Obama Camp: Our Popular Vote Lead Is Pretty Insurmountable Too

Buttressed by a victory in last night's Mississippi primary, Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign claimed on Wednesday that it not only had a pledged delegate lead that would be hard to reverse, but also a popular vote advantage that Sen. Hillary Clinton would have difficulties overcoming.

"Although we don't think this is the barometer on which the race will be decided, we have a big popular vote lead," said campaign manager David Plouffe. "Our popular vote lead is up around a million. Which is obviously a significant edge and one they would have a very tough time reversing."

Plouffe's estimation was much higher than those offered by news outlets. According to Real Clear Politics, Obama leads Clinton by slightly more than 700,000 votes after 40-plus primary elections. That number drops to just over 400,000 when including Florida's results (in Michigan Obama was not on the ballot).

The difference between these estimates and those from the Obama camp, Plouffe offered, was due to the fact that many of the caucus states had yet to tally their popular votes. In Texas, he offered as an example, "we project to pick up a 120,000 popular vote advantage [in the caucus], which is larger than what Senator Clinton got out of the primary." In Mississippi, meanwhile, Plouffe estimated that Obama would have a net gain of approximately 100,000 votes.

With only ten primary elections left in the nomination process there is an increasing likelihood that Obama will end up with a relatively substantial pledge delegate lead. After Mississippi's election his campaign estimated that he had not only erased the losses he had in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island, but now bested Clinton by 161 such delegates.

Faced with these obstacles, the Clinton camp has tried to refocus the political spotlight on the popular vote; the logic being that if they could overtake Obama in that account they could make a strong case to super delegates -- the party insiders who vote independently for candidates during the Democratic convention -- to come to their side.

"They are trying to hold the popular vote out there because they can't overtake the delegate lead," said Plouffe. "They are trying to create a diversion there... But our lead is bigger than most counts have it."

The confidence of Plouffe's delegate and popular vote projections stood in contrast the pessimism with which he discussed the upcoming Pennsylvania primary. In a heavy dose of expectations-setting -- something the Obama camp has been accused, by supporters, of lacking -- he argued that the state was tailored to Clinton's strengths. "They are the prohibitive favorite, they will campaign there very hard," Plouffe added. "We will try to win but our campaign will not be defined by Pennsylvania."

The Obama campaign also sent out a memo to reporters in the midst of the conference call. The document read:

The Clinton Campaign would like to focus your attention only on Pennsylvania - a state in which they have already declared that they are "unbeatable." But Pennsylvania is only one of 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who are nominee will be.

Comments

[marco34la]

Super delegates did not elect McGovern. They weren't even created until 1981 and that was because
of the Jimmy Carter debaucle. Despite the dismay and wishes of the party, he won. He got in and was the worst, softest, most in-effective democratic president in our recent history -- costing the democrats the loss of the white house for 12 years.

If you are truly interested in the well-being of this country and the winning of the democratic white house in november, the you should really start changing your dialogue here. Obama is not the best democratic candidate. period. He has no experience, obviously lacks judgment and is only slightly ahead of clinton because of victories in RED states, which mean nothing to the democratic party in terms of the general election. When you're serious about politics and the issues, you'll see that Hillary is the candidate of choice. Until then, you can play along with the "american idol" crowd and "orprah's book club picks" crowd and cheer on what has been marketed and fed to you... like a chia pet, pet rock, hula hoop, cabbage patch kids and hannah montana.

[rwferr]

Obama has not and cannot attain 2025 pledged delegates before the primary which means the contest will be decided by the superdelegates. If it was the job of the superdelegates to vote necessarily the way the popular vote went then there would be no need for the superdelegates as they would have no function. The purpose of the superdelegates is to break ties as in this case. Regardless of Obama's delegate lead, he cannot attain 2025 which means he has not won. Either of them can only win with the superdelegates. That is not stealing anything. They are both in the same position. Had Obama done well enough to attain 2025 you would be right it would be over but he did not and it is not. In breaking a tie such as this the superdelegates are only bound by one thing and that is the good of the party. Which candidate is more likely to win the general election. And the superdelegates by August could well decide that that person is Mrs. Clinton. To say that that would be stealing the election is just plain wrong and shows a lack of understanding of the system, why it is the way it is and how it actually works. The Obama people keep wanting to make it about the delegate count but absent 2025 its not about that anymore.

[thePoliticalBreeze]

This is a specious argument. Yes, both candidates will need super delegates to reach 2025. And, yes, super delegates are free to vote however they want. But to suggest that the super delegates are there to 'break ties as in this case" glosses over reality. The fact is that Clinton cannot catch Obama in pledged delegates -- she won't even come close.

The real question is, will enough super delegates vote for Clinton to override the will of the people? Why would they do that, and at what cost?

The Clinton campaign is hard at work trying to redefine the contest to make it palatable for the super delegates to decree second place as the winner. One tactic is to sell the idea that some pledged delegates deserve more consideration. Not surprisingly, Clinton prefers the delegates in states that she won. So, she suggests we focus most on the pledged delegates from larger states with closed primaries, and downplay smaller states, those with caucuses or open primaries and those that tend to vote "red". If you pick and choose the right combination, Clinton does indeed end up with the most "pledged delegates". Imagine that. It is also interesting that Clinton didn’t want to downplay Iowa (small state, caucus) until after she started losing so badly. Nor, does she seem to be bothered that Texas had an open primary where cross-over Limbaugh voters may have given her the edge.

At the same time, Clinton is accelerating her scorched-earth campaign to make Obama unelectable. The latest here is Ferraro’s notion that Obama wouldn't be winning except for his being black.

One can only hope that enough super delegates will step in soon and pledge their support for Obama, ending this destructive game before Clinton destroys Obama, the Democratic Party’s chance in November, and what little remains of Clinton’s reputation.

[marco34la]

Obama doesn't need Clinton to destroy him, he seems to be doing an excellent job of that all by himself. His entire candidacy was jump-started by media mogul, Oprah Winfrey... and only based upon his opinion against the Iraq war vs experience. We now know that his argument that JUDGMENT is more important than experience has been
shot to h-ll because of his blunderous lack of judgment with Rev Wright, Tony Rezco and NAFTA.

As a democrat who felt that I was robbed in 2000 and 2004 Elections by RED states, I do not want to be robbed again by these very states. If we throw out ALL RED states from this process, you will see a very different picture emerge. That is, that the "true" democratic party or the BLUE states prefer CLINTON over Obama by double -- 4,725,901 to 2,174175 . ADDITIONALLY and more importantly are the SWING STATES -- there CLINTON is almost double OBAMA in that popular vote as well: 2,873,801 (clinton) to 1,895,501 (obama).

People like who fail to make these important distinctions are the ones who will be costing the democarts this election and the ones who are dividing our party. It's NOT Hillary Clinton -- again, she represents the bigger majority of the democrat states (our party). If this nomination is STOLEN from her, through a marketing blitz, media biases,
and red state democrats... then my vote goes to McCain.

If you don't understand the issues, complexities and importance of the presidency -- then you shouldn't be voting -- period. Use you vote in the manner in which you are accustomed -- phone it in for "American Idol" or some other popularity contest. This is not a "reality" tv soap -- this is real.

[sn]

The superdelegates are excellent in breaking ties and picking the most electable candidate. Look at their choices in the past--Walter Mondel and George McGovern. Both the candidates did fabulously in the general election versus Reagan and Nixon. Give me a break!! The superdelegates have voted in the past based on their inherent interests and cronism. Most of the times, the superdelegates are totally out of touch with the pulse of the people and end up making horrible decisions. Your argument would have credibility if superdelegates had chosen successful and winnable candidates in the past. But the superdelegates have chosen candidates that lost in landslides to republicans in the general election. No one has any faith in them.

[MRb1000]

WE ARE ALL TIRED OF HILLARY. PLEASE HILLARY AND BILL GO HOME TO NEW YORK!!! HILLARY JUST GET YOURSELF A GOOD DOG.

[PulSamsara]

Clinton - it's time to get out.

[JumpyJack]

PLEASE NOTE: Contrary to what many might expect, popular vote count is a very bad representation of the will of the people - a lot worse than delegate count. That is because caucuses have much fewer participants than primaries, even up to several hundred times fewer. So if a state holds caucuses, its small total number of votes adds about nothing to the total popular vote count (compared to the much larger number of votes from primary states). This means that there are about 15 states whose outcomes essentially don't count. Now if you look at all the fuss about not counting Florida and Michigan, you can see how big a deal that is. Thus total popular vote count should really not be used as a representative measure of people's will. If all of the states had primaries, it would be a different story, but since there's both, total popular vote count is really way off.

[GoldCanyonGal]

Hello...Gore won the popular vote in 2000....he wasn't elected POTUS. Which is it the Obamarama wants us to focus on now...popular votes or delegates? Popular vote won't mean a damn thing in November if it's coming from states that will give all their delgates to the Republicans. That's why nobody really takes Obama's wins in 'red' (yes, there are red) states seriously....those votes will not win in the general election. Some states, like MO hold the potential to 'swing' Dem...but those wins are few and far between. Young voters may turn out and vote in Nov...I hope so...but far too often we read the dull, drone of 'I won't vote if Hillary gets the nomination...and, in fact, we take you at your word that you are far from a reliable voting block for the Dems. Indies tend to be fickle as well. While they vote regularly, the often vote for Repubs...like they did in 2004...again, far from a reliable voting block for the Dems. Maybe this is changing, but it would be unwise to ignore important lessons from the past...voting trends will probably not change over night or over one election cycle. Change take perseverence and hard work over time...there is no magic wand. Oh yes, and by the way, "The Secret" is a load of crap!

[vernonbc]

"Which is it the Obamarama wants us to focus on now...popular votes or delegates? "

Well, delegates is what counts and what is going to count at the end and he has an insurmountable lead in delegates now. That's why Clinton is trying an end-around and is trying to say popular vote counts more but, sorry Hill, Obama's winning that too. You're just a loser all round. Get used to President Obama.

[Nezua]

Focus on the birdie. And smile!

—Obamaramaton

[fmmcfarren]

in a general election, Obama wins CA and NY hands down, he can probably claim NJ, and if the FL and MI things are settled, will get MI for sure, and could probably swing FL with some good campaigning and ground work [which he is excellent at]. Really, the biggest threat to a Democratic Presidency, and a clear control of the house, and hopefully the Senate is, ironically, Clinton and the DLC and NDC. They are for maintaining power and the status quo at any cost. The real threat of Obama is not his politics, but the people movement itself. That is why HRC is constantly dengerating the voters, and throwing everything to usurping the nomination through SuperDelegates. This is precisely the thing that Edwards was against. He needs to Endorse and campaign for Obama soon!

[indie17]

Hi Sam. Always enjoy your articles.

According to Real Clear Politics, the following states have not released their popular vote totals, so they are not included in the 700,000 number that you quote: Nevada, Iowa, Washington, and Maine. See the footnote at the bottom of the page with the popular vote totals. Since Obama won 3 of 4 of these, and Nevada is near a tie, you can see where Obama is ahead by more than 700K. I have seen an estimate that he added around 75,000 out of Washington.

[Larry of Corrales]

I believe Obama won the most delegates in Texas. So looking back at super Tuesday, you really need to be saying that Obama won Texas and Vermont, Clinton won Ohio and Rhode Island.

[micropainter]

But the nominee requires a 2/3 majority of pledged delegates to win. Not just over half. So your point is---??

[erfavc]

They have no point. Just realize this ... if she can win by around 20% margin in Pa (highly possible) she will pick up around 400,000 - 600,000 votes towards taking the popular vote (that would be with about 2-3 million people voting.

[dsmyre]

HRC can't make a case for basing the nomination on popular vote count so long as 25% of her votes are from Limbaugh cross-over republicans. The superdelegates aren't that dumb.

[billrott]

Ah, they do have a strong point. If you include the votes of the various states that have not reported yet. Obama has a 800,000 to 900,000 lead. There is really no way Hillary will surpass this lead. She admitted it yesterday to her financiers.

Even if she wins by 30% in PA, she will still be be behind in the popular vote and no other states are going to give her such advantage. Additionally, I don't see her getting 20% margins. She could not get such margins before, so I doubt she will get it now.

[Brutus1]

Sam Stein is an Obama hack and whatever he has to say is irrelevant and meaningless.

[Larry of Corrales]

I believe Sam is just stating facts about the contest. Facts are something that Clinton supporters know very little about. Hillary's campaign has become a joke. I hope you saw the Keith Oobermann special comment about Hillary this evening. He has a way of getting to the heart of an issue.

[fmmcfarren]

Facts have a well know sexist bias against Hillary.

[jrb35]

When Obama won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."

When Obama won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.

When Obama won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.

When Obama won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.

When Obama won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.

Now that Obama has won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.

For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, Obama has won more delegates, more states, and more votes.

Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

[PardonMyFrenchFries]

Mr Stein, when are you going to return to your Obama fundraising post?

[Plank]

Fuzzy is the new Clinton math. Under Hillary's conditions,
1+1=3,
# of Pledged delegates + # of Popular Vote < # of Big States, where Illinois is not a Big State & Michigan & Florida count

[the964kid]

Bottom line: Hillary is losing and PA,and re-do's in FL and Mich wont change this...

[erfavc]

Bottom line ... David Plouffe is counting votes in Texas twice ... anybody that voted in the texas caucus already voted in the primary ... if you count the votes in the caucus that would mean people thatwere able to show up to the caucus's votes count more then some one who might be house ridden or works a second shift job ... doesn't seem fair.

[neocon43]

Wrong again.After Pa and Florida,Mi­ch,Kentuck­y,Indiana,­Virginia,a­ll Clinton big wins.This will be even or Clinton ahead.

[Blackshifter]

Do you mean West Virginia? Clinton got beat down in Virginia pretty good. I would think Kentucky would be a Clinton state but I wouldn't be too sure of Indiana. Although, the demographics look like Ohio and Pennsylvania, a large chunk of Indiana has the Chicago media market, not to mention, you can count on Obama's Illinois ground game to work furiously in Indiana. Regardless of the outcome, Indiana will be alot closer than you think.

[fmmcfarren]

FAct: It is statisticaly improbable [90%] that HRC cannot even tie Obama in the remaining contests.

and when I say improbable, I mean like anyone reading this being asked to take a free ride to the International Space Station this year.

[Mollye]

If Obama wins the nomination, he's going to be so surprised when all those Republicans who voted for him in the primaries vote for McCain.