Final totals: Barack Obama won the popular vote

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


Final totals: Barack Obama won the popular vote

Obama
17,869,542
48.2%

Clinton
17,717,698
47.8%

Obama
+151,844
+0.4%


GOBAMA!

I know I can go and look, but I'd rather you helped those who will click on this tread.

Thanks.

Huh. I just clicked and looked and it took only a couple seconds. How about that. I don't seem to have been infected by any viruses either.

convey my message.....Plus, it is a question others might have who are not so inclined to know the truth.

I like the OP and the information it contained.

But I have my own reasons as to why I asked. Some will get it.

How you doing? By the way, I got it but then I know and love your posts.:hi:

Thanks and Hope you are doing as well! :pals:

Yeah, I am as fiesty as ever. I got to tell you something funny. My daughter, who comes to DU often and doesn't want me to, came through the house the other night laughing and asked if I knew "FrenchieCat" and I (of course) said I did. She then was telling me about one of your post (that she really liked) and we had a moment of connection thanks to you. :pals:

1. MI does not count.
2. MI counts w/ Uncommitted going to Obama. Estimates from IA, NV, ME, WA included.

In short HRC wins the PV if MI counts and Obama gets nothing from Uncommitted.

Just like in Russia.

Over here in America, Obama wins.

if you actually count the votes and who they were cast for.

If Obama wanted votes in michigan, he shouldn't have removed his name from the ballot.

Come up with another 'reason' for using a bogus election to claim victory.

It was abundantly clear at the time persons voting 'uncommitted' there intended to register a vote against Sen. Clinton, and that would properly at this point reside with Sen. Obama.

In spreading the word far and wide that it "didn't count" and then, retroactively, attempting to count it, it was, in effect, voter suppression. That's election fraud in my book. If a union election were held under such conditions, it'd be ruled void.

There were TWO votes in MY household for Kucinich. I DON'T vote GOP. Even if it's NOT counted, I vote as a matter of principle. I vote FOR a candidate ... since there's no "Against' column on any ballot I've ever used in 44 years of voting in five different states.

There were 30,000 write-in ballots ... but NO write-in candidates were approved. Thus, EVERY one of those was ignored and not even tallied.

The Democratic Party makes a big deal about "fair reflection" of the designated electorate's preferences AND demographics. What about the 100,000+ who chose to vote on the GOP ballot?? What about the 600,000+ who chose to stay home, spend time with their kids, or (if lucky enough) work overtime? That FUBAR shouldn't be used (exploited) for anydamnedthing.


Some claim it's a matter of voting for the 'best' ... and then proceed to claim minor candidates "don't count." That's crap. If there's a "best" it's only in categories of "best," "better," "good," "bad," "worse," and "worst." Sometimes NOBODY earns a rating higher than "bad." They don't EARN my vote. Period.

The two facts that really matter concerning it are that 'popular vote' is not a measure that matters in assessing the nomination, and that the Party has decided to seat delegates from Michigan based on the report of the state Party organization in Michigan, in a manner that has no material effect on the outcome, and is close enough to a fifty-fifty split as to make no mind.

No claim of having won the popular vote in the primary overall can be considered to demonstrate the superiority of one candidate over the other in terms of the general election, because no matter how it is calculated, the margin is a very slim one that cannot be viewed as a decisive win. In a contest structured as a fifty percent plus one winner take all affair that would not matter in assigning victory, of course, but that is not how this contest was structured, and that is not the argument being made when people make appeal to various 'popular vote' totals.

The decision of the Party to seat a delegation from Michigan as it is going to be seated is a purely political act, dictated by a desire not to dispirit and alienate Party functionaries and voters in that state, which is one we ought to carry, and need to carry, in the fall. It seems to me the decision made was a reasonable one, in the 'making the best of a bad situation' category. That the situation was a very bad one is something we agree completely on. The arguments presented by Sen. Clinton's campaign through Mr. Ickes, that Sen. Clinton should get all committed delegates and Sen. Obama none were, to put it bluntly, contemptible.

My view expressed above is simply what strikes me as the best way to treat the flawed data available if one is going to speak of a nation-wide popular vote total in this primary. It would be utter nonesense to pretend no one in Michigan wanted to vote for Sen. Obama, and the nearest thing available to an indication of their number is the total of people registered as voting for 'uncommitted' instead of Sen. Clinton. It would not trouble me if some portion of the documeted write in total were similarly assigned. Doubtless had the ballot listed all names, and people knew the vote would count, all the candidates would have gotten larger totals, but what they would have been can only be rank speculation. In any case, the thing is of only academic interest.

