THE MATH (June 2nd): 17,916,763 people have voted for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee

[Apollo11]

This number is the most inclusive total available on the Real Clear Politics website.

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

The only way Barack Obama overtakes this number is if you give him all of Michigan's "uncommitted" votes.

For those who get all their information from Democratic Underground, this is very hard to comprehend.

I mean, who knew that 18 million Democrats were just a bunch of under-educated redneck racist pro-war numbskulls? :eyes:


PS - for those that didn't understand: :sarcasm:

[boppers]

1. You don't have to give Barack 'all' the uncommiteds.

Just a well reasoned amount.

Seems simple to me.

[Apollo11]

Obama needs at least 82% of those Michigan uncommitteds to overtake Hillary

And that's if you include the most favorable (to Obama) available estimates of vote totals in the caucus States that did not publish official popular vote totals.

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

[yourguide]

28. It was stated

that 75% of those uncommitted showed a preference for Obama in the exit polls, there were also an additional 30,000 write in ballots.

[Hola]

30. not to mention

Some Clinton voters stated they would have voted for Obama if his name was on the ballot. Clinton was their second choice, behind Obama, but ahead of uncommitted.

Actually if Obamas name had been on there I think he would have won. Seriously, getting only 55% of the vote against Dennis Kucinich and Gravel has to be embarrassing for the presumptive nominee.

[Apollo11]

48. Maybe Obama should have kept his name on the Michigan ballot?

If he had done it, then it is likely that Obama would be ahead of Hillary Clinton in the popular vote (if we also include estimates from all the caucus States). I am not disagreeing with you guys on this point.

[MattBaggins]

53. So the uncommiteds should be punished

because of the mistakes of the party leadership?

I thought Hillary followers were against that. Isn't this about what the voters want? That is what Hillary has supposedly been harping about.

[yourguide]

56. Maybe Hillary should have taken hers off

Like the other 4 of the 5 front runners.

[Window]

100. Exactly!

[MattBaggins]

49. I thought you Hillary followers

wanted to count all the votes?

Why don't you deduct the uncommitteds from her total?

[polmaven]

69. Because as far as I can see

The uncommitteds are not PART of her total. Why would they be deducted?

Obama removed his name of his own free will, many say in order to pander to the Iowa caucus goers. It is not possible to say that all of the uncommitted votes were cast for Obama, as there were 3 other candidates whose names also did not appear on the ballot. I would agree it may be fair to assign 1/4 to him, though.

[Apollo11]

70. Thanks polmaven

The math here is really very simple. It is all about adding up numbers to get a total.

Still it's too hard for some folks on a Monday morning! ;-)

[MattBaggins]

72. It is safe to say that

uncommitteds voted against Hillary and as such deserve to have their voices heard as well. Subtract them from her total. I though you wanted to count every vote, or was it just to count votes for Hillary?

Why should the people who voted against Hillary be disenfranchised and punished for what party leaders did to them?

[Apollo11]

83. The option on the ballot was "uncommitted". Not "anyone but the broad".

Adding all those votes to Obama's total is already generous enough.

But switching it around and taking some of Hillary's votes away would be nuts.

[MattBaggins]

89. So what your saying is, is that the PV is a bull shit metric at this point.

Giving the votes to Obama is no more nor less generous then him giving her more PDs in MI when he could have forced a 50/50 split.

Interesting that you have to play the sexism card with "anybody but the broad", but you may not like it but a vote against Hillary is just as valid as one for her. Suggesting that the uncommitted vote be deducted from her vote in these silly little PV math exercises is perfectly valid.

[Apollo11]

93. All I am saying is 17,916,763 people have voted for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee

I am not saying you have to like it.

[MattBaggins]

96. I'm saying that more voted against her and for Obama

You may not like it but she does not have the popular vote.

[iiibbb]

102. Subtracting from her total is the same net effect as adding to his...

Not that I don't agree those votes need to be considered... but you can't really characterize that as being different than adding the uncommitted to Obama's column.

At the end of the day the rules are the rules. The only metric that counts is the final score. In sports losing teams often have had higher production in terms of yards gained, time of possession, goal percentage, etc.

Only one metric matters... and that's actually the general election.


It's painful to watch the infighting.

[MattBaggins]

106. Respectfully disagree

They do indeed have the same net effect but can be characterized as different. I only suggest this in the spirit of compromise just as we did with RBC deciding to give Hillary the majority of delegates. They want to insist that we can not count uncommitteds as Obama votes but they can be deducted from her total as they clearly were not votes for her. We gave them the majority of delegates yesterday when we could have demanded 50/50 yet they still want more. They have no concept of compromise what so ever.

[polmaven]

107. Why is it not just as likely

the uncommitted were voting against Gravel, Dodd or Kucinich? All of those names were on the ballot as well.

And, people who wanted to vote for ANY of the 4 candidates whose names came off the ballot were TOLD to vote "uncommitted". There is absolutely NO WAY to determine against or for whom those votes were cast. We DO know, however, that votes for "Clinton" were votes for Clinton.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[glowing]

2. AND the nominee for our party comes from Delegates.

So, every pledged delegate should switch over to Sen. Clinton? Also, how many territories count in the GE? This is a year where I think many will re-examine the Primaries and the rules, but we cannot just change the rules all of a sudden.

