The Latest Popular Vote Counts
According to ABC News's count, Hillary's big win yesterday in West Virginia has put her ahead again in the popular vote -- but only if you count Florida and Michigan:
Hillary: 16,691,403Obama: 16,647,965
Hillary had edged ahead by this metric after Pennsylvania, and now has got this lead back. But if you exclude Florida and Michigan, Obama is still leading by over half a million votes:
Hillary: 15,492,108Obama: 16,071,751
Given the Hillary campaign's argument that the popular vote should be seen as a crucial metric, here's something that bears watching. If some sort of deal is reached to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, it'll be interesting to see how both campaigns spin the significance of that deal in terms of counting the popular vote in those states.
Of course, given that Obama is now less than 150 delegates overall from securing the nomination, all this could prove to be moot.
Late Update: It's also worth pointing out that Obama would still lead in the popular vote even with Michigan factored in, if a fraction of the state's "uncommitted" vote is credited to his column.
Give me a quarter and the popular vote count and I can buy a donut. It won't buy a nomination.
May 14, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where can you get a donut for a quarter?!
May 14, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Krispy Kreme donut holes are 25 cents each here. Does that count?
May 14, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are they counting zero votes for Obama in MI? If so this is doubly bullshit.
May 14, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then serve yourself a heaping plateful.
May 14, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
lol, Present!
May 14, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bon appetit!
May 14, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahaha!
May 14, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, did you factor in the votes in caucus states?
May 14, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
This, and the fate of the 'uncommitted' votes in MI, is my question as well. RealClearPolitics has a much more realistic spreadsheet. The only way Clinton leads in that metric is if you include FL and MI, but not Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.
May 14, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg? Are the caucus votes included in the ABC popular vote count?
May 14, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
INQUIRY: If the votes were for Clinton, would they not be better deifined as 'unpopular' votes?
May 14, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was funny. And usually I hate what you say.
May 14, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are all not factored in, which is one reason the popular vote tally is such a horrible metric to use. The Clinton camp's argument fails on so many levels. This is simply the last horse-race element left to cover.
Assuming FL and MI popular votes count, which is in itself a stretch, their arguments still have holes and contradictions.
For example, some "Uncommitted" voters were certainly Obama supporters. One can get a fairly accurate estimate by using exit polling data to count who voted "uncommitted," but would have voted Obama if he was on the ballot. The above tally fails to do so.
Morevoer, Clinton argues that MI and FL voters cannot be disenfranchised, but has no problem not counting the voters in IA, NV, ME, and WA. Huh?
May 14, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The TX caucuses were fraudulent.
This is documented by witnesses.
May 14, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Greg. With caucus states, Obama is ahead even with MI & FL. If you're going to wade into this mess, you should present the whole story.
May 14, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You must be new around here.
May 14, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed - to exclude voters in states that DID follow party rules (without stating that you are excluding them) does make this story very Bush-like....
May 14, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And as I note way down this list, if you include Washington State's meaningless primary results (and why not if Michigan gets to count) then the 49,000 vote margin for Obama there still puts him ahead. Of course this ignores the votes of the caucuses in Washington, but at least it would show slightly more consistency.
May 14, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that figure giving "uncommitted" in MI to Obama?
May 14, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. Read the whole story.
May 14, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I saw you weren't gonna trot out a post for every Super-del, I was like, man, I sure as hell hope they trot out every Clinton talking point.
Whew! You did! Thank goodness. Sugary goodness! Afterall, she just might win this thing yet!
Afterall if you cherrry pick what a popular vote my look like, she's winning!
May 14, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
wow, we back on the "bias" nonsense?
how dispiriting
please stop?
May 14, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps not reflective of a bias, but certainly another example of serving as a moutpiece for the Hillary campaign's talking points, no matter how preposterous they may be. Just by way of example, the post opens with a citation to ABC News and leads with the illegitimate numbers (including Florida, zero votes for Obama in Michigan, and no accounting for various caucus states) Hillary relies on to prop up her quickly sinking candidacy.
Greg, even you have to admit that's giving WAY too much credence to Camp Hillary. A bit beyond the pale...
May 14, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. That was the point I was gonna make.
May 14, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's worth pointing out, though, because it's the kind of crap you're going to be hearing out of the Hillary camp for the next few days, just like after she won PA.
May 14, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but Greg's bias is inescapable. It is not so much the articles that he posts, it is more of the way that he presents these views. Almost all the other news outlets have articles about how Obama is moving ahead in spite of the W Virgnia loss.
Greg makes a post high-lighting HRC latest bogus claim. It is only in the details that he shows how this might not be totally accurate. Even the ABC site he references doesn't highlight the popular vote claim nearly as much as Greg!
So I do agree with Greg on this point - please stop your bias!!!
May 14, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait for you guys to vomit in your mouth a little bit.
May 14, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eh, maybe Greg just wanted to highlight how desperate the Clintonites are these days?
May 14, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree - this is not the full story, without stating that it is not the full story - so yes, BIASED!
May 14, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good God Greg. Thicken your skin a bit. Anyone posting links and adding commentary or analysis on blogs is going to be subject to the charge of bias from one partisan to the next. Poor Ben Smith over at Politico is lambasted each and every time he posts. It goes with the territory.
May 14, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
it isn't a matter of thick or thin skin. I don't care at all about getting attacked etc. etc.
I just think that the bias nonsense degrades the quality of the discussion on the site -- and as a result, harms the site itself. That's all I care about
May 14, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Might I respectfully inquire what popular vote numbers you chose to include for IA, NV, ME and WA?
May 14, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damned comments issues!
Greg, instead of intimating that commenters who question whether you have a bias are somehow degrading the quality of the site, could you please do something about this Godzilla asshole, who is truly degrading the quality of the discussion and the site? What's really dispiriting and tiresome is scrolling through all of his bullshit - he is spamming every thread and making a general nuisance of himself, which he has done for months now under a half-dozen different aliases.
May 14, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have a problem with posting the Hillary propaganda, but how about balancing it with the "truth?" I think your incomplete post does more to harm the site then anything else.
May 14, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure that Greg understands the territory quite well by now. I see no problem with him defending himself from bias accusations (though I think it's perhaps futile).
And for the record, I would have liked like to see a more critical analysis of ABC's numbers.
May 14, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then provide it. You have time to make your shirt change colors, surely you have time to provide your own spin.
