I blame the Obama campaign for not shooting down the Popular Vote fallacy!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

I support Obama, but I am very angry at how he is handling the popular vote issue right now. The Obama camp is allowing the Clintons to run with the fallacy that she is leading the popular vote and her supporters, who are so in love with her that they can't accept the truth, are believing this lie.

As long as they keep silent and don't explain that she DOESN'T lead in the popular vote, her supporters will continue to buy the meme and perhaps feel that the election has been stolen from Hillary. I keep hearing the Clinton surrogates equate Election 2000 with this situation. If they feel that Clinton has won more votes but technicalities put Obama in office, the Democratic party could be permanently damaged.

George Will mention Hillary's popular vote argument on Sunday on "This Week," equating what the Supreme Court did with this fiasco. No one, not even Donna Brazile corrected Will. IT IS NOT THE SAME!!

And I feel that the Clintons have done a marvelous job selling this lie to the voters and her supporters, so much so that the mainstream media falls in line. Only Tim Russert shot down the popular vote fallacy yesterday. He seems to be the only one telling the truth.

Though I support Obama, I will blame him if the Hillary supporters don't come on board because they falsely believe that Hillary won the popular vote. Obama and his people should take responsibility for shooting down the popular vote falsehood and they are doing a lousy job with that.

[Political Heretic]

1. I don't understand this either. The popular vote clinton claim is complete and utter bullshit.

[ingac70]

2. Whether Hill has or doesn't have the "popular vote"...

it don't make on bit of damn difference. That isn't how the nominee is selected.

[KittyWampus]

5. it allows the claim -by some- Obama's win will be illegitimate. Mediawhores will not

correct those trying to damage Obama by saying he is not legit.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. That's not the point, though. We do need a good number of her

supporters on board. We need to strive for party unity. But if she's using the popular vote fallacy to create discord and divide the party, then it doesn't matter how many delegates Obama wins. Her supporters won't join us if they feel that she was robbed the nomination.

This is awful!!

[ingac70]

29. Her "supporters"...

that you hear all the whining from are NOT Democrats. They are dittoheads playing a game. They voted for Bush in '04, and have every intention of voting for McCain no matter who the Dem. nom is.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

34. Not all.

But a hefty percentage.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

39. Yes, that's true. I do believe that a lot of them will vote McCain anyway

but a good portion of them truly believe that this process has not been fair. I saw women crying their eyes out the other day. They truly believe that this is Election 2000. And unless Obama's camp addresses that issue head-on, then I think a lot of people will feel disenfranchised, whether it's true or not.

Like I said, the Clinton camp has done a marvelous job playing the Rovian game of violating the rules, changing them, then throwing them back in the faces of their opponent and selling the lie to the media.

I don't think we ought to pooh-pooh this situation, guys. It's serious. I think it's much more serious than we care to believe.

[leftofcool]

3. But you don't need Hillary supporters to win

at least that is what I keep hearing anyway.

[helderheid]

8. Where in the OP do they mention anything of the sort?

[Lerkfish]

10. you hear what you want to hear.

I"ve not seen that being said. I have seen people saying TO clinton supporters that threaten to leave the party or vote McCain that they aren't true democrats in the first place. Perhaps you have misinterpreted intolerance for petty extortion.

[leftofcool]

19. I have seen it in so many posts in this forum

mostly preceeded by the phrase "fuck em" and then "we don't need em."

[Lerkfish]

47. I think you are extrapolating frustration at a smaller group to the larger group

but, as I said, we all see what we want to see.

[John Q. Citizen]

21. We need Democrats to win, we just don't need you specifically, LOC. It's not all about you.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. I think I've been arguing the opposite. We DO need Hillary supporters

But we also don't want them going around believing something that is not true. It is NOT true that Hillary is winning the popular vote. Now she's got this ad running in SD and MT trumpeting the lie that more people have voted for her. If the voters and her supporters continue to believe that lie, they could then be convinced that this is Election 2000 all over again and what the DNC RBC did on Saturday was behave like the Supreme Court did in 2000. It's such a lie and Hillary Clinton is such an awful person for perpetuating that lie for political expediency.

[ErinBerin84]

4. I was disappointed that Tom Dachle didn't debunk it on Meet the Press

Timmy asked him about "Most.votes.ever!" and Tom kind of just had a "you've got to be kidding me" look on his face, but said something like "You know, we have to move on from that."

