The Clinton Campaign and the "Popular Vote"

Comments from the Clinton inner circle in the last few days indicate that the Clinton campaign has settled on an end game strategy for the campaign. Are you ready for this? I'm going to go with "no."

Here are the pieces of the puzzle:

* On Saturday, Clinton herself told the Washington Post, "I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for." That same weekend other Clinton operatives echoed these sentiments, signaling that the issue of Florida and Michigan is far from settled.

* A few days later two of her most powerful supporters, in separate interviews, announced that for Clinton to win the nomination she would have to win the popular vote. Pennsylvania congressman and Clinton-backer John Murtha said, "She has to be ahead in the popular vote to have any chance at all of getting this nomination." And speaking on CNBC, New Jersey Gov. John Corzine said, "I'm a very aggressive supporter of Senator Clinton, but I think you need at least a popular vote." Coming from a campaign as tightly on-message as Clinton's, these comments are not politicians chewing the fat with reporters but clear signals of strategic intent.

Not surprisingly, since it is coming from the Clinton campaign, the plan on offer here is a smart one which makes a strategic gambit with a weak hand. Unfortunately, the most likely outcome is a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Plan element #1: Have your spokespeople back away from the most far-fetched ideas you have been pushing, such as the idea that superdelegates should support you in the end because you won the primaries in "swing" states, or "big" states, or "important" sates, or non-latte-sipping states, or simply because "Obama can't win" (which in the eyes of Obama supporters translates as "because he's black"). Instead, have your people heave a very public sigh and acknowledge that you cannot win without winning the popular vote, which you acknowledge will be tough but not impossible.

Result: Clinton claims the democratic high-ground, and position herself as the underdog in the "real" test of democracy, the "popular vote."

Plan element #2a: Fight like hell to get the Michigan and Florida delegations seated at the convention. This will come down to a fight at the convention credentials committee, which I outlined in a previous posting.

Plan element #2b: Argue that Michigan and Florida should be included in the "popular vote" regardless of whether the delegations are seated at the convention or not.

Result: elements #2a and #2b dovetail on Plan element #1. Clinton sweeps into the convention as the champion of democracy within the party. The fight over seating Florida and Michigan ends in a horrible mess, positioning Clinton to argue that the delegate count is thus fundamentally flawed and superdelegates should respect party democracy by going with the candidate that won the "popular vote," giving her the nomination as the people's choice.

Is this plan viable? Those of you who think Obama has this thing in the bag had better take a close look at some hard numbers. It turns out that, like everything else in the twisted process of the Democratic primary, the "popular vote" is a dicey concept here.

The current total of "votes" cast in caucuses and primaries is:

Obama 12,891,604
Clinton 12,217,745

This gives Obama an edge of over 650,000 votes, which will be nearly impossible for Clinton to overcome. However, if you add in Michigan (where Obama did not appear on the ballot), and Florida (where he did not campaign at the behest of the party), you get:

Obama 13,460,645
Clinton 13,403,104

This makes a razor-thin margin of slightly more than 50,000 votes, which could easily shift over the course of the last primaries. But wait! You're not done yet! Do caucuses count as "votes?" Throughout the campaign this has been a point of contention, with the Obama campaign putting the weight of its effort into caucuses while Clinton has focused on primaries. Clinton and her spokespeople have repeatedly questioned whether caucuses are really "democratic." And public perception has often gone her way, following the lead of the media. For example, Texas was reported as having been won by Clinton. In fact, Texas had both a primary and caucus. Clinton won the primary, Obama won the caucus. When the two results were added together with whatever bizarre calculator the Texas Democratic Party keeps stored in its closet, Obama came out with more delegates, but the story that ran in the media was that Clinton had "won" Texas.

So, let's give Clinton every break she is asking for, and check out what the "popular vote" total is if we include Texas and Michigan and exclude caucuses, counting only votes cast in primaries:

Obama 13,104,492
Clinton 13,243,919

Et voila! Clinton is actually ahead by over 100,000 "votes" right now.

So what does all this mean? It means that if the Clinton campaign presses ahead with the strategy it is clearly signaling, we can expect a political bloodbath at the end of the primary. The geniuses who make the rules for the Democratic primaries have come up with a system so complex and just plain weird that a number that should be as clear-as-day as "the popular vote" is anything but.

These are the facts of the matter. What is my opinion about all of this? First, that the people who designed this process should be sent to their rooms for the next 100 years and put to hard labor of sorting colored jelly beans into different piles. And second, that this process is so idiotic that the "popular vote" is a meaningless concept open to manipulation and spin, which is why what is supposed to counted are delegates. In spite of everything, there were rules that were spelled out to the candidates at the outset of the race by the Democratic Party. Two of those rules were these: (1) the nominee will be decided according to who wins the most delegates, (2) delegates from Michigan and Florida will not be included in the tally. The time to question those rules was before the primaries started, not now. Obama played by those rules. He did not participate in Florida or Michigan, and he made a strategy that focused on winning more delegates by giving significant attention to lots of small states, and states with caucuses where his grassroots activists would do well. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it was a smart plan which played by the rules. He didn't make those rules, he just played well by them. Most important of all, Obama did not pus to exclude Florida and Michigan, that was the Democratic National Committee. What he did do was say, OK, if the rules are that I am not supposed to campaign in those states and that their votes won't count, then I won't campaign there. The Clinton campaign's ploy to cast Obama as the mighty disenfranchiser of these states is disingenuous.

However, I also understand that my take on this will send some honest and sincere Clinton supporters into orbit, and Obama supporters need to understand that there is a rational basis for this. Just remind yourself how you felt in November 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college. I'm going to guess you were righteous with rage. You might counter that in the presidential election the "popular vote" is not a number subject to manipulation and spin, making the comparison between the national election and the Democratic primary a false one. I agree. But somehow you are going to have to make room in your thinking for Clinton supporters who see it differently.

In all of this, just about the only thing that is dead certain is that if this plays out as it is shaping up to, the end game of the Democratic primary is going to be one ugly soap opera. The most likely scenario? Picture Obama winning the nomination from a convention that cannot even decide who has the right to attend, and ends with hundreds of angry Clinton delegates storming the exits and denouncing their party. Unless something changes very soon, I am thinking of spending August on my yearly trip to the Alaskan wilderness where the only folks I can talk to are wild animals who have never heard of American politics.

Addendum

Feedback I have been receiving indicates that some find it incredulous that Clinton would press ahead with the strategy I have outlined. To address this, I am including the remarks Clinton made at a fundraiser last night in Los Angeles:

"I thought it was Democrats who wanted to count every vote. If we had counted every vote in 2000 Al Gore would be finishing his second term."

"It was a level playing field in Florida, we were all on the ballot...In Michigan we all had the chance to be on the ballot, my opponent chose to take his off."

"We have to either count their votes or allow them to re-vote."

She went on to accuse Obama of thwarting a re-vote in Michigan:

"I don't know what Barack Obama was afraid of, he would have done very well in Michigan."

In his introductory remarks, Rob Reiner added:

"We're Democrats, we let everyone vote. If at the end of the process, there's a candidate who has more votes...When all the dust settles and Puerto Rico has voted, you're going to see that more people voted for Hillary Clinton."

My source on this is Todd Beeton's blog on Direct Democracy, here.

Comments

[KOBISKING]

Most of the media is drinking too much of the Clinton Kool Aid. Delegates are what counts. Hillary's soldiers would be outraged if the Obama team were fighting for the popular vote to outweigh the Delegate count (if Clinton had the lead in Delegates). Actually, we would not see the Obama team fighting for the popular vote, or fighting to get Florida/ Michigan seated. Hillary needs to fight it out until the last state had the opportunity to vote, then give up the fight if she is not ahead in Delegates.

Gala1, you have the right to vote however you choose. I feel that we need to truly look at what's at stake if we do not change this childish behavior. The winner (Obama or Hillary) of the Delegate count would be a fair win, and that person should be the Democratic representative.

I listened to that VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE of Hispanics who stated that they would never vote for Obama. Allowing hate to override intelligence. Do you honestly believe that McCain or Hillary can do more for the Hispanic Community than Obama? Take a good look at Obama's "license" plan. It will provide those who are trying to obtain citizenship with the opportunity to pay taxes, obtain a job legally, obtain fair wage, obtain health insurance, buy a home, travel in and out of the US freely, etc. Do not allow your hate to cripple your dreams people!

[Pangaea]

Did anyone see a clip of Hillary Clinton on "Morning Joe" in which she said that (and I'm paraphrasing) there is no such thing as a "pledged delegate?" She also said that Howard Dean agreed with her.

The plan detailed by Mr. Ostertag is a complex one with too many steps that need to go succeed in order for Senator Clinton to prevail.

There is a presupposition that there is some plan. Given the statement I alluded to at the top of this comment, and given the various contradictory statements put out by Clinton and her staff over recent days, I am dubious that a) there is some Master Strategy and b) that even if there were, it would fail.

PS - Could someone please explain the almost mystical spell that the Clinton's have on the Democratic Party?

[LeeFromVA]

We have a phenominal candidate in Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has managed to convince a lot of people that he's not worthy. She's good. I have to give her credit. Who else could smear a near perfect candidate as handily as she has? With all her negativity and baggage, not to mention her lying and dirty politics, and the fact that her husband was impeached; and she's still seen as a contender after losing for so long by so many points. WOW. I haven't seen this kind of political brillance since the current nit-wit president managed to convince Americans to vote for him twice. Either they are two brilliant politicians, or the American voters are idiots. Maybe a little of both I guess.

[MM5]

Love it.

I think your latter possibility is the more likely explanation for these crooks having such staying power.

[Lindy222]

But, the popular vote isn't the criterion for selecting the nominee, except to the extent it can be made into an argument to the super delegates. And the more the Clinton campaign has to slice and dice the vote to get her into the lead spot, the more pathetic that argument looks.

[GaryinToronto]

cont.

iv) Discounting the caucuses - just because Obama was better organized and had more motivated campaign? God forbid the democrats should end up with a candidate who knows how to organize and motivate people.

v) Discounting the "red" states. The whole dismissal of huge swaths of the country as "flyover" territory that the democrats shouldn't think about is a big part of the problem with the democrats nationally. Hillary is the poster child for this mentality.

The cynicism and hypocrisy of the Clinton's and their surrogates in this matter are really outrageous.

I honestly think the whole "superdelegate primary" idea in its different permutations is an attempt to stave off the sort of convention strategy you describe which would do so much damage to the party and it's core consituencies that it only makes real sense as the kick-off to a Clinton 2012 campaign.

[GaryinToronto]

I just don't get the people who blame Obama for this or the way journalists let surrogates like Ed Rendell say this is Obama's fault without in any way questioning or challenging this unfair assertion.

i) Everybody knew the rules going in and everybody knows that Hillary is only trying to change them now because its in her interest.

ii) Hillary's concern about disenfranchisment is awfully selective. She has no problem with superdelegates going against their voters; she has no problem trying to get elected pledged delegates to switch; she doesn't give a damn about the people who didn't vote - because they were told in advance their votes wouldn't count - or who voted in the republican primary in advance.

iii) Her surrogates were playing with politics in Michigan by trying to make sure that independents and republicans who participated in the republican primary - two consituencies who tend to overwhelmingly favor Obama - wouldn't be able to vote. Just because Obama is for a different kind of politics doesn't make him stupid.

cont/

[DukeFan]

Clinton publically stated at the beginning of this election that she was FINE with states being excluded, primarily because she thought she had this election in the bag. Now she is whining about getting the seated. Please! Rules are rules and the democrats all new this was going to happen over a year ago. If the Superdelegates overturn the delegates or do something unfair to give Clinton an edge then you can definately count on the Democratic party losing not on the general election but it could have very long term consequences as well that they can't even begin to imagine.

I am just appalled that some of these delegates won't make a vote for either candidate because they are too worried about themselves being voted out of office. Give me a break! Do what is best for the party and think beyond yourselves. Although that is something the Clinton's could never comprehend!

[AnninCA]

You got it..........:)

[cyndeewi]

Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections. Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? This man is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the retiring pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, who has been in the news for comments he made over the last three decades. Since these comments became public we have heard criticisms, condemnations, denouncements and rejections of his comments and him. We've seen on television, in a seemingly endless loop, sound bites of a select few of Rev. Wright's many sermons. Some of the Wright's comments are inexcusable and inappropriate and should be condemned, but in calling him "unpatriotic," let us not forget that this is a man who gave up six of the most productive years of his life to serve his country. How many of Wright's detractors, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to name but a few, volunteered for service, and did so under the often tumultuous circumstances of a newly integrated armed forces and a society in the midst of a civil rights struggle? Not many. While words do count, so do actions. Let us not forget that, for whatever Rev. Wright may have said over the last 30 years, he has demonstrated his patriotism. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0404wrightapr03,0,92000.story in honor of "christian"

[Michale32086]

"Unless something changes very soon, I am thinking of spending August on my yearly trip to the Alaskan wilderness where the only folks I can talk to are wild animals who have never heard of American politics."

Can I come?? :D

I have always said that if Clinton wins the nomination and presidency, I am going to move some place that is a lot nicer than the US would be by comparison. I am thinking the south shore of Hell...

Michale.....

[NorVaGal]

Too funny!!! LOL

[BadChristian]

Mi and FL have now proven that their strategy was brilliant.

By telling the party to fuck itself and it's rules, they get to jump the starting gun, AND be the final say in who determines the election.

Thank goodness everyone agreed on their punishment/reward.

[IsaacKuo]

The fuzzy math which puts Clinton ahead by NOT counting the caucus votes will. not. fly.

If the Clinton strategy is to "win" the popular vote by NOT counting any votes from the many states with caucus votes, then Clinton loses. It doesn't pass the smell test. Michigan and Florida have to count, but none of the caucus states count? It's stupid and ridiculous, and not even the stupidest reporters in the media will buy it.

You can forget about that retarded third scenario.

That leaves scenarios 1 and 2, which still favor Obama. It's the best ploy the Clinton people can muster, and it's still a losing proposition. So far, of course.

[ProudLiberalDan]

We cannot change the rules for 2008, but for 2012 there shouldn't be any delegates or Electoral College. We need a direct popular vote in the primaries and a direct popular vote in the General election with a runoff for each if no candidate gets 50% of the vote. We need a 21st Century Democracy, not a 19th Century one. In the future, let's empower voters and citizens, not "delegates" and "electors".

[AOGutierrez]

We don't have a say in how the parties work because they are private organizations with no Constitutional standing. (Actually the founding fathers were almost unanimously opposed to "factions"). Why don't we just say that the parties get to run(and pay for) their own primaries and only dues-paying members can vote in them. We could also change the laws that favor the two parties and make it almost impossible for non-party candidates to run, much less get elected. So basically if didn't get to vote the party committee members and chairman you don't get to vote in their primary.

Any takers?

[netgecko99]

Why don't we just say the parties get to run (and pay for) their own primaries, and the parties get to decide who gets to vote in them. They're private entities. Let them make all the decisions, and foot the bill.

I bet we end up with vote by mail pretty quick.

[gala1]

I started out thinking I'd vote for whoever the Democrats put up but after having Obama shoved down my throat every day and with all the extraordinary misogyny coming right up to the surface of the Huffington Post, I now know one thing for sure.
I'm not voting for Obama.

What I am going to do is write-in my ballot for Hillary Clinton if she's not on it. Period.


I can't figure out the level of denial in this country . We're in wartime, all of us are financially struggling and America has lost her primacy due to 8years of mismanagement and profiteering.

Now, if you needed a major brain operation would you want to be the very first patient of some nice ambitious young guy who always wanted to be a brain surgeon, would you go to the guy whose career had a high mortality rate or would you go for the doctor who has the best provable track record .

Hillary Clinton was my senator.
I saw with my very own eyes what she can do and how she does it.
Both personally and as a politician she gets things done. And well.
And all of us have had reason to be grateful to her.

The HuffingtonPost is merely doing Karl Rove's work for him.
But I live in rural America and I'm not hearing much in the way of support for Obama.

This is an election. Put the wrong candidate in and you will lose it.
Again.

[TerenceHartnett]

Can you then explain to me why your choice to solve all these problems has run such an embarrassingly inept campaign? This is the question that no one answers. Obama has run against the most powerful political machine (national) in living memory and he has won. Name an advantage that HRC did not have in this primary? Money (huge advantage--in the beginning), name, press, etc. etc.--and the full campaigning support of the most popular ex-pres since Truman.

Here's the problem for HRC supporters: she is supposed to be the next president.

It is as simple as that. She is simply supposed to be the next president.

Here's the problem: people voted for the other guy.

Therefore: we get a million far-fetched schemes that will show how the person who lost has actually won.

Let me ask you this. Let's say HRC runs the board and gets more pledged delegates at the end. Let's say she ends up with one more pledged delegate. Do you think that she will be arguing that supers should vote their conscience? Or do you think that she will argue for the extreme sanctity of that one vote and that if she doesn't get the nomination because of that one vote lead that she was robbed.

Come on.

[NorVaGal]

Great post. So true.

[inthenitemare]

So it's OK then with you that she voted for the war (without reading the NIE mind you) AND the Kyle Leiberman amendment purely as a political move? Or that she's been running a "trash and burn" campaign? Or that she lied about Bosnia AND NAFTA?

[HaveyouPerspective]

I'd love to hear an argument based on facts by a Hillary apologist. Care to be the first to take a stab at it?

Hint: when formulating your argument you must supply facts to back up your claims, not just claims on their own. Especially not when those claims are manufactured "misstatements".

Educate yourself; you cannot expect others to do it for you.

[cyndeewi]

In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines. In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.) The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy's premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief's medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery. For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation. What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated. While this young man was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as the Marine/sailor, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than the African-American youth, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968.

[Disparaged]

I'm sorry I just don't (and I want desperately to) understand how you can say that "Both personally and as a politician HRC gets things done. And well." If you could just explain to me how MIS-STATING (LYING) about her Bosnia experience, is good for you "personally", I will change my thinking and vote for her. How can I use HRC as a role model for my grandchildren when I know she lied? I tried to believe that it really was a "mis-statement due to sleep deprivation" when she said it once; however, when I saw that she told this same mis-statement many times, I just could not believe that it was anything other than a LIE. So please tell me (I can tell from the above that you apparently are quite smart) how you I can rectify that in my mind. I researched the following events so when she lied about the Ireland Peace Process (she was had nothing to do with the negotiations; when she lied about SCHIP; when she lied about the Family Leave Act, and when she lied about NAFTA, I could no longer believe her. So, I am begging you to please tell me how you could trust her as POTUS and how you can trust her in the Senate knowing she lies. I will check back to see if you posted an answer for me so that, I too, can believe HRC is trustworthy.

[netgecko99]

She *did* bring a lot of pork home to New York. Just look at her list of earmarks.

Well, at least you could look at them if she didn't keep them secret.