Sorry Folks...but the Popular Vote doesn't Decide who is the Nominee

[Bullet1987]

What is all this bullshit talk I keep hearing that the popular vote could validate Hillary Clinton's claim to the nomination? Since when does the popular vote decide the nomination? I'm tired of Clinton and that self-centered, ass backwards campaign trying to change the rules to suit themselves. According to the way you nominate a person to represent the Party...is by looking at who has the most pledged delegates. That is the RULE. Now all of a sudden, you have people who want to say that the delegates don't define who the nominee is...the popular vote does! Since fucking when? So to me, it's irrelevant whether Obama wins the popular vote or not, because she can't stake her claim to that because the popular vote is like a beauty contest. Look at the General Election...I would love for Kerry to have become President because he won the popular vote. Fact of the matter is he can't because that doesn't decide who becomes President.

[Upton]

1. It was Gore who won the popular vote not Kerry

[suston96]

2. Kerry did not win the popular vote in 2004. Maybe you mean Al Gore in 2000.

[LisaL]

3. Well, that's crock.

Superdelegates are not there to see who has the most pledged delegates.
If that was so, there would be no need for superdelegates at all.

[Exilednight]

16. You're right, but super delegates exist for two reasons, and it's not to go against the will....

of the people to put a person who believes it's "her turn".

If we are a party that believes in someone having a turn, then let's get rid of primaries all together and I want in line.

[PITBOS]

4. the argument is the SDs should vote for her if she has

the popular vote. A good argument. My question is how do the caucuses factor into the count?

[Bullet1987]

5. No...it's not a good argument for exactly what I said...

the Popular vote has NEVER decided who the nominee is. Period! To say the SDs should vote for her based on the popular vote is to basically ignore the system of nomination we have in place and disregard the rules.

[PITBOS]

8. So what do the SDs base their vote on? The try to ensure

the outcome is the best for dem party and the will of the people. If one canidate gets the popular vote this is the will of the people.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. Don't forget caucus goers when peddling that argument.

Conveeenient that they're always missing from this false argument.

[PITBOS]

15. well if you took the time to read other's post you might

see I ask on that in my first post. But at least your startng to think this thing thru.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. I missed that. However, I was responding to #8.

In which you failed to mention it. One cannot be discussed without the other.

My apologies.

[Bullet1987]

20. Having you been reading what I said?

They base it on what actually DETERMINES the nominee and that is on the pledged delegate lead. The PD's can be viewed as the will of the people too...unless you want to say Obama didn't earn his delegates now?

[suston96]

10. Here is the problem.....

The present nominating system stinks all the way around - no matter who is winning or losing. Just look at the Florida and Michigan atrocity.

But since the political parties are in control, they make the rules...Now they have ruled that over 700 super delegates can vote as they please. To me, this is an attempt by the political party to place a relief valve on and control the process in the event, for instance, that some rock star candidate mesmerizes a large following into voting for him/her.

It stinks! And it must be changed. The election of a President and Vice President must be secured and guaranteed by the federal Constitution and not by hacks running the political party nomination processes - which are the beginning of the constitutional elections of the chief executive of the federal government.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Always forgetting the caucus numbers in that pop. vote total, too.

That is what turns it from bullshit to total bullshit.

[Quixote1818]

7. I am for Obama, but if she pulls ahead in the popular vote, I think that is a green light for the

Superdelegate's. However, I don't think she will overtake him in the popular vote.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Answer the fact that caucus totals are not tallied in that figure.

One cannot dismiss hundred of thousands of votes when determing the actual popular vote total.

:shrug:

[Quixote1818]

14. Thanks for reminding me of that problem. Yes, that muddies the water in a big way. nt

[joshcryer]

19. Caucuses, in the best case scenario, represent 15% of the population.

You can't tell me in those states that refuse to distribute vote numbers that "hundreds of thousands" turned out.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. Clinton's lead is 32k if you dubiously include FL/MI.

Obama leads by 600,000 without them.

Clinton gains 328,151 popular votes in Michigan alone. :rofl:

For the purposes of discussion, let's assume only tens of thousands of caucus votes are available for addition to the popular vote. It will still wipe out the 32,000 votes.

Notwithstanding, popular vote is not the benchmark for the nomination.


Why are you trying to change the rules 3/4 of the way through the competition? is the better question.



Edit to add: You don't included the caucus totals in your "Delegate cost" sig line. Another bit of disingenuousness. :)

[tokenlib]

27. And if the MI uncommitted were Obama voters....

..that really slashes Clinton's popular vote crap...especially if we have a do-over.

[Little Star]

28. They would have to take in to consideration that caucuses

disenfranchise voters and were set up to throw a bone to activists. Caucuses do not reflect the popular vote.
Then there is Texas, should their caucuses or the primary votes count toward a popular vote? I think these are some of the things that SD's will be considering regarding the popular vote.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

30. God forbid activists have a say!!!

:scared:

200 years of caucuses are suddenly "disenfranchisement."

