Just a few brief notes on Hillary's recent "popular-vote lead" claim.

[Occam Bandage]

1. It counts both MI and FL, which Hillary herself claimed were "not going to count for anything" before it became apparent she would need them. If you do not count the states in which neither candidate campaigned, and which both candidates agreed would not count towards the nomination, Obama is in the lead.

2. Despite the fact that Hillary justifies counting MI--in which she was the only major candidate on the ballot--by pointing to Obama's "Uncommitted" votes, her total does not count the uncommitted votes at all. If you count the Uncommitteds, Obama is in the lead.

3. Because Democratic candidates are elected by delegates and not by number of votes, several caucus states only reported delegate totals, and not popular votes. While we have estimates of attendance, we do not have the actual hard totals from those states. This means that if you live in ME, IA, NV, or WA--all states Obama won--Hillary Clinton does not count your vote. She proposes disenfranchising those voters. If you count those votes, however, Obama is in the lead.

In order to claim HRC is in the lead, you need to count the uncontested FL primary, count the MI primary in which HRC was the only candidate on the ballot, refuse to count the MI votes for Obama, and completely ignore four states Obama won. The fact that anyone lets her push this hacked-up number as remotely legitimate is mind-boggling.

[Political Heretic]

1. Not only that if you add FL, Obama still leads. She only leads if you count only her MI votes

and FL votes. She has to omit all the other popular votes cast for "uncomitted" completely to even make that claim.

So basically..... no.

[SwampG8r]

2. but .....but

her super cool math team assured me she was right

[DesEtoiles]

3. .

[Donna Zen]

4. I wrote this earlier

Note: After I wrote this post, the thread was locked. I just thought I'd put it here because I live in Maine, a state that Hillary has decided to dump. All of work, our votes, our ability to follow the rules, does not count. My friend, who doesn't favor either candidate, told me recently, that if the Democratic Party ignores their own rules, she's done.

_______________________

Throughout the year I spend part of my weekends, driving a four-hour round trip, and making my personal contribution to democracy. Considering the cost of gas, my contribution grows each time I make that trip, as I will this Sunday.

When our state committee started working on the preparations for the primary, we spent two meetings (8 hours) going over the rules. Then we spent more time working on the caucus and making sure that as many people as possible could participate including providing absentee voting.

It should be noted here that Harold Ickes helped write the rules, which we followed to the letter. No where in those rules does it say that if we chose to caucus our vote would be designated as inferior. The Clintons did not filed a notice of disagreement with the rules, nor did the Clintons make any complaint about our decision to caucus.

When I've talked with members of our executive committee about our decision, it is clear that our decision is based on the positive impact of the caucus system for party building. And yet now the Clintons have decided that somehow we're out to disregard democracy.

My question why did it take so long to decide that our state doesn't deserve respect? If our rules are so bad, so undemocratic, then what took the Clintons so long? I want to know because this Sunday when I'm spending my afternoon with Democrats trying to elect Democrats, I want to be clear when I tell them just how horrible the Clintons think we are.

[eridani]

14. I LOVE your rules

I'm in WA state, and we currently allow absentee caucusing for religious reasons, disability, or being out of state in the military. In this day and age there is no reason whatsoever why we could not follow Maine's lead and have absentee caucusing for any reason. As you say, it's great for partybuilding.

[dchill]

30. "Harold Ickes helped write the rules"

and Terry McAuliffe was completely on board with them - and so were the Clintons.
:)

[Donna Zen]

58. Yep, I've read and highlighted them

Let me see. Nope. Not a word about not counting caucus votes.

[dchill]

61. Course not!

:shrug:

[ossman]

5. why count the pop vote when you want the SDs to overturn the voters?

[dchill]

35. Logical conundrums do not faze the Hillary stalwarts.

Anything to win. That's the "metric."

[LTR]

6. Her fuzzy math also doesn't count caucus states

while it counts Michigan and Florida, which she knew were off the table.

On top of that, even if the total popular vote were taken into account, Obama is still ahead.

Just how stupid does she think her supporters are, anyway?

[davidinalameda]

7. how stupid?

is that a rhetorical question?

[Youphemism]

8. Brilliant math, but flawed because...

...Hillary hopes to count some of those votes that you pointed out she is currently refusing to count. She will replace them with a projected advantage she gets from Puerto Rico voters, the linchpin of her general election electability argument -- though they can't actually vote in it.

Also, you have to remember that we're completely disenfranchising voters from the 8th dimension, who are overwhelmingly on her side but are being discriminated against simply because they don't have an overthruster.

