Popular vote in current Democratic nomination scheme=yards gained in football. Delegates in current Democratic nomination scheme+points in the scoreboard in football.

Notice how when Obama led in the popular votes, popular votes were good. But now that Clinton leads in the popular voting (by a few thousand votes, a small percentage), popular votes are bad.

Obama is ahead of Clinton by just over 618,000 votes out of 32.2 million cast in states and territories where both candidates competed and where the popular vote was counted in some way.
That total excludes Florida and Michigan, which held early primaries in violation of party rules. Democratic candidates agreed in advance not to campaign in those states. In addition, Obama did not have his name on the ballot in Michigan while Clinton did.
The above is from AP, today. Pretty clear to me.
But still, the primaries are about delegates, not popular vote. Obama leads in that also. And in States won (which means nothing) and in Superdelegates (which, we are told, is the key to Clinton's chances).

Eriposte hates "Obamabots", but she (or he) exhibits the same behavior that she despises, only pro-Clinton.

Look, the whole nominating process is clearly flawed. We all see that. But cherry-picking one metric that favors Clinton and touting that as the ONLY metric that matters -- well, that sounds exactly like the Bush supporters did in Florida in 2000.

The popular vote that currently favors Clinton includes Michigan, where Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot. It also is skewed towards the populations of the non-caucus states, since the vote totals in caucus states were lower as a percentage of the population.

In this situation, the "popular vote" is not the *only fair* metric as Eriposte tries to make it sound -- and we can be sure that if the situation were reversed s/he would be arguing for the delegate counts, and pooh-poohing the popular vote.

Here is the reality: Neither Obama nor Clinton is perfect. There are good reasons for Democrats to have reservations about either one. Both are massively better than McCain. The primary process is deeply flawed -- in a close race the outcome is probably not going to be fair.

Yet here we are. Are intense Clinton supporters like Eriposte going to continue their tantrums until November -- or are they going to unite for the greater good?

The above is from AP, today. Pretty clear to me.

But the author was Nedra "I gave an oath of fealty to Republicans" Pickler, so best to seek another source to verify.

You Obama supporters keep forgetting we have 50 states in this magical Union... not 48.

And you guys keep ignoring the fact that (and even Ms. Clinton talked about it on NBC evening news a couple of nights ago) is that the Florida and Michigan delegations will be seated, and the decision to do that (and how) will be done by May 31st.

Got that Obama-rama Landers? You got until the end of the month to continue to "create your own reality"...How very Bush-y Republican of you all.

Well, at least you guys can continue to celebrate until True Reality sets in. The clock strikes twelve in June, and we will have Cinderella crashing back to earth. Barack Cinderella "Change we can believe in" Obama.

And who are the boneheads advising Obama to stop campaigning? Why? Because they truly believe that Timmeh Russert is indeed GOD's WORD ON EARTH, and that Obama is indeed the heir apparent?

Who's self deluding themselves now?

Hillary is in this to win. Obama is in this to self-aggrandize. Hence his inability to stay in touch with reality. I don't think he wants to win this.

Strategic errors will be the cause of Obama's downfall.

I am not worried about Hillary. She's doing what she needs to be doing. Ditto Bill and Chelsea.

Question: How many Obama-bot supporters flew down to Puerto Rico to campaign for their Heir Apparent? How many? As of today?

How manyh Obama-bot supporters are presently campaigning in Kentucky for their Heir Apparent? How many? As of today?

Can anyone tell me?

Maybe Obama thinks he is going to win the rest of the states in the primary season with college students and an Afro-American voting block? Does that sound like he is "reaching across all lines and divisions" to you?

Not to me.

This campaign is far from over. It's going to be decided not to the liking of Kerry and Kennedy.

More absurd projection. No one is "upset" or screaming EEK! when you mention "popular vote".

Some are saying it's a flawed concept that's comparing apples to oranges in a caucus/primary system that awards pledged delegates. And that the unfought "contests" in FL and MI did not render accurate measures of even their states "popular vote".

Just straightforward arguments from fellow Dems, which you compare to "trolling" and resort to lame satire in mocking.

Kind of sad. But definitely Fight On! Take it to the convention!

There, you've gone and done it, eriposte. I am now, indeed, beginning to see your evilness.

Popular vote. Eek!

P.S. Please keep up the good work, I mean evilness. :)

It cracks me up at how individual Democrats feel a need to change the rules as the game is played to suit whatever their desired end result is.

T2 is wrong about the vote count. Even if you accept that the delegates are disallowed (not final at best), the popular votes in FL and MI still count. Even if, by some obscenity, Obama and the DNC manage to disallow the popular votes in the primary, they will count in November and thus it is stupid to disregard them now.

I can't wait to vote against Obama in the fall!

T2 is not wrong about the vote count. AP stands for Associated Press, not T2. Please feel free to quote any count you can find of the primaries that do not include the states that every candidate agreed not to count, MI and FL.

Can we just do away with caucuses for next time around? Maybe keep Iowa as a caucus, just for old-times sake, but can the DNC make a rule that caucuses are not valid? They really do discriminate against people who um, have a job, or small kids or whatever keeps them from spending 3 hours of their lives at a caucus.

And while I kind of like proportional apportionment (or whatever it's called) of delegates, it shouldn't be possible to win the popular vote in a state, but lose the delegate count. I'd like to see just straight proportion--if you win 55% of the vote, you get 55% of the delegates. If it's 51% to 49%, the loser gets one less delegate if there are an odd number, maybe the same amount if there are an even number. And Texas--get rid of that system completely.

As THE most progressive, liberal and 'democratically idealistic' candidate, Kucinich-my number one choice, kept his name on the MI ballot, I fault Obama as an Iowa panderer for taking his name off. And when Obama refused to let a revote occur, it just turned this MI voter off all the more.

Thanks eriposte for fighting the good fight. Never thought I'd hear so many so-called Democrats express so much hatefulness and intimidation toward others who don't agree. Herding cats? My damn cats have never scratched so deeply as some here in 'the progressive blogosphere.'