Also, how much money does Sen. Clinton have to continue into the GE? AND whatever happened to saying it has been an invigorating crazy primary year that has allowed so many to participate and so many to express their deep want and desire to see a real change. Why not wrap it up? Do you think somehow Sen Clinton is not going to be ok? Do you think that she's not going to continue to work and serve this country? I'd like to see her on the Supreme Court, rather the jester's seat. That's a life-time appointment and clearly has a huge impact on our lives. I'd rather see her be the woman that takes a seat on Bush's kangaroo court.

[saltpoint]

3. Turns out, though, Obama will have more delegates, who after all

are the ones who determine the party's nominee.

That system's been in place for some time now.

[Apollo11]

4. I recall James Baker said something similar back in November 2000

I didn't like it much then, either.

[saltpoint]

6. James Baker was not involved in the Democratic Primary race in any respect.

So your reference to his quotation is absurd.

She lost.

[blm]

20. I didn't like it that a Dem president wouldn't fight for all votes to be counted in 2000 and never

directed the Dem party he led and the DNC he oversaw from 1993-2005 to counter the vote suppressing tactics used by RNC and GOP officials for years and never directed the DNC to secure the election process for all Dem voters and candidates in the 90s or even after the blatant theft of 2000.

[blm]

5. I think many Clinton supporters are unaware of the Clintons' actual record of protecting BushInc.

I wouldn't call them numbskulls as you did, but I do find their lack of curiosity regarding the Clintons' longtime protection of BushInc that led to Bush2, 9-11 and this Iraq war very disheartening.

I also find that few Clinton devotees are bothered by the fact that the very cronies of GHWBush's who were most protected by Clintons throughout the 90s for their involvements in GHWBush's illegal BCCI operations (Marc Rich, Jackson Stephens, Dubai and Saudi royals) have been pouring tens of millions of dollars into Clintons' bank accounts since he left office. Incredibly odd to me that so many Dems think there is nothing wrong with that scenario and bend over backwards excusing it.

[Frumious B]

12. Let's honor Senator Clinton and her popular vote "victory".

We can chip in and send her four bucks so she can by a latte, erm, beer, erm, whiskey shot to knock down while she watches Obama's rally on Tuesday night. Congrats Hillary!

[indimuse]

13. Here , I'll give you a head start! MORE COMING!!

http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html
Welcome To Your (REAL) New Party! Bamboozling the American electorate again
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

Strategy involves G.O.P. crossover voting to take out Clinton, marketing newcomer Obama, stripping battleground delegates, inciting violence at the convention, and

(if necessary) declaring martial law to prevent November's general election. Meanwhile, revelations about the Illinois senator's ties to Chicago political fixer Tony Rezko

and two Iraqi billionaires are downplayed by the press. For their part, Democratic Party leaders persist in efforts to circumvent the nominating process, even as Karl

Rove emerges as a player at Rezko's trial.
(Note: Printing out in PDF format is recommended.)

Revised and updated May 28, 2008

Evidence of a covert campaign to undermine the presidential primaries is rife, so it's curious that many within both the Democratic and Republican parties have

ignored the actual elephant in the room this year. That would be Karl Rove. Long accused of rigging the two previous presidential elections, this master of deceit would

have us believe that he's gone off to sit in a corner and write op-eds this time around.

Not so. According to an article in Time magazine last November, Republicans have been organized in many states to throw their weight behind Senator Barack

Obama, hoping to deprive Senator Hillary Clinton of the Democratic nomination. While Rove's name isn't mentioned in the story, several former fundraisers and

strategists for President Bush are identified. Together, these gentlemen helped flush Obama's coffers with cash early on in the race, something the deep pockets had

not done for any candidate in their own party. With receipts topping $100 million in 2007, the first-term Illinois senator achieved a remarkable feat, given that most

Americans only first heard of him in 2005.

To expedite the Rove strategy, a website and discussion forum called Republicans for Obama formed in 2006.((( http://www.republicansforobama.org/ )))
The executive director of New Hampshire's Republican Party, Stephen DeMaura, later established an even larger cyber enclave on Facebook in 2007 called “Stop

Hillary Clinton (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary)”. At the same time, the Obama camp launched its own initiative targeted at Republican voters. Called "Be a

Democrat For a Day", the campaign included a video that was circulated in Florida, Nevada, Vermont and elsewhere explaining the process of re-registering with the

local voter registrar's office.
((( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obama-expands-be-a-democ_b_82496.html ))) In addition, many states nowadays hold open primaries, allowing

citizens to vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. In Nebraska, for instance, the mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans and Independents to

caucus for Obama on February 9th. In Pennsylvania, Time reported on March 19th that Obama was running radio ads in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia asking

Republicans to register as Democrats and then vote for him in the state's April 22nd primary.(( http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1723756,00.html ))

