Poll: Plurality Thinks Super-Delegates Should Back Winner Of Popular Vote
I'm a bit late posting this, but I wanted to flag it -- there's an interesting number buried in the new Washington Post poll:
18. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) The Democratic nomination may be decided by so-called "super delegates" who can pick any candidate they choose. Do you think the super delegates should support the candidate who won the most (delegates) in primaries and caucuses; the candidate who won the most (overall votes); or the candidate they think is best, regardless of either delegate or vote totals?Delegates 13
Overall votes 46
Candidate they think is best 37
The Hillary campaign is clinging to the hope that she'll somehow be able to eek out a long shot popular vote win, and support here appears stronger for the idea that the popular vote is the metric super-dels should use.
Obama, of course, is on track to win both the delegate count and the popular vote, and the total support voiced here for supporting either of those is 59% -- far higher than the 37% saying super-dels should exercise their own judgment.
Also, while the number supporting the idea that super-dels should do what they want is surprisingly high, my bet is that if Obama wins both the pledged del count and the popular vote this number would quickly drop.
This is possibly the single most dangerous move she has made or could make.
If somehow she manages to get the SDs to give her the nomination - god help the Democrats - it is not going to be pretty.
April 16, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This poll shows just how wrong you are. Thankfully, Americans (though not a lot of people on this site) seem to subscribe to the idea that every person's vote should count equally. If Obama loses the popular vote, it seems that far more people would believe that it was him stealing the nomination from Hillary, and thus would be alienated by him Obama geting the nomination.
April 16, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary on working class whites in 1995: screw 'em"
Put that into Google every 10 minutes or so, and watch the number of links grow and grow and grow.
April 16, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I just put the link over in a blog post.
April 16, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So in other words, Clinton is back on the "it's the popular vote" and not "it's the delegates" again. And again. And again.
April 16, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every vote does not count equally if you look at a raw popular vote number for a competition in which tens of millions of people, like me, turned out in states with caucuses.
You can claim they're unfair, and we can have a debate on that for the next time around; but in the here and now, they were the one and only method for tens of millions of us to "cast our vote". By their nature, they have lower turnout than a true primary; this is why we count delegates. They *are* the only thing resembling a fair apples-and-apples expression of the "popular vote".
Any attempt to discount them, either outright or by lumping them in a "popular vote" (what a lie of a term) count on a one-to-one basis with primary states, is to discount the voices of at least 20% of Democratic voters.
It's a despicable lie and a farce, but perfectly in keeping with Hillary's "only states we win" matter theme. It's pathetic, and it's the antithesis of democracy.
April 16, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not really disagree with you, but I would note that even the delegate count is an awkward expression of the "will" of the people. After all, Sen Clinton won the vote count in the NV caucus, but Obama emerged with more delegates based on the quirky fashion in which delegates are apportioned in that state. Fair is fair, of course. Both candidates knew the rules going into it and Obama won by playing within those rules, but there is no denying that this delegate total reflects the will of the NV voters in only a hazy, slantwise manner.
April 16, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument is really weird and makes no sense. Setting aside the few caucuses where no actual vote counts have been released, using the popular vote is a completely fair comparison as every vote from every state counts the same.
Caucus states get the same number of allotted delegates as primary states, even though the number of people voting per delegate is much much lower. This means that in a delegate system, a caucus vote is worth much more than a primary vote (ie your vote is 1 out of 100,000, rather than 1 out of 1,000,000).
I don't think it's fair that people that bother to vote in caucus states are awarded far more power than people who bother to vote in a primary state, and a popular vote tally evens the playing field. Caucus votes lose their advantage, but they shouldn't have had that advantage in the first place.
Luckily, even if you don't understand this, according to this poll it appears that 75% of Americans do.
April 16, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two other points:
1) "By their nature, [caucuses] have lower turnout than a true primary"
Anything that decreases voter turnout needs to be treated with great suspicion and scrutiny.
2)"...is to discount the voices of at least 20% of Democratic voters."
I don't know where you pulled that 20% number from, but it's worth pointing out that a full 10% of American's voices are discounted by ignoring Florida and Michigan. I hope that outrages you as much?
April 16, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, by what magic, exactly, is she going to win the popular vote yet lose the delegate race when delegates are awarded proportionally?
Oh, I see, you mean she'll "win" the popular vote if she pulls off blow out after blow out in the next ten races, count Florida and Michigan and exlcude caucus states. Right. See, problem is, there's a difference between actually, incontestably winning the popular vote, by any measure you choose, and a mere argument that you won if you count votes a certain way that passes the straight face test.