My take on popular vote is you should use what you know. If you know the popular vote in a caucus state, use it. If you know a candidate's popular vote in a primary state, use it. Make you case. Argue and buzz.
But what difference does it make? The nomination will be settled at the convention when the seated delegates cast their votes on the first ballot - or, if necessary, the second.
TPM flashing polls and vote counts around is just bait to build controversy and keep the readership engaged.
May 14, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have presented it and crunched the numbers myself, as you well know because you were all over the threads:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/the-beginning-of-the-end-or-ho.php
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/the-end-has-begun.php
It's important because truth is always important, because the media affects what people believe, and because Greg has a much bigger voice than I have.
And Greg, thanks for the late update. I still believe that ABC's count is misleading and wish you had presented it that way. I count on TPM to expose media misrepresentations.
May 14, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Expose them yourself. You seem to have time.
May 14, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a reminder, I got interested in TPM when I was doing some research on citjour in the Middle East for Net Zero and I noticed Juan Cole plugging TPM as Progressive Potitics, elegantly argued. When I realized my personal diary had become almost exclusively about the campaign, I decided to post at TPM instead.
I think the reader blogs are an extension of Marshall's philosophy of enrolling readers in the process. Posting DOJ memos and asking readers to search through them for muck, for example. The blogs extend the opinion side of TPM.
That some readers would choose to use the reader blog space for performance art and satire instead of straightforward political comment is probably something Marshall, who seems a little square and uptight, never contemplated.
You should leave the analyis to people who know how to do it and stick to satire. Greg is professional. You are a flashing shirt.
May 14, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Billy, you are too kind. A number of people politely disagreed with my predictions in the first thread. Most of them had the grace to acknowledge that I had been correct in the second thread. You disagreed more vociferously and, I might add, pompously than the others, but you not only failed to acknowledge that you were wrong, you've now insulted my writing on top of that--adding insult to error, as it were.
I don't know if you've detected the pattern behind my snark. I try to respond snarkily to sincerity only when the sincerity lacks merit. I have sometimes enjoyed your posts and comments, which have offered a valuable counterpoint to the prevailing viewpoint at the cafe, but lately, many of your contributions have become vapid and derogatory, with little redeeming substance. So I will follow your intelligent suggestion in part. I'll continue to offer serious analysis when I have something to say, but for you, it will now be all snark all the time.
May 14, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw, killer. Let me live, killer. I don't know what you do for a living when you're not here snarking, but I'm sure it's not political analysis or interpretation. Why pretend you're in Greg's league? He works hard, has integrity, networks with people who have some inside info. As I've said many times. If he clips it and posts it, he gets to headline it and characterize it. Your comments treat him like he's your employee or something. You don't know your place.
May 14, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, billy.
Please forgive me, Greg Sargent. I was wrong to employ my critical faculties. They're useless except for ha-has. I will stick to ha-has like billy told me to do.
May 14, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, of course, but I am not sure that this maxim necessarily resolves anything. I know what the votes in the Iowa straw poll were. I know what the tallies were from the mock ballot box set up at my wife's just-sworn-in-as-a-citizen party. Should I factor those into the total? They are each worth just as much (no more, no less) than the unconstitutional election which they held in January in Michigan. In other words, just because I "know" a number does not imply that said number has any bearing on the matter at hand.
May 14, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell yes, use them. And the "primary" vote in Washington, too. Whatever makes you feel like you know the will of the people. For what that's worth.
May 14, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the point that one is counting "votes" taken in fora that are not even sanctioned elections, is one really assessing the "will" of the voters in any meaningful sense? It seems to me that my majic 8 ball is just as reliable a measure of the "will of the voters" as we achieve by recourse to your "use what you know" principle.
May 14, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg D, don't sell your magic 8 ball short. It's a perfectly reliable predictor if you distort the actual outcome properly.
May 14, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hum.
Who needs a majerck 8 ball, lets try a little common sense.
The voters that voted for Hillary, voted for Hillary.
Give Obama the rest.
Problems, anyone?
May 15, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too logical and fair for the echo chamber.
May 15, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not bias, but it's laziness to use the ABC number when RCP gives the totals for every scenario that matters (except for MI w/ uncom. to Obama, I guess). Also, the internals for the ABC numbers are outdated with respect to Ohio, at the least. Their number of Obama in OH is 982,489, well shy of the now-official count of 1,055,769. The RCP number generally give a higher total vote count than ABC, but Ohio is the only really egregious case.
It's also questionable to look at one Clinton talking point in retrospect (up in the popular vote if you count Michigan and ignore caucus estimates!) to see how it's held up after analysis without looking at her other claim, that she'd already have won in the GOP system. She's personally repeated that several times, as has Bill and a slew of other surrogates, and it's simply not true when you run the numbers no matter how you slice it.
May 14, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the reminder about RCP. The link to their page on the popular vote is here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html (I've given up on trying to make the formatting nice and pretty - I just don't know HTML.)
RCP explores six different scenarios regarding the popular vote, and Clinton only wins one of them (w/FL & MI, and giving Obama zero votes in MI), and then by a mere 0.08%. But, using the same metric of counting FL and MI, if the results from the caucuses in IA, NV, ME and WA are also figured in, Obama wins instead (by 0.22%). Clinton has a profoundly weak argument - nonsensical might describe it better.
I wouldn't go so far as to describe Greg as biased, but I would like to see what he says about the RCP numbers. It may be that it's a mistake to use numbers from any of the news outlets, since they have a vested interest (ratings) in drawing this thing out as long as possible.
May 14, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote an extremely erudite and brilliant reply that should have been posted here, but the site ate it. Here's a link to the RCP numbers instead: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
May 14, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey...it did post!
The page had rolled over to something that said there was a database error, and when I backed up, the post was seemingly disappeared into the ether.
Andrew, did you notice this?
May 14, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg: I appreciate you doing what you do. And I won't even accuse you of bias. I would only say that if I had written that post, there is no way I would even suggest she has the "popular" vote if you include MI and FL, as that is a non-issue until something is decided. To even suggest she gets MI when the other candidate was not on the ballot is twilight zone. This type of stuff just gives HRC credence to her ridiculous world of numbers and outcomes, and in that regard, it should be ignored.
May 14, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
No Greg, YOU stop with the "dispiriting" nonsense and the fraudulent numbers that Clinton is pushing. By not counting the votes we do have numbers for in caucus states, not counting a single vote in Michigan for "uncommitted" in the Obama column but counting all of them Clinton got in the unsanctioned election where Obama followed the rules and his name was not on the ballot, etc. etc.