The tactic, called crossover voting, has allowed Obama to open up an unsurmountable lead in pledged delegates. Republicans for Obama was certainly not bashful in

making its case in an email appeal linked (((( http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/EmailAppeal.html?q=node/358 )))) to its home page before the

March 4th contests. "Since Texas has an open primary," the appeal read, "Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a

Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama... Just think, no more Clintons in the White House." Then there was Iowa, which held the nation's first

caucus on January 3rd. Here G.O.P. winner Mike Huckabee received just half as many votes as Clinton, who finished third behind Obama and John Edwards. Of the

17 states with open primaries, Obama won 13 of them. And an analysis ( http://www.talkleft.com/media/2008caucusreport.pdf )) of the caucus results to date

shows that a disproportionate sum of delegates have been awarded to Obama. For instance, his 13,700 vote margin in the Nebraska caucus netted him 8 pledged

delegates, whereas Clinton picked up only 9 more delegates from her 204,000 vote victory in Ohio's primary. In Texas, which holds both a primary and caucus, Obama

gained 5 more pledged delegates than Clinton, despite the fact that she won the election by a 100,000 vote margin.

<<< Snip >>>

Until recently, Obama himself invariably recited Rove's "high negatives" comment in press interviews whenever discussing Clinton. His often bitter criticism of her,

along with other "Washington insiders", who he says want to "boil and stew all the hope out of him", represents a staple of his core political message. The other

half of the stump speech, known as the I'm-a-uniter-not-a-divider pitch, is reminiscent of the Bush 2000 campaign, which Rove managed. Perhaps that's not surprising

when you discover that one of Obama's speechwriters is Ben Rhodes, the brother of Fox News VP David Rhodes. (Marisa Guthrie, of BC Beat, reported this

connection.) You may recall that on election night in November 2000, it was Fox that called Florida for Bush, even though the other networks declared Gore the winner

after citing the exit polls. How Fox knew the polls were wrong in advance of a much contested vote count has never been explained.

(http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/1380000138/post/370021637.html )

And the G.O.P. links to the Obama campaign don't end there. The Times of London reported on March 2nd that Obama is interviewing conservative Republican

lawmakers like Senators Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar for key positions in his cabinet, assuming he's elected in November. "Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a

highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary." the story revealed.

"Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a 'stretch'." Lugar is being evaluated as a potential

secretary of state. (( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3466823.ece ))

Although Obama says he has always opposed the Iraq War, he appears to be linked to Bush Administration policy there through Aiham Alsammarae, the country's

former Minister of Electricity. Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator L. Paul Bremer appointed ((( http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/governing_council.html )))

Alsammarae in July 2003. Like several other Iraqi exiles recruited for posts in the new goverrnment, he fled Iraq with hundreds of millions of dollars in 2006 and now

lives in Illinois, where he has donated online several times to Obama's campaign. Alsammarae is a longtime chum of Obama's principle benefactor in Chicago, Tony

Rezko. (See below for much more on the Rezko connections.)

Such numbers bring into context what Time characterized as Obama's "red state appeal." Rove's clever ruse to undermine the Democratic race was probably

expressed in a banner hung at the February convention of the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. It read "Anybody but Hillary." Even with the full

monte of election-scamming tools available to him - phone bank sabotage, fake polling data, swiftboating, waitlisting, electronic voting equipment, Norman Hsu, etc. -

the Republicans' top political strategist would be hard pressed to eclipse Clinton in November, no matter what ticket the G.O.P. puts forward. A member of the Senate

Armed Services Committee, she has promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, along with a New Deal-type jobs program and alternative energy revolution to

address the country's economic woes. Thus, all the vote-rigging ingenuity known to man wouldn't make much difference if the contest isn't close. Several influential

Republicans admitted as much in a February 11th story for Politico. (( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2654.html ))



<<< SNIP >>>

[indimuse]

14. knr!

getting their news here? Du has news? sarc...:)

[blm]

16. Go ahead - but NONE add up to protecting BushInc and making TENS OF MILLIONS or led to Bush2, 9-11,

and this Iraq war.

Have you ever tried applying a sense of proportion to what Clintons did to protect BushInc and the TRULY POWERFUL ELITE the last twenty years, and Rezko and a couple Iraqi moneymen?

Tell you what, indimuse - Take the opportunity RIGHT NOW and dare to DECLARE and stake YOUR crediblity on your view that Rezko endangers this nation more than Clintons' protection of BushInc and Jackson Stephens did when 9-11 hit.

[cali]

22. big fat lie about VT. No video circulated here about becoming a dem for a day: We don't register

by party here, dear. So if some idiot actually did that, they're simply an ignorant fuck. And VT strongly supported Obama. He raised over 10x the money Hilly did in this state. This was the only state in the primaries where the war was considered more important than the economy- and it's not because the economy is so good here. It's because VT is the most anti-war state in the country. Hilly sealed her fate here when she voted for the IWR. I guarantee you, she couldn't be elected dog catcher in any town in VT.


Hillary is toast. You can cry on my shoulder when she concedes this week.

