Are we really, truly this closely divided?

S1, telling more than half of Democrats that they are not "Real Americans" is not a good way to advocate for your candidate.

Obviously if Obama's name had been on the Florida ballot, he would have gotten the 25,000 or so votes he would need to still be in the popular vote lead even if Florida votes are included.

Given the circumstances, the MI and FL numbers are pointless.

What will be very interesting to see is how the popular vote count changes with the remaining contests.

At least by my admittedly somewhat crude estimates, I'd expect the remaining contests to significantly favor Hillary overall, with Pennsylvania being the main prize.

If Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, why would you bother listing Michigan?

Why does OBama need a revote in FL? He was on the ballot and lost! Hillary got 250K more votes than Obama.

Ok, I ask this every time a popular vote thread is posted and nobody ever responds, so I have little hope of getting an answer now. But:

How do caucuses fit in here (real, full-blown caucuses)?

For example, the reported vote in Iowa gave Obama about 200 more county delegates. That is the only official number. The total popular vote would have given him around 20,000 more on top of that had it been tallied. But there is no way to come up with a number that could be used in these statistics with any sort of confidence. So, does Obama deserve credit for tens of thousands (maybe more) of votes not reported in all the real caucuses (not the prima-caucuses) in the states he's won?

I'm interested in the reasons folks have for females and older votes staying with Hillary. These folks went to Obama in other states which seem to be the smaller states or the states that have not been reliably democratic at the national level.

Is it a matter of advertising in these larger states? Is it a matter of the Obama response to late-breaking semi-nasties that come up? Is it a matter of adequately responding to late-breaking ads like the 3AM ad?

Does Obama need to fire his ad campaign folks? his Lation outreach staff?

The point is, to my mind, that there is a system in place, for better or for worse, and the parties involved all agreed to it (of sound mind and body). You can talk about who "wins" a state, and you can talk about who "wins" the popular vote, but those issues simply aren't material. What's at issue, frankly, is what the super-delegates are going to do, since pledged delegates aren't going to do it for either candidate. Each candidate is entitled to argue the case for why he or she should receive the votes of the super-delegates but I don't see why one argument should succeed over another.

One could perhaps make a case that the super-delegates will be charged with the question of deciding who can beat John McCain, but I would imagine that if they decide this on the basis of "big" states, there will be considerable dissatisfaction within the party, so it's a big risk.

I think we're going to have a real test of the delegate system this time around.

It is insane to consider Michigan and Florida as "wins" for Hilary, as the network candidate maps do, or as legitimate contests for any candidate. Clinton smartly, shrewdly, cynically(choose your own adjective) remained on the ballot in a state which every other viable candidate boycotted (boycot presumably meaning not campaign in, appear on the ballots of, or argue post hoc that the state's "elected" delegates should count). The result in Michigan is more suspect than Florida, but any race in which likely primary voters are told the delegates will not count, and in which candidates are not actively campaigning, i.e., the Florida Democratic primary, is a race in which many likely primary voters will be discouraged from voting in, and one that is less than representative of a real contest.

These two states are meaningless.

Not long ago the Obama camp was cautioning super-delegates not to vote against the will of the people. Now all of a sudden the popular vote (the will of the people) is dismissed by them as irrelevant.

And as to whether the popular vote should matter, why don't you ask Al Gore.

The voters of Florida and Michigan should not be disenfranchised by mistakes by party leaders. There votes must be counted.

Momentum is with Clinton and as was said just a short time ago about Obama, momentum is what really matters at this juncture. Timing is everything and the one who can carry the blue states and deliver the swing states should be the nominee.

I assumed there is some kind of estimate of popular for caucuses in these numbers. If not, that is a problem.

Even if there is an estimate of caucus participation, there is a problem with focussing on puopular vote, since caucus participation and primary participation are apples and oranges.

Caucuses are supposed to prefer a candidate with a strong, organized following. For better or worse, this is supposed to be a proxy for electability. As a result, caucuses have proportionately fewer participants than primaries. My understanding is that pledged delegates act as a "common denominator" of sorts among primaries, caucuses, and prima-caucuses.

Because caucuses and primaries are differnt animals, I see no way to rationalize the use of popular vote to divine popular support.

Yes Obama has won the Hispanic/Latino vote!

He won it in Virginia, Maryland, and DC, by about 8%

The part of the state that voted in the Primary matters. The part of the state that voted in the Caucus doesn't matter.

So in DNC-sanctioned contests, Obama leads 51-49. Now, that's enough to win an election, but it is hardly some sort of mandate. It certainly does not justify calls for him to receive all of the superdelegates based on some supposed "will of the people." The will of the people does not include all those who were unable to make it to caucuses (more than 90% of registered voters in all but one state last time I checked). Nor does it include the voters of FL and MI. Since Obama was not on the MI ticket, I would be against even considering that tally.

