« Hillary Wins Pennsylvania, Networks Project | Home | Exit Polls: More Hillary Voters Would Desert Obama And Back McCain »

Hillary Adviser Terry McAuliffe: It's The Popular Vote, Stupid!

Interviewed on MSNBC just now, Hillary top adviser Terry McAuliffe continued Camp Hillary's efforts to make the case that the pledged del count isn't the metric that should determine the winner of the Dem primary.

Asked directly whether the winner of the pledged del count should be seen as the winner of the primary, McAuliffe sidestepped the question, then said:

By the time we finish this process Hillary Clinton will have moved ahead in the popular vote.

McAuliffe added, unsurprisingly, that he was including Florida in his count. But even including Florida, this is an optimistic projection, to say the least.

Asked directly whether we should see the popular vote as a more important metric than the pledged del count, McAuliffe demurred -- reminding us again that the Hillary camp's main goal will be to obscure the idea that the Dem primary electorate rendered a clear verdict on who their choice as nominee is.


67 Comments

| Leave a comment

What lying assholes. I am turning off my computer now.

bitter?

user-pic

They sure do love appealing to the ignorant. Comparing caucus votes with primary votes is comparing apples to oranges.

When someone like McAuliffe pushes this canard of "popular votes", I wish that some talking head would directly ask him to explain how that doesn't (virtually completely) disenfranchise all of the caucus states.

It's like McAuliffe just called "all time Quarterback" in backyard football.

So glad to see that the former party chairman truly has the party at heart.

McAuliffe is a fucking hack. Always has been. The party lost consistently with him at the helm so why should any one listen to him?

Greg-

Well put. But actually, they're not just trying to obscure the idea that the electorate rendered a clear judgment. They're mostly focused on keeping this process going for as long as possible. So when McAuliffe says something as demonstrably improbable as "Hillary will have moved ahead in the popular vote," he doesn't actually expect intelligent people to believe him. But because of the rules by which the media plays, his statement will be reported and noted. And since it can't be definitively proven false until the race is almost over (certainly not for another couple of contests) it serves his purpose - it keeps the race limping along.

If you or I take the trouble to debunk the notion, we're just feeding the controversy. The more outrageous the claim, the bigger the controversy - and how can we call the election over when the outcome is still controversial?

What I find amazing is that the MSM seems to be spinning Sen. Clinton's win tonight as some sort of come-from-behind upset/blow-out.

Where is this coming from? Did anyone expect her to lose PA?

MC Rove is laying it straight on Fox News.

But caucus states don't count, so, tautologically, they are not being disenfranchised.

Actually, they both need supers to win and are making the arguments to get their votes.

Mine is simple.

Clinton will win the general easlily if the Dems want to win this time and not lose three in a row.

user-pic

Hillary has burned too many bridges with too many parts of the base.

Hillary by 20? What happened to the chant?

Gotalie wins, you guys. Pick up yer shit and go home. I mean it.

Now.

No? Ok. But don't say he didn't warn us.

Thanks for being a beacon in the dark, gotalight. We owe you one, buddy. You'll be the first shoulder I come to cry on.

Hey dumbass, he called a 20 point Clinton victory. At best GotNoLife missed the point spread by 12!

Don't ever go to Vegas, fool. You'll get your clock cleaned.

user-pic

Easy does it.

user-pic

Easy does it.

Ummm.... Dems can't win without black people. Sorry HRC. If you steal the nom, you lose anyway.

user-pic

I don't usually respond to you anymore, but you seem to be in a better mood than usual. Please feel free to expand upon the rational for believing that HRC has a better chance than Obama in November and that we'd lose 3 in a row otherwise. Or, if you've already posted a blog on the topic, feel free to share it. So far, you've consistently over-stated everything, so, there's not much reason to take stock of what you've said. But, if you're willing to engage in a dialogue, then by all means, feel free to enlighten us with your logic.

if BO has the most delegates and is denied the nomination, the democratic party as we know it will implode. Al Gore won the popular vote, yet he isnt in the white house.

I agree with Chris Matthews on the point he just made and that is, why are the Clintons allowed to change the rules and move the goal post to suit their liking and are allowed to get away with it?

If that's the case, I hope it does implode. We need a party that's much better than "not quite as bad as the Republicans." Denying the will of the people to put the establishment candidate into power is more of the same old politics.

Time to freak out and pretend that you don't realize he is making a case to the supers. "She already lost pledged delegates. She wants to steal the nomination."

Who can be the most outrageous? Who can pretend that Obama doesn't also need superdelegates to hand him the nomination?

Having to continue to listen to McAuliffe, Lanny & Kiki is the worst thing about HRC winning this.

That and I will be surprised if Scarborough & Buchanan don't have a heart attack by November. I have honestly never seen 'journalists' get that hot under the collar about a particular candidate. The repubs must be pretty rattled about Obama.

