Clinton has won 800k more Democratic votes than Obama, Obama has won white Dems in only 2 states

[jackson_dem]

It’s well-known that Barack Obama’s success has depended largely on independent and Republican voters. The corollary to that, however, has been less thoroughly reported: Obama is losing among Democrats.

Over at the Perfect World, Cal Lanier crunches the numbers and finds that Obama, despite being ahead among pledged delegates, has fewer total votes among people who identify themselves as Democrats. (He has 7,392,809 votes; Clinton has 8,229,063.) That gives Clinton as lead with 52 percent of Democrats. Lanier also breaks the numbers down by race and points out that Obama has won white Democrats in only two states: New Mexico and Illinois.

The numbers are hardly perfect. They rely on CNN and MSNBC exit polls, which are inherently rough. (Extrapolating those percentages to estimate exact numbers of voters is going to compound margins of error.) And because caucuses report delegates, not individual turnout, those stats are going to be a little murky, too. I'd also dispute their inclusion of Florida and Michigan in the count. But Clinton’s lead is still large enough to be significant.

It helps you understand why the party gives so much power to its 796 superdelegates. If they didn’t, independents and Republicans could essentially hijack their election. It also makes you wonder whether Clinton should start citing this number, if she maintains her lead through the convention in August. Even if Obama leads in the popular vote and among pledged delegates, it might disturb party gray beards to learn that the nominee has essentially been chosen by outsiders.

http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/02/28/a-number-you-probably-haven-t-seen.aspx

[GarbagemanLB]

1. It's over. Please, just accept reality...denial only makes it that much more difficult.

[maddiejoan]

2. Stop talking to yourself

it's unsettling.

[rodeodance]

41. there you go again---the big crystal ball has cracks in it you know.

[pathansen]

58. If she wins the popular vote, Florida votes need to also be counted

or it will be too much like a repeat of 2000.

[yourguide]

69. All dem voices were not heard in FL and MI

There were only 4 contests that had more republican voters than dem voters:

Utah (Romney's home state)
Arizona (McCain's home state)
FLORIDA
MICHIGAN

All voices were obviously not heard in those contests as some voters assumed their votes would not count, what about their voices?

[Faygo Kid]

3. He is winning by playing by the rules.

If you want to win by convincing the superdelegates to vote for Clinton despite Obama's continuing wins, good luck. It won't happen.

You are grasping at straws. If Clinton gets the nod that way, it's worthless.

[jackson_dem]

8. That is playing by the rules too, isn't it?

If Obama wins the nomination based on rethugs and "independents", many who consistently vote rethug, we should just disband the party and merge with Lieberman's "Independent Democrat" party which relies on the same coalition Obama has.

[Faygo Kid]

19. Sorry you're bitter. I disagree with you, but the rules for the nomination are known to all.

Look at it this way: If the situation were reversed, and Obama had lost 11 straight with the closest margin at 17 points, I would have called for him to step down gracefully. Your point is noted. Your loss is anticipated.

[jackson_dem]

22. You can't, like Obama, cherry pick which rules shold be applied

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. Non sequiter.

[Faygo Kid]

42. Which rules am I cherry picking? He is winning the nomination.

If he wins Texas and Ohio, it's over. If he wins either, it should be over. Last time I looked, he's ahead in delegates. So which rules am I cherry picking? Also, convenient that you ignored my comment on 11 straight losses for Hillary.

[rodeodance]

45. "IF"

[Faygo Kid]

Glad you got to see the photo, rodeodance.

Hope you enjoyed it. You'll be seeing more everywhere soon (with all due respect, and I mean that honestly, recognizing your passion for your candidate).

[pathansen]

59. Winning by Repubs taking over the Democratic caucuses is not exactly playing by the rules

[yourguide]

71. It's not Obama's fault that half of the republican party

hate her so much that they crossed party lines to vote against her. That's the candidate's fault.

[Lucinda]

Thanks for the link.

Bookmarking to read later.

[skipos]

4. God damn it, I want a candidate who appeals ONLY to dedicated Dems.

I loved the electoral results of Dukakis, and we need a candidate who can repeat them. Who is with me?