[Nine]

12. You are 100% wrong

This -> "According to the way you nominate a person to represent the Party...is by looking at who has the most pledged delegates. That is the RULE."
...is simply untrue.

The magic number is majority of delegates, not pledged delegates. There are about 4000 delegates total. About 3200 or 80% of those are pledged delegates. About 800 or 20% of those are "superdelegates" (not their official name, actually). Superdelegates can vote for whomever they want. There is no rule, tradition, or moral obligation for them to vote the same as the pledged delegates, and in fact that would make their role utterly pointless as others have pointed out frequently. However, if you are going to argue that superdelegates should reflect the will of the people (and I personally wouldn't make that argument), I really think the popular vote is a much better reflection of that than pledged delegates. It's silly to make a "will of the people" argument and then use an indirect measure like pledged delegates just because it favors your candidate.

[seabeyond]

13. that just started up yesterday when it was clear no WAY they could hope for a delegate win

so to continue to support this race they had to find something to say could make a difference and grab on to allow clinton to do more damage to democrats chances in 2008

[nyccitizen]

17. Some math on the popular vote

Right now, with Hillary unable to catch up in pledged delegates (or even close it to within 100, probably), it's pretty much a given that her only hope to get the nomination is to win the popular vote total and use that to convince the superdelegates that she has a moral claim to the nomination.

But the math shows that will be difficult as well, and even if she is able to move ahead, it will likely be by a statistically insignificant margin.

Right now, Real Clear Politics has Obama leading by 294,178 *including* Florida. Let's assume that, for the sake of the party's chances in the GE, they will find a way to seat these delegates. Right now polls show a re-do in FL would net out about the same as the original vote, so we'll keep this number.

Polls in Michigan show an even race, so it's unlikely either candidate would net out a significant popular vote gain there.

When combined, Mississippi, Indiana, and all the states beyond 5/6 tend to favor Obama as a whole. She will win a couple but it's also unlikely she will make any net pop-vote gains from these states, especially with Obama favored to win most of them.

Which leaves us with Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Because Pennsylvania has similar demographics to Ohio, let's assume a 10 point win for Hillary (55/45). Based on estimated voter turnout this would net her a gain of about 315,000 votes in the popular tally. This would put her ahead by a statistically insignificant -- but morally significant -- 20,000 votes. However, demographics and poll #'s in North Carolina are spelling out a likely 10-point win for Obama, which would net him about 220,500 votes in the popular tally. That means a final lead -- including Michigan and Florida -- of somewhere around 200,000 votes.

A very close race, but my guess is on 5/6, after PA/NC/IA have weighed in, if Hillary is mathematically unable to catch Obama in the popular vote tally even *with* Florida and Michigan, she will have no moral argument to stay in the race.

And yes... a big win for her in PA on 4/22 could give her momentum and close the gap in NC/IA, but at that point you're talking tens of thousands of votes, not hundreds of thousands. As we have seen from the last couple primaries, right now the demographics are so firmly entrenched it will be difficult for either candidate to make significant inroads based on momentum unless their opponent makes a major gaffe or there's a scandal of some sort.

How's my math?

[sniffa]

24. Sound math

and welcome to DU. :hi:

[joshcryer]

18. I never said as such. But neither do pledged delegates.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. You Need To Educate Yourself On The Process. The Popular Vote Actually MAY Decide The Nominee.

Try not to think in just a vacuum. You make claim that the RULE of victory is looking at who has the most pledged delegates. BZZZZZZTTTTTTTTT. Wrong pal. There are many factors to be considered. If one reaches the threshold of delegates required to win the nomination, then that is what looked at. But we don't have that here. Neither one of them on their own merits will reach that magic number. So now OTHER things come into play, with the popular vote ABSOLUTELY being one of those things. Try and learn a bit more about political reality and our process before issuing such ignorant assertions.

If Hillary can continue winning the big states, can show national polls on her side, and close the popular vote gap to even, I'd say she has a quite likely chance of being the nominee chosen. To think it's all about pledged delegates is highly naive and just simply false. The rules exist for a reason. The process exists for a reason. You don't get to just pick the parts of it that you like, and declare them the only parts that matter.

We've got a long way to go. But if you don't think the popular vote might come into play, and legitimacy so, then you've got some learning to do.

[JVS]

23. It seems really strange when they count votes that came from an election where nobody else was on...

the ballot except for Kucinich

[northzax]

26. you are completely correct

it takes 2025 delegates to nominate. Call me when someone has 2025 delegates. Oh wait, neither candidate does? Huh.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. A majority of delegates, pledged and unpledged, decides who is the Nominee

If neither candidate achieves victory with the support of a majority of pledged delegates on the first round, then whoever wins enough super delegate support on the first round wins the nomination if a majority is reached. If not, then we go to round two of voting and there no longer are pledged delegates.

If the Super Delegates, or the formerly pledged delegates during a second round of voting, believe that winning the popular vote is an important enough factor to swing their vote behind whoever does, that is both within the rules and within their rights to do so.