Neither candidate wins the pledged candidate race

[Uben]

It will not happen. Period.

So, it is up to super delegates to decide. If you look at the popular vote of all states that have voted thus far, Clinton leads by a mere 35,000. It's that close! A case can be made by both camps of their candidates viability. Neither has a runaway, and it appears they will not get one, so it's really up in the air to the very end.

[yourout]

1. Does your popular vote include Florida and Michigan?

Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan.

<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html>

Here are the popular vote totals.

Without Michigan and Florida.
Obama - 13,000,655 Clinton - 12,411,705

With Michigan and Florida.
Obama - 13,576,869 Clinton - 13,611,000

[Uben]

2. That was not Clinton's fault

It was his choice, and one that may do him in!

[BumRushDaShow]

3. The party

is not counting FL & MI in any totals at this point and it is disingenuous for folks to continue to spin those states' results into post after post.

Mrs. Clinton is losing the popular vote, losing the delegate allocation count, and has lost more states to her contender Mr. Obama. Those are the facts to date.

[Uben]

5. Wrong

Only the delegates are not being counted. I have seen nothing stating the vote of the people does not count toward the popular vote.
And their votes should count. Their vote is just as significant as yours.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. They're talking revote...

those primaries, by DNC rules, never happened. There were no valid elections in either Florida or Michigan. The votes don't count. It's that simple.

[Uben]

10. That, too, is factually incorrect

The DNC has only stated their delegates will not be seated. There was no language referring to the popular vote.

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. If there are to be new primaries and/or caucuses in both states...

it is fairly obvious that the 'popular vote' totals of the INVALID ELECTIONS do NOT count. They can't count twice. This is simple logic.

[BumRushDaShow]

55. Wrong

These 2 states broke the rules and according to the rules, did not make a best effort to thwart the repuke legislatures that moved the dates. They had the option to have separate contests on a different date where delegates would actually count (and not count for the illegal early date, regardless of what the repukes did on that date), but they chose not to do it and call Dean's bluff.

I am in PA and haven't voted yet and would have loved to have had our state move to at least Super Tuesday to get a say. But because that didn't happen, once again, the candidate that I would have wanted (in this case, Dennis Kucinich) is now out of the race and so I HAVE lost my vote. Sadly, this has been the price paid by those of us in states with late primaries.

I agree in principle with what FL & MI did but I also know that change of this magnitude can't happen as quickly as I would have liked it to. The fact that 4 supposed "representative" states were allowed an early say (2 beyond NH & IA) was an interesting interim solution and one that will hopefully be modified further after this election cycle. However for the time being, we are beyond 3/4 of this primary cycle and it's time to move on.

Mrs. Clinton cannot continue to overtly cheat to change the reality of the delegate math and it is time for her to concede and step down.

[Honeycombe8]

48. It doesn't matter whose fault Point is, MI and FL do not count, as agreed to by ALL candidates.

Don't you get it? In Nevada, the Clintons were in favor of extra polling places for the casino areas. Then when it seemed it wouldn't favor them a year afterwards, they changed their position and said they'd sue over it (except it ended up benefiting them, so no lawsuit).

Then in MI and FL, the Clintons joined the other candidates in rubber stamping the Dem. Party's decision not to count those states, since they intentionally flouted the Party's rules. But a year later, the Clintons changed position, since she "won," and so it would benefit them.

Then in TX, the Clintons threatened to sue the state over its primary-caucus form of election, but since the Clintons won the primary part at least, they have dropped their threats of a lawsuit.

There is a pattern here. The Clintons are in it to win it, even if it means winning unfairly or going against the Dem. Party's voting process, or going against who the voters choose, independent of that process.

If MI and FL are counted "as is," it may split the party, and it may cost the Dems the election in November. If a voter's vote didn't count in the nomination process, why would they go to vote in November for the person who disenfranchised them?

[backscatter712]

7. The only way Clinton gets the popular vote win...

Is by including the votes from Michigan's Soviet-style election where Clinton was the only one on the ballot.

Yeah, reeeeeeeeal democratic there.