P.S. I knew Markos was not to be trusted when he showed such unrelenting contempt for Kucinich.

Fidel Castro won an overwhelming majority of the popular vote. So did Saddam.

Popular vote is not a legitimate metric when (a) candidates aren't allowed to ask for votes and (b) a candidate doesn't appear on the ballot.

What happened in Michigan was not a legitimate election, and is not appropriate for inclusion in any measure of legitimacy.

Eriposte, of course, has no answer to this.

Not Eeevil!, eRiposte. Merely sad and bitter. I still expect you to support the Democratic candidate in the GE, as you've promised. We all need to make sure the democracy survives.

It certainly won't with another 4 years of the "White House" firmly on the "Dark Side" of the Force.

Yes, lets all pretend nobody wanted to vote for Obama in Michigan and that 4 states where people were allowed to vote for all the candidates didn't vote at all. Then we can pretend Clinton is in the lead!

How is it moral to argue that the popular vote represents the will of the people, and then rely on legalistic arguments as to why Obama shouldn't have any of Michigans vote totals added to his column?

CG, the parties in the caucus states like their caucuses and think they do more to build the party and encourage party activism.

You'll never get rid of all of them, and there is no good reason to demand their banning just because the Hillary campaign in 2008 decided to underestimate caucuses, or couldn't figure out a way to do well in them. Some people think that succeeding in BOTH types of systems is a better measure of a campaign's effectiveness, versatility and resource use, not a worse measure.

But we're now supposed to scrap our decades old state-run system to satisfy unhappy Hillarians as well....

....you sound desperate Erispote...preface that by, "I was an Edwards supporter...and thought he should have held off on his endorsement"....unfortunately HRC was a wee bit too cocky at the beginning of this and now she appears to be toast...either way the name of the game is to drain the swamp of the current muck not to fight the alligators.

The Edwards supporters and the Kucinich suppoters sucked it up and accepted the loss of their candidate...as I have said previously, HRC has every right to stay in this until the end but to hang one's hat on the evil popular vote doesn't do much...if she can win Kentuck and Oregon by a large margin she will have a sound argument to the Superdelegates, if not you guys have to get onside with the Dem candidate...the Beatles broke up and Bob Dylan went electric... get over it!!

A winner take all primary must be in place the next time to avoid this...and yes HRC would be the candidate if that were the metric!

Hillary ran the worst campaign I've ever seen, in debt about 20 million, racebaited, bragged up McCain, but no, its the Obama supporters that are evil. Maybe if fucking Michigan and fucking Florida would have played by the rules, their VOTES WOULD HAVE COUNTED. We have to fight McCain but you losers wanna cry in your beer instead of joining in the real fight. No wonder our party can't win the presidency anymore, with morons like you threatening to take your toys and go home. Fuck ya, go vote for McCain, you babies deserve McSame.

lots of interesting theories on how primaries/caucus ought to be run. But in the end, a candidate must actually win them, as Obama has done. Hillary Clinton didn't. Someone has to lose, and they lose because the people want someone else, not because everyone likes them more. All said and done, a relatively small portion of the participating voters preferred Obama. Clinton came in a close second. end of story.

"I still expect you to support the Democratic candidate in the GE, as you've promised."
_________________________

I just love all these commenters who preen about how WE MUST SUPPORT THE PARTY OR ELSE or WE MUST VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT OR ELSE. Um...why? Who cares about parties? I thought voters had free will to vote for whom they wish?

Screw the democratic party, or any party - the PARTIES are not what's important.

I know! Let's do the general election by popular vote! Then we'll have California and New York do it by caucus. Let's not tell the voters and candidates what the people of Michigan and Florida are actually voting for until after they voted! Wouldn't that be great!

It is embarrassing that so many Democrats are espousing the Clintonian "Popular Vote" which violates many fundamental precepts of democracy. These would include having equal access to the polls for all voters whose votes are tabulated together (in this case, the whole country) and having the voters and candidates know the stakes of the election before it is held.

The only purpose of continuing the fraudulent Clintonian "Popular Vote" is to attempt to undermine the Democratic nominee by trying to make the nomination illegitimate. Both candidates knew the rules ahead of time, one candidate won by those rules. End of story.

Sorry to disagree with you, eriposte, but the Dems have rules for choosing the nominee. It's about delegates, not popular vote. It's about all voters having a voice, not just big states, blue or red states, primary states. Caucus states count, too. And what of the "popular" vote in primary states? Not all registered voters actually vote. People must participate in the process, whether it's voting or attending a caucus, wherever system their state uses. Even my college-aged son, full time in college and works many hours a week, found time to attend his state's caucus.

Re FL and MI, the voters were definitely disenfranchised by those in charge of the primaries. Not their fault. Both Clinton and Obama agreed to abide by the party's decision beforehand. It's only now when Clinton is behind that she wants to change the rules (and that's not only in re FL and MI - she has dissed caucus states, small states, etc. that she has lost. So much for democracy and respecting all voters.)

Sorry you are off-base in this. If you disagree with the primary process, then work to change it. Don't complain because your favored candidate is behind.

This has been an historic process with the final two Democrats a woman and a minority. The most important thing we as a nation need to do this fall is ensure that John McCain is not sworn in next January. Think of Iraq/Iran, the Supreme Court, the environment, education, health care, and on and on. We cannot afford four more years in our current path.

Thanks for reading.

Since when has the Democratic party been subject to the Constitution? Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that political parties are free to impose whatever rules they deem appropriate? Isn't this the first primary election that the Democratic Party has appropriated delegates by proportional representation? Not to mention popular vote--we all know that Bush v. Gore instituted decision by activist SC Justices.

Where were the cries when arbitrary rules were instituted? As far as the parties are concerned, you are free to vote with them or against them. You have no say in the rules. Be a good Republican and take your marching orders from the top. We don't need no stinking democracy. We have two parties to cover all the contingencies.

