If Obama loses the national popular vote will he concede?

[jackson_dem]

We are told that Obama steadfastly believes in the people's choice (minus 19 million Floridians and 10 million Michiganlanders) becoming the nominee. Oddly, though, his cronies keep talking about the pledged delegate winner should be chosen as the nominee. Notice how the false advocates of the popular will don't say the candidate with the most votes--the real people's choice--should be the nominee. This is because it is reasonably likely that Obama will lose the popular vote but win the elected delegate count narrowly based on lopsided wins in sham caucuses in which 500 affluent people vote while losing primaries in which 2 million folks voted by 250-300k (4.6 million in California and Obama lost by 400,000 but hey, 36,000 folks voted in Kansas and he won by 17,000). Obama and his campaign couldn't care less about the popular will. They just want to win and are posing as democrats to increase their chances of winning over superdelegates.

Here is the popular vote count minus Florida and Michigan: 0 13.0 million, H 12.4 million (51-49% excluding the Edwards vote)
The popular vote counting Florida: 0 13.6 million, H 13.3 million (50.46-49.46% minus Edwards and co.)
Counting Florida and Michigan: H 13.61 million, O 13.57 million

Let's ignore Florida I and Michigan I for the moment. Clinton shaved off about 300,000 votes from Obama's popular vote lead on March 4 and did this despite Obama having heavy momentum on his side. Extrapolating from Ohio she has a good chance of beating Obama by 300-350,000 votes in Pennsylvania alone now that Obama has been stripped of the aid of momentum. Let's suppose this happens. The popular vote lead Obama has dwindles to about a quarter of million with almost a dozen states left to vote. Assuming a split of those states, which is a generous assumption since if Obama loses Pennsylvania Clinton's momentum will further snowball and she could conceivably go on a similar "11 straight" winning streak like Obama did, that leaves us with the giant states of Florida and Michigan who appear to be heading for a re-vote. Clinton already won Florida by 300,000 votes despite Obama having ads on the air in the state. Such a performance would take care of the 300k deficit without even needing to go to Michigan.

You could craft a scenario whereby Obama wins the popular vote. However there is a very real possibility he will lose the popular vote and that is why his campaign and surrogates never say they will adhere to the true popular will: the popular vote.

How can Obama have a nearly insurmountable pledged delegate lead but such a shaky popular vote lead? Compare Clinton's 10 point win in Ohio to his win with 79% in the Idaho caucus.

Idaho: O 17,000 votes, H 4,000 votes
Ohio: H 1.2 million votes, O 0.98 million

Clinton won 230,000 more votes in Ohio while Obama won 13,000 more in Idaho. However, Obama won Idaho's delegates 10-2 while Clinton--with over 200,000 more votes--netted only one more delegate in Ohio than Obama did in Idaho (she gained 9 with a 74-65 split). This is why Obama's camp is using a sleight of hand to pose as champions of the popular vote while ignoring the true popular will. If Obama is what he says he is and means what he says he should come out and say his campaign will adhere to the result of the popular vote. That would be the most fair result and I hope the superdelegates go with the people's choice: the popular vote winner. After all, one of the founding tenets of the Democratic party was to champion the popular will.

Oh, and all of this ignores the ringer issue. Rethugs were voting 75-21, 70-30 for Obama as were "independents"--until mysteriously last week. Gee, I wonder what happened? The same ringers who were voting for Obama not because of bs crossover appeal because he says "hope and change" but rather to because they dislike Clinton (re: they wanted to hurt the Democratic party by voting for the weaker candidate, Obama) switched sides on 3/4 because they wanted to hurt the party, this time by prolonging the contest (the ringers would be out in full force for Obama in Pennsylvania but thankfully PA is a closed primary). Had Obama kept his traditional level of rethug support he would have won Texas.

[TAWS]

1. There is no accurate way to count the popular vote with caucus states n/t

[msallied]

2. We are not a popular vote system. Jeebus.

edited to add that this was supposed to be a reply to the OP. Sorry. :)

[totodeinhere]

13. Right. Caucuses count delegates, not individual votes.

Therefore if those caucus states had held primaries instead of caucuses Obama would have got a lot more votes. So talking about a nationwide vote total is misleading.