The latter dawg don't hunt, bud. And that's her best case scenario.
April 16, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
How have you managed to come this far without learning that delegates aren't truly awarded proportionately?
The argument about popular votes is not one that needs, or is meant, to convince you. Obama requires the superdelegates to win, as does Hillary, and it's right for superdelegates to weigh a number of things; the will of each and every person who voted is one of the things that should considered in any democracy. Those are the rules.
I don't hear many people here up in arms because Ted Kennedy and John Kerry support Obama, even though their home state decisively voted for Hillary. Let the Superdelegates make their choices. If your guy wins, great. If not, then try and deal with it a little more maturely than a 5 year old.
April 16, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. The whole thing with Super Delegates was supposed to be to save the party if some major disaster happened i.e. the winning candidate turned out to be a bank robber in the last week. Nothing like that situation exists and if they were to exercise that power to overturn the people in the absence of that, it wouldn't be pretty. The thing is, the supers all need votes to keep their jobs and they know that they'd be hard pressed to get 'em if they did this. Does anybody really think that career politicians are so self sacrificing that they'd end their career to give Hillary what she wants. The only way that over turn would work for them would be if an overwhelming majority of democrats agreed with that action----and they clearly do not.
April 16, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a poorly worded question. Granted that's how Hillary frames the choice but at bottom it produces an ambiguous answer. Greg almost gets it.
The fundamental problem is that Choice 3 "The candidate they think is best" overlaps 1 and 2 to the extent that it also includes those who couldn't chose between 1 and 2; B) does not present the option in assesing the "best candidate" of considering the reject of the delegate and popular vote leader or and C) other considerations such as for instance the poll itself which confirms other polls that Obama is the candidate most dems and leaners support, considered the most electable and in difference between proportions holds a substantial 8 pt advantage over McCain.
It also begs the question, if a SuperDelegate now thinks one or the other candidate is "best", why wait two months until the primaries are done before declaring
April 16, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
But isn't the real question whether this poll taken before or after Bitter-gate?
April 16, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup.
April 16, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does the Super-Delegate vote still count when Hillary concedes and drops out of the race after North Caronlina and Indiana?
Just curious.
April 16, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, let me add since you forgot:
One caveat: this poll was taken only just after Obama's "small-town" comments. Once they sink in, the results may change.
April 16, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, they may not. Starting to look like "not".
April 16, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me just reiterate - if Hillary-Joe gets the nomination, the next president is going to be John McCain.
She has pissed off just about every single progressive Democrat in the country. If she thinks the Republicans and the Archie Bunker Democrats are enough to elect her, she has totally lost her mind to menopause madness.
April 16, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course what constitutes the "popular vote" is also hotly contested. Clinton wants us to look at primary states including Michigan and Florida. Obama wants to look at all sanctioned events, including caucuses, but excluding Michigan and Florida. It looks like this poll defined “popular vote” as “overall votes” in primaries and caucuses, but it is very unclear.
The more interesting result from the poll, which the Post highlights, is the fact that Clinton’s trustworthiness has fallen off a cliff. A majority of voters now find her dishonest. Two-thirds of men find her dishonest. She has a 23 point honesty gap against Obama.
I suppose it’s possible her current tactics could win her the nomination, but she is doing even more harm to herself in the general than Obama.
Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton
April 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny - I just got finished writing and posting something similar regarding the "overall votes" and "popular votes" below.
Glad to know I'm not the only one who thought it wasn't entirely clear (tho' my first read was initially overall delegates).
April 16, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
A poll taken of unemployed small town Pennsylvania voters that say that they have not felt bitter, reveals:
Two thirds of them say that they were hoping to sell their I'm not Bitter, on Ebay in order to buy some food for their families. After they they were informed that they would not be receiving one of the stickers; 79% of them said; Damn, I was counting on that Ebay money; now I am bitter.
April 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg Sargent, you are the definition of worthless.
April 16, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think so, why do you take the time to read and comment here?
April 16, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with those gutless "supers". Instead of whinnin about damage to the party by a long drawn out race (no pun intended), they could end it anytime by endorsing BHO.
No, they want Hillary to drop out and save their asses.
The supers are really in a bind.
"If somehow she manages to get the SDs to give her the nomination - god help the Democrats - it is not going to be pretty."