[Uben]

9. Obama made a grave error in judgement....

...by leaving his name off the ballot. You have to give credit to the Clinton camp for keeping her name on it. The vote was very democratic in that every one had a chance to vote. If you feel disenfranchised because your candidate refused to put his name on the ballot, take that up with him.

[backscatter712]

11. Obama, unlike Clinton,

honored the rules of the DNC by taking his name off the ballot.

Hillary also agreed to abide by the rules of the DNC, but oops, her submission to Michigan to remove her name from the state's ballot was "late."

Funny how things like that happen.

[Uben]

16. Oh, I'm sorry

...show me where the DNC said candidates had to remove their names from the ballot.

[backscatter712]

17. Typical of Clinton.

Always looking for ways to game the system.

Why should Michigan be seated? They chose to break DNC rules by holding their primary early. If Michigan's voters don't like it, they can take it up with their legislature.

[Uben]

18. Learn how to read

No one said the delegates should be seated. Were you one of those children left behind?

[pampango]

50. They all agreed not to campaign or "participate" in those primaries.

It all depends on your definition of "participate". Some would consider having your name on the ballot as "participating". Others obviously believe that you can agree not to "participate" and still seek to be awarded the delegates from the "not participated in" primary.

(I am now considering not participating in the state lottery, but then claiming after the drawing that the winning numbers were the ones I would have chosen. I wonder if they will award me the 20 million dollars based on my non-participation?)

[mckeown1128]

56. Except Hillary when asked why she didn't take her name off

the ballot in MI said loudly and clearly that "MI didn't count for anything"

[pampango]

68. Maybe she added "until after the votes are counted, if I win" and the rest of the quote

has just never been discovered.

She may lucky that no one asked her the same question about Florida before the Iowa caucus occurred. She probably would have said the same thing about Florida.

[indimuse]

13. how do you think your boy got to where he is today???

Only guy on the ticket...he sued! fact...go look it UP!

[Honeycombe8]

49. It's not ONLY that she was only one on the ticket. It's also that the others didn't campaign there.

We all know that Clinton was the one with the highest nationally recognized name. She was the best known. It was obvious that she would win both MI and FL, if the other, lesser known candidates didn't campaign heavily there (or anywhere).

So even in FL, where Obama was on the ticket, a Clinton win doesn't really mean a Clinton win, unless all the candidates campaigned there, and unless ALL the voters knew their votes would mean something.

Besides Obama not campaigning there, which would've virtually guaranteed a huge Clinton win, I am certain that a lot of voters didn't even vote, given the knowledge that their votes were not going to count. I have heard there was a large turnout. So imagine what the turnout would've been, if the voters there had thought their votes would count.

I would add that even in a re-vote, I think Clinton would win FL, given the large hispanic and New York population there. But if Obama had campaigned there, he could have, and would have, cut her sizeable win down to a more marginal one....and we all know that.

[kentuck]

4. I think we may head into the Convention with this scenario?

Hillary wins popular vote. Obama wins the most pledged delegates. Neither has the nomination. I think if that happens, the entire Convention, including the Super delegates, should vote by secret ballot to determine the nominee. Why a secret ballot?

[Uben]

6. That's it

I feel confident that that is exactly what will happen.

[dansolo]

19. A secret ballot is a horrible idea

Do you want to guarantee a walkout? That's the way to do it.

[kentuck]

21. Well...

To know that your fellow Senator has voted against you in a public setting would be even worse, in my opinion. What if Chuck Shumer voted against Hillary? How would that go over in NY? Secret ballot would be preferable, in my opinion, because there can be no political arm twisting before choosing the nominee. One could say they were voting one way and then vote their conscience without fear of political retaliation.

[Honeycombe8]

52. A secret ballot would suck. There would be no point to that, except to commit fraud. nt

[GalleryGod]

14. Weekend Reading?

[Uben]

15. I don't read propaganda.

I suggest you get your information elsewhere.

[Sulawesi]

20. Whatever, you are posting mindless spin...including MI...have you no pride?

Obama leads in delegates, states won, and the popular vote. If one of those gets overturned, then we can talk about a brokered convention. HRC supporters all want the "all bets are off" option because they are losing according to the rules puts forth.

