Who's ahead in the popular vote? Why is Hillary including MI and FL?

[sfam]

Hillary claims she's winning the popular vote, but it sounds like she's including Michigan and Florida in the count.

Considering the DNC has disallowed those primaries, and they don't have any delegates, why would we include them in the popular vote total? If this decision changes for some reason, sure - lets count them. But otherwise...

Does anyone know where exact numbers on this are? I saw that Obama was ahead on one of the news programs this weekend, but I really can't find it. And if Obama is ahead on the popular vote minus MI and FL, should he be mentioning this more vocally?

[libertee]

1. Because regardless of the primary status of those states..they are

the voters who will decide a GE.

[UALRBSofL]

3. The Florida fight isn't over yet

Were waiting to see what happens.

[sfam]

5. Again, if Florida ends up getting counted, THEN include it...

Whether or not we agree whether it should or not, if it does, its very fair for Hillary to include Florida THEN. But not now. And I really don't get how she includes Michigan ever. Like there was no other candidates on the ballot.

[L0oniX]

14. Florida would have to have a re-vote. Many people did not vote because they knew...

that there would be no delegates. Anything other than a full re-vote would be totally screwing the people out of their right to vote.

[LiberalFighter]

22. They can only legally have one primary. The expense of having another vote would be tremendous

Best alternative is holding a caucus with the DNC paying. But Florida refused the offer.

[Yossariant]

24. HUH? !?

"About 42 percent of Democratic voters cast ballots in Tuesday's presidential primary, the highest turnout in decades and one that surprised observers because the candidates did not campaign here and the state was stripped of its delegates...

Overall, the percentage of Florida voters going to the polls was more than double recent primaries and, measured by total votes, was the largest turnout for a primary in state history."
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080131/NEWS/801310499/-1/newssitemap

[UALRBSofL]

30. Noone knew our vote didn't count

I live in Florida. We had a record breaking turnout even without the candidates campaigning.

[itsrobert]

34. Ignorance is not an excuse

Educate yourselves.

[tandem5]

53. But the voter's supposed ignorance of the candidates, due to lack of campaigning

in those states, is enough of a reason to consider that the votes that were cast are invalid in every respect?

[sfam]

55. NO...the DNC rules are reason enough...truly.

They ARE invalid, whether or not the voters realized it. You can say they were scammed if you want - this may be true. But they WERE invalid.

[sfam]

37. I'm not sure I buy that, but regardless, they REALLY should have a redo...

They truly deserve to have their votes count. My only point with this thread is whatever they did previously, it wasn't a sanctioned DNC event. In other words, their vote did not count.

[L0oniX]

41. And that's why we call the state Floridah.

[still_one]

25. The ONLY way those votes will be counted is if there is a primary redo

Same as MI

[LiberalFighter]

21. Meaning Florida and Michigan will be counted in the General

unless the SC decides otherwise.

[DJ13]

2. Her Highness demands she be allowed to win

No matter the cost to the Party, nor the people she claims to represent, what her Highness wants her Highness gets.
:shrug:

[libertee]

4. let's hope you are right...we'll see...

[still_one]

26. The only way that will happen is a redo primary or caucus in those states

The DNC said very clearly for the candidates not to run in those states because they moved up the primary, and were told not to

If somehow those delegates are seated without a redo of those primaries, and Hillary wins the nomination because of that, she may win the primary, but she will lose the general election

The solution is quite simple, rerun those primaries

[sfam]

29. Its a great solution...I hope they can keep them primaries so we...

don't have to hear all the whining about Hillary not having a chance. Lets make them just what they were previously, only with the candidates able to campaign there and be on the ballot.

[still_one]

49. I want it because it is fair to everyone. /by

[paulk]

50. the cost to the party?

what do you think the cost to the party will be if the people of Florida and Michigan aren't allowed a say in determining the nominee?

Have you thought about that?

Florida will be very important come November....

[sfam]

54. My opinion? The DNC and state should split the costs of the primaries...

they both screwed the pooch here. They both should pay.

[paulk]

77. some agreement needs to be reached

With the contest this close, the DNC can't just say to FL and MI - "your opinion doesn't count", as some have suggested.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

67. damn right, and she doesn't care what she has to do

and thats why many are sick of the Clinton machine.

[sniffa]

6. It's just the fear speaking

It's so bizarre actually to see so many sources show so many different "current" results. Even after scanning all of these different results, I can only believe my lying eyes. There may some arguable numbers, but right now the court of public opinion sees that Obama is rising and Hillary is sliding. That's tough to overcome in its own right, but almost impossible in such a short time frame.

