Skip to main content

View Diary: Popular Vote: Listen Up, Obama Surrogates (Updated) (276 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bad argument. Popular vote counts. Obama has it. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LABobsterofAnaheim, Tryptophan

    Totally bad argument that popular vote doesn't count. Obama surrogates should tout popular vote as a reason FOR Obama to get the nomination.

    It counts and Obama has it now and will have it going into the convention.  

    Obama had 750,000 going into PA. He leaves PA with a lead of 500,000. He'll get that back up to 600,000 after IN and NC and go in to Denver leading in delegates AND votes.

    •  Like I said in the diary (7+ / 0-)

      Obama will win the popular vote.  I've written diaries about this laying out the math.  

      But what made me write this was seeing Chuck Todd say late in the coverage tonight that even though pledged delegate count was game over that he had privately talked to many supers who, like it or not, are holding up popular vote as legitimate.

      I will NOT let that goalpost be moved without a fight.

      Calloused hand by calloused hand.

      by PocketNines on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:18:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Popular vote is legit. Obama should not diss it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LABobsterofAnaheim

        Popular vote is and will be an argument in Obama's favor.

        If super delegates want to hold out for it that's perfectly fine since it benefits Obama.

        •  But (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bushondrugs

          If Clinton and MSM can shift to the popular vote, i.e., change the rules near the end of the game, then why couldn't they change it again?  To, say, oh, I dunno, the biggest states?  Or the states that matter.  Or invented states, like New Clintonia or South Hillaria?  Whatever metric it takes for Hillary to say, "I won!"

          It's the principle.  Play by the rules of the game, beginning to end.  Don't like the rules, don't play.

          •  Popular vote counts...remember 2000? (0+ / 0-)

            Of course popular vote counts. It is equally important as delegates.

            Obama surrogates should be giving the popular vote as much air play as delegate votes.

            Obama owns them both.

            It makes Obama look like he's being legalistic if he bases claim solely on delegates.

            •  Popular Vote in General Election is not the same. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elmo, thursdays child, roadbear

              In the General Election, every state has a primary with the same rules. This isn't true in the Democratic Primary, where the states determine the process that they use.  This basically makes the comparison of one state's so-called popular vote vs another state's vote a comparison of apples and oranges.  You can't just say "look at what happened in 2000", because they are NOT the same thing.  It doesn't matter that Obama will win the popular vote, or, I should say, it shouldn't matter.  What's important are DELEGATES.

              link: Clinton not Smarter than a 5th Grader: The Popular Vote Myth

              Some 5th grade math:  Before you add 1/4 to 1/2, you have to first create a common demoninator.  In the DNC's Delegate Selection Rules, the delegate is that common demoninator.

              If the Democratic Party wanted to use the popular vote as a measure of the candidates' support, then it would require that all states hold a Democratic primary. (It would then be similar to that of the general presidential election, in which the popular vote in the state elections determine the electoral college.)  However, since the DNC allows both democratic caucuses and democratic primaries, then you have to use delegates to add the results of the caucuses to that of the primaries.

              Take another example:   Washington state (which Obama won) & Oklahoma (which Clinton won). Since Washington State is a relatively populous state, it's awarded 78 delegates.  However, since it uses caucuses to determine its delegate selection, it added very little to Obama's popular vote advantage (+90,000 according to Kos), despite his winning by a HUGE margin there (68%-32%; a 53-25 delegate advantage).  Compare this to Clinton's win in Oklahoma, which is about half the size of Washington. She won the popular vote in Oklahoma by a smaller margin, 55%-31%, and came away with a +10 delegate advantage (24-14). However, she gained a +100,000 popular vote advantage since it's a primary state and many more people participated than in Washington's caucus.

              Eventhough Clinton comes out ahead in comparing the "popular vote" between these two states (+10,000), I don't think anybody would debate that her Oklahoma win (+10 delegates) was more significant than Obama's Washington state win (+28 delegates!) (Okla isn't a "big state" afterall!).  Had Washington held a primary (one that actually counted, that is), Obama may have won the popular vote in the state by a margin in excess of 200,000 votes (closer to 300,000? just guestimating here).

        •  Not at the expense of pledged delegates, which (4+ / 0-)

          is exactly what Chuck Todd was implying.  Exactly.  It's like a minor supporting point.  It's like saying such and such a team won the game.  And they deserved to, because they gained more yards/outrebounded/their power play was better, etc.

          Calloused hand by calloused hand.

          by PocketNines on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:32:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sport analogies are good, (0+ / 0-)

            there was a game just 2 years ago where the Giants were losing and scored 2 touchdowns in the final 13 seconds or something. the point is that delegates are like points, even though the other team had the stats in their favor (popular vote) the rules of the game say whoever has the most points wins. Obama could have less popular vote and still win the nomination because he has more delegates.Hillary is trying to say that she is the best because she has the best stats, but stats do not win a game or an election.

        •  it leaves the door open for a Clinton comeback (0+ / 0-)

          when looking at the earned delgates it is perfectly obvious there is no comeback possible.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site