocrisy.
I worry that, this year, of all years, with what just happened in Indiana, people are tossing around the word disenfranchisement without knowing what it actually means.
It's when you dis some enfras then you enchisement them.
I could go for some enfras this time of night. It's a shame I don't have any cash...
You have to pay for your enfras?
LOSER!
Of course I pay for them. The guy who sells them to me would go broke if I just stole them from him.
Here we have the perfect example of the Obama campaign's commitment to democracy.
***A
You should present the complete facts. The sourced data you cite from RCP states the following: ". . . The estimate from these four Caucus states where there are not official popular vote numbers increases Senator Obama's popular vote margin by 110,224. This number would be about 50,000 less if the Washington primary results from February 19th were used instead of the Washington Caucus results."
Adjusting for the fudged ~50k the numbers show:
Obama 16,964,911 Clinton 16,934,160
While Obama still slightly ahead since it's an "estimate", statistically it amounts to little more than a rounding error.
1) I trust your ability to click (which you have done). So I hid no sources from you
2) Since Obama leads by what amounts to a "rounding error", let's stop with the "Hillary is leading the popular vote"
To a lazy simpleton like me, but maybe not to other lazy simpletons with which your obscurity of the facts may have been overlooked.
Seriously, chill. Until you go bother everyone who simply claims that a candidate is leading the popular vote without sources or links, please stop making a big deal out of nothing.
I go watch some TV now. cheers.
toodle loo!
lol! This was a pretty funny exchange. Mojo'd both.
Why on earth should he get all the uncommitted voters? Many of these voters would have voted for Edwards or Biden or someone else. Obama voluntarily chose to take his name off the ballot, in part to curry the favor with Iowa caucus voters -- and to that extent, his strategy probably succeeded. But while it may have seemed like a wise move at the time, it turned out to be foolish, just as the Clinton campaign's decision to focus on the big states and not pay sufficient attention to the smaller caucus states turned out to be extremely foolish. And just as Hillary has to live with her mistakes, Obama should have to live with his.
He should have to live with his mistakes; and he does. Our point is that it is patently dishonest of the Hillary Campaign to pretend as though Obama deserves to have no support from Michigan.
Not that it matters since the popular vote DOES NOT MATTER.
A poster on TPM made the good analogy: adding popular votes for all primaries and caucuses without adjustment is like adding fractions by blithely summing both numerators and denominators. It just doesn't work.
In the nomination contest, some states have primaries open to all voters; some states only allow those who register as Democrats 60 days in advance; and some only allow those who voted Democratic in the last election. Then the caucus states: some report their counts and some don't. And what about the state that had both primaries and a caucus (TX, WA, NE)? Also, how do you handle the reality that fewer voters attend caucuses? Example: in WA state, 32,000 Dem caucus attendees cast votes, but in the (non-binding) primary 691,000 voted, a ratio of 21.6 to 1 primary to caucus voters. In Nebraska, the ratio was 2.5 to 1. (Yes, some of you think caucuses are unfair. Great -- get involved with the DNC and change the rules, but whinging about that now is pointless.)
How in the world do you reconcile all the different methods of selection? You could add all the primary votes, with an adjustment factor for the number of non-Democratic votes, plus the caucus votes of states that reported times a "participation" factor, plus a historical figure for the caucuses that didn't vote. Gets pretty complicated, eh? And just like now, you'd get a hundred different counts, each depending on the assumptions and prejudices of the compiler.
But guess what? You don't have to construct a complicated formula to tally popular votes! It's already been done -- that's what delegates are for! Delegates are the common denominator used to normalize the vote counts between different states and territories. Read that sentence again. And again.
The delegate system was designed so that states had the latitude to settle upon a candidate using their own method, based on preference or history, and still have the national party be able to agree on a final, unambiguous tally. The delegate allocations establish an "exchange rate" between the different jurisdictions. By that analogy, anyone using popular votes to compare the WA and CA results is asking you to trade Yen and Euros on a 1:1 basis -- don't do it! (Unless you hold the Yen....)
at this point that the diarist will not engage this conversation further. She will merrily tell you that Clinton leads in the popular vote, but methodology is beyond her.
After all, she's just gathering talking points from the Clinton campaign.
Counts FL and MI for Clinton without giving any MI votes to Obama.
Basically, it's the most absurd metric possible, and I'm not sure how Clinton and her supporters can push it while keeping a straight face.
I mean, Clinton herself said that Michigan would not matter before the vote, and now, with the way she's counting it, the popular vote margin from MI "counts" for more than twice her "giant" margin in Pennsylvania.
Give me a break, please.
I'm from Michigan and ALL the word coming down the pipeline is that there is NO way she gets her optimal Michigan results, none at all. They are going to adjust for Barack not being on the ballot.
A friend and neighbor of mine switched from Clinton to Obama after he heard her talking on NPR about MI, saying that the election was perfectly fair even though Obama's name was not on the ballot. His wife was already an Obama supporter, but this was what moved him from Clinton. It was so outrageous, so disingenuous, so undemocratic -- and said in that clam tone as if it actually made sense.