That's why I switched to Fox News. Real republicans loathe Hillary Clinton.

Hillary will lose Indiana, watch and see.

It's completely amusing to me that MSNBC thinks Buchanan and Scarborough 1) have some sort of vast political knowledge and 2) that they have a clue about Dem politics, let alone what most of us anti-Clinton voters are rebelling against.

The Clintons start out with a 16-20 point lead, all the institutional networks and backing in the state and suddenly Obama is flawed because he cant close the deal?? Would that same theory apply if the Clintons were running in a state ready made for Obama or McCain for that matter?

There are states that an outsider black candidate will not be able to win. It's the sad truth. PA is one of them and anyone that's lived there for any length of time will agree.

The Clintons got their win as they were expected to do. Now let's see if that translates into any money to keep their campaign going and pay their back bills and if the superdelegates are going to grow a spine at some point and declare for one candidate or the other.

It's actually the delegates, Idiot!

Oh, and you aren't even close to the popular vote.

The pledged delegate count is the closest thing we have to a "popular vote." The delegates are apportioned according to relative population -- regardless whether a state uses high-turnout primaries or low-turnout caucuses -- so the delegate count is the ONLY valid indicator for the nomination.

Couldn't agree more. They can count popular vote as any sort of measure when they figure out a way to make my Washington State vote count as we had a caucus. If they count Florida and not mine, isn't that disenfranchising me?

As long as his count excludes the participants in the caucuses, then his proposed metric is fundamentally skewed. The only measure that applies to all contests is the pledged delegate number.

user-pic

I will say that Obama does need to make a clearer more effective economic argument. Well, on second thought, maybe not considering that McCain is incapable of making any economic argument.

Bluebell,

This is the Democratic Nomination contest. Senator Obama is making a very clear and effective economic case against Senator Clinton: All he has to do is ask people to take a look at how he has handled his campaign finances compared to how Hillary has handled hers, and then ask them, which one of us do you think would not bankrupt the country.

user-pic

Besides NY, is there a Dem-leaning state in the country that is more favorable demographically to HRC than Pennsylvania? Add to that the active support of a popular governor and 100 mayors including Phili and Pitt and the cards were stacked against him. Sill, Obama closed every gap in PA versus the results in Ohio.

This race was over after the Potomic Primary; all we are doing now is running out the clock.

Hillary is broke and didn't win by enough today.

This game is about delegates and Obama can't lose the pledged delegate lead. He has also won more states and will likely have won more popular votes.

The superdelegates get this and won't split this party in two.

Obama is the nominee.

Random factiod of the night:

As I right this, Hillary's lead in Luzerne county provides her with her overall margin of victory - she's taking the populous county 3-1. So what's Luzerne? Well, here's a clue - it's the most heavily Polish county in the country. Catholics backed Hillary, according to the exit polls, and the more religious and traditional they were, the more heavily they turned out to support her. That's a demographic Obama's going to have to work very, very hard to court after this is over.

user-pic

Well the SDs don't give a shit what Terry McAuliffe thinks.

I see different numbers different places. Huffpo has with 22% reporting a 6 point difference - 53-47.

If that keeps up :)

user-pic

And, Obama has been pulling his punches (might as well keep the Rocky analogy going) against Hillary because he knows he needs to get her supporters to beat McCain -- Hillary only cares about wounding Obama at this point.

I'm not sure Obama should get more agressive on Hillary but he should get clearer and address these lingering rumors more directly - it'd help him in the long run.

If he wins Indiana it'll be over in May. If he loses Indiana it'll be over in June.

user-pic

I'm originally from Wisconsin and the Polish Catholic populations there vote Dem no matter what. I mean when pro-life Republican Tommy Thompson was winning with margins of over 20% the Polish townships were going 2 to 1 for the Dem -- unbelievable.

This is Hillary's last firewall state, weren't they saying she was going be ahead in the delegate count and popular vote count by this time?

MSNBC is putting up numbers saying that Clinton voters are much less likely to vote for Obama in the general than the other way around. You people mirror your candidate in the fact that you don't give a damn about liberal politics or policies, or ultimately about the future of this country. It's all about you, apparently.

You are all selfish, immature scum. God, how I have grown to hate Hillary Clinton and her supporters during this campaign.

user-pic

The math is simple. Obama has $42 million in the bank. Hillary is $10 million in the hole. It costs Hillary $1 million a day to operate her campaign. People are still giving to Obama. Hillary is tapped out. Unless she wins by more than 10 points, and raises millions by Friday, Hillary won't last past NC and Indiana.

Unless Hillary wins by a lot bigger margin than she is showing right now, by the time all is said and done Obama will still be behind in the total vote, including Florida.

user-pic

Obama will still be in the lead in the total vote. Sorry.

