« Hillary-Backer Vilsack: She Should Concede Defeat After Tuesday | Home | Hillary Nabs A Super-Delegate »
McAuliffe: Hillary Is Winning Popular Vote Without Michigan
Here's Terry McAuliffe on MSNBC this morning, making the Clinton camp's latest case -- that she's winning the popular vote even if you take Michigan out of the equation...
Here's what McAuliffe said:
Today, Mike, we are ahead by 257,000 votes. The difference in Michigan, as you know, was 238,000. So today you can even take Michigan out of it and Hillary's ahead in the votes.
This is actually not true. McAuliffe's latest estimate doesn't include the estimated vote counts in the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington State. If you look at Real Clear Politics' popular vote count, not including Michigan, but including Florida and the aforementioned caucus states, you get:
Obama: 17,723,200Clinton: 17,588,454
That puts Obama up 134,746 -- without Michigan, but including the aforementioned caucus states. And the results in South Dakota and Montana tomorrow could further shift these numbers.
Advertisement
I didn't see it, but I assume it's too much to hope for that someone called him on this?
June 2, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
nobody called him out on this. but we did.
June 2, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you think it is that talking heads on TV let this kind of tripe slide by? Anyone on MSNBC could pick up the phone, call Chuck Todd, and find out that Monster Inc is once again lying out its ass.
Where do they find these people? What kind of training do tv talking heads have to go through? My guess is that they are all former greaters at Walmart.
June 2, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU.
June 2, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
That THANK YOU was for you, Greg.
June 2, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will not say thank you, but I will say, good work.
June 2, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just in case the Moonie Times are watching.
June 2, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
And thanks for it. It ticks me off that they let this stuff slide. I'm not asking that they delve into all the various complex ways of counting the popular vote, but a simple "Just to be clear to our viewers, you're count doesn't include many caucus states. Now, let's talk about ponies..." would be nice.
June 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Greg.
June 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
They didn't push back because Obama hasn't come out with any talking points to counter it. No doubt, Obama doesn't want to be seen as nitpicking or get drawn into a complicated debate that makes the democratic party look bad.
But, it seems like TV talking heads won't challenge anything if it doesn't have some kind of power broker promoting the counterpoint. It's like they're way to lazy to even bother with refuting anything unless they get the counter-talking-points handed to them on a silver platter.
June 2, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a really good point: they really never think for themselves but take their lead from what is pushed by the power-wielders.
Obama did not want to legitimize the popular vote meme but I think he miscalculated: if it's out there all day long, correcting the facts, or leading with your own facts is acceptable.
Not Obama's best move.
There has to be some Obama-way of saying, "Nice way to enfranchise voters there, Hillary." Throw her own frame back in her face.
With the caucus estimates and either with MI, counting uncommitteds for Obama, or not counting MI at all (either way, I don't care), Obama leads in the popular vote.
June 2, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Greg, for calling this out.
June 2, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
By the way, I hear that McAuliffe is being courted by several defense contractors for positions in their accounting and billing departments.
June 2, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If McAuliffe said that they were making the argument to the superdelegates that Clinton should get the nomination because she's given birth more times than Obama, would we be getting posts with figures and tables comparing birth rates between the two?
June 2, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
APPARENTLY NOT LOUDLY OR EMPHATICALLY ENOUGH !!!
It's a good thing that the Clinton helped set up Terry McAuliffe (thanks Caret Asset Management!)so he could become independently wealthy because if he was looking for a job after this, I'm afraid his lying would disqualify him from future employment.
June 2, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course no one else did. TM's strategy seems to be to spew as many lies as possible so no one can hope to correct them all. Almost Bushian. But they don't even try.
The only actual journalists seem to be on the blogs.
June 2, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Greg. You did good work.
June 2, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually not true.
No fireworks, just straight up. Now that's what I like about TPM.
June 2, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is too much to hope for. I was about to post just that.
No one called him on it.
They were too busy shmoozing and kidding about his shirt and the rum he brought for Mika from Puerto Rico.
June 2, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh oh, maybe it really is over. I believe that this may be the first time that gregg called out the clintons on a false statement and saying it wasn't true. I almost fell out of my chair. Finally, we may get obama and mcbush info as opposed to the clintons' talking points. Amazing.