Obama is all over the airwaves with his strong rebuttal to Bush/McCain's appeasement comments.. It's good to see a Dem stand up to the 100 Year War GOPers and box them around a bit. I wonder when Clinton (Hillary, that is) is planning to give her rebuttal? Better hurry,Hil, I think the train's leaving the station.

I fault Obama as an Iowa panderer for taking his name off.

Can someone fill me in on this--I've never understood it. Were all the names on the ballot to begin with, and then Obama and Edwards (Biden, Richardson?) removed theirs? I've heard (from Obama) that he was "following the rules", but if that's the case, why didn't he remove his name from the Florida ballot? How was removing his name from MI a pander to Iowa?

You'll never get rid of all of them, and there is no good reason to demand their banning just because the Hillary campaign in 2008 decided to underestimate caucuses, or couldn't figure out a way to do well in them.

I know that I never really understood caucuses before (well, not that I fully understand them now), but the idea that people must invest hours in order to vote really does disenfranchise many people. And, in Iowa at least, this idea of a threshold, but district, is ridiculous to me. If you candidate doesn't get enough votes, he or she gets none.

Obama is all over the airwaves with his strong rebuttal to Bush/McCain's appeasement comments.. It's good to see a Dem stand up to the 100 Year War GOPers and box them around a bit. I wonder when Clinton (Hillary, that is) is planning to give her rebuttal?

I think Obama has done well here, but Hillary has already responded:

“President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is offensive and outrageous,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Especially in the light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address.”

Hmmmmm, couple of points.

1. Clinton started on her seat FL/MI on Jan.25, so it's been a little longer than "just now" that she has called for their seating.

2. Since it is about the delegate count, Hilary is free to use whatever argument she chooses to get them to vote for her at the convention. She has chosen, as one of her arguments, the popular vote, nothing wrong there.

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

Hey Tea Too,
are you trying to make folks think Clinton didn't already slap Bush about these comments? If so, you're either a ignorant or dishonest.

Can someone fill me in on this--I've never understood it. Were all the names on the ballot to begin with, and then Obama and Edwards (Biden, Richardson?) removed theirs? I've heard (from Obama) that he was "following the rules", but if that's the case, why didn't he remove his name from the Florida ballot? How was removing his name from MI a pander to Iowa? - CG

CG, Florida would not allow Obama and Edwards to remove their names from the ballot unless they withdrew from the Democratic nomination process entirely. They withdrew their names from the ballot in Michigan theoretically in accordance with the agreement which they (and Clinton) signed with the DNC not to participate in the FL and MI primaries. The real reason is because without any campaigning allowed, they would get beat by the establishment candidate with 100% name recognition. It was strategy on their part not to participate in an election in which they could not compete fairly.

CG, to follow up on CA Pol Junkies, and to answer the rest of your question, no, none of the other candidates removed their names from the ballot.

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

Radix: "1. Clinton started on her seat FL/MI on Jan.25, so it's been a little longer than "just now" that she has called for their seating."

A bit disingenuous when Michigan's "vote" was held January 15 and Obama wasn't on the ballot, and Clinton won with 55%. And Florida's was Jan. 29 and she would have had polls showing she was ahead on Jan. 25.

Radix: "2. Since it is about the delegate count, Hilary is free to use whatever argument she chooses to get them to vote for her at the convention. She has chosen, as one of her arguments, the popular vote, nothing wrong there."

I sort of understand your point; however 1) how do you resolve caucuses when there is no popular vote and 2) Michigan had no votes for Obama as noted above. I would argue there is something very wrong with her "argument".

Anonny,

You’re right about the popular vote not being a perfect metric, but it is way more fair and valid than the pledged delegate count.

The pledged delegate count is not valid at all as a measure of the will of the people. Pledged delegates can change their minds. Even worse is the fact that delegates are awarded disproportionately. Because of disproportionate delegate allocation by district, candidates can win more votes in a state and still get less pledged delegates than another candidate. Because of disproportionate delegate allocation by state, some states get a much higher delegate to voter ratio than other states (The states with the lowest delegate to voter ratio are primary states where way more people voted than expected.)

While the popular vote is not perfect since it isn't fair to caucus states, at least it is a count of votes where every vote is counted the same and proportionately.

So the point is that the popular vote count is a somewhat valid measure of the will of the people, while the pledged delegate count isn't. And all eriposte is doing is pointing this out and showing the hypocrisy of people like David Plouffe.

rjarnold: Since Clinton didn't put much effort into caucus states she has nothing to complain about. She knew the rules ahead of time and miscalculated.

Quit making excuses!

Radix: "CG, to follow up on CA Pol Junkies, and to answer the rest of your question, no, none of the other candidates removed their names from the ballot."

Did some research and here are the results of Michigan:
Clinton 55%
Kucinich 4%
Dodd 1%
Gravel 0%
Other 40%

Did others besides Obama take their names off (Biden, Richardson) or were they not on in the first place? That info I haven't found.

The biggest thing that stands out to me is 40% for "Other"! Wow.

My solace, in this mess, is that after Obama's clearly elucidated "Separate But Equal" and "State Rights" positions on our society's backwards disenfranchising the GLBT crowd, I'm voting green if Clinton doesn't win.

And for you Obama-philes, I'm immune to your "eyes on the prize" blandishments. Based on projected returns, Congress will be controlled by the Democrats to the point they might be able to over-ride McSame's vetos.

Also, your candidate isn't statistically different against McCain in the tracking polls than Clinton. So I laugh at that issue.

POPULAR VOTE COUNTS!

Screw the delegates that keep switching back & forth - a lot of people are pissed off & trust me - they will not be elected again into office, thanks to the POPULAR VOTE!

No vote for Obama - write in Chelsea's Mama!

Geez Louise, sweetie, why won't all these uppity b*tches just shut up, roll over, and die?