[jackson_dem]

21. That is misleading

If they held primaries he would have won by much smaller margins. Look at Texas. He lost the primary 51-47 but leads the caucus 56-44 (41% of the vote has been counted thus far). Or look at Washington. He won 67-31 in the caucus but only 50-47 in the primary.

The truth is if every state held a primary Obama's popular vote margin would be greater but his pledged delegate lead would be smaller and perhaps non-existent.

It is easy to determine the vote in those states. Take turnout and then divide the percentages each got. There were only two candidates in every caucus except for Iowa and Nevada.

[TAWS]

31. You could make these arguments back and forth for both candidates

If California didn't have early voting so early, Obama's margin would be much smaller, etc.

Fact is, we have caucuses and you can argue all you want about not having them in 2012 but they count just as much as primaries in this race.

[totodeinhere]

34. Look at it this way.

Yes, if they had held primaries he might have won by much smaller margins. But even with those smaller margins he still would have got thousands of extra votes.

The truth is it's impossible to predict exactly what would have happened if all caucus states that Obama has won would have held primaries instead. That's why we can't go by popular vote totals. We have to accept the system as it is and count pledged delegates.

[JackORoses]

40. all it proves is that Obama supporters are more dedicated

Sorry Hillary has lost.
It's really sad to see all the fits you all are going through now.
Give us Michigan and Florida!
Give us your Superdelegates and even your Pledged Delegates!
Caucus aren't fair!


bwaaaahahahahahaha!

[Neshanic]

91. And you floss too!

[Not the Only One]

94. that says it all

You might as well say Obama should concede if he fails to raise the most money or say the word Iraq too few times. None of those things matter to the process. The process is only about delegates and delegates obtained from a caucus count like those from a primary. The type of election is not important. It's only something that is tangentially related to the nominating process, just like raising money or giving speeches.

[awaysidetraveler]

96. It might be possible to project the popular vote with caucus states. Here's a wikipedia map.

It wouldn't be perfectly accurate, but it would show the massive lead that Obama has in the popular vote. The New York Times and others find it perfectly acceptable to ignore the existence of the popular vote in caucus states, but those votes represent a large number of voters.

Obviously, it matters what occurs in the caucuses, and caucus votes do represent voters by way of elected delegates.

?


Of course, Florida and Michigan votes also need to be counted, but they broke the rules: therefore, there should either be a new vote in those states or they should go to the convention; there's no third choice in that field, because Obama followed the rules by not campaigning in those states.

In response to your question as a point blank answer of realism: of course only the popular vote winner should be our candidate. Anyone calling themselves a democrat who claims otherwise simply isn't a democrat.

[Jamastiene]

3. Poor Florida

I don't know why they bother voting any more. There votes haven't been counted in 8 years now. Sad.

[jlake]

48. What's really sad is that the so called change candidate wants to keep the Bushie policy

of disenfranchising the voters of a great state --- and his supporters think it's dandy.

[Jamastiene]

82. It's just plain wrong of them.

They talk about Hillary and claim she is like Bush, but I wonder if they ever stop to look in the mirror.

[lmbradford]

98. actually....

Obama has released a statement saying "let's have a do over and then seat those delegates" and Clinton said "do-over, no way, I want to seat the delegates as is".....this from a primary where tons of people didn't vote because they were told it wouldn't count.


Who is disenfranchising? I say Clinton.

[jlake]

100. Obama. Making someone vote twice in order to be counted = attempt at disenfranchisement.

[lmbradford]

103. at least he was attempting to be fair...

She just wants those delegates without considering all the people who stayed home and didn't vote (since they were told it didn't count)

[Recursion]

4. The nightmare the party is looking at...

...is the possibility that Clinton will have a substantial popular vote lead and Obama a substantial pledged delegate lead going into the convention.

That would get really ugly.

[jackson_dem]

7. That looks like the most likely scenario

Will we be the Democratic party or the formula party? Should we give Obama's Idaho win by 17,000 the same weight as Hillary's win by a quarter of million in Ohio?