June 2, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why should anyone call him on it? The fucking media made this point for the Clinton Campaign - about 150 times.
I swear to god it's almost enough to make me renounce my citizenship.
Every mofo who has discussed popular vote like it was a real measure of anything deserves to be slapped silly!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 2, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the problem is they are already silly and need to be slapped smart.
June 2, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll settle for: slapped repeatedly.
Until they have some sense or their eyeballs fall out - whichever comes first.
And alternative media, I'm talking to you, too.
Between this popular vote bullshit and the crucifixion of Trinity Church, this primary season has been a total cock-up from the media = all of it.
June 2, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just ready for it to be over, I don't need to see anyone slapped.
Well, I would like to see mark Penn and Terry McAuliff slapped a few times. And Bill needs a good whacking. Ferraro, to, could use a little bit of the back of my hand. Carville should have been bent over and spanked hard for his Judas remarks.
Okay, some slapstick justice is called for. But I'll forgoe it if we can just end this thing and start focusing on McSame.
June 2, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget Lanny Davis
June 2, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is in reply to HusseinTena X calling for acts of violence on the MSM for the repeatedly INSANE UGLY STUPID STUNT of letting the Clinton campaign popular meme go without a word of fact. I agree and am willing to buy some fine leather gloves to assist in the process. If we gather them together in one arena we can propably finish in a week or so. Any volunteers for bringing coffee?
When Sentor Clinton repeats this lie over and over and over she is doing nothing but ripping the party to shreds and belittling Obama's campaign. This is what her supporters call great leadership?
June 2, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate the support.
I consider "slapping silly" somewhat short of "violence" since my mom used to slap me silly for my smart mouth quite often and I lived.
In fact, I was the world's most spoiled kid, which is why I popped off in the first place.
June 2, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
McAuliffe then ran out of the studio, swinging his shirt like a helicopter and yelling "I love acid!"
June 2, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bogus numbers compound the bogus popular vote argument. Mathiness over truthiness.
June 2, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or I should say, mathiness on top of truthiness.
June 2, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Terry said Hillary was the second coming Christ the media would totally suck it up.
June 2, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is NO popular vote in a NOMINATING PROCESS...there are only DELEGATES. There are a mixture of types of nominating contests, some have primaries and some have caucuses. So OBVIOUSLY you are NOT nominated by VOTES but by DELEGATES!!
Why is no one REFUTING this SHAM argument it is doing nothing but creating a friggin fuse for a meltdown at the convention...that is the powder keg...where we will all be blown up just so the Clintons can go DOWN fighting.
Someone needs to take Bill down. Until they do and until this meme about the popular vote is REJECTED DENOUNCED and REFUTED, this stituation is going to get progressively worse as Hillary's supporters will be even more emboldened.
They do not accept losing. They just keep fighting. There is no leadership!!
They want this to be a PYRRHIC victory for themSELVES!!
The voters don't count, the democratic party doesn't count, the nation doesn't count. It is all about THEM!!
I am so SICK of these Clintons.
June 2, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
DUUUUDE! You're getting me down with all this talk of FACTS!
June 2, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just like no one calls them out when they claim Obama has no way of winning California, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, etc. because Shrillary won them.
I'm sick of these talking points being met with nothing but a nod from the pundits - it's the most ridiculous argument they've made so far!
Pundits - there are two candidates now...there will be ONE in November! Obama will win the above states!
June 2, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
McAuliffe cited AP and ABC as sources for his numbers. He may be technically correct in that among individuals whose preferences were recorded properly in the contest, Hillary could have a slight lead.
As has been shown elsewhere, the popular vote is a chimera anyhow. Even if you try to estimate the numbers for caucus attendees in Iowa, Maine, et al., counting "popular vote" for caucus states greatly underweights them relative to primary states because participation is much lower for caucuses.
Had all states had primaries, Obama's percentage wins in caucus states likely would have been lower, but his popular vote margins there would have been much higher. Not enough people are making that point about the popular vote.