I definitely think we need a do-over of those very important states, though. The thing is that bogus caucuses should be out of the question. But then who pays for an expensive election. Personally, I think it should be the DNC for making the stupid rule in the first place. Looking at the current totals, my guess is that Hillary would still be behind in popular votes and delegates after winning these two states by much smaller margins than last time (though MI would likely play out like OH).

Since Obama supporters are advocating a winner take all policy for superdelegates. I wonder how that would break down on a state by state basis. Hillary won all the big Dem states and Obama won a lot of small states and states with very few superdelegates who are elected officals (because they are red states). My hunch is that would play out in Hillary's favor. That would leave the supers who are not elected officials. To what constituency should they be beholden? By definition, they are free agents. Its really gonna be a judgment call no matter how much anyone screams about the unfairness of it all. Because the unelected supers can do as they please with no electoral retribution.

Either way, literally half of the Dem primary voters are gonna be pretty unhappy campers. I was actually surprised to read in the Maureen Dowd's column today that exit polls showed that more Obama supporters are willing to support Hillary in the GE (if she get the nod) than vice-versa. This is something that does not bode well for the fall if he is the nominee.

If your primary consideration is electability, please consider the following:

With the exception of African Americans, Clinton has done a better job then Obama at retaining the Democratic base. By contrast, Obama has done better at reaching beyond the base to bring aboard Independents and even some Republicans. Obama is also doing very well at engaging younger, first-time voters.

Given the closeness of the contest to date, I am assuming that the size of Clinton's and Obama's "base" are about equal.

The question for Clinton is if she is the nominee will she be able to retain Obama's independent, Republican and younger voters in an election against McCain, a candidate who like Obama also appeals to these same groups.

The questions for Obama is he is the nominee will he be able to retain Clinton's Democratic base in an election against McCain, a candidate who like Clinton will be preceived as more experienced and stronger than Obama on national defense.

To this point, I have thought that Clinton would have a more difficult time retaining Obama's voters than Obama would have retaining Clinton's. My assumptions being that (a) by their very nature Obama's independents and Republicans are free agents, more loyal to the candidate then to the party and (b) Clinton's base, being the loyal Democratic voters that they are, are more likely to get over their dissapointment and support Obama.

If you disagree, please explain why?

Just want to reiterate the apples/oranges problem. When states choose to select delegates through a caucus, they weren't simultaneously choosing to have their say in a nomination decreased because they'd have fewer 'votes' to add to 'total vote' counts in order to decide a nomination. Any measure of popular vote that doesn't adjust for that problem is essentially meaningless.

There are NBA games that end 129-123 on a regular basis. They are not virtual dead heats. Good games, yes, but there is a clear victor.

A game that ends 134-131. Rare but still a clear victor.

135-134 games where one team isn't on the court for 3% of the game so the opposition can run up the score? That doesn't happen -- ever. It's not a game unless both teams are on the court. That's not really a caveat so much as the definition of competition.

Sure MI might have results like Ohio, but that would mean a 10% margin instead of a 100% margin in the popular vote totals.

CAN A HILLARY SUPPORTER ANSWER "Minnesota Voter"'s QUESTION AT 4:26?

Winning the popular vote and $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee almost anywhere.

Perhaps people are forgetting the goal of this primary exercise...To get the most delegates.

Many states (that Obama won) have caucuses, therefore effectively reduce the popular vote count for him.

How about I bring up another meaningless stat? Obama leads in overall states won. See where that gets me?

How do the numbers look if we double the votes of everyone in New York and then subtract Illinois voters from the totals?

>How is 650,000 a "just barely" lead?

I was wondering that myself. TPM also calls this a "dead heat." According to my calculations, Obama has 51.2% of the vote and Hillary has 48.8%. How is that a "dead heat?" There is no margin of error here. This isn't a poll.

FL-Pres
Feb 29 Mason-DixonMcCain (R) 47%, Obama (D) 37%FL-Pres
Feb 29 Mason-DixonMcCain (R) 49%, Clinton (D) 40%
Hillary winning FL matters how? It still goes to McC in Nov.

WI-Pres
Feb 24 RasmussenObama (D) 44%, McCain (R) 43%WI-Pres
Feb 24 RasmussenMcCain (R) 50%, Clinton (D) 38%
Dems won WI in '04 by

CA-Pres
Feb 22 SurveyUSAClinton (D) 58%, McCain (R) 35%CA-Pres
Feb 22 SurveyUSAObama (D) 61%, McCain (R) 34%
Obama actually does better in CA since Super-Tues but it matters not because Dems crush McCain.

