OK, so "Caucuses aren't democratic and we should only look at Primaries". Fine.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Let's see what happens when we do that.

(numbers from: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-PU.phtml)

State ...................... Date .... Type ............ Obama ....... Clinton ......... Total

Alabama ................. 5-Feb ... Primary ........ 300,321 ...... 223,096 ...... 536,635
Arizona ................... 5-Feb ... Primary ........ 167,508 ...... 201,380 ...... 398,444
Arkansas ................. 5-Feb ... Primary ......... 82,010 ...... 219,415 ...... 312,984
California .............. 5-Feb ... Primary ...... 2,126,600 .... 2,553,784 .... 4,947,074
Connecticut ............ 5-Feb ... Primary ........ 179,349 ...... 164,831 ...... 353,504
Delaware .................. 5-Feb ... Primary ......... 51,148 ....... 40,760 ....... 96,374
Democrats Abroad ....... 5-Feb ... Primary ......... 15,214 ........ 7,501 ....... 23,105
District of Columbia .... 5-Feb ... Primary ......... 93,386 ....... 29,470 ...... 123,994
Florida .................. 29-Jan ... Primary ........ 571,333 ...... 865,099 .... 1,737,197
Georgia .................. 5-Feb ... Primary ........ 704,247 ...... 330,026 .... 1,060,851
Illinois ................... 5-Feb ... Primary ...... 1,318,234 ...... 667,930 .... 2,038,614
Louisiana ................ 9-Feb ... Primary ........ 220,632 ...... 136,925 ...... 384,346
Maryland ............... 12-Feb ... Primary ........ 521,686 ...... 309,799 ...... 862,539
Massachusetts ........ 5-Feb ... Primary ........ 511,887 ...... 704,591 .... 1,246,628
Michigan ............... 15-Jan ... Primary ........ 236,955* ..... 327,419 ...... 592,261
Mississippi...............11-Mar ... Primary ........ 251,098 ...... 154,310 ...... 414,473
Missouri .................. 5-Feb ... Primary ........ 405,284 ...... 395,287 ...... 822,454
New Hampshire ......... 8-Jan ... Primary ........ 104,772 ...... 112,251 ...... 287,304
New Jersey ............. 5-Feb ... Primary ........ 492,186 ...... 602,576 .... 1,119,768
New Mexico .............. 5-Feb ... Primary ......... 71,396 ....... 73,105 ...... 149,379
New York ............... 5-Feb ... Primary ........ 751,019 .... 1,068,496 .... 1,891,143
Ohio ...................... 4-Mar ... Primary ........ 982,489 .... 1,212,362 .... 2,233,156
Oklahoma ................ 5-Feb ... Primary ........ 130,087 ...... 228,425 ...... 417,096
Rhode Island ............ 4-Mar ... Primary ......... 74,701 ...... 108,062 ...... 184,923
South Carolina ........ 26-Jan ... Primary ........ 294,898 ...... 140,990 ...... 532,151
Tennessee .............. 5-Feb ... Primary ........ 250,730 ...... 332,599 ...... 618,711
Texas ................... 4-Mar ... Primary ...... 1,356,330 .... 1,455,959 .... 2,861,924
Utah ........................ 5-Feb ... Primary ......... 70,373 ....... 48,719 ...... 124,307
Vermont ................... 4-Mar ... Primary ......... 91,829 ....... 52,854 ...... 147,655
Virginia .................. 12-Feb ... Primary ........ 627,820 ...... 349,766 ...... 986,203
Washington ............ 19-Feb ... Primary ........ 354,112 ...... 315,744 ...... 691,381
Wisconsin .............. 19-Feb ... Primary ........ 646,007 ...... 452,795 .... 1,111,285

Grand Total ............... All ... Primaries ... 14,055,641 ... 13,886,326 ... 29,307,863

* Uncommitted MI votes assigned to Obama. I >>know<< you're not gonna say he should get 0.

-----

Obama still leads the popular vote by nearly 170,000 votes if you only count the primary states - and leads the race 17-15 in primary states won. Even if you assume that 15% in MI would have voted for Edwards, that still puts Obama in the lead by about 81,000.

The remaining states Clinton has the best chance to win (all primaries) are: PA, WV, KY, OR, P.R.
The remaining states Obama is likely to win (all primaries) are: IN, NC, MT and SD.