I heard that interview too. I couldn't believe the audacity . . .
All she did was acknowledge her understanding of the DNC ruling at that particular time, and she want on to say that we couldn't just abandon Michigan. Rules, except for 20C, were used in stripping Michigan of its delegates, and rules are being used now to get them reinstated.
As to popular vote totals, it is indeed unfortunate for Obama that he chose to remove himself from the ballot. Howard Dean has acknowledged that the raw vote totals count and have always counted. The DNC had no authority to strip the popular vote totals from the certified elections in MI/FL.
If Obama removing himself from the Michigan ballot could be used to nullify the results of that election, then I suppose Hillary could have pulled herself off the ballot in Illinos - and then we'll throw out all those votes.
"it is indeed unfortunate for Obama that he chose to remove himself from the ballot."
And, sharing in the spirit of your non-condescendingly conciliatory tone, I would like to reach across her supporters and say that it is indeed unfortunate that we are being subjected to such transparently specious contrivances as 'popular vote' totals which are sold as if they were real while they barely work in Hillary's favor when they are cooked, bent, scrambled, twisted, and doctored.
Unfortunate indeed.
For blatant dishonesty, Hillary Clinton-like spin and disingenuousness.
You know damn well that Barack Obama did not remove his name from the ballot in order to render the results of MI invalid you liar. If he had not removed his name he likley would have gotten about 50% of the vote.
removed his name for that purpose, but apparently his supporters feel that it was the effect is.
... without giving any MI votes to Obamam?
WTF are you talking about? Hillary's always said he should get the uncom. votes.
You sure she has ALWAYS said that?
Then it should be very easy for you to find a link to that effect.
It should also be very easy for you to determine whether or not the RCP vote counts include uncommitted votes for Obama, and if not, to add them in and be honest about what that new total is.
That is simply not true.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l
Take a look there and explain to me where her +50k is coming from. Keep in mind RCP's "with FL & MI" gives 0 to Obama for the uncommitted.
So Hillary is only ahead at all if:
(1) You count MI/FL but don't count uncommitted (2) You don't add in estimates for IA/NV/ME/WA
Uh oh, this might be where you realize that the complete trust you've been putting in your candidate might be misplaced :-/
"She also reminded us of something that's been mentioned a few times here on the blogs, but that we're not seeing all that much of on the teevee, and that's that they've finally acknowledged that - after her BLOWOUT of a win in WV (my word not hers - hey she won by 41% of the vote!) she's retaken the lead in the popular vote.
By some 50,000 votes."
Look at RCP: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l
The metric you are purporting gives no votes to Obama in Michigan (it also doesn't include the totals from 4 states, but that will resolve itself on its own).
Now that you realize this, retract this popular vote argument (as she won't win the popular vote without treating MI in this manner) and find some other way of spinning away Obama's entirely legitimate win.
that the raw vote totals from MI/FL do indeed count. In fact, they have "always" counted since the DNC ruling had to do with stripping these states of delegates only. The DNC had no authority to strip these states of their pouplar votes. You can't turn 2.3 million voters into ghosts. It was indeed a very bad decision for Obama to remove himself from the ballot, against the advice of many of his advisors.
There is a special place in hell for women who do not help other women.
~Madeleine K. Albright
So, women should all support Liddy Dole for her reelection bid in North Carolina, even if they are Democrats...?
I'm sorry but that line of thinking is f.o.s. You support the candidate that most reflects your positions on issues... regardless of identity politics.
I'm in North Carolina and am supporting Kay Hagen who I predict will beat Dole. And I totally support Hillary with my time, effort and money. Albright said "help". she said nothing about voting for a woman only because you're a woman.
re-read the quote... apparently, we should be helping Liddy Dole and other female Repubs as well, because they are female.
Nonsense.
"You support the candidate that most reflects your positions on issues... regardless of identity politics."
While I agree with you it's funny that you would say this since your candidate has benefited greatly from identity politics.
my candidate is the Democrat... actually ANY and ALL of the Democrats...
And to say Hillary has NOT benefited from identity politics is beyond laughable....
Condoleeza Rice, Kay Baily Hutchison, Olympia Snowe, Margaret Thatcher, Elizabeth Dole, etc. etc.
I think there may be a special place in hell for women who do not help other people, and part of that is electing a candidate who you think will do the most good in the world, not just one of your own gender.
"I choose my candidate by looking in his/her pants."
This is also how I choose my doctor, dentist, and plumber.
Come on, people!
Madeleine Albright was another Democratic cheerleader for Bush's war, wasn't she?
I'd be very careful about talking about "special places in hell", were I her.
Thanks alegre for sharing this!
Yes I listened to the conference call over at TM----she was great! And so were you! I can imagine how exciting it must to actually get to share your thoughts with her. I am very happy for you! Also she did make a very strong case for her continuing her candidacy, so I am convinced that we can still pull it off.
Sorry to break it to you - but she does not have the lead in the popular vote. Contests where Barack Obama's name was not even on the ballot do not count. Caucus states DO count. Only people as deluded and idiotic as Hillary Clinton could believe something so stupid.
