Senator Clinton's only chance to woo the remaining superdelegates, and thus secure the Democratic nomination by trumping Obama's insurmountable delegate lead, is via a perceived (and improbable) "popular vote win". So, let's put an end to the popular vote myth right now.
Many media sources, arguably for selfish reasons, remain in lockstep with the Cinton campaign, continuing to perpetuate the claim that a lead in the so-called popular is just as important, or even more important, than a lead in the delegate count. However, it's essentially a meaningless statistic in the nomination for the Democratic candidate, and thus the popular vote should be ignored by the superdelegates, because adding caucus results to primary results is like adding apples and oranges.
Here's why... After the break: Not an apples-to-apples Comparison...
The popular vote in caucus states under-represents the state's population when compared to that of primary states, because fewer people participate in caucuses. Joanna Klonskyat the Council of Foreign Relations, quoting Robert Spitzer, political science professor at SUNY-Cortland, explains -
"Because caucusing takes so much longer than voting in a primary, the percentage of people who participate in a caucus is far lower than the percent who participate in a primary" ... For example, neighboring states Maine and New Hampshire, with comparable numbers of registered Democrats, had much different turnouts this year. Nearly 44,000 people participated in Maine’s Democratic caucus meetings, but about 288,000 voters showed up to vote in New Hampshire’s Democratic primaries.
Because of the differences in the participation rate of primaries and caucuses, the Democratic National Committee uses delegates to 'normalize' these two systems: The number of delegates won is both proportional and representative of how the state voted, regardless of the system the state chooses to select them.
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).
Anonymous Liberal agrees...
...the national vote count that the Clinton campaign is focusing on...combines apples and oranges and, in doing so, penalizes states who have chosen to hold caucuses instead of primaries. Moreover, as imperfect an indicator as the delegate count is, there's something to be said for observing the rules of the contest. Each state was allotted delegates in proportion to its population size and was told that it could choose the means for deciding how those delegates are awarded.
Though it has its own imperfections, we have had a delegate system that has been effective at normalizing these two processes for a very, very long time, so we should focus on the only math that matters: the delegate math.
Of course, the Clinton campaign will continue to push the popular vote question, and dedicate quite a bit of time discussing this myth leading up to the remaining primaries in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, etc. (Michigan and Florida too?) since it's the only numbers that they can spin an uninformed public, and the media, into believing. In the last couple of weeks, Senator Clinton has argued a popular vote path to her major donors as a viable argument to her nomination. Her surrogates, including Bill and Ed Rendell, continue to flood the airwaves spinning this myth.
It is these, and other, knowingly misleading assertions, that turned me off to the Clinton campaign's tactics from the start of this election cycle. This is really 5th grade math, and the Clinton campaign, former President Clinton, and Governor Rendell definitely aren't 'Smarter than a 5th Grader' in this case.
Chris Matthews isn't smarter than a 5th grader either; neither is the New York Times.
Of course, there's a ratings incentive for the media to continue to portray the race as a "virtual dead-heat", and closer than it actually is in reality. The "popular vote" helps them perpetuate this myth. From Politico's Jim Vandehei & Mike Allen
In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe. The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics. Journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.
And eventhough Politico conceded on Friday that Clinton has virtually no chance of winning, at the same time, the site perpetuates the myth on the same day by asking Can Clinton can win the popular vote?
At least House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Democratic Party boss Roy Romer, and Donna Brazile get it.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses
Indeed, there is no mention of a 'popular vote' in the DNC's Delegate Selection Rules or in its Regulations of the Rules & Bylaws Committee
- FAIR REFLECTION OF PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES
A. Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference...of the primary voters or the convention and/or caucus participants.
As Clinton strategist Mark Penn himself admitted in mid-February, at a time when Senator Clinton was still within striking distance of Senator Obama, "it is voters and delegates who matter" and "As history shows, the Democratic nomination goes to the candidate who wins the most delegates"
The more that the general public awakens to the fact that this is a delegate race, and ONLY a delegate race, the sooner the media will start reporting it as such, and the sooner the superdelegates will end the race so that our Democratic nominee can set (his) sights on McCain and the general election.
Please help end all discussions around the so-called popular vote and its relevance to the nomination.
Contact your local uncommitted super-delegate: Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008
Call-out any selfish and biased media coverage:
National Media List
FAIR's Media Contact List