This is a strawman argument. The problem with Michigan and Florida is not about popular votes. It is about the fact that the rules were broken and that both elections that did come off were distorted. So, to make a straight faced argument that the FL and MI tallies should count as is, is ludicrous. It sure isn't an argument about "democracy" or the true "will of the people." It is politics, pure and simple.

As we all know, Hillary supported punishing FL and MI like the others when she believed her candidacy was "inevitable." As that narrative foundered, she has been backed into one more ridiculous scenario after another. Now, she has only this left...

It is over, folks. Deal with it. There will be a MI and FL solution, but it ain't gonna be a game-changer. The party will not allow that... and shouldn't.

You don't change the rules of the game 3/4 of the way through the process. Yes, this whole primary season has exposed a host of things that need to be reformed for the next time. But, for now, the process is what it is, warts and all. Obama played by the rules and won. Period. You may or may not like that, but it is as simple as that.

We now know that his campaign out-played hers. Heck, we now know her chief campaign architect (Penn) didn't even realize the process wasn't winner-take-all until into it. Obama's people brilliantly employed a 50-state strategy that has put him on the verge of history. Again, simple as that.

It was fair and square. Obama won. Clinton lost. Now, on to defeating McCain...

F*ck the entire MI & FL BROKE THE RULES CRAP.

Take away SC then. Punish SC for going early - but NO, of course SC counts becuase Obama won that state.

It's fascist & BS.

I'm pissed, I life in FL, I know what it's like to have your vote messed with and NO, am not going to lock-step it with the Dem party, as I always have since I turned 18 in 1992. NOPE.

Go ahead, Obamabots, do to Hillary what was done to Gore, who won the popular vote and because of the ROOLZ, we are in the mess we are in.

YOU are the that don't deserve to be called Democrats. More like Dem'rats.

1. Annony hits it spot on. The process is flawed, but it is what it is and under the process we have, Obama wins.

2. T2: Hillary did serve Bush up a well-phrased and classy slam on the Hamas crap.

3. Team Obama has been just as willing to move the goalposts as Team Hillary, they just don't look as silly because the math favors them. Hillary's problem now is that she is forced to advance two contradictory arguments: 1. The popular vote should prevail and 2. superdelegates should override the popular will and pledged delegates and vote for the "most electable" candidate.

4. Where were Bill and Hillary Clinton in 2004 when Howard Dean criticized the caucus system -- and got slammed for it -- as disenfranchising busy, working people? The Clintons, and Terry McAullife for that matter, have had plenty of opportunity over the past 16 years to do the heavy lifting of improving the abysmal state of the nominating process. As Cheney would say, they had other priorities.

Hillary had something to say yesterday. I'm in today. She may have made another statement today, if so, I stand corrected.

I'd also like to point out that it is, in fact, not self-evident that political parties should open themselves up to rule by popular vote.

Political parties are organizations that are created to advance a political agenda. If you want input into the agenda process, get involved. If you want to be a delegate, get involved. If you want to be a superdelegate, get involved.

I'm not sure where it is written that you are entitled to sit back and, every year or two, demand as much input into defining the party structure as people who take the time to walk their districts, run for local election, attend local committee meetings, raise money for candidates, and otherwise participate in the time-consuming, but often unappreciated, party-building process.

Sorry about the fact that the DNC screwed FL and FL Dems, SM, but it's not the fault of any particular candidate. The DNC was way too authoritarian, rigid and bureaucratic in its "thinking".

Some seating scheme will be worked out with Hillary likely getting somewhat more delegates than Obama. But we cannot simply act as though FL and MI's primaries-without-campaigns were legitimate "contests" that can now be used to determine the ultimate result after the fact.

Should be one heck of a Dem convention, even with the outcome utterly not in doubt.

Talk about candidates walking into a lion's den....wonder how these hard core Obamans and Hillarians will behave toward one another and the opposing candidate. Will it be an atmosphere of openly enraged bitterness or enforced "unity"?

I was just at the equivalent of precinct captain training here in Ohio, and the Obama/Clinton folks on the ground get along just fine. We do want this to end so that we can get started on organizing for the fall campaign. We have teams of canvassers to assemble, some hurt feelings to get over, and a lot of logistical work to do. It helps a devil of a lot to have a candidate. And all that the current silliness is doing is freezing us in place.

In re Florida/Michigan: the chaos in the primary process from permitting them to jerk the schedule around is a very bad consequence, and caucuses provide powerful voices for progressives and activists. It's a measure of the short-sightedness that the Clinton campaign has exhibited for the entire season that they give so little thought to the collateral damage of their tactics. Fortunately, I do think that there will be a stampede of superdelegates after next Tuesday, when Obama will have the majority of pledged delegates nailed down. Mi/Fl will be seated but won't change the outcome, with something between a 100% penalty and the minimum 50% penalty required by the rules.

I do hope that none of the MI/FL superdelegates implicated in this mess get any votes.

I love that word "metric".

Howard Wolfson, January 26:

[WOLFSON MEMO] This remains a delegate fight, with 1,681 delegates at stake on February 5th, and 2,025 needed to secure the nomination -- and we are ahead in that fight.

Howard Wolfson, February 12:

“We don’t think either candidate will be able to get 2,025 delegates without the superdelegates,” Wolfson said during Monday’s briefing, a prediction that may come down to whether Clinton can stem Obama’s February momentum by taking the majority of Texas's and Ohio’s 389 delegates on March 4 (Vermont and Rhode Island also hold contests that day).

Howard Wolfson, February 13:

"Superdelegates are supposed to vote their conscience. ... That's essentially what my friend David Axelrod said on the Today show. ... No one is going to win the nomination without them. Our goal is to get to 2025 delegates. " - Howard Wolfson

Howard Wolfson, February 14:

"Neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of superdelegates," said Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton's press secretary. "No one is going to get to 2,025 [the number needed for nomination] without the superdelegates."
Howard Wolfson, February 14:

But, says Clinton communications chief Howard Wolfson, a tie is still possible (and Clinton likes her chances in a tie ballgame): "No one is going to get to 2,025 without a considerable number of superdelegates."

Howard Wolfson, February 17:

Mr. HOWARD WOLFSON (Communications Director, Clinton Campaign): Well, look, this is a difficult decision for many in our party. We have two very strong candidates with real appeal. We think that our support is very strong. Our supporters, our superdelegates are staying with us. We're not worried about that.

Let's put this a little bit in perspective. There are about 40 delegates separating Senator Obama from Senator Clinton, about 1 percent of the overall number. That's essentially a tie. None of the candidates--neither of the candidates will get to the number needed to secure the nomination, 2,025, without the support of superdelegates.

Guy Cecil, February 6:

Guy Cecil, Clinton's political and field director, said the campaign was taking the 'long-term view,' noting that 40 percent of delegates were still to be awarded after Super Tuesday.

'In the next two months, we have a path that will take us to 2,025 (delegates),' he said, citing the threshold a Democrat needs to capture the nomination.

Guy Cecil, February 6:

[Cecil] So, as we move forward, again, we believe that the campaign that takes a long-term approach to delegates, focusing on the next months and developing a strategy to not only win district-level and at-large delegates, but super delegates is going to be the nominee. And we think we have a plan to get us to 2,025.

Doug Hattaway, February 14:

“The goal of both campaigns is to get 2,025 delegates. That could take into the summer for either campaign,” said Clinton spokesman Doug Hattaway. “Both campaigns are having to keep forward deploying resources as the process keeps moving.”

February 14: "Neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of superdelegates," said Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton's press secretary. "No one is going to get to 2,025 [the number needed for nomination] without the superdelegates."

February 17: "Let's put this a little bit in perspective. There are about 40 delegates separating Senator Obama from Senator Clinton, about 1 percent of the overall number. That's essentially a tie. None of the candidates--neither of the candidates will get to the number needed to secure the nomination, 2,025, without the support of superdelegates."

**************

It's unfortunate that Senator Clinton, a smart and talented woman, ran such an abysmal campaign, but I'm sorry, she doesn't get a mulligan and get to tee up again.

Let's see. If I were David Axelrod circa 2006, where would I look to find a presidential candidate in the mold of Deval Patrick who was also well-versed in the machine politics necessary to steamroll his way to victory in caucus states who won't vote for a Democrat anyway? Could I ever find such a person?

Yes I could! And here's the beauty part--He's also the reformer!

eri,

1. Popular vote is not how you win the nomination. It's delegates.

2. In a competition where some states have closed primaries, some have open primaries, some have caucuses, there is no clear means to declare a connection between popular votes recorded and who is the most popular Democratic candidate. If a one vote at a caucus is equal to a vote in a primary, then you are devaluing caucus states.

3. If you count the two bogus primaries which all candidates agreed didn't count, why stop there? Why not count Clinton's two senatorial elections? Why not add in Bill Clinton's numbers? Keep inventing new ways to prove that Clinton wins.

4. Want to know what some Obama supporters don't bother talking about popular vote anymore? It doesn't matter. Obama is winning in the number of delegates, both super and pledged, in the number of states and, yes, in the POPULAR VOTES of authorized primaries.

5. When Clinton was losing in delegates, states, and her popular vote was still below Obama's even when counting the two bogus primaries, you and others kept marching out that she won the right kind of states (big Blue states) or she had the right kind of voters (whites, or women) or some other invention so that you can continue your fantasy that Clinton can win. What is the point of talking to you about this? What is the point of arguing?

6. The Obama Rules are really quite simple. If you get the most delegates you win the nomination. Fortunately for Obama, those are also the same rules that the Democratic Party uses. Your rules and a buck and a half will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks---if an Obama supporter is nice enough to loan you a quarter.

To those here who "blame" Obama for taking his name off the Michigan ballot:

All Democratic candidates signed pledges to neither campaign nor participate in the two bogus primaries. Michigan allowed the candidates to take their names off, Florida didn't. That Clinton left her name on the ballot in Michigan and then demanded that votes for her be counted and delegates be awarded to her shows that she either intentionally misled the DNC or did not keep her word. Neither of these things are particularly honorable, nor should either be rewarded.

Since the DNC has sanctioned Florida and Michigan for their early primaries...shouldn't the other results also not count? Those down ticket offices also held that day were also illegally held those days. Those candidates shouldn't get to stand for election in each state.

Or, those states should place all candidates on the January ballot on the November ballot for the people's choice. Maybe those states should do that, that may be the best fix if the DNC wants to play this game about the rules.

" Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel’s population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you." President Bush

Has Barry Obama ever said the highlighted? I've never heard it. The president was speaking to the same "some" here. When Barry Obama responded, he took the "appeasement" label on himself. It wasn't placed upon him, nor any other Democrat that's taken issue from his speech.

But, but....he is the Obama.

http://thelastofthefew.blogspot.com/2008/05/brave-new-obamaian-world.html

Obama's supporters in the blogosphere are some of the most obnoxious, loudmouthed excuses for humans I've ever witnessed. On this, I think we can all agree. Now, here's what I want to know: what is it about Obama that attracts such foul-mouthed, classless people?

I was just at the equivalent of precinct captain training here in Ohio, and the Obama/Clinton folks on the ground get along just fine.

Yes, I have wondered if a lot of the anonymous posters who claim they won't vote for the evil Obama if Clinton loses (and vice versa) are not actually the same wingnut trolls who post the cut-and-paste crap from townhall.com on the other threads.

In person I have not yet met a person who favors one who won't vote for the other in the general election.

BUT, in person I have met a few people who have *hated* Bush for 8 years but who have somehow bought into the idea that McCain will be different. These are the people who like to split their ticket to make it seem like they are open-minded. We have a work to do to make these people realize that on all important issues McCain IS GWB.

Anon's post at 5:33 PM illustrates the point I just made above. It writes:

Obama's supporters in the blogosphere are some of the most obnoxious, loudmouthed excuses for humans I've ever witnessed.

I'm sorry, but I cannot imagine any real Obama OR Clinton supporter who has been active in the blogosphere for the past few years who would write this. As bad as the worst Clinton/Obama supporters are, they don't hold a candle to the comments on, for example, virtually any Freirepublik.com post dating back to its founding.

To clarify for some of the posters who have difficulty reading eriposte's simple prose.

* He WAS NOT saying that delegates do not matter.

* He WAS saying that popular vote is just as valid a metric as pledged delegate totals for a superdelegate to base their choice upon.

Since those who dismiss the popular vote and want to disenfranchise the FL and MI primary voters are so keen to quote rules, here are 2 very important ones to keep in mind:

1) Whoever gets the votes of the required number of pledged delegates AND superdelegates is the nominee. Period.

2) The superdelegates can make their decision on who to support based on any damn reason they choose.

You’re right about the popular vote not being a perfect metric, but it is way more fair and valid than the pledged delegate count.

Well, if you are arguing that popular vote is fairer than delegate votes in general, count me in. However if you are arguing that the current popular vote -- depending on how you calculate it (there are several ways to add it up, depending on which rules your follow or ignore) -- is more valid than the delegate vote, I can't see that this is obvious.

The current system is wildly flawed. I've never liked the delegate rules. I recall in 1984 that Gary Hart would virtually tie Walter Mondale in a state, but get only 1/3rd of the delegates due to party rules that always seemed to favor Mondale. I've also got my reservations about the caucus system, in that it samples only those who have enough free time to participate.

Otoh, even the current way of tallying popular vote has its problems. Some state primaries are open, others require party registration. This causes different results in different states. Is it good that Republicans vote in the Democratic primary, or bad? You can argue it both ways.

In the end, both the delegate system and the current vote tallies (whichever method you choose) have problems. Both are unfair. To argue one is fairer than the other -- not clear.

I can't wait to vote against Obama in the fall!
Well then, you aren't a Democrat, are you?

Obama's supporters in the blogosphere are some of the most obnoxious, loudmouthed excuses for humans I've ever witnessed. On this, I think we can all agree. Now, here's what I want to know: what is it about Obama that attracts such foul-mouthed, classless people?

Why does this site attract so many extreme, right-wing Republicans? Since you don't believe in rules or laws, you should return to the Party of Torture, where you belong.

6. The Obama Rules are really quite simple. If you get the most delegates you win the nomination. Fortunately for Obama, those are also the same rules that the Democratic Party uses. Your rules and a buck and a half will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks---if an Obama supporter is nice enough to loan you a quarter.

I've got a quarter right here, but you have to be a Democrat for me to lend it to you. Are any of you rabid Hillary supporters here Democrats also?

BTW, I'm an Obama supporter, not an Obamabot. He's not god, he's not infallible. He's a political candidate of the same party as Hillary Clinton, last time I checked. As a political candidate, he lies, just like Hillary Clinton and John McCain and all other candidates. He's not perfect. In fact, I like some of Hillary's policy proposals more than his.

He does have one quality that I really like in a candidate, though. He doesn't insist on changing the rules of the game when they don't go his way. It's a very American quality.

That said, I don't hold anything Hillary has done during this campaign against her. In fact, I like her a great deal, and I hope that the mistakes she has made during the campaign don't eliminate the possibility that Obama would choose her for VP.

She is, in fact, a much better person than many of her supposed Democratic supporters are.

It just so happens that Howard Dean has now acknowledged that the raw vote totals from MI/FL do indeed count. In fact, they have counted all along, since the DNC ruling was in regard to stripping delegates, and they had no authority to strip those states of their popular votes. Sorry, you just cannot turn 2.3 million voters into ghosts - and it was certainly a "bad" decision by Sen. Obama to remove himself from the ballot in Michigan (against the advice of some of his closest advisors).

I keep hearing Party leaders say that SD's should not overturn the "will of the voters." Well, at the end of this, with both candidates shy of the 2210 needed, which metric most accurately reflects that will: the popular vote winner, or the pledged delegate winner who racked up most of the lead in red state caucuses?

Bob in Pacifica: good comments

Benjamin: "it was certainly a "bad" decision by Sen. Obama to remove himself from the ballot in Michigan"

How was it "bad" for Obama to play by the rules?

SM: "Screw the delegates that keep switching back & forth - a lot of people are pissed off & trust me - they will not be elected again into office, thanks to the POPULAR VOTE! No vote for Obama - write in Chelsea's Mama!"

Was it OK for Hillary to suggest that pledged delegates were free to change their allegiance? As long as it was to her side? Same thing with supers? But to switch to Obama is not OK?

I love how all the Obamabots here are shrilly screaming "You Must Be a Democrat" "Aren't You A Democrat?" "How Can You Think of Not Voting for Obama - You Must Be A Republican Troll" "This is for Democrats Only".

Um... I thought Obama wanted to appeal to independents and republicans and everyone. Are only democrats allowed here now to discuss his candidacy. I'm an independent and I no longer support Obama. Am I banned here now? Automatically labeled a republican troll because I dare to write criticism of Obama?

You Obamabots are such incredible hypocrites. Why don't you follow your leader and let non-democrats into the fold instead of shrieking about them all the time?

BOO HOO!!!

"Was it OK for Hillary to suggest that pledged delegates were free to change their allegiance?"

It was OK. Don't the DNC Rulz say that pledged delegates are free to vote their conscience?

Just asking.

Hmmmmmmm, there was no rule requiring candidates to take there name of the ballot.

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

Seen this yet?

http://hominidviews.com/?p=1526

I voted for Obama. It deosn't make me an "Obamabot", or any of the other ugly words that are used for supporters. Eriposte is free to argue however she wants, but the fact remains that Obama has pretty much clinched this primary season as a result of superior planning. I expect him to do the same in the fall.

As to West Virginia, I don't want a candidate selected by west virginians. That is why the other states actually have caucuses and elections. Personally, I dislike the caucus structure because it usually favors the name recognized candidate, and because the owners of the iowa newspapers wield too much power.

I find the shifting arguments in favor of clinton to be a bit disturbing. Perhaps you could post a specfic list of what you see as "obama rules vs. Clinton rules" so we can understand both your logic and your obvious anger and resentment to his leading the delegate count.

Sorry, I read your rules. Its all bullshit. I expected it to be a list of campaign demands by either side. Instead its a bunch of the same garbage i see here every time i read.

I don't have the energy to go through and refute all of it. I will say that one thing holds true. Based upon the campaigning i saw in pennsylvania, indiana, and her comments after west virginia about "hardworking white americans" she would lose the fall election. She needs overwhelming AA turnout and support, and she lost it during her election. In indianapolis, there was a 2 to 1 margin of democrats to republicans. There was also a huge AA turnout. A local judge here is an AA female She received 95000 primary votes. That total is 20,000 more than the republican winner of the fall election for mayor we just had. That kind of crushing turnout is what will be needed in every state to win this fall.

By the way, all politics is identity politics. Some vote for educational background, race, sex, or other issue, but is all based upon some way the person identifies with the candidate. Bush, even though he is an alchoholic, won on the "i'd like to have a beer with him" metric. Clearly that is identity politics.

It is past time to put aside all the insults. If Clinton can amass the majority of the delegates under the rules she agreed to, then she should get the nomination. If not, she shouldn't tear the party apart in the convention.

ltgesq:

Clinton may need AA support which has now been poisoned by the racial smears of Obama, (remember, OJ is innocent, anyone?), but Obama also needs older voters, white voters, independents, latinos, etc, all of which he has now alienated. Stop being divisive if you want him to win.

WTF? It's over, move on. Turn the page. Get a life. This blog used to be relevant back in the day.

Eriposte,

Since you're acting too much like a recalcitrant child in your diaries lately, and refuse to discuss these issues with me personally, perhaps you can discuss this one teensy tiny issue with Bob when he states rather succinctly:

All Democratic candidates signed pledges to neither campaign nor participate in the two bogus primaries. Michigan allowed the candidates to take their names off, Florida didn't. That Clinton left her name on the ballot in Michigan and then demanded that votes for her be counted and delegates be awarded to her shows that she either intentionally misled the DNC or did not keep her word. Neither of these things are particularly honorable, nor should either be rewarded.

Call the popular vote important for whatever reason you choose. I concede your argument that it might weigh importance with the Supers should Hillary have it. The gigantic little problem with your silly argument, however, is trying to include a state that didn't even have Obama's name on it, let alone 3 other candidate's names. Since when do we include states that do not have all of our candidates' names on them? What the hell kind of country do you think we should live in to count such a state and a vote without ALL of their names on them?

That's why your argument is reduced to the level of silliness, Eriposte. I'm sorry you've come down so far.

I haven't heard Barack Obama suggest to superdelegates that they pick him because he's "more electable" by some self-defined criteria. But Hillary Clinton says this day in, day out. This raises an obvious question, then: If Clinton is going to make this argument about electability, and make claims about popular votes and other "metrics" being more relevant than delegate counts, why doesn't she go all the way and call for abolishing primaries altogether? Why not go back to the days of convention delegates picked by machine bosses and candidates chosen in a back room somewhere? At least then, there would be no question of post hoc fudging of the numbers, and we wouldn't have to hear the tiresome spin doctors going on about how the last many months of primaries are actually irrelevant because some Really Smart People Somewhere Know Better Than You.

joel dan walls:

your comment is the height of irony since obama is gaming the system constantly to win the nomination. heard of counting all the votes?

obama IS the machine boss, back room candidate. he exemplifies it. he's been pushing his inevitability for months now, even in the face of humiliating and constant defeats.

i have grown to loathe obama, axelrod, brazile, ploufee - the whole lot of them are contemptible.

heard of counting all the votes?

Heard of rules? Ya know, those silly lines on paper that ALL candidates agreed to abide by?

You want to count votes in a state to which not every candidate's name was on the ballot? What Westernized, democratic nation does ridiculous things like that?

he's been pushing his inevitability for months now,

That's because the likelihood of him winning the nomination continually grew after Super Tuesday, and Hillary's chances became worse and worse after that point. We've been pushing it because we want our party to start focusing on the GOP. You know, that OTHER candidate and party that we actually have to fight against for POTUS? You remember that, right?

even in the face of humiliating and constant defeats.

You just hang on to that West Virginia as tight as you can, champ. Try not to think about Obama handing Hillary her ass on a healthy number of states, while winning more states, more popular votes, and more delegate counts in the process.

Strange how so many anti-Obama posts are anonymous posters. Just to let you anonymous boobs understand something - your Republican party is in complete disarray, and we know it. We could put up a lobotomized squirrel as our candidate and the odds of beating your Bush clone are still in our favor. You've lost 3 races in a row in Republican stronghold districts, seats that a mere 4 years ago would have been laughable to even think about a Democrat picking up. This country despises your policies, hates this war, is sick of being broke, and continues to want nothing to do with you overall. Overall I'd say you took tremendous strides in alienating the American people in record time.

So I understand your frustration and perversion with your attempts to come off as anti-Obama posters. It's almost kinda cute, but your troll-like behavior is fairly predictable. I imagine your Free Republic buddies are calling you back, however, so you might want to venture back over there soon.

I think the worst part about what has happened to The Left Coaster is that there are a lot of Republitrolls out there, or more specifically, here, who keep trying to divide Democrats for the greater benefit of the corporatocracy.

I'm close to sixty. I've never had my first choice ever win the nomination, much less win the Presidency. I hope to one day see a true progressive in the White House. Right now I'll settle for a Democrat.

Seriously?

How hard can it be to remove a Clinton bumper sticker from your fender.

Is it worth subverting the rules agreed upon by the Democratic Party?

Peel it off, or, cover it with an Obama bumper sticker and move on.

Divided we fall, and so do our children.

One World,

Domino49

You Obama supporters are like kids arguing over whether a pitcher balked or not in a roadside baseball game. The decision will determine who the Democratic nominee is? Clinton has won the most states with electoral votes. She will definitely win the popular vote. Besides, this wrangling by Axelrod and Brazile is just positioning for ad revenue cuts (Axelrod does get a percentage of commercials aired, correct? Yes) and Brazile is just hankering , like John Edwards, for any position whatsoever in a new administration. Obama will not win the general election. Hillary Clinton will. Quibble away. If we get stuck with McCain it is you quibblers who will have made that possible. So insanely smug and arrogant. If Obama had actually won the nomination you would not even be here. You would still be wailing away with your sexist, dismissive of anyone but yourself bs somewhere else, regaling in something that existed in the day or in your dream life. I'm sure you would still be making the inevitable your blog sucks now posts throughout the blogosphere. It's as predictable as the "by any conceivable metric" bs you ran with for months. Oh, wait, use that "the most loyal constituency in the Democratic Party" threat again. That's truly meaningfull, as most loyal Democrats don't have a clue who you are referring to.

MisterOpus1,

You've obviously not read my previous posts discussing the popular vote or bothered to read Jay Cost's spreadsheet or writings that I've linked to before. Before you make stuff up about what I mean by the popular vote and what I include in the definition of popular vote you should at least do me the courtesy of reading what I've written before - and I don't have the time to waste repeating it here just because you've been lazy enough to spew BS without reading what I've written before.

Justslap:

LOL! You're so right. Don't you wish you would never have to hear the stupid word 'metric' again during this campaign?

Oh dear, and I do recall the furor at the delegates overturning the will of the people!

You know, if Obama can't win this handily with the media talking heads in his corner and frothing at the mouth over his opponent, the party establishment gung-ho for him, the votes of the Beautiful People, and the big money to buy office, then he really must be one weak, weak candidate. What else does he need?

Eri-will you please start deleting your trolls? Comments used to be worth reading, but this is getting ridiculous. Obama did not have his name on the ballot in Michigan? By choice. For tactical reasons. Read what kos had to say about it back when he still had powers of reasoning. Read what Hillary had to say about it in the NHPR interview--not the quote Obamabots keep selecting, but the full interview where she said it was a mistake to say "Goodbye, Michigan." in the GE. Read Paul Maslin's recent analysis for why ignoring MI then and now is a huge mistake. Read how Obama violated the RULZ in Florida--both advertising and campaigning. Seriously, Eri: MisterOpus, BobinPacifica, T2?--please, let them take their fact-free analyses elsewhere. Let them eat kos.

eriposte - I am with the poster above - you might consider deleting the dopey kids posts - their Moms probably dont know they are playing with her computer.

Here's Anglachel's solution:

"Note to Obamacans: Starting now, you get one (at most) post per 24 hour period. That is for the entire blog, not per comment thread, btw. My blog is not a forum for your lies and intimidation tactics. If your post is just more of the same BS, you don't even get that.

If this is unacceptable to you, the "Back" button is in the upper left hand corner of your browser. Feel free to leave anytime.

Anglachel"

I happen to prefer Obama (note the word PREFER). I just voted for him in Oregon. I refer to Clinton supporters as...wait for this now...CLINTON SUPPORTERS. I would really appreciate not being referred to myself as an Obamamaniac, an Obamabot, an Obamatron, or various other terms implying that I parked my brain at the side of the road and joined a cult.

Obama just held an enormous rally in downtown Portland at Tom McCall Waterfront Park. McCall was the popular GOP governor of Oregon in the 1960s. I'm waiting for someone to draw the logical conclusion, using the rules perfected by Karl Rove, that this makes Obama some sort of closet Republican humself. Sadly, that would be in line with the discourse that has come to dominate all threads started by eriposte.

Eriposte,

I have read your posts in regards to the popular vote, and I've also examined Cost's spreadsheet with his best guess predictions. Perhaps if there's something specific I am overlooking in regards to your previous posts, you might point it out to me, because it would appear I am not alone in my sentiments of confusion over what exactly you are referring to here.

If, by chance, you are resting your argument on Cost's spreadsheet, which does include the Michigan popular vote and, with pure speculation on the margin of victory and total tally of votes, demonstrates Hillary still being ahead, all I can say is his spreadsheet is exactly that - pure speculation at best. In fact if we go by what pollster.com has in percentage of difference between these two candidates on the remaining primaries, including West Virginia last week, Obama is once again ahead in the popular vote. But that is what happens when you rely on speculation and hypotheticals. I do not trust Cost's speculation (or yours for that matter) anymore than I trust my own.

What I DO trust, however, is the evidence and numbers we have at present, which demonstrates Obama being ahead by all measures. Until that changes, and until the Supers decide to suddenly switch where the obvious momentum is moving right now, I will continue to rely on what we have as verifiable evidence instead of idle speculation.

As for youngJudith and the other concerned posters, I would like you to keep in mind something. Eriposte, Steve, Turkana, or any other blogger here are at liberty to ban me or whomever they so choose. I'd consider it unfortunate, considering I've been a reader and commenter here for at least 4-5 years, and it's obvious my current choice of candidates differs with the consensus right now. But I consider it even more pathetic to have someone such as yourself who's obviously not been here a fraction as long give a cheerleading banning chant as a result of my engagement in a debate with Eriposte and/or Turkana.

The tent in our Democratic party was intended to be big. It was intended to hold as many diverse voters and participants as possible. That tent, however, does not mandate, nor does it have the intention to be exclusive to those who have differing opinions, and it certainly wasn't meant to exclude debate within the tent itself at times. Clearly we have much more in common than we have that's different, and it's a bit unfortunate that right now our differences are being exploited with this current debate between candidates, but that's just how it is right now. As I have said many times in the past, hopefully our differences can be put aside and we can start focusing on our similarities soon as we gear up to fighting our true adversaries in the coming months.