[Recursion]

12. The problem is, the Consitution makes Iowans more valuable than Ohioans

So, what do you do?

(As my thread on this subject suggests, there's not a "right" answer, IMO.)

[MonkeyFunk]

17. The constitution has nothing to do with how parties

decide to count votes in primaries.

[Recursion]

41. I didn't say it did.

But it does, in the general election, make the vote of an Iowan much more important than the vote of an Ohioan.

[jgraz]

51. Here's the nightmare the party is looking at

The rest of us have no problem understanding how the primary process is supposed to work.

[ButterflyBlood]

76. No, it's not going to happen

The only reason Hillary has a lead counting Florida and Michigan is the over 300k margin she holds in Michigan which is thanks to Obama receiving a total of 0 votes there.

Michigan will revote, and that margin will disappear. Hillary will be getting no "substantial" margin, she'll have a small lead at best.

[jackson_dem]

77. Read the OP. She doesn't need those states to win the popular vote

She is down by 600k excluding Florida and Michigan. In Pennsylvania she has a great chance at taking 300-350k more out of Obama's lead. Then there are the May states and Florida and Michigan II. All she would need is a margin of 250-300k votes from Florida/Michigan assuming, generously for Obama, a split in the May states.

Obama received 0 votes in Michigan because he preferred pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire.

[TheDoorbellRang]

93. I'd like to see the figures showing that that is even possible

Right now, the popular vote (without IA, NV, WA, and ME caucus states) stands at O = 12,999,088/ C = 12,410,650. That's 51.16% to 48.84%. The pledged delegates per AP are at O = 1360/ C = 1220. That's 52.71% to 47.29%. If one could add in the population from the four missing caucus states, that would probably bring the percentages even closer than the percentage point difference between them. And that's after adding in Texas, the only state that has the dual system that thru this proportionment for a loop, as far as I know. From here on out, pledged delegate apportionment in each contest will be roughly commensurate with the popular vote. So how is anyone foreseeing that the popular vote will skew in Clinton's favor while the PD's skew towards Obama? In what scenario could this happen?

[IndianaGreen]

5. Since Hillary said that McCain is qualified to be President and Obama is not

When will Hillary join Lieberman and stop pretending she is a Democrat?

[TAWS]

6. Those Idaho numbers are DELEGATES not VOTES

[jackson_dem]

26. Says who?

In Iowa about 200,000 folks voted in the caucus. Those Idaho numbers look realistic given the states population and the low turnout ordinary caucuses, especially one as uncompetitive as the one, produce.

[Hieronymus]

8. Do you think Hillary would concede?

[jillan]

9. I have been wondering the same thing.

What happens if Hillary has more votes, and Obama has more delegates?

Without Fla and MI, neither candidate will reach 2025 delegates.

[msallied]

19. Since this is a race determined by delegates

then the delegates have more weight. Otherwise we would have given Gore the presidency in 2000.

[jackson_dem]

23. Ah, but then there is the superdelegate component which both would need to get a majority

Obamites and his campaign can't pose as champions of the popular will and then act like losing the popular vote doesn't matter. If Obamas camp argues that sd's should not have free will and should be bound by the popular will it is hypocritical to ignore the popular vote.

[jillan]

39. And Howard Dean has already come out with a statement about SuperDelegates -

that both campaigns were aware of the role of the SDs at the time they began their campaigns.
You can't change rules in the middle of the game.

[msallied]

49. That seems to be a regular wish for Hillary voters...

Rules are only good if they benefit her.

They must be a bitch to watch sports with.

[jillan]

57. Helloooo??? Howard Dean IS the chairman of the DNC - not Hillary.

You do know that, don't you?:eyes:

[msallied]

67. Of course. That wasn't the point.

The point is the people in here whining about the status quo because it isn't benefiting their candidate. The caucuses are "undemocratic." The superdelegates are unfair. Popular vote should be more important than delegate count. Yadda yadda yadda. Anything other than "gee, it sucks that under the constructs of our system, our candidate isn't winning."