Not counting the caucus states as much as the primary states for a popular vote count actually favors Obama rather than Clinton. He has consistently underperformed in primaries versus caucuses. If all caucus states had used primaries, then Hillary would have a greater share of the vote than she does now. The pledged delegate count is not a more democratic measure than using the popular vote because it overcounts certain congressional districts rather using the idea of "one person, one vote." For example, Obama won the pledged delegate count in Nevada despite winning less votes. How is this the more democratic outcome? Clinton is not "changing the rules in the middle of the game." The superdelegates were always allowed to vote for Obama based on any criteria they chose. Can an Obama supporter tell me where it says that the superdelegates should decide whom to vote for based on the pledged delegate count rather than the popular vote count or why this is fairer?

user-pic

You are right, super delegates can vote for whomever they want. What is in it for any super delegate who votes for Hillary?

She has a 15 state strategy straight out of 1992. She has the highest negatives in presidential history. She will turn a potential rout of John McCain into a close race. Her coattails will be among the shortest in history. This is a year for Democrats to grow the party. Obama can do that. Hillary can't help.

Is it only me or there are other people who is seeing these MSNBC pundits and watching their coverage in shock! this is soo biased and one-sided, they should be embarassed!

We're in deep shit IMO. A large amount of Democrats are saying they won't vote for one candidate or the other (Just saw it on MSNBC). It's coming from both sides pretty hardcore now. More so for Clinton supporters atm.

I know, I know, everyone will come together in the end they say. Perhaps, but could someone make me feel better and help me find some polls that showed a similar schism in a party during a primary that was rectified before the General and resulted in a win for that party? I can't. I think Clinton may have screwed us.

Don't worry about it.

I don't have any numbers at my fingertips, and don't have specific Dem details. But I know that in the middle of the 2000 Republican race, something like 35% of McCain voters said they would vote for the Democrat if Bush won.

Didn't happen. Won't happen this year.

Now it's possible that this extended primary could still hurt us. Obviously it's giving McCain a free ride. And it's hurting Obama's image. And it's wasting a nauseating amount of money. But Hillary's voters -- except the ones who wouldn't have supported Obama anyway -- will come back to the fold. Always do.

Electoral votes and popular votes should be taken into consideration, and how in the world is she stealing this election by fighting for every state to have a say. Some of you people really do give of us all a bad name. If we are members of the progressive party then it would help if we think progressively instead of making stupid statement.

Coolisaac:
We can debate electoral votes.
They have absolutely no bearing on a primary. You could nominate a crash dummy in New York and California and they would beat McCain.

If Obama is the nominee, Ed Rendell will work just as hard as he did for Clinton. All the Democrats have pledged to come together. The fact is that a blue state is a blue state, (more or less) so no matter who the nominee is they'll stay blue. One thing I can say is that because Obama is stronger among independents he puts more states in play that are considered battleground. Independents favor McCain heavily over Clinton. That's not always apparent in primaries due to voting regulations determined by the state. In the general Independents can swing about a half dozen states.

So, actually, your argument regarding electoral votes favors Obama.

Only one thing to do to get past this drivel from Hilary's shills. I'll make another donation to the Obama campaign. Let's outspend her in Indiana and North Carolina, as well.

Not watching the news. I can barely believe it myself. But I started to watch, and they're saying the same things over and over and it's not even very good stuff to begin with.

And if Obama can keep it within 10, I will sleep good.

user-pic

The rules have been in place since long before the votes were cast. The rules say you need delegates. Hillary is trying to change the rules.

And I'm from Colorado, one of those caucus states that don't count, which also happens to be one of those purples that Obama could win in November. (I saw a bunch of Obama yard signs last night in Denver - none for any other candidate.) How rude is it to come to Colorado in August and tell all its residents that their part in the nominations "didn't count."

It's delegates. It's always been delegates. She's just trying to change the rules midstream.

The candidate who wins the popular vote should be the candidate who wins the nomination. Of course that's Obama...

Also, if you ignore the popular vote, convince pledge delegates to change candidates and hold super delegates up as the ultimate decider in the election, how are you letting the voter's voice be heard?

I'm bummed out. I knew it was coming, but it still bothers me. Kinda like when someone you know is dying, then it happens. You knew it, yet it still has an emotional impact.

Coolisaac:
We can debate electoral votes.
They have absolutely no bearing on a primary. You could nominate a crash dummy in New York and California and they would beat McCain.

If Obama is the nominee, Ed Rendell will work just as hard as he did for Clinton. All the Democrats have pledged to come together. The fact is that a blue state is a blue state, (more or less) so no matter who the nominee is they'll stay blue. One thing I can say is that because Obama is stronger among independents he puts more states in play that are considered battleground. Independents favor McCain heavily over Clinton. That's not always apparent in primaries due to voting regulations determined by the state. In the general Independents can swing about a half dozen states.

