Hillary wants popular vote for her legacy, as an asterisk to a Barack win. Do we have figures?

[MarjorieG]

Do we have reliable figures on caucus totals? Icky Ickes told Russert today he based popular vote win on the AP, which is not the fact-based service we can rely on anymore; AP supposedly included the four causus states we often mention to undermine that claim.

Also, she is not supposed to even claim Michigan, which is still not legit; the deal yesterday was based on state party figures pulled out of the air.

I don't want that asterisk to deny/mar Obama's amazing, improbable win.

[Liberal Veteran]

God. Give her an asterisk, an ampersand, and a tilde....

Just make her go away.

[stray cat]

1. I'll wait to see what numbers Chuck T? comes up with - he uses real math and real logic

[H2O Man]

2. Earlier today,

CNN reported accurate numbers, along with estimates for after Tuesday. Obama is the clear leader. I assume the CNN web site has their charts.

[C_U_L8R]

3. Overall popular vote numbers

are about as relevant as jellybeans and unicorns.
They have nothing at all to do with the nomination process.
We are voting for delegates. Period.
We vote on a state by state basis.
The cumulative numbers mean nothing. Nothing.
Geeesh. What stubborn idiots these people are.

ps. an asterix is the universal symbol for asshole...
so sure, by all means, let Hillary have her asterix.

*

[MonkeyFunk]

4. Here are some

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

[MercutioATC]

5. The absolute ONLY way she can claim popular vote is to include MI.

...and its "no votes" for Obama.

[izzybeans]

9. Yep, which is to say lie, cheat, and steal.

[izzybeans]

6. Obama has received more votes than any candidate in history, this includes Hillary.

You add in 70% of the uncommitteds in MI and this holds up.

But then again this is a delegate contest. With Caucuses it doesn't really matter. The state's choose their method of nominee selection. It's part of our democratic process. For those that don't like them, they can take it up with the states, who've never seem to of had a problem until Hillary Clinton started to lose.

[bain_sidhe]

7. Most of the numbers I've seen include some, but not all

Many of the caucus states provide an estimate of how many people participated. To the best of my recollection, there were four that did not. Those aren't included in any of the tallies I've seen. Some of the tallies don't include ANY caucus states, but I think even the "popular vote" proponents realized that was bogus.

**edit: :grumble: damn tyops**

[pdxmom]

8. The way that Icky stressed the AP numbers, which are the only ones

they used, and he would not say those numbers include caucuses, only that the AP says it uses caucuses, we know that there is something stinky about the numbers they are using.

[jwirr]

10. No there are no reliable popular vote totals for a caucus. And people

who do not live in caucus states should keep their opinions to themselves. We do not need you to run our state parties. We are people who like to be more involved with the issues than just voting on candidates. We work to determine party policy on many issues that never even are mentioned in a primary.

Just as an example at the last caucus I attended we voted to include a resolution in our platform on stopping big companies from using genetic engineering on wild rice. When have any of you talked specifics like this at a primary vote?

[stray cat]

11. Agree completely!

[MarjorieG]

12. I love caucuses. I'll take citizens observing, transparency over electronic secret voting any day.

[BlooInBloo]

13. Losers in America these days always want asterisks. Fuck 'em.

[housewolf]

14. It doesn't matter what she wants in terms of the popular vote

Primaries are won by delegate counts, not the popular vote.

The General Election is won by electoral votes, not the popular vote. The electors go to Washington and cast their vote in December. That is when the President is offically elected, not on the first Tuesday in November.

We are a representational democracy, not a direct democracy. The purpose of popular votes is to direct our representatives (either delegates at the primary level or electors at the state level) as to how to vote.

[LiberalFighter]

15. Have we ever had a presidential preference election...

with 2 candidates this close in number of delegates?