[C_U_L8R]

6. The Clintons are only succeeding in embarrassing themselves

Perhaps the Obama team is just sitting back and letting them have at it.
Any reasonable and rational person can see that Clinton math is deceptive bullshit.
After tomorrow it will be a moot point and the Clinton campaign will be officially over...
no matter how many snipers or so-called popular (yet selective) votes they claim to have.

[KittyWampus]

9. a lot of politics has nothing to do with reason. And after tomorrow there'll still be those

who benefit from saying Obama's win is not legitimate.

[Ganja Ninja]

7. Why not put the blame where it really lies?

Since the claim is false why not blame the liars trying to palm it off as fact?

[KittyWampus]

11. Because it's the Obama campaign's JOB to counter damaging talking points.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

40. THANK YOU! It is the Obama camp's responsibility to address the issue...

Just like it was Kerry's responsibility to hit back...and hit back HARD...against the swiftboaters.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. Scalia told us to "get over it"; therefore it doesn't matter what we do

if the liars keep peddling the lie and the ones being lied on don't do anything about it. If Obama just sits there and takes this shit and doesn't nothing to address or attack the lie head-on, it does no good.

If Tom Daschle, one of his most ardent, spokesmen just sits there looking stupid and doesn't do anything to quell the very valid fears of Hillary supporters, then it does no good.

If Donna Brazile allows George Will to equate Election 2000 with what SHE did on Saturday and says nothing to correct him, then it does no good.

Bottom line: Obama or his campaign representatives need to face this head on. It doesn't matter how many delegates he gives her. It doesn't matter if he agrees to seat the full MI and FL delegation, increasing her delegate count. THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE FUCKING DELEGATES!! This is about the popular vote! And as long as he continues to allow the Clintons to out-manuever him and change the rules of the game, then he will lose this thing in the end because the Democratic party will be divided and damaged.

They need to dispell this popular vote LIE right now!

[shraby]

12. If he said one word about her claim, she would

have jumped all over him for "trying to kick her out" or for being "sexist" or "spreading lies about her campaign. He might as well have kept quiet like he did and let others refute her claims. He took the high road like he usually does.

[KittyWampus]

17. He and his surrogates could simply say the words "caucus states".

[helderheid]

53. I actually heard him address it in a speech - I'll see if I can't find the quote.

[Peacetrain]

13. I think this is part of the letting go process

Senator Obama could most certainly make that case..especially with the attempt to discount the caucus states votes..but I think Senator Obama is using discretion as being the better part of valor.. just looking around here.. some (and let me reiterate that SOME) of Senator Clintons supporters are inconsolable.. and even if you reach out to them, they can't accept it or recognize it.. its a process I guess..

[ElsewheresDaughter]

14. because Obama CAN"T "shoot it down"....it is TRUTH

[Thrill]

18. YAWN. You have to not count caucus state voters for it to be true

[Yotun]

20. NO DAMN IT. IT doesn't matter who you include or don't include! Even if it were true it doesn't

matter because the popular vote itself is fucking flawed as a metric for support!!!! ONLY the pledged delegates measure real support, while somebody winning the popular vote is only doing so through electoral technicalities! Don't give them arguments to feed off, shoot down the argument at its root!

[Yotun]

22. Care to defend the popular vote as a legitimiate metric then?Or are you talking without understandin

how the system works?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6214463

I'll wait for your reply.

[helderheid]

23. Every second blue moon if you count all MI and not any caucus states.

[Yotun]

31. Nooooo. Don't legitimize the argument. Even if she was winning the pop. vote fairly, it would still

mean nothing. The pop. vote is about as meaningful as counting the number of states won to measure support.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

49. You're right. I know you're right and everyone here, except The Enablers

knows you're right. The problem is that to the average American, this process doesn't make sense. The Republicans employed a winner-take-all system: you win the popular vote, you win the most delegates. The Dems based their electoral system on proportional representation. The issue is that your average American voter doesn't understand this process. All they hear from the Clintons and the lazy media who wants to keep this Dem primary going, is that "Hillary is winning the most votes." That's all the average voter hears. There's far too much nuance to sit and explain to those voters the very confusing and complicated process.

That's why it's up to the Obama camp to address the issue head-on.

