Hillary needs to win 68% of popular vote to take the lead on March 4th

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

What percent of the popular vote does Hillary need to take the lead? To answer this question, I am not including superdelegates. If the superdelegates go against the pledged delegates, which won't happen, then no democrat will get elected. All of our talk will then be moot.

According to CNN, Obama has a 119 pledged delegate lead. Texas has 193 pledged delegates, and Ohio has 141 pledged delegates, which totals 334 pledged delegates.

Assuming that everyone votes for either Obama or Hillary in Texas and Ohio, to take the lead on March 4th, Hillary needs to win 68% of the delegates...

[tritsofme]

1. Pledged delegates won't be the only factor at the Convention.

In a contest where similar numbers of delegates are awarded for winning the support of tens of thousands of voters in a caucus state and several hundred thousands in primary states, the popular vote total of the entire process will be something that should be looked at by the superdelegates.

At the end of the day, a lead of a hundred or so pledged delegates without a clear majority on the floor is negligible.

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

2. Doesn't matter

If they aren't the only factor, and Clinton wins despite Obama having a lead in pledged delegates, enough people will leave the party to award McCain the next presidency. I don't think this can be reasonably debated.

[Tarc]

3. Then those people are idiots who will get the government that they deserve

if they walk out and hand a victory to the likes of McCain. The Naderite splinters were stupid enough to cost Gore the election in 2000. As flighty as some of Team Obama is around here, by and large I do not feel that they are equally that stupid to go against their own self-interests.

[BeyondGeography]

6. Hillary will be handing the win to McCain if she Gores Obama

just so you're clear.

[Tarc]

16. For fuck's sake; NO SHE WILL NOT

that blood will be on YOUR hands, if you are the type who will run off in a little hissy-fit huff if Obama comes up short because of superdelegates.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. Actually, no...if that happens, the Democratic Party is stupid and doesn't deserve to win.

Nominating a candidate who doesn't have a clear majority in delegate totals going into the convention is complete idiocy; how you can reasonably argue that a party that would do that is seriously deserving of support is beyond me. Any nominee selected under such circumstances is a guaranteed loser, and perception of a rigged nomination process will probably split the Democratic party for a decade.

[Tarc]

17. Again, no, it isn't the fault of the party or of Hillary

It would be the fault of the short-sighted losers who have already forgotten the lessons of Ralph Nader and 2000.

If you vote against your own self-interest out of spite over your favored candidate losing the primaries, you have only your own dumb ass to blame.

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. I fail to see...

how it's in anyone's self-interest to continue to support a party that wilfully overrules the will of a majority of Democratic voters in order to select a nominee that most of them didn't want. You'll have to forgive me; I think things should make a minimum amount of sense, and I'm not willing to compromise certain of my principles in the name of loyalty to a party that makes it clear they're undeserving of such loyalty.

[Tarc]

20. If you were too dim to know how the party worked before this election

that really isn't anyone else's fault but your own. You don't get to bitch halfway through the game that you don't like the rules.

80% - pledged delegates
20% - superdelegates

It wasn't top secret.

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. Except the superdelegates have never voted against the winner of the majority of pledged delegates.

You'd have to be pretty fucking dim to assume they'd do it this time.

You might also try not being an offensive jackass. The need to resort to ad hominem doesn't help your arguments.

[Tarc]

24. I don't care much if you're offended.

Grow some thicker skin and suck it up.

I already pointed out that the process has never really reached the point where it is now, where the superdelegates are in a position to be a deciding factor after the 80% of the pledged ones are all done and counted. Most of the previous primaries have long been wrapped up by Super Tuesday.

It is different this time though, and expecting/demanding/whining that the supers should just go along with the first round of voting is simply a dumb idea to put forth.

[Spider Jerusalem]

26. Yeah, and you have to be a brain-damaged moron...

to assume they'll buck the will of a majority of voters, even if the leading candidate doesn't have the total 2025 delegates. You seem to think otherwise; I submit that that's idiotic and delusional. One suspects you hold this opinion because your favoured candidate is not winning in the delegate totals; perhaps YOU should suck it up.