[davidinalameda]

16. we have a winner!

you forgot Mondale as well

[Capn Sunshine]

48. I'm with you! So are Mc Govern and Mondale!

It's time to stop this dangerous thinking that we need a candidate who can get votes from EVERYBODY!

[bermudat]

103. Good One :)

[anonymous171]

5. Using exit poll data again?

Less and less people identify with a party.

[jackson_dem]

10. On paper. In reality 90% of "independents" consistently vote for one party

That's right. Obama is ahead based on the votes of rethugs and "independents" who in many cases consistently vote rethug...

[anonymous171]

14. Maybe they vote repub because no democrat has ever reached out to them.

[jackson_dem]

21. Dems have tried to reach out to rethugs and vice versa forever

Clinton actually won more rethugs than Dole won Democrats in 1996. Usually there are more Dem defections than rethug defections (i.e. 11% of Dems voted for Bush in 2004 while only 6% of rethugs voted for Kerry).

[anonymous171]

24. Did Bill Clinton move the party more rightward?

[Hepburn]

70. So.....

....what??? :eyes:

What a total bullshit argument.

[Debi]

6. So, if only Democrats vote for the Democratic nominee in November

Who will be the next President? :banghead:

The nominee will NEED other party voters to give them their support or the next Pesident will be John McCain.

[TAWS]

7. Too bad the general election is an open election n/t

[Happyhippychick]

9. The numbers are hardly perfect. They rely on CNN and MSNBC exit polls, which are inherently rough.

That's a quote from the article.

I'm kinda not caring if it's Obama or Hillary (I'm the weird one who would truly be happy with either) but this article is really a reach.

[jackson_dem]

12. A reach based on what?

It is pretty much on target. We know Obama has 2:1 advantages with rethugs and indies. Do the math. Factor in the points he gains from them and then subtract them from the overall total to get the Democratic vote.

[panader0]

11. Not more votes in total though

Obama leads overall. When you say "people who identify themselves as democrats" you are playing a game. Many independent voters are going for Obama. That is a good thing. In the last 20 years, the number of indies has grown alot.

[bvar22]

93. The number of Independents has grown a lot since 2006...

...when Democratic Majority in Congress and took Impeachment "Off the Table" and voted to fund the Iraq War.

[davidinalameda]

13. the flaws in your argument

is that we need all Americans, not just Democrats, to win in November especially after that past eight years which have been the most divisive in history since the Vietnam War era

we don't need more partisanship-we need less

it's caused more and more people to register as independents

people are sick and tired of all the partisan bullshit

we need someone who can lead all the people

and that ain't Hillary

[jackson_dem]

17. So let's nominate Lieberman then. He ran on the same, won the rethug vote, indie vote

And won much of the Democratic vote in CT. Yet the netroots was, rightfully so, fully behind Lamont. If we are going to vote based on who the rethugs like the most we should nominate their favorite: Lieberman. That makes no sense, right? Neither does letting rethugs hijack our party.

[davidinalameda]

77. the people spoke on Lieberman

was his a fair election-yes

was there any question in who won-no

the people of Connecticut spoke-I don't like what they said any more than you did but they spoke

just like half the voters in 2004 chose Bush

that's what's great about this country-the voters choose their representatives

not the party bosses, not some Politburo, not one person

if you have a problem with the primary system-you need to contact the state parties

and I seem to remember that New Hampshire and California-which both allow independents to vote in the Democratic primary-went to Hillary

[mtnsnake]

33. How do you figure that those are flaws in jackson_dem's argument?

I don't see anything you posted that points to any flaws in what was posted in the OP.

[Yael]

15. So we are back to using exit polls as opposed to real votes?

I thought this meme died out a few weeks ago when Taylor Marsh was hyping it.

[lapfog_1]

18. What percentage of self identified Democrats are NOT voting

for Obama if he is the nominee? What percentage of the independents and self identified Republicans are NOT voting for him? What percentage of independents and Republicans will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee?

Those are the important numbers, are they not?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

20. now why did ya have to go and give the Obama peeeps such a big wedgie

[quantass]

23. WOW -- this Division in the Party is becoming Serious -- Hillary Must Go already...can't wait

[jackson_dem]

27. We heal the party by nominating the guy who is losing Democratic votes?

That makes no sense.