June 2, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for bringing up reality. And as a small point of additional clarification: If I read RCP right, Obama's up without Michigan by 24,524 even if you don't add in estimates for those caucus states. That's a tiny lead, but if they're going to split hairs . . .
June 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Caucus states proved too much "your girl",
So she's leavin' the life she's come to know,
She said she's goin' back to find what's left of her world,
The world she left behind, not so long ago.
She's leaving, on that midnight train to Scranton,
And she's goin' back to a simpler place and time.
And Bill'll be with her, on that midnight train to Scranton,
He'd rather live in her world, because he'll get more attention that way.
He kept dreamin' that someday his wife would be a star.
But he sure found out the hard way, that dreams don't always come true.
They spent all Chelsea's inheritance, and some kid even sold his bike
Just so they could get back to that big house, to the life they once knew.
But now they're leavin' on that midnight train to Scranton,
And they're goin' back, to a state that really matters.
And there'll be Lanny Davis, on that midnight train to Scranton,
He'd rather live in a McCain world, than live without Hill in his.
Oh yes they're leavin' on that midnight train to Scranton,
And they're goin' back, to their hard-working white friends
And there'll be Terry, on that midnight train to Scranton
He'd rather live in a fantasy world, than live without Hill in his.
All aboard, all aboard, all aboard
On the midnight train to Scranton
She's got to go
She's got to go
She's got to go...
June 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone see Russert bitch slap Ickes yesterday on MTP about their "popular vote" claim and how Ickes told Russert last fall that pledged delegates are the ONLY way to win?
Ickes looked like he was about to have a stroke, he was so pissed!
June 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ickes always looks like he's going to have a stroke. I don't think that much blood gets to his brain.
June 2, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good.
I wish he would have one and fall in it.
I am sick to death of the Clintons and their scummy, lying, campaign staff.
June 2, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too many daiquiris, Terry?
June 2, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn. Who cares. The only real audience for this crap is the superdelegates, and it's been clear for a long time just how little it impresses them.
June 2, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not true that nobody other than the supers are the intended audience.
The real audience is her low-info voters, who will forever run around saying that she won the popular vote -- the underlying truth should be important, regardless of who gets the nomination.
June 2, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
good point--McCauliffe is solidifying a fallacy for low-info voters.
When he says "she leads in the pop.vote even if you don't count Michigan', someone has to say "but you're also leaving out Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada, etc..
June 2, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are playing a very dangerous and nefarious game. I will not name it explicitly, but here is the clue to the current pattern fitting into their larger Ferraro-esque narrative:
1. Ickes: "they took her delegates and gave it to him.
2. Every Clintonite on TV: "She won the popular vote", but "they" are going to give the nomination to "him".
I forget if I saw a write up about this "beast" or "monster" (uh, oh, there is that word again!) on Dailykos or DU, but it was a terrific article laying out how Hillary has to calm down the waters she has roiled herself and through her surrogates.
There is also a current article on Huffingtonpost that says something similar, though more mild:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/in-bowing-out-what-hillar_b_104457.html
Her campaign's progressive descent into what is now a spectacularly cynical "movement" is stupefying for an alleged Democrat. I am more of a libertarian on issues, but I like the Democratic party because I thought that its standard-bearers showed a laudable regard for truth -- if she succeeds in changing the party's reputation with people like me, we could be in for many more Naders...
June 2, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Radha,
You are right. This is what makes me so mad that none of the MSM corrects this when it is said. And Sentor Clinton knows this. Even if she drops out we still have to run around cleaning up her crap. I hope she never wins another election again so we never have to deal with the trauma drama Clintons.
Thank you for pointing that out Radha.
June 2, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me too. I hope there is a very serious challenge to her in NY in 2012 and that she loses to that challenger. The challenger should run specifically on a platform of trying to tell the truth and not stirring up resentments based on lies.
I particularly hope that it is a woman who challenges, and that that woman goes on to become the first female POTUS -- now, that would be delicious.
Unfortunately, I cannot run for POTUS :-)
June 2, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This is actually not true."
It is called a lie, Greg, in the reality based community that used to be the Democratic party (and will again be, very, very, very soon; as soon as we can usher this band of neo-Rethugs off the stage: SuperDelegates, what are you waiting for?).
Incidentally, here is a terrific look at the popular vote shenanigans of the Clintonites:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/1/16747/37393/979/526838
June 2, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
My last nerve: WORKED! The Clintonite popular vote argument with the fuzzy math is the electoral politics equivalent of now-you-see-them, now-you don't WMDs in Iraq. This is mis-LEADING. Doing this to the raw psyches of the Democratic electorate is abusive.
June 2, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear!
The Clintonites' blatant disregard for the truth is nothing short of stunning. I used to think it was a Rethug malady, since they seem aware that their ideology is out of the mainstream and they need to bury the truth to get votes.
What does it say that the Clintonites feel this need too?
June 2, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey GREG:
Any chance you and/or Eric can take the time and post a break down, by state, of all states that have popular vote totals or total estimates to show the real popular vote numbers?
Real Clear Politics has their charts & figures.
People seem to not accept the reality either because they buy into the Clinton campaign's bullshit or just don't get it, or like me can't believe that it hasn't been done yet (to have an article on TPM that just 'looks at the popular numbers only.
Some of your posts, like this one, do touch on the facts, but it always seems to be as a response.
How about a popular vote total article?
Thanks,
June 2, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
They got mine at least two weeks ago.
June 2, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I thought so, too, that I was enervated, kaput, and then entirely new neuropathic pain signals fired in my brain. I'd like to take Ickes by the collar of his LL Bean checked shirt and do some junior-high lavatory violence to him.
June 2, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can I help? Let's put his head in the toilet and flush about 5 times, whaddya say?
And an atomic wedgie!!!
June 2, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
:-))))))))))
June 2, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Baghdad Terry at it again
June 2, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
So the only way Obama leads the popular vote is by taking away Hillary's MI votes and including Obama's caucus numbers. Btw, Real Clear's caucus numbers are estimates not actual votes.
How about the tabulation that 'gives' Obama all of the uncommitted votes in MI? That tabulation show Hillary with a 65,617 lead in the popular vote. Despite the fact that many of these uncommitted votes could have been for Edwards, Richardson, Biden or Dodd.
June 2, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
So after Hillary's valiant fight for enfranchisement of voters, it is reasonable to not count at least 4 of these great United States?
That's enfranchisement Hillary-style.
June 2, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
WITHOUT counting the caucus states:
Popular Vote (w/MI
Uncommitted to Obama)** 17,627,284 48.7% 17,692,901 48.9% Clinton +65,617 +0.2%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,961,368 48.8% 17,916,763 48.7% Obama +44,605 +0.1%
June 2, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually not true.
Seems this line accurately describes most everything that comes out of the mouths of Clinton surrogates these days.
June 2, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
RCP numbers include PR, right?
June 2, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
June 2, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
One good thing about the end of these primaries is that people are going to start calming the hell down and recognize Greg for the good journalist he is.
June 2, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that it makes any difference, but does anyone have an idea of what the likely turnout in South Dakota will be?
June 2, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now, more than ever.
June 2, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pimp.
[big evil grin]
June 2, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Hillbots who lap this stuff up are not low-information voters. Real low-information voters don't pay any attention to all this inside-baseball
stuff that gets political junkies hot and bothered.
June 2, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well tomorrow Obama will be ahead again even by the math that he just spewed, but by that time they will just start including MI again.
June 2, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing I will expect Obama will do is to change our expectations of politicians and their spokespeople a little bit -- to get us away from the Bush/McAuliffian (I am trying to be nice by blaming the surrogate) regime in which lies are expected, treated as to-be-espected "spin," and not newsworthy. The day cannot come quickly enough.
June 2, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
see how is hillary is mimicking mcsame ???
they make their own reality
then they get upset cuz we don't exist in their fantasy world
time to go, hillary
we're being polite till tuesday
then we're flat out fucking telling you to GET THE FUCK OUT
just so you know what's in store ...
June 2, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
$hillary is not mimicking her chosen running-mate, she is augmenting him.
June 2, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the spectacle of the blogosphere.
First we had KOS proclaiming Obama a whimp for taking his name off in Michigan. Is this a fact? Yes.
Then we had Kos screaming at the top of his lungs (and in every post) that a decision by superdelegates would amount to a coup overturning the "will of the people" and that Clinton didn't care. Is this a fact? Yes.
Donna Brazile, exhibiting testicular fortitude, went on every news program to say she would quit the party if the supers overturned the "will of the people". Is this a fact? Yes.
Ariana Huffington started a campaign to press supers backing the people's choice. Is it a fact? Yes
The blogosphere spent months whipping itself into a frenzy over the will of the people.
And then, faster than Bush can say WMD, the blogosphere irrevocably decided that popular vote doesn't represent the will of the people.
And here comes your moment of truth: who will say anything to win NOW?
June 2, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beware those claiming facts but not providing links; they are often as phony as thier "facts".
June 2, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Squawk!
It's a conspiracy, I tells ya! They were out to get Hillary all along.
It's sexism - that's what it is. They couldn't stand the thought of a woman president. I just know it - it was rigged from the start, yo?
June 2, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not your personal sexism.
It's the fact that you will do and say anything to win.
Your crowd was dishonest with the "people's choice" from the start.
Obama himself said the supers should look long and hard at the will of the voters, and he didn't mean it either.
June 2, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
This, from a Hillary supporter?
Tell me something, does HRC hand you people stupid pills?
June 2, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's your own shit flying back to hit you in the face.
June 2, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that you've apparently taken your stupid pill, Lalo, here's a little something for you:
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20080531/cx_bs_uc/bs20080531
June 2, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really are an icon of the blahblahsphere, Connie.
June 2, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, here we are at last. You've finally provoked me into that moment of Billy Jack berserk rage I've been fighting for weeks.
Count Hillary's Michigan votes but not the "uncommitted" votes cast overwhelmingly by Obama supporters in Michigan with a lame-ass excuse for why they shouldn't count, count the votes of places that don't get to vote for President in the general election, but don't count the votes of people who got off their asses and dedicated several hours to their candidate in caucus states, and Hillary is "the People's Choice."
On one hand, we have Hillary who has an argument, a bare argument that she's the popular vote winner but who absolutely, incontestably and without possibility of cavil LOST the pledged delegate race.
On the other we have Obama, who also has an argument, and one that any Hillary diehard with even five or six functioning brain cells--assuming such a thing even fucking exists at this point--has to admit is at least as good as Hillary's, that he won the popular vote and who absolutely, incontestably and without possibility of cavil WON the pledged deleage race.
And yet, here you still are mindlessly contending that the supers are committing a grave injustice if they don't give it to Hillary and that Obama and/or his supporters "will do anything to win," as opposed to Hillary who has been the very model of election probity and decorum, I'm sure.
Lost delegate race and won popular vote if you count it her way vs. won delegate race and won popular vote if you actually count all the votes, and you still say its clear she should win because she's the better, more electable candidate?
Jesus Screaming Christ on a Whole Wheat Cracker.
The time for you to take a reality pill has arrived at last. She lost. She lost and its not because of sexism, or a media conspiracy, or because Obama supporters are a big mean bunch of ugly cheaters. She lost because she, and her whole brittle, clueless campaign collectively showed poor political skills, a complete lack of strategic vision, and, frankly, collectively exhibited the most profoundly impaired social skills you'll find outside of a Usenet comic book forum. She lost because she is a lousy candidate who the Republicans would have eaten for dinner. A candidate who, had Obama never run against her, would have been crused by the Republicans for the same reasons Obama beat her despite her staggering early lead in money, overwhelming initial party support, huge early lead in the polls, a primary calendar specifically designed by the Party bigwigs to serve her needs, and, oh, yes, more breaks and second chances than have ever been given to any losing primary candidate in electoral history.
She lost and she got her loss the old fashioned way: she earned it. Its over. Either STFU and get onboard or switch for MeCain. I'm sick of the whining.
June 2, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure back in February you also covered your PC monitor with spit, when Clinton suggested supers are independent and Obama counted they should respect the will of the people.
But I don't care about your rage. You will be screaming with the same passion for any Obama argument.
Even if it directly contradicts the previous one.
You will say anything to win.
