I've looked at all the numbers up & down & back & forth.Clinton DOES in fact lead the Shmopular Vote

As you might've noticed by all my poll postings and analysis, I'm something of a numbers junkie. Well, this Obama supporter had a rude awakening when I crunched the figures for vote totals in all the primary states. It's apparent that Clinton DOES in fact lead the Shmopular Vote.

First, for those of you who aren't mathematical experts, a word about the technical difference between Popular Vote Totals and Shmopular Vote Totals. Accurate and meaningful Popular Vote Totals demand certain conditions including, but not limited to:
1. both candidates' names actually on a ballot
2. voters expecting their votes to be counted
3. the DNC agreeing to honor results in a particular state
4. proper weighting of caucus results
5. factoring out any verifiable Republican crossover mischief
6. including all vote totals from states whose voters are eligible to vote in November

Of course, we know Obama is well-ahead by a million or so votes by this old outdated metric that has no connection to how Democrats choose a nominee anyway. BUT--and here's the problem, fellow Obama supporters, our guy is getting crushed in the Shmopular Vote.

Shmopular Vote totals require a different set of preconditions:
1. proper disenfranchisement of all voters in all caucus states (exception: NM)
2. including all vote totals in states where voters did not expect their vote totals to count
3. proper weighting of votes in states where only one candidate was on the ballot (named candidate's votes=named candidate's votes + undecided votes)
4. factoring out current national polling of Democrats about their preference for the nominee

By this metric--and I know it's hard to hear this--Clinton leads Obama by a few thousand votes. I wish the news were better, Obama supporters, but as we all know, Democrats have always chosen their nominee by Shmopular Vote Totals--not Popular Vote Totals, and certainly never by delegates (which a few of you have been disingenuously posting about).

Of course, there is one other metric, which we'll be hearing a lot about after June 3rd and which is equally as valid as Shmopular Vote Totals as a means of choosing a nominee: Shmelectability. After June 3rd, I'll be posting about Shmelectability and its own preconditions (one working class white vote=two votes, how VA & CO aren't countable states, etc.). A word to the wise, though: a preliminary look only has Obama performing well on Electability, which is entirely different from Shmelectablity, the preferred metric.

she's winning the shmopular vote??!! thanks for pointing that out, because i didn't realize that was the case.

this is so disconcerting, i don't know what to do!

(shmopular vote! *snicker*)

Unless we make Hillary our Schnominee

We should never have switched from the metric system.

and the schmelegates!

From this point on, I will definitely be using "shmopular vote/shmelectability" where appropriate!

Thanks for the laugh AND the appropriate terminology to describe the ridiculous.

:rofl:

:rofl:

:kick:

Oops, did I do that?!

:)

gold standard. Sorry, Obama--it just wasn't meant to be.

it answers the question i asked here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6157738&mesg_id=6157738
they are schmelusional

:spank:

and the "poplar" vote to, and those voters have some SERIOUS wood:rofl:

which was big for awhile, and then faded into obscurity......

Great post - I will then have to cast my shmote for HRC

:silly:

:kick: damn, need to get those legs in control!

:rofl:

I can't wait to hear about "schmelectability".

needs another round

I fail :(

:rofl:

sheriously shloppy.

:rofl:

wish had seen it earlier, this is a gem and timely considering the rules meeting today.

K and totally R (if I had been here in time).

Good to know how things will go down.