And Michelle O. said recently.. (similar or no)
"- Barack Hussein Obama - they are throwing "the obvious, ultimate fear bomb. . . . When all else fails, be afraid of his name."
April 16, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe my opinion is in the minority on this, but the survey question doesn't seem to be entirely clear at first glance.
The nomenclature that seems to be pretty well universally used has been pledged delegates, total delegates (i.e. including super delegates) and popular vote.
The question in the survey uses overall votes which I think some people may construe as total delegates. At least that is what I thought when I first read the question. I'm not trying to split hairs, I just wondered if anyone else read it that way.
April 16, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with the post
I think if Obama or Clinton have the most popular vote then that is who the super delegates should vote for and i think the delegates from each state should do the same..... IF they don't then it will be like what happen to Gore in 2000 in florida, and we know how the democrates didn't like that.....Popular vote should rule.
April 16, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, let all the people vote, let all their votes count and give the nomination to the winner of this democracy.
God bless America!
April 16, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Unless Hillary is behind and she chooses to poach Obama's pledged delegates. Disenfranchising voters that way is just fine.
April 16, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you're saying get rid of the Electoral College, right?
April 16, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you obtain the popular vote in states that hold caucuses? What is reported by several states is only county delegate counts, not even close to popular votes. And we know that according to the Clinton Camp caucuses are "not a fair system of voting". So how does this exercise, question and answer get the Party any closer? And when is the MSM going to report that Barry Obama won the Texas delegate count? If the delegate advantage the Barry has would be reported as a percentage, let's say 7% this would not seem close and extra ways of measuring success would not be created.
April 16, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should the popular vote include the voters of Florida and Michigan, or are they not considered people?
April 16, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're people - but they weren't voters in a primary sanctioned by the Democratic Party. If I get ten million people together to vote in my basement, the Democratic Party isn't bound to abide by the results.
April 16, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that the popular vote should decide anything is idiotic. How is it reasonable to talk about the popular vote when the vote turnout in caucus states is a tenth of what it is in primary states. Obviously, since Obama has done far better in caucus states he is disadvantaged by consideration of the popular vote.
I don't get why people aren't, say, mentioning this rather obvious fact in the press.... instead we get the usual blather blather blather about how the superdelegates will be "Overturning the popular will" by voting for Obama if the delegate count (which is presumably being considered in analogy to the electoral vote) favors him and the "popular vote," whatever that is supposed to mean, favors Clinton.
April 16, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you care to give your opinion on why Obama has done so much better in caucuses than primaries? If both a fair ways to hold an election, then the results from each should on average be the same.
I'm interested to hear from you.
April 16, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of the caucuses were in states Hillary had decided "didn't count." She didn't campaign much in a lot of states because she didn't assume she would need to.
Had she run a smarter campaign, none of this would be an issue. Had she planned beyond Super Tuesday, none of this would be an issue.
But she didn't. She ran a poor campaign. She burned through her war chest early. She didn't plan for any real competition.
Which is why has been losing since Day One. Yes, that's correct. At no point during this campaign has she been ahead in delegates. Not once.
April 16, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just had a flash of one of those horrible marriages where both people hate each other but neither one has the guts to end it and both keep hoping the other one will end it or drop dead -- and it just goes on.
just shoot me, please. I really have thought about this, and a bullet can't be that bad -
April 16, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
A plurality of Superdelegates are stupid.
April 16, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let us put those poll results in their proper perspective.
46% of those who responded said that they should rely on the popular vote tally.
50% of those who responded did not want the Super Delegates to choose who to support based on only the winner of the popular vote tally.
See how you have to be careful of accepting the Clinton camp spin. More are against the popular vote option than are for it.
Finally: If we wanted to nominate based on the National vote count, then we would hold one National popular vote primary, wouldn't we. We do not. We select delegates, State by State. Those are the party rules in place now. The rules have not put a winner take all national primary in play, so do not let the Clintons con you into changing the rules after the fact.
April 16, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let us put those poll results in their proper perspective.
46% of those who responded said that they should rely on the popular vote tally.
50% of those who responded did not want the Super Delegates to choose who to support based on only the winner of the popular vote tally.
See how you have to be careful of accepting the Clinton camp spin. More are against the popular vote option than are for it.
Finally: If we wanted to nominate based on the National vote count, then we would hold one National popular vote primary, wouldn't we. We do not. We select delegates, State by State. Those are the party rules in place now. The rules have not put a winner take all national primary in play, so do not let the Clintons con you into changing the rules after the fact.