[Yossariant]

7. Why wouldn't they be counted? They're voters. They voted. They're not delegates.

:shrug:

[sfam]

9. Should we also include the totals of all the straw polls prior to the election?

If not, why not? From the DNC perspective, there is no difference between them. They all are beauty contests in terms of whether they help elect a nominee.

[Yossariant]

12. I haven't seen a DNC rule that excluded the voters. Link?

[sfam]

15. The contests were literally called invalid...how is this different from a straw poll?

Seriously, you can't tell me these states are currently contributing to the nomination process, so why count the votes?

I mean if you want to make a case that Florida is different from Michigan as everyone was on the ballot, I suppose you can try this tact, but this isn't what Hillary is doing. She IS including Michigan. Do you honestly think this is fair when Obama wasn't even on the ballot, and she previously is on record as saying this contest doesn't count for anything?

If Michigan doesn't count for anything, why is she using the vote totals to make a case she is ahead of Barack in the popular vote?

[Yossariant]

18. Of course Michigan is included in the popular vote. The voters stopped what

they were doing, took themselves to the polls and voted.

Barack took himself off the ballot to pander to the early states. I agree that he doesn't care about the MI voters, but he can't dictate whether they should be counted.

"Democratic candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have withdrawn their names from the ballot to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, which were unhappy Michigan was challenging their leadoff status on the primary calendar."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151

The Democrats cannot win without MI and FL.

[L0oniX]

8. It's insignificant that she won those states. Delegates are what counts.

She's just using Michigan and Florida to make her seemingly look better. It's just smoke. The polls for the most part say that Obama has a better chance of beating McPain in the GE.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Exactly right. So....

You admit that the popular vote is not an official means by which a nominee is selected. It isn't, delegates are. The "popular vote" is just a piece of data. Just like the popular vote that Al Gore won in 2000, it has no official meaning. It is just an illuminative piece of information that unofficially suggests which candidate more Democrats personally supported in "the primaries", it has no formal meaning nor status.

That is exactly why it not only is OK to include the Florida totals in looking at the popular vote, it makes sense to. I put Michigan in a different category because not all of the candidates were on the ballot there.

[sfam]

28. If it has "no meaning" than why is Hillary using this to claim frontrunner status?

This is the issue - Hillary is trying to use those votes to claim more legitimacy in the perceptions battle. This is the problem - it CLEARLY means something. But what she's claiming it means and what it actually means are separate.

[L0oniX]

40. She's just saying that she "would" have won the "majority" of the delegates...

Unfortunately there will no "primary" delegates from Florida or Michigan without a new round of voting in both states and that is not going to happen.

[sfam]

43. Whether she "would" have or not hasn't been determined...what she is saying is...

that the majority of the voters in the primaries have voted for her. This is not true because neither Michigan or Florida were legitimate parts of the primaries.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Because it only has meaning to a perceptions battle

Just like "momentum" is a perceptions term. It really doesn't matter who has or doesn't have momentum, it ultimately only matters who is in front when the buzzer goes off. Or endorsements and which way they are breaking, same thing. Perceptions. None of it directly contributes to delegate totals. They are all indirect ways of arguing so and so has what it takes to be a winner, so back so and so, and help so and so get the delegates so and so needs to win the nomination.

I think at times when the facts support her Hillary claims to be the front runner when the total delegate total supports that conclusion. Not because of the so called "popular vote", but any argument that seems to indicate that you are the stronger and/or more popular candidate will get used.

Both sides from time to time are capable of noting that polls show that they are favored to win an upcoming primary, or that polls show they are closing the gap, or that polls show they will be our strongest candidate in the fall. Polls don't prove anything either, but they contribute to perceptions. Each side will use whatever talking points they can generate that reflect well on their position. It is up to the voters in the primaries, and I suppose the Super Delegates at the Convention, to decide how much weight to give to any of those arguments when they make their own decisions. Including how much if at all it matters that someone collected more literal votes from voters during this primary season.

[sfam]

44. Exactly - and its a FALSE claim...truly...

She doesn't even bother trying to make the distinction. The correlary would be for Hillary to claim Michigan and Florida's original delegate totals in her delegate count. Why hasn't she done this, I wonder...

[UALRBSofL]

31. If our votes don't count in the primary

then they don't count in the GE.

[sfam]

32. That's nonsensical...it wasn't a sanctioned primary...

that's the bottom line.

[L0oniX]

39. Have you been drinking the kool aid? No primary votes count in the GE.

[lse7581011]

10. Because She's Breaking Her Word

a sign of things to come???????