[TheDonkey]

9. Hillary sinks to new lows.

[Syrinx]

10. vote number five

[2rth2pwr]

11. You're a genius, Obama gets all the uncommited? And you want caucus attendees to count

towards a popular vote?

Stop robbing the voters who took the time to exercise one of the most cherished rights we have, our ability to have a voice, the right to vote. Millions of people took the time to wait in line and ask that their voices be heard, to stop the petty posturing of the politicians, and let them express freely the choices that they made for the leader of the free world. The travesty of choking off these people and telling them that they don't count as an American citizen, that they are worth less than even 3/5ths of a vote will go down in history as one of the saddest chapters in Presidential politics.

[BalancedGoat]

12. Give him as little as 15% of the uncommited...

... and he leads in the popular vote regardless of what states are conveniently left out.

[anigbrowl]

13. The uncommitteds already had a chance to pick Hillary, and didn't.

"The travesty of choking off these people and telling them that they don't count as an American citizen..."

You mean like:
"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything." Hillary Clinton on Michigan, Oct 16 2007.

Robbing the voters my ass. Now she does want those votes to count...but only the ones for her.

And yeah I want caucus attendees to count towards a popular vote. They left their houses and spent hours at a cacus to express their preference, why shouldn't they count? You're beyond pathetic.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

15. Hillary disenfranchises the voters.

Here are her exact words: "I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."

Why does she want to rob the voters of their cherished rights? Why can't she keep a promise? Why does she renege all the time? Why does she lie all the time?

[POAS]

17. Are you saying caucus attendees

shouldn't count or that there participation is not a worthy as that of others?

The rules that disallowed the MI and FL delegations were decided by and agreed to by Democratic leaders (many of whom supported and still support Hillary) before any serious campaigning had been done.

Everyone outside MI and FL that had a say in those rules had a chance to change the rules then but only now that the end is near and the rules are inconvenient do we hear cries to change them so that they favor a different outcome than some like.

As Democrats we need to stand for the rule of law and not the rule of men. It is the basis for throwing off tyrants.

[tekisui]

24. The people of MI and FL showed that even when it wouldn't count

that they held voting in great respect. Good for them. Now, their votes won't change the outcome, so, the punishment can stand or it can be overruled, but it will make no difference.

[Occam Bandage]

27. Wait. You're saying "stop robbing voters" in the same post you're demand we not count caucus votes?

[dchill]

32. Uncommitted = Someone besides Hillary.

Obama = Someone besides Hillary.

Why not?

[Occam Bandage]

37. Hell, split 'em evenly between Edwards and Obama, and Obama still leads popular vote.

[dchill]

40. Yeah, I get that.

Problem is, so many of the "Others" don't - or won't. I think it may be a mistake to even get into the "popular vote" argument. The rules state that delegates are the metric. If they weren't, then why bother having them? At any rate, the TRUE metric is the superdelegates - they can do whatever they want. Popular votes and the elected delegates are mere suggestions. I have this on good authority - Hillary Clinton. ;)

[democrattotheend]

39. People in Michigan did not have the option to vote for Obama

And I know at least 2 people in Michigan who wanted to vote for him. So regardless of why he took his name off the ballot, if you count 0 votes for him in Michigan, you fail to reflect the will of those for whom he was their first choice.

If you want to figure out how much support he would have gotten in Michigan, I guess you could go by the exit polls, which showed that 73% of the uncommitteds would have voted for him. So give him 73% of the uncommitted. If you did that, he'd still be in the lead.

And how the hell do you argue about people practicing their cherished right to vote but then propose disenfranchising those who took the time to attend the caucuses?

[julialnyc]

47. So the 2 states that broke the rules should count and the people from ME, IA, NV, WA shouldn't

I agree that it's not the voters fault in FL and MI, but Hillary agreed they wouldn't count. If there is a fair way to split up delegates for the convention than that's a good idea. But to parade around a popular vote number that has 2 tainted states..... again, not the voters fault, but a byproduct of the fact that many other voters didn't think Florida would count (and Michigan is ridicules as far as letting it stand as is) and not counting the voters of at least four states that held a caucus is insulting to most people's intelligence.

[TahitiNut]

48. As a Michigan voter, I regard your condescending, self-serving, and predatory ...

... rhetoric disgusting and despicable. There was NEVER any doubt on that day that the primary was a total and complete FUBAR, which Hillary and her sycophants helped create.
:grr:

[cali]

49. Oh, please. stop the melodramatics. Your goddess has lost

and you don't know much about history- not if you actually believe this is some chapter of great malfeasance in presidential primary history.