[jillan]

69. And thankfully we have a chairman to make sure BOTH candidates play by the rules.

[joshcryer]

86. Exactly, Dean knows the representive democratic process will play out.

And he knows it will be fair. Of course if Obama loses there will be a lot of people "bailing out" and so on.

But that won't mean that it wasn't fair.

[msallied]

45. Complain to the Democratic party about the superdelegates

It's not hypocritical to ignore the popular vote in a system that doesn't pick its candidates based on popular vote. We are not a direct democracy, and as unfair as superdelegates might sound, they hold to the principles of our indirect democracy. It would be more in keeping with those principles if the supers voted with the tide of the other delegates, NOT the direct population.

[jackson_dem]

50. The Obamite argument it is more democratic to ignore the democratic will?

:wtf:

[msallied]

52. Please look up representative democracy.

The "democratic will" is determined by the DELEGATES we appoint to vote FOR US.

[jackson_dem]

61. You mean like superdelegates?

Who are selected to be representative of their constituents...

Obamites are using pretzel logic in trying to defend an untenable position. I can't wait until Hill wins the popular vote and Obama is,. once again, exposed as a hypocrite on another issue.

[msallied]

65. Wish in one hand, shit in another. See which one fills up first.

It's not pretzel logic if you understand how a representative democracy works. They ARE representing their constituents, if you understand how politics works at the district level. Clearly you do not.

[jackson_dem]

68. Yes, just like superdelegates

Obamanation wants to cherry pick the rules while masquerading as champions of the popular will. Just another example of Obama's hypocrisy and false image.

[joshcryer]

89. Yes, and because neither can win without superdelegates, they will decide.

Popular vote will be one of their deciding factors, among many other things.

[msallied]

55. And that is not an "Obamite" argument

That is the argument of the very people who founded this nation. If you don't like it, you're welcome to move to Switzerland.

[joshcryer]

85. Yes, and this race will be determined by superdelegates, who will decide on a number of...

...factors.

[Barack_America]

10. Wait, 10 million people voted in the Michigan Dem primary?

Why the hell were they bitching about poor turnout then?

What's that you say? The "election" only represented a small fraction of that number?

[jackson_dem]

14. Florida had the 4th highest turnout of any state prior to 3/4

It still may be 4th but I haven't seen the numbers crunched for the 3/4 states. If turnout is the barometer than Florida definitely should be seated.

Of course not everyone voted. Neither did folks in the states Obama won. What was the turnout in Iowa? 200k? Yes, less than Hill's margin of victory alone in Ohio...

[MonkeyFunk]

15. No

Not even close. I don't think the OP said that.

[anonymous171]

11. You mean "had rush Limbaugh not encouraged repugs to vote for Hillary"

Right?

[jackson_dem]

29. How do you think Obama was winning rethugs 75-21, 70-30 before 3/4?

Much of that was to hurt the party by voting against the strongest Democrat, Hillary. Or did Obama's alleged crossover appeal vanish overnight on March 3?

[anonymous171]

46. His appeal didn't vanish.

The question you should be asking yourself is: When has Hillary Clinton ever had crossover appeal and why the change in TX?

[jackson_dem]

53. I answered that in the OP

Obama never had that appeal. He was getting rethug votes because it helped the rethugs to promote the weaker candidate, Obama. In Texas and Ohio many of them switched sides because in the near-term 7 weeks of Dem fighting is good for rethugs. Expect them to be back in the Obama column in May...

Oh, by the way Obama did win the rethug vote on 3/4. He just didn't win with margins of 75-21, 70-30 like he used to when the goal of rethug ringers was to knock Hill out. The same goes for indie ringers who switched by similar rates overnight.

[ingac70]

16. Idaho was a caucus... you're skewing numbers here...

http://people.howstuffworks.com/question721.htm

[jackson_dem]

32. Yes, caucuses produce far lower turnout than primaries

Which is one reason Obama performs far better in them then in primaries where everyone has an equal chance to vote...

[joshcryer]

87. We have legitimate caucus vote numbers, and they typically turn out 2% of voter pop.

And this is in a RECORD BREAKING SEASON.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. 'Popular vote' doesn't include caucus voters. Those numbers aren't reported.

