Puerto Rico's popular vote

We all know that the Clinton campaign has been focusing attention on the popular vote count for the past few weeks and I have always assumed that their ploy included the FL and MI votes being counted and that would somehow put her over the top. Of course, they are trying to make the popular vote important in their pitch to the superdelegates.

Last evening I found an by Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics that includes his forecast of a big win for Clinton in Puerto Rico adding 250,000 popular votes to her total. Granted, it is his "best case scenario" argument articlearticle by Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics that includes his forecast of a big win for Clinton in Puerto Rico has adding 250,000 popular votes to her total. Granted, it is his "best case scenario" argument.

I wonder if her support in Puerto Rico has dwindled since it is now clear that Obama will have secured the majority of the pledged delegates before the Puerto Rican primary. Why would they want to deliver a huge margin to her now when it is clear it won't amount to anything and possibly anger the next president? I have read that she has support with Puerto Ricans in New York, but do they really want to embarrass Obama in the last primary?

A Pueto Rican superdelegate who is a big Clinton bundler switched to Obama a couple of weeks ago (sorry, I can't remember his name and I have to get ready for work). And Obama is going to FL soon, perhaps part of his mission is to meet with some local Puerto Ricans and shore up support.

•  Doesn't matter one bit

  While residing in Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans cannot vote on US presidential elections but they can vote on the US Presidential Primary

  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  Sorry, but until they get to vote in the regular election, I think what goes on in PR should have zero bearing on the popular vote count.

  by gladkov on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:03:01 AM PDT

  •  Exactly, Puerto Rico is a beauty contest.

    by johndeebo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:04:08 AM PDT

    •  It's not a beauty contest.

      Delegates are awarded.

      by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:10:17 AM PDT

      •  I've heard the argument...

        that since PR can't vote in the general election that the popular vote shouldn't count in the primaries.  I disagree and I"m an Obama supporter.  PR is part of the primary system and thus should count as much as anyone else.  But, that skirts the fact that popular vote doesn't count for anything in primaries, so Hillary loses again.

        by Jack Dublin on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:44:39 AM PDT

        •  The "popular vote" argument shouldn't be

          Popular vote is a non-metric.  During primary season, each contest teaches us something.  But the contests are not created equal.  Some are open, some are closed, some are caucuses.  Turnout is affected by how early/late the state comes in the process.

          Counting the popular vote is like adding fractions with different denominators.  And I'd argue that it's difficult, if not impossible, to normalize them.

          I agree that pledged delegates are not an accurate representation of popular sentiment.  They aren't meant to be.  I agree that supers may want to find an accurate measurement of popular sentiment too.  But using the popular vote isn't a valid way to do so.  

          I would like to just ignore the popular vote "metric".  The only people who care about it are:

          1. The MSM who is enjoying the Obama v Clinton ratings bonanza

          2. The supers (and i contend they don't care, really. there are some supers who are saying to clinton, "look i know i owe you, but come on, you are asking too much of me, politically, to overthrow the will of the people." clinton is saying back: "no no, check it out, you can feed them this pop vote crap, they are too stupid to realize how ridiculous it is. trust me!"

          3. Clinton supporters clinging to this because they are not able to face reality.

          4. Worry-wort Obama supporters who should know better but are falling for the Clinton spin.

          by Schwa SF on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:56:51 AM PDT

  •  Why on Earth does PR get so many delegates?

    PR gets 55 delegates.  That's more than OR, KY or any of the other remaining states.  

    by Tribe Fan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:26:31 AM PDT

    •  More people than either OR or KY

      And lots more than WV, SD or MT

      by cph on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:30:36 AM PDT

      •  Yes, but

        ZERO electoral votes in November.

        Seems out-of-whack to me to give so many delegates to a territory that has no votes in the general election.

        by watch out for snakes on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:39:17 AM PDT

    •  Proportionally, they get less than Guam for

      instance.

      Guam - 170,000 people - 4 delegates = 1 delegate per 42,500 people

      Puerto Rico - 4 million people - 55 delegates = 1 delegate per 73,000 people.

      by ObamaManiac2008 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:26:50 AM PDT

  •  In other words, what happens in Puerto Rico...

    stays in Puerto Rico? ;-)

    by orangeuglad on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:30:27 AM PDT

  •  But it does matter

    Fortunately, Obama's delegate lead is large enough this year to make what happens in Puerto Rico moot.

    But (as I asked down-thread), what if Obama's delegate lead heading Puerto Rico's primary was 10 or 12 (or any candidate in any other year)? Then Puerto Rico's 55 delegates would matter a whole bunch, would they not?

    Granted, you said "should", not "does", in which case I agree with your last sentence.

    by watch out for snakes on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:46:32 AM PDT

  •  Using Hillary math. . .

    we should only count by electoral college votes. Since PR has no electoral college delegates, it shouldn't count in the primary either.

    If her people really want to talk "disenfranchisement," PR and DC would be the place to start, not FL and MI.

    by rugbymom on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:55:47 AM PDT

•  Most Super Delegates will not buy

  the argument of winning the popular vote via Puerto Rico because Puerto Rico does not vote in the general elections. Morever the only metric that counts is the "delegates" and the winner of the "pledged" delegates is going to be the nominee and that is Barack Obama.

  IT IS OVER.

  by johndeebo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:03:32 AM PDT

•  When Wolfson tried to push this

  he was mocked. Does anyone really think that a win in Puerto Rico, which does not factor into the Presidential election in nov, will matter to the SDs in a popular vote scenario?

  by DWKING on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:04:06 AM PDT

•  Passive Aggressiveness?

  People are still voting for Huckabee in large numbers...

  by Enterik on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:11:09 AM PDT

•  Divide by Zero Error

  Last time I looked, the popular vote has nothing to do with who wins the national nominating contest. It has always been about delegates and for this round anyway, will always be about delegates.

  by brkramer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:12:38 AM PDT

•  I think it is weird

  That they can vote in a primary but not in the GE.

  I met a Puerto Rican guy when I was last in DC and he as many others from PR were in Iraq serving with the US forces. We got to talking about elections etc. and have to say I was surprised he wasn't allowed to vote.

  We hadn't talked about the primaries but now that I understand how it works I am even more confused.

  by on2them on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:19:04 AM PDT

  •  They don't want Statehood

    I never understood this either but I guess it is up to them.

    by adamchaz on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:25:01 AM PDT

    •  Well one reason is that they pay

      no federal income tax.  Not familiar with the politics of the island though.  I don't know how big a factor this plays.

      by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:42:42 AM PDT

      •  Spanish/Latin culture

        Is a big factor, as well. It is how they identify, and there is a real fear they will lose their language and identity with statehood. The difference between PR and the USVI (where English is the primary language, and hispanics are a minority) couldn't be more stark.
        I was just in PR and there is exactly zero evidence of a US presidential primary.  However, the local mayoral candidates' posters are everywhere.

        by kamarvt on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:52:58 AM PDT

    •  As a Puerto Rican who does not want statehood

      my main reasons culturally and historically we are a different nation.  

      by cachola on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:55:44 AM PDT

  •  Only states and DC

    can vote in the GE.  The Democratic Party is responsible for the rules which govern our primary.  Those rules allow US territories such as Guam, PR and American Samoa a say in choosing our candidate.

    by acuppajo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:40:34 AM PDT

•  Jay Cost has been pushing this popular vote idea

  for a while now, with some quite outrageous predictions.  He needs to get over it.  So do the media.  It just doesn't matter.

  by cph on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:20:55 AM PDT

  •  I just don't get it

    The reason the popular vote doesn't count is because it's impossible to really account for the numbers in caucus states. That's a great metric -- essentially eliminate a bunch of contests and count up the remainder! If popular vote counted, there probably wouldn't BE any caucus states.

    by jamfan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:55:03 AM PDT

•  Will her "hard-working whites" comment hurt her?

  I would have to wonder if her recent comments touting her support by white working-class voters might not hurt her a little bit within the Hispanic community? Does anyone know if there is any evidence of that?

  by HRs Kevin on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:30:25 AM PDT

•  How could Jay Cost possibly know this?

  ... you get Clinton leading in many popular vote counts, some of which are really quite valid. If she has one of those leads when the final votes are counted on June 3rd, the race will go on to the convention.

  I think he just makes this stuff up (with a heavy dose of wingnut bias - this is the RCP blog)

  And I don't even want to speculate on what he might consider "valid".

  by RokkiBlueboa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:30:28 AM PDT

  •  not gonna happen

    By June 3, Obama's going to have 11 more add-on delegates (at least) and 90 more pledged delegates (at least) plus the Pelosi Club (another 5).  He only needs 48 additional delegates to come from better than awful primary results, uncommitted/switching supers, and a couple of the as-yet-committed add-ons over the next three weeks.  If he can get even 10 a week from all of these categories, he'll be less than 20 delegates away on June 3 from a clinch, while Hillary will still likely be well over 100 back, even if she gets supers at the same or an increasing rate.

    The race will be over on June 3rd, and will not go to convention.

    by jakester on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:08:35 AM PDT

•  START SCREAMING TO COUNT CAUCUS STATES

  This appears to ALWAYS far to the wayside even in the media. I fear if Obama's people, including ALL supporters, don't start demanding that the caucus states be included somehow she just might get away with this lacking anology.

  by Sam In College on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:35:36 AM PDT

•  Slightly OT question

  Why does Puerto Rico receive so many delegates?

  They get to seat 55 delegates at the Dem convention, which is more than a whole lot of states, including several that surprised me: 35 for Arkansas, 48 for Connecticut, 45 for Iowa, 51 for Kentucky, 33 for Mississippi, 52 for Oregon, 45 for S. Carolina, and they tie with Colorado with 55. In fact, only 20 states receive more delegates than Puerto Rico.

  I have been wondering this for several weeks, hoping that someone in the media or the internet would pick this up, but I haven't seen it discussed anywhere. I do understand that they have a significantly larger population than these states, but as several here have already pointed out, Puerto Rico has zero electoral votes in the general election.

  Should a territory that has no votes in November really have this much control in determining the Dem candidate? And before you answer this, think about what could have happened this year if Obama's delegate lead was, oh, let's say 12 heading into Puerto Rico's primary.

  by watch out for snakes on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:35:48 AM PDT

  •  Population.

    Plus I seem to recall that primary states/territories that hold their races late in the process are awarded bonus delegates.

    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:44:19 AM PDT

    •  I believe they actually moved their primary back

      So they get some big-time bonus delegates for that.

      by Fro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:48:37 AM PDT

    •  I realize this

      And put the phrase "I do understand that they have a significantly larger population than these states" in my post.

      I should have placed this question (which is at the end of my post):
      "Should a territory that has no votes in November really have this much control in determining the Dem candidate?"
      at the beginning instead of the one there, because I know the answer to that one (it was pretty much hypothetical).

      by watch out for snakes on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:53:06 AM PDT

      •  While I am all for Puerto Ricans having the right

        to vote in the General Election and I appreciate the Democratic Party in giving Puerto Ricans a say in the selection of their candidate, I agree whole-heartedly that it is unfair/lopsided to give so much weight to a primary vote that has no bearing on the results of the November general election.

        by cachola on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:40:16 AM PDT

•  Kind of like winning the Super Bowl

  as a result of the most fans showing up instead of points on the score board.

  In a race based on delegates, the popular vote is meaningless.  Just as meaningless of elections counting where the candidates agreed not to campaign.

  Except the rules and the reality.  Obama is going to lock the nomination up in Oregon.

  by Fools on the Hill on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:38:11 AM PDT

•  I think Obama could win PR if given the time

  and resources to pump into it. The question at this point is "Does he have to?" The answer is no.

  by jeepdad on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:21:44 AM PDT

•  They haven't been campaigning in Puerto Rico.

  This leads me to believe that neither campaign thinks it will have much impact on the race.

  by ObamaManiac2008 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:23:02 AM PDT

  •  Both Dem Candidates have been campaigning in PR

    Obama has held one fundraiser, which he attended personally and Michelle is going to PR this week.  TV and radio ads started a few days ago (according to my family, could have been longer).

    Bill and Chelsea have been in PR at least once in April/May and Chelsea is back this week.

    And of course "locals" have been working on the vote, HRC through the political machine and Obama organizing grassroots movement.

    by cachola on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:33:32 AM PDT

    •  I didn't realize that. Well, that's good. I'm

      thinking Obama will do better in PR than expected.

      by ObamaManiac2008 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:35:56 AM PDT

•  She might win in puertorico

  But not by that much.the clinton name is well known over there but if he campaign with tito trinidad he might take it.iam from puertorico and they didn't like the last ladie governor there so it is hope.

  by puertorock on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:38:57 AM PDT

•  I Tought Only Electoral College States Mattered

  To HRC. Is she rearranging those chairs in the Titanic again?

  by DFutureIsNow on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:40:45 AM PDT