[IsItJustMe]

46. I think you are quickly becoming the Faux News contributor here at DU. For what purpose?

[Window]

51. Seriously, whatever will you do when Sen. Obama becomes the nominee???

[MattBaggins]

57. I tried to wade through that crap you call posting but failed

I just wanted to make sure that you included the "Whitey" video and the crook that claims he had a homosexual affair with Obama. I think Obama might have once looked at a puppy with a mean face. Make sure you get that as well.

Oh yeah, what ever happened about the sandwiches? Why aren't you screaming and crying about sandwiches at a caucus anymore?

[saltpoint]

7. There really is such a thing as a sore loser.

Udall supporters, when Carter defeated him in the Wisconsin Primary in 76, didn't throw a hissy fit and stubbornly refuse to leave the race.

And we didn't hear Udall's or Birch Bayh's camps shrieking "Victim! Victim!" every two minutes in the wake of their fellow Democrats' verdict, either.

[AtomicKitten]

8. Sure if you don't count Washington, Maine, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and

Democrats Abroad - all of which Obama won - I can see how you arrived at your ambitiously overinflated figure.

I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of votes Operation Chaos ginned up for Clinton.

Hate to burst your bubble particularly since you've demonstrated how obliging you are in your willingness to look at this contest through a carnival funhouse mirror, but it's all about the delegate count per DNC rules as agreed upon by all contenders before the contest began.

Finally, Obama has an insurmountable delegate count lead, so, well, there's that.

[Apollo11]

9. Why do you say it is my figure?

I found it on Real Clear Politics (see link in OP).

[Doityourself]

32. It's incomplete, therefore it's wrong.

[Apollo11]

39. Well is not complete until we have the numbers from South Dakota and Montana

But as things stand today (June 2nd), it is the most complete number we have for how many people voted for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee. If you don't like it, complain to RealClearPolitics.com

[Doityourself]

67. I don't need to complain. It's incomplete. That's that...

[Kahuna]

10. You can't give Hillary Michigan voters and not give any to Obama... If

you leave out Michigan votes for Obama, you must do the same for Hillary. Got it?

[Apollo11]

11. Please address your complaint to RealClearPolitics.com

My OP points out that if you include estimates from the caucus States and also give Obama all (or at least 82%) of the "uncommitted" Michigan votes, then you can make the case that he has received more votes that Hillary Clinton.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. why did you just so happen to cherry pick those number from the same website?

using the SAME EXACT CHART FROM THE SAME EXACT WEBSITE you are referencing:

link:

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

Popular Vote Total:

Obama 17,389,116 48.1%

Clinton 17,364,592 48.0%

Obama +24,524 +0.1%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA:

Obama 17,723,200 48.2%

Clinton 17,588,454 47.8%

Obama +134,746 +0.4%

Those figures above come from the same exact chart on the same exact website you provided in your link above:

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

And no one in their right mind could possibly argue that a primary in which the Michigan and Florida electorate and indeed the whole world was told repeatedly would not count and this was repeated constantly by the media on the eve of and the day of the primary - and this was done according to the rules Sen. Clinton and all other candidates agreed to. and ONLY the Clinton campaign wanted to change the rules after the fact - that such a primary and in the case of Michigan which only Sen. Clinton was on the ballot, that this was an accurate representation of the will of registered Michigan Democrats and Florida Democrats. To believe this, one would have to believe that Sen. Obama had not even one single supporter in the state of Michigan.

Absurd would be the polite word that comes to mind.

Furthermore, given that all independent sources agree that Sen. Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party and it is a near mathematical impossibility - baring some absolutely catastrophic event - for Sen. Clinton to gain the nomination at this point. To support Sen. Clinton staying in the race and attacking the legitimacy of Sen. Obama as the nominee with wild and hyperbolic claims - at least after he secures the number of required delegates - is expo facto to actively campaign for the defeat of the Democratic candidate and the victory of the right-wing Republican candidate.

[Apollo11]

17. Why do you cherry-pick numbers that exclude Florida and Michigan?

Are you saying that the statement in the subject line of my OP is wrong? :eyes:

I guess we all pick the numbers that look best for the candidate we like best.

It's not rocket science (not that rocket science is especially hard to understand).

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. it is ludicrous to include Michigan and Florida

And no one in their right mind could possibly argue that a primary in which the Michigan and Florida electorate and indeed the whole world was told repeatedly would not count and this was repeated constantly by the media on the eve of and the day of the primary - and this was done according to the rules Sen. Clinton and all other candidates agreed to. and ONLY the Clinton campaign wanted to change the rules after the fact - that such a primary and in the case of Michigan which only Sen. Clinton was on the ballot, that this was an accurate representation of the will of registered Michigan Democrats and Florida Democrats. To believe this, one would have to believe that Sen. Obama had not even one single supporter in the state of Michigan.

Absurd would be the polite word that comes to mind.

[Apollo11]

19. Tell it to the DNC rules committee

Who have agreed that it would be ludicrous to exclude Michigan and Florida, and have agreed to seat delegates from both States, with the number of delegates for each candidate calculated on the basis of the results of the primaries in those States (even if each delegate will only get half a vote).