[sfam]

13. Again, I make a distinction between whether or not these states will get counted...

in the nomination process from rather they currently are right now. We can both agree that Hillary is pursuing a strategy that goes against her current stance on this issue, and we can both be somewhat grossed out by this. But be that as it may, clearly some disagree with us.

Even given that, why is Hillary including these in her totals when they CURRENTLY don't count? Spin is one thing, but again - in Michigan Obama wasn't even on the ballot. There is no way she can say this is a fair stance to take. Bottom line, the popular vote totals HAVE to only be the contests which contribute to the nomination.

[Adelante]

11. Hijacking the democratic process

You can certainly debate the merits of the DNC’s move. What is beyond debate, though, is that all the major Democratic campaigns accepted this move without complaint. Clinton, along with her rivals, signed a pledge not to “participate” in the Michigan and Florida primaries.

But as soon as it became clear, in the wake of Iowa and on the eve of South Carolina, that Clinton potentially faced an extended battle for delegates, she began to demand that the rules be changed in the middle of the game. Her campaign has been arguing that the non-contested elections in Michigan and Florida should be made retroactively meaningful–and, therefore, that Clinton should be handed a gift of nearly 200 delegates. The Clinton team has wrapped its case in the logic of voter disenfranchisement. “I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee,” Clinton has said.

There is a perfectly cogent case to be made that Floridians and Michiganders deserve their say. (Some of our best friends and elderly relatives reside in those states.) The way to address this complaint is to schedule new elections so that candidates can advertise, make speeches, organize voters, distribute yard signs–you know, do “democracy,” a concept Clinton seems not to understand. The DNC, if it does decide to redress Clinton’s complaint, needs to do so immediately.

The New Republic hasn’t endorsed any candidate in this race. Our staff is divided, like the Democratic electorate.

But neutral observers can’t stand idly by as one campaign openly discusses stealing the nomination at the convention. Democrats need to recognize this potential gambit for what it is: a cynical, selfish hijacking of the democratic process. Clinton would not be laying the groundwork for this ploy unless it was potentially decisive. And the damage to Democrats (and democrats) would be profound. If Clinton is truly willing to trample so many institutions she professes to care about in pursuit of victory, she will have proven her enemies correct.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=65ed7d1f-b586-40d0-bc4c-48292494d4ef

[mohc]

16. Not including FL or MI

as well as excluding caucus states, Obama is ahead in the popular vote by 30,295 votes. I did not include caucuses because for many of them the states do not release popular vote totals, only state delegate counts. Including FL and MI completely flips the numbers, as Clinton has a 621,185 vote advantage there. Throwing in the caucus states would most likely make the vote totals very close.

[sfam]

17. Thanks! Where did you find the totals? nt

[mohc]

23. Here

The Green Papers

BTW, I just did a calculation on caucuses, and Obama only leads by about 270,000 votes in the caucuses due to lower turnout. So of the states that count, Obama leads by about 300k votes, if you throw in FL and MI then he trails by 320k.

[tandem5]

19. I don't understand the logic...

regardless of if the Florida and Michigan delegates get seated, those are real people that voted!!

One minute the DNC rules apply to Florida and Michigan and the next they should be ignored by super delegates who must be forced to vote with the will of the people.

Question is which "will" are we talking about? Since we are departing from the party's nominee selection process here, which count shall we consider? The popular vote or the delegate count because it is possible for one candidate to get more of the popular vote, but less of the delegates (disregarding Fl and MI). Delegates favor states and the popular vote favors the electorate.

Shall we cherry pick a number that suits us? Choose carefully because it might come back to bite you in the ass.

[sfam]

27. Here's the logic...

Those were not real contests in the sense that the candidates competed. ESPECIALLY in Michigan, where Hillary was the only one on the ballot.

Yes, people voted, but they didn't vote in a contest that led to nominating a democratic candidate - at least not as things stand now. If Florida & Michigan are later included, than yeah, its reasonable to count the votes in the tally.

While I absolutely agree that the voters in those states got screwed hard, this is irrelevant in relation to Hillary's claim that she has the lead in the popular vote. Those states have no delegates and have been invalidated (SO FAR) in the process of nominating a candidate.

And no - this isn't about picking a number that suits me - this is about keeping the lines clear. If those states don't count, then neither do their votes. If they do, than SO do their votes. Again, this is important more in the perception game than anything else I suppose. If Hillary claims the lead in popular votes, and this includes a state where Obama isn't even on the ballot, for instance, than her claim is truly meaningless.