[bigbrother05]

86. He's not losing Dem votes, he's building the total Dem pool

There may be some self-identified Dems that will stay home or even vote GOP, but the vast majority will vote for the nominee. With the kind of turnout we are seeing, think it's obvious either candidate will have an edge in the GE. One thing we don't know is how much the Dem candidate will energize the GOP base. Given HRC's history, think she's more likely to bring out the opposition than BHO.

[Hailtothechimp]

25. I can live without the bold, thank you very much.

We're not going to find you more credible when you use it so much.

Quite the contrary, in fact. It only serves to heighten your desperation.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

82. Could You Be Any More Petty?

For real. You go right around substance and complain about something so petty and childish? Seriously, that's as bad as someone alerting the poster that they left out a comma or something. Of all the things to complain about, that was really all you could come up with? My god how petty some people are.

[From The Left]

26. Hillary Hasn't Won a Single Caucus State

[Debi]

31. Caucus states don't count - except for Nevada where Clinton did win n/t

[jackson_dem]

32. Nevada, despite fighting the rethugs and "independents" voting heavily for Obama

[jody]

28. Exit polls show BO wins 18-29 yr old white votes in several states. See DU thread below

CNN has interesting stats from Dem exit poll, Obama less than 50% white vote except in states:

[NEDem]

29. Ummmm

I think Nebraska is about 95% white, and he got 68% here. So I'd say he won "white democrats" in a "white" state. Kansas is pretty close to Nebraska, so that would be 2 "white" states.

[jackson_dem]

43. How many of those votes were from rethugs and indies?

There is no exit poll data for those sham caucuses anyway so we will never know.

[NEDem]

63. It was closed caucus

People could come in and change affiliation. total changes....around 300 total new registrations...around 800. Which accounts for less than 1% of the caucus total.

You can try to spin it as much as you like, but he destroyed her in the whitest of white states.

[polichick]

30. So Hillary will save us from Indies and Republicans?? nt

[Debi]

35. Yes, we ONLY want Democrats to vote for the Democrat in November

McCain can have all the republican and other party voters. That way we'll lose the White House and several other races...but we'll be PURE :thumbsup:

[polichick]

49. Oh, I get it...

I guess we'd better stop talking to Indies and Republicans who are changing their voter registrations here in PA so they can vote for Obama ~ our local office has only been up and running for three days and we've already met tons of them, either in person or on the phone. I'm amazed at the number of people who are switching!

[Debi]

51. If they are not Democrats THEY MUST NOT VOTE!

That is just giving OUTSIDERS a say in our democratic process of choosing a president. No GOOD NO NO GOOD!

[seaglass]

101. You either don't get it or you're in denial. There is no evidence that the people voting for

a particular candidate during the primaries, if not a member of that party, will vote for that candidate during the GE. They are unreliable voters.

Has anyone said we would not want Republicans and Independents to vote for our candidate in the GE? No, I didn't think so.

As a Democrat, I want Democrats to select who our candidate will be - not Independents and Republicans.

[tyne]

40. Obama has won the white vote in only two states?

Excuse me....Idaho? We have less than 1% AA's. He won 80% of the vote.

[Debi]

53. heh, they don't count n/t

[shraby]

34. My husband and I are both unaffiliated

and consistently vote Dem.

[jackson_dem]

44. Exactly and there are many "independents" who consistently vote rethug

We want these people to decide our nominee? Why don't we just give them their dream team: Obama-Lieberman?

[Hepburn]

75. I want the AMERICAN VOTING PUBLIC

...regardless of party affiliation to make sure that someone other than John McCain wins the WH. Do you get it yet!?!?!?

[Demagitator]

36. The poll...

numbers the public opinion engineers (MSM) does not want...the public to know about.

[mtnsnake]

37. I hope Hillary's campaign manager has hold of this

There's just enough time to get some TV commercials pointing this out. The Obama folk would be in an uproar if they did. lol

[totodeinhere]

66. Those figures are meaningless.

They use polls results, not real results. And remember that even the article mentions that this doesn't take into account caucus states where they count delegates, not votes. Many of Obama's strongest states are caucus states. If there had been primaries instead of caucuses in those states Obama would have got a lot more votes.