Even if you assume she wins all five of those states/territories (which may be assuming a lot) Obama would still have won the primary state/territory race 21-20; and according to my calculations, in the worst case scenario he would lose the popular vote in those states/territories by about 151,000 total -- giving him a slim lead of 19,000 overall in primary states.

So.

My question for Clinton supporters is this: If the above scenario came true, Obama won more primary states and more popular vote in those states - would you support him winning the nomination?

If not, what's your argument NOW? How could you support overturning the popular vote in the primary states, which you consider more democratic?

[sandnsea]

1. Clinton is not winning OR

She might win Indiana however.

[FlyingSquirrel]

12. Most recent poll (Feb 21) shows Obama leading 40-25 in Indiana

Most recent poll in OR showed Clinton leading Obama 36-28, however that poll included Edwards. But I used that poll to make the point that even if you assumed it was accurate she would still have lost the overall popular vote in primary states, and won fewer primary states than Obama. I agree that Obama will probably win Oregon.

[sandnsea]

18. Cool about Indiana

Edwards has been really popular here, so I imagine that's why Obama's numbers were lower earlier.

I was giving you the info because I don't know the difference in delegates or population between Oregon and Indiana and whether that would change your calculations.

[FlyingSquirrel]

19. Indiana ~ 6.3 million vs OR ~ 3.7 million.. for the record, here are my calculations.

They are somewhat complex and they favor Clinton to some degree because they are based on the most recent polls (some of which have shown a clear trendline for Obama, and others of which are outdated - especially Oregon).

Kentucky, I used average of Clinton's victories in swing states which included her home state of Arkansas. Puerto Rico and Montana were a bit of guesswork, to be honest. South Dakota was based on Obama's average victories in Red states (primaries only).

So my best case scenario for Clinton (not counting Guam):

State ............ Date ..... Type ........ Obama ... Clinton ..... Turnout

Pennsylvania ..... 22-Apr ... Primary ... 595,663 ... 769,284 ... 1,411,557
Indiana .......... 6-May .... Primary ... 369,005 ... 264,471 ..... 696,894
North Carolina ... 6-May .... Primary ... 491,659 ... 431,472 ..... 950,310
West Virginia .... 13-May ... Primary ... 117,970 ... 188,854 ..... 337,540
Kentucky ......... 20-May ... Primary ... 245,983 ... 289,728 ..... 540,064
Oregon ........... 20-May ... Primary ... 194,418 ... 232,060 ..... 470,519
Puerto Rico ...... 1-Jun .... Primary ... 236,123 ... 255,961 ..... 495,952
Montana .......... 3-Jun .... Primary .... 99,277 .... 83,236 ..... 184,383
South Dakota ..... 3-Jun .... Primary ... 100,955 .... 87,081 ..... 190,062

Totals ........... ALL ...... Primaries 2,451,054 .. 2,602,148 ... 5,277,281

PA: Clinton, 54.5% - 42.2%
IN: Obama, 53.0% - 38.0%
NC: Obama, 51.7% - 45.4%
WV: Clinton, 56.0% - 35.0%
KY: Clinton, 53.6% - 45.5%
OR: Clinton, 49.3% - 41.3%
PR: Clinton, 51.6% - 47.6%
MT: Obama, 53.8% - 45.41%
SD: Obama, 53.1% - 45.8%

Again, I personally expect Obama to win Oregon and do better in most of the other states. But in this worst case scenario for him, he still wins the overall popular vote in primary states by a small margin and wins the primary states 21-20.

[BzaDem]

2. Add FL + MI revotes and the whole ball game changes.

[ossman]

3. How?

[FlyingSquirrel]

4. If you'll notice, I included MI and FL in the above numbers.

I gave Obama the uncommitted votes in MI. Only fair since "Uncommitted" basically meant, "Not Clinton" and he is the only "Not Clinton" left.

So even with MI and FL added in he wins.

Next argument?

[ossman]

6. Exactley. Do Hillbots expect 70/30 blowouts in MI & FLA?

Dillusional.

[DiggerDan]

5. It ends the Clinton meme they would turn the campaign in her favor

Clinton would win Florida, but not by the margin she won it in Jan. Remember, Edwards got close to 15 percent there. A revote and it's at most, a 7-10 pt. win for Hillary.

As for Michigan, she may end up LOSING a new race. With a little effort, Obama would do very very well in Detroit and the surrounding areas. I'm sure there are some other areas around the state they could target as well. Ann Arbor comes to mind.