It is beyond intellectually dishonest Greg.
That you push this horse-shit, and you are being rightly called to task for it, is a more than legitimate critique. The question is, are you willing to descend further into intellectual hack because of our proximity to Clinton PR flacks? Or are you going to begin to try and rebuild your already damaged credibility?
May 14, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although I returned through time to protect Hillary Clinton and to defend the Democratic Party, I often rise to the defense of idealistic young people like Greg who work for low wages because they believe in what they are doing and in the American way of life. Please leave Greg alone.
May 14, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not when Greg pushes fraudulent numbers to promote a bogus talking point. Nobody gets a pass. Unless you think being intellectually dishonest should get a pass because Greg is willing to work for low wages, which is a pretty laughable proposition you got going there.
"It's ok if he flings bullshit, he really means it and he works on the cheap because be believes in his cause so much."
Is that really what you want to hang you hat on?
May 14, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Move out of the shadows so I can see your hands.
May 14, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great nonresponse.
May 14, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I actually think I am getting better at responding to comments with the seriousness they deserve.
Step out of the shadows and show me your hands.
May 14, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I used to think you were one of the few Clinton backers here that wasn't an intellectual fraud. Guess I was being to generous.
May 14, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're making me nervous.
May 14, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paranoids often feel that way. Maybe you need some "Change you deserve" and you will feel better.
May 14, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I figured you were hiding a link of some kind behind your back.
May 14, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
'to' bad.
May 15, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lance Link? I've got your back, fella.
May 15, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad, noble defender of the downtrodden underpaid journalists. What would they do without you?
May 14, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear!
May 14, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't that number exclude four caucus states as well?
Let's be real people; the popular vote DOES NOT MATTER. It is only significant in that some Super Delegates MIGHT (but probably won't, they aren't stupid) consider it before pledging their support.
May 14, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Popular vote does not count!?!
Usually, it does count in the GE. This is called Democracy with a capital D.
But that has never seemed to matter very much to Obama.
When he decided to take his name off the ballot in Michigan he told a DNC member who was begging him to keep it on that he couldn't win in Michigan because Granholm was for Clinton and the Unions would be for Edwards.
So, no, all of you who believe that he did this because of his moral adherence to the rules are his suckers.
Also, I should think your heads should be spinning a little -- when the popular vote favors Obama he held it to be all important but now that it doesn't it's all about delegates.
What it should be all about is who can win in November.
If Obama gains the nomination the Republicans win -- McCain as a truly labelled Republican and Obama as a President who only got there Republican votes. Of course, Obama only wins if his Republican fans stick .....
May 14, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Self-delusional, my friend. Every candidate took their name off the ballot, with the exception of Hillary, who unsurprisingly tried to game the system by explaning that the ONLY reason she was leaving her name on the ballot was because the vote wouldn't count for anything. She is the unequivocal, and sadly unabashed, queen of hypocrisy and duplicity. Enjoy.
May 14, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, not really. The electoral vote is what counts in the GE, not the popular vote. Otherwise President Clinton would have faced run-off elections and Gore would have won in 2000.
May 14, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, how can I not be convinced by your irrefutable recourse to unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable hearsay?
May 14, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really don't know much about the American political system, do you?
May 14, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tell it to President Gore.
May 14, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even leaving aside the Electoral College argument, this so-called "popular vote" bears no relation to the popular vote in the general election. Calling them the same thing is an exercise in simple deception by the Clinton campaign. First, all the caucus states that don't report the vote totals are excluded. They won't be in November. But more important, since caucus participation is much lower than primary participation and general election participation, if you pretend that "people who voted in primaries and caucuses" equals "popular vote", states with caucuses are highly underrepresented compared to their weight in the fall. (Hmmm, "caucus states don't count", where have I heard that before?)
In short, raw primary vote count is not "popular vote," and tells you nothing about who "really" won. That's why delegates are the measure of success, the entire primary process is designed to measure success by winning delegates, and any other measure is spin and distraction.
May 14, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
hillary clinton will finish with leading in the popular vote come June 3rd..... whether michigan and florida are counted or not.
May 14, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
So even if FL and MI are excluded, you are confident that she will still be ahead in "the popular vote" tally? I admire your confidence, even as I doubt your mathematical acumen. She is over 700 thousand votes behind him if you ignore the two illicit elections. Given that Oregon, Montana and South Dakota will likely wash out the margins she will achieve in Kentucky (indeed, she will actually be a little bit farther behind him after those three are done) she would have to take 800 thousand of Puerto Rico's 900 thousand votes in order to achieve that goal (assuming that the predicted 900 thousand vote turn-out is actually achieved in Puerto Rico, a dubious proposition in itself. After all, 400 thousand were predicted to turn out in WV, but only 350 thousand actually came to the polls). She is currently leading in the one poll taken in PR, but even there she was not as far ahead of him as all that.
May 14, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I love your posts, Greg. They are so logical and factual. No spin, just truth. As always, thank you, sir!! ;)
May 14, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, I just did a reader blog breaking down the numbers for this.
May 14, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
This election is bs and Clinton should be the nominee.
May 14, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, your posts are bullshit.
And largely unoriginal rantings that sound like schoolyard taunting.
May 14, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, don't feed the trolls.
May 14, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me think about your argument and get back to you.
May 14, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And why is that, pray tell? Just because you really really want it? Too bad your candidate (and my 'home' Senator, sadly) got outplayed.
May 14, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if Obama can't beat McCain, who got outplayed then?
McCain is tied to the most impeachable administration in history, the economy is in the toilet, the price of gas getting hard to bear, the housing market collapsing, and we're in the middle of a horrible military adventure in the Middle East, liberal Supreme Court justices about to die or retire, just holding on for a Dem President, most Americans are finally fed up with the crisis in healthcare -- and you geniuses nominate the one Democrat in America who might conceivably lose to McCain.
And who cares why he might lose? That, in these circumstances, he might lose should be enough for you, but it won't be.
Unbelievable. Or it would be if I hadn't just spent 4 months in the echo chamber, learning how you people think.
May 14, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Considering Obama polls better against McCain in the most recent polls than Clinton does your FUD argument is as bogus as Greg's fraudulent "popular vote" numbers and metric that HRC are pushing
May 14, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like to use electoral vote models, since that's what the general election is about.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Here's my favorite one right now. I like it because it makes a case for Clinton. And it's based on real polls, not just imaginary scenarios as the ones that favor Obama are.
