Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Hillary Clinton Has Won More Popular Vote?

From the outcome of last night, many have been surprised at Hillary Clinton winning three of the four states, winning Ohio and Rhode Island by large margins. What is even more interesting that when one includes Michigan and Florida Hillary is beating Obama in the popular vote.

Now in Michigan and Florida, due to each state moving their primaries up, the Democratic Party penalized them and thus offer no delegates at the moment. Yet they still voted. Some may say that because Obama and Edwards weren't on the ballot, Michigan can't really be counted. The thing is Obama and Edwards still told their voters to vote uncommitted in that state, with that and Hillary decidedly winning, I would say it is open to consideration.

As for Florida, all candidates were on the ballot, and none campaigned there as per Party rules.

Now considering some Obama supporters are still arguing Superdelegates should go Obama because he has more elected delegates, One could argue that because Hillary has more popular votes they should support her.

This isn't my argument, for I think Superdelegates, legally and morally should decide for themselves; as the Party rules suggests this and each superdelegate has to live with their choice.

The results from last night open everything up. If you listen to the Obama campaign's new line, that Hillary staying in is ruining the Democratic Party I'd point to the fact that it wasn't until June that Bill Clinton won. Not to mention that no grassroot democrat is saying that having their voice heard is bad. Now if you listen to the Clinton campaign they are saying no Democratic candidate in recent history has won the White House without Ohio, it should be noted this is not a causal relationship, and I personally don't put that much stock into it.

Regardless, last night was important, no matter who you listen to, because this democratic race is not over, and how could that be bad for Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oregon, West Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, and Puerto Rico.

18 comments:

KC said...

What a joke! "Uncommitted" is no substitute for "Barack Obama" and an actual campaign. The only way the Michigan and Florida delegates should be sat is if there is a re-run of the primaries.

Anonymous said...

I don't know how it's a joke. Obama and Edwards told their supporters to vote uncommitted, so either way doing what their candidate wanted. Not to mention in Florida all were on the ballot so explain the joke.
FYI Hillary is still leading in those states polls.
-scott

Scott Tribe said...

Don't get too upset KC: Scott is a known and obvious HIllary supporter... so anything he says here needs to be looked at that in that vein.

Fact of the matter is, despite her wins last night, MSNBC says she may have only gained a net of 20 delegates maximum, to as low as possibly 7, after the Texas caucus results are done (which Obama is expected to win).

I also suggest reading the Time article, where they say even if you factor in MI and FLA, Hillary is unlikely to overtake Obama - in fact, they call it "numerically impossible"

KC said...

Scott (Ross) - I actually happen to think there should be a re-run (even if it means Hillary wins) and that it was a mistake to vote to strip those states of their delegates.

But at this point it would be profoundly unfair to seat the Michigan delegates on the flawed basis that "Obama told his supporters to vote uncommitted". I think we both know that that is not the same thing. If rather than vote Liberal in the next federal election we simply went on the ballot as "uncommitted" and said that that reflected public opinion the party would probably get a vote total somewhere in the low twenties.

The Mound of Sound said...

Of course it would be grossly unfair to factor in Florida and Michigan when the candidates made a straight up deal on the question. As I recall, Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Scott, you plainly have got the snorts for Hillary but put that aside, a deal is a deal even if your name is Clinton.
Besides, it doesn't matter. Clinton and Obama have already handed the presidency to McCain anyway.

Anonymous said...

Scott Tribe, with all respect you are extremely passionate about Obama. If I could I would reference your posts and comments saying how Hillary was going to lose last night and how you picked the polls that showed she was gonna lose ignoring others, but for some reason your site isn't opening. Also I don't mislead in what I reference.

You cite that time article, but in that same article it says NEITHER candidate can win based on elected delegates. So thus the fact that Hillary is behind in elected delegates and can't surpass Obama is pointless. The article makes clear the race will depend on superdelegates. And it's more then completely possible for Hillary to win more, especially considering she already has won more then Obama.

Also with Hillary winning Texas, and her win was actually slow in showing in the results, and Obama's lead in the Texas Caucuses is restricted to 4% with only 36% reporting in, I would argue it's a little odd for you and others to assume Obama will win them.

