Hey Super Delegates: The Total Popular Vote Is Meaningless

The latest in the Clinton "shell game" relates to the idea that the uncommitted super delegates should vote for the candidate who wins the cumulative popular vote in the primaries. The primaries will be concluded in June. That would mean that the cumulative popular vote total would be measured over a period of 5+ months. The reason for the long primary period is to test candidates capabilities over a reasonable period of time state by state. The only meaningful popular vote would be on the same day in a national primary.

The November Presidential election is not even determined by the popular vote. However, since it all happens on one day, the winner of the popular vote has some credibility about winning that meaningless contest. Al Gore and 3 other Presidents had that conflicting honor to no avail. The winner-take-all electoral college creates this mathematical anomaly. The idea that a rolling cumulative 5 month popular vote is useful belies the fact that all democratic elections are held on a single day.

If as Hillary suggests that a 5 month election period is a better way to handle our elections, her argument would have some validity. In fact that is a very bad idea that no democratic country would take seriously. But, in the ever changing rules that the Clintons have proposed, such an idea is actually being taken seriously by Hillary's core of super delegates. It would be like adjusting the standings in baseball based upon the cumulative margin of victory. Baseball games are played one at a time over a 6 month period and a 1 run win counts the same as a 10 run win. Governor Rundell seems sincere about the popular vote idea. He knows better. He and other Clinton super delegates are advancing this tortured argument. But, where are the uncommitted super delegates?

These uncommitted delegates need to show more logic and political courage. Hillary cannot win the pledged delegate vote. It is also unlikely that she will win the cumulative popular vote. At the end of the primary elections it is likely that Obama will have about 1900 delegates and Clinton will have 1800 which includes the committed super delegates. Approximately 350 super delegates are still uncommitted. If each get 1/2 or 175 of the remaining uncommitted delegates, Obama would get the nomination. For Hillary to win, she would need the support of almost 2/3 of the remaining uncommitted super delegates which is an unlikely result.

My suggestion for these 350 uncommitted delegates is to show some courage and logic. They need to understand that the 5+ month cumulative popular vote is meaningless and they should understand that this is a divisive Clintonesque strategy. And if this lasts until June, it will damage the unity of the Democrats. The super delegates must know that overturning the elected delegate result would seriously reduce the chances of victory in November. Accordingly, the uncommitted super delegates could end this charade immediately. Whether it is Al Gore or some of the other super delegates, someone with independent and logical thinking needs to take charge. The remaining contests in the primary is a waste of resources that could be better used in the November election.

Comments

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Good post. This protracted nomination process has shown us that Senator Clinton is devoid of character and integrity. Clinton's failure to keep her lead, when she had the MSM touting her as the inevitable nominee for an entire year (before Iowa) proves her incompetence. Even with all of the advantages Clinton started with, she has still managed to mess up her chances by using racism and hypocrisy in a weak attempt to curb Senator Obama's momentum and popularity. Clinton has polarized the electorate, and she crossed the line when she endorsed McCain over Obama. The Clinton campaign's tactics and behavior is more reminiscent of Bush/Cheney/Rove than of Democratic party principals and ideals. I cannot envisage her being able to triumph in a general election, after watching events unfold over the last few months. Clinton's mood swings, pettiness and inability to stick to the issues has revealed Senator Obama as the superior candidate. It's more than time for the uncommitted super delegates to step up and put this contest to an end by pledging to their candidate of choice.

[LeftRight]

You're right, and I've been wrong about this one all this time. I was thinking about how the popular vote should count for more, BUT that popular vote is not only across five months, but at the begnning included many men who are no longer running. Popular vote is not the way to go for the nomination. HOWEVER, I think that the General Election needs to be based on the popular vote, not a winner take all electoral college!

[bish66]

Early in the contest, Obama publically demanded that super delegates should not vote based on their conscience and good judgment, but for him, if he leads in the race... in any category... be it single black guys from Chicago whose name includes the letter "B"...
Since then, Obamaniacs have threatened those super delegates who had endorsed Clinton, resulting in the shift of Mr. Lewis from Clinton to Obama. But that is not a divisive strategy, that is not violating party rules and that behaviour is not hurting the party, right? And why? Because the deed is done by a man.


You demand that Clinton steps down, because "the remaining contests in the primary is a waste of resources that could be better used in the November election". No longer "let all votes count", no longer "we stand for new politics", no longer "we have a 50-state strategy". Florida and Michigan were already declared irrelevant by the Obama camp, so let's just keep those pesky Clinton leaning states out of the contest, because it would hurt Obama if she wins Pennsylvania, West-Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Puerto Rico and the re-votes in Florida and Michigan. I mean, she could win the nomination and that would really hurt Obama. And what resources? The Obama money is not usable in the General election, most is restricted to the primaries (that's why he is burning it like crazy), while Clinton has millions of donations that can be used in November.

If you want to sound honest, you have to say "woman, step down to let the male candidate through, even if he is black". But that would be sexist and then you had to step down as an unofficial guy from Obama's campaign.

No, these absurd demands were aired even on the eve of the primaries in Texas and Ohio. Why should Clinton step down? She is doing fine, money is rolling in, she picked up delegates for Colorado and New York so that Obama's wins in Mississippi were erased and a number of interesting primaries are coming up. It is like a game of Texas hold'em: you do not win a pot by folding and in most cases, the hand is decided with the river card.

The long primary season is tiring for all people involved and in a winner-takes-all race for the nomination, the story would have been though after Super Tuesday I. The good thing is that now, all the states will have their say (if they figure out a way for Florida and Michigan) and that is a good thing.

Nevertheless: in 2012, please please please, shedule ALL primaries on one Super-Whatever-day-why-not-sunday?, because that would settle the question quickly, hic Rhodos, hic salta.

[calluna]

This argument is a little hard to follow. Since the primary season stretches out over a period of months, the usefulness of voting as a barometer of the public will is somehow diluted?

Why shouldn't Clinton try to win super-delegates by talking about the popular vote? Right now, Obama has racked up 13,280,770 popular votes and Clinton has 12,577,044 (yes, this is excluding Michigan and Florida). Obama is only 2.6% ahead in the popular vote. Any politician in her situation would be making the same argument.

But screw all of this. Maybe we should just go back to letting party bosses choose the candidates directly, and do away with all this voting stuff. Since it's meaningless.

[LeftRight]

"But screw all of this. Maybe we should just go back to letting party bosses choose the candidates directly, and do away with all this voting stuff. Since it's meaningless. "

Okay, this makes as much sense as the argument that it's meaningless to vote in the General Election since the vote is determined by the Electoral College. It's still useful to vote, and I think that we should have ONE day to vote, and whoever gets the most in the popular vote that day is the nominee!

And as far as the 2.6%, any politician making the same point at the same time, with the same amount of votes to come, would be considered insane unless their last name was Clinton. I'm sorry, but she's lost, and there is no way for her to win without the superdelegates overturning both the popular vote, and the state-by-state delegate vote!

[Sheldon Drobny - Huffpost Blogger]

See Sheldon Drobny's Profile

OK. Then let's have a 5 month general election. Or let's look back retroactively to January when Clinton was ahead in most of the states. If Clinton were ahead now in pledged delegates, who could argue that she should be the nominee? Check my December, 2007 post supporting Hillary. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-drobny/the-real-hillary-a-probl_b_77518.html