May 14, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks god that someone has stood up to the rationalized justification of cherry-picked data.
May 14, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Other models give roughly equal chances to Obama and Clinton, with both of them trailing McCain by a tiny bit.
May 14, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your link doesn't work.
May 14, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are a bunch of them out there that show Obama winning against McCain. If you can find one that works for you, use it.
May 14, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, billy glad. There is no reality. No truth outside our own projections. There is only Will to Power.
May 14, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/
Technically, it shows both Obama and Clinton losing to McCain by tiny, and roughly equal, margins.
May 14, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have I picked up a new personal troll? Better check my supply of troll food and old shirts.
May 14, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
The only thing Hillary has on Obama is Bill. And, even with that trump card, her inevitable campaign was found extremely lacking. As she flailed her arms and cried and complained, her only strategy was to back-stab the Democratic candidate that had a solid message, was bringing new people into the process, and showed the most promise to bring concession to the country.
Now, after knee-capping and forcing Obama to fight on three fronts (Clintons, GOP and MSM), her path to the nomination is still extremely narrow. If she were anyone else (i.e., not Bill's wife), she would have been side-lined by the media in February. The free media attention, more than the front-runner has received, is what has kept her in. Yet, her campaign has the audacity to bitch about the coverage. Her campaign is deluded. Her followers are either uninformed or deluded. Since you are informed, that leaves one option for you.
Hillary is not the better choice for November or for America. The Clintons will mobilize the right-wing like it was 1998, and will lose in November. If they managed to slide by in November, they will resurrect the drama (they have already) that kept the country from moving in a progressive direction during their administration. Its a stale-mate either way.
May 14, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama is unifying the Republican base in ways we are just beginning to understand. For McCain to win, they couldn't find a better chance than Obama. He gives them so many ways to win. His campaign should be doing everything they can to get Clinton to take the VP slot if Obama gets nominated. I think they will go for something like an Appalacian strategy similar to the Southern strategy in 1960 that another reader reminded me of the other night. I had remembered Johnson getting on the Kennedy ticket in return for delegates. Another reader pointed out that he actually got on the ticket because Kennedy thought he needed Johnson's strength in the South.
May 14, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just the opposite actually. The GOP has to play defense in states they normally would not have to with Obama's path vs. playing the same failed FL, OH, PA strategy that is Clinton's path.
May 14, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting theory, but so far the models don't seem to bear it out. Maybe as we get closer to the general, state polls will change and Obama will come up in the electoral vote models. Right now, it appears he has some catching up to do.
But, let me ask you this. In a year when almost any Democrat alive could beat McCain, do we really want one that is putting his hopes on a new electoral vote strategy? Isn't there too much at stake to try something like that this year?
May 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Your reasoning does not support your conclusion here. A year when we are guaranteed to win is precisely the sort of year when we should try to redraw the electoral map. This is our chance to set ourselves boldly in position to capture many victories down the road; not to cower timidly behind a strategy that only kind-of-sort-of works even in a good year.
May 14, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you two met?
(I love to play Cupid)
May 14, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
And in Bizzaro World she is.
May 14, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's down to that?
Will the next post read simply, "(crying and kicking and screaming)"?
May 14, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Crying and kicking and what was the third one?
May 14, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. That popular vote total doesn't include caucus states, rendering the entire disussion pointless. It's why delegates are the metric.
But Greg is right about the popular vote argument in that the Clintons are going to claim Michigan and Florida should put them over the top. Bogus? Yes. Beneath the Clintons? Sadly, no.
May 14, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
That figure gives Obama zero votes in Michigan. Or, a 300,000 vote victory by Clinton in a state where the candidates poll evenly. Um, ridiculous?
May 14, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
And 300,000 vote by Clinton in a state where 45% of Democrats came out TO VOTE AGAINST HER!!! Doubly ridiculous. And the count does not include some caucus states that didn't release voter totals. This popular vote metric is absolutely absurd and, from the number of supers that have come out for Obama in the past couple of weeks, it doesn't look like this metric is being taken seriously at all.
May 14, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is ridiculous is you thinking you know why or who should get those votes for "other." If Obama wanted them, he should have left his name on the ballot. What we do know is how many MI voters voted for Clinton. She has a right to those votes and to the delegates they represent. The delegates for other can vote however they want on the first round. If, as you say, they belong to Obama, they can vote for him.
Forget the popular vote. How did the delegates get apportioned?
May 14, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, so counting votes in a non-sanctioned election where Clinton was the only candidate (save Gravel and Kucinich) on the ballot is a legitimate tally and a better gauge of the will of the voters?
May 14, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saying that she should get the delegates she won and the "uncommitted" delegates should go to the convention uncommitted. Presumably, they would make their commitment at the convention, possibly for Obama. I'm not sure I've heard a good argument against that proposal.
May 14, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure that I have heard a good argument in favor of that proposal. The election was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. It was never licit from within the rules of the DNC. As such, it has no standing from the perspective either of the party or the state itself. For all intents and purposes, there has been no election in MI, a most regrettable circumstance but impossible to remedy at this point. One would do just as well to apportion the delegates based on the a straw poll on the steps of the Univ of MI as to apportion them based on the January election. Each method is as meaningless as the other.
May 14, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now its delegates in a thread about the meaningless popular vote metric that HRC is pushing?
Why are you arguing against what Hillary herself said about seating the Michigan delgates?
May 14, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary doesn't think or speak for me. She can push the popular vote meme until she's blue in the face if she wants to. I don't care about the total, only how it plays out in electoral votes.
My Michigan solution would be to apportion the delegates between Hillary and uncommitted and send them to the convention. At the convention, the uncommitted delegates vote however they want.
Probably too straightforward to appeal to the professionals. Or maybe the Michigan Dem Party can't find truly uncommitted delegates to send. What do you think about the idea?
May 14, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy says:
So you have absolutely no problem with penalizing Obama for following the DNC rules? Because that's what your "solution" would do.
May 14, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
She followed the rules, too. In Florida and Michigan. They were both on the ballot in Florida, and he actually ran ads there while she didn't. She should get all of the Florida delegates she won, and he get all he won. In Michigan where neither of them campaigned, but it was no secret that a vote for uncommitted was a vote against Hillary. He can have the uncommitted delegates if they want to vote for him. Fair all the way around.