June 2, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
since this article is about how obama is actually ahead in the popular vote, what inconsistency is there? on the other hand, hillary did indeed argue about how superdelegates are independent and can overturn the will of the people, yet she is now arguing, on very dubious grounds, that she is the choice of the people, and that the superdelegates should consider that in awarding the nomination to her.
June 2, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
yet again you seem to have not read the article to which you are responding. the point of it is that if we assume the cumulative popular vote accurately reflects the will of the people, it supports obama.
June 2, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This idea that somehow she is going to be gracious in her concession (one day) and unify the party is bogus. Unification is long past when her main argument which she has been pitching is that she would be robbed if she doesn't get the nomination. How do you unify under those circumstances? What is she going to say to her supporters? I know I was robbed but get behind the robber?
June 2, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Last night on CNN (10:00 EST hour), Rick Sanchez (shockingly) had a decent analogy about what has been going on re the popular vote. The Obama camp assumes everyone knows and agrees that 2 + 2 = 4; the Clinton camp started pushing that 2 + 2 = 5 meme. Once the arguing about whether the answer is really 4 or 5 starts it works to the Clinton's benefit by creating a supposed dispute where there really isn't one.
The Clinton supporters have a bogus claim to hang their hat on, claiming it was "stolen" from her when it wasn't, of course. It just feeds the divide and is so destructive to the need for the party to unify after the nomination race.
This alternate reality based on lies that the Clinton camp has created feels so similar to the Bush fake reality they have used many times in pushing the Iraq War that it is just unbelievable. Talk about learning the wrong lessons from the last eight years. Uggghhhh.
June 2, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!
At the risk of boring everyone to death, that's just what happened because everyone jumped right on board that train and sent out another string of confusing numbers to try to refute what wasn't ever real in the first place.
If the media had been honest and doing its job, it would have just stood for the truth = there is no popular vote in a primary and talking about it is bullshit.
June 2, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
HELLLLLLOOOOO!!!!
Not only is this not true based on the bullshit of not including the caucus states, he's also using the wrong number.
Hillary got 328,000 in Michigan, not 238,000. He transposed the numbers, which means, if you use correct numbers, even his bullshit reasoning falls apart.
June 2, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Veruca Salt is what Hillary is acting like these days:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKNmqS4nSYY
June 2, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah... a classic moment in cinematic history!
June 2, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the popular vote meant anything in this country Gore would be finishing his second term.
June 2, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You see, too many people were either home-schooled, fell asleep in government class or just plain skipped it.
America is not a democracy, purely. America is a democratic republic. That's because our founders were smart enough to realize that a majority can be nothing more than a tyranny.
They worked to overcome that problem. And that's why this is all bullshit - we're a republic and thank the gods we are.
June 2, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
yes, thank the gods that a person can be elected president without getting the most votes, based on arbitrary state borders and the weighting of small states. thank the gods bush beat gore. there are many important protections against the tyranny of the majority, but the electoral college is not one, and we should not be arguing that it is. that said, hillary's argument is just plain false, and the comparison to the general election is off anyway since the primaries are all different and not held on the same day.
June 2, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this also count Puerto Rico? Because they can't vote in the general election, and as Hillary has repeatedly pointed out, if a Democrat isn't able to win a state in the general election, they are meaningless. I think Puerto Rico definitely applies:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/06/puerto-rico-sunday.html
June 2, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if you are talking about electibility, what the hell do Puerto Rico and Guam matter, they don't have any electors. Seriously, this argument is damaged and ultimately meaningless. If the Dems wanted to pick on that basis, they would have a national primary. But just to work out your own scenarios, and there are around 972 of them, check out:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/popular-vote-scenario-tester.html
or
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/1/16747/37393/979/526838
Without Mich, she's on the order of 300k down. She still only leads if she gets all her votes from MI and he gets none...
June 2, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well you didn't stand on your head on the 3d Sunday after Easter, facing East, count your toes, multiply that times that times the number of brain cells you've lost thinking about Popular Vote.
That's how you reach the number on alternate Mondays.
June 2, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the msm and other talking heads let this stuff go by, or when they themselves "report" on it, the informed masses need to contact the stations and call them out on their misinformation.