April 16, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
See here's the thing, if they don't count the caucus votes I may go Shiite-crazy on everyone -
I'm not kidding - that would make me beyond enraged.
Tell me they aren't going to ignore those votes.
April 16, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I have read, unfortunately there are a number of caucus states that don't have a clear record or defined rule/method for counting the number of caucus attendees (i.e. the caucus equivilent of popular vote). They use the percent of candidate support to apportion delegates and that is the number that is recorded.
It is quite complex but this is essentially true in my home state (TX) and in the state I lived in previously (WA).
April 16, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
eke out, not eek out
April 16, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't wait to see this remark get equal coverage to Bittergate:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
April 16, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't hold your breath, my friend. Part of the equation would be Obama's campaign flakking it relentlessly like Hillary did "bitter," something they're too classy to do.
April 16, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, she said that about Southern working class whites. It's pretty ironic, considering Kentucky is probably the only remaining contest she can rely on for a big win. Brings to mind her negative comments about Mississippi when she was campaigning in Iowa.
April 16, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only reason I point out that she was talking about Southerners was that the distinction might not necessarily hurt her in this primary. Seems like the sort of thing that would hurt in a general election, though.
April 16, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like she might have to do shots of Southern Comfort....
April 16, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm...Screw 'em-gate.
Oh, if only that would get picked up in the coming news cycle.
April 16, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary to the pledged delegates: "Screw 'em."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
April 16, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Problem is, the "popular vote" will be a fully contestable--and hotly contested--figure throughout the nomination fight: Count FL? Count MI? If counting MI, any votes for Obama? Include Caucus estimates y/n? Include WA primary? Include TX caucus estimates y/n?
There will be no official DNC final popular vote tally. There will only be campaign surrogates claiming popular vote majorities based on nonstipulated counting decisions that they will decline fully to explain to press interviewers.
The networks/press agencies will all claim to have definitive counts, but they will not match, just as their delegate counts have been out of sync all year.
That's why this thing was always going to the convention (barring the expected Hillary runaway or, now, a party insider move against her): nothing is definitive, or even minimally relaibly countable, until the ballots start being cast in Denver.
April 16, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ay yo, Greg, could we get a little cov'rige here or what? Ahm dyin' over hear!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
April 16, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The story is bs.
April 16, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, well screw you, troll! LOL
April 16, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You provide a compelling counterargument. I shall immediately strike her statements from the record.
April 16, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is BS about the story? It is from a book published almost seven years ago. I personally don’t think these types of stories matter, but if Clinton thinks these kind of "gotcha" quotes are so important and indicative of a candidate's true colors then they are totally appropriate. If we have to consider how these comments will play in the general election and how the Republicans will classify them, then it is totally appropriate.
Live by the BS character attack, die by the BS character attack.
April 16, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, so essentially, that number is already there and they can't ignore those votes.
That's the only thing that matters to me - people invested a lot of time and energy in those caucus votes and I can visualize just about how furious most of the people who caucused, like me, would be, again, like I would.
April 16, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree totally - I don't know how they will get an accurate count of the attendees for each candidate in those states that don't require them to be recorded. I was at my precinct for over five hours (it was a mess) and although we had over 300 people present, only 16 delegates were selected total (Obama won 70%).
That is why I worry about the popular vote metric - it leaves out the true number of voters for some of the caucus states. And in my state it gets even muddier. If they count caucus attendees here, each Dem who voted in TX and then caucused would be counted twice. I don't mind so much if they want to since my preferred candidate won the state caucuses. Heh.
Seriously though - that is why popular vote is just not an accurate metric in this contest. The system for our party nomination is currently structured around a delegate contest and the winner is determined by delegate majority. That is why the popular vote metric is nothing but a Clinton campaign/traditional media invention as it pertains to relevancy in the Democratic Party's nomination process.
April 16, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no rule in place to total up the National vote tally. It is an invalid proposal. Delegate count is how the nominee is elected, and not by some fantasy national popular vote count, that was never incorporated into the Democratic Party nomination regulations and rules.
Stop buying into the loser's smoke and mirrors con game.
April 16, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now wait just a minute... You're telling us that MOST of the people in America believe that the superdelegates should respect their wishes?
I find that a bit hard to believe...
April 16, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right.
It's more Hillary-Joe nonsense.
April 16, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh.
So many questions!
