In most inclusive count, Clinton has the numbers....Philladelphia Inquirer.............

Why doesn't it matter?!?

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080523_In_most_inclusive_count__Clinton_has_the_numbers.html

Lost in the excitement of Barack Obama's coronation this week was an inconvenient fact of Tuesday's results: Hillary Clinton netted approximately 150,000 votes and is now poised to finish the primary season as the popular-vote leader. In some quaint circles, presumably, these things still matter.
Real Clear Politics keeps track of six versions of the popular-vote total. They are, in ascending order of inclusivity: (1) the popular vote of sanctioned contests; (2) the total of sanctioned contests, plus estimated votes from the Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington caucuses; (3) the popular vote plus Florida; (4) popular vote plus Florida and the caucuses; (5) the popular vote plus Florida and Michigan; (6) popular vote plus Florida, Michigan, and the caucus estimates. After Tuesday, Clinton now leads in two of these six counts.

If you believe that the most important precept in democratic politics is to "count every vote," then the sixth category is the most inclusive, and here Clinton leads Obama by 71,301 votes. Of course, this includes the Michigan result, where Sen. Obama had removed his name from the ballot. So while it may be the most inclusive, it may not be the most fair.

The third and fourth counts - the ones which include Florida - seem more fair. Here, Obama is clinging to a slight lead of 146,786 votes (257,008, with the caucus estimates). However, with Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota remaining, he will almost certainly finish behind her in these counts, likely by a few hundred thousand votes.

But could Clinton take over the lead in all of the popular-vote tabulations? Quite possibly. In Puerto Rico's last major election, two million people voted. Let's assume that turnout for this historic vote - Puerto Rico has never had a presidential primary before - will be equal to or greater than that turnout.

If Clinton were to win Puerto Rico by 20 points she would pick up at least a 400,000-vote margin. This would allow her to swamp Obama in the popular-vote counts, which include Florida, making her the leader in four of the six permutations of the popular vote. At that point, Obama would be left clinging to the least-inclusive count, which he now leads by 441,558 votes (551,780, including caucuses).

To understand how razor-thin this majority is, consider that if the Puerto Rico turnout is slightly larger than we have imagined - or Clinton's margin is slightly greater - then Clinton would finish the primary process leading in every conceivable vote count. With two million voters, a 28 percent victory would put Clinton over the top even in the count, which excludes Florida and Michigan and includes estimates for Obama's caucus victories.

It is this looming prospect which explains the tremendous pressure Obama partisans and the media are putting on Clinton to drop out of the race. They want her gone now because they understand that she has an excellent chance of finishing as the undisputed people's choice.

Would it matter if Clinton were the undisputed (or even disputed) popular-vote winner? That's hard to say. The question is, matter to whom? The superdelegates will determine the nominee and there's no telling what will sway them. They have no objective criteria from which to make their decisions. But if they were to deny the popular-vote champ the nomination, there is a real question of whether Democratic voters would reconcile themselves to the decision. As it is, much of the talk about Democratic defections in November has been overstated.

Partisan voters almost always come home after their candidate loses. The problem arises when a candidate's supporters believe that their guy (or gal) didn't lose. Expect the chorus calling for Clinton's withdrawal to grow louder over the next week, with people insisting that she has no "path to victory."

Clinton's path is both obvious and simple: Win the popular vote and force Barack Obama and his cheerleaders to explain why that doesn't matter.

:rofl:

I realize that's just a technicality and that most caucus states don't count anyway, but . . .

shrieking and banging their walkers on the floor if Obama had said something similar about Ms. Rodham.

never mind, I can't even finish the statement. It's just too ludicrous. But that's where we are today.



Is this thing over yet? That's what many are feeling today, as everyone is as close to the breaking point with fatigue as it comes. We need a long weekend. Clinton's statement today reveals our collective fatigue and was unbelievably unfortunate.

dozens of "innocent" and "unfortunate" mistakes. Yeah -- and I've got something for you

For Sale -- Cheap

finding ways to defend your gal. It's getting harder by the hour, I know. You might want to check in with the Bush defenders. They could give you some tips on defending an idiot.