So, actually, your argument regarding electoral votes favors Obama.

I do think the primary process needs changing, but that's an issue for after the election isn't it?

The Clintons were instrumental in setting up this primary schedule and it's super tuesday quasi national primary BS.

They made the rules when they thought it would fit them, but now that they've mismanaged their way to being so far behind, they want to change the rules.

No deal. After the election, I will be right with them to change the process, but not in mid stream.

End this hopeless endeavor. Supers, grow a spine.

Did anyone else notice McAuliffe say with a straight face that they won despite Obama "throwing the kitchen sink at Hillary"? I almost crapped my pants at that one. I was watching on cnn.com, which has a slightly different feed, but I'm pretty sure that was from a regular CNN clip.

user-pic

This is the beginning of the end for Hillary. She needed a double-digit win. From here on out, it gets truly pathetic.

Agreed! From here onwards we need to totally OBLITERATE Hillary in the upcoming primaries.
Dont let the door hit you on your way out Hillary, and dont come back.

user-pic

HRC campaign had hoped for a margin of 200,000+ votes today to be able to trumpet (until North Carolina and Indiana vote on May 6) a somewhat dubious lead in the national popular vote (if they include Florida and Michigan). That’s aint’t happening tonight.

Weren't they saying before that the delegate count was more important than the popular vote count?
Oh, wait, that was last month.

These people have changed their story just about every time there's a primary, trying to make it look like she's going to Win! Big! this year at the convention.
Not going to happen.
I'd say that I feel sorry for her, but why should I feel sorry for someone who's a poor loser?

Hey Terry...My right hand is raised...Look at my third DIGIT. That doesn't mean she's #1! OK?

I wonder if Pennsylvania would have counted if she'd completely lost rather than just gone down 20% since the campaign began.

REMEMBER: THE ONLY STATES THATA ARE IMPORTANT ARE THE STATES HILLARY WIINS AND THE POPULAR VOTE IS ONLY IMPORTANT IF SHE HAS MORE VOTES---UNLESS, OF COURSE SHE HAS MORE DELEGATES AND HE HAS MORE VOTES. THEN IT IS THE DELEGATES THAT COUNT.

Proving again how corrupt she is.

Good night and good luck.

I'm going to leave my computer.

I agree w/the comment by Slaw that it deserves to implode. I'm not a Republican because I don't believe in evil and power by any means necessary, damn the consequences or who gets hurt. But by the same token, I am not a Democrat because I do not believe in cowardice as a way of life, and for too long the Democratic Party has been too terrified of offending *anyone* to do anything that takes real courage to pull off. This race just proves it. Dean, Reid and Pelosi are letting it go on because they're afraid of alienating Clinton's supporters, even though eventually they will have to face defeat, and by dragging the whole process out, it will only make that pill so much more bitter to swallow. So, they'll cushion the losers' supporters fall to reality at the expense of the winner's chances of beating the Republican.

If Dean, Reid, Pelosi and other leaders had any stones, they would step in and shut this down now. Instead, like so many other Democrats, they just stand there idly by, letting victory slip through their fingers, doing nothing.

Tom Brokaw said it best tonight: "The Clintons will move the goalpost, claim any right to the nomination, whatever it takes to stay in the race with the hope that Obama's campaign might destruct." But when it comes down to it, it's really all noise. For all their jumping up and down and yelling for MI and FL to be counted, etc. the truth is Hillary's only way to victory is for Obama to completely fall off the map. And every time we turn on cable news and listen to the pundits, we are partner to the media's scheme to keep the election going--as they aggressively jump on any dirt Hillary throws at Obama. His supporters need to quit feeding the sharks! Turn it off.

If you run the numbers, the spread is 9.29 (rounds to 9) points. So, I wonder if the media will talk about the 10 point or 9 point victory. Not a big difference numerically but visually it is.

the 'bots sure are steamin,' like a cow pie!

user-pic

might be worth taking a look at recent mccain vs. obama, mccain vs. clinton polls in some of the key states. like OH and FLA. pretty interesting, although of course polls are suspect at best and spurious at worst.

how do we rationalize this?

I really don't think it is all that clear. Obama isn't that far ahead in pledged delegates or popular vote. And despite outspending Hillary by three or four to one, he can't close the deal. I would hardly say he is the clear choice of the voters. And Hillary consistently wins the big states and the critical swing states. Plus there is the fact that if the primaries were set up as winner-take-all the way the November election is, Hillary would be the one who is ahead in delegates. What I think is clear is that Obama has problems.

If Obama has problems, than by definition of the race, Hillary has more problems.

She has no chance to catch him in the pledged delegate race. She is around +10 tonight. He's still up +155.

She also has no chance to catch him in popular vote. He'll get +150,000 from NC next week.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address