What Really Counts in Pennsylvania

PHILADELPHIA -- The Pennsylvania primary launched Hillary Clinton on a difficult, but feasible path to ultimately leading the nationwide popular vote in the Democratic presidential race.

In yesterday's Keystone State primary, she cut Barack Obama's national overall lead by some 200,000 votes. That still leaves him half-a-million votes ahead (not counting Florida or Michigan) -- a lead of about 1.6 percentage points.

The nationwide popular vote race is significant because it represents Clinton's only chance for a winning argument to Democratic superdelegates who will ultimately decide the outcome. Given the way Democrats proportionally (or is it DISproportionally?) award elected delegates (no winner take all), it appears all but impossible for Clinton to catch up in the pledged delegate category. Likewise, Obama cannot get to victory in this category, which is why the superdelegates rule.

With her 200,000-vote margin of victory in Pennsylvania, Clinton can edge ahead of Obama in popular vote by the end of the primary season in early June. To do so, she must hold his leads in North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana to no more than 10 percentage points, beat him by at least two percentage points in Indiana and post big double-digit wins in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.

That is a tall order, but that's what it takes for Clinton to impress the remaining 250 undecided superdelegates. More on Craig Crawford's Trail Mix.

Now on Video Trail Mix: Craig covers the Clinton victory party in Philadelphia

Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary results

Follow Craig Crawford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craig_crawford

Comments

[S1m0n]

01:31 PM on 04/24/2008

Hillary is more than a dozen strokes back after fourteen holes. Given their respective records, there is no likelihood of her winning the tournement by landing consecutive hole-in-ones on the 15th through 18th holes.

Yes, its technically feasible, but given the shotmaking ability she has demonstrated thus far, this is an outcome so unlikely as to approach the miraculous.

[vsign]

09:24 AM on 04/24/2008

Voters really want to count this year. I think Hillary making an argument of winning the popular vote is a good argument because we want our votes to count.

Obama's argument to the superdelegates is that he is ahead. This is not a good argument since he cannot win 2025. His delegate number includes the caucus states that will not turn blue in the General.

Because of caucus states - the popular vote becomes a much better gauge of voter desires.

Voters want to be heard. This "I'm AHEAD" from Obama does not play well with voters - only Obama supporters. It really is time for his supporters to start paying attention to the rest of us. Obama needs to lead and stop using such a silly argument - I'm AHEAD - means nothing. It is who wins with the superdelegates at the convention.

[Bulbul]

08:21 AM on 04/24/2008

Another garbage the Media is circulating is that the majority of Hillary supporters would rather vote for McCain af she is not the Nominee.
That is totally untrue, how many Hillary supporters do we see in the post, would go to such a length attack a blogger who happens to support Obama ? Hardly any...
Unfotunately, not the same happens to a Hillary supporter.

[PioneerKing]

09:16 PM on 04/23/2008

Hillary is the incumbent and should be winning everywhere with greater numbers.
Hillary has the "head of the democratic party former President Clinton," and nearly all of the democratic party establishment nationwide and all of the democratic old line funders supporting her as well as the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife supporting her. This is the Clintons 4th presidential contest and yet Obama is ahead.
Hillary should be worried that it is she who has not been able to put away Obama, a black freshman senator from Illinois.
As for spending Hillary has folks spending through 527's for her.
The real question is that as the "most experienced candidate,” and as the candidate who has been working the political scene for 35 years and planning this run for president as far back as 1996: WHY HASN'T SEN. CLINTON CLOSED THE DEAL AND BEEN ABLE TO PUT THIS CONTEST TO AN END?
Why is it that a black freshman senator from Illinois has been able to do so well against the Clintons?
Remember white blue collar folks in many states (including the ones Obama has lost) have voted for Obama. Obama is doing pretty well for a first time run for the presidency.

[cranecat]

06:07 PM on 04/23/2008

You can not count the popular vote total accurately when there are caucus states involved.

Each delegate at the caucus is voted on by many individuals. And Obama carried the states that caucus. So how many individual votes would you like to "award" him for each delegate from the caucuses? Ten? Twenty?

So if you want to look at the TOTAL popular vote, Obama is MUCH farther ahead than his number initially indicate.

[sneener2000]

07:05 PM on 04/23/2008

Well I don't know where you live, but here in MN the caucuses were counted as total popular votes cast there.

Then the state totals were apportioned to the candidates, assigning them apportionate amounts of delegates.

So when the MN vote is counted in the popular vote total, it IS the popular vote.

I suspect it is the same elsewhere. There is a tally for both the "popular vote" cast and the number of delegates that represents.

[Mitchell4A]

03:44 PM on 04/23/2008

The notion of "a collective popular vote" in the nomination process is a myth that simply hasn't been properly "vetted" by the Media. (And Craig, you must take some responsibility here.) The very fact that we are talking about different "metrics" reflects the degree to which the Clinton campaign has managed to set the agenda. One has to ask why the Media hasn't done a better job. Democrats now find themselves in the position of having to slog through several more weeks of a contest that should be over.

Please check out: "The Popular Vote Myth (or why caucuses may be hazardous to your representation)" http://msa4.wordpress.com/
"How Would Primaries Have Changed the Results in Caucus States?" by Gregory P. Nini and Glenn Hurowitz . http://www.dcourage.com/Caucus%20Study.pdf

[The latter's conclusion, "We wish to make three broad points. First, because voter turnout is lower in caucuses, the popular vote dramatically devalues the popular will of citizens of caucus states. Second, the size of the devaluation is large, given that about one-third of states have used caucuses and caucus turnout is only one-fifth of primary turnout. Finally, both the actual caucus results and the results of our hypothetical primaries suggest that were every state to have held primaries, Obama would have a larger lead in the current tally of the popular vote."]

This, and other blogs/articles like them, should be circulated. The issue should be discussed in the MSM asap.

[bowseat93]

01:19 PM on 04/23/2008

YIkes...Craig, I luv ya, but I figured you'd get why the popular vote isn't really a rationale that the Clinton campaign can legitimately make to the superdelegates. PocketNines over at Daily Kos identified the key points:
---
Point Number 1: If the popular vote determined the nominee, no candidate would ever go to Iowa or New Hampshire. They'd spend all their time in big urban areas all over the country from the outset of the campaign, racking up raw numbers.

Point Number 2: If the popular vote determined the nominee, no state in its right mind would ever hold a caucus, instantly disenfranchising itself.

Point Number 3: The arbitrary distinction between who gets to vote in these primaries is nothing like the general election, where everyone registered gets to vote.

Overall point: regardless of the fact that Obama will win the popular vote, it is completely illegitimate in this race. THIS IS NOT LIKE POPULAR VOTE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
---

See http://tinyurl.com/5836py for more.

[asa]

10:51 PM on 04/23/2008

Point number 1. If New Hampshire holds a primary, why wouldn't the candidates show up. You mean the'll skip New hampshire and wait for a big state primary. I don't get it. The publicity would be too tempting to skip that.

Point Number 2. Why hold caucuses to begin with. The general election isn't done that way. Why not do primaries like general elections. You know, none of the bullying by supporters and stuff.

My point. I don't get it. Clinton wins the popular vote in Texas and losses the delegate count. So much for democracy. Better yet, why don't we do winner take all. That way Clinton would have won this thing by now.

[fredfep]

11:39 AM on 04/23/2008

#5) Experience?:, Bath are rather green, Hillary bloats her resume with exaggeration. No real progressive legislation has passed or if passed, been made into law in last 7 years, how can she claim to have done anything, exactly? Committees haven't held a meaningf hearing in years. If Democrats had any courage & imagination, especially this past year & a half, they would have insisted on 24/7 cloture filibusters, actual filibusters, Hillary & Obama could have used the floor of Senate & C-Span to get out the message that they actually were doing something or trying to, as well, as impressing on the public which now has the odd impression that 40 of 100 votes must be a majority, what a filibuster, especially over each & every frivolous thing, is.. Instead the Senate wimped out completely on this, & the candidates actually had the gall one in a debate to state that if they had such filibusters, they'd have no time to campaign. The nation's business is not as important as this endless regurgitating campaigning??? At that moment I realized how shallow both of these candidates really is. That they are unbelievably deep compared to the meandering shallowness and bitter ineptitude of McCain makes this all the more sad, as the media controls how the voters think, & the media is creaming over McCain as they have in the past over Bush & Reagan, still do over Reagan, whose golden age is not so golden to Central America with the piles

[fredfep]

11:34 AM on 04/23/2008

#5) As for experience, both are rather green, Hillary bloats her resume with exaggeration. Since no real progressive legislation has passed or been made into law in last 7 years, how can she claim to have done anything, exactly? Same for committees which haven't held a meaningfu hearing in years. If Democrats had any courage & imagination, especially this past year & a half, they would have insisted on 24/7 cloture filibusters, actual filibusters, Hillary and Obama could have used the floor of Senate & C-Span to get out the message that they actually were doing something or trying to, as well as impressing on the public (which now has the odd impression that 40 of 100 votes must be a majority) what a filibuster, especially over every frivolous thing, is.. Instead the Senate wimped out completely on this, and the candidates actually had the gall one in a debate to state that if they had such filibusters, they'd have no time to campaign. The nation's business is not as important as this endless regurgitating campaigning??? At that moment I realized how shallow both of these candidates really is. That they are unbelievably deep compared to the meandering shallowness and bitter ineptitude of McCain makes this all the more sad, the media controls how the voters think, and they are creaming over McCain as in the past over Bush and Reagan, still over Reagan, whose golden age not so golden to Central America with the piles of mass graveyards, is

[fredfep]

11:30 AM on 04/23/2008

#4) Obama has little traction with whites, especially those that vote against their own interests, for Republicans. Hillary negatives are near 60% of voters. Perhaps this election, crucial giving the many wars McCain will get us in to; and the courts are stacked enough with Constitutional obstructionists and calcified true believers of the right, McCain promises many more, which will kill this country. ( you know Democrats are spineless i& will approve just about anyone, getting nonsense promises as with the Attorney General and waterboarding.). Obama unelectable?, Hillary unelectable?, perhaps we should have forgotten history and experimentation and stuck to a pasty white guy like Edwards, Richardson or Gore. This is still possible, a locked convention could go more than one ballot, a compromise instead of arm twisting superdelegates may be a compromise candidate. Is Cuomo too old? This would piss off both candidates' supporters and we can claim they all will get over it.

[fredfep]

11:30 AM on 04/23/2008

#1) The General Election is not known as "The Primary"
#2) Michigan was mostly given to Hillary last week, she got 47 delegates, Obama 18, so she got her way.
#3) Adding up the popular vote from primaries means nothing, and it & superdelegates have no relationship with November election popular or electoral votes. We see how winner-take-all skewered the Republican primary; otherwise Huckster might still be running, perhaps Ron Paul and lizard Romney, too

[hhkeller]

11:22 AM on 04/23/2008

Obama and his news buddies are too lin love with thier own reflections.

[pjw5552]

09:47 AM on 04/23/2008

People, get real. Obama close the deal? Obama can't win? Do you all have amnesia? Obama was trailing Clinton 3.5 months ago nationally by double digits. Now, just 3.5 months later he leads Clinton in national polls by double digits. Clinton claims victory in PA and I give her that. What does that make 15 wins to his 30 wins? Remember, PA was a Clinton stronghold, like TX and OH, and in all three Clinton lost ground against Obama before the primary, significant ground. She led going into these by more than 20 pecent. She and her supporters then trumpet her less than stellar wins as though these are evidence Obama cannot seal the deal in the 2-3 weeks of campaigning in those states? Meanwhile, Obama wins by 20,30, 40% percent oin a number of primaries and those wins are written off as (Oh, we expected him to win those anyway). Look at the trend, locally or nationally. Obama's strength has grown not shrunk. Clinton has gotten weaker not stronger with time even in states in which she has her strongest base of support.

[hhkeller]

09:06 AM on 04/23/2008

Money can't buy you love or the election.
If Obama had more experience and his commitment to policy was more unwaivering he would have locked this up months ago. I was an early supporter but switched to Hillary after watching his first few votes in the Senate. I think he needs more time in the Senate to prove he actually believes in what he speaks. Being cute and eloquent can only get you so far.

[nomobull]

09:24 AM on 04/23/2008

you ain't fooling no one using sound bite argument. i doubt you even were ever for obama

[112985]

08:47 AM on 04/23/2008

Craig the problem is OBAMA cannot close the deal, he has sooo!!! much money and still cannot close the deal? He will win NC(primary black) I am african american and I will not vote for him - if he cannot close the deal now - what happens in the primary??

[nomobull]

09:25 AM on 04/23/2008

she has so much name recognition and machinery and still is unable to close the deal. stop repeating pat buchanan.