As an Obama supporter I would love a new vote in Michigan. Losing Florida, is a formality but it stands to reason he could improve his showing there and limit her advantage there and win Michigan outright.

I'm not saying this will happen, but it is reasonable to include it in the discussion.

[ossman]

7. I can see it now... Obama's MI victory speech at the Big House in AA before 100,000 people!

Bring on a new MI vote.

[DiggerDan]

10. Detroit is 82 percent African American

I think he could do well in Flint which is about 52 percent AA. I'm not saying she couldn't excel, but it's doable for Obama. Maybe they figure losing it is worth winning a primary that counts in Fla.

[theboss]

20. Not to go all Bill Clinton, but Jesse Jackson won Michigan

I think it's fair to say that if Jesse won a state, Obama can win it. (Granted, it was a caucus then but still).

[Catherina]

8. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

We should only look at Puerto Rico and then, if that doesn't work, at the Supreme Court.

K&R ;)

[lligrd]

9. Hey, You Have To Delete All States That Begin With M Or N

too. :sarcasm: Oops, that would delete New York that won't work.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

22. How about

Allsates whos name comprises of only a single word that begins with M or N

[doyourealize1]

11. Yes

[Apollo11]

13. Superdelegates should use their judgement, taking all factors into account.

Each automatic delegate has to make a decision for herself/himself which candidate they are going to support at the Convention. They will also have to decide how they will justify their decision to the folks they represent.

In California, Senator Boxer has said that she will support the candidate who won the California Primary, which means Hillary Clinton. I respect Senator Boxer's decision.

In Massachusetts, Senators Kerry and Kennedy, plus Governor Patrick, are all "in the tank" for Obama, despite the fact that Hillary won the Mass primary by a big margin. Apparently, John Kerry is under the impression that he should go along with the majority decision of Democratic caucus-goers in places like Iowa and Idaho.

In John Kerry's case, I think it's more about taking revenge against Hillary after she distanced herself from Kerry's failed attempt to tell a lame joke about getting "stuck in Iraq" just a few days before the 2006 congressional elections.

[ossman]

14. Translation... "Automatic Delegate" = Hillary Supporter Bullshit

Just like "Caucus Votes"

[Apollo11]

16. If you know latin, it makes more sense to call them "ex officio delegates".

I think the word "superdelegates" is very misleading. They are just regular delegates who are there because of the position they hold (in almost every case - a position they were elected to). Each delegate has 1 vote. No "super" powers involved.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Governor O'Malley is also going against the will of Maryland voters no matter what

Two can play this game.

[Apollo11]

17. It's not a game, it's how the system works.

Obama supporters are constantly telling Hillary supporters here to respect the system and follow the rules and accept the outcome of the process.

[FlyingSquirrel]

23. And you, then, are saying we shouldn't?

Or are you just saying that superdelegates are part of the process and Obama supporters should accept their judgment? I'm getting confused about what you're actually saying.

I personally think superdelegates should do what they feel is right. Period. The ones who have chosen their candidate for whatever reason and plan to stick by that candidate no matter what, that's fine by me on both sides. The ones who, perhaps, made their choice out of political expediency and may be tempted to change from Clinton to Obama when the voting's all over, well, I don't have as much respect for them but again if that's the criteria they're using then whatever, that's politics.

It's the remaining undecided supers that a lot of us are focused on. Have they already made their decision and they're keeping it a secret? Or do they plan to make their decision based on the election results? If so, will they be putting more emphasis on the winner of the delegate count or the popular vote? If they're using either one it's fine with me. But if the same candidate wins both the delegate race and the popular vote, I'd sure like to know how those supers in good conscience can ignore that and point to a few larger states that Clinton won.

[anonymous171]

21. PRIMARIES ARE NOW UNDEMOCRATIC! SUPERDELEGATES SHOULD DECIDE FROM THE START!

:sarcasm:

[Strelnikov_]

24. Since when are caucuses considered un-democratic?

Did I miss the memo?

[FlyingSquirrel]

25. It's been floated around here in GDP for awhile now by some Clinton supporters.

:eyes:

[Strelnikov_]

26. Yea. Un-Democratic.

[rainbow4321]

27. Since HRC started not being able to win them

Funny how she had no problem with them back when her husband won TX's caucus.

[stillcool]

28. Since Obama won them..