Thank you.

how razor-thin this majority is, consider that if the Puerto Rico turnout is slightly larger than we have imagined - or Clinton's margin is slightly greater - then Clinton would finish the primary process leading in every conceivable vote count. With two million voters, a 28 percent victory would put Clinton over the top even in the count, which excludes Florida and Michigan and includes estimates for Obama's caucus victories.

that was the way it worked. Or, if Hillary were a Republican, she'd have won by now.

This cut and paste ignorance is too long - cut to 4

I missed it the first time.

It is clear that we pick our nominee by delegates, not by popular vote.

She may as well win a hot dog eating contest as winning the popular vote.

We do not pick our nominee by who can eat the most hot dogs.

How many times must this be repeated, for Gods sake:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6091162

LET ME REPEAT MYSELF:

"If I see another thread claiming that the value of democracy is to count every vote, I'll go crazy.

Once again- the popular vote is MEANINGLESS. The ONLY metric that counts ACTUAL popular support is the pledged delegates.

This is nothing similar to the 2000 election, because here we have both caucus and primary states.

Let's expain this again in an easy to understand manner:

Say you have 2 states. They both have equal sizes, and the same population. One has a primary, the other a caucus.
One candidate wins the primary state by 46-54. The other wins the caucus state 15-85.
Due to the nature of caucuses and primaries, the candidate who won the primary nets 25000 popular votes lead.
The candidate who won the caucus nets 2500 popular votes. Even though BOTH states are the same size.

The candidate who won the primary CLEARLY has the popular vote lead, even though the candidate who won the caucus state is clearly the most popular in the overall electorate of the two states combined. Popular vote does NOT reflect the will of the people.

What you need is a system which delegates representation of support to each candidate according to the size of the state and the way the state has voted, whether in primary or caucus. Something like... pledged delegates.

Pledged delegates are the ONLY metric which accurately reflects the popular support of the people in a contest with BOTH primaries and caucuses. The popular vote is completely, absolutely, totally, meaningless and insignificant.

Let's say this again. The popular vote is a completely MEANINGLESS metric.

This is NOT similar to 2000, because a general election does NOT have caucuses, and all states vote in a prety similar fashion. There are no states with caucuses where the popular vote metric becomes meaningless due to the very nature of the process.

Even so, Hillary is NOT winning the popular vote even as is, unless you include 2 elections which were NOT carried out for the nomination of the democratic candidate for the GE, since the voters and people in those two states voted under different assumptions, that their votes would not count- you cannot say that the results of an elections for A are representative of what would come out in an election for B. And unless you do not count a number of caucus states.

So lets bury this popular vote argument once and for all, or AT LEAST, aknowledge when you are making it that you are using it as a logical argument, but as a political technicality to force your candidate on the ticket, even though she lost the popular support of the electoratate. Because there is no logical basis for the argument to stand on."

You could win 10 large blowout caucus state elections and your opponent could win a single primary in a much more contested race, and net a greater popular vote count than you, even though you are clearly the most popular candidate. Yes the pledged delegates may have problems in the way they are allocated, but AT LEAST they have some form of internal logic that allows us to use them as a metric for judging popularity. In an election with both caucuses and primaries, the popular vote means nothing, counts for nothing, proves nothing, and is completely, and utterly, meaningles.

If you use the popular vote metric to judge support you disenfranchise every single caucus state, and all its voters, who have practically no say over who the nominee is, because their contribution towards the popular vote is so small. NOT the democratic thing to do.

GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEADS, AND STOP PUSHING THIS CRAP!

I don't think Philly dot com is your friend in this.

That 'most inclusive' count stated by the article doesn't happen to include 230K voters in Michigan.

Not very inclusive is that...

Please keep up. The popular vote bullshit was so last week.

that is THE reason he removed his name ... to avoid a humiliating defeat.

we will win, at any cost, at any price.

But, no worries. The DNC has already determined the nomination will be decided on delegate count and the Supreme Court has already ruled the parties have the right to conduct elections according to party rules.

Thanks for playing.

I would ask how it makes you feel to know that your little cult leader used the assassination of a once beloved man as political leverage, but it would be a waste of time.

Oh wait, I know, you're a desperate hypocrite.