[chascarrillo]

39. Because, as we all know, non-white voters don't count.

Go away.

[rodeodance]

46. Shame on you!! for saying such a thing!

Because, as we all know, non-white voters don't count.
Posted by chascarrillo


Go away.

[chascarrillo]

54. It was the original poster's argument: That non-white voters count less than white voters.

And, yes, I agree. Shame on jackson_dem.

[jackson_dem]

55. Lame smear but typical for a cultist

You apparently don't understand the demographics for the general election are different than that for the Democratic primaries. Obama can get away with this in the Dem primaries but not in the general. It is simple math.

[anigbrowl]

64. I'd like to see how many Dems have got elected to the wH without the black vote

Your argument is both condescending and foolish.

[jackson_dem]

81. You are thinking naive and not looking fact based

The answer to your question is only William J. Clinton since LBJ, and even that was in 1996. He would have never been president in the first place without the black vote. Your mistake is assuming Obama will get more of the black vote than Hillary. The black vote consistently goes about 90% to the Democrats, even when the Dem loses in a landslide. Hill will keep all of the black vote and not lose the extra white Democratic vote that Obama does. The only legitimate argument Obamites can make, and it is backed up by current data, is that Obama will offset the loss of white (and presumably Latino, Asian, and Jewish) Democratic votes by gaining among independents. That is the case right now but it is a gamble since, obviously, Democratic votes for a Democratic nominee are far more reliable than independents voting for a Democrat. Obama's case relies on the assumption that he will retain his strength among the most volatile group of voters as he finally gets attacked by the other party and msm.

Speaking of condescending, why are you ignoring Latinos and Asians, as well as Jews? Hillary does much better among these groups than Obama does. There are more than 2 groups in the USA...

[bigbrother05]

87. And the Dem voters don't usually go to a Dem candidate in a close election?

Have always heard there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics", think exit polls are in the statistics category.

Edit to add:

What good would 90% of the black vote do HRC if large numbers of them stayed home after being categorized as cultists and fairy tale believers during the primaries.

There will be a lot of bridges in need of repair after Denver, the one to the black community has damn near been burned down by the Clinton campaign.

[yourguide]

47. you shouldnt include michigan and FL

especially michigan, it was not a fair election as voters in both states knew their votes would not be counted. Sorry.

[jackson_dem]

56. Did they vote for fun? They made their voices heard. Will we listen?

[yourguide]

62. Not EVERYONE made their voices heard

Only 1 of the 4 front runners was on the ballot in michigan and no one was allowed to campaign in either state.

What about those who DIDNT vote knowing their vote wasnt going to count?

There were only 4 states total that had higher rethug turn out than dem turn out:

Utah (Romney is from utah)
Arizona (McCain from arizona)
MICHIGAN
FLORIDA


If that doesnt tell you that all voices werent heard then nothing will.

[NorthernSpy]

50. 1980, Reagan Democrats. 2008, Obama Republicans.

Why not? Where is it written that we always have to be the ones in a posture of permanent retreat and compromise?

[NJSecularist]

52. Last time I checked we knew back in early 2007 that independents were going to be able to vote

in the Democratic primaries.

Now that independents are sinking Hillary's campaign, her supporters want to move the goalposts. Typical.

You need an independent coalition to win the general election.

Or we could just nominate a candidate like Hillary who only appeals to Democrats. And then we could have another Dukakis-like landslide. That sounds fun. :woohoo:

[bowens43]

57. So now you want to limit votes to those made by registered Democrats??

Your arguments keep getting dumber and dumber. You do realize don't you that independents will this election and they hate Hillary. Are you also implying that if Obam gets the nomination that Hillary supporters will stay home of vote for McCain?

YOu really are getting desperate and your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. That's , there's a very real possibility that Hillary's campaign will come to end on Tuesday.

Do you support HIallry's attempted theft og the election by using super delegates and trying to seat the delegates in Fl and Mi? If so, how is that any different then Gore's loss in 2000. Did you support the actions of the republicans in Florida?