May 14, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this zero for Obama in Michigan? I'd like to know who in the party is willing to sign on to that scenario?
Besides McAuliffe and Clinton, that is.
May 14, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would suppose that most of the "uncommitted" delegates from Michigan would vote for Obama. If the delegates got apportioned that way.
May 14, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The popular vote meme is bullshit.
That's not how the Democratic nominee is selected.
Especially bullshit when no campaigning took place, and the presumptive nominee took his name off the ballot in one of the states, and was just catching fire against a very well-known first lady and the Clinton political machine.
May 14, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you are debunking the entire notion of popular votes meme with your last sentence, why this post at all ? Or is this post a snark ?
May 14, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's numbers apparently do include the zero for Michigan for Obama. It also ignors the four caucus states that didn't do popular vote counts (IA, NV, WA and ME)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
May 14, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
No they don't.
First, your link is to RCPs numbers, not the ABC numbers, and Second, the only ones in RCPs linked numbers you cite where Clinton is ahead is the row which includes FL and MI (but none of the uncommitted vote in MI) AND exclude the caucus states.
May 14, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A quick note on super-del policy here: Because Obama has what is essentially an insurmountable delegate lead, we won't be doing a post on every single super-del endorsement unless there's something remarkable about it. Instead, we'll do one or two daily posts wrapping up the day's super-del action."
How convenient. There is no excuse for you trying to gloss over each super delegate endorsement. Delegate accumulation is the name of the game, and each one has a different profile and regional story to tell. There is nothing more important, at this stage, to report on TPM than the individual stories of Super Delegates as they make their decisions.
I much prefer to hear what each super delegate has to say, than the "boiler plate" propaganda coming from spin doctors.
There is no excuse for TPM trying to diminish the coverage of each super delegate that announces an endorsement.
May 14, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moot, moot, moot!
And any attempt to count votes in MI is through-the-looking-glass style BULLSHIT, and we all know it.
May 14, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is RIDICULOUS to post this, giving credence to numbers including Michigan and Fl, and excluding several caucus states! Mr. Sargent, please stop doing the Clintons bidding!
May 14, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic, but did anyone watch MSNBC last night? Talk about gaffs, check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9C0S2h0gIo
May 14, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a nice clip. I think we need more people on our side making gaffes like that. :D
May 14, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
When that happened I was like, "Holy crap, the blogs are going to be all over this tomorrow."
I guess not.
May 14, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
sweet merciful crap. sigh.
May 14, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It gives Hillary a very powerful argument. True, according to the rules Michigan and Florida do not count, but their votes were certified as valid, and they are real people living in states that will vote in November. And the DNC knows that it can not afford to alienate those Democrats because we can't lose those states in November. So some kind of accommodation must be reached. True, Obama pulled his name from the Michigan ballot which complicates the calculation of his share of the vote. But even giving him all the "uncommitted" votes that were cast for Obama and Edwards still leaves him behind Hillary. And it is also true that he played politics and opposed efforts to conduct a re-vote, preferring instead to split the vote 50/50. If he continues along those lines, or refuses to recognize Michigan and Florida because of the rules, Hillary wins a moral victory, and re-unifying the Party becomes that much more difficult. As it stands, regardless of what Obama thinks, more people voted for Hillary than voted for him.
May 14, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Count the caucuses, those people voted too...and not for Shrillary.
May 14, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, they want to steal it like they did with Gore.
May 14, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Were Michigan's votes really certified? After all, a judge ruled the whole election unconstitutional after the fact. In other words, even excluding the rules of the DNC, Michigan's election does not even exist in the eyes of the law.
Do IA straw poll votes count in the popular vote tally? Do internet voting polls count? If I hold a cocktail party in the Michigan student union and set up a mock ballot-box there, do those votes count? All of the above carry the same legal and moral force as the results of Michigan's January primary vote.
May 14, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, Otto, adding in the uncommitted votes in Michigan would NOT leave him behind Hillary - sorry to burst your bubble (see Greg's "late update" above). The rest of your argument is bullshit, too, and the supers obviously aren't buying it. And, I might add, your candidate just refused to accept Michigan's latest compromise on delegate allocation, and don't think the supers didn't notice that, either. You do realize, don't you, that 45% of Michigan voters came out to vote against her? That's pretty astounding - 45% of voters cared enough to lodge a protest vote because they didn't want to see her win the nomination. That should give any Hillary supporter pause, but they choose to overlook that fact. Sad, really.
May 14, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only if you don't include certain caucus states:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
May 14, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would call it an argument, but not at all powerful.
For the superdelegates to overrule the will of the people expressed by the pledged delegates, it is going to take a much more compelling case than popular vote totals.
Short of Obama being caught in bed with a dead woman or a live man, he's our nominee.
May 14, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you serious?!
The latest count totals by any proper measure DO NOT include FL & MI & pretending they do is what we expect from some in the corp. media, but on TPM Greg?
YOU know they don't count, why write it as if they do?
This is the count:
Period.
May 14, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and it doesn't 'bears watching' as no one really expects the numbers to be counted (as is). Not a chance.
Maybe what bears watching is the side show of Clinton's delusion that supers buy into her bullshit.
May 14, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let Greg do his job. Stories like this boost the post count cuz of the 'Chum in Shark Infested Water' effect.
The more posts and hits . . . The greater the advertising dollars.
Enjoy the fact that there is a place to express facts and opinions freely. Anyway ***-illa baiting is way more entertaining than beating up on Eric and Greg.
May 14, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too true, man. And the reader blogs provide a forum where TPM "personalities" find a readership they couldn't build for themselves in years. There are a lot of reasons why TPM involves readers to the extent that it does -- and most of them are probably self-serving -- but, for whatever reason, Josh has chosen to share the wealth and the blogosphere might be more interesting because he has.
May 14, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Popular vote is BS. Many caucus states did not do an accurate count of the participants or do not release numbers because popular vote has never been a measurement for determining the Democratic candidate! It's a Delegate Race. If PV was a factor, those states would have acted differently. It is silly to allow one campaign to determine new standards or measurements that was not agreed upon with the DNC or the campaigns. Can we please stop talking about this as if this is legitimate?!?!?!
May 14, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
And according to ABC News, they use a formula to calculate the popular vote from caucuses, so let's not hear any nonsense about the caucuses not being reflected in the ABC News calculation.