Love that you want to disenfranchise thousands of MI voters and caucus voters. They weren't just there for a tea party, you know.

[rove karl rove]

16. this is beyond typical number crunching

She's twisting these figures into pretzels.

[CakeGrrl]

18. I can't wait for June 1

Maybe they're (the DNC and/or the R&BC) letting her roll with the crazy talk because they realize that no logical and fair method will net her the votes and delegates she wants.

You have to love the irony...her strategy relies on

1. Getting the R&BC to cherry pick the MI and FL and caucus results to make her phony claim that she's pushing for everyone's votes to be counted; and then

2. Using those phony popular vote numbers to convince the SDs to...overturn the will of the pledged delegates, who were chosen by -- the voters!

:rofl:

and

:wtf:

[Evergreen Emerald]

19. Her argument is a response to Obama claiming to the SD's that

he wins by "any measure." Um, not so Obama, is Clinton's response, a majority of democrats want her to be President.

So, this is not about Clinton trying to make up new rules. This is about Obama suggesting he has the vote by all and any measure. Not so.

[onenote]

22. fortunately, SDs have brains.

And they know that (1) Obama does have support -- substantial support -- in Michigan and therefore pretending that a comparison of votes that give Hillary credit for Michigan votes, but allocates no popular support to Obama is not reflective of the true level of popular support for the two candidates and (2) that independent voters are important -- probably critical -- to the Democrats prospects of winning and that inventing some metric that focuses on the Democratic voters in the primaries, but ignores the independent voters that voted in those same primaries -- would be the ultimate act of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Evergreen Emerald]

26. I don't know. They seem to be failing to pressure.

And, when Obama argued it, I did not see you attacking the meme.

[Occam Bandage]

28. Judging by all those SDs who are endorsing her, right?

Oh, wait...

[Occam Bandage]

29. "A majority of Democrats want her to be President." Except, you know, only if

you don't count the Democrats in four states, and don't count the Democrats in Michigan (except the ones who voted for her).

[D23MIURG23]

64. Anyone can make up a new measure.

The question is whether it has any meaning.

[TexasObserver]

20. Hillary cannot do simple math. She has proved this repeatedly.

I will watch with pleasure as the superdelegates show her the door in the coming weeks. Real Democrats from coast to coast are sick of her lame attempts to recast the nomination process in some paradigm where she should win.

She's that mediocre student who can't do "A" work, but thinks if she nags enough, she'll get an "A." In fact, it's apparent her entire life has been much of just that. Send this nagging pest home, superdelegates.

[quantass]

21. Desperation tends to do that.

[quantass]

23. Who's this Hillary person? I remember way back some person or rather.

[TexasObserver]

25. Objects in your rearview mirror will soon be gone!

[dchill]

31. K&R!

:toast:

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[anonymous171]

34. She ignores my vote I cast for Obama in my WA state Caucus.

[Occam Bandage]

36. But she wants to "count every vote!" So much so, that she refuses to count them!

[democrattotheend]

41. Just curious, did you vote in the beauty contest the following week?

I wonder how many caucus-goers did. I think that if I had attended a caucus and knew that the primary did not count, I probably would not have bothered.

[anonymous171]

42. Nope, I didn't. I knew that it wouldn't count.

[yewberry]

44. I didn't, either.

The caucus was what mattered, so I didn't bother with the primary.

[thoughtcrime1984]

38. Enough of them thar facts, Obamazealbot

Facts are meant to insult the Hillary. Shame!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. Trust me. Hillary supporters no longer believe the math more than anybody else.

[Lord Helmet]

45. it also counts Operation Chaos votes

[slinkerwink]

46. kicking to show intellectual dishonesty

[Ichingcarpenter]

50. Barack Obama now leads the popular vote by 703,832- Daily Kos

f you count all valid contests and include estimates of the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 16,438,697 / Clinton 15,734,865 = Obama +703,832 +2.1%

--

If you count all valid contests but exclude the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 16,104,613 / Clinton 15,511,003 = Obama +593,610 +1.8%

--

If you count all valid contests AND the State of Florida, and include estimates of the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 17,014,911 / Clinton 16,605,851 = Obama +409,060 +1.2%

--

If you count all valid contests AND the State of Florida, but exclude estimates of the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 16,680,827 / Clinton 16,381,989 = Obama +298,838 +0.8%

--

If you count all valid contests AND the States of Florida and Michigan (giving Obama the uncommitted vote) and include estimates of the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 17,253,079 / Clinton 16,934,160 = Obama +318,919 +0.9%

