*** If MI were OK, Obama would STILL win the Popular Vote ***

[FlyingSquirrel]

Please rec this thread, keep it kicked and link to it whenever someone tries to say Obama is behind in the "Popular Vote".

The only reason anyone can still do this is because of the uncertainty regarding the number of votes Obama would have received in Michigan.

To put this to rest, I'm giving him the same percentage that he got in his THIRD WORST primary - Oklahoma. I'm not gonna go as low as West Virginia and Arkansas at this time - Obama barely campaigned in WV and AR is Clinton's home state. Edwards was on the ballot in OK. Obama's 31.19% in OK is only slightly below his 32.93% in Florida - another state in which he did not campaign.

Giving Obama that same percentage (31.19%) of the 594,398 total votes in Michigan, he'd have gotten a MINIMUM of 185,393 votes in MI.

All the numbers below can be verified at thegreenpapers.com



Even assuming all things in Clinton's favor - not fairly estimating the actual popular vote in caucuses, not counting the Washington State non-binding primary, and assuming the worst likely outcome in Michigan -- Obama STILL wins the popular vote by 28,812 votes at the time of this edit (6:40 PM PST, June 1). Since he's heavily favored to win Montana and South Dakota, I can only hope that this ridiculous argument has FINALLY been put to rest.

[FlyingSquirrel]

1. No takers from the Clinton camp?

:shrug:

[FlyingSquirrel]

14. Now of course, if you wanna drop the caucus states where there was no "popular vote"..

The ones highlighted in yellow do not specifically say "Popular Vote" on thegreenpapers.com



Obama still leads by 3,667 without these states that Clinton would like to disenfranchise when it comes to counting the popular vote.

Actually I should include Washington State in that category. There was a non-binding primary here in my home state, which she lost by 38,368 - she likes to cite this primary as proof that caucuses are "undemocratic", yet doesn't want to count it in with the popular vote.

[DerekJ]

2. kick..good work .. thanks

[DerekJ]

3. Another kick..

[FlyingSquirrel]

5. Thanks... I edited to ensure it remains true once all PR votes are counted.

Not that it matters much 'cause once the last two states vote I can still use the West Virginia argument. But I don't wanna end up with egg on my face tonight if the final numbers push Clinton up over him using WV as the low mark.

[woolldog]

4. Surely, there were more than 1,600 people who voted in Iowa.

...or more than a few thousand if you include the other candidates.

[FlyingSquirrel]

6. Of course.

I'm just using the same numbers the Clinton camp is using.

[woolldog]

8. What's the story with those Iowa numbers?

They don't look right.

[FlyingSquirrel]

9. They are the final tally based on their caucus system.

Each vote represents multiple voters. They're actually not popular votes at all, they're county convention delegates.

[woolldog]

10. Then you're comparing apples to oranges. (not YOU, but the generic "you")

The popular vote metric suggest each 1= 1 person. You can't have 1=1 in some cases and 1=x in other cases.

That makes no sense.

[sandnsea]

And that is why there is no popular vote

and it is idiotic and insane to pretend there is.

[beac]

12. Smart move.

:)

[Hamlette]

7. KNR

thanks for doing this

[beac]

11. K&R and off to the Greatest page!

Thanks for taking the time to lay this all out.

:yourock:

[PseudoIntellect]

13. Lol, popular vote is the most obscure, unofficial, ambiguous statistic pushed as an argument.

And even if she is winning it, it's BARELY. Obama is winning more comfortably in all relevant categories.

[sandnsea]

15. There Is NO Popular Vote, argh

Why do you entertain insanity? There is no more a popular vote than there is a bunny rabbit.

[FlyingSquirrel]

16. Then WHY does the Clinton camp CONTINUE to talk about it?

????

[sandnsea]

17. Because we let them get away with lies

By giving credence to their insanity. There is no popular vote.

[FlyingSquirrel]

18. I know. On the other hand, BS needs to be refuted.

You can't just say it's BS and ignore it, otherwise it gets legs because they can say "Nobody has attempted to refute this".

[sandnsea]

22. Refute it by saying... There Is No Popular Vote

Because caucuses are not operated in a way that counts individual people.

[AZ Criminal JD]

19. Why did Obama mention it constantly when he was ahead?

[FlyingSquirrel]

20. He still IS ahead. Didn't you read the OP?

[AZ Criminal JD]

30. I read the OP's fantasy numbers.

Anyone can make up these things. I could run different scenarios where Hillary got five million more votes. What does making up numbers prove?

[sandnsea]

21. He always qualified it

That this was a delegate race. He went out of his way to not say Hillary is a lying lunatic - but the truth is that she is.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. because it's a good argument

to make to the superdelegates.

Obama argues that having the pledged delegates is why they should vote for him. Clinton argues that having the popular vote is why they should vote for her.

What she OUGHT to be arguing is that more DEMOCRATS have voted for her - that's less arguable and more persuasive, imo.

[woolldog]

25. Do you think the superdelegates are stupid?

It's a good argument to make to low information voters. But not the superdelegates. They understand why it's a fatally flawed metric.

[sandnsea]

29. Idiot and Insane.

If you missed that thread, "There Is NO Popular Vote", go read the OP over and over and over until it sinks in.

[KansasVoter]

23. Thanks

[FlyingSquirrel]

26. kick

[hfojvt]

27. those numbers are low for Obama too

take the caucus states - please

for Iowa you have 940 for Obama and 737 for Clinton, but those are not vote totals. Almost 150,000 people caucused in Iowa for Democrats. Far more than 1677. Same for Maine, where about 46,000 people voted. Yet your (their) total is 2079 to 1397 an advantage for Obama of only 682. Yet taking those percentages for the actual turnout he actually won Maine by 9024 votes. Meaning that the total you have here understates his lead by at least 8,342 votes. Same with Washington where you show a vote total of less that 31,000 when over 200,000 went to the caucus.

Here's an article on Maine
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/maine-caucus-shatters-turnout-record-2008-02-11.html

All I can find on Washington are estimates of perhaps 200,000. If it was 200,000 then his advantage is understated by 61,963.

[TexanDem]

28. K&R -- Good work. I wish somebody would show this to Hillary