May 14, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where does it say that?
May 14, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
AMEN... Otto F
I totally agree:)
May 14, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter version: Hillary can still win... as long as she is allowed to write her own rules and change them at any moment.
Greg, you know this popular vote thing is utter bullshit. It's simply not how Dem primaries work. Why do you keep flogging this long-dead horse?
May 14, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh... Okay, let's get something straight; none of these numbers Greg provided include Hillary's biggest state and largest win: the State Of Denial. When the State of Denials votes are counted Hillary is winning in a landslide.
But Greg, Biased Greg, refuses to include these voters. What, delusional people shouldn't be counted? Whatabout Gottalife and Rae, they're delusional, shouldn't they be allowed to vote?
May 14, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Posting about a metric that doesn't count. And, as you said in a previous post, not posting everytime a SD endorses Obama wich is a metric that counts... i just don't get it..
May 14, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great avatar.
May 15, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reason the popular vote argument is rearing its head is its the only metric Clinton can use to create doubt in Obama amongst the supers. Neither Obama nor Clinton are going to reach the magic number, which Clinton is now saying is something like 2209, but currently sits at 2025, is through the supers.
The good news is that there is only 3 weeks left of this campaign. Unless Clinton decides she's taking this all the way to the convention. Of course, that would be a form of political suicide, so I'm hoping for the survival instinct to kick in and prevent such an unfortunate outcome.
May 14, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, actually, I guess I will endorse. I gave money to W in 04 just to have the pleasure of 4 more years of cheap laughs, watching you dumb bunny Americans led by a moron. So I hereby officially endorse Barack Hussein Obama for President of the US (of the KKK of AA!).
----
I actually considered endorsing Obama last night, thinking, well, compared to most politicians he's not that bad, probably not dumb, and maybe even up to the job, despite a lack of any clear evidence to prove it. But then I thought, the three presidents in modern (post 1900) history with the least experience, by far, are W, Obama (assuming he were elected) and JFK. And W and JFK are actually among the worst, along with Harding.
W and JFK: loutish rich kids who went to Ivy institutions based on family money and social class. Undistinguished academic careers.
Obama: pompous middle-class kid who goes to Ivy institutions based on checking the "AA" box. Undistinguished academic career.
W: "businessman" living off sweetheart deals from people wanting a connection to Sr.
JFK: "writer" of Pulitzer winning book, written by someone else.
Obama: "law professor" who never published a single scholarly article, usually a requisite to teach law.
W: governor for a few years
JFK: Senator for a term
Obama: Senator or a few years
Performance:
W: well, pretty obvious
JFK: because he got assasinated, people get all weepy over Kennedy, but he was in fact not at all that good a president.
Obama: well, as Borat says, if you want, you can let a monkey fly a plane, but watch out, you don't know what's gonna happen!
So you have guys who never actually accomplished anything on their own, who are privileged by one reason or another, whose purported achievements are actually make-believe, and then they have the serious responsibilities of the presidency to handle.
Sorry, Obama's not proven and definitely not ready.
May 14, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Redux of "Cut and Paste Racism".
May 14, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, don't feed the trolls.
May 14, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody know which metric they are using for Texas. Primary count only or both primary and caucus count?
May 14, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I looked and it appears they are ignoring the Texas Caucus all together in the popular vote total.
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=TX
They also don't even show the delgates awarded there on the Texas page.
According to the estimates over a million Texans caucused with Obama getting 56%. That would be another 100,000 or so "votes" on his side of the ledger.
May 14, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You were REQUIRED to vote in the TX primary to vote in the caucus. Caucus voters are a strict subset of primary voters. There is no one who voted in the caucus (legally, anyway) that didn't also vote in the primary.
The popular vote count isn't worth a hill of beans, but this is the appropriate way to tally it in Texas.
May 14, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, but the whole Shrillary argument of "Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, so I deserve 100% of the votes" WILL NOT WORK!!!!! The above numbers account for her getting 100% of the MI vote and whatever she won in FL.
You remember FL - the state where all candidates agreed not to campaign, yet Shrillary made THREE "appearances" that suddenly turned into rallies that were hush-hushed.
"Whahhh...who's campaigning? Not me! These people are here for something else, I swear!"
May 14, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The delegate conventions in Michigan have awarded more pledged delegates to Hillary than the initial popular vote would have awarded, and she may get more still -- thus she is refusing Michigan's compromise.
This is not a development I think totally fair, it's party politics. that siad there may be nothing to be done. But there is still no way she should claim the uncommitted popular votes. that's absurd, and I don't see why Greg Sargent is tallying the numbres here as if the total Michigan popular vote belongs to her.
May 14, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
With HRC's Donut and Gas Tax Holiday plan
May 14, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Argh.
Argh.
ARGH.
I'm so sick of seeing any reference to a "popular vote". NO SUCH THING EXISTS IN THIS PRIMARY SYSTEM. In a presidential election, there is such a thing because it is "one person, one vote" and that applies to every American. Nice and easy and fair across the board.
In the Democratic primary, there are varying rules across the states. Sometimes primaries are open. Sometimes they are not. Sometimes primaries don't happen at all and caucuses do. Sometimes they both happen. There is NO way to throw all of that in a blender and claim that there is some equitable and fair popular vote standard across all 50 states. And I would say that if Obama was leading by 3,000,000 "popular" votes or behind by twice that number.
All that matters is who accrues delegates. He's doing it better than Senator Clinton, and has done so since Iowa. That is all that matters. The rest is noise.
May 14, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Untrue. Because of the Electoral College, your vote counts for more in smaller states. If the candidate you voted for loses your state, your vote doesn't count at all.
May 14, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except in the two states that award their electoral votes proportionally, Maine and Nebraska IIRC.
May 14, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there were no "ifs", Hillary Clinton loses. Is there any good reason to keep trotting out the hypotheticals? This is like listening to a 'homer' complaining about how his team got jobbed by the refs every single time the team loses.
She agreed to the rules. She accepted the rules. She's on tape saying that the results didn't count in those states. Terry McCauliffe fully supported and enforced those rules when he was DNC head. Can we knock off the crap already and stop pretending that Florida and Michigan are part of the total? They're not. They're just not. Wishing and hoping and repeatedly saying that they should count makes no difference. They don't count.
May 14, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep - cogent and indisputable statement of fact. Succinct and logical. Well done!!