[Tarc]

27. Keep crying, kid. You amuse me

If you don't like how the party works, then kindly go Green or Libertarian or whatever tickles your fancy.

[tritsofme]

5. I don't think that will be the case at all. There are nearly 4,000 delegates out there.

If Obama or Clinton end the primary process and one has a lead in delegates and the popular vote it will be no contest.

But if superdelegates wish to accurately represent the willof Democratic voters, they have to go with the winner of the popular vote, and not let some arcane delegate selection process make the decision for them.

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

9. If that happens

If one has the popular vote lead, and the other has the pledged delegate lead, then I agree it can be up for debate. But, you can not include MI in the popular vote totals.

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

13. Also..

You can't ignore the disparity between caucus and primary voter count. You can't count 1 popular vote in a caucus the same as 1 popular vote in a primary.

[ORDem]

18. Oh, contraire, HRC can! n/t

[jefferson_dem]

8. Who needs rank-in-file Democrats when Hillary can have her henchmen hand her the nomination

in the smoke-filled backrooms in Denver?

Ah...Tammany Hall would be proud.

[Bucky]

23. When you make statements like that, you make it look like you're not well informed

Superdelegates are not Clinton's "henchmen." What a stupid thing to say. I mean, there must be a wealth of erroneous assumptions that have to go on in your imagination before you can even get close to statement like that. Supers are elected officials, beholden to wide varieties of constituents. They're leaders, not henchmen--and if they owe anybody, it would be to many different people; many of which are opposed to Clinton. I don't blame you for finding the conspiracies in your head scary, but try to keep some perspective here.

Plus I'm pretty sure the rooms in Denver will be smoke free.

[jefferson_dem]

4. Hillary's meme - real voters and caucusers don't matter. So-called "superdelegates" do.

Fuck that. This is the "democratic" Party. Remember.

[tritsofme]

7. If out of 4,000 delegates, one candidate leads by a negiglible amount

of delegates, and the other has a clear popular vote lead, why shouldn't superdelegates reflect the will of Democratic voters instead of arcane delegate selection rules that marginally benefitted one candidate?

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

10. As long as you don't include MI in the pop vote without a revote and

account for the disparity in vote count for primaries and caucuses.

[jefferson_dem]

12. The will of the people is determined based on the final tally of pledged (or earned) delegates.

Whichever canidate is ahead in the "delegate fight" will also likely be ahead in popular votes but it shouldn't matter. We've always know this is a fight for delgates.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/hillary_campaign_memo_the_race_remains_a_delegate_fight.php

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

14. Also..

You can't ignore the disparity between caucus and primary voter count. You can't count 1 popular vote in a caucus the same as 1 popular vote in a primary.

[SKKY]

15. I think they'll vote for whoever they want and then use either...

...of those two arguments to justify it as it suits them.

[ORDem]

21. You're not making sense, except in Hillary-land.

Look, Obama leads in the popular vote right now, including caucus voters. Think about it. Properly weighted as representative of what a popular vote would have looked like (you can argue that point and divide by 2 if you like) in those states, Obama is waaaayyyyy ahead in popular vote. SDs are not so stupid as to not know that. They are also very aware of the blue state vs. purple state argument. Most of them are elected officials or people who depend or would benefit from long coattails of the Presidential nominee. They are not going to participate in a big circle butt-fuck just to please Hillary's personal ambitions.

HRC supporters are grasping at straws here and if you keep it up you can just say hello to Pres. McCain, who will be laughing his fat ass off at how the Dems, in a golden opportunity year, have screwed themselves over once again. Already the GOP is swallowing hard and falling in behind McCain and the Dems better do the same, too, or we'll not only lose the Presidency, but never get real control over the Senate or House either.

:dem:

[Tarc]

25. "swallowing hard" means getting behind the winnier in ANY case

whether it is Obama or Clinton, whether or not the superdelegates were the deciding factor in putting one of them in.