All nice and good that HRC wins big Dem states but in matters nada in Nov. I know HRC supporters are trying to make a case but stop listening to the spin and make a case that holds water.

Dead Heat = +598,000 votes. Did TPM win a Polk Award or a Pig in Polk Award?

What I wouldn't give for an edit button...
Dems won WI in '04 by

I actually wouldn't mind a re-do of FL & MI.
Obama will probably lose FL but will make up for it in MI.
MI-Pres
Feb 20 RasmussenObama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 39%
Feb 20 RasmussenClinton (D) 44%, McCain (R) 44%
This is without any campaigning.

Also on the popular vote 8 of the remaining 12 states favor Obama so delegates or not, unless HRC wins PA by more that 25pts, he will maintain the popular vote lead even with MI & FL.

To sum it all up...

Obama has the popular vote.
Obama has the delegates.
Obama has the most states won.

And

Hillary has "momentum".

* I wasn't sure she had momentum or not, considering she had a 15% poll lead in Ohio and Texas shrink to practically nothing in just a couple of weeks ... but then CNN and Wolf Blitzer told me she did, so I guess it's so.

Here's more on the supposed McCain juggernaut, and Hillary's superior electability;

From ABC/Wa/po poll;http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=4394014&page=1

" A surge of Democratic allegiance is boosting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton alike in match-ups against John McCain, with change vs. experience as the roadmap for voter preferences in the 2008 general election.

Obama's advantage over McCain is the bigger one in this ABC News/Washington Post poll, a 12-point lead compared to Clinton's 6-point edge. McCain's endorsement by George W. Bush may not help: The president's back at his career low approval rating, matching Harry Truman in long-term unpopularity."

It's never too late for justice.

What's this nonsense about winning the "big" states? Any Dem should have a pretty even chance of winning CA, NY etc. as well as losing Idaho, etc or any "small" state. I can see what this fits a Clinton spin but it's stil nonsense.

Of course not one person in Michigan would vote for Obama so these numbers really mean a lot.

Without FL & MI - which rationally can't be considered legit numbers under the circumstances - Obama is ahead by 5%. That's a substantial lead from an electoral perspective. We'll see where it goes from here but at this point the numbers go to him - unless you try to make FL & MI count, which would only be fair with new primaries or caucuses.

But of course Clinton and her supporters don't care about being rational or fair.

All of this discussion of who would win if the rules were different is somewhat interesting if we are discussing changes for next time. However, it only seems reasonable to use the current rules for the current game. I suspect that there could be an agreement regarding MI and FL, but the idea that somehow there is a more appropriate metric than the current one is silly. I would hate to have the rule of golf changed near the end of the game so that they could be similar to the rules of baseball. One who is competent in a particular game or contest needs to learn the rules and do well under those conditions.

There are many problems comparing votes, only because some state are caucus and other are not. It is also difficult to compare votes since some states are closed primaries and others are not.
When it comes down to it, the metric for deciding is not the votes but rather the delegates. This will decide. The superdelegates will decide based on the survival of the Democratic Party. There are some decisions that will abet the demise of the party and others that will increase the power of the party. One should choose wisely.

As far as who can win the Blue States and who cannot, I thought that they are called Blue States because any Democrat can win them. Is this not the case? The Red and the Purple states are the ones we should worry about.

Well I am not from Texas, or a red state, or a blue state- I am a Canadian. But it seems to me that any party who has a candidate who wins in California, New York, Texas, and Ohio, and still trails in the nomination process has a pretty srange process.

Clinton fever is spreading: traduce your opponent no matter what the cost to the party. A Clinton supporter way above dares to use the term "real Americans." Well, for seven miserable years we've been hearing that real Americans support the illegal war and everything else this administration wants to do and has done to eviscerate the Constitution and turn the Congress into a puppet show. I fear that Clinton will destroy the party on her way to the nomination, whether she gets it or not. You sue rhetoric like 'real Americans" and you're doing Karl Rove's dirty work for him.

As for the person above complaining about Obama endorsing Lieberman--the entire Democratic establishment did so. That's not a compliment, but they did out of fear, and look what it got them. is Obama's endorsement one scintilla as disgraceful as Clinton's vote to take us to war in Iraq? Not at all. She won't even apologize for that vote--which shows a terrible rigidity that reminds me of President Bush in his general inability to say that he's done anything wrong in his presidency.

http://thepage.time.com/obama-release-on-clintons-mississippi-comments/

Excellent........excellent..........