May 14, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, instead of intimating that commenters who question whether you have a bias are somehow degrading the quality of the site, could you please do something about this Godzilla asshole, who is truly degrading the quality of the discussion and the site? What's really dispiriting and tiresome is scrolling through all of his bullshit - he is spamming every thread and making a general nuisance of himself, which he has done for months now under a half-dozen different aliases.
May 14, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, sad to say, girls are generally under-performers as well as AAs. Oh, sure they excel at Womyn's Studies, much as AAs excel at make-believe subjects like AA studies, but unfortunately feminist cant has greatly damaged the integrity of scholarship in a range of fields, from literature to history to art.
But you will find about as many girls at a string theory conference as you will find AAs: zero.
But girls, up to a certain age anyway, do have some social utility : )
But you're past that point by a couple of decades : (
May 14, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hard to believe you are accusing critics of degrading the site when you continue to let this Asshat post.
May 14, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, incidentally, lie about string theory conferences.
May 14, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The accusation of bias only works if you claim you are fair and balanced. If bloggers would just reveal who they support, bias accusations would be moot. And it's pretty insulting to the readers/viewers when you pitch yourself as neutral but it's clear from your posts that you do have an agenda. I'm not saying that Greg does that, but I've been reading Ben Smith for awhile and his posts are far from fair and balanced. Sometimes I think he does it on purpose to rile his readers up.
May 14, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Delegates elect the nominee; not a fantasy national popular vote metric. Obey the party rules. The delegate count is all that matters. It shows how much TPM is still trying to push the Clinton spin when they make a big deal out of a fantasy popular vote count that has no part in the party's nominating rules and procedures,while also telling us that they are going to not pay much attention to future Super Delegate endorsements of Senator Obama.
In the TPM/Clinton Fantasy Camp: Additional delegates for Obama must be downplayed, and Fantasy League popular vote tallies must be played up.
May 14, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Face it, at the end of this joke they call an election, more Americans spit out the kool aid.
May 14, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife, this is an actual sincere question:
When (not if) Obama secures the election, will you vote for him in the fall?
May 14, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, don't feed the trolls.
May 14, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder about ABC's loss of journalistic standards inasmuch as they are airing these numbers without even admitting that the totals give Obama 0 votes in Michigan [instead of projecting his totals from the 'uncommitted' 40% of all MI votes], and without even admitting that some caucus states' vote totals were not included.
Is ABC so diminished as to simply repeat the Hillary skewed cherry picking of these numbers? Furthermore, is ABC so diminished as to not add and clarify that the primary rules are about delegate totals, which makes the 'popular vote' substitution a false goal post?
May 14, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Peter Jennings is probably rolling in his grave. RIP. Always liked that guy.
May 14, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
ENOUGH!!! If you don't like the way the DNC runs the primary then leave the party. As Democrats we ALL agreed to the rules. The Democratic candidates agreed to the rules. We agreed to participate and abide my the DNC rules. Period. If this was reversed and Obama or any other candidate was where Clinton is right now, I would never denigrate myself, my party, my candidate or my fellow Democrats with such a disgusting, desperate attempt to change a sow's ear into a silk purse! And I seriously doubt that ANYONE would even have such a ludicrous discussion.
May 14, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen! It's not like HRC was blindsided by the rules.
May 14, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You all need to chill.
Superdelegates are smarter than the we think. This has been the point many of the delegate math freaks have been making for about 2 months. Obama's pledged delegate lead is susbstantial and the SDs understand that to be the true measure of support. SDs who have any objectivity aren't counting FL and MI - and SDs who endorse Clinton using the popular vote that includes FL and MI are just people who would have endorsed Clinton anyway but wanted a justification (perhaps so they don't alienate Obama supporters in their district?).
Who freakin cares?
Obama = presumptive nominee.
It's all good people.
May 14, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, I like the CGI Yoda better than the original puppet Yoda ;-)
May 14, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can you say something that is so clearly puppetist?
This just goes to show that puppetism is alive and well in America.
You and your CGI loving, latte drinking, birkenstock wearing ilk can kiss my green...
May 14, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Are you little yoda guys going to fight? I want the winner.
May 14, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get the blue guy in here, and we'll take you both on. But none of that levitation and bending things with your minds, okay?
May 14, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool, yoda fight.
May 14, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. Does anyone truly believe it is ok to count Hillary's votes in Michigan and give Obama zero?
Wouldn't this be the opposite of what all those Clinton supporters mean when they chant "count the votes?"
In what universe does this make sense? Drop it. The party will never sanction giving Hillary votes from Michigan unless there is a corresponding allotment given to Obama. It's just not going to happen.
May 14, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is also another factor in determining the popular vote. Formulas are used to extrapolate a popular vote figure from the caucuses. Obama won caucuses through better planning and organization, plus the enthusiasm of his younger constituents. Therefore I expect that his higher caucus performance translates into a larger popular vote calculation than would have been realized if the primaries were actual votes.
May 14, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, so yet another reason that the popular vote is meaningless. So why do people keep bringing it up?
May 14, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are also failing to mention that those numbers don't reflect several caucus states that Obama won, but where popular votes weren't counted. Granted there is no way to know exactly how many people this leaves out of Obama's column, but I think that ought to be acknowledged every time we talk about the popular vote.
Are there any estimates of how many people turned out to those caucuses?
May 14, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
IF, IF, IF; if wishes were horses beggars would ride.
May 14, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Urbinato is right. We are debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The SD's know that this election is measured by pledged delegates, not debatable popular vote tallies that can't be concretely confirmed in caucus states or in Michigan and Florida.
This too shall pass..
May 14, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now you're sucking up to urbinato. I guess we know who the "real" yoda is.
May 14, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carol is a crybaby.
Operation Board Game is gonna hurt.
May 14, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
This metric and the "includes MI and FL" or "doesn't include MI and FL" is total nonsense anyway.
May 14, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately for Hill, the people who know best that the popular vote argument is a lot of poo are the super delegates, and they ain't buying it. Don't count caucuses and give O any votes in MI? That's like playing the Yankees and saying HRs don't count towards the score at the end.
We are unimpressed, Hillary. Show some dignity.
May 14, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Baby R such a Sore Loser!
May 14, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why? No one else seems to be buying into the argument. The super delegates certainly aren't, because they are moving to Obama. Is there a single super delegate who has come out for Hillary, stating the popular vote as a reason?