You could help her more by getting on a phone bank somewhere, but if you do, try to be less transparent about parroting talking points or people will just hang up.

[Uben]

22. Delegates don't matter

Read the title of this thread! Obama is losing the popular vote at this point. Super delegates make their decision on their own., and I hope they look at the will of the people. Are you all illiterate?

[kentuck]

24. Why would they have caucuses if delegates do not matter?

:shrug:

[Uben]

26. Neither can win with pledged delegates now

That is why they no longer are relevant. They are only relevant if the SDs think they are more important than the will of the people.

[Sulawesi]

32. listen to yourself.

If Hillary had 2024 pledged delegates going into the convention, and BO had hundreds less, would you be saying the delegates don't matter because neither has enough pledged delegates. No, you would be saying the supers cannot overrule the process and rules laid out in advance.

This reasoning is so transparently bad it makes you look really partisan.

[Uben]

36. You don't know what I would say

...and I am partisan. You are, too! Rules are rules. If you don't get enough pledged delegates, the SDs decide. What about that do you not understand?

[Sulawesi]

41. well then, what would you say? Would you say delegates don't matter?

[Uben]

47. I would say....

.....go by the rules set forth.

[Sulawesi]

58. and would you be upset if the super delegates reversed HRCs large lead in pledged delegates...

or would you be fine, and say, rules are rules, democracy lives on

(and by the way, I can tell you are spinning by the way I have to extract all this)

[Sulawesi]

27. More spin. Watch, the delegates do matter...

Look at your own posts, btw. To you, it seems more likely that everyone here is illiterate. A more parsimonious explanation is that you are just spinning and we're noy buying. "The delegates don't matter"...good god.

[Sulawesi]

35. You just write it...

[mculator]

23. Joint ticket is the only way

[jefferson_dem]

25. The latest bogus Hillary Camp spin: Neither side has enough.

While true that both sides will need Superdelegate support, the question is which candidate has more pledged delegates at the time the Supers spring into action. Will they award the nomination to the choice of rank-in-file Democratic voters and caucus-goers or will they install someonoe different? They damn well better do it right. Whatevet they do, it will have effects that go well beyond the particulars of this election cycle.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. If they go with

the choice of rank and file Democrats, then Clinton wins.

She gets more Democratic votes than Obama.

[Sulawesi]

29. This is the old, don't trust the actual polls, the exit polls show us that HRC won the dems...

[jefferson_dem]

33. So now even the election results themselves "don't count"...

First small states, then caucus states, then "red" states, .... now votes don't count.

Geesh. What's next?

[jefferson_dem]

30. We do not know that.

The state Democratic parties implemented election systems and invited voters and caucusers to participate in them. Those are the results. Exit polls are fun but they do not decide electoral outcomes.

[Uben]

31. So....

....you think the SDs should chose the pledged delegate count over the popular vote. That's your opinion, but not necessarily that of the SDs. They are not bound by pledged delegate counts or the popular vote. And I hope they chose the will of the people for once.

[Sulawesi]

34. If the popular vote and delegate count are split, we can talk...

but don't include FLA and MI unless a fair campaign is run in those states.

[Uben]

38. Fla and MI delegates don't count

...but there is absolutley nothing that says their popular votes are not to be considered. If I am wrong, please direct me to those rules.

[Sulawesi]

42. Obama was not on the ballot in MI! You actually think that head count is fair?

[jefferson_dem]

37. It's always been a race for delegates. Mark Penn even said that after IA.

Those results reflect the will of the people. Don't change the rules and definitions now because your girl needs a boost.

This distinction will likely become moot because Obama will win both the PD delegate count and the popular vote. What will you say then?

[Uben]

40. That was before Iowa

They were relevant then. Now that no one can win by pledged delegates, it's up to the SDs.

If Obama wins the popular vote, I say he should be elected president. The people will have spoken.

[jefferson_dem]

51. ...

:thumbsup:

Points well-taken.

[Sulawesi]

45. The next bastion is that most "DEMS" favor HRC, i am already seeing this.

[zarath]

39. Popular vote means nothing

I'm sorry, but the nationwide popular affects nothing other than maybe perceptions (which HRC is great at manipulating.)