[Demagitator]

60. In the age of -- strategic voting...

in swing states -- yes -- all poll numbers are relevant.

[TheWebHead]

61. well if only democrats could vote in the GE that would mean something

but otherwise it's sour grapes...

[jefferson_dem]

65. I don't think the OP realizes this reflects more poorly on Hillary than it does on Obama.

...If we accept the numbers as valid on their face...which I don't.

This is actually a pretty strong "Obama is more electable" argument made by a Hillary supporter.

[jackson_dem]

68. He would be more electable if the general election were in March

Just like "new", undefined candidates Kerry 04' (+8 became -3), Bush 00' (+11 became 0.4%), and Dukakis 88' (+17 became -7) were before the other party got their hands on them...

[jefferson_dem]

76. Your point is that Obama has more support from Independents and cross-overs than does Hillary.

These voters have already rejected Hillary. You only offer conjecture but no evidence that they will also reject Obama in time. Some will stay with Obama, some will not, others will be converted. We should go with the candidate who has the greater upside. Hillary's ceiling is set.

[jackson_dem]

79. Yes, as of March 1

when is the election?

Obama runs only 4-5 points better than Hill against McCain and this is despite Hill being attacked by the rethugs for 16 years and Obama remaining pristine. How weak will he be once the rethugs are done with him? That is not a chance I am willing to take. I think Hill actually has more upside since she will only go up as McCain goes down since he also hasn't gotten much bad press in his career. Obama will go down at a faster rate than McCain, though, and he will lose ground relative to McCain because of that. Hill's poll numbers are like Gore being down 11 at this time in 2000. She is as well-known as him and has been attacked even more than him. As Gore's "new", undefined, "change" opponent got attacked by the other party he lost 11.4 points relative to Gore because Gore was basically as low as he was going to go in the polls. So is Hillary in my view.

[ContinentalOp]

67. If you think about this logically for a minute...

you will realize that the vast majority of those Democratic Clinton voters will vote for Obama in the GE. On the other hand, the Republicans and Independents voting for Obama would most likely not vote for Clinton. Now, they may not all vote for Obama in the GE either but some of them surely will.

[DemGa]

72. This would put Obama on shaky ground indeed

With the Dem base fractured, Obama HAS to count on the intangible: repugs and indie votes. If they don't stick around, Obama could be one of the worst disasters for Dems EVER.

Let's all hope the Democratic base turns things around on Tuesday.

[ContinentalOp]

73. And she STILL only leads by 51.68%

So if you ended the primaries today, unfairly counted MI and FL where nobody campaigned and not all candidates were on the ballot, and threw out all Republican and Independent votes from states with open primaries, Clinton still only wins Democrats by 51.68% percent! That's hardly a mandate. Hey, if we try to change the rules midstream our candidate might just barely squeak by! Hooray!

[GOPBasher]

74. Thanks for making my case the Obama is the better gen elec. candidate.

Obama can win independents from McCain, and Hillary cannot. Period.

[Hepburn]

78. Exactly.

And...that is why us Dems would be committing political suicide if Hillary is the nominee. She cannot beat McCain. Obama most likely can. The very best reason to be for Obama is: He is NOT Hillary Clinton.

JMHO

[New Dawn]

80. 52% is NOT impressive

Remember back when her campaign officials believed that her victory was "inevitable"? LOL.

[RememberWellstone]

83. Ruh roh.

They said..............................................nevermind. The Obama kids were wrong again.

[anonymous171]

88. Thankyou for your ageist post.

[Omega3]

84. this proves what I've thought all along, he is being propped up by indies and repukes that will NOT

vote for him come November. I really believe the real Democratic Democrat's choice is Hillary Clinton. Here's why:

Look at the states he's won, red states whereby he could count on alot of repuke votes for him to help mess up the primary. Remember the REpuke race has been settled for a LONG time now. Now consider some of the states he's won.

KS, NE, ND, ID, AK, AL, GA, SC these are all traditional dyed in the wool red states and I simple can't see any of them going blue in 08.

He's won IA, VA and MO but those have been in play for the dems the last few elections and will be no matter who the nom is.