Does the "overall" vote include Florida and Michigan (where Obama was not on the ballot)?
How do we consider caucus votes?
What does "overall" vote even mean?
April 16, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two brief responses:
1) There is no such thing as the popular vote tally. Just as you can buy a Ford Focus with cruise control or without, with air conditioning or without, etc, so too you can tally the popular vote with estimates from the caucus states or without, with MI/FL or without (or with one but not the other), or even tally only the "swing state" popular vote. None of these tallies are official, so none of them is any especially more legitimate than the other. As such, wrangling over what is the "correct" popular vote tally is just pointless.
2) It will not make any difference in the end anyway. The idea that Sen Clinton might win the popular vote was predicated on a model wherein she 1) wins by a huge margin in PA, 2) keeps it close in NC and 3) wins IN. Instead the current trends suggest that she will 1) win a narrow victory in PA and 2) lose in a landslide in NC (it would be hard to speak of a "trend" in IN yet, although I am confidently predicting an Obama win there). In other words, she is not going to achieve the mix of outcomes that she needs to pull ahead in the popular vote metric, even if one were to include MI & FL. As such, the winner of most of the various popular vote tallies will be the same as the winner of the pledged delegate tally so the proposed conflict in the minds of supers as to whether they should go with the delegate winner or the popular vote winner will never occur.
April 16, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not the general election. The measure of the primary is not the popular vote. It is the pledged delegates.
I repeat: this is not the general election; popular vote is only part of the equation and essentially irrelevant.
This is a technical process and it's a private process because we are a private organization, not a part of government.
This is not like the general where we get to fight over votes. This is the primary and she's putting up another smokescreen.
April 16, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You telling the plurality of people they're wrong? They seem to think that as long as neither candidate is going to win through your beloved pledged delegates, that the superdelegates should base their decision on the popular vote.
April 16, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine.
But, as Greg questions above, WHICH popular vote tally do you use?
BTW, popular vote doesn't count in the General election either, unfortunately for us Democrats.
April 16, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would leave that up to the superdelegates to decide. Maybe with caucuses and with MI/FL?
I understand popular vote doesn't count in the general election. It wouldn't count now either if our system hadn't been set up to include pledged delegates and superdelegates. But it does. Can't change the rules now.
April 16, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you will leave it up to the superdelegates. As if any of us could do otherwise...
And maybe with MI but not FL. And maybe with FL but not MI. And maybe without caucuses. Etc and so forth. There is no one tally called "the popular vote." Each superdelegate inclined to consider this metric at all will be free to consider whatever form of it s/he finds most persuasive. More to the point, each one will be free to ignore it entirely in favor of other concerns (such as "who can help me win more votes in November?" or "who can raise more money for the party?" or "how can I turn my back on this woman/man who has been my friend for so many years?").
April 16, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
She does this so often, my head spins and I forget where we are.
And she runs like the Republican she really is so half the time I think it's the general and Obama is the Democrat running against the Republican Hillary-Joe.
She spins this shit so fast - I think that's Carville - who is about 3/4's snake.
April 16, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell yes. I'd also tell a plurality of people that they were wrong if they kept running red lights. This is about rules and process and that's about it - you aren't paying attention.
This is not the general election. There are rules about the operation of our primary and a lot of them were agreed upon by both candidates in advance.
They are bound by their agreements - like in binding arbitration -
So don't go all Yankee Doodle Dandy Liberty for All on me - this is different.
April 16, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This is about rules and process and that's about it"
Right. And the rules clearly allow for superdelegates to make an informed decision. Clinton and her supporters like me will argue that the popular vote is more democratic than pledged delegate totals. We will point to the discrepancy between the primary results and caucus results in TX and WA to show that Clinton does better when people aren't disenfranchised.
All the online tantrums you throw won't make those arguments any less valid, not will they suddenly change the rules.
April 16, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point is well taken. We are mostly acting aggrieved at the mere thought that superdelegates might do this or that, when in fact we have no idea what they actually will do and no control over it one way or the other. Clinton's supporters are welcome to try to persuade the superdelegates, by whatever arguments that they can muster, to back Sen Clinton's candidacy. I do not half fancy your chances, but I certainly concede that you guys are entitled to make your pitch.
That said, I think that the hope that you will have a strong argument based on the popular vote is rather more an exercise in wishful thinking than anything else. The idea that she could pull ahead in the popular vote metric was always premised on the assumptions that she would 1) win big in PA, 2) keep it close in NC and (as in, all three of these need to happen in order for it to work) 3) win in IN. Both the big win in PA and the narrow loss in NC are looking less and less likely.