--

If you count all valid contests AND the States of Florida and Michigan (giving Obama the uncommitted vote) but exclude estimates of the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 16,918,995 / Clinton 16,710,298 = Obama +208,697 +0.6%

--

If you count all valid contests AND the States of Florida and Michigan (giving Hillary all her votes but Obama zero votes) and include estimates of the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 17,014,911 / Clinton 16,934,160 = Obama +80,751 +0.22%

--

If you count all valid contests AND the States of Florida and Michigan (giving Hillary all her votes but Obama zero votes) but exclude estimates of the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 16,680,827 / Clinton 16,710,298 = Clinton +29,471 +0.08%

--

Ah ha! Found one!! So, clearly Clinton is the popular vote winner. Of course, only if you go wildly out of your way to construct a counting scenario that excludes some states and distorts voter intent in others.

Oh yeah, and one other little detail: none of this matters at all. Because the race is, and always has been, about delegates. Clinton and her campaign have said so over and over again -- there are hundreds of clips of "this is about delegates" floating on the interwebs. If this had been about the popular vote, the campaign would have been different. The candidates would only have spent time in big states. They would have tried to rack up their popular vote totals.

There's a great response by Brad G. on MyDD today:

Who the hell cares about the popular vote? As Charlie Cook is fond of saying, "I doubt Al Gore takes much solace in winning the popular vote in 2000. Many times a football team gains more yards than its opponent, yet loses on an important technicality called points scored."

If yards gained were the metric used to determine the winner of a football game, then obviously a football team would think differently about what to do on fourth down (and the other downs). Similarly, if total votes were used to determine the winner of a primary, the candidates would have spent more time in more populous states such as CA, NY, IL, etc.

Right on, and no shit. I can't even begin to comprehend the amount of intellectual dishonesty it takes to push this Hillary-Popular-Vote lie. But, we have to counter it, because some in the press are buying it, and not many people are going to take the time to look up the numbers I posted here.

Of course, if Hillary's camp really wants to make a big deal out of this, then Obama and his campaign have one logical, and just as well-supported, response:

Obama leads the popular vote by 703,832.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/17/112814/315/246/517409

[Stop Cornyn]

51. You refer to the "FL primary." It wasn't a primary. It was a straw poll. The chose not to conduct a

primary. Wish they had; still hope they do.

[grantcart]

52. Its unfortunate that we have to keep going over the same old ground

but some people are just stubborn.


There is no popular vote to count.

You can't count the caucus states at all let alone approximate. While Obama won Iowa with 38% he will end up with 70% of the delegates - so how do you recalculate the popular vote? You can't.

Also there is buyers remorse with Clinton.

Polls now show that she would lose California if it was taken today.

The whole exercize is a sad affair of a desperate campaign that will become a laughingstock on Wed when the financial report comes out

[OnionPatch]

53. I personally know people in both Michigan and Florida

Who didn't bother to go to the polls because they were told the votes wouldn't count. They were all for Obama. No one can tell me those elections in those states were fair.

[sniffa]

54. It's insanity at best

Outright cheating at worst.

I'll let dead-enders pick which one they prefer.

[barack the house]

55. But mostly there e is no popular vote as delegates are appointed to not avoid small states.

Or candidates would just go to big populated states only, so no popular vote exists.

[PM7nj]

62. But small states don't count!

Unless they are West Virginia, of course.

[oxbow]

56. Gee, they cook facts as well as the best of them...

Isn't this the alternate reality politics we're trying to get away from after *?

[TexasObserver]

57. No one whose opinion matters is even listening to her any more.

All this talk about new ways to count it where Hillary looks better is merely grist for the delusion mill at camp Hillary.

[AtomicKitten]

59. "The fact that anyone lets her push this hacked-up number as remotely legitimate is mind-boggling."

It's all they've got left, oh, that and a nasty 'tude.

[Yossariant]

60. Each STATE PARTY decides what constitutes a VOTER. Not Howie.

Hillary Clinton leads in the popular vote.

The majority of voters have voted for her.

Spin, parse, twist and turn all ya want.

Ya can't change a fact.

[dchill]

63. "Each STATE PARTY decides what constitutes a VOTER."

Yes. And Florida AND Michigan's state parties decided that none of their members would constitute a VOTER - as per the rules. Therefore, the majority of voters have voted for Obama, and I'm beginning to believe that you enjoy being incorrigibly, deliberately dense. Spinning, parsing, twisting and turning all the way.