May 14, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
ABC is promoting the Clinton argument and this site is helping them do that.
Promoting a popular vote count that awards Hillary Clinton all of the votes in Michigan, while awarding Barack Obama none is dishonest.
It's the Clinton argument. Obama deserves a rebuttal.
May 14, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an Obama supporter, I am embarrassed by my fellow supporters' hystrionic cries of "bias!" every time Greg posts something. It was just the other day that he wrote his own post saying something along the lines of how undemocratic Hillary's path to the nomination is. It wasn't based on any single news item, just him thinking out loud, which offers even more proof that he's not some Hillary shill, given the fact that the post was completely unelicited by any current event.
This post on the popular vote is perfectly reasonable and answers a question I've been pondering myself. The fact that Hillary is going to highlight the popular vote is a big part of the story, and it makes no sense to just ignore it.
It would help, however, to put a little more emphasis on the Iowa, NEv., Maine and Wash. caucuses and how they make it impossible to truly know the popular vote total. Also more emphasis on how Obama deserves to at least get SOME credit for Michigan's uncommitteds is warranted.
Otherwise, my fellow Obama supporters are embarrassing us all with their hypersensitivity.
May 14, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rules say that votes in FLorida and Michigan were not valid don't count—end of story.
May 14, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not quite, ace. Rules committee meets on May 31 to discuss. Guess you didn't get the memo.
May 14, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be more helpful for discussion purposes [and ultimately perhaps work in your favor vis a vis the bias meme] if when you weighed in, you addressed the substanstive arguments/questions raised: ie, why have you not made mention of the role of the caucuses and how they raise questions about the utility of the "popular vote" as a metric. Few in the media have taken the Clinton campaign to task in this regard. Its worth addressing, Greg.
May 14, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF? Have you gone insane or did you get a call from Harold Ickes this morning?
Honest questions by the way.
Nothing wrong is providing ABC numbers but, popular vote can be measured more than a couple ways.
ABC uses weird math in downsizing caucus vote counts..does this number reflect their calculated popular vote or is it raw popular vote?
Ignorance is bliss.
May 14, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary winning the popular vote has a much significance as one hand clapping.
May 14, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but giving part of the story (without stating that it is only part!) does not speak high of the QUALITY of you post, sir....
May 14, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
From her own mouth. Hold her to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg
May 14, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just think that the bias nonsense degrades the quality of the discussion on the site -- and as a result, harms the site itself
Are you serious? Is TPM still an unadultrated political blog?
I will be the first one to admit TPM is largely unbiased and special kudos to Josh for maintaining the integrity.
If this is not the integrity issue it definetly is an intellegence you. At best it's a Cut and Paste from ABC news.
May 14, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary's big win yesterday in West Virginia has put her ahead again in the popular vote -- but only if you count Florida and Michigan"
And the Queen is the King -- but only if you give her a penis and two testicles.
May 14, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or three.
May 14, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to RCP the popular vote is as follows including FL and MI primaries;
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,014,911 47.7% 16,934,160 47.5% Obama +80,751 +0.22%
May 14, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the Hillary campaign's argument that the popular vote should be seen as a crucial metric, here's something that bears watching....
Greg,
The problem here is the alleged "crucial metric". A metric, a measure, a standard, a criterion, whatever you wish to call, doesn't exist unless there is definite, public, and binding understanding of what it means. A pound of weight can't equal 14 ounces to the butcher and 18 ounces to his customer; it must equal 16 objective ounces and be enforceable by law on all parties. Now the obvious problem with the idiotic popular vote metric is that its value varies according to the interests of the parties using it. Does it include Florida and Michigan? Florida only? Michigan with the non-committed vote given to Obama? Or only a fraction of the non-committed given to Obama? What fraction? Vote estimates of caucus states that didn't keep popular vote records? How to make the estimates? Puerto Rico whose votes won't count in the general election? Etc., etc. The result depends arbitrarily on whoever happens to be invoking the supposed metric. In other words, the alleged popular vote metric has bias built right into it, and the disputing parties can appeal to no other authority or norm to purge it of its bias. It's like the butcher insisting that a pound equals 10 ounces, with one finger on the scale, and counting one-sixth of any bone that would have been part of the cut had it not been discarded in the butchering; while the customer slants the whole "metric" with equal arbitrariness in the direction of his interests. It's an argument without any conceivable end. The popular vote metric is sheer obfuscation from beginning to end, and neither faction in this dispute should be humored in their efforts to invoke it.
May 14, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
:applause:
May 14, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the department of meaningless metrics, it should also be pointed out that in Washington, one of the caucus states not counted by Senator Clinton, ABC or Greg, there was a beauty contest primary after the caucus vote. In that contest, Obama won by 5% or approx. 49,000 votes. If we are going to count Florida and Michigan's primaries for Clinton, why not add Washington's primary to Obama?
May 14, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And as George Will pointed out, the NY Yankees won the 1960 World Series by total runs scored 55-27. Unfortunately for them, the Pittsburgh Pirates unfairly stole the trophy by winning four games out of seven.
May 14, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
I understand your frustration, but instead of just responding to the "bias" accusations, why don't you respond to the substantive question?: why are you not mentioning that these numbers don't include a number of caucus states that Obama won in a landslide?
Any estimate of the already reduced numbers of people who participated in the IA, NV, ME, and WA caucuses nets Obama a huge lead in the vote counts.
This is an irrefutable fact. It should be included in any popular vote talk. Otherwise, you are writing a one sided story that favors Clinton, whether intentional or not. No article should note the changes due to FL and MI without noting the changes due to IA, NV, ME, and WA. That's just fair reporting.
You can do better than this one.
May 14, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more point. Any lay reader would assume that "popular vote" means the count of all votes in all states so far, except perhaps FL and MI since they've been excluded.
And that's my point. The Clinton camp knows this is what the expected definition. So when reporters just pass that on, a less involved reader/viewer would think "Well, Hillary deserves a shot then. If she has a lead in the popular vote, than this is much closer than people are talking about."
And that's why ANY reporting on the "popular vote" should define what that means. They should note this number does not include 4 states where three were victories for Obama.
In the end, they should also note that popular vote counts are ridiculous since caucus states are automatically penalized due to reduced turnout. So really, popular vote should not be discussed at all. If it is, however, it should be presented objectively, warts and all. It's misleading as it stands, and if it's not corrected, it's poor reporting.
May 14, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink