The myth of the "popular vote"

[PatGund]

A common thread I'm seeing from some of Sen. Clinton's more rabid "supporters", (the "Give me Clinton or give me Death/McCain" crowd) is that Sen. Clinton supposedly won the popular vote. On the WesPAC blog, I asked a Clinton supporter about this and was curtly told to "go to Real Clear Politics and see for yourself."

So I did. This page to be precise:

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

What I saw was there was six different ways to calculate the popular vote. In three of these, Sen. Obama wins the popular vote, and in three of these Sen. Clinton wins the popular vote.

Note, the primaries - or the general election for that matter - are not conducted based on popular vote. Indeed, the states are welcome to select delegates pretty much as they want. Most use the primary election system, some use caucuses. Texas uses both, and Washington has a binding caucus and a non-binding primary. Because of the way the caucus system works, it's pretty much impossible to figure out popular vote from those states. Sen. Obama did well in caucus states, which is why you see many of the more extreme supporters of Sen. Clinton speaking out against the caucus system. However, it's to be assumed that if the caucus system was not in play, his committee would have taken a different approach.

There's also the problem of Michigan, where most of the people running withdrew their names from the ballot per DNC request.

Format is Type/Obama/Clinton/Spread

The first is the basic popular vote. The caucus states are not counted, neither is Michigan:

Popular Vote Total - 17,535,458 48.1% - 17,493,836 48.0% - Obama +41,622 +0.1%

The second is basic popular vote, plus estimates for caucus states:

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA - 17,869,542 48.2 - 17,717,698 47.8% - Obama +151,844 +0.4%

The third is basic popular vote, no caucus, Sen. Clinton is given her Michigan votes, uncommitted votes are not given to Sen. Obama:

Popular Vote (w/MI) - 17,535,458 47.4% - 17,822,145 48.1% - Clinton +286,687 +0.8%

The fourth is the same as the third, but with the addition of the caucus estimates:

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA - 17,869,542 47.4% - 18,046,007 47.9% - Clinton +176,465 +0.5%

The fifth is popular vote, no caucus, Sen. Clinton is given her Michigan votes, uncommitted votes are given to Sen. Obama:

Popular Vote (w/MI) - 17,773,626 48.0% - 17,822,145 48.1% - Clinton +48,519 +0.1%

The sixth is the same as the fifth, but with the addition of the caucus estimates:

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA - 18,107,710 48.1% - 18,046,007 47.9% - Obama +61,703 +0.2%

It's interesting to note that in all three of the Clinton wins, the win is based on denying Obama the popular vote. This is done by denying the uncommitted Michigan votes to Obama, and/or denying the caucus votes. Two of Obama's wins are based on ignoring the results of the invalid election in Michigan, but the third win is by counting all the votes. This is ironic, based on Sen. Clinton's campaign cry of "count all the votes", since that method results in a win for Sen. Obama.

[leftofcool]

1. What difference does this make now?

Your candidate was selected by the DNC....go forward

[PatGund]

4. Well....

The "popular vote" comment was told me by a Clinton "supporter" who used that as the excuse why they were going to vote for McCain rather than Obama.

I simply found it interesting that the site they told me to check to prove their claim seems to say something completely different

[DangerDave921]

2. Nice post

Popular vote is a total red herring here. It's like arguing a baseball game should be decided based on the number of hits. Or a football game based on the number of yards gained. The rules specify how the system works. To point to a DIFFERENT stat and argue that that should determine victory is just plain silly.

And on top of that, you're right -- it's impossible to accurately determine popular vote. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say they ended in a virtual tie. But who cares.

[onehandle]

3. Did I miss something? Is Clinton not suspending her campaign and endorsing Obama.

As she should.

The only reason we should care about the count at this point is to recognize that they both had Big Support within the party and that we need to bring the Clinton supporters into the Obama fold.

Give it a rest!