[tandem5]

46. Look its the DNC's game and they can do whatever the hell they want...

they could change the rules and say only super delegates count and pledged delegates mean nothing - They could do that and there is not a damned thing we could do about it. You admitted it yourself: "If Florida & Michigan are later included, than yeah, its reasonable to count the votes in the tally." But does the DNC have the power to make the state vote any more valid than it already was?

As a voter I can't control the state legislature's action with any degree of swiftness to prevent my election from being invalidated by DNC rules, I can't keep a nominee from voluntarily removing his name from the ballot, and I can't motivate, to any significant level, other voters, who are discouraged from voting due to lack of delegates, to come out and vote, but that's not my problem - All I can do is voice my opinion and the people in Florida and Michigan did just that.

If we are to take an accounting of the popular vote with the idea of stepping outside the way the DNC nominates a candidate (by way of influencing super delegates to give up their discretionary power and vote with the will of the electorate) then we too must ignore the rules that imply that the votes cast in Florida and Michigan don't count.

[sfam]

52. Yes, the DNC DOES have that power. At least it can tell the state the rules...

and enforce them. That's exactly what it did. While I totally agree that the DNC comes out of this episode looking like a horses ass for doing the thermonuclear response they did, it was CLEARLY the states who went forward with this insanity, knowing full well the ramifications.

So yeah, you the voter are screwed. You have every right to be mad at all concerned. But this still doesn't mean its valid to say Hillary has more popular votes cast for her in the primaries, because those. two. don't count.

Regarding the question of how the super delegates can cast their vote, the answer is clear - they can do it however they damn well please. I'm not sure I see the comparison here. That Obama would prefer they take in account the way their state and district voted is a reasonable argument, but its hardly binding. At all. Whether the votes and delegates count in those states though is another matter entirely.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

33. because voters voted there?

:shrug:

[Dagaz]

73. So you think votes should be counted?

amazing

[TexasObserver]

35. SAY ANYTHING was a movie title, but now it's the Clinton Campaign Slogan

[johnnydrama]

45. right

I thought the majority of the Democratic party liked Hillary.

But people are saying that all those people came out to vote in the snow in MI to specifically vote against Hillary.

If all those people came out just to vote against Hillary, what would the vote have been like if they had Obama or Edwards to choose from.

[elixir]

36. Link, please.

[sfam]

38. To what? The vote count? Some did that on #23 nt

[joshcryer]

47. She expects the superdelegates to do the right thing and seat them. :)

[MagsDem]

48. Um, because those votes are part of the "popular" vote

Or should we only count voters who voted Obama?

[sfam]

57. American Idol is part of a popular vote too, should we be voting for Sengiah?

What's the difference you ask? Are the votes cast on American Idol sanctioned by the DNC as a legitimate primary? No, and neither were the votes cast in Florida and Michigan.

Neither were the various college straw poll votes.

[Dogmudgeon]

51. You should know, it's only delegates that matter

It's perfectly acceptable that the voters in FL and MI should be counted even if the delegates are not.

In fact, in order to prevent the will of the People themselves from being disregarded, the superdelegates should address this injustice and split their convention votes the same way as those disenfranchised Democrats did.

It's what's fair, and right, and American.

--p!
But only if Obama wants it.

[sfam]

58. Perfectly acceptable? Why isn't Hillary including their previous delegate totals...

in her campaign's delegate total tallies? Why? Because the DNC has invalidated those primaries. If they weren't valid primaries, then...the votes weren't part of the primaries for the democratic nomination.

Either you count their delegates as valid AND the votes, or you drop both. To say the votes are real but the delegates aren't is nonsensical.

What's fair and right is that the states and the DNC figure out how to redo sanctioned contests in both states, preferably run just as the initial attempt was.

[NoodleyAppendage]

56. Hillary is including MI and FL in her count because she's an amoral, power-hungry, cheat. n/t

J

[sfam]

59. Well, no, its just a tactic. Both candidates are doing tactics, I'm just...

calling bullshit on this one. I don't believe Hillary is the root of all evil for including the totals. I just don't believe we should put up with it. In other words, I'd want this put down as a "failed" tactic, not a commentary on Hillary being Darth Vader without the mask.

[NoodleyAppendage]

61. One person's "failed tactic" is another's blatant attempt to game the system.

Winning at all and any cost is a positive character trait.

[sfam]

63. While I support Obama, I do not see Hillary as the root of all evil...

I realize some do. I just disagree on this.

Personally, I don't see Hillary wrecking the entire party just so she can get nominated. Not only is she smart enough to know she'll lose if this happens, I just don't think she has it in her to do this. Truly.

If Hillary realized the party is about to be destroyed, and that Obama has a far better chance for the nomination, AND has a real lead on pledged delegates, she WILL drop out. Bank on it.

And just for clarity, the context for this doomsday scenario we're all discussing is really almost fully attributed to Obama's latest tactic. But putting out the world to superdelegates that they shouldn't decide the race (as if they would...common - these are all elected officials - they CAN read polls), he basically changed the MSM narrative to, "Gosh, Hillary is trying to steal the election!!!" To his credit, this has worked brilliantly - he's hoisted Hillary's tactic with Florida (and really, it was just a tactic) on her own petard. Now the MSM is having this HOURLY debate of Hillary possibly stealing the election. To date, she has not figured out how to respond to this - she really is looking bad...based on Barack's tactic. Does this make him dastardly?

No, it makes him a great tactician.

[NoodleyAppendage]

66. While I agree with most of what you say. I think you underestimate Hillary's drive for power.

She's worked for 30 years to get to this point, and I just don't see her walking away quitely if it gets bad for the party. I'd like to think so, but nothing in her past suggests that she is measured in her approach when thwarted from getting what she wants.

J

[sfam]

70. You really buy into the MSM's negative line on her...

Sorry, I truly believe that if Hillary was a power hungry monster, she was smart enough to make assloads of dough and power in the corporate world. There is very little I've seen from her that shows she wants to doom the Democratic party in pursuit of her own gain. Do you have a real example of this? Yes, the Clintons repeatedly use somewhat smarmy and sometimes divisive tactics to get their way, but what you're saying is different.

Did she destroy the democratic party as a first lady? Has she worked to destroy the democratic party as a senator? Again, don't give me the triangulation crap, 'cause while I believe she does this (and don't like her because of it), this is VERY different from pursuing power in a way that puts the Republicans back in.

So do I think of her as insanely ego-driven? Yeah, but name me one person who gets to this stage in a presidential primary who isn't? I just don't see her forcing a brokered convention. Nor do I see Obama doing this, nor do I see the super delegates doing this. The whole thought is nothing more than an MSM farce to fill the 24 news timeslots.

Besides, it looks like Obama is truly beating her ass into mush right now, so this is all moot. If Hillary can come back and win at this point, she really deserves to be the nominee.

[NoodleyAppendage]

71. Hope you are right, but I foresee a brokered convention and her attempting to grab MI and FL. n/t

J

[sfam]

72. While it would be really cool to watch on TV, its just not gonna happen...

Most all those superdelegates' livelihood depends on elections. Elected officials WILL NOT let this happen. At all. But again, neither would each of the candidates.

Obama and Hillary are both saying things and doing tactics for what's happening now, not in anticipation for a potential brokered convention. They want to win votes NOW. That's what this is all about.

[Yossariant]

60. Whiney, lying, scheming Obama might want the popular vote to count or maybe the delegates

or maybe how each state voted.

He's not sure. He'll get back to you --- around June or so.

:crazy:

[NoodleyAppendage]

62. Obama played by the rules in MI and FL. Your "girl" is the amoral cheat.

I guess her written agreement that she would concur that MI and FL votes do not count is meaningless when her slimy back is against the wall?

J

[sfam]

64. See post #63..it works both ways...

[Obamaniac]

65. Fact: Hillary is behind in the popular vote!

Michigan and Florida doesn't count, since Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan!

Hillary's such a liar!

[Yossariant]

69. Obama took his name off the ballot to pander to the early states. Tough. Poor judgment.

[Obamaniac]

78. Don't be silly

He took his name off the ballot, as did John Edwards, because the DNC had ruled that Michigan would be stripped of its delegates. This occurred because Michigan defied party rules regarding the placement of its primary on the schedule.

Hillary initially supported the DNC on this and even publicly stated that those two primaries "didn't count."

She only flip-flopped AT THE VERY LAST MOMENT, in a very underhanded way, without notice to the DNC or wither the Obama or Edwards campaign.

It was NEVER A FAIR ELECTION, thus making the results invalid.

Why should Obama be punished for obeying the rules, and Hillary be rewarded for flagrantly disrespecting them?

[Lucinda]

68. ONE MILLION, ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINE people

voted for her in Michigan and Florida per CNN.

I'd count them too.

[sfam]

74. And lots of people voted for Jordan Sparks on American Idol. What of it?

Neither of these contests were part of the selection process to nominate a candidate for the democratic party.

[Lucinda]

75. Then their primaries should have been cancelled.

[sfam]

76. Agreed. It was a total clusterfuck. The DNC and states are both to blame...and

they should both pay to fix it, preferably with a redo of a Primary.