Hillary Clinton and the Popular Vote: Not Wrong, But Meaningless

Quick math quiz: What is the sum of 5 porpoises, 11 fire engines, the Eiffel Tower, 8 molecules of ammonia on the outermost ring of Saturn, and 13 kiwi fruits? In some sense, it's a collection of 38 things, but the collection is one nobody in possession of his or her wits could possibly take any interest in. The moral of the story is that just because basic arithmetic allows you to add two figures together doesn't mean you should, or that the sum will be meaningful if you do. On the contrary, if you're careless, unscrupulous, or both, the result of your work is liable to be a mereological abortion.

Which is why those folks pushing back against Hillary Clinton's preposterous claims to be leading the national primary popular vote have largely been following the wrong trail, as admirable as their efforts have been. Yes, it's true that to arrive at an aggregation of all the votes cast in all contests that puts Clinton ahead, you have to first assume that "the will of the people," nebulously defined, trumps all considerations of procedural fairness, only to then throw out hundreds of thousands of expressions of popular will in support of Barack Obama on procedural grounds. So that even if the Clinton math weren't a transparently cynical and breathtakingly mendacious display of disrespect for the intelligence of the American people (including Clinton supporters), it would still be flagrantly contradictory on its own terms.

But all that is beside the point because there is no such thing as a meaningful national popular vote in presidential primaries, at least as they are currently constituted -- and in perpetuating the myth that there is such a thing, the media and a surfeit of non-Clinton supporters have played an unwitting role in enabling Hillary Clinton's mendacity to gain a purchase in the national political conversation. Adding together the votes of all the primaries and caucuses and seeing who is ahead is like adding porpoises to fire engines to Eiffel Towers to ammonia molecules to kiwi fruits: the sum is numerical gibberish. The difference between the two cases is that it's easy to disguise national popular vote totals as the addition of apples to apples -- they're all just votes right? -- so that thus far, even those who have noticed that there is something suspicious about the math haven't been able to put their fingers on just what the problem is. While at the same time, the Clintonites have been staking out absurd comparisons of their esoteric arithmetic to bloody struggles for democratic and human rights, in an effort to smother any scrutiny of their popular vote claims. No wonder the Clinton math has gulled so many people; no wonder critics of the Clinton math have been emphasizing secondary points.

To see why the national popular vote in a primary is a case of porpoises plus fire engines rather than apples plus apples, it's helpful to see why the national popular vote in a general election really is a meaningful count. Beyond the emotional manipulation involved in Hillary Clinton's likening of her plight to Florida 2000, the analogy between the general election and the primary is what gets the whole deception off the ground. But a general election for president has two qualities that a presidential primary campaign lacks, and which make it reasonable to talk about the national popular vote in the former but not the latter: (1) all fifty state elections in a general election are synchronic, i.e., they take place at the same time; and (2) the fifty state elections are all open to the same pools of voters and governed by roughly the same procedure.

No two elections that lack either quality can be combined into a meaningful aggregate result. The reason that synchronicity is essential for aggregating elections is that the result of an election is not some Platonic form of the popular will, but simply an imperfect measure of popular preferences at a particular time. Consequently, elections held at different times are measures of categorically distinct things. Suppose the last presidential election had been held in September 2005, after Hurricane Katrina, rather than November 2004. Is there any question that the result in both the popular vote and the electoral college would have been different? Now suppose a group of states with half the American population had voted in November 2004, and the other group had voted in September 2005. In that case, the electoral college results may or may not have been different, but either way, referring to the national popular vote would be utterly senseless. There would be an overall popular vote for the November 04 group, and another for the September 05 group, but adding the two would be a pointless arithmetical exercise, not something anyone could claim with a straight face is a measure of "the will of the people."

Likewise, the results of two elections can't be added together meaningfully if the electorates participating in each contest are incommensurate, or if the elections themselves are incommensurate. Suppose that in the general election, 25 states allowed only men to vote, and 25 states allowed only women to vote; suppose a different 25 states had a minimum voting age of 18 and the other 25 a minimum age of 21; suppose a still different group of 25 states had a maximum voting age of 72. Suppose in half the states, voting meant casting a secret ballot in the ordinary way, and in the other half, voting meant casting a rock in one of two piles like the Athenians used to do. In that case, once again, by electoral college rules, the winner of the most electoral votes would win the presidency legitimately, but it would be risible to say that whoever happened to have received the most total votes had won "the will of the people."

These considerations are straightforward. Anybody arguing that if the winner of the most popular votes nationally in the foregoing scenarios wasn't the same person as the winner of the most electoral votes, then as Hillary Clinton puts it, "the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished," would and should be laughed off the stage. It's not that electoral college totals in such circumstances are a truer measure of popular will than popular votes. It's that when elections aren't held at the same time, for the same electorate, under the same voting procedures, there is no measure of the overall popular will, whereas electoral votes just happen to be what decides the presidency in our system.

That's why there is no meaningful national popular vote in presidential primaries. The constituent elections of the primaries are diachronic, scattered over five months, and so while it might be reasonable to talk about who had won the most total votes in the February 5 states, who won the overall popular vote between Indiana and North Carolina, etc., it's nonsense to draw any conclusions from the sum of all the votes cast from January 3 to June 3. But that's not all: Whereas any registered voter may participate in a general election by casting a secret ballot, a primary campaign is divided between ordinary elections and caucuses, which are utterly distinct and incommensurate procedures for measuring popular preferences, and so trying to combine them into a total is a priori nonsense. (The Clintonites' Alexandrian solution is to disregard caucuses entirely -- sometimes all the caucuses, sometimes just four -- because, as you know, they care so much about democracy.) Moreover, there is incommensurability between the ordinary primary elections themselves; some are open, some are closed, some are semi-open to varying degrees, meaning that when the overall vote totals are relatively close, asserting that "the will of the people" is for one candidate over the other devolves into nonsense as well.

All of which does not mean that the elected delegate count is a better proxy for "the will of the people" than the popular vote; rather, under the rules that govern presidential primaries, there is no useful or usable proxy for "the will of the people" at all, and the winner of the delegate majority is simply the winner of the primary campaign under those rules. Maybe future primaries should be made democratic, maybe not (I think not, and that the suggestion that they should involves a mistake about what primaries are), but either way, claiming that the delegate count should be overturned in deference to "the will of the people" is simply a shell-game that, as I think I've demonstrated conclusively, doesn't stand up to minimal scrutiny.

So yes, it's grating to hear Hillary Clinton and her supporters claim that she is in ahead in the popular vote, but she is only in a position to make that claim because non-Clinton supporters have preemptively and foolishly acquiesced to the idea that the sum of all the votes cast for each candidate in all the primaries and caucuses is a meaningful and interesting number in the first place. People who persist in arguing that the popular vote is "the will of the people" and must therefore be heeded are entitled to no more or less respect and attention than those who heed the sum of 5 porpoises plus 11 fire engines plus the Eiffel Tower plus 8 molecules of ammonia on the outermost ring of Saturn plus 13 kiwi fruits.

Comments

[nypoet22]

The rules and bylaws committee is holding its hearings. Can you see it? The firetrucks, porpoises and kiwi fruits are being added right now!

[KaAp]

CraigMM --- you really have no idea what you are talking about ... you are spinning talking points without substance ... in Florida the legislature (including the Democrats) voted to change the rules. We were aware this was a primary that would not count ... there were many people who did not vote especially Democrats --- the proof is in Amendment one which had to do with real estate taxes --- in other words if it passed we would further privatize schools, do away with many state, county and city employees including police, firefighters and garbage collectors ...
Senator Clinton signed on to the rules ... and then she decided ONLY after she was loosing to try and make this stuff count ...
This is bogus ... the Clinton language game in transpositioning words in which war is peace is an Orwellian game and is getting way past ludicrous ...

[CraigMM]

Can any of the Obama supporters produce the part of the pledge for Michigan that required the candidates to take their names off the ballot?

Can any of the Obama supporters explain why Obama and Edwards instructed their supporters to vote "uncommitted"? Either you are on the ballot or you are not on the ballot. You can't take your name of the ballot, then tell your supporters to go out and vote and then turn around and say you didn't lose because you weren't on the ballot.

This is disengenuous and I guarantee you that if "uncommitted" won 55% of the ballot all of you would be saying that MI should count and all of the "uncommitted" votes were clearly votes for Obama. Like Obama, you cannot have it both ways.

Once Obama and Edwards instructed their supporters to vote "uncommitted" they were no longer off the ballot.