Obama won most of the caucuses; exactly how is discounting those votes for him fair or equitable?

This is the system we have, and I'm sorry if you don't like it. The fact is, the chance that Clinton will enter the convention with a lead in pledged delegates is almost nil; the chance that the superdelegates will endorse her deus ex machina strategy by giving her their support when she has won fewer delegates is also almost nil.

[Tom Rinaldo]

101. They usually are reproted

Here is a link:
http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm

Washington State wasn't reported but estimates were made of about 200,000 participants

[Blondiegrrl]

20. Didn't Gore win the popular vote? You see where that got him.

Like it or not, this nation chooses its leaders based on the electoral college.

Frankly, by the next election cycle, I'd rather dump the entire system and go with the popular vote, but we're in the midst of an election year, and you can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

[jackson_dem]

30. Obama's camp is trying to change the rules to delegates only

The excuse is the popular will should be respected but they ignore the popular vote...

[Spider Jerusalem]

33. Except the rules are about delegates, not 'popular vote'.

So who's trying to change them?

[jackson_dem]

35. The campaign trying to change the rules about superdelegates

[Spider Jerusalem]

36. You can't have it both ways...

Hillary's campaign has been trying to change the rules re: Florida and Michigan (which they agreed to in advance).

[TAWS]

42. They are advocating a position, not trying to change the rules (big difference)

[Blondiegrrl]

38. Um, no. He's FOLLOWING the rules.

[jackson_dem]

54. So he won't complain if the super's put Clinton over the top?

[joshcryer]

90. Hmm, this is different. Superdelegates can and will use it as a deciding factor.

It's not just the only thing but it's certainly one of the things that they will use.

It's amazing how peoples biases come out here.

[jgraz]

22. The Popular Vote == Latest Bullshit Clinton Desperation Tactic

Just keep moving those goalposts. :crazy:

[BzaDem]

I find it so laughable that the popular vote is now a "bullshit desperation tactic"

I bet you thought that way when Gore won the popular vote. Wow.

[jgraz]

44. Yes. No one is stupid enough to argue that Gore won the presidency on the popular vote

(Well, except you, that is)

He won the presidency because he fucking won Florida and won the electoral count. The popular vote is a side-effect of the electoral process.

But of course, why would a Clinton supporter care about actual election procedures? Rules are for peasants, not for Queen Hillary!

[jackson_dem]

56. The Obama campaign is talking about overturning the popular will

Only Obamanation thinks the popular vote does not reflect the popular will, all in the name of King Obama's coronation! Obamanation is overturning what the party has stood for since day one with its freak definition of the popular will.

I love how Obamites are talking about Gore and 2000. When was the Democratic party founded? What led to its founding? Hint: the popular will being overturned triggered it...I know many Obamites are "new" ;) to the party and may not know these things.

[jgraz]

59. No, they're talking about following the nomination process

The process, I should point out, that ALL CANDIDATES knew about months before the campaigns started. Why is the fact that Hillary is too incompetent to follow the process an argument for installing her as our nominee?

[jackson_dem]

62. No, they aren't

They are trying to pressure superdelegates to vote for Obama based on a hypocritical argument (pledged delegates). If Obama truly cared about sd's reflecting the popular will he would step forward and say he would abide by the result of the national popular vote. He won't because there is a good chance he will lose the popular vote.

[jgraz]

70. Popular vote is meaningless in an extended process like this

If we had a single, national primary day, you might have a point. But that's not what this process is. With more states, more delegates and a lead he's held since Iowa, Obama has the overwhelming moral claim to the nomination. No Clintonian maneuvering is going to change that.

Oh, and he's probably going to win the popular vote as well. What criteria are you guys going to pull out of your ass then?

[jackson_dem]

73. The same argument can be made for pledged delegates

If Obama winds up losing 12 of 14 states should the party be bound by wins in Idaho when he was pristine in February?

The states argument is a joke. Only Obamites and rethugs--often one and the same--think land votes.

If he wins the popular vote he should be the nominee plain and simple.