April 16, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand what you are saying but I have a different issue with all the "popular vote" talk. My concern is more that the Clinton campaign & traditional media essentially have invented and propagated this notion that the popular vote is a metric to consider at all.
Even when you leave FL & MI out of consideration, there are a number of caucus states that did not record the actual number of caucus votes. They only recorded and reported the number of delegates elected at the caucuses which is obviously a much smaller number than the number of people who voted in the caucus.
So in those caucus states where the total number of caucus voters were not recorded, we couldn't get a true number. The only option would be to extrapolate or some other such nonsense which could easily turn into it's own rabbit hole. All for a measurement that is not even a part of our party's nominating process.
I completely agree that we have no control in what the super delegates do and frankly, I have confidence that the outcome will be fair.
The larger concern I have is that the actual electorate, voters, Democrats - you know - the people are buying the popular vote meme. If it turns out that HRC wins the popular vote (however it ultimately gets defined) and BHO wins the delegates and the nomination, then this whole popular vote fantasy will just be one more thing to repair before November.
April 16, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all are talking about the wrong issue. The question this poll attempts to answer is, what method would most Democratic voters believe is best to decide a close primary race. It goes directly to the question of what makes a "legitimate" candidate. The poll shows that by far the *least* acceptable method is the delegate count, and that a (to me) surprisingly large minority want superdelegates to exercise their own judgement independent of primary voters. Aside from a funny comment on the irrationality of the typical Democratic voter (either it should be the popular vote--of an election tiny numbers of people participate in--or the smoke-filled room...), this poll actually supports what the Clinton camp has been saying about the delegate lead all along. As an Obama supporter, I find it hard to believe I just wrote that. It doesn't do much for Clinton if she loses the popular vote (whatever that actually is), of course.
April 16, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A fine and worthy point. Thank you for introducing a needed correction into the conversation.
April 16, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incidentally, I would offer a minor refinement on your point - this polls speaks to what democratic voters think makes a "legitimate" candidate at this moment in time. I dare say that most of them have not yet bothered to take notice of the chimerical nature of "the popular vote." As time draws nearer for supers to make such decisions (either at this hypothetical superdelegate primary or at the convention) you can be sure that each campaign will be out there pitching the tally that reflects its own best case, at which point I expect that the poll results will suddenly show a drop in confidence of "the popular vote" as a measure of legitimacy (or at least a fracturing of support, as respondants each weigh which tally they find "most" legitimate).
April 16, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was typing my post to you (above) and you just brought up something I hadn't even thought about. That reminded me of all the people who didn't know what super delegates were two or three months ago. Which puts a new light on my one concern about this whole popular vote dealio.
Thanks Greg - you are so good!
April 16, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know you think you saw this all differently, but you just came right back around to the same problem.
"Popular vote" has no meaning in this process - it cannot really be determined and you are buying her smoke and mirrors, dude.
This is the primary and it doesn't matter what a plurality of a poll wants - there are rules and they were set already.
It's irrelevant.
April 16, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to make the point clearer:
This "poll" doesn't matter. Supers aren't going to refer to some poll when deciding who to nominate.
They are going to look at a variety of things, including the delegate count, despite what 46% of "leaned" Democrats think.
April 16, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
But there's more - see, she wants to pretend there is this thing called the "popular vote" and there isn't because I maintain the caucus votes were nothing more than popular votes. Those weren't backroom deals - voters lined back up and voted. It was a vote - and delegates were apportioned based on those votes and the vote at the polls that day.
You cannot really discuss "popular vote" in this context like it has some separate meaning - it really doesn't.
April 16, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What they are doing boys and girls, is trying their damnedest to invoke the memory of Al Gore.
Ok? Got it now? There is no such thing as popular vote in a primary, really. They are playing a game here.
April 16, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Other interesting responses from that poll:
16. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) How would you describe the tone of the Democratic campaign so far? Would you say it has been mostly (positive) or mostly (negative) in tone?
Mostly Mostly About equal No
positive negative (vol.) opinion
4/13/08 53 41 4 2
2/1/08 64 27 5 4
16a. (IF MOSTLY NEGATIVE) Which campaign do you mainly blame for that?
