The Popular Vote

[RobMoney$]

I was surprised to see that when you factored in Michigan & Florida that Clinton & Obama are seperated by a mere 12,506 votes.
It's also interesting when you consider Obama is outspending Clinton 3 to 1.


LINK (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html)

Popular Vote Total:
Obama - 14,417,134 - 49.2%
Clinton - 13,916,781 - 47.5%

Obama +1.7%


Popular Vote Estimate (w. IA, NV, ME, & WA):
Obama - 14,751,258 - 49.3%
Clinton - 14,140,643 - 47.2%

Obama +2.1%


Popular Vote w. FL. & MI.:
Clinton - 15,116,076 - 47.8%
Obama - 14,993,338 - 47.4%

Clinton +0.4%


Popular Vote Estimate w. FL. & MI. and also (IA, NV, ME, & WA):
Clinton - 15,339,938 - 47.5%
Obama - 15,327,432 - 47.5%

Clinton +0.04%




Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals. RealClearPolitics has estimated the popular vote totals for Senator Obama and Clinton in these four states. RCP uses the WA Caucus results from February 9 in this estimate because the Caucuses on February 9 were the “official” contest recognized by the DNC to determine delegates to the Democratic convention. The estimate from these four Caucus states where there are not official popular vote numbers increases Senator Obama’s popular vote margin by 110,224. This number would be about 50,000 less if the Washington primary results from February 19th were used instead of the Washington Caucus results.)

[yeahwho]

Gloater.

I never get to use that word much.

Gloater.

[RobMoney$]

I was legitimitely surprised to learn it was that close of a race myself.

[Documad]

It's possible that Obama was outspending Clinton 3 to 1 in PA but that isn't the overall spending ratio. Obama didn't pull ahead in the spending race until after he had won all those states in a row. Clinton was nearly broke before the PA win. She will spend whatever she raises off all the good coverage she's getting now.

Florida and Michigan don't count. Even though I didn't agree with the Democratic leaders you can't change the rules after the game is over.

I think Clinton has been clever to manipulate the numbers to her advantage, but the truth is that she knew the rules when she announced her nomination, she knew that popular vote had nothing to do with getting the nomination, and the only reason she's contorted the statistics to discuss "popular vote if you count the votes she got that don't count because Obama wasn't even on the ballot" is because she has lost by every other measure.

I'm surprised that she didn't actually win the popular vote, because she's been getting all the votes from elderly voters in big states. Obama won states like Iowa and Alaska, where delegates are awarded in caucuses based upon the votes of less than 1000 people. Obama has won the caucus states because he has a terrific grassroots organization that knew the rules and got out the vote when and where it counted.

[JohnnyChavello]

I was surprised to see that when you factored in Michigan & Florida that Clinton & Obama are seperated by a mere 12,506 votes.

You should be surprised...because it isn't true. The only scenario according to the popular vote math on the Real Clear Politics website link you posted in which the margin is approximately 12,000 votes (favoring Clinton) is one in which votes cast in caucus states (states that held sanctioned elections with each candidate campaigning and actually appearing on the state ballot) are NOT counted, and Michigan (an unsanctioned primary in which neither candidate campaigned and in which Hillary Clinton, rather cynically, decided to leave her name on the ballot despite the understanding that she would not) and Florida (an unsanctioned primary in which neither candidate campaigned) ARE included. So, here's how it breaks in favor of Clinton:

1) we DON'T count states that should be counted
2) we DO count states that shouldn't be counted as things stand (and we also assume that none of the uncommitted votes were cast for Obama)

In any other scenario, including the one all the candidates knew would be the "rules of the game," so to speak, Barack Obama is ahead. He is leading her by more than 600,000 votes, which is far enough ahead, in fact, that assuming he picks up the sizable win everyone expects in North Carolina, it is virtually impossible for Clinton to catch him in popular votes, either. Unless, again, she decides that caucus states don't count.

So, Clinton is reduced to arguing that a) let's forget about Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington and include Michigan (excluding all of Obama's "uncommitted votes" and Florida) and hope I somehow eke out a popular vote victory, b) let's forget about popular vote and elected delegates and hope to God that Democratic superdelegates have been moved by my subtle moves to portray Obama as unelectable because he's black, or potentially Muslim, and just give this fucking thing to me on a silver platter.

Don't you have any idea how tortured this logic is getting? She either wins or she don't and if she don't win the delegates, there isn't a shot in Hell that the Democratic party will nominate her.

[yeahwho]

You should be surprised...because it isn't true. The only scenario according to the popular vote math on the Real Clear Politics website link you posted in which the margin is approximately 12,000 votes (favoring Clinton) is one in which votes cast in caucus states (states that held sanctioned elections with each candidate campaigning and actually appearing on the state ballot) are NOT counted, and Michigan (an unsanctioned primary in which neither candidate campaigned and in which Hillary Clinton, rather cynically, decided to leave her name on the ballot despite the understanding that she would not) and Florida (an unsanctioned primary in which neither candidate campaigned) ARE included. So, here's how it breaks in favor of Clinton:

1) we DON'T count states that should be counted
2) we DO count states that shouldn't be counted as things stand (and we also assume that none of the uncommitted votes were cast for Obama)

In any other scenario, including the one all the candidates knew would be the "rules of the game," so to speak, Barack Obama is ahead. He is leading her by more than 600,000 votes, which is far enough ahead, in fact, that assuming he picks up the sizable win everyone expects in North Carolina, it is virtually impossible for Clinton to catch him in popular votes, either. Unless, again, she decides that caucus states don't count.

So, Clinton is reduced to arguing that a) let's forget about Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington and include Michigan (excluding all of Obama's "uncommitted votes" and Florida) and hope I somehow eke out a popular vote victory, b) let's forget about popular vote and elected delegates and hope to God that Democratic superdelegates have been moved by my subtle moves to portray Obama as unelectable because he's black, or potentially Muslim, and just give this fucking thing to me on a silver platter.

Don't you have any idea how tortured this logic is getting? She either wins or she don't and if she don't win the delegates, there isn't a shot in Hell that the Democratic party will nominate her.

So true and another way of looking at Barrack Obama's Primary odds is below:

1. He has money to spend. He is routinely pulling in 30M-50M a month.

2. He has to spend the money. A sizeable chunk of the money in his coffers must be spent in the primary.

3. He was down 20 points 5 weeks ago. That he closed the gap to 9 despite Wright, bittergate, bowling, and Clinton's PA (Rendell, etc) party machinery is moderately impressive.


What really boggles the mind is the media by-and-large NOT playing up the fact that the math simply doesn't work for Hillary.

[alien autopsy]

worst case scenario-

hilary and obama are "battling"
mccain comes up the rear for the win

it would be all too unsuprising