I suspect that the Obama campaign does not want to in any way "legitimize" discussion of the popular vote theme by constantly countering it. It is also a distraction to the campaign, which is already focusing on the GE.
We the people need to hold the media responsible, by calling, emailing, and sending letters.
June 2, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
WHAT?!?!?!? Terry McAuliffe is a lying sack of shit that can't do basic math . . . Say it isn't so, Roscoe.
June 2, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
McAssHat is at it again. What a a douche. Can't wait until we don't have to see him again. The Clintons are now down to outright lying and distortion.
June 2, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
thank you for correcting the clinton campaign, but please also add that, according to realclearpolitics, mcauliffe is even more wrong than you indicate. even without counting those caucus states, obama is up by 24,524. and clinton's michigan advantage is 328,000, not 238,000. you might also mention that not everyone accepts that the florida popular vote is an accurate reflection of that state, even if the dnc accepts the delegates at half votes.
June 2, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign "gently pushed back at her assertions that she had won the popular vote."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/06/02/low_turnout_ends_clintons_hope_of_popular_vote_win.html
After Tuesday, I expect Pelosi, Reid and Dean to push strongly that she and her campaign is wrong -- that a huge freakin' message needs to be sent to the Clintons that trying to pull down the Party and other Party down-tickets for her 2012 run is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.
On Wednesday we will see who has the backbone, and who controls the Party. [Looking forward to getting behind our nominee]
June 2, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terry'll have plenty of time for beachwear in the not-too-distant future.
June 2, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know where Terry got the 257K from, as HRC's lead counting MI and FL according to ABC is about 318K and at RCP it's 303K. But HRC got 328K from MI, not 238K as Terry said. A simple transposition error, obviously. But by any calculation, Terry is simply incorrect here; HRC does not lead in the popular vote without MI.
June 2, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plain and simple, the whole popular vote thing is a RED HERRING. It doesn't mean a damn thing. But like any good red herring, it distracts attention for the real metric, which is and always has been DELEGATES. Debating whether Michigan counts or Florida counts or Timbuktu counts implicitly accepts that the metric has validity in the first place. It doesn't.
Furthermore, just because this is the argument she will use with the superdelegates doesn't make it any more valid. If she were to argue that she deserves the nomination because she's given birth more times than Obama, would we be seeing endless figures and tables comparing birth rates?
Stop the madness. Popular vote is irrelevant.
June 2, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now Shrillary is claiming she's won more states!!! When will it end????
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/2/112856/3235/569/527264
June 2, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shocker!
A campaign built on half truths, lies, and a candidate that morphs into whatever the polls want tells another fib. The far right was correct about the Clintons all along. I only hope that Obama doesn't pick Hillary as his VP. If he is forced/blackmailed into it, then this type of prevarication will become a daily drain on his general election and ruin his chances.
June 2, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree There is no way he can or should accept her on the ticket. People ignore that her negatives are still over 50% and I have no doubt that most folks who voted for her will vote for Obama in the GE. Those that won't probably would never have voted for him in the first place. I don't know of any good democrat who would vote for McCain over Obama in protest as it is absolute political suicide to do so. There is far too much at stake in this election, This country cannot survive another 4 years of Bush McSame.
June 2, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It all just shows you how ridiculously close this race is. Everyone gets so fired up over a few votes here and there. People act as if winning by a few votes makes the candidate the "clear winner". Here we are in June still arguing over a few votes. The only thing clear about all this is that there is no "clear winner". If Obama ends with the magic number of delegates as expected, then he's the winner. If Hillary is slightly ahead or slightly behind in the popular vote, it doesn't cancel his victory, but it makes it impossible for him to say he has a mandate from the Democratic party. Once again it points to the need for him to put Hillary on the ticket. Otherwise he's rejecting the choice of half the Party, and further angering her supporters whom he needs.
June 2, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Troll can still dream.....
June 2, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope the super delegates all come forward and announce for Obama. I hope some of them who have previously committed to HRC change their minds and pledge to Obama as well. Maybe then she will see the writing on the wall. This hell has to end!!!
June 2, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink