More Democrats Have Voted For XXXX Than ...

CBS News's popular vote tally has Obama leading, but NBC** and ABC have Clinton leading. As in -- more Democrats, independents and Republicans, in the estimation of at least two news networks, have voted for Clinton than have voted for Obama, to this point.

Yes, I should have written down the numbers as I watched the news tonight, but I didn't. Sorry.

Anyway, popular votes do not decide nominations, but they do raise provocative questions about the depth of support of nominee presumptives.

And if superdelegates are supposed to follow of the will of the people as expressed in these primaries and caucuses....ok, that's a cheap shot. Point is -- Obama has a sizable delegate lead. I'll say that until it's no longer true, if it ever becomes untrue. But even with the nomination in hand, there are political realities to having won the nomination by having essentially tied with your opponent.

** NBC's tallies include Michigan.

Comments

I remember when the Patriots "essentially tied" the New York Giants in the Super Bowl, and the NFL was all like, "Hey, we'll split the trophy in half."

Posted by Rid | March 5, 2008 7:38 PM

This is a very, VERY premature post, Marc.

And I'd bet that those networks include Michigan and Florida. Not a good idea.

Posted by C.Michol | March 5, 2008 7:42 PM

I'm pretty sure those totals included Michigan and Florida:

http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/

Including Florida is perhaps a meaningful approximation, but including Michigan makes no sense at all.

Posted by EERac | March 5, 2008 7:44 PM

Strange...I just watched Chuck Todd say on Hardball that Obama had a popular vote lead of +/-600k when you exclude Michigan and Florida. Add in those and Clinton has a slight lead. Until the DNC decides what they're going to do there isn't it just a bit disingenuous to include those states in the tally?

Posted by Juan | March 5, 2008 7:44 PM

Are they counting Michigan and Florida?

Are they counting caucus states, which don't allways keep the head count?

Clinton is a joke. Hey Mark, how about since we need to know about Rezko we start getting into the Clinton white house furniture and pardons?

Lincoln Bedroom anyone?

Clinton is shameless and obviously never heard the expression about glass houses.

Posted by JOE | March 5, 2008 7:45 PM

It's like when a team gets more yards than another, but not as many points. They're still losers.

But then again, politics isn't a game and having a mandate from your party matters. I worry about Obama being forced to pick Clinton as his running mate and then picking up all the baggage that entails. The Republicans will try to run against her and Bill instead of Obama.

Posted by Mike | March 5, 2008 7:45 PM

How are the caucus turnouts being measured in the respective counts? It's my understanding that those numbers aren't official.

Which would seem to put the lie to the idea of the popular vote total being all that important.

Delegates, delegates, delegates.

Posted by Kevin | March 5, 2008 7:45 PM

What is this "essentially tied" crap I keep hearing from the press? Read a freaking sports page and it doesn't say 'Lakers essentially tie Celtics, 129-123' -- it's says 'Lakers win'. The rules say whoever has the most delegates wins the nomination.

Not most delegates from big states. Not most delegates from swing states. Not most delegates in the last 1/3 of the campaign. Most delegates. Period.

If a basketball team comes out in the second quarter and plays like crap and gets down by 20 points it doesn't matter if they win the 1st quarter by 6 points, the 3rd quarter by 6 points, and the 4th quarter by 6 points. It means they lose the game by 2 points and NOBODY questions the result or claims the game was 'essentially tied'.

Posted by joejoejoe | March 5, 2008 7:48 PM

Chuck Todd just said on Hardball that Obama had a 600,000+ lead in the popular vote that Clinton was unlikely to make it up in the remaining states. I think those numbers must include Michigan and Florida and that's the real reason she's so eager to pretend she did not know or agree to the rules about those two states back when she was inevitable. She knows she can't win the pledged delegate math, even with Florida and Michigan. Her only hope is to persuade the superdelegates that the will of the people favors her, which Florida and Michigan could help.

Posted by klp | March 5, 2008 7:50 PM

It's better than that. Not only do we lack accurate vote tallies in many of the caucus states (effectively excluding them) but the only way to add up the numbers to a Clinton lead is to include Florida and Michigan. But, get this - you've also got to exclude all of the voters who cast their ballots for 'uncommitted' in Michigan. So yeah, more people have voted for Hillary, if you include the two states where voters went to the polls without having been able to watch a campaign, knowing their votes wouldn't count for the nomination, and (in one state) without the ability to cast their ballots for the candidate they supported. That's fantastic, and wonderfully meaningful. I applaud America's television networks for highlighting this important fact.

Posted by FlyOnTheWall | March 5, 2008 7:51 PM

If you want to see a tangible smoking gun of media bias against Obama, look at how popular vote totals are reported by many media outlets.

First, many like ABC report them with MI and Florida included - and they rarely give the caveat.

Secondly, nobody ever gives the very important asterisk/disclaimer that these totals don't reflect caucus states because caucus states report out state delegate totals, not popular vote totals.
Basically, with Obama's caucus states taken out and MI and Florida put back in, Obama and Clinton are tied.

This is fuzzy math to the nth degree.

So to members of the media, I have a question for you:

Are you aware of the limitations of these numbers or do you lack the mathematical skills of an average 9th grader.

We need to pass a math education law for journalists. It could be called "No pundit left behind" If they fail to demonstrate basic mathematical competence, their salaries should be withheld.

Posted by RKA | March 5, 2008 7:53 PM

IOWA, Nevada, Washington and Maine have not released their popular vote totals. Two of these Obama won by blow outs. So whatever the totals may include they are not a true reflection of the total vote so far.

If you don't believe me, go to the RealClear Politics site and click on their popular vote totals.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 5, 2008 8:18 PM

I think a fundamental reality that doesn't get talked about enough: Hillary Clinton too would have essentially tied with Barack Obama. And he doesn't need to be on the ticket to have a viable political future. But if SHE manages to make a case and get on top of the ticket and he DOESN'T come abroad (and frankly there are a LOT of reason why he likely wouldn't) then she will have lost the African American vote in my opinion. She will have a lot of the youth vote sitting out. And there will be a substantial number of people who would throw in with Nader in anger.

Similarly: Obama would lose a lot of older voters, working people, and women. Women being the largest problem. And how to solve that isn't easy: Sellibus for example helps him with those categories but doesn't deal with the reality of people worrying over his experience in forigen policy. Through Sellibus's experience in general might work to negate that too.

So while he has a fundamental problems in winning the nomination this way; I would argue that SHE has just as many if not (in my opinion) MORE problems that only Obama solves.

Which is why, despite her he can't win Ohio spin and her attempts to paint him a paper tiget per the WashPo, Barack Obama not being on the top of the ticket is a BIGGER problem for the democratic party I'd argue than Hillary Clinton not being there; you can solve the Clinton demographic issues to a degree. You can't really do the same with Barack Obama in my opinion.

And given his newly created solid goal mailing list, I don't think people are going to be calling to drum him out of the party if he refuses the VP slot.

I would argue that Clinton is in fighting setting herself up for a VP position. Because he doesn't want her on the ticket and a lot of his supporters don't want her on the ticket. But I think she wants in the white house and wouldn't mind being a dick cheney type VP.

JMHO

I'd like to hear any thoughts on that: what the aftermath of one winning and not going on VP vs. the other would be. I tend to think my Obamamania blinds me, lol. But then again, I kinda knew in my bones he was losing Texas by yesterday afternoon when I heard he lost the day of voting by such a huge number given the huge turnout.

Oh well, 7 weeks.

I don't know how political people like you do this. I've never read the Atlantic or any other political magazine beyond going through Time when I'm at my parents house or the doctor. I'm not ignorant or anything, I read the paper and do the NPR thing going to work . But to care and actually work on this stuff, lol. I'd have ulcers!

Oh! And previewing this I thought of her choosing Harold Ford maybe? That would actually, I think , cause her more headaches with the JackandJill crowd. Again, jmho.

Posted by Rhoda | March 5, 2008 8:24 PM

The fat cats will decide who we vote for right?
we have 3 socialist pigs vying for president of the greatest capitalist republic on earth...once one of them wins whether it is obama lama ding dong, hillbillary or mad mad mad mad mad mad mccain, they will enlarge the government & taxes in gross ways . . we need a true conservative party in the u.s.a.

Posted by Gareof | March 5, 2008 8:28 PM

And if superdelegates are supposed to follow of the will of the people as expressed in these primaries and caucuses....ok, that's a cheap shot.

Marc: It's not a cheap shot at all. Superdelegates can vote any way they like. If they want to vote for one candidate because he holds a pledged delegate lead, they can do so. If they want to vote for one candidate because he holds a popular vote lead, they likewise can do so.

The clearest path to the nomination for Hillary is to continue to build nomination, and eke out a popular vote victory. This in an entirely plausible scenario.

It seems to me the popular vote is the clearest indicator of what constitutes the will of the people.

Posted by Rusty | March 5, 2008 8:39 PM

It all depends on whether you are counting the votes in FL and MI or not. If you don't, Obama is still ahead. If you count FL but not MI, Obama is still ahead. And if you count both, then Clinton pulls into the lead. BUT-- these results of course ignore all the caucus states (as if they should not matter). See:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Posted by Clare | March 5, 2008 8:40 PM

As a strategy, winning the popular vote while losing the delegate vote has not worked out well for Presidents Gore and Kerry. If that's their argument, it won't fly.

And I agree with Claire--the popular vote totals ignore caucus states. (Yes, I know HRC wants to do just that. But those states can raise a stink about not being in the popular vote totals, because they recorded delegates to county convention, not whether a delegate was won by 10 or 100 votes. They voted according to the rules. No one told them they had to keep track for Hillary's special new Hillary rules.) Still, any Obama campaign people checking here, it'd do to keep that up front as an argument.

Posted by Deborah | March 5, 2008 8:49 PM

Howard Dean, today:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/5/195937/9448

Posted by cajun | March 5, 2008 8:56 PM

Seems like 2 networks are in the tank for Hillary...apparently intimidated into submission.

Let's also talk about how Hillary won TX due to Republican sabotage "Limbaugh" voters, and how Hillary's vote totals were inflated in OH due to cheating; that's why Obama's poll watchers were not allowed in.

In TX there may have been cheating in some pro-Hillary districts.

Hillary is determined to ruin the Democratic party; in fact, the Clintons never were very good for the party anyway. The Clintons are the most corrupt, vicious, vile politicians in America today, and that says a lot.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 8:57 PM

As a strategy, winning the popular vote while losing the delegate vote has not worked out well for Presidents Gore and Kerry.

I was unaware that either Gore or Kerry had failed to secure a majority of pledged delegates. Surely you're referring to electors -- and the Electoral College -- and not party primaries, right? And at any rate, the specter (ie., Florida in 2000) you raise is that of a Democratic electorate that is enraged that the popular vote winner fails to win the prize. Are you sure you want to go there?

In any event, I don't think anybody in the Clinton campaign is planning to concentrate on the popular vote at the expense of the Electoral College. Indeed, one of the key arguments they'll be making to superdelegates is their contention that Hillary performs better with purple state swing voters (i.e., Latinos and working class whites) in the general election.

It all depends on whether you are counting the votes in FL and MI or not. If you don't, Obama is still ahead. If you count FL but not MI, Obama is still ahead.

Yes, but the point is the primaries aren't finished yet. We'll have to see what the vote totals are like in June. And it's pretty clear which way the wind is blowing with respect to Michigan and Florida. Against the wishes of the Obama campaign, the DNC is obviously moving toward revotes. They simply can't afford to write Florida off, and that's exactly what they'll be doing if they fail to give Florida's Democrats a voice in the nominating process. They also can't afford the possibility -- even if it's a remote one -- of turning Michigan back into a swing state.

Posted by Rusty | March 5, 2008 9:12 PM

"Clinton is a joke. Hey Mark, how about since we need to know about Rezko we start getting into the Clinton white house furniture and pardons?

Lincoln Bedroom anyone?

Clinton is shameless and obviously never heard the expression about glass houses.

Posted by JOE"

Hey joe those are great ideas. Of course repubs beat those very ideas to death years ago with senate investigations and what not. But something fresh that the repubs couldn't get to was who paid for socks the cat's mail list stamps. The repubs just couldn't fit that in before Clinton's term ended.

Anyway how about before we beat those tired old repub talking points to death we look at obama lying about his relationship to rezko:
An Obama Patron and Friend Until an Indictment

When Mr. Obama first fielded questions about Mr. Rezko last fall, he said they had had lunch once or twice a year and had socialized with their wives “two to four times.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/us/politics/14rezko.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

obama says he hardly knows his long time campaign finance chair and biggest donor. I guess that's possible but ooops:
My life as an FBI mole
FBI PROBE | Real estate broker convicted of fraud becomes a mole for feds to nail Rezko

Sources said Thomas also logged frequent visits to Rezko from Gov. Blagojevich and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/786015,CST-NWS-mole10.article

Seems an FBI mole taped numerous meetings between obama and the guy obama said only met once or twice a year.

So whatdaya think joe? You want beat those tired old repub talking points some more or do wanna you look at something fresh and untouch by the fawning national press?

Posted by hadenough | March 5, 2008 9:13 PM

ANY popular vote count that includes Michigan, and to a lesser though still important degree Florida, is complete and under BS.

Posted by Chris O. | March 5, 2008 9:14 PM

HRC only got 55% of the vote in MI without Obama on the ballot. I think that's a pretty damning fact.

Posted by hector the magnificent | March 5, 2008 9:14 PM

we need a true conservative party in the u.s.a.

I'm guessing you should be voting Libertarian?

Posted by justinb | March 5, 2008 9:17 PM

Nonsense on stilts.

The convention operates by having delegates vote.

Delegates are won by contests in states.

Popular vote overall has nothing to do with delegates.

Posted by Suzie | March 5, 2008 9:17 PM

Seems an FBI mole taped numerous meetings between obama and the guy obama said only met once or twice a year.

Cool. And I think I read somewhere they've finished seating the jury. If I remember correctly from my last jury duty, that means testimony now begins.

Marge, pass the popcorn. (-:

Posted by Patrick | March 5, 2008 9:20 PM

If, when it comes to June, Clinton and Obama are nearly tied in the popular vote count, but Obama has more delegates, isn't that a sign that Obama has a superior infrastructure in place with which to start a grassroots movement for his campaign.

Personally, I think that with 6 weeks to work on Pennsylvania, he'll end up winning the state - it'll be like Iowa all over again, only this time HE'LL have the head start. Polls have shown pretty consistently that his numbers rise and rise and rise the more he campaigns in a state, and a lot of that I think has to do with his campaign's ability to quickly put together a grassroots mobilization.

Either way, I think "ability to organize on the ground" is a good first tiebreaker (although "ability to raise record amounts of money from small donors" is a pretty good one too...).

Posted by ly_yng | March 5, 2008 9:28 PM

Without the Limbaugh voters trying desparately to get the least electable Hillary to win, then Obama wins TX popular vote by a few points. He also loses OH by a far smaller margin. Then eliminate Clinton cheating in OH, and maybe even Obama wins that state as well.

Are some Democrats so blind as to not realize that the Republicans are salivating at the chance of taking on Hillary? Why? They have tons of stuff on her, and have beaten her in the past. They beat her on health care, they beat her and Bill in 94, they beat the Clintons into supporting every major GOP initiative for the rest of the 90s.

Hillary the most hated politician in America, and the most corrupt one at that. Why won't she release her tax returns? Because they might show ties to big money and foreign interests, and that would destroy her populist theme and her national security theme.

Want to break the dependence on Middle Eastern oil? Oops, can't do that with Hillary, because Middle East oil has bankrolled the Clinton library. That's just one of many conflicts of interest the corrupt Clintons represent.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 9:34 PM

Personally, I think that with 6 weeks to work on Pennsylvania, he'll end up winning the state - it'll be like Iowa all over again, only this time HE'LL have the head start.

No way this happens. Pennsylvannia is a closed primary. Hillary has been utterly dominant among registered Democrats. I'd be surprised if Obama manages as high a percentage of the vote as he received in Ohio. In addition, the six week layover works both ways. She pretty clearly was able to use the two week rest after Wisconsin to slow Obama's momentum, sharpen her message, and get her campaign's act together. With six whole weeks to make sharp critcisms of Obama's flimsy experience and dubious judgment (meet with Chavez? hello??!!), she'll eviscerate him.

The convention operates by having delegates vote.

Er, yes.

Delegates are won by contests in states.

About 4/5ths are. Another fifth are party officials and activists known as superdelegates.

Popular vote overall has nothing to do with delegates.

Don't be absurd. Superdelegates are free to consider any factor they want, including the popularity of the respective candidates as expressed in popular vote totals.

Bottom line: Obama could have closed out Hillary on any number of occasions. He could have won New Hampshire. He failed. He could have won California or one or two other large Super Tuesday states and struck a knock out blow. He failed. He could have taken Ohio or Texas, and indeed a number of polls suggested he might well do so. He failed. And now she's nearly tied him in total delegates. Obama just can't close the deal. We need someone who can close in November.

Posted by Rusty | March 5, 2008 9:49 PM

Republican crossovers

In Wisconsin Republicans crossed over and voted for Obama. If you have anyone to blame, it is the Democratic Party. They appear to be a dysfunctional group letting the other side select our nominee.

Obama Poll Watchers in Ohio
They were not allowed in to disrupt the process because they needed an official letter from the Election Board in Ohio. They couldn't just show up and say they were poll watchers. However, Obama's side disagreed and said the letter was unnecessary.

Cheating in Texas
It must have happened on both sides. Hillary's precinct leaders were complaining about Hillary's signs being torn down.

Posted by EWard | March 5, 2008 9:53 PM

It's not true that the popular vote tallies exclude the caucus states. All but four of the caucus states report actual vote tallies (IA, NV, WA, ME). If you extrapolate vote tallies based on state delegate counts and reported turnout for those four states, it would add about 86,000 votes to Obama's margin. That's not insignificant, but it's not huge either.

I tabulated the numbers myself, and Todd's +/- 600K number appears to be roughly correct. (I got 579K without the above states and 665K if I add the extrapolated 86K.)

But yeah, including Florida and (especially) Michigan isn't reasonable.

Posted by RS | March 5, 2008 9:54 PM

Hillary needs more scrutiny. She's emphasized the importance of "vetting", so have at it:

In 1975, lawyerHillary attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old rape victim:

"I found this story about a case where Hillary used her knowledge of child abuse to get a man off of rape charges to be very sad and disturbing. Of course, it was her job as a lawyer to provide a competent defense, but it seems like she may have crossed a line by aggressively attacking the 12-year-old girl"s character.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story

She seems to have carried that tactic with her when she actively participated in smear campaigns against the credibility of the victims of her husband"s harassment, even after he was caught lying under oath in a court of law. Making women terrified to report sexual harassment out of fear of being publicly humiliated and having their careers destroyed is a terrible role model for women, as is attacking the character of 12-year-old rape victims.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/24/164324/479/466/463280

Posted by Joe | March 5, 2008 9:56 PM

Bottom line: Obama could have closed out Hillary on any number of occasions. He could have won New Hampshire. He failed. He could have won California or one or two other large Super Tuesday states and struck a knock out blow. He failed. He could have taken Ohio or Texas, and indeed a number of polls suggested he might well do so. He failed. And now she's nearly tied him in total delegates. Obama just can't close the deal. We need someone who can close in November.

So because Obama can't close the deal, we should nominate someone who can't even set herself up to close the deal? It really is the silly season.

Posted by RS | March 5, 2008 9:57 PM

Are some Democrats so blind as to not realize that the Republicans are salivating at the chance of taking on Hillary?

I think plenty of Hillary supporting Democrats -- me among them -- are well aware the GOP is "salivating" at the prospect of running against Hillary. I continue to support her because:

a) I genuinely believe she would be a better president than Barack Obama; and,

b) I think the GOP is wrong to want to run against the Clintons, because, given the extremely favorable circumstances for Democrats in 2008, they will defeat the Republicans even more handily than they did in 1992 or 1996. I'm not about to start letting Republicans tell me who I should vote for. And anyway I don't buy the hype that the higher-ups and political pros are truly so terrified of Obama and so eager to run against Clinton. Perhaps some Republicans haven't analyzed the prospective matchups very carefully, but do you honestly think top GOP strategists are really so eager to let us all know what they really want with respect to the opposition?

Posted by Rusty | March 5, 2008 10:00 PM

And at any rate, the specter (ie., Florida in 2000) you raise is that of a Democratic electorate that is enraged that the popular vote winner fails to win the prize.

Not at all. I am raising the specter of a Democratic electorate pouting that their guy won the popular vote, while being enraged by the vote-counting shenannigans that cost them an election in the electoral college. Loudly humming "ignore the pledged delegate count tied up behind the sofa; if you look at the popular vote from certain primary states while ignoring caucus states and independent voters, Hillary looks better" is not the same as "winning the popular vote." If Hillary wants to win the popular vote, she needs to explain what happens to counting the states who caucused and did not record the popular vote, not realizing it would be needed for the Special Hillary Do Over Rules. They followed the rules. She's trying desperately to make up new rules under which she wins.

The Rs won't wait around for her to get warmed up, then change the rules when she discovers she's losing under them.

Posted by Deborah | March 5, 2008 10:01 PM

Its just so clear from all the desperate sports analogies above that men love sports because they have simple rules and beyond the personalities involved lack real complexity.
Trying to reduce this much more dynamic situation between the two candidates, their campaigns, the electorate, each state organization, the layers of media attending and sometimes altering the dynamics AND history and inexact precedent from 43 other presidencies to the level of a game of football is fantasticly absurd.
Every aspect of the race has a million moving parts and it remains in flux constantly now.
Newsmagazine can't keep up anymore.

The reason I think the popular vote totals are so important is that in 2000 democrats (most of us) looked to the popular vote to help us understand bush v. gore, and for 8 years we've pinned that barry bonds-like asterix to bush's win and gore's loss. That means that forevermore we look at the disparity between popular vote and delegate allocation. Our imperfect system always surprizes us and then our ability to game or mine those imperfections for advantages surprizes us even more.

It is reasonable to assume that the race lasting the whole season of primaries is legitimate: the nation pays more attention each week, not less. Neither candidate lacked the knowledge that the season goes into the summer.

Everyone knew that the florida and michigan punishments were heavyhanded and a stretch when they threatened and then imposed them: no one could have missed that it might lead to problems later and make dems look stupid.

We must handle the complexity and fluid nature of chanf=ging dynamics because the system we use in this pluralistic society of ours allows for this complexity and for this many layers.
Everytime I laugh or dismiss the wild-eyed notion of obama supporters it is safe to assume that my pro-hillary post is driving them crazy or making them laugh. But we'd be stupid to not accept that deep down each side is entitled to its angle on the race.

But its pretty callous for either side to ignore the legitimacy and passion of the other side's view.

Posted by Michael C. | March 5, 2008 10:04 PM

Its just so clear from all the desperate sports analogies above that men love sports because they have simple rules and beyond the personalities involved lack real complexity.
Trying to reduce this much more dynamic situation between the two candidates, their campaigns, the electorate, each state organization, the layers of media attending and sometimes altering the dynamics AND history and inexact precedent from 43 other presidencies to the level of a game of football is fantasticly absurd.
Every aspect of the race has a million moving parts and it remains in flux constantly now.
Newsmagazine can't keep up anymore.

The reason I think the popular vote totals are so important is that in 2000 democrats (most of us) looked to the popular vote to help us understand bush v. gore, and for 8 years we've pinned that barry bonds-like asterix to bush's win and gore's loss. That means that forevermore we look at the disparity between popular vote and delegate allocation. Our imperfect system always surprizes us and then our ability to game or mine those imperfections for advantages surprizes us even more.

It is reasonable to assume that the race lasting the whole season of primaries is legitimate: the nation pays more attention each week, not less. Neither candidate lacked the knowledge that the season goes into the summer.

Everyone knew that the florida and michigan punishments were heavyhanded and a stretch when they threatened and then imposed them: no one could have missed that it might lead to problems later and make dems look stupid.

We must handle the complexity and fluid nature of changing dynamics because the system we use in this pluralistic society of ours allows for this complexity and for this many layers.
Everytime I laugh or dismiss the wild-eyed notion of obama supporters it is safe to assume that my pro-hillary post is driving them crazy or making them laugh. But we'd be stupid to not accept that deep down each side is entitled to its angle on the race.

But its pretty callous for either side to ignore the legitimacy and passion of the other side's view.

Posted by Michael C. | March 5, 2008 10:05 PM

In 1975, lawyerHillary attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old rape victim...

And would you think more highly of her had she engaged in legal malpractice by failing to vigorously defend her client? The presumption of innocence -- a fundamental pillar of our rights as a free people -- depends on the ability of citizens accused of crimes to secure competent legal representation. I'm sure next time you're accused of a crime you didn't commit you'll just plead guilty to avoid all that pesky constitutional rights bullshit.

Posted by Rusty | March 5, 2008 10:09 PM

Not at all. I am raising the specter of a Democratic electorate pouting that their guy won the popular vote, while being enraged by the vote-counting shenannigans that cost them an election in the electoral college.

Okay. And what I'm saying is that Hillary Clinton has a perfectly reasonable chance to take the lead in the popular vote after all is said and done in June. So, if we want to avoid "pouting" Democrats, we should go with the popular vote leader over the pledged delegate leader, if that happens not to be the same person.

Posted by Rusty | March 5, 2008 10:15 PM

Obama has almost 13 million votes compared with 12.4 million for Hillary, giving him a lead of 600,000 votes.

If Michigan and Florida are included, then Hillary has a lead of 36,000. Here's the link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

With respect to superdelegates, if they vote with their state, Obama would currently have a lead of about 150 superdelegates.

Posted by Nancy | March 5, 2008 10:29 PM

I'm pretty sure that the people who voted by caucus are not included in the popular vote totals. If that's the case, then Clinton is behind by an even greater amount than the current figures would indicate, because Obama has done well in the states that vote by caucus. Not sure if there is even any way to tabulate the popular vote in those states that caucus. Does anyone know?

Posted by hillbilly | March 5, 2008 10:35 PM

I'm pretty sure that the people who voted by caucus are not included in the popular vote totals. If that's the case, then Clinton is behind by an even greater amount than the current figures would indicate, because Obama has done well in the states that vote by caucus. Not sure if there is even any way to tabulate the popular vote in those states that caucus. Does anyone know?

Posted by hillbilly | March 5, 2008 10:35 PM

Hillary is very fortunate that she started this race with a bunch of superdelegates in the bag. Obama has had to earn his. Without that advantage, she would be toast already.

Posted by cajun | March 5, 2008 10:38 PM

florida and michigan don't count?
people got off their sofas and went to vote. The state counted the vote. If we are honestly trying to understand the mood of the people then count the voters who voted if only for the sake of these dialogues. Whether you seat the delegates or not, it'd be honest to acknowledge the people who voted in earnest when we informally try to understand how many voted.
1.7 million is a lot of people to ignore even when trying to get thumbnail and ball park numbers.

Posted by Michael C. | March 5, 2008 10:41 PM

So it's OK when Republicans crosses over and voted for Obama and NOT OK when the Republicans crossed over and voted for Clinton?

Posted by StevenT | March 5, 2008 10:42 PM

And you all do know that if it's winner takes all just like what the Republicans did in their primaries, Clinton is already the nominee?

Posted by StevenT | March 5, 2008 10:46 PM

Here's a thought: if MI and FL are allowed to "re-vote" will other candidates besides Clinton and Obama be allowed on the ballot? If not... why not?

Posted by ProfNickD | March 5, 2008 10:48 PM

"Hillary is very fortunate that she started this race with a bunch of superdelegates in the bag. Obama has had to earn his. Without that advantage, she would be toast already.

Posted by cajun"

Yup Hillary had lots in the bag. Of course they were in the bag because of Hillary's 35 years of working for dem causes. And yeah obama fresh from the daley machine had to rely on buying a lot of his thru his 'hope' pac which was stuffed with money from corporate lobbyists.

Posted by hadenough | March 5, 2008 10:52 PM

And you all do know that if it's winner takes all just like what the Republicans did in their primaries, Clinton is already the nominee?

Why is this remotely relevant to anything? In addition to WTA being an even less democratic system than the one the Dems currently have, the campaigns obviously would've conducted themselves differently if the rules were different.

Posted by RS | March 5, 2008 10:53 PM

Yup Hillary had lots in the bag. Of course they were in the bag because of Hillary's 35 years of working for dem causes. And yeah obama fresh from the daley machine had to rely on buying a lot of his thru his 'hope' pac which was stuffed with money from corporate lobbyists.

I think Hillary's 35 years of being married to Bill Clinton probably had something to do with it.

I don't want to denigrate the very good work that Hillary has done on her own, but over the top, oblivious comments like this deserve the snark.

Posted by RS | March 5, 2008 10:57 PM

And you all do know that if it's winner takes all just like what the Republicans did in their primaries, Clinton is already the nominee?

Why is this remotely relevant to anything? In addition to WTA being an even less democratic system than the one the Dems currently have, the campaigns obviously would've conducted themselves differently if the rules were different.

And if you talking about fairness, why not have all primaries rather than caucus? It's not about lets do it the next election, we could actually have done it months ago. Besides that we could use the NY style of distributing delegates with the % of votes. Wouldn't that be the fairest of all?

Posted by StevenT | March 5, 2008 11:06 PM

"I don't want to denigrate the very good work that Hillary has done on her own, but over the top, oblivious comments like this deserve the snark.

Posted by RS"

Over the top where? You don't like the fact that obama used his lobbyist fueled pac to buy delegates?

Posted by hadenough | March 5, 2008 11:07 PM

This has unfolded as it had to. From the beginning the Clinton campaign said that Obama needed to be vetted, and that wasn't going to happen (particularly with the OUTRAGEOUSLY BIASED MEDIA COVERAGE up to this point), until Obama actually became a perceptual reality as President.

Now that that is fact, the honeymoon is over for "Big Story". He has to play by the same rules as everyone else. John McCain gets a free ride because he is a senior citizen and was a P.O.W. Just like the drunk at the Legion. But Crack Alabama will have to face the heat. Even if they continue to stonewall on Rezko successfully, the NAFTA situation will be hard to dodge. TNR came out and called Obama and Plouffe LIARS in print. Backed it up with facts, as well.

We always knew that fat little loser Howard Dean would point his CULT FOLLOWERS to the Obama Compound, and suggest they don the robes of the NEW MESSIAH, but Howdy Doody's influence has to be diminishing in light of the SPECTACULAR MESS he has made of the DNC, and the Democrat electoral process in his tenure.

Posted by robert ethan | March 5, 2008 11:37 PM

These numbers include FL AND MI. And no, none of those "uncommitted" numbers went to Obama. It's a Potemkin number, just like her campaign and her claims to victory.

Posted by Elrod | March 6, 2008 12:01 AM

A caucus is less democratic than a primary, but it is also the only opportunity that Democrats in Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Kansas, Alaska, Nebraska, Washington, Colorado, Nevada, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming--14 states--had to participate in the nominating process. Throwing their participation down the memory hole, while pretending that 0 Michigan Democrats support Barack Obama, and that being forbidden to campaign in Florida & told that the results don't count had no effect on the outcome, does NOT represent the will of the voters. It's an empty justification for the party machine to justify voting for the machine candidate over the objections of the ordinary voters who tried to participate in the nomination.

Posted by Katherine | March 6, 2008 12:04 AM

Also, throwing around the term "popular vote" without making it clear what states count in this calculation & which ones don't is lazy, misleading, journalism & warrants a correction.

Posted by Katherien | March 6, 2008 12:10 AM

Obama has much more pressing worries than delegate counts at this point in time. There is LITTLE DOUBT THAT HE AND DAVID PLOUFFE LIED TO THE PRESS concerning that NAFTA affair. That won't go away easily.

Also it appears that his friend ANTOIN REZKO was "legally bankrupt" at the time of the sweetheart deal Rezko arranged regarding the purchase of Obama's upscale digs. It also appears that the money CAME FROM CONVICTED IRAQI BILLIONAIRE FRAUDSTER Nahmid Auchi, who is on the lam from French authorities and is being investigated in various international political scandals.

The Iraqi,Auchi, represents a whole different level of corruption to the Syrian, Rezko, and the Chetnik,Milorad Blajegovich, in Chicago politics. An Islamic fundamentalist with a long history of corruptly influencing politics in Western nations.

Posted by robert ethan | March 6, 2008 12:15 AM

Ambers, the TV numbers included both MI and FL.

I guess caucus states (and others) don't count, but a state in which Obama wasn't even on the ballot does!

Please, comrade, do tell your view on this exciting new Soviet method for tallying the will of the proletariat!

Posted by Tungsten | March 6, 2008 12:24 AM

Here is some info on Nadhmi Auchi to underline just how much more serious it is for Obama that financial backing for his home purchase came from the Iraqi (originally indicted in a treason conspiracy with Obama's namesake Saddam Hussein years ago in Iraq).

From Wikipedia -

Several US political fundraisers are currently on trial for corruption in connection with loans received from Auchi. Auchi is currently barred from entering the US by the state department as an undesirable alien.[3]

Nadhmi Auchi was viewed with a lot of suspicion by the Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein's regime, regarding him as a front-man for Saddam's intelligence service.[4] Auchi was involved in several multi-billion business deals in the post-Saddam era too, such as the Orascom mobile phone network (IraqNa), and at least one power generation contract involving Chicago-based tycoon Antoin Rezko and Iraq's former Minister of Electricity, Aiham Alsamarrae, who has been convicted over corruption charges in Iraq and is now living in Chicago.

Posted by robert ethan | March 6, 2008 12:35 AM

Here is some info on Nadhmi Auchi to underline just how much more serious it is for Obama that financial backing for his home purchase came from the Iraqi (originally indicted in a treason conspiracy with Obama's namesake Saddam Hussein years ago in Iraq).

From Wikipedia -

Several US political fundraisers are currently on trial for corruption in connection with loans received from Auchi. Auchi is currently barred from entering the US by the state department as an undesirable alien.[3]

Nadhmi Auchi was viewed with a lot of suspicion by the Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein's regime, regarding him as a front-man for Saddam's intelligence service.[4] Auchi was involved in several multi-billion business deals in the post-Saddam era too, such as the Orascom mobile phone network (IraqNa), and at least one power generation contract involving Chicago-based tycoon Antoin Rezko and Iraq's former Minister of Electricity, Aiham Alsamarrae, who has been convicted over corruption charges in Iraq and is now living in Chicago.

Posted by robert ethan | March 6, 2008 12:36 AM

Hello, Marc, commenters-

My two cents, on the original post by Marc on the popular vote (from which this thread has kind of wandered away:) - the excerpt from his post:

"Anyway, popular votes do not decide nominations, but they do raise provocative questions about the depth of support of nominee presumptives.

And if superdelegates are supposed to follow of the will of the people as expressed in these primaries and caucuses....ok, that's a cheap shot. Point is -- Obama has a sizable delegate lead. I'll say that until it's no longer true, if it ever becomes untrue. But even with the nomination in hand, there are political realities to having won the nomination by having essentially tied with your opponent."

I applaud the efforts of those commenters above who have tried to determine who is ahead in the aggregate popular vote. But in my view, it is not (directly) relevant to the decision-making process as to the identity of the nominee.

"Pledged delegates" + "super delegates" would be my answer.

My feeling is that the rules should remain constant. It has been clear to all participants, from the beginning, that supers are not bound, legally or morally, to support the candidate whom their constituents supported. We could debate the wisdom of their existence, or whether they SHOULD be bound legally or morally to do so, but those are the clear rules. Supers can vote as they wish.

In sharp contrast, there has never been any stipulation saying that the winner of the aggregate popular vote should get anything. The campaigns did not set up their strategies in order to maximize their popular vote. They did so to maximize their delegate count, both in pledged and supers.

Using the "Number of votes won" is a terrible yardstick. For one thing, as other erudite commenters have noted, it's apples and oranges b/c there would be no accurate way of measuring the popular vote in the caucus states. But even if there were, there was no provision from the beginning that the aggregate popular vote meant anything at all. (If it did, why would candidates pour millions of $$$ and months of time into New Hampshire?)

And even if I were to grant for the sake of argument that the aggregate popular vote should be a factor - how can this be fairly measured? Should O be penalized for taking his name off the ballot in Michigan? Is it fair to award HRC votes b/c she left her name on the ballot there?

Those are my thoughts, FWIW...

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com (McCain site) Publisher | March 6, 2008 12:36 AM

Robert Ethan is back--- heaven help this board

Maybe Rezko is related to Kevin Bacon -- find something valid

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/05/rezko/index.html

Posted by alison | March 6, 2008 12:39 AM

Some light reading to put you into a peaceful sleep, alison -

The Rezko Can of Worms
The Feb. 26 London Times story focused on Obama's relationship with indicted Chicago businessman Antoin (Tony) Rezko, and Anglo-Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi. Auchi, one of the wealthiest men in England, has been a business partner of Rezko since 2003, and between April 2005 and April 2007, loaned Rezko at least $18 million. In court filings, Rezko claimed that he was in debt to Auchi to the tune of over $29 million, indicating that the Rezko-Auchi story has yet to fully surface.

The first of the loans, for $3.5 million, was, according to the Times, made on April 28, 2005, and officially recorded a month later, just weeks before Rezko's June 15, 2005 joint real estate purchase with Sen. Obama. "The money transfer," the Times wrote, "raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain's wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago. A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama's bagman Antoin 'Tony' Rezko on May 23, 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through a Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million. Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city's South Side while Mr Rezko's wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15." Senator Obama has admitted that he went to Rezko, seeking help in the house purchase, and has subsequently described it as a "bone-headed" mistake. At the time of the real estate deal, it was an open secret in Chicago that Rezko was under Federal investigation on a range of political corruption charges—for which he was later indicted.

On Feb. 28, CQ Politics, the online newsletter of the Congressional Quarterly, picked up on the Auchi-Rezko-Obama saga, in a piece by columnist and noted Republican Party strategist Richard Whalen. "A new headache for Senator Obama has surfaced that could have a devastating impact on his presidential campaign," Whalen reported. Whalen quoted from the London Times account, adding, "We know less about Barack Obama and his political connections than we have known about any other candidate for the presidency in the past half century.... Obama's media honeymoon," Whalen continued, "may be over. A veteran journalist who covers Obama regularly provides this snapshot: 'He's not at all as he appears on television. He's cold, distant and tightly wound. But when the red light goes on the TV cameras, he's all charm and self-discipline in his choice of words.'

"This story is not going away," Whalen concluded. "The Rezko-Auchi connection is sure to trigger overdue press scrutiny when Rezko's trial begins on March 3. Obama's name could figure in the trial although he is not accused of any wrongdoing."

Indeed, the media scrutiny has barely begun, and already, other damning scandals are bubbling to the surface. The day after the Whalen column was posted, Washington Times national security correspondent Bill Gertz published his own take on Obama's "Auchi connection." Gertz cited a 2004 Pentagon report, which described Auchi as a billionaire, "who, behind the facade of legitimate business, served as Saddam Hussein's principal international financial manipulator and bag man." Auchi has denied the Saddam ties, and says that his brother was executed by Saddam.