You can call me a Hillary supporter all you want, but how about arguing against what I say, as in responding to my post or comments, instead of ignoring them.
-scott

Anonymous said...

KC and Mound: Forgive me, I did not mean to imply I wanted Michigan and Florida delegates seated, I hope I made no reference to that in my post. I only was referring to the popular vote.

I think both should be re-run, and perhaps make them winner-takes-all, but have them not until June to give both candidates equal chances. That's just some haphazard suggestion though.

And Mound, Obama wasn't on the ballot, as I've noted, but the Obama campaign told his supporters to go out and vote uncommitted. And if one compares polls prior to voting it's evident that Hillary was going to win big, infact in Michigan there were more uncommitted then forecasted.

I'm not saying Hillary will win, the point of my post was that it's open. Some Obama supporters don't like that.
-scott

KC said...

Why would you make them "winner take all"? None of the other Dem primaries were.

Anonymous said...

I'd suggest they should be winner-take-all to prevent some backroom brokering. Some analysts are saying they won't let it go to a convention, and if that's the case I'd rather have a winner-take-all in June (where Obama is given two months to campaign) then some Howard Dean sponsered back room deal.

I would be for a decision at the Convention but I don't think some would like it.
-scott

KC said...

I would suggest that your REAL reason for wanting winner take all primaries in Mi and Fl is to guarantee a Clinton win.

Delegates in the re-runs should be distributed in the same way they would have been had the original primary counted.

Anonymous said...

KC: I said when I first proposed winner-takes-all I was just throwing it out there. I even said, "That's just some haphazard suggestion though." Let them both be regular primaries, as long as Howard Dean, Al Gore, and other back-room brokers, don't decide or put pressure on people.
-scott

Anonymous said...

This is bad analysis. If you would scroll down to the bottom of the RealClearPolitics popular vote page you'll see that these totals don't include Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine because they haven't released their popular vote counts. But Obama won in all these states, WA by a factor of two. Since even when FL and MI is counted Hillary only wins by 0.11%, when the other states are counted she'll again be behind.

Anonymous said...

It is waaaaaaaaay too early to be talking about who should get the superdelegates...there are still many more contests and Obama is probably going to win almost all of them. So even IF Florida and Michigan are allowed in without any sort of re-vote, Obama will have the popular vote as well as the delegate lead. According to Slate's Delegate Calculator, Hillary (As of right now, the percentage will go up as Obama wins more) needs to win EVERY contest from here on out by 26% just to catch up to Obama...not gonna happen...

Anonymous said...

I just looked up the states that are not incuded (Iowa, Nevada, Washing, Maine) on the webiste given in this article:

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

and found that when I added the votes from those states that have been counted from Yahoo's political dashboard, Obama still has the popular vote lead when Michigan and Florida are included.

Jumping Jack said...

PLEASE NOTE: Contary to what many might expect, total popular vote count is a very bad representation of the will of the people - a lot worse than delegate count. That is because caucuses have much fewer participants than primaries, even up to several hundred times fewer. So if a state holds caucuses, its people's votes add about nothing to the total popular vote count (compared to the votes in primary states). This means that there are about 15 states whose outcomes essentially don't count. Now if you look at all the fuss about not counting Florida and Michigan, you can see how big a deal that is. Thus total popular vote count should not be used as a representative measure of people's will. If all of the states had primaries, it would be a different story, but since there's both, total popular vote count is really way off.

Anonymous said...

I can't see how any halfway intelligent person could vote for either Hillary or Obama but then we are talking about dumocrats. You all screwed up this year big tim.

Anonymous said...

Tim,

Dumbocrats? Nice!

Oh, How About the Republicans the past 7 years!! Woo Hoo!

It will take years to clean up what the Republican majority did to this country from 2000 to 2006. And our President has blocked and killed any positive change the Dems, wait, dumbs, have attempted since taking Congress.

You keep on beating that hate drum my friend, keep beating it.

Chris

Anonymous said...

So now that Clinton is being told that the rules state that Delegate count, not popular vote wins the nomination, will the Democrats start to read the Constitution and realize that in the Presidential Election, it is Electoral Votes, not popular vote that counts, and stop whining about how Al Gore won the popular vote?