[trumad]

21. Sorry---but if Florida and Michigan played by the rules

the primary would have occurred March 4th and Obama would have campaigned in both states. Me thinks they would have been close races.

[Apollo11]

23. The Clinton Campaign was willing to have do-overs in both States

From all the reports I have read, it was unreasonable objections and stalling tactics from the side of the Obama campaign that de-railed efforts to organize do-over primaries in Florida and especially in Michigan.

[iamthebandfanman]

45. and a do-over is fair how?

how does that change the fact they broke rules?

a 'do-over' is only slightly less cheating than counting it as is.

thats like losing a game of monopoly then proclaiming... 'well best 2 out of 3!' after youve been told you only get one shot and that one shot wont even count if you do win.
how rediculous

[Apollo11]

55. and throwing 2.3 million democratic votes in the trash is fair how?

As someone who believes in the principles of democracy - I don't believe that collectively punishing 2.3 million citizens - most of them lifelong democrats - for decisions made outside of their control - purely in order to preserve the privileges enjoyed by the States of Iowa and New Hampshire - can be justified from a moral standpoint.

But y'know - hey! - maybe that's just me?? :shrug:

[Median Democrat]

111. You should ask Hillary, Its Her Fault and Ickles

She specifically said that Michigan would not count in October 2007. Hillary had the pull in the first place to pressure the DNC into counting all or a portion of FL and MI votes. Instead, she played decided to play coy so she rely on these states as a fallback.

Obama was in no position as of October 2007 to affect these States before the primaries. Now, the primaries occurred, and Hillary wants to change the rules?

The fault here lies with Hillary.

[MattBaggins]

61. Strange I have heard just the opposite

that Hillary's followers squashed any re-votes.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. in principle they shouldn't have...however the DNC, and Sen. Obama's campaign

and I suppose even myself felt it best to make a major concession which was supported by both the Florida and Michigan delegations.

It was VERY big give-away on the part of Sen. Obama to agree to it. Since Sen. Clinton was trying to change the rules she had previously agreed to.

But when all is said and done it was best to make this concession both to help with the general election and for the sake of party unity.

[MattBaggins]

62. Shouldn't we count only half the PV from those states then?

[Apollo11]

73. 17,916,763 people have voted for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee

Which ones you want to count is up to you.

I prefer to count them all.

[MattBaggins]

77. But you want to disenfranchise

the people who were given only one method to vote "no to Hillary" in MI. You also want to use a rather piss poor method to count a few other Caucus states as well.

[Apollo11]

87. I'm sorry if you have a problem with RealClearPolitics.com

Maybe you should warn them about their "piss poor" method for estimating voter numbers in Caucus States?

[fedupinBushcountry]

75. It's also not rocket science

to understand that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg">HRC said in New Hampshire "It's clear, this election they are having is not going to count for anything".

[Apollo11]

81. ALL the candidates pander to the privileged voters of Iowa and N.H.

Barack Obama even went so far as to remove his name from the Michigan ballot so he could prove to Iowans how much he was personally committed to preserving their "first in the nation" Status.

Personally, I think it stinks. Glad if you agree.

[fedupinBushcountry]

88. Wow

You are really full of yourself. HRC, her campaign and her supporters are for moving goal posts and putting up straw man arguments. Obama, Biden, Dodd and Edwards respected the rules of the party, HRC makes up her own rules as she goes along.

[Apollo11]

91. Candidates were not required to remove their names from the Michigan ballot

Hillary Clinton was not the only Democratic candidate who allowed her name to be included on the ballot in Michigan on January 15th.

[fedupinBushcountry]

94. Quit with the Ickes

Clinton talking point, another strawman argument. :crazy:

[bowens43]

25. hillary lost, get over it.

[Apollo11]

26. Is this what they call "reaching out"?

:eyes:

[Mass]

27. Why would anybody reachout to you when all you try is to be divisive?

There are plenty of Clinton's supporters who understand the race is over, including among those who will vote for her in SD and MT tomorrow. To these, I think Obama needs to reachout.

But what is the point of reaching out to people wanting to vote McCain when they are strong feminist (if they cannot make clear in their head that McCain is bad for them, I do not know what to say to them), and what is the point of reaching out to flamebait posters on the web?

[bowens43]

43. No. it's what is called

" I'm sick and fucking tired of whiny, sore loser hillbots coming here and posting irrelevant bullshit"

The losers need to do the reaching out. Jump on the band wagon or go away.

[MattBaggins]

64. Yes that is reaching out

When Mr. Ickes, one of her bulldogs, led the Hillary stacked RBC to strip both states of ALL their votes a year ago and then Obama's team gives her the bigger share of votes when he could have forced a 50/50 split is very magnanimous.

[Hola]

29. Second way:

"The only way Barack Obama overtakes this number is if you give him all of Michigan's "uncommitted" votes."

Actually there is a second way. Several non-binding primaries (like MI) were held in many states - WA, NE, etc. Obama won most of them, you could count those votes too. It's not quite right to count MI, and then not count those.