"Garbage in Garbage out". Botched experiments beget bad data, and nothing you do in the analysis will make your findings anymore valid than your initial experiment was.

The election in Michigan was garbage.

The Democratic Party makes a big deal about "fair reflection" of the designated electorate's preferences AND demographics. What about the 100,000+ who chose to vote on the GOP ballot?? What about the 600,000+ who chose to stay home, spend time with their kids, or (if lucky enough) work overtime? That FUBAR shouldn't be used (exploited) for anydamnedthing.

All those voters who'd been told that the election wouldn't count and so either skipped it or participated in the Republican primary. *Counting* the MI & FL votes effectively disenfranchised all those voters, but you never hear a word about that.

Nothing was abundantly clear to even well informed people in Michigan during that primary. We were told our primary wouldn't count. We were told the primary might count. We were told that uncommitted might go to Obama. We were told Gov. Granholm would assign the allegiance of uncommitted delegates and therefor they would go to Clinton.

To anyone without a really firm grasp of the political realities, able to weigh the various rumors and conflicting stories of what might or would happen, it was total chaos. Many people were still writing in because the candidates they wanted were not on the ballot (and didn't know that those ballots are tossed) and friends of our family who have never voted republican before chose to vote strategically in the republican primary because the Democratic primary was apparently not going to count.

An election can't be fair unless there is a fundamental understanding that the process is going to be straightforward and significant in some regard. Only supporters of Clinton, Kucinich and Gravel had any fundamental certainty about where their vote would go after they cast it, and no Michiganians were given the assurance that their vote (however interpreted) would mean anything at all. This is why uncommitted (and the election itself) is fundamentally meaningless, and why IMO it wasn't used in the compromise over Michigan's delegation.

She should have campaigned harder in caucus states. Believe it or not, the Democratic Party actually does count ALL the votes - and then assigns DELEGATES to represent them, since we can't ALL go to the convention. Turns out, the winner of the most DELEGATES wins the nomination! Be sure to tell all your friends.

It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything.

the write in VOTE?
MI was a hot mess can we just agree to that, and move on.

What are the for in yours?

Well, maybe votes like I could have with imaginary friends about who the most handsome person in my studio apartment is, but lots of registered Michigan voters, like myself, weren't going to participate in a sham election. The candidate who I wanted was on the ballot in Michigan, but I still didn't vote, because I thought still running the primary as if it counted was a farce and a betrayal of democracy. The majority of Michigan voters that I've talked to feel the same (some disagree, but they seem to be a small minority).

The agreement was not to PARTICIPATE.

Three major candidates rightfully removed their names and DID NOT PARTICIPATE in accordance with party rules.

One major candidate violated the agreement.

Spin your spin as much as you'd like, but spin it to the Michigan Democratic Party which rejected the Soviet-style "election."

ALL voters in Michigan who wanted a democratic choice were clearly DISENFRANCHISED by the one-name sham "election."

I'll gladly give Senator Clinton her overwhelming "victory" from all the non-U.S.-non-registered-voters from Puerto Rico who padded her numbers quite well, but are not qualified voters for the President of the United States of America.

And today, in her concession, Senator Clinton seemingly recognized, as some supporters refused to do, that there ARE registered voters who participated in the 14 party-approved state caucuses.

By the way, under the rules of the game, she also lost Texas. It wasn't the "tie" that CNN has been trying to spin on their multi-blue map.

She admitted that the election didn't count.

I love the rules and if we go by the rules then Michigan won't count.

Obama wins anyway you want to put it because he got the delegates. Obama 08

Hillary's PV numbers are all inflated by the 300,000 vote margin in Florida, which -- according to the rules at the time of voting -- would not count.

.....popular vote doesn't count anyway

That's why I can't stand.

As long as we're going by the rules.... Hillary is the only one trying to lie, cheat and steal her way to something she DID NOT EARN.

It embarrassing to Democrats and to women in general.

If they hadn't changed the rules, neither FL nor MI would have counted. The only people who seem to be outraged at the DNC stealing four delegates from Clinton were Clinton supporters. If the Rules and Bylaws people can retroactively decide that an invalid election actually counts, why the hell shouldn't they assign the delegates however they want?

The truth is, almost no one cared anything about the rules in this clusterfuck. It was all politics.

... which is ridiculous, since none of the campaigns were allowed to campaign, giving a MAJOR advantage to the candidate with the greatest name recognition. (oh, and the candidate who made a scene in the days before the Florida vote through several public statements calling for the seating of Florida's delegates, as a too-sly skirting of the "no campaigning" pledge.)