I feel like this situation is much like Kerry's $87 billion problem. All he had to do was explain that there were two versions of the same bill. He voted against the original and supported the amended version. Sadly most American don't understand the legislative process.

[MattBaggins]

43. It's true only if you disenfrachise 45% of MI

You claim to want to count EVERY vote. In reality you mean every vote for Hillary. You have every intention to continue disenfranchising the folks that voted against her. Just like Ickes and Hillarys other moles in the RBC. You know those "We first voted for disenfranchising two states before we voted against it" people.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. I'm being serious with you here because I think something is very wrong with you...

Let's say that what you say is true and that Obama did not win the popular vote because caucuses don't count.

If that is the case, then Bill Clinton was an illegitimate president. Why? He won most of the caucus states in 1992 and won them ALL in 1996.

The Clintons didn't have a problem with caucus states when they were winning. Now that they are losing, suddenly caucus states don't count?

[rucky]

15. That's the DNC's job.

Candidates should STFU about stuff like that, because it only makes them look whiney and foolish.

Case in point: Hillary Clinton.

[BklnDem75]

56. This needs to be repeated

It's the DNC's job to shut this talking point down. Not Obama. Not his campaign. At this point in the game, the only ones that will use this talking point to not vote for Obama are the ones who never planned on voting for him to begin with.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

62. You're wrong. The DNC doesn't have the authority to speak for the campaign.

They have to remain neutral in this process until a nominee has been chosen. It is the responsibility of the Obama campaign to knock down these fallacies. There's nothing the DNC can do about it. It doesn't have to be Obama himself but perhaps one of his most ardent surrogates who is forceful like Claire McCaskill...NOT Tom Daschle.

It was Donna Brazile's job to correct George Will on his characterization of the Rules committee. What they did was nothing like the Supreme Court. She should have spoken up and allowed him to get away with that. I was stunned that she would do that.

[rucky]

68. You've got it backwards. The campaigns don't have the authority to speak for the party.

And it's an awful precedent to set to make this a contest about who can pressure the guardians of the rules the most.

I'm SO glad they didn't cave!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

69. I didn't say that. I said that the DNC can't speak for the campaigns and vice versa

The DNC only sets the rules that the state parties must follow.

But the campaign needs to be responsible and explain that the rules matter. The Obama camp needs to reiterate the fact that the DNC rules assert that the Democratic party elects nominees based on the number of delegates, not the popular vote. And even if the popular vote mattered--which it doesn't--Hillary is not leading on either account.

[Yotun]

16. Exactly!!! And the media are legitimizing the argument!

Whenever the argument is brough up in reports, the media respons either with 'But the superdelegates are nonetheless moving to Obama's side' OR 'But its pledged delegates that elect the nominee'. That kind of response is as if saying 'She is right, but Obama is still winning because of technicalities, not actual support'.

I seriously wonder if anybody in the media is smart enough to understand why Obama is more popular, and why the popular vote is baseless. I have not seen ONE Obama surrogate, not ONE, explain why the popular vote is a baseless measure- they only respond that: 'You have to include Michigan' or 'We elect by delegates'. Not a single one has attacked them on the fact that the popular vote is NOT a logical measure of support!

[TexasObserver]

24. I agree. They have let her get away with twisting the numbers and lying about them.

He should have been beating this down the past month.

I suspect they didn't want to give that meme any validity, so they kept focusing on the delegate math, which they knew they had won.

[ORDem]

51. It's fundamentally worse than twisting the numbers. There is no popular vote in a primary, period.

Primaries occur over several months, so there's no way you can claim "popular vote" numbers that aren't meaningless today. That's the argument that's not being made and needs to be. For example, Obama would surely win CA if the primary were today.

:dem:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

65. Early voting, name recognition and the CA Establishment helped Hillary in CA!

No one is discussing the impact of Early Voting on primaries. EV always helps the candidate with name recognition. Yes, the popular vote is therefore meaningless, but I've not heard one Obama surrogate make this point and it's a great one! You're the only one that I've seen on this forum, besides myself, who has been making the argument concerning Early Voting.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

63. "I suspect they didn't want to give that meme any validity...

so they kept focusing on the delegate math, which they knew they had won."