[Apollo11]

36. No, you are wrong.

The ONLY way you can make the case that more people voted for Obama than Hillary (counting all the people that voted for Hillary in Florida and Michigan) is if you BOTH include estimates of vote numbers from the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine AND ALSO give Obama at least 82% of the "uncommitted" votes from the Michigan primary.

So it's not one or the other, it's both.

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

[dsomuah]

31. These totals are not inclusive

These totals do not include caucus states. All I had to do was look at the list of states, and I immediately noticed several missing states.

This is exactly WHY people think Hillary supporters are delusional. How can you claim and INCLUSIVE popular vote lead while excluding states.

[Apollo11]

33. The number in the subject line of the OP is from RealClearPolitics.com

I got this number from a non-partisan widely-trusted online information source.

It is not about what I (Apollo11) am claiming or anything to do with "delusional" Hillary supporters.

[dsomuah]

35. You should go to your own link and read carefully

I went to realclearpolitics, and looked and the numbers and looked at the list of states. They have a list of states that are included in the total and the caucus states are not included. Don't take my work for it. Go there, look at the states listed and count.

[Apollo11]

37. The number I used in the OP includes estimates from Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine

Please go back and check the footnotes:

*(Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals. RealClearPolitics has estimated the popular vote totals for Senator Obama and Clinton in these four states. RCP uses the WA Caucus results from February 9 in this estimate because the Caucuses on February 9 were the “official” contest recognized by the DNC to determine delegates to the Democratic convention. The estimate from these four Caucus states where there are not official popular vote numbers increases Senator Obama’s popular vote margin by 110,224. This number would be about 50,000 less if the Washington primary results from February 19th were used instead of the Washington Caucus results.)


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

[dsomuah]

84. You are right

My aplogies, I didn't see that earlier.

[Apollo11]

86. No problem!

Peace! :hi:

[totodeinhere]

99. The operative word is "estimate."

We should not base our choice of a nominee on an "estimate," whether the estimate is from RCP or elsewhere. The only fair thing to do is to use hard and fast facts. And the only factual measure we have is delegates, not votes.

[kitfalbo]

34. Puerto Rico Under the bus!

Puerto Rico needs to be removed, they don't influence the presidential election since they don't want to become a state. *they've had several options"

They are included in the primary, but for this argument that Hillary is the better for the general election you have to remove them because they don't count there.

[Apollo11]

42. The fact remains: 17,916,763 people have voted for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee

Using the most inclusive numbers we have from all the primaries and caucuses up until June 2nd.

Now, if you decide to throw some of those folks "under the bus" - that's your call.

But this is the most inclusive vote total I could find on RealClearPolitics.com

[iamthebandfanman]

38. thats odd, that website DOESNT say hillary is in the lead

i dunno what number youre looking at, but im looking at the part that reads "POPULAR VOTE TOTAL"..

OBAMA CLINTON
17,389,116 48.1% 17,364,592 48.0%

is what i see.
so much for the OP.

[Apollo11]

40. Neither does my OP

It would help if folks would learn to read. :eyes:

[iamthebandfanman]

41. so youre psychic

thats what youre telling us.

[Apollo11]

44. No, I am just someone who knows how to read numbers.

And this is the most inclusive number I could find, looking at RealClearPolitics.com

Yes - it really is that simple! B-)

[iamthebandfanman]

47. no, youre making assumptions

based off of something that could or could not happen.

im reading the numbers as they actually are, not how i 'think' they will be or what i wish them to be... and as it stands, Obama still has the popular vote lead. deal with it.

but since obviously youre psychic and can look into the future to see how michigan is treated...

[Apollo11]

50. I am assuming that 328,309 people voted for Hillary in Michigan

It happened on January 15th, 2008. Deal with it.

[iamthebandfanman]

52. and you know those votes will count because?

or wait, i keep forgetting you probably dont care if something is certified official or not.

[MattBaggins]

66. No it's not that simple

Deduct "uncommitted" from Hillary's count and get back to me.

[phrigndumass]

54. Your own source proves you wrong! LMAO! Here it is ...

This was plucked from your link at 7:30 a.m., less than three hours after your OP. Notice the number right next to your 17,916,763 total for Hillary. What? What's that? 17,961,368 total for Obama? Surely that can't be right! LMFAO!

Obama +44,605

Yup, this number is the most inclusive total available on the Real Clear Politics website for both candidates, not just one of them. Your own source proves you wrong!

COUNT OUR VOTES! COUNT OUR VOTES! COUNT OUR VOTES!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Apollo11]

58. And this proves me wrong how??

Maybe someone needs to go back and check my OP to see what I actually said.

Remember - both the lines in dark blue depend on giving all the Michigan uncommitteds to Obama.

Doing that (plus adding in the RCP estimates from Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine) is the only way Obama overtakes Hillary (when you include her votes in Florida and Michigan).

And I thought you were supposed to be our resident Math expert?

