Final totals: Hillary Clinton lost the popular vote...

because it was never about the popular vote or there would be no caucuses. Get it? Along with that, her Michigan vote count amounts to being a fraud.

The primary is decided by the delegate vote, that's the rules, that's the way it is. Now STFU about the popular vote will ya and get over it.

making the entire issue moot.

:headbang:
rocknation

It's almost as good as reality.

:eyes:

He got ZERO votes from Harlem..

oh wait, he didn't complain...

RealClearPolitics, 2008 Democratic Popular Vote

Popular Vote Count:

State ----- Obama ----- Clinton ----- Spread

1. Popular Vote Total: -- 17,535,458 -- 48.1% -- 17,493,836 -- 48.0% -- Obama +41,622 +0.1%

2. Est. w/IA, NV, ME, WA: -- 17,869,542 -- 48.2% -- 17,717,698 -- 47.8% -- Obama +151,844 +0.4%

However, Obama won Iowa. We know that.

It's in the first note at the bottom of the page: "RealClearPolitics has estimated the popular vote totals for Senator Obama and Clinton in these four states."

There is no raw data in which to estimate the vote.

They can fake it and try to divide the 239,000 people by % of delegates that was received. But that will be wrong.

Iowa doesn't keep a hard count of the first alignment in the caucuses - and doesn't release the hard count of the realignment. Only the number of attendees and the number of delegates awarded (and obviously the %)is reported.

Nobody knows how many folks stood for Obama/Clinton in the first alignment - so there can be no true estimate.

Sure, they can't know the exact number, which makes the whole Hillbot talking point meaningless, but they can at least get a ballpark figure. I don't know the methodology.

Looking back at Iowa there were several counties where Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, Richardson (and I'm sure somewhere Obama/Clinton) weren't viable in the first alignment. (Heck, in my precinct Clinton was viable in the first alignment and lost out to Edwards upon realignment - which 'vote' counted?) That means folks had to realign in order to go to a viable candidate (or make a non-viable candidate viable). How are we to count that first alignment (the actual 'raw' vote?) we can't. There can't even be a ballpark guess b/c nobody knows who had what 'votes' in the first round.

All the estimates are being made off of the second alignment and delegate count. (I guess if you agree to only use Texas's caucus results and Washington's primary results, then we could also use Iowa's realignment numbers to estimate a vote). Otherwise the only thing coming out of Iowa can be delegate count.

Which is why talking about popular vote is just plain foolish.

Or is there some kind of fake estimate from that contest as well?

To accept the estimates you have to agree with the assumptions used to derive them.

I find the assumptions to be untenable, simply because Texas serves as an example undermining them.

But even the meaningless estimates don't point to a Hillary win.

state of mind.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

more people voted for her than Obama. And she was DEFINITELY the choice of registered Dems.

Tuesday night before her 'victory' speech.

:rofl:

except for Nevada....:shrug:

... in open primary states like the one I live in. I'll certainly concede that point.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


Look at Tuesday's results.

Montana - Obama by 16 points. (Open Primary)

South Dakota - Clinton by 10 points. (Closed Primary)

... that Limpballs himself "suspended" Operation Chaos right after Indiana, right? The Freepers tried to keep it going in Montana but that didn't seem to get much traction. It's not like all that many people live in these states, vs. Ohio and Texas where "the plot" had maximum impact.

I'm certainly not suggesting Hillary wouldn't have won Ohio without a leg-up from The Fat Drug Addict, but you're not actually suggesting that Operation Chaos had no effect on our primaries, that it didn't actually exist... right?

Interesting post-mortem analysis here from Al Giordana: http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1300

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html

We love Obama

given that there were not popular votes conducted in every state, that one large state that did have a popular vote didn't have Obama on the ballot, and that the margin by which Clinton got more votes than Obama under the approach you are taking is dependant on votes from a jurisdiction (Puerto Rico) that doesn't participate in the GE.

So what does this "popular vote" margin tell us? That Clinton nationwide had more popular support than Obama? No. That the votes cast indicate something about the outcome of the GE? No. All it indicates is that in the states and territories that had popular vote counts that HRC was in the ballot she got more votes than Obama got whether or not he was on the ballot.

If you think that is a significant metric, I would be interested in hearing your rationale.

The only way she gets to make that statement is if she DOES NOT COUNT THE VOTES OF FORTY PERCENT OF MICHIGAN AND COUNTS NO VOTES FROM SEVERAL ENTIRE STATES.

There is no official "popular vote" in the primary - its not a "popular vote" if there's NO TALLY FROM NUMEROUS STATES.

It's not a POPULAR VOTE if you don't or can't count half the votes from some states.

STILL - if you count all states where a popular vote tally is available, except Florida and Michigan, Obama wins.

- if you count all states but michigan, where there is no rational or fair way to count the votes since only one candidate's name was on the ticket - Obama wins.

- if you count michigan, and you award the uncomitted vote to Obama, Obama wins.

The only way "clinton" wins is if you DON'T COUNT ALL THE VOTES.

I don't know why this has to be repeated over and over. It's like the Hillary supporters have a mental shield up around them.

crapping all over everyone.

youre acting just as silly as those that claim she did.

they know that,just dont want to admit it. so you dont hafta argue about it.


:)

Otherwise it will poison Obama's campaign, which I expect it will do anyway.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:evilgrin:

they had held elections. Barack is King Caucus--nothing more. She would have destroyed him in SD if the media hadn't been reporting on Monday and Tuesday that she was dropping out on Tuesday night. The point to that reporting, no doubt instigated by the Obama campaign and it's surrogates in the media, was to lower the vote margin in SD. It worked--he lost by 10 instead of 25. That was very important to him so as to not totally expose the absurdity of caucuses. But a 10 point loss to a candidate who voters have been told is dropping out is still pretty pathetic--thankfully, the media covered for him, yet again.

Steve

She will never be president. Ever. You need to accept that and get on board with our nominee.

Or get the fuck out. I don't care either way.

she will ever be president. There is no way of anticipating what will happen in 2012 if she runs--that is up to all the voters, not to you. Her latest poll numbers are fine.

Obama might care if Hillary's voters "get the f*** out."

Steve

Hillary doesn't have any "voters" any more. The election is over, and unless you live in New York, you won't be voting for her ever again.

It's no longer about Obama voters and Clinton voters. It's about Democrats and bitter dead-enders. Which one are you?

Hillary in 2000 and 2006 and will (hopefully) be back in NY to vote for her in 2012.

I am a Democrat who has already said what I will do: I will hold my nose and vote for Obama in the 2008 GE. I will vote against him in the 2012 Democratic Primaries.

Steve

:patriot:

disappointed with the outcome of this election.

Steve

Let's see.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

First list, All popular vote, no caucus states, Michigan is NOT counted:
Obama - 17,535,458 48.1%
Clinton - 17,493,836 48.0%
Winner - Obama +41,622 +0.1%

Second list, All popular vote, caucus estimates, Michigan is NOT counted:

Obama - 17,869,542 48.2%
Clinton - 17,717,698 47.8%
Winner - Obama +151,844 +0.4%

Third list, All popular vote, no caucus states, Michigan is counted, uncommitteds denied to Obama:
Obama - 17,535,458 47.4%
Clinton - 17,822,145 48.1%
Winner - Clinton +286,687 +0.8%

Fourth list. All popular vote, caucus estimates, Michigan is counted, uncommitteds denied to Obama:
Obama - 17,869,542 47.4%
Clinton - 18,046,007 47.9%
Winner - Clinton +176,465 +0.5%

Fifth list, All popular vote, no caucus states, Michigan is counted, uncommitteds given to Obama:
Obama - 17,773,626 48.0%
Clinton - 17,822,145 48.1%
Winner - Clinton +48,519 +0.1%

Sixth list, All popular vote, caucus estimates, Michigan is counted, uncommitteds given to Obama:
Obama - 18,107,710 48.1%
Clinton - 18,046,007 47.9%
Winner - Obama +61,703 +0.2%

There's six different ways to calculate popular vote on that page. Three of them show an Obama win. Three show a Clinton win.

The interesting thing? All three of the Clinton wins are based on either denying the caucus estimates, or denying the Michigan "uncommitted" votes to Obama. Indeed, the largest gap (+0.85) is based on denying him BOTH caucus estimates AND Michigan uncommitteds. So all three Clinton wins are based on vote denial - interesting for a campaign who rather loudly claimed they wanted to make "every vote count"

The question I have is not why did Obama do so well in caucus states, but why did Clinton do so badly? Obviously her husband did well enough with them in the 90's, and I doubt things have changed THAT badly.

More Low Information Voters vote in Primary elections.

Highly educated and highly motivated party activists are willing to make the sacrifice demanded by a Caucus.

Hillary has already admitted that her base is the Low Information Voter.

The 4 caucus state estimates are NOT "official popular vote numbers". So any claims in making history over unofficial vote counts is just talk and might as well be from 2012's estimate vote count.

...simultaneously argue that Obama get 0 votes in MI?

Also, something nobody talks about is that calling all votes "the popular vote" actually serves to SUPPRESS the voices of caucus states since caucuses historically draw far less people than primaries. If you normalize the results and account for the fact that primaries invite low-information voters (Clinton has always outperformed here due to name recognition), Hillary's loss would have been much more decisive.

They won't be voting in the GE so their vote doesn't really count except to assign delegates.

...in any discussion regarding the "will" of the GE electorate.

There are no method to count the caucus states. It was close, anyone can make an arguement one way or the other. We will never never truly know. Too many foot notes and astriks.

First: His worst showing was in West Virginia where he did not campaign much and Hillary campaigned heavily - Edwards was on that ballot. He got 25.67% there. So that's a "base" number for him and it can be reasonably assumed that he would have gotten a MINIMUM of 25.67% in Michigan. He got 32.93% in Florida. Makes as much sense as any other assumption put forth by the Hillary campaign.

So with that assumption, here are the numbers from thegreenpapers.com

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-PU.phtml



Obama wins the so-called "popular vote" by a minimum of 13,000 votes - and this does not count the Washington State primary plus of course all caucuses where the popular votes were not recorded.