If Obama Gets Michigan's Uncommited And Hillary Wins PR By 250 K Votes, He Still Wins The Pop Vote.

[malik flavors]

Popular Vote Total:

Obama
16,685,941 49.1%

Clinton
16,227,514 47.7%

Spread
Obama +458,427 +1.4%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA:

Obama
17,020,025 49.1%

Clinton
16,451,376 47.5%

Spread
Obama +568,649 +1.6%

Popular Vote (w/FL):

Obama
17,262,155 48.3%

Clinton
17,098,500 47.8%

Spead
Obama +163,655 +0.5%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA:

Obama
17,596,239 48.3%

Clinton
17,322,362 47.6%

Spead
Obama +273,877 +0.7%

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)**:

Obama
17,262,155 47.5%

Clinton
17,426,809 47.9%

Spread
Clinton +164,654 +0.45%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*:

Obama
17,596,239 47.6%

Clinton
17,650,671 47.7%

Spead
Clinton +54,432 +0.15%

**(Senator Obama was not on the Michigan Ballot and thus received zero votes. Uncommitted was on the ballot and received 238,168 votes as compared to 328,309 for Senator Clinton.)

As you can see, with Florida fully seated and counting IA, NV, ME, & WA Obama is still ahead by 273,877. If Hillary wins PR by 250,000 votes Obama will then be ahead by 23,877. Predictions are that Obama should net around 100,000 votes out of Montana and South Dakota combined taking him back up to an 123,877 popular vote lead. The difference between the uncommited votes in Michigan and what Hillary got is 100,000, so if you give her that difference Obama would still be ahead by 23,877 votes.

I know popular vote doesn't matter to many on this forum, but I think we can all agree that it would be nice if the democratic nominee was also the winner of the popular vote.

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

[malik flavors]

1. Kick

:kick:

[high density]

2. Let's just not talk about the popular vote

"Estimating" a popular vote, as is done for the caucus states, is insane.

[malik flavors]

3. I know, but I'd like for him to win every metric so there's no complaining.

And that way there won't even be a possibility of this going to the convention.

[2rth2pwr]

6. Shhh, just don't bring this up, it's inconvienient.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Reagan won the popular vote in the 1968 primaries

Yet that didn't prove a good enough argument for why Nixon shouldn't be the nominee and it didn't really hurt him in November.

[2rth2pwr]

5. Let's be just like the pukes.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Ironic, coming from the people who think we should have winner-take-all primaries

[NYCGirl]

7. And that and $2 will get you on the subway. NT

[jsamuel]

8. no, he would lose the popular vote in that senario

he is up now without MI by 273K (including FL and caucus states)

If you include MI and give Obama uncommitted, he is up by 173K.

So Clinton getting 250K over Obama in Puerto Rico would make her up by 77K.

[malik flavors]

10. You forgot to add the 100,000 votes he's predicted to get out of SD and MT

[PBS Poll-435]

11. ROFL

Who is predicting that?

:rofl:

[malik flavors]

13. Jay Cost predicted Obama would net 50,000 votes out of both MT and SD

And the latest poll out of Montana has him leading by over 20 points.

So, what's so funny...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html

[PBS Poll-435]

15. HUH?

His own worksheet with a ten point loss in both shows a net gain of 27K votes for both Montana and South Dakota.

With a twenty point loss, he picks up a net of 56K votes.

[malik flavors]

16. I'm at work and I can't view that page here, but I recall it saying Obama would net 50k

from MT and 50k from SD. You're saying it says 27K from MT and 27k from SD?

[PBS Poll-435]

17. Yes.

At a very unlikely 20% margin victory in each state.

[malik flavors]

18. Hmm, guess my memory was a little off then. But...

It's pretty likely only half the Florida delegations will be seated becasue that's what the republicans did, or there will be some sort of compromise, so he's still got a good chance of winning every metric. We'll just have to see what happens on May 31st I suppose.

[jsamuel]

12. that is a big if that is left out of the title of the op

[malik flavors]

14. I also predicted Hillary would net 250,000 votes from PR. She might get less. Who knows?

I'm just going by what the experts are expecting.

WOuld you like to make an argument for why Obama won't net 100,000 out of MT and SD?

[Doityourself]

19. Ah but Hilly and her camp don't want Obama to give the uncommited in MI..they want to split it with

him!

Man, they are freakin' delusional!

[PBS Poll-435]

20. Remember, at the time of the Michigan Primary....

There were 4 major candidates in the race....

Why should he get every "non-Clinton" vote?

He shouldn't.

[malik flavors]

21. Well then they should subtract the non-clinton vote from Hillary's total.

[PBS Poll-435]

23. That has no root in any kind of reality.

Or Athenian Democracy.

Or English Common Law.

You don't vote against someone, you vote FOR someone.

[malik flavors]

25. You're the first person to ever claim there's no such thing as an anti-Clinton vote.

[PBS Poll-435]

26. I am saying that there is no basis in law or even common sense, to award

every "uncommitted" vote to Obama because they specifically are not "Clinton" votes.

What's next? Award some of Clinton's votes to Obama because some people may have changed their minds?

[malik flavors]

27. Well they're most likely Obama or Edwards delegates, and since Edwards endorsed Obama

those delegates should go to him anyway.

[PBS Poll-435]

28. What about the 15% rule, though?

[malik flavors]

29. Can you prove that either candidate didn't pass that threshold?

[PBS Poll-435]

30. I can, for sure, name two that didn't

John Edwards & Barack Obama

[malik flavors]

31. how so? Got a link?

[PBS Poll-435]

32. Well. Write-in votes didn't count and Edwards & Obama tooks their names of of the ballot.

So........

[malik flavors]

35. Haha, ok.

[Doityourself]

22. One things for sure, they weren't voting for Hillary, now were they?

[PBS Poll-435]

24. Maybe they were protest voting against the DNC. Or Levin.

Who knows?

:shrug:

[Doityourself]

38. But we do know they weren't voting for Hillary...so why should she get any of the uncommitted vote?

[musicblind]

33. I rec'd ur thread even though i'm a Clinton supporter because what you said makes sense

and was laid out rationally. If all of your scenarios take place then yes, he will have the popular vote. I do think he should be given the uncommitted in MI, but I think that FL should be left as is. Ideally we should have had a revote in both states. We can't. So give her what she won in MI and him the uncommitted votes in MI (even if it costs her the popular vote) and keep FL as it is. It wont cost him the nomination or change anything (not even the popular vote according to your scenario). Including them this way would only help to keep MI and FL in the dem column in Nov. :) Good post.

[malik flavors]

37. Thanks. I think we can all agree on that scenerio.

[Hamlette]

34. If you don't want to play by the rules, don't play. We should count MI or FL or PR or seat MI or FL

PR doesn't even get to vote in the election Why would we count those votes?

And he wasn't on the ballot in MI. Counting those votes OR Florida votes it also silly.

I've heard from many people in FL that they are pissed the delegates or votes would be counted because they played by the rules and did not vote because they thought it wouldn't count.

Now they are changing the rules and saying the votes will count.

I'm starting to lose my temper over this absurd argument.

If you don't want to play by the rules, don't play.

[Yanez Houston Jordan]

36. Why are you ignoring all of the caucus states? Do they no longer count?

[jsamuel]

39. the op includes the caucus states

[palindrome]

40. Wrong, Edwards gets some

[malik flavors]

41. Edwards endorsed Obama, so they go to him.

[Inuca]

42. So? n/t