That's one of the main reasons why Kerry lost. He ignored the lies and turned the other cheek rather than addressing the lies head-on. I hope Obama is not like that.

[TexasObserver]

64. I agree. You slap down ANY falsehood the other side promotes.

[stray cat]

26. Ignoring the sideline issue and concentrating on the GE

I think Chuck Todd is right that she is making the claim for the sake of history if Obama loses the GE and not in any meaning it will really have at this point since Obama has the primary wrapped up and the super delegates in general are not idiots.

[beezlebum]

27. it's frustrating, but what's most frustrating

is that she is spreading it- i place the blame squarely on her, not obama.

and it's not his fault if clinton supporters and "supporters"* want to keep their heads in the sand and believe her every fancy and refuse to research the truth. they are like *28%ers- they just won't see the lies. it's called willful ignorance, and it can't be reasoned with, not with any amount of reality or fact.

don't worry- the larger majority of her *democratic* supporters, whether or not you believe what a few nutjobs and freepers on the internets and on teevee say, are going to support obama.

i don't think he has to explain anything she is doing wrong anyway. it just goes to show what a strong candidate he really is- that he could go up against such a malicious, openly/brazenly lying, scheming tactique de rove opponent without having to contradict said opponant's obvious fallacies and still smoke her.

and besides- popular vote is irrelevant- it is not how we select our candidate.

[Aloha Spirit]

30. You're "very angry"? Are you also angry that Obama isn't campaigning in Montana or South Dakota?

That's right, we're not campaigning against Clinton anymore.

[Inuca]

38. Well... actually he IS campaigning in MT & SD

or at least he was until yesterday. But I agree, after IN and NC he switched to an almost exclusive GE mode, which I think was perfect (and probably highly infuriating to the Clinton camp).

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

50. What does your stupidity have to do with my argument?

The bottom line is that Hillary is NOT winning the popular vote, and shame on you for supporting that lie. You're disgracing Al Sharpton with your logic.

[frickaline]

32. It would send a bad message to voters if Obama spoke out on this

He's doing the right thing imo. If the media fails to correct it, there is really not much he can do.

[Yotun]

42. He would sent a bad message by saying the truth? How far have we fallen?

[frickaline]

58. It would have been spun back on him is what I'm saying

Votes don't count would have been the message. And I'd allege the average voter would believe that.

[Inuca]

35. Here are a few reasons, in no particular order

1. until the committee decision on Saturday, in principle these numbers were still in the air. Now it is official that the FL votes do count and the MI ones don't, or at least that's my understanding
2. they are and probably will continue to (unless she does something even more outrageous, like not acknowledging VERY SOON that the race is over) deal with her like they are walking on egg shells. And I think that until tomorrow night and maybe a few days after that, this is the more rational approach.
3. in most cases at least, the claim is that "more people have voted for us... blah, blah" which is technically correct (it allows the MI votes to be included, whether they are official or not), which is an another example of Clinton-speak for the ages, and brings back fond memories of "it depends of what he meaning of is is"

[dsomuah]

36. Why should they?? It's not like the lie helps her.

The popular vote fallacy was initially aimed at the superdelegates basically the Clinton campaign saying: "Yes he has more delegates, but I have more voters so select me." That hasn't worked. the superdelegates aren't buying it, and right now, they are the only people that can help Clinton.

Later on, the Clinton campaign started to use the argument with it's own supporters. There is a very good reason why. The Clinton campaign is dangerously in debt, and now with the perception that she is losing, not many people are willing to donate to her campaign. The only people left still giving to her campaign are her die hard supporters, the ones that will believe any fib she tells them.

So she continues to push the popular vote lie because she desperately needs it for fundraising.

But nobody who matters is taking the lie seriously, which is why the Obama campaign doesn't care to much about debunking it.

[FlaGranny]

37. Well, you don't think for a single moment,

do you, that Clinton supporters would listen or even let themselves contemplate the truth of the matter? It's sad.

Edit: The only thing the Clinton campaign is accomplishing with this nonsense is working their base up to a frenzy of anger and splitting the party. The Clintons know popular vote doesn't matter, just as well as most of us do (with the exception of some of her supporters) and nearly ALL the superdelegates know it for what it is - misleading propaganda.

[NoFederales]

41. It's not a "bone" I'd give her, but then I don't waste resources on runts on the farm either. nt

NoFederales

[lojasmo]

44. He shouldn't dignify it.

The only people who matter at this point (supers) won't buy that crap.