HE won NJ by 4 points, it will go dem again no matter what. right next to NY and a dem stronghold.

He won Minn by 10pts I believe, one of the most dem states in the union, will go blue no matter what.

Hillary wins CA, NY, Mass etc traditional blue states with a larger tradiional dem base, ie. less meddling by repukes in an open primary.

Hillary is the real choice.

[ContinentalOp]

89. Again,

Even IF...
- the primary process were suddenly halted and no more votes were cast
- you somehow threw out all Republican and Indie votes
- you count MI and FL where Obama had an unfair disadvantage

...then Clinton still only wins Democrats by 51.68% percent according to the numbers linked in the OP.

That's not a mandate. And it's pretty pathetic at this point in the game to argue that if you cheated and changed the rules in the middle of the game your candidate still barely gets a majority.

[surfermaw]

85. I repeatedly in my post stated that the republicans were

backing one of our candidates, with money and no one even tried to find out which one. I knew in my heart that the republicans were behind Obama to keep Hillary out...BUT the thing that turned around, is that he became so big that he will beat their ssa in November. And let me tell you the republicans really don't like Obama, but many of the moms are saying that if MCCain wins they can see their sons in Army green and they will vote Obama to prevent that from happening.

[Arugula Latte]

90. Another reason he's a much better general election candidate than she is.

[LordJFT]

91. so now not only do independents not count but other races don't count!

[jpak]

92. Ummm...you forgot Maine - Obama won the "white vote" up here - handily

what a bunch of horseshit...

[Omaha Steve]

94. History lesson on cross over voters

When Reagan almost won in '76, it was with the support of Dems in cross over primary states. Together they almost defeated incumbent Ford in the '76 Republican Convention.

http://www.daily-chronicle.com/articles/2008/02/16/opinions/columnists/columnists03b.txt

I accept their help and support as returning the favor. :-)

[Honeycombe8]

95. Clinton has won more white males wearing baby blue socks...Obama won those only in 1 state.

He is doomed.

[maximusveritas]

96. Hillary doesn't use this argument because she's not an idiot

She may be lots of bad things, but she's not dumb. She knows this argument won't fly and will only make her look more desperate.

[BenDavid]

97. You are right....No obamabot can find fault with this....

[ElsewheresDaughter]

105. if they lived in the real world

[cindyw]

98. WTF does "White voters" have to do with anything? Does being white make you a more valuable voter?

Seriously, if one more person acts like winning white votes is a sign of "really" winning, I will SCREAM. Even if Obama won the presidency and every single white person voted against him, he would be the rightful president of the united states.

As far as Independent voters, MANY of them are former Dems who left the party because of it's spineless behavior the last 7 years.

Now knock it the fuck off.

[zulchzulu]

99. "...well-known that Barack Obama’s success has depended largely on independent & Republican voters."

Yes, and blacks and white and middle class and lower class white and Hispanic and women and boomers and young people and seniors and former Clinton supporters...

As for superdelegates, they are going over to Obama.

Whoever the asswipe who wrote the article perhaps has never been to Iowa. If the fuckshit did a teensy bit of homework, the population of white people there is about 97%. It's funny that state wasn't listed. The crack pipe must have fallen on the floor.

[NJmaverick]

100. Are white votes worth more?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

104. oops there it is...you Obama peeps always do it

[NJmaverick]

107. Really???? Who brought up "white voters"??????

Seems to me it was your side

[ElsewheresDaughter]

108. ummm Slate.com is a pretty good guess no?

[NJmaverick]

109. Still a wrong guess

It was in the first post of this thread.

[catgirl]

102. Independents don't matter?

And FIY, the Superdelegates are flocking to Obama. Your post is confusing.

[long_green]

106. Can you not think of a way to make your argument...

other than saying, "Obama shouldn't be the nominee because white Democrats want someone else?"

"...it might disturb party gray beards to learn that the nominee has essentially been chosen by outsiders." But it would be just ducky with the GE voters to see the voters' preference overturned by party insiders, many if not most of whom are not elected officials. The superdelegates have "power" only until they actually use it. The minute they do, there won't be any superdelegates anymore.

The rules are what they are. Perhaps if they were different we'd have a different nominee. Tough.