When it comes to selecting the nominee, here's a list of things that actually do matter.

Hope this helps.

[Honeycombe8]

43. Someone on TV said that Obama has more raw votes to date. Quite a few more, actually.

Not true? True? How do we find out for sure?

[Uben]

44. Here

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

[Sulawesi]

59. Stop spamming this spin all over the board.

And at least be up front that your 35K lead not only counts FLA and MI, but relies on the fact that Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals

[Uben]

61. Hey

You are not authorized to tell me what to do. I merely stated facts that I found. The fact that you don't like those numbers is of no consequence to me. Chew on that a while!

[Sulawesi]

62. you are misrepresenting the facts.

Your totals include two states that do not count and exclude several others that do. Does that fact not interest you? If your facts are incorrect, are you not interested in that? If my facts are incorrect, I would be interested, and would like to hear what you have to say.

[Uben]

63. You are mistaken

Only the delegates from MI and Fla do not count. I have said that several times. I have also asked you to show me the rules where their popular votes are not to be considered. You haven't. The fact that there are three states who have not reported their popular vote totals is something I cannot control. As soon as they do, we can take them into consideration. That is fact, not spin.

[Sulawesi]

65. Incorrect...

You cited the following page, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html.

Scroll to the bottom to see that Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals. All but Nevada were won by Obama.

[Uben]

70. I posted the link....

...for people to see that. The fact that they have not released their totals is not my fault, and neither you or I can say what those totals are. I merely quoted what the page says. You seem to want MI and Fla popular votes not to count because they do not favor your candidate. As soon as these other states release their numbers, the totals will change. I think anyone can reasonably ascertain that fact.

To find out what the popular vote was, I Googled "presidential popular vote". That was the first link to come up.

[Sulawesi]

71. So then you do not in fact know whether HRC leads in the vote or not...just trying to be clear.

[Honeycombe8]

64. Ha! "Real clear politics" as a valid source of complicated numbers? Ha. nt

[Uben]

66. Pardon me, but....

....I have yet to see your numbers. Where are they?

[JerseygirlCT]

46. Well, we've still got a few states to go, and a lot can happen

between now and then.

I don't think we're at that point yet.

[cali]

53. Maybe it's up in the air until the end. Maybe not. Looks like SDs

are none too happy with hilly and her tactics and comments. She's received no new SD endorsements of late. Obama has received quite a few.

[adoraz]

54. obviously, but it matters

who is in the lead at the end. that will be who the supers go to.

[elizm]

57. Even in your scenario Obama would still have 2 out of 3...

Wins the pledged delegates and the most states. The superdelegates will not overturn the will of the voters...They know better. FL and MI do NOT count now and they will NOT count in the end without a do-er. I'd say you are grasping at straws here.

[Uben]

60. Uh....

....the will of the people is expressed by their individual vote. If that is grasping at straws....so be it.

[Honeycombe8]

67. Obama has almost 600,000 more raw votes, it seems (not counting MI and FL which don't count).

So...them's the numbers. Oh, and he also has more pledged delegates (the two things - raw votes and pledged delegates - go hand in hand, often).

Clinton, OTOH, has three and a half large states (CA, OH, NY - her home state, and half of TX).

Obama has a few large states of his own, Missouri and Wisconsin being two, and half of TX).

Obama has also won most of the remaining states, all of which are in the northwest, midwest, northeast, southeast, south, and southwest. In every region of the country.

clinton will probably win PA. Obama will probably win most of the remaining states, but not all.

Now we can see just WHY the Clintons are wanting MI and FL "as is." They desperately need them.

[Sulawesi]

73. nor are Maine, Iowa, Nevada or Washington included...

[tigervalentine]

69. Those totals are incomplete.

Totals for Nevada, Washington State, and Maine have been left out. And Obama won two of them.

[Sulawesi]

72. and Iowa...i have been trying tell the OP this, but he/she is incredibly evasive

[Milo_Bloom]

74. If the super delegates break the way they are breaking now...

Obama wins easy.

He is winning the popular vote
The pledged delegates

and behind in the super delegates 53/47


Clinton would have to win nearly 70% of the remaining super delegates to win.

Not gonna happen.