[Tippy]

45. Some of Hillary supporters will not come on board.

They wouldn't even if she asked them....But we will have enough votes to win the WH....Republicans who are angry with Bush will put Obama over the top...

[4themind]

48. I think you make a good argument,, but please consider this

Perhaps the best time to shoot it down is when she can't fight back against it which will occur when Clinton conceeds (assuming she does concede which is a gamble I admit). But if she concedes and calls for unity, then tries to fight light the "popular vote" rebutal, she's only going to further damage her legacy and "I told you so case" without any immediate gain since her fight for the nomination would already be over.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. She's trying to convince the superdelegates with this argument, but she's

emphasizing 3 key constituencies with that argument:

1. Her supporters who are already emotional over the reality that she has lost

2. Her own superdelegates. Remember staunch supporters like my governor, Martin O'Malley, Jon Corzine, and Gov. Paterson warned that if she doesn't win the popular vote, they'll switch to Obama. So she has to keep the popular vote lie going so that they won't switch to him.

3. The average American voter. It bruises Obama and delegitimizes his candidacy, whether he wins or not, because Americans will always wonder if he's electable if he doesn't win outright.

[iiibbb]

54. He hasn't because he gain's only negatives

At the end of the day the rules will prevail. Fighting the "popular vote" only garners negative press for him... why fight it when he's probably going to win it anyway.

The risks associated with the gamble of letting it run it's course, and winning anyway, are much smaller than those associated with fighting it, and winning anyway.


The prize is not the nomination... it's the general election. Obama's got enough issues with the reverend and bitter comments. He doesn't need to come off as someone who squelches peoples' voices as well.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

60. He himself doesn't have to do it; he could rely on his surrogates to do it.

When the media pushes the lie, his surrogates should be able to explain that if ALL votes should count, then voters from the caucus states should as well. It takes 2 seconds to tell the truth. I don't think it's pandering, either. It's simply telling the truth.

[polichick]

55. They're probably doing what they think is necessary to win gracefully...

But, between this popular vote bullshit and Barack's piling on the praise, it's really sickening to watch!

[gal]

57. I agree it needs to be handled.

She is just trying to incite more people out there an whether it should be handled by the Obama camp or the DNC I think it needs to be addressed. She wants people to think this is like the 2000 election and it is NOT.

[krawhitham]

59. Only thing holding him back is fear

He does not want to be perceived as the big bad black man attacking the poor little white woman, he has a very thin line he has to walk

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

61. Then he needs to hang up any hopes of winning the GE

Because it's going to get worse. He promised his supporters that he would not be swiftboated. If a good number of Hillary supporters refuse to vote for him because they feel like they've been shafted, then it'll amount to a swiftboating. The more praise he heaps on Hillary, the worse she becomes, it seems. It's really sad to watch.

[jespwrs]

66. I totally understand

the OP's sentiments. I have also wished on many occasions that the Obama camp would yell back at all the crap Hillary has been spewing for months, especially the popular vote crap.
However I do see some wise thinking on the part of Obama in that he could make the problem worse if he got involved in a back and forth with Hillary and end up giving her more press and more legitimacy. Clinton's popular vote assertions deserve no discussion really and the press should have been laughing her off the stage from the beginning. Maybe Obama's point is just that-that it deserves no discussion as it is an absurd and irrelevant argument.

What I really would love to see is the DNC release and promote a publicly available comprehensive explanation of how the popular vote lie is exactly that-a lie based on a lie that makes absolutely no sense on any level. I do think that Obama should defend himself a little more though, especially when the credibility of his nomination is questioned with this ridiculous argument. But I think the real failure is on the DNC for not standing up for and explaining its nomination process in complete detail. Hillary greatest offense against this country is her shooting holes in the credibility of the nomination process and thus in Obama's legitimacy as a candidate, all of this hurting our chances in the fall.

[hokies4ever]

67. The supers will decide, and Obama is talking to the supers

If the undecided supers were bringing this issue up to Obama, then he would address it more forcefully. Hillary is just playing games with the media to make her candidacy seem more viable than it actually is. Obama not attacking Hillary over the popular vote argument is also partially his way of appeasing some of the Hillary supporters.