Both Neither No
Clinton's Obama's (vol.) (vol.) opinion
4/13/08 52 14 25 4 5
2/1/08 48 17 28 4 2
(hope this posts right)
And a majority (51%) think Wright won't be an issue in the general.
28. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) How concerned are you that the Republicans would be able to use Wright's comments effectively against Obama in a general election campaign - very concerned, somewhat concerned, not so concerned or not concerned at all?
----- Concerned ----- ----- Not concerned -----
NET Very Somewhat NET Not so Not at all No opinion
4/13/08 47 15 32 51 21 30 2
April 16, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
as I feared, total screw up. Oh well, look at the poll, read the numbers yourself. Very interesting stuff buried in there.
April 16, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, I noticed those points myself. The other interesting point is that the anti-Obama folks were just as likely to vote for Obama in Nov if he gets the nod as the anti-Clinton folks are to vote for Clinton in Nov if she gets it. In other words, the WaPo did not find, as others have reported, that her supporters are more likely to bolt than his if the nomination goes to the opposing candidate.
April 16, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
good find. I missed that.
April 16, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the face of it, the idea that the super delegates reflect the result of the elected delegates and the popular vote makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, that ignores one facet of statistics that comes into play, here. The question is what is the population that makes up the subset of super delegates? They are pretty much from a different demographic, economically, and probably educationally, than the electorate in their states, and may vote in a similar fashion to their demographic, a subset of the total vote in their state. Also, they bear a responsibility to vote in the best interests of the party and the country, and you have to wonder how they will see that duty? Try to determine their demographics and how it voted in their state primary to look for some insight into how they might vote. Also, and I haven't looked into this, are there any states that haven't had caucuses or primaries, and what can we expect their delegates to do at the convention? They'll have no popular vote to base any allocation of delegates on, and there is no reason for them to mirror national figures.
April 16, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The latest poll, out today on the Washington Post shows that Hillary's negatives have gone sky high, which means that she has no chance of ever winning a general election campaign.
You will not see TPM drawing much attention to this:
Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton
By Anne E. Kornblut and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 16, 2008; A06
PHILADELPHIA, April 15 -- Lost in the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign's aggressive attacks on Barack Obama in recent days is a deep and enduring problem that threatens to undercut any inroads Clinton has made in her struggle to overtake him in the Democratic presidential race: She has lost trust among voters, a majority of whom now view her as dishonest.
Her advisers' efforts to deal with the problem -- by having her acknowledge her mistakes and crack self-deprecating jokes -- do not seem to have succeeded. Privately, the aides admit that the recent controversy over her claim to have ducked sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia probably made things worse.
Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.
Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006; among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent. Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent. Majorities of men and women now say the phrase does not apply to Clinton; two years ago, narrow majorities of both did.
April 16, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those are interesting - thanks for that.
April 16, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This poll question makes the assumption that people even understand what the popular vote is and what it means. Hell, I'm a political junkie, and I have trouble figuring out what it means.
I suspect that most people think the popular vote is something that is consistent across the board. I suspect most people have no idea that we don't have turnout numbers from several caucus states.
If you started asking people questions about the nitty gritty, i.e., do you think it's fair to exclude certain caucus states from popular vote totals, you'd get far different answers. If you asked people if it was fair to include popular vote totals from a state where Hillary Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot, you'd get far different answer.
Devil, there are your details. Dive in.
April 16, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely. And while folks (including superdelegates) might not be thinking about this consideration right now, you can be sure that once voting ends and the race focuses entirely on supers, that each campaign will be pitching its own favorite count, which will bring the chimerical nature of this particular metric very much into the consciousness of the voters.
April 16, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is anyone going to report that Obama got 3 more Super Delegates today?
Bueller...
Bueller...
Bueller...
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
If we get enough of these by June, the convention and Hillary Clinton become irrelevant.
April 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's really something that TPM is pushing this ridiculous idea. HRC and her supporters are for it precisely because there is no reliable and agreed upon way to figure out what the supposed popular vote is. Wolfson must be so pleased.
April 16, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Counting the popular vote is just a way to shortchange Obama, because he did very well in Caucus states.
It is no wonder Obama did well in caucuses, because the caucus voters are better informed and more dedicated. Some caucus voters in Texas had to hang around 12 hours to get their votes counted, because Clinton supporters tried to run out the clock by challenging everything.
If you are going to play games with "popular vote", then you need to adjust caucus vote counts by a multiplier to estimate what turnout would have been had the state done a primary.
April 16, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink