View Story | 56 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Are you saying these states haven't been included in the "national popular vote" total currently being bandied about?
by sam2300 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:24:03 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
HERE, most caucus state have been included in the count, only those four havent.
Popular vote does exist, its simple, how many people voted for each candidate? Include the four states though of course, if they ever release the info.
by rigso on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:28:40 AM PDT
by sam2300 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:30:41 AM PDT
something like 80k to obama's total.
The Jed Report | Barack Obama for President
by JedReport on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:31:12 AM PDT
of primaries. So Obama's gap could be three to four times higher than Clinton's gap in all of those landslide states.
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." Orwell
by NotablyZen on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:59:36 AM PDT
Just remember that it means NOTHING, in the end.
The ONLY vote we should be concerning ourselves with is THE FIRST BALLOT at convention. And I assure you, Hillary Inc., is already looking at it that way.
by IndianaDemocrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:29:26 AM PDT
in order to convince S.D and such, it could matter.
by rigso on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:34:00 AM PDT
how close this race is, and when you have a close race everything bit of data matters.
by sunshineonthebay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:35:31 AM PDT
A bunch of back of the envelope estimates of the "true" national popular vote are, at best, not particularly meaningful, and, at worst, down right misleading. Besides, that's not the system. The system is a bunch of delegates selected through state primaries and caucuses, and a bunch of supers.
by cph on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:02:22 PM PDT
When you have a close race while in technical terms it's ok to say this candidate has two delegates more and therefore the winner, the psychology is much more complicated. The DNC has to do it in a way that does not leave voters supporting the other candidate disenfranchised. You not only have to declare the winner, but demonstrate the legitimacy of it. We can't risk having dems stay home in Nov.
by sunshineonthebay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:08:12 PM PDT
there is no way to determine national popular vote.
I refer you to an article by Rhodes Cook (doesn't include the most recent primaries) that shows the different results you get using different methods. Unless all of the methods point in the same direction, you will not be able to alleviate any feeling of disenfranchisement. Besides, losing isn't disenfranchisement; it's losing.
by cph on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:12:18 PM PDT
not the number of people who caucused.
Still it does show that even in the non-caucus states O has a majority of the popular vote.
by reformdem on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:30:00 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 56 comments