[jgraz]

74. Pure Clintonian spin

You imply that Clinton should be handed the nomination if Obama loses 12 of 14 states and then immediately say that the state argument is a joke. Which is it?

The fact is that the primary process is about winning state contests and winning delegates. Nobody can help the fact that your girl sucks at that. Now she wants to use another criterion that has never been used to select a nominee. Surprise that it happens to be the only criterion where she still has a chance in hell of finishing ahead -- assuming she counts her two beauty pageants in FL and MI and also conveniently skips the four caucus states that don't count individual voters.

[jackson_dem]

78. You can't have it both ways

Your argument about an extended process can easily be used against Obama. You can't have it both ways by saying the popular vote doesn't matter of an extended process but the delegate count does.

It is the Obama campaign which is hypocritically (typical) claiming the people's choice should be the nominee while ignoring the popular vote. No one from the Hill campaign has brought up the popular vote because it would be stupid to do so when she is losing it by 600k right now (counting ringers for Obama).

The delegate count is basically a dead heat. Only in Obamanation does he have 3,000 delegates.

Those states were addressed earlier and she won one of them while in another she lost by only 15-16k votes (in the third she lost the sham caucus 68-31 but the primary only 50-47). She has a chance of winning the popular vote including those states. It isn't rocket science to estimate the popular vote in those states. Using the very logic of the hypocrite's campaign the popular vote winner should be the nominee. Why are Obamites afraid the greatest pol ever, the man with a monopoly on hope and inspiration can't win the popular vote against the evil caricature?

[Zynx]

75. Obama, who is supposedly at the forefront of a mass popular movement, should

not have to argue against the will of the people.

[jackson_dem]

79. Yup. It is all about Obama, not any principles

The only special change Obama's "movement" wants is his rear planted in the Oval Office presidential chair.

[joshcryer]

88. BUSH V GORE. DO YOU NOT KNOW WHY DU WAS CREATED?

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE.

[jgraz]

92. Ironic, then, that your candidate is using Bush's playbook from 2000

Clinton Cribs from the Bush Florida Stolen Election in 2000

And, just so we're clear, DU was not created to abolish the electoral college, even if you do TYPE IN ALL CAPS.

[DearAbby]

24. Primaries = DELEGATES n/t

[boppers]

25. If we keep changing the game so Hillary could claim a win...

...should Obama kow-tow to it?

Uhm, no.

Why didn't you just start your post with 'If New York is the global city, shouldn't we just give Hillary the coronation she desperately wants?'

[jackson_dem]

37. So you have no problem with Obama's hypocrisy on the popular will issue?

It is Obama, who favors disenfranchising Florida and Michigan (states with a population of nearly 30 million, yes 1/10 of the nation's population!), who suddenly has begun posing as a democratic champion.

[boppers]

60. As soon as they have valid elections or caucuses...

...they should be seated.

Until then, we shouldn't seat people based on straw polls that didn't involve, ya know, all the things normal elections have.

[jackson_dem]

64. Do you see Obama, the New democrat fighting for a re-vote in Fl and MI?

;)

[boppers]

66. As soon as there are DNC rules, yes, I can easily see that.

Hillary, OTOH, is staunchly against running election cycles in MI and FL.

Because, well, you know, she might lose.

[BzaDem]

27. We DO have vote totals for all but 4 caucus states.

Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine are the only ones where vote totals are not known (and only state delegates are known). All the other caucus states have vote totals.

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

See bottom of that page.

[jackson_dem]

47. Yup and we can easily determine the popular vote in those states

For instance, say, 200,000 voted in Iowa. He won about 76,000 votes and Edwards and Clinton about 60,000. The truth is even with giving Obama the small advantage he gets from this (as we should) he still may lose the national popular vote if he gets trounced in Pennsylvania (he trails by 15 right now in PA) and Florida and Michigan again.

Keep in mind Clinton won Nevada--a state where Obama's campaign and Obamanation curiously didn't care about the popular will--and in Washington Obama won the sham caucus 67-32 but the popular vote in the primary 50-47.

