Clinton Camp Misrepresents ABC's Popular Vote Tally

In today's edition of "The Note," ABC News' Rick Klein wrote that "By one (rightly disputed) metric -- the popular vote, including Florida and Michigan -- Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama. But without the rogue states, Obama is still up by 500,000 -- and if you can find another objective measurement by which she's in the lead, let us know."

Including the popular votes from Florida and Michigan -- which were not sanctioned Democratic National Committee primaries, where the candidates did not compete, where Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois was not even on the ballot in Michigan -- is a sketchy notion, and Rick was conveying that with the proper air of skepticism.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[ntmessage]

For the record Obama took his name off the ballot in MI. Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel did not. Richardson, Biden and Edwards bailed as well. You see in both FL and MI there were more people on the ballot splitting up the vote. In a head-to-head recount, primary style the evidence indicates that Clinton would pick up even more votes against Obama. We now know that this now true regardless of how much campaigning Obama would do or how much money he would spend.

It is obvious only now why Obama fought so hard against both the recount and the re-enfranchisement of the voters themselves who did nothing wrong except their patriotic duty by voting.

Counting all the votes and giving Obama all of the MI Uncommitted puts the raw vote total at even. This is important for electability as well since Clinton beats Obama in 80% of the largest states assuming Obama wins NC, that is.

The top 10 states contain almost 60% of the entire population of the United States of America. Somehow, the DNC process of caucuses and non-proportional delegates has circumvented the one-person one vote principle.

Some may simply state this is simply too bad, obviously ignorant of the fact that the General Election system is a winner take all primary model, nothing like the DNC system. For those unrepentant, they should then understand by now that a vote for Obama was and will be a vote for McBush.

[EyeWantOneNation]

ntmessage: Just to clarify, this is from Wikipedia:

On October 9, 2007, following Michigan's breach of DNC rules, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and John Edwards withdrew from the Michigan Democratic Primary ballot.[6] Dennis Kucinich unsuccessfully sought to remove his name from the ballot.[7] Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd decided to remain on the ballot.[8] Although Clinton said she would honor a pledge that she and the other Democratic candidates had earlier made to refrain from campaigning or participating in Michigan.
___________________________________________________________

Please note: Kucinich sought to remove his name from the ballot.

Please note the part where "Clinton said she would honor a pledge that she and the other Democratic candidates had earlier made to refrain from campaigning or participating in Michigan."

Now how does that entitle her to now stating she wants MI votes to be counted ??

[CTmom13]

The Clinton's just lie lie and lie

[kellygrrrl]

the strategery of Clinton Math is mind-boggling

[08timefortruth]

I agree and the msn just keeps on feeding into her lies as evidenced by the jump on the Clinton spin regarding not only the popular vote but the margin of her win in PA. According to the PA Dept of State the results are 99.44% in and the final count is Clinton 54.6% to 45.4% for Obama which is not a 10% lead and is not a "double-digit" lead

[boonagain]

I'm sure that President Hillary would be just as resepctful of the Constitution as she is of the agreed upon in advance of the Democratic Party's Primary.

[RainAndWind]

If I were an indepedent voter and I watched a party (ours) give one couple (Bill and Hillary) everythng they wanted no matter how outrageus, and if I saw that same party make up rules (Fl and MI) and then break them, I'd turn around and run the other way as fast I could. And I bet many will. It just smacks of incompetence, favoritism, and vacillation, not things that would endear that party to me. I'd vote a another party.

[Denni]

Truth is of no consequence to a Clinton.

[RainAndWind]

You can see which way the wind is blowing--Hillary plans to have those states---their votes counted---or die trying. But of course if counting those votes would help Obama and not her and he wanted them counted, she'd be whining and mewing and screaming and, probably, litigating. Of all the things that irritate me the most about Hillary, it's the One Rule For Me, Another For You thing.
And where, again, are the party leaders? Are they just going to give her her way?

[DennyCrane]

I have no sympathy for the people of Michigan and Florida. You were told in advance that the primaries there wouldn't count because your state Democratic parties violated the rules. And yet you went ahead and voted anyway. How stupid are you people? Quit claiming disenfranchisement. Blame your state parties for breaking the rules. If we count them now, the message it sends for 2012 is that state parties can defy the DNC and get away with it. Then every state will move up its primary. As for Hillary keeping her name on the Michigan ballot, that just shows she thinks she's above her own party. At least Obama showed some class and chose to remove his name and respect the wishes of his party. Unless they have new primaries in these states, their votes should not count and their delegates should not be seated. Hillary had no problem with this decision until February when it became obvious that she wasn't going to win the nomination.

[mjc]

Once again, and this is getting quite old, the facts about Michigan and Florida are misrepresented as are any motivations for such non-recognition of the delegates from those states. Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot, yes. His name was on the Florida ballot. Hillary's name was on both ballots. She won both races handily, which is why Obama doesn't want anything to do with recognizing the delegations. Many states did not adhere to the RULES as to when they would hold their primary or caucus. New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada are the ones that went to the earliest part of the primary calendar. Their delegations WERE considered valid. WHY? Why should three states be able to "disobey" the RULES and not two others? In both states the move to an earlier contest was sponsored by REPUBLICAN state legislatures and in some cases there was opposition from the Democrats in those legislatures and in the statehouses. Hillary Clinton ran against an "uncommitted" slate....that's everyone else! And she beat that in Michigan. In Florida, every Democratic candidate's name was on the ballot and she beat all of them as well.

[08timefortruth]

Spin it however you want, everyone knows the truth and it sure isn't the stuff you guys spout.

[eladora]

I guess people look at Michigan and say they shouldnt count because in Oct 07 she said there was no way they would count. Course that was when she was the assumed nominee.
But she can change her opinion--just like she has on the war when she slipped up the other day in a speech and said --we will win the war in Iraq. I think if she gets to be prez we will absolutely get to see a clinton impeached .

[Mattatat]

Yes, how dare they go and vote anyway?

You Obama L00ns are sick. You are so blinded by your messiah complex that you only care about your savior Barack, and not the country or Democratic party.

[madvetenskapsman]

They had every right to vote... but they shouldn't have had any expectations that it would count considering the fact that the DNC, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all acknowledged beforehand that it wouldn't. My family lives in MI and went out to vote "uncommitted" but only to make a point. The claim that voters are now being "disenfranchised" when they were told ahead of time they couldn't vote for DNC delegates is just ridiculous.

Hillary was FOR stripping them of their delegates when they broke the rules, but now that the Clinton campaign has become all about breaking every rule they can think of to somehow claim victory, they are worried about "disenfranchising" so many voters. Give me a break! This is like how they were for casino voting in Nevada up until the union ended up endorsing Obama. They were fine with the TX caucus rules and allocation of primary delegates until the week before when they realized the would never win by enough to actually net any delegates. They hated a "50 state strategy" and even now continue to write-off the MASSIVE Obama wins in the midwest, but now they embrace "letting every voter have his/her say" (except midwest, latte-drinking, prius-driving, birkenstock-wearing liberals whose votes shouldn't count because those stupid little red states won't go blue).

Hillary has lost. The right thing to do would be to accept her loss and drop out. But Hillary really hasn't been about doing the right thing.

[08timefortruth]

Yep, just like the guy with 6 drunk driving convictions that goes out and drives anyway, no respect for the rules.

[eladora]

Hillarys negatives were very high and the concern of the party when this all started. Her whole campaign operated under the assumption that it didnt matter since bushco was so bad and the effect would trickle over to their nominee. Her negatives were way high prior to the campaign--- now , with all of her tactics and side comments --she wont get elected if noone is running against her. She ruined it for women everywhere with the dogged way she has run her campaign. She has set women back a decade with her actions.

[RainAndWind]

The why did the people of Pennsylvania give her a win? Don't they care about the same things we care about? Fairness, truth, and so on? What is the matter with them? Or is it just that they dislike Obama and/or his policies so much that they will vote Hllry even though they know what a rascal she is?
Who wants a big liar for a President? I don't---why would I? Why would anyone?

[Denni]

blah, blah, and more blah....

[cubs325]

so could we expect any different - distort twist try and trick us - she turns this important intellectual process of trying to select the best leader for the country into some trivial board game

[Fighter4USA]

Much has been already discussed about Barack Obama"s disturbing associations with
a domestic terrorist (Ayers), to a prominent Palestinian advocate of suicide bombings
(Khalidi), a corrupt Iraqi billionaire (Auchi), a sleazy personal fundraiser and
mafioso (Rezko), and to his own genocidal maniac of a cousin from Kenya (Odinga),
for whom Obama led a "positive" campaign effort to achieve his "election" a few
years back. As many of us know, Obama"s camp has recently taken a defensive stance
and have dedicated countless hours to spread the word around the internet that these
issues are "irrelevant" to a Presidential campaign and that bringing them up are
thus a full exemplification of "dirty politics".

[08timefortruth]

Oh for heaven sakes, if you want to talk about someone with bad associates do a few google searches on the Clintons and you'd have dozens that are ALL VETTED as true Clinton scandals.

[Biracial1]

Hillary camp not telling the truth, I mean mis-speaking? No way!

[ntmessage]

Well we are in this mess. Those people DID vote.

The DNC said they will not count them, but whatever reason they come up with it does not and cannot withstand the disenfranchisement charge, a key democratic principle. It really does not ,and it is fallacy to think that ignoring this fact will not matter. Obama took his name off the MI ballot, but Undecided was the container for Obama and other that did the same.

Those should go to Obama to keep the indicated vote count fair. Otherwise, this model already has Clinton ahead of Obama when voters are measured as how many people pulled the lever and what was their intent. Remember Clinton is not fighting the *rules* she is fighting the *penalty*.

[Liam]

But there is simply no fair way to determine how the people of FL and MI would have voted in a fair election.

Many people stayed home because they were told in advance that their votes weren't going to count. To suddenly count the election disenfranchises them.

In MI, many of the candidates weren't even on the ballot, and we as a society have been conditioned that voting for "none of the above" or "uncommitted" or any similar choice is the same as throwing your vote away, so when we make the effort to go to the polling station, we generally hold our nose and pick the least odious from among the choices pre-printed on the ballot.

None of the candidates campaigned there.

There's no way to know what the true will of those who would have voted in a fair election would have been. To retroactively change rules established BEFORE those two primaries is no more fair to the candidates or to the voters in those states than not to count them.

Liam.

[08timefortruth]

No way should Obama only get the "uncommitted" vote, the election was not fair and the only fair way to settle the issue is either 50-50 or not count at all. Neither candidate should be given an unfair advantage nor should he be penalized for following the rules.

[ntmessage]

That disenfranchises and does not count the voters intent. He had the opportunity for do overs and fought against them. Why was he so stupid to take his name off the ballot in the first place? He should not be rewarded for screwing up. Just splitting the vote is a make up way to do it and does not count the voters properly.

[Liam]

Why was he so stupid? They all AGREED to. HRC went back on her word.

And can someone provide me with some evidence that the Obama campaign fought against do-overs? I don't recall seeing that.

SHE is the one who made an agreement and went back on her word, and then expects everyone to change the rules so that she can benefit from her lack of good faith.

Liam.

[mjc]

No one is challenging the fact that Obama could/should get the uncommitted vote. Even so, Obama doesn't and didn't want a re-vote and he is certainly getting the "teacher's pet" treatment from the DNC. The only thing he did agree to do was split the votes in BOTH states 50-50, which of course would give Mr. Slick a lot more votes and voters in those states.

[mjc]

It's "UNCOMMITTED", not "Undicided.

[ntmessage]

Correct. My Bad.

[RainAndWind]

If it cannot withstand the disengranchisement charge, then those states should never have been penalized in the first place. It's not as if disenfranchisement is something brand new that no one knew about or thought of when they warned the states not to push up their dates.
This is just plain cheating.

[ntmessage]

The DNC came up with the stupid penalty and for what? A pissing contest! NH moved up their primary w/o penalty. It was adolescent. EVERYONE was leap-froging so much I thought the primary was going to start during Thanksgiving. This affected both parties as well as the many state legislators.

[Liam]

New Hampshire, Iowa and two others are the DNC recognized "early states". They were allowed to move theirs up to remain the early states because that's always been their role.

You don't have to like that system, but the time to start changing it isn't with 3 months to go until the primaries start. The time to start talking about this is NOW for the 2012 elections. As of right now, both parties agree that Iowa is first with their caucus, New Hampshire is second with their primary, and the other two (who escape me at the moment) follow close behind... and everyone else follows.

Liam.

[Fighter4USA]

How can you possibly think that any candidate can win an election excluding 2 large states voters? get real.

[era996]

But the left is not interested in a win. They will happily forfeit the election rather then have Hillary win it. With six weeks to campaign, millions of dollars spent, unprecedented media bias, and he can't get to 50 % of democrats in PA. How will he win more then 50% in the general election. Add FL, MI, OH, and NJ in the mix and welcome John McCain. But wait, the Hufpost sheep will have 4 years to cry and blame Hillary and not their unelectable darling.

[Liam]

How does this logic work? Everyone assumes that the only alternative to the Democratic candidate one voted for in the primary is John McCain.

I voted for John Edwards in the primary, but that doesn't mean that since he didn't win, I'm going to go vote for McCain. I'll vote for Obama if he wins. I might even vote for HRC if she wins (I would have, several months ago, but she's made me so sick with her tactics and some of her positions, I'm honestly not sure whether she'd be any better than what we have now as a President. I'm not suggesting anyone else should feel that way, but that's how I see it).

So just because HRC was able to cling to a 10% margin of victory in a state that she was leading by 25% just a few weeks ago doesn't mean that nearly ALL of those voters won't vote for EITHER of them in the general, instead of crossing the aisle.

Liam.

[drzoon]

they voted.

hilary herself agreed to not even campaign in MI ... BUT KEPT HER NAME ON THE BALLOT...

expect nothing less from a serial LIAR

[SaskiaStars]

you are incorrect, again. The actual number of people who "pulled the lever" in this election so far is not represented by the numbers that are posted- if all the actual votes were counted then Hillary would be behind Obama by over 2million votes. So find another argument.

[ntmessage]

How so? there is no emperical data to support that wha