Hillary's swan song---no more distractions about meltdowns, honeymoon's end and whining---it's over

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-17-08 01:37 PM
Original message

Hillary's swan song---no more distractions about meltdowns, honeymoon's end and whining---it's over

Poll: Plurality Thinks Super-Delegates Should Back Winner Of Popular Vote

By Greg Sargent - April 16, 2008, 3:20PM

I'm a bit late posting this, but I wanted to flag it -- there's an interesting number buried in the new Washington Post poll:

18. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) The Democratic nomination may be decided by so-called "super delegates" who can pick any candidate they choose. Do you think the super delegates should support the candidate who won the most (delegates) in primaries and caucuses; the candidate who won the most (overall votes); or the candidate they think is best, regardless of either delegate or vote totals?

Delegates 13
Overall votes 46
Candidate they think is best 37

The Hillary campaign is clinging to the hope that she'll somehow be able to eek out a long shot popular vote win, and support here appears stronger for the idea that the po pular vote is the metric super-dels should use.

Obama, of course, is on track to win both the delegate count and the popular vote, and the total support voiced here for supporting either of those is 59% -- far higher than the 37% saying super-dels should exercise their own judgment.

Also, while the number supporting the idea that super-dels should do what they want is surprisingly high, my bet is that if Obama wins both the pledged del count and the popular vote this number would quickly drop.

Why is Hillary clinging to the desperate popular vote argument? Her poll numbers are tanking and she wants give the impression that a significant win in PA and counting MI and FL will give her the popular vote lead.

Popular Vote Total

This is fantasy because the nomination is awarded based on who has the most delegates. So if Hillary (or anyone else) wants to push the popular vote count argument, let's count all the votes, including the caucus votes. Unless, she wants to claim those states don't count.

Don't Be Fooled: Obama Is Actually Leading Hillary By 1-2 Million Votes

Late Update: There are some discrepancies between the figures for the popular vote between different news sites, and would alter my calculations substantially depending on who you believe. For example, in Kansas, CNN claims that 36,887 STATE DELEGATES represented the Kansas voters, whereas Real Clear Politics claims that 36,887 VOTERS represent the total. In contrast, CNN claims 406 STATE DELEGATES represented Alaska, whereas Real Clear Politics claims that 8,868 VOTERS represent the total. This, of course, is the reason to pursue the truth in these matters, and if Real Clear Politics says that only 36,887 'actual voters' came out to vote in Kansas, as opposed to, say, the 302,612 voters who came out to vote in Arkansas, which has virtually the same population, then I stand corrected. But it shouldn't stop the DNC from making a clear attempt to make sure these turnout numbers are correct.

Many DNC insiders fear that if Hillary Clinton manages to lose the pledged delegates, she may still take the lead in the popular vote, thereby causing the superdelegates to make a hard decision as to which candidate they should choose come August. Their fears are rooted in the notion that Clinton is only behind by roughly 800,000 votes, and that she could feasibly catch up with a big win in Pennsylvania.

They'd be wrong.

In fact, Obama leads in the popular vote by anywhere between 2 million to 3 million voters. How is this possible? The reason lies in the ever elusive math of the Democratic caucus.

When voters everywhere were watching the returns of, say, Kansas on Super Tuesday, most of them naturally assumed that Barack Obama won 27,172 votes to Hillary Clinton's 9,462. But those aren't voters they're counting, they're really just more delegates. County delegates. The county delegates represent an undefined amount of peoples' votes, depending on how many people arrive to the caucus and how many county delegates are assigned. This number could be anywhere from 5 to 100 people and beyond.

Since there is no exact number of how many votes are actually represented in a caucus, let's just round it out to 20 voters per delegate, out of morbid curiosity. That means each delegate, on average, represents about 20 people, and we will multiply the final tally by 20.

Therefore, in Kansas, Barack Obama gained 543,440 votes to Hillary Clinton's 189,240 votes. This is a far wider margin of victory than Clinton supporters would like to admit, but decidedly more accurate.

But let's just say, for arguments sake, that we're overestimating how many people a county delegate represents. Let's call it 10 rather than 20. Then the tally becomes 271,720 votes for Obama, and 94,620 for Clinton. Still a substantial victory. And that is the absolute rock bottom lowest average estimate.

If we apply this math to all of the caucuses, the results are astounding. But to be fair, we won't count Texas for the final tally. Their caucuses were basically repeat voters who most likely voted in the Primary earlier in the day. Also, there are no clear figures as of yet for Washington and Wyoming.

There have been 13 caucus states so far in the Primary and Clinton has only won one of them. Obama handily defeated her in Iowa, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii and Wyoming. Clinton won Nevada.

The current tally of county delegates (that are available) for these states, has Obama at 366,764 and Clinton at 156,563. When we multiply these numbers by 10, it puts Obama at 3,667,640 and Clinton at 1,565,630, a margin of roughly 2 million votes.

When this math is applied to the final tally, it puts Obama ahead of Clinton by 2,300,000 votes, a far cry from the 800,000 most DNC insiders think is the estimate.

Obviously, there is no way to truly estimate how many people these county and city delegates represent. But the fact remains, these caucus tallies are not accurate depictions of the popular vote, nor are they representative of any singular person or voter. Multiplying these figures by 10 gives a far more telling story towards the truth. And when the Clinton Campaign makes blind claims that they may somehow trump Obama on the popular vote, they may not clearly realize how far behind they actually are in the count.

There are many people who estimate that a state pledged delegate represents roughly 10,000 voters. So, in August, the DNC members need to ask themselves this one question: If a state pledged delegate does not represent a single voter... then why should a county delegate?

more

Hillary will get no popular-vote lead. Now, to her other argument: "Obama can't win." Well, she stepped on that argument in yesterday's debate.

Clinton Acknowledges There's No Good Reason For Her to Stay in Race:

Hillary Clinton and her surrogates have petulantly claimed that the reason why she should stick around after it's clear that there's no way she'll overcome Barack Obama's lead among pledged delegates is that the superdelegates could decide to go with her instead of Obama. The superdelegates' rationale for doing so would presumably need to be based on questions of electability. Hillary Clinton, in the exchange quoted above, said there is no electability argument that can be used against Barack Obama.

The voters have demonstrated a clear preference for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. She cannot overcome his lead. Hillary Clinton acknowledges that Barack Obama can beat John McCain. Thus, she's lost, and she has no argument that it's a threat to Democrats to have Barack Obama as our nominee. Therefore, there's no reason for Hillary Clinton to continue her campaign.

Hillary's negative campaign and nonsensical arguments drive more superdelegates to Obama. Since last weekend: a Hillary superdelegate switches to Obama, another pickup here and three here.

That's five.