[bgregs]

First, don't try to tell me what I would be thinking if "uncommitted" had won. I would STILL be against seating them as "voted"

Second, while I don't have the pledge that EACH of the candidates signed in front of me, I do know that it says that they will not campaign or participate in any election before Feb 5th which is not in the states of IA, NH, NV, and SC. Since to be on the ballot is interpreted by almost everyone to be a participatory event, the DNC then strongly requested to all of the major candidates (Edwards, Clinton, and Obama) that they remove their names. Edwards and Obama did so, along with Kucinich attempting to do so, but too late. Therefore the only two who were breaking the rules were Clinton and Dodd.

[CraigMM]

Look, let's get over this whole Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan cry too. Obama and Edwards were both losing in the polls in MI to HRC the whole time, in fact Obama was runnign a solid 3rd place. Obama and Edwards decided to take their names off the ballot in Michigan (which was in no way asked of the candidates) because they:

1. wanted to curry favor with the IA voters
2. knew they were going to lose in MI
3. saw this as a way of taking away from HRC's inevitable victory in MI

Then, in a real show of bravery and conviction, both Obama and Edwards blitzed the radio is MI telling their supporters to vote "uncommitted" in the MI primary. Since 40% voted "uncommitted" it is pretty easy to recognize that these were Obama and Edwards supporters doing exactly what they were instructed to do. They VOTED. Split the "uncommitted" votes between the 2 of them, which is generous considering that Obama was likely going to finish in 3rd place.

[KaAp]

Yes of course heard she was going to win big in Detroit and in all those college towns ... spare me the spin

[bgregs]

It doesn't matter whether they were losing in the polls or not!!!! What part of the rules said don't campaign or participate don't you understand??????!!!!!!

The fact of the matter is that, losing or not, Obama removed his name from the ballot, as the DNC basically ordered him to do. He therefore was NOT represented in that state, and as such, ANY vote tallies from that state are NULL AND VOID!!!

[joeinvt]

The popular vote, including the votes in Florida and Michigan, would be a very reasonable thing for superdelegates to consider and for the Clinton campaign to push - in the same way that the Obama campaign argues that the superdeelgates should focus onyly on the pledged delegates.

[bgregs]

It would only be reasonable if the popular vote was the way that we selected our nominee.....

[geese1920]

Did you not read the post that this comment section follows? Hillary's popular vote argument is ridiculous. Please read the post before you make any statement that her popular vote argument is very reasonable. Or include your comment in another place where the post does not absolutely shred her argument that the popular vote has any meaning.

[funnyguy]

Clinton's claim that the popular vote [as selectively tabulated by her and Bill] should prevail over the delegate count is like the football coach who loses the championship game 31-27, but claims his team should go to the Super Bowl because, "We gained more yards than the other team, we completed more passes and we have a better coach."

Points and delegates don't matter because the Clintons make up the rules as they go.

[CraigMM]

Unless, the rules of the football game said that for the score to count the winning team would need to score at least 35 points. If they didn't score at least 35 points, then the referees would choose the winning team based on a whole slew of information. You can sure bet that total yards would matter.

In this case, since neither could get to 2024 on their own the SD's will choose the winner and the popular vote will matter a whole bunch to them.

Okay Funnyguy? Nice work on an analogy that proves HRC's point!

[bgregs]

The analogy fails. Look at it this way, instead. The referees called a foul on the losing team in the first quarter, negating two touchdowns. Now it's the fourth quarter, and they are claiming that since the winning team hasn't reached the 35 points required, that they need to re-gain those two touchdowns which were negated by the fouls performed by the losing team!!

[geese1920]

Do you really think the popular vote argument is swaying the super delegates? Just look at all the supers who have flocked to Hillary as she has made this case. Oh wait, they are flocking to Obama. Hillary needs to look back at 2000, and how Al Gore graciously conceded when all hope was lost that he was going to be the president. His stock has never been higher than it is right now. He is a rock star, with an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize. If Hillary isn't careful, she is going to end up losing her seat in the Senate when her reelection comes up. Or worse, if she continues to rip the party apart, she will become a pariah within the democratic party.

[robynuva]

1. When Florida voters REALLY were being disenfranchised in 2000 President and Hillary Clinton did not say a single word. Pres. Clinton never made a statement, didn't order an investigation, didn't call out the Gaurd to protect the re-count, didn't say anyone's rights were being trampled on.

Now Floriday is a civil rights issue?

2. The rules of the DNC are just rules right? Well, so is the Constitution of the United States, and I for one, would like a President that respects rules. Haven't we had enough of the kind of leader that ignores the rules when they are inconvenient? Will Hillary respect the Constitution in the same manner she respects the rules of this election?

[CraigMM]

I don't think Obama was saying anything about Florida in 2000 either, so while it is a nice post, it doesn't really have any bearing on the situation now. Also, if truth be told, HRC was vocal about the votes being counted in 2000...in case you wanted to actually be honest with what you are saying.

Secondly, the DNC didn't punsih NH or SC for changing their dates, so let's get too high and mighty about the DNC handing out punishment. If it wasn't done equitably, it is difficult to say it is an even precedent to cling to.

Finally, what are you afraid of? Count all the votes and let's see who the people want to be their nominee. There is nothing more representative than how many people voted for someone. The will of the people, it appears, is that HRC should be the nominee.

[robynuva]

May I suggest "Counting all the votes, Obama still leads" for some informative reading on who has one the most votes. (http://www.dailykos.com/)

Please provide some link that shows that either Clinton ever did a thing in 2000 about the situation in Florida, during the crisis, when it could have helped.

Harold Ickes is the one that wrote the rules that MI and FL ignored. They were written so that states with a more representative population would be heard early. Now that they are hurting his candidate, he is against them.

I am not afraid of counting all the votes, (including those cast against Sen. Clinton in MI, over 40% said NO to HRC, drove out in a snowstorm when they knew that it wouldn't count just to do so)

I am simply tired of Sen. Clinton's willingness to put her own ambitions above the Party and the country. She has lost the delagates, and that is the yardstick she agreed to go by. At this point she is only helping John McCain, and for what?

[PensacolaTiger]

If you 'count the votes' as cast in these illegitimate primaries, you disenfranchise all of the voters who stayed home because they correctly understood that the candidates had agreed that none of the votes will count.

I suggest that you tell Clinton to concede on Wednesday and concentrate on getting a Democratic victory in November,

[bigbingtheory]

Yeah that's a fair comparison. Obama wasn't a prominent national potlical figure and is no tclaiming the voters of FL are being disenfranchised. As Hillary Clinton was.
NH and SC didn't violate the rules Craig, that's why they weren't punished. Google the pledge and it's clear.
What am I afraid of? dienfranchising the 48 states that didn't braek the rules, disenfranchising Democrats in MI and FL who didn't bother voting because they knew the votes wouldn't lead to any delegates being seated, and setting the p[recedent that any state can't do whatever they want, ignore the rules, because ultimatley they won't be punished.
And finally if even if both states are counted in full, with no penalty, Hillary still does not have the delegates to get the nomination. Where was your outrage when Hillary agreed to this and why give her a pass now for doing a complete about face on the issue? If anything it only exhibits her serious lack of character.

[Triciann]

Obama has run an honest and intelligent campaign and is ahead. If the rules had been different then he may well have used resources differently and his overall strategy would have been different. It's a bit like being asked to bake a pound cake and just before it's ready to come out of the oven someone says, "sorry, no good, we've decided it should have been brownies". Everyone knew the rules. Don't let anyone confuse you; this is not the general election, it is not Florida in 2000 and there are no hanging chad.

[Aleka4]

You must be paid. I cannot believe anyone sane would post this kind of crap seriously. Do you know what a logical fallacy is?

Wiki: "A fallacy is a component of an argument which, being demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, renders the argument invalid in whole"

Mirriam-Webster: Main Entry: fal·la·cy
1 aobsolete : guile, trickery b: deceptive appearance : deception
2 a: a false or mistaken idea b: erroneous character : erroneousness
3: an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

You cannot compare Clinton and Obama's reactions in 2000 because it assumes equality that was not there at that time; in fact this is the problem with most Clinton arguements, is they ALL assume an equality that is not there.

Fact: Both Clinton's were in positions of influence and power, where Obama was not. This is at best a faulty analogy, or and "all things are equal" fallacy.

And I know the big words in this article were probably too much for you, but had oyu read it you would realize that you can't count the popular vote of this primary as "the will of the people" - it undercounts too many, and too many have to be guessed. It is simply ridiculous to pretend that a number which -was never counted- should reflect the "will of the people" MORE than the delegate count - WHICH IS APPORTIONED ACCORDING TO THE VOTE.

I will you people would grow some honesty.

[djarvis]

I agree with your assertion that the popular vote is meaningless in this primary election. Another reason that Clinton is not really ahead in the popular vote is that Obama's name was not on the ballot in Michigan. We have no way of knowing how many votes he may have received in Michigan.

Also, none of the Democratic candidates were allowed to campaign in Florida. Since Florida's primary occured before Super Tuesday, many people in the country still didn't know Obama very well. It has been proven that after Obama campaigns in a state, his support increases once they get to know him. For Clinton to include the popular vote totals in Michigan and Florida in order to argue that she has received more votes than Obama is ridiculous.

[Walterba]

If you want a Democrat in the White House you had better de-tox and chew on a bit of reality. www.electoral "vote.com gives you the daily update of the terrain. They provide a detailed explanation of their method of arriving at their conclusions which incorporates all existing polling , of course weighted for various factors as you would expect in statistical analyses.

As of May 29, 2008 Gallop has Hillary up by 3% over McCain on the overall vote and McCain 3% over Obama, a not insignificant spread of 6% between the 2 Democratic candidates when lining up against McCCain.

On the electoral vote where you need 270 to win Clinton beats McCain big time 327-194 with Michigan up in the air for 17 electoral votes . She wins 9 states that went to Bush in 2004 namely Arkansas, Florida , Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia. She loses one state that Kerry won, Wisconsin.

Obama falls short getting 266 votes to McCain"s 248 with 24 to play for. Unfortunately for Obama the 24 are Indiana which went for Bush 60-39 in 04 and Virginia which went for Bush 54-45. Obama picks up only 4 states that Bush won in 04; Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio but loses two Michigan and Wisconsin.

Bill Clinton was spot on when he said that we Dems are throwing the dice with an Obama candidacy. No amount of dreaming changes that.

[bgregs]

The popular vote isn't just meaningless in THIS election's primary cycle, it's meaningless in EVERY primary cycle!

[ljmck]

If Clinton believes her claims for a national primary popular vote, she is unqualified to be president. If she doesn"t and is touting it anyway, then she"s no better than George Bush.

What she and her enablers fail to recognize is that two terms of the Bush presidency have schooled the electorate in spin. In fact, the Clinton terms were good primers, and her primary campaign has been a graduate course.

As disturbing as her specious election claims is an MSM that has adopted her terms in describing the Florida and Michigan problem, although no one expects intellectual rigor there.

May we soon return to principles of law and logic, rules and reason, integrity and intellect.

[BassMent]

An excellent, rational analysis. Well done.

To take even one further step back from this argument: The Democratic primary is not decided based on the popular vote. It's decided by the number of delegates pledged to the candidates. The Democrats also have the "safety valve" provided by the superdelegates, just in case the "will of the people" is perceived by party heavyweights to be in need of correction. The foundational principle here is that the people may not know what's good for them, and their will may need to be overridden.

If the Clinton's want to make a sane argument, this is the one they should make. Because in order for their claim to have "won the majority of the popular vote" to make sense, one must A) believe their convoluted approach to mathematics, and B) believe that the aggregate of votes cast in all of the primaries is a meaningful number (as Mr. Koffler so thoroughly explains here). Some superdelegates may believe B, but few are going to fall for A.

So the Clintons should really be saying, "Screw the will of the people. Democrats invented superdelegates because we know the people are as dumb as a sack of hammers. Nominate Hillary because (fill in latest goofy assertion here)."

At least this would be honest. Trying to spin math in her favor is simply futile.

[bgregs]

Actually, look at the reason that the supers were even created. They came about after the 1980 election when Teddy Kennedy not only went to the primary, but attempted to get Jimmy Carter's pledged delegates (which were the only kind at the time) to ignore the voters who sent them there. Thus the supers are technically supposed to ensure that the voter's will is sent to the general election, and the only way that you can count the voter's will is to say who has the most delegates.......

[CindyV]

Caucuses are unfair and shouldn't be used at all in selecting a candidate. Our state used the caucus system for one election and dropped it immediately afterwards because it was so unfair. First, it takes almost a whole day to go through the process. Not an 8 hour day but sometimes much longer. Bring your breakfast, lunch and dinner with you along with snacks and soda because they don't provide you with anything all day. If you leave to find nourishment, you aren't voting. Second, find childcare for the whole day if you have children. If you can't find someone to care for your kids for up to10 hours, you aren't voting. Third, if your caucus is on a Saturday and you're Jewish, you aren't voting. Fourth, if you have to work on caucus day, you aren't voting. If you can't take a vacation or sick day to attend a caucus on a work day, you aren't voting. How is this fair? How is this even a reflection of the will of the voters if most of them can't participate? When people can vote in a primary election, they tend to vote for Hillary. At least in all the important states. And in 2000 we seemed to think the popular vote was important enough for Al Gore to win. If you believe the Obama line of thinking, then you must believe that Bush did NOT steal the election in 2000.

[bigbingtheory]

I agree that caucuses aren't ideal but your analysis is flawed. Obama has won more primaries than Hillary has. And in 2000 the state of Florida was the main issue, not the popular vote count. It was an interesting anamoly, although had Florida been counted correctly, Gore would have won both the electoral college and the popular vote.

[Speakchic]

Bigbingtheory,

You are absolutely right. HRC supporters who foolishly throw out what happened in Florida in 2000 as a means of comparing the current claim of the popular vote here are grossly misguided. HRC's claim of her popular vote lead throws out caucuses as well as includes two states that right now aren't valid. It's sad to think that knowing this knowledge they still insist on validating her argument. I have to come understand that there is NO reasoning with her supporters b/c they are not true Democrats they are loyal to her first and the party second and it is truly pointless in using logic, facts, and reason to make your case because they refuse to hear it.

[MelloY]

I agree with the first part about caucuses being unfair. I'd rather they all be primaries. That doesn't validate the second part though. I could just as easily argue that the caucus states would have had more votes for Obama if primaries were held. If you have stats to say otherwise, post them. I don't think that you can say just because OH and PA had a primary and voted for Clinton that Washington would have also gone to Clinton if they held a real primary.

Overall it doesn't matter this time though. The mix of primaries and caucuses is what was agreed to before the year and what has been done for every election cycle in recent history. Feel free to urge your representatives to change the struture for future elections as I will. The argument changes nothing for the current elections though.

Reading your last few sentences makes me wonder if you even read the article. In the 2000 General Election all of the states voted on the same day with basically the same rules. The 2008 primary season is over 6 months with each state having different rules and different groups of people eligable to vote. You can't compare the two. The article clearly explains why.

[happypup]

Good morning, CindyV! It seems you have a pretty good grasp of the Hillary talking points.

If caucuses are "unfair", does this explain why Hillary Clinton decided to ignore them and not have any plan for them? Seems to me that if they were deemed 'unfair' BEFORE she lost so many of them that she would have either: (1) used her position and standing to work within the party to change caucuses to primaries wherever possible -and/or- (2) worked doubly hard on a strategy to win. What about the single caucus that Hillary won - Nevada? Was that also 'unfair'?

"When people can vote in a primary election, they tend to vote for Hillary. At least in all the important states." Are you sure you want to say this? There were 16 states (plus the District of Columbia) Obama won which used primaries and primaries alone: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin. Their residents might be a bit upset to heart you label them as "unimportant". Especially since, if one were to believe Hillary, she has been so very concerned about allowing every state to vote and getting every state count.

Your comments, like Hillary"s ever changing statements and goal posts, are full of holes and contradictions. When you are ready to accept this and support Obama as the Democratic nominee and help him regain the WH, you will be warmly welcomed aboard.

[ebbtide]

Maine had it's caucus on a Sunday. In my town, it did not last ten or more hours, but the short side of three hours. We go off into groups, depending upon who one wants to vote for, hands are raised and then counted by the official leader and recorded., No one got up and made a long speech in favor of their candidate. Yes there are people who work on Sundays. I worked many a Sunday in my profession, but could always find someone to switch hours if I needed to. Since the caucus is relatively short and not a long drawn out affair, those who were motivated, may have done the same if they were scheduled to work.

The Clintons will NOT be allowed to arrogantly write off Mainers as if we were annoying mosquitos. They do NOT run the party and the rules, in spite of what they may think, nor do they have one bit of say on how we vote in a primary or how much our votes are worth. Sore losers, the both of them

[CraigMM]

Cindy, your rational and honest statement will only be met with anger and spin.

The Obama supporters are angry because the argument that HRC is making is a valid and logical argument.

1. She will win the popular vote, by any metric, when all is said and done.
2. She has won the states that you need to win in the GE.
3. Caucuses are not representative of the Democratic Party.
4. The delegate allocation system used by the DNC is skewed and not representative of population, votes or importance.
5. NH and SC were not punished for moving their elections.
6. Florida and Michigan are vital to the Democratic Party's chances in the GE and the people's votes should count.
7. Neither campaigned in Florida, so count the votes.
8. Obama only took his name off the ballot in MI to curry favor with IA voters and because he was going to finish in 3rd place...he should not be rewarded for this political dirty trick.
9. HRC defeats McCain in every single state by state electoral poll that has been done and Obama loses to McCain in every single state by state electoral poll that has been done.
10. Since neither can get to 2024 the SD's will choose the nominee and they have said for months that they will not overturn the will of the people.
11. The will of the people = the popular vote = HRC is the nominee.

[CraigMM]

Daniel - how about the truth?

The popular vote is far more reflective of the will of the people than delegates. If you include Florida, since neither campaigned there and they had record turnout + add in the caucus votes + give Obama a majority of the uncommitted votes in Michigan (since that is what he and Edwards told their supporters to do) HRC is 85,000 votes behind Obama. HRC will have an insurmountable lead in the popular vote and that does make a difference.

The real reasons that Obama pulled his name off the ballot in Mihigan are that he was trying to curry favor with the IA voters and because he was going to lose big, as he was trailing both Clinton and Edwards in all polls. This behavior should not be rewarded either.

The whole argument about the pledge is silly becasue this decision was not made in a vacuum. Florida and Michigan do matter to the Democrats for the GE and also because the pledge didn't mention anything about the popular vote. Record turnout here again shows that people ignored the pledge and voted.

The way the delegates are distributed is so skewed that it really doesn't reflect the popular vote accurately.

Caucuses are not representative of the Democratic Party voters and Obama won all but 1 caucus.

HRC won important states and is polling ahead in crucial battleground states and the whole story is that HRC has a real case for the SD's to vote

[EvoMan]

How the heck do you know what the real reason Obama took his name off the MI ballot is? The simplest explanation is the right one. He followed the rules.

The current rule are that the only thing that matters is the delegates. And that's why Senator Obama is the nominee.

You say you don't like these rules? Fine. Try to change them for 2012. Play by the current ones now.

Can you imagine the cacophony from the Clinton campaign if the situation were reversed?

[CraigMM]

You guys have been so much propaganda for Obama that you don't even know what you are talking about anymore.

First of all, The Michigan ballot had Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel on it....not just Clinton.

Secondly, Obama took his anme off the ballot not to follow the rules. The pledge said NOTHING about taking your name off the ballot. He and Edwards did this to kiss up to IA voters and because Obama was going to get crushed by both Clinton and Edwards in MI. Obama and Edwards both ran radio ads instructing their supporters to vote "uncommitted"....which is proof that their supporters did indeed vote for them.

Thirdly, the delegate totals only matter if someone gets to 2024 on their own. Since neither will in this election the pledged delegate total is meaningless. The SD's will choose the nominee and the popular vote count matter becasue the SD's have said for months that they will not overturn the will of the people. The popular vote is the will of the people. Heck, HuffPo screamed for months that the popular vote was the will of the people and that the SD's should follow the popular vote. HuffPo only chnaged their tune when it became clear that Obama was going to lose the popular vote.

The MAJORITY of the Democratic Party wants HRC as the nominee. I understand that you are angry, but that is the truth.

[bigbingtheory]

Craig, you are 100% wrong.
All the presidential candidates, except for Kucincih who refused, signed a pledge to not participate in either primary. The MI legislature automatically places candidates names on the ballot. Soe to adhere to that pledge, all of them except Hillary, filled out the needed paperwork. The decision was made the rules committee and agreed to by the candidates, except Kuciinich. Cauacuses aren't ideal. But your reasoning is flawed and is should not swing super delegates to Hillary. She lost fair and square.
Why do you give Hillary a pass for iognoring her pledge? Or signing it in the first place? We don't chooe nominees based on polls, get it through your thick skull.

[Speakchic]

What facts are you basing your comments on? This has turned into out right lies that sadly many believe for the sake of one candidate. What a sad group pf supporters. When you neglect the truth just to make a point it truly is a sad day for America.

[PensacolaTiger]

What part of "It's the delegates, stupid!" don't you understand?

[CraigMM]

Uhh....what part of since neither can get to 2024 on their own the pldeged deleagte totals are meaningless? The SD's will choose the nominee and they have said for months, just what HuffPo has said for months....they will not overturn the will of the people.

HRC will be the nominee....deal with it.

The MAJORITY of the party will have voted for her and there is no way the SD's will overrule that for somebody who couldn't get to 2024.

[bgregs]

CraigMM,

First, please explain this "record turnout" in Florida. The numbers in the state were LOWER as a percentage than any other state except MICHIGAN this election cycle.

Second, as Daniel pointed out, the "popular vote" in the primary season is meaningless, therefore to claim that it's a better measurement is pretty dumb.

Third, the fact of the matter is that, just like the president isn't chosen by popular vote, neither is the candidate. They are both chosen by proxy, electors in the case of the POTUS, and delegates in the case of the nominee. Period. That's the way that it works.......

[Triciann]

This has turned into a women versus men issue. Pity. I think both McCain and Clinton will make poor Presidents. My opinion of McCain hasn't changed but over the last few months I have gone from thinking Clinton would be OK to realizing I don't want her in the driving seat. If the Democratic Party turn everything upside down in order to hand the nomination to Clinton they deserve no loyalty. So it may be good to give these women four years of McCain. In future they may judge the issues in a more logical and objective fashion. Clinton was happy to use phrases like "get out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat" and "politics is a contact sport" when Obama was the subject of negative reporting. She joined in and thoroughly enjoyed it. However, as soon as the tide turned she accused everyone of being sexist because she knew she could rely on many women rushing to her defense like Pavlov's dogs. There are women like me who are disgusted and worried. Changing the rules at the end of the contest to change the result; it stinks!

[happypup]

This will only be a war between the sexes if we allow Senator Clinton to manipulate us and make it one!

I am one of many thinking women who are proud to support Senator Barack Obama. Many of Hillary's supporters will join us in the coming days as the vision of what a McCain Presidency would mean becomes clear to them.

[demfriend]

It would seem that if Hillary were actually "winning" anything that SHE would have it won. She doesn't have the majority of anything unless you do "clinton math" which appears to be like the "new math" of the 60s and 70s that made little or no sense. If as Hillary asserts, the people of the country "want her to win", she would truly have all of the delegates and votes she would have needed to win already. Her dragging this on hurts all of us in the end and the clintons do not care. To think Bill thinks she deserves to be VP or anything after her statements and the crap she has thrown at Obama for the republicans to use againest him is a real joke. Doesn't an Obama win of the nomination mean anything to the people still using liar math to support the clintons? Nope. As long as the so call feminists who say they support Hillary when they would support anyone with a vagina, have a breath they will say the votes and outcome were unfair to her. After the dark days the clintons have put us all through and the never ending liars math they use to try to convince anyone she can win I cannot see either the clintons nor their supporters actually coming out to really support Obama. How can they?

[CLEDUC]

"I guess one other thing I'd add is that, as you know, this is a race for delegates. And we currently enjoy a lead in delegates, thanks to the great " some of the great super delegates that we have on this call and around the country."
Howard Wolfson, Clinton Communications Director, January 9, 2008

"I've always viewed it sort of as a 27-state contest. But, listen, I always said we're going to win some, we're going to lose some. And at the end of the day it's getting a basket of delegates." Terry McAuliffe, Clinton Campaign Chairman, January 9, 2008

"And we have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates. It's a race that we are ahead in. We have more delegates than Senator Obama."
Howard Wolfson, Clinton Communications Director, January 25, 2008

"It's useful to win states, but states don't vote " delegates do"
Harold Ickes, Clinton Chief Advisor, February 1, 2008

"¦ We think that we are in the poll position because we have a lead, overall, in delegates. ¦ Senator Obama does enjoy some advantages in the contests in the rest of February, but not in a way that should permit him to overcome our lead in delegates.
¦ And overall, we have a significant lead among delegates, overall, which, obviously, at the end of the day is what is going to positively determine which Democrat is our party's nominee."
Howard Wolfson, Clinton Communications Director, February 6, 2008

[bobbym]

Thank You!

[Aleka4]

LOL!

Very nice! I hope it is ok for me to c/p this to post elsewhere.