The report to the Pentagon's Inspector General was triggered by allegations of corruption at the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which administerd the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq from 2003 to 2004. As quoted by Gertz, Auchi was accused in the report of "unlawful activities working closely with Iraqi intelligence operatives to ... arrange for significant theft from the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program to smuggle weapons and dual-use technology into Iraq," and to "organize an elaborate scheme to take over and control the post-war cellular phone system in Iraq."

Furthermore, according to the Gertz account, Auchi was linked in the Pentagon document to British intelligence. Auchi has denied all the allegations in the Defense Department probe, although his links to "former" top MI6 officials are confirmed by a search of public records of his companies and the Anglo-Arab Organization he founded.

EIR has confirmed that the Pentagon did release a "copy of a report published by the USD/ITS, investigating the role of Nadhmi Auchi and Dan Sudnick in mobile phone licensing under the CPA in Iraq." Several attempts by EIR to interview Auchi, about his business ties to Rezko and the Pentagon report, have not been answer

Posted by robert ethan | March 6, 2008 12:51 AM

REAL CLEAR POLITICS ELECTION 2008
March 6, 2008

Democrats Obama Clinton
Total Delegates 1573 1464
Pledged Delegates 1366 1222
Popular Vote 12,989,852 12,403,174
Popular Vote (w/FL) 13,566,066 13,274,160

Must have been really sleepy Marc
Obama ahead on popular vote even with Florida

Posted by barbara levin | March 6, 2008 12:54 AM

Robert Ethan: you need to do your homework better
Here is the link to the article you selectively quoted -- it is about a hit job being done on Obama-- try harder

even cultists can read--

"Over the past week, the real news is that London has launched its attack on Obama, in a number of news stories, typified by the Feb. 26 London Times story by James Bone and Dominic Kennedy, headlined "Mansion 'Mistake' Piles the Pressure on Barack Obama." London, typified by Times owner Rupert Murdoch, has the file on Obama, and it has signaled that it is ready to pull the plug on him—but only after Obama has completed his final assignment: the elimination of Hillary Clinton from the Democratic Party Presidential race. Then, all hell will break loose.

The London-led attack on Obama, which has been telegraphed, but not yet launched, is the key to getting Rohatyn's favorite candidate, Bloomberg, in. London has everything it needs to pull the trap door on Obama, just as LaRouche has been warning for months."

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2008/3510bloomberg_dripping.html

Posted by alison | March 6, 2008 1:07 AM

You should take down this post. You run an election blog and get paid for it - surely you can do your own research on this point. This is all public information and not hard to find.

Posted by ikl | March 6, 2008 1:17 AM

You're missing the point Alison, all of those things are TRUE. Whether someone chooses to consider the release of the information, a "London based attack" on Obama, is irrelevent.

The Rezko trial is on, and all of that information will come out. The American press have bent over backwards and offered up their orifices for Obama without shame, to this point, but they can't ignore the fact that Rezko was BANKRUPT at the time he helped finance Obama's home purchase, and THE FUNDS CAME FROM AUCHI.

Posted by robert ethan | March 6, 2008 1:23 AM

Counting popular votes in an election where delegates are what matters is irrelevant. The campaigns have devised strategies to capture delegates, not popular votes. Thus, their popular vote totals reflect that.

For example, Obama might try to run up the score in one district in order to gain an extra delegate. This could affect his vote total elsewhere in a state. If he weren't chasing delegates, he campaigns differently and thus has a popular vote total.

Look most of these types of arguments are rationalizations for why Hillary should get the nomination while ignoring the very simple fact that she won't win delegates. They are all excuses and distractions from the fact that Obama has run a well-organized and thoughtful campaign. "Hillary wins the big states" is another example of the Clinton campaign trying to pretend that there votes matter more. They don't. And in the end, at some point, when the excuses run out, the Clinton is just going to have to accept it.

Posted by Mike | March 6, 2008 7:07 AM

WOW...I see that the Hillary loons were out in full force last night.

So glad to see that closeted transvestite, Robert Ethan, has returned. Most excellent!

Posted by LarryT | March 6, 2008 7:32 AM

It's interesting to know what the popular vote was but, if I may make a sports analogy, no more interesting than knowing the yards of offense each team gained in a pro football game. Can we envisage a circumstance where the score finishes close but the NFL decides to award the game to the losing team because they happened to gain more yards of offense?

Having said that it's important to note that we cannot actually determine the popular vote in a primary campaign. That's because of the caucus states. Unless you do something like trying to discern what the popular vote might have been if the state had held a primary rather than a caucus, caucus states will not be fairly counted in your popular vote estimate.

To include Michigan and Florida in estimates of the popular vote is a travesty. In Michigan Obama was not even on the ballot. In both states turnout was suppressed by the assumption that the results would not count. The proof of this is that only in these states, together with Utah and Arizona, was the Republican turnout higher than the Democratic turnout.

Let's get back to the real situation. The rules tell us that the nominee will be chosen by counting delegates. On Tuesday about 370 delegates were at stake. Clinton's victories that night will reduce Obama's delegate margin by about 10 after all the delegates from the Texas caucus have been apportioned. By next Wednesday (after Wyoming and Mississippi) Obama's pledged delegate margin will likely be back over 150. After that there are less than 600 delegates to be determined by primaries and caucuses. It seems likely that Obama's pledged delegate margin in the end will be between 100 and 200.

Sure this can be looked at as a close contest. But let's remember where we started. The Clinton campaign looked like an unstoppable juggernaut. Well the juggernaut has been stopped and now thrown into reverse. Obama will be the nominee.

Posted by Peter | March 6, 2008 7:57 AM

Yeah right, let's include Michigan where his name was not even on the ballot. That's fair!

Posted by George | March 6, 2008 10:46 AM