[BalancedGoat]

72. So...

We're going to start guessing how many people voted for which candidate? If we had accurate totals you might have a leg to stand on with your argument; however, we don't.

The process is the process and to argue against that at this point is absurd. The fact is that super delegates are part of that process. It is their right to vote how they choose. If Clinton wins via the SDs, I'll live with it, but I worry about the headlines the day after and the effect they will have on the party and our chances of winning in November. A situation where Obama leads in pledged delegates and Clinton could legitimately claim the popular vote is probably the worst situation we could have going into the convention. You can sure that whichever way the SDs go the media would spin it like they went against the will of the voters.

[Ichingcarpenter]

28. Your momma will lose two states you don't mention

big time.

[JimGinPA]

43. Sorry, I Couldn't Get Past The First Sentence I Was Laughing So Hard.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[jackson_dem]

58. The laughs will begin if Hill wins PA and this becomes a national issue

There is no point in her raising this argument right now when she trails by 600k votes* outside of FL and MI. After Pennsylvania, though...

*She leads by about a million among Democrats. Ringers have put Obama momentarily on top.

[Laurab]

63. Isn't Hillary running w/McCain now?

It is beyond my understanding how anyone in the Democratic party can support her any more, yet you blindly go on. She praises the opposition party and their nominee, she continues to try to change the rules, move the goalposts, do ANYTHING to win, caring nothing for what she's doing about the chances of a dem winning in the GE.

And her supporters think it's ok. It's really, really sad. Pitiful, even. To have the nerve to call Obama supporters a "cult" and all the other stupid names, but to close their eyes to some of the most vile things ever done in a Democratic primary, because one person cares about nothing but her own ambitions.

Hillary has already lost the GE for herself, no matter what happens, and she's working on losing it for Obama. The party leaders will have to step in before she gift-wraps the election and hands it to McCain. She'll be lucky to be elected back to her senate seat.

[jackson_dem]

71. Thankfully the netroots doesn't reflect the real world!

[Laurab]

102. True - for Hillary I guess. The more uneducated in politics

don't see what she's capable of doing, what she's already done, and will vote blindly. I do understand that. What I don't understand is why she has any supporters on this board.

I hope you're all being paid well, otherwise there's really no excuse.

[billyoc]

80. We don't have a national popular vote. nt

[revolve]

81. How did Obama Lose votes when you put Michigan In? nt

[jackson_dem]

104. He didn't. I didn't round to the tenth for the MI+FL numbers to show the .04 difference

[joshcryer]

83. Yep, because her delegates cost more in votes than his. Check my sigline.

[joshcryer]

84. Perspective: She'd have to win 1.4 million *more* votes than him to *tie* in delegates.

[foo_bar]

95. "the woman gets the lesser deal"

Can you explain the connection between the Great Compromise and Clinton's womanhood? Was the system biased against her in smaller states on account of her gender, or her lack of campaign presence?

[awaysidetraveler]

97. I'm double posting this map for sanity: Obama has won the popular vote.

It wouldn't be perfectly accurate, but it would show the massive lead that Obama has in the popular vote. The New York Times and others find it perfectly acceptable to ignore the existence of the popular vote in caucus states, but those votes represent a large number of voters.

Obviously, it matters what occurs in the caucuses, and caucus votes do represent voters by way of elected delegates.

?


The map is care of Wikipedia.

Of course, Florida and Michigan votes also need to be counted, but they broke the rules: therefore, there should either be a new vote in those states or they should go to the convention; there's no third choice in that field, because Obama followed the rules by not campaigning in those states.

In response to your question as a point blank answer of realism: of course only the popular vote winner should be our candidate. Anyone calling themselves a democrat who claims otherwise simply isn't a democrat.

[jackson_dem]

105. He leads the popular vote now. The question is whether he will by June 7

And if he retains his pledged delegate lead but loses the popular vote should he, since he is posing as a champion of the popular will (minus 10% of the population in FL and MI), concede and instruct the superdelegates to vote for the people's choice?

[mmonk]

99. Not if its concentrated in one or two states that will go democratic anyway.

That would be stupid. It's about the electoral map.