Sheesh! :eyes:

[iamthebandfanman]

60. and yours ASSUMES

the opposite. that he wont get the uncommited.

i really fail to see how hes wrong and youre right and vice versa.

[phrigndumass]

65. Remember, 17,961,368 is greater than 17,916,763. EASY Math. You lose!

LMFAO! So easy, a second grader could do it.

Does Hillary Clinton want to disenfranchise Obama supporters in Michigan? Surely, surely she's the candidate who wants to count all the votes! Or is she? Are you calling Hillary Clinton a liar?

COUNT OUR VOTES! COUNT OUR VOTES! COUNT OUR VOTES! COUNT OUR VOTES!

:rofl:

[Apollo11]

68. Where did I say any different?

For Obama to beat Hillary in the popular vote you only have to do 3 things:

1. Include estimates from the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine (which did not release popular vote totals). The estimate from these four Caucus states increases Obama’s popular vote margin by 110,224.

2. Make sure you use estimates from the Washington caucuses on February 9th - NOT the results of the Washington primary on February 19th.

3. Make sure you take all (or at least 82%) of the 238,168 "uncommitted" votes from the Michigan primary on January 15th, and add them to the Obama column.

If you do all 3 of these things - then Obama comes out in the lead -- by 44,605 votes.

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

[phrigndumass]

74. Remember, we have 50 states, not 45-1/2, so you just proved me right.

Surely you don't want to disenfranchise voters in four other states as well? K.I.S.S. ... Count 'em all!



On edit: Apollo11, I like you as a person, and I really enjoy your sense of humor, but this is an unwinnable argument for you. Plain and simple.

:D

[Apollo11]

78. You have not disproved anything in my OP

Here is a quick recap of what I wrote in my OP:


17,916,763 people have voted for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee

This number is the most inclusive total available on the Real Clear Politics website.

The only way Barack Obama overtakes this number is if you give him all of Michigan's "uncommitted" votes.


FACT! B-)

[phrigndumass]

110. Ahhh, but if you recall ...

(I'm giggling, this is fun for me, lol)

Weren't Hillary's supporters just at a meeting Saturday yelling "Count Our Votes! Count Our Votes!" ??

Well, Mr. Short-Term Memory, they were! We had two compromises that day, and both of them were fair and were meant to unify. Hillary Clinton even came out on top in both compromises. To assume there were abolutely no supporters of Obama in Michigan is a glove-slap in the face to the Michigan Democratic Party, who worked hard for that compromise.

Talk about giving an inch but taking a mile.

"I take what is ours, and I take more! I spit at you and I drink your milkshake!

:D

(p.s. The purpose of votes in a primary election is to select delegates.) phnyark!

[Honeycombe8]

59. Those numbers are incorrect. Obama was prevented from campaigning in MI & FL.

As a lesser known candidate, it was a foregone conclusion that he wouldn't get many votes without campaigning. Not so for someone with teh name "Clinton."

It is incorrect to count those "votes" in what were essentially straw polls and illegal "primaries."

Count them if you want, but the Obama camp counts differently. Obama is leading in the popular vote, as well as in the delegate count (the way a nominee is picked), as well as in amount of contributions, as well as in number of contributors, as well as in number of states won.

Obama has won.

[Apollo11]

63. Please go back and read the OP again

THE MATH (June 2nd): 17,916,763 people have voted for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee

FACT! B-)

This number is the most inclusive total available on the Real Clear Politics website.

FACT! B-)

The only way Barack Obama overtakes this number is if you give him all of Michigan's "uncommitted" votes.

FACT! B-)

[iamthebandfanman]

71. glad you care about SD and Minn

and their votes.

since you included the fact they havent voted yet in youre prediction....

oh wait, did you include SD and Minn ?

i thought Clinton supporters were all about waiting until ALL the votes were counted?!

[Apollo11]

76. I am not making a prediction

I am reading some numbers from a website which tells us where things stand today (June 2nd, 2008).

There is no time travel, speculation, prediction or projection involved in these numbers! B-)

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

[MadHound]

90. Fact, the winner of the Democratic Presidential nomination is determined by the delegate count

Not the popular vote count. Fact, Obama has more delegates, pledged, supers, etc. Fact, he is going to get enough pledged and super delegates this week to push him over the winning total. Fact, he will have then won the Democratic nomination for President, and Hillary will have lost.

Popular vote doesn't mean a god-damn thing, no matter how you count it(though frankly your linking to a conservative website to try and prove your point is really a laugher). You simply cannot get an accurate vote count, especially taking in the FL and MI debacle, and you shouldn't even try. One more time: OBAMA IS GOING TO WIN THE DELEGATE COUNT AND WILL BE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINEE. GET THE FUCK OVER IT!

[Apollo11]

92. Since when is RealClearPolitics.com a "conservative website"?

But I agree that all of us should support the nominee, when we know for sure who the nominee is going to be.

[MadHound]

97. Since John McIntyre and Tom Bevans started doing commentary for Faux News

Since NewsTrust and SourceWatch both ranked RCP as a conservative site, since Laura Ingram started praising them in the same breath as WorldNutDaily and Redstate.org, among other things.

And we already know who the nominee will be, even the most diehard Hillary supporters know, deep down in their hearts that Obama has the nomination sewn up. But sadly, they want to continue this divisive, destructive bullshit pretense that Hillary will somehow get the nomination and that somehow the popular votes matter.

Oh, and for your information, many much more trusted sources have Hillary behind in the popular vote, how do you explain those(and please don't give me that "most inclusive count" bullshit, not when RCP isn't counting fifteen states. Give me some hard evidence that RCP's count is most inclusive, just don't parrot bullshit, self-serving talking points).

[IsItJustMe]

79. Too many asterisk and footnotes in that tally for me. You may be able to fool stupid people, but

your fundamental problem with your argument is that there are too many people that are just smarter than that.

[Apollo11]

80. So the goal of RealClearPolitics.com is "to fool stupid people"?

Thanks for the heads up! :eyes:

[stillcool]

82. Michigan declared it's election invalid...

the caucuses are 'estimates'. Obama won. The only ones on the planet who dispute this fact, are those in Hillaryland, but then, who would expect anything different coming from a bunch of liars?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[Apollo11]

85. Way to unite the Party!

Did you ever pause to consider that 18 million "Hillaryland" residents might resent you calling them "a bunch of liars"? :eyes:

[stevietheman]

101. People need to decide to unite, or bail out... it's your choice.

If you want a third term of Bush, and an anti-female Supreme Court, then bail out.

[stillcool]

108. No. I consider liars, liars.

way to unite the party!!

[dsomuah]

95. At best that makes the "popular vote" claim murky

It's entirely feasible that 82% of the uncommitted voters would have voted for Obama had his name been on the ballot. All we know about the 'uncommitted' voters is that they didn't support Clinton. If you go by the percentage of non-Clinton voters that supported Obama in states that were holding their primaries around the time Michigan held it's primary, 82% of non-Clinton supporters supporting Obama sounds feasible. We also don't know how many potential Obama voters (and Clinton voters for that matter) stayed home because they felt the Michigan primary wouldn't count.

At the end of the day including Michigan in any popular vote count is always going to be disputed because Obama wasn't on the ballot. Everyone is going to argue about what it should mean. Should Obama get all the uncommitted? No uncommitted? What percentage? Personally I don't think MI should be included in any popular vote count.

But that being said that is moot because the Obama total will go up once the results come in from Montana and South Dakota.

You tend to see these "popular vote" statements come up after a significant Hillary victory has driven up her numbers, but then when there is an Obama primary win, Obama retakes the popular vote lead and the popular vote talk dies down. Hillary has a popular vote lead now, but we now have two states coming up where Obama is expected to win and at best her popular vote lead will drop, most likely to where Obama would only need about half the uncommitted vote in MI to claim a popular vote lead.

The bottom line is this:

No one is claiming that the support for Hillary is insignificant. But you can't use the popular vote total to argue that she is the rightful nominee, because she only carries the popular vote total when you stretch the figures a little bit. Depending on who you ask, the popular vote figure either favors Obama, or else is too unclear to really say. There aren't too many scenarios in which you can argue that Hillary won the popular vote.

I don't think Hillary supporters are racist idiots, or rednecks or any of the other names some narrow minded people call them on here. I DO think that they want different things from their presidential candidate than I want from mine, and that's why they prefer Hillary, and simultaneously why many of them don't understand my preference for Obama.

But at the same time, I'm not sure what some of the Hillary supporters would like the party to do at this point. The RBC met and accepted what was basically a Hillary campaign proposal to seat the delegations and give them a half vote. Short of giving them full votes, there couldn't have been a better result for the Hillary campaign, and even that wouldn't have given Hillary a delegate lead. Now granted the Hillary campaign is not happy about the decision to allocate the MI delegates 69-59 but given that many of the uncommitted Michigan delegates were announcing their intention to support Obama anyway, it's not like the DNCs decision there changed much. I hear that Hillary intends to appeal to the credentials committee in Denver, but given that she has already agreed to the half-vote proposal, the best the credential committe could do is replace Obama's Michigan delegates with the original uncommitted delegates. Given that most of those delegates were planning to vote for Obama anyway, I don't see that would help much. The votes are being counted as best they can be, and it looks like Obama has won. I'm not sure what else can be said at this point.

[reflection]

98. And 59,054,087 voted for The Idiot (tm).

So there's no accounting for taste.

[bobbert]

103. I only care about Obama getting 2117 votes

at the convention. None of this other shit even matters. About just as many people like both candidates, how does that make one better than the other? Using ESTIMATES she is winning, there is some error, so all that you can really say is that it is close. So you have to turn to delegates, who has more?

[Alcibiades]

105. Of course, let's just ignore the caucus states

After all, that's what Clinton did, and look where it got her?

[Apollo11]

109. Kicking

:kick:

[rocktivity]

112. There are no actual vote totals for four of the caucus states

and it includes Puerto Rico and the territories which won't be voting in the GE. That renders this entire concept a fraud.

:headbang:
rocknation