The one he is citing is without Michigan. Clinton edges Obama out in the tallys that include Michigan.

So this really doesn't lay the whole debate to rest anyway.

That's all you need to know.

If people show up, you're popular. If they don't, you're not.

Did Clinton ever draw more than a couple thousand?
Did McSame ever draw more than a couple hundred?

:think:


When the person winning the election can't draw flies, you know you've been had. -RiF

on Saturday and says how proud she is, you will have a new reason to attack her.

And, of course, whatever she says about him you will say it wasn't enough. If she talks about herself and her campaign you will lament that she is "still making everything about herself." Heaven forbid her supporters and her voters should be acknowledged like every other candidate does when dropping out of the race.

Steve

is not attacking. Hillary was running on the back of her husband. Obama...on his own.

and the news media when they couldn't beat her on the issues.

Obama didn't win on his own--he won with the most biased media coverage in American history.

Steve

was MY PERCEPTION of her campaign. After 8 yrs. of Lil' bush, people were anXious for the so-called good ol' 'daze' and that is exactly what the Clinton years were...a daze that all was well and good, but it really wasn't! Let us never forget...N-A-F-T-A

:eyes:

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Puddle us a big 'ole pool of sorrow there, Stevie. :nopity:

:rofl:

... was really biased against Hillary.

please.

the middle of June, right?"

NOT the Obama people. His coverage of anything Hillary was shitty.

Before the primaries, they were calling Hillary "unstop-able" and "inevitable". She had 40 point leads. Then Obama got on the ground and erased those leads.

Obama did NOT make Hillary spew lies about the Tusla airport. Obama did NOT make Hillary rely on a large donor strategy. Obama did NOT force Hillary to run a lousy campaign the hemorrhaged money. The media didn't do that either. HILLARY DID THAT.

And what WAS Hillary's biggest asset? The fact that the ballot said Clinton.

Welcome to reality Steve.

BO just parrots pretty platitudes, and you know it.

Really...I am. I am depressed with the world's situation (terribly depressed), but I will not lose my hope for a better world. Given time and IF you will listen carefully to Obama, you will see, Obama was the right choice.

Care to elaborate on 'your facts'?

... by including the votes of two states in which the candidates were not allowed to campaign, giving Clinton a huuuuuge advantage, and in one of which where only her name (of the major contenders) was on the ballot.

You've got your Bush/Gore roles in the analogy reversed.

all sorts of disreputable tactics and math to excuse her loser status, so this coming from you is no real surprise.

The only math I'm interested in right now is FIVE: the number of days the trolls infesting GD: P have left to disrupt.

It's time she falls into line with the *rest* of the Party, and starts *helping* in the fight against McCain and the Republicans.

They will still go with the middle three numbers, the ones that are slanted in Hillary's favor. "It's all unfair!" The truth hurts.

Hope I am waiting in vain, but.........:popcorn: ;)

edited because I wanted to add something.

It takes some interesting Fuzzy Math to claim otherwise.

I don't care what the final total was because it has no bearing on how our process works.

If some don't like that fact then they had better get busy changing it before the next presidential primary.

It is because of this and the fact that Hillary and her supporters continue to claim she should have been given the nomination because of the popular vote this is even mentioned. there is another thread claiming that she won the popular vote so this is just a contrast to that.

I just refuse to validate the angle they attempted to use. It was then, and is still now, a false premise used to try and breath life into a political campaign which was on its last legs.

The real question now is, will we see an active movement of people from within her campaign working their asses off over the next four years attempting to change something they found so "undemocratic?"

These people need to be out there pounding on doors and getting petitions signed to change the process they disdain so much. Not posting on internet message boards attempting to validate an argument which never held any real value to begin with.

Let. It. Go.

PB

:evilgrin:

but I can't seem to hear/read any of it. :shrug:

only allocation of delegates?

We know that in some states the allocation of delegates did not follow the actual counts (example: TX and NV).

Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce: Obama won the popular vote!! :bounce:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

And does those numbers even include the caucus states he won? Because they count as well.

No way, none, zip, nada. It does not exist in many states.

:shrug:

There are 6 different scenarios given. Clinton wins 3 of them. Obama wins 3 of them.


It was close.


Let's move on.

Take a look at the author of the OP, silly.

:rofl:

then you knowingly make an outright falsehood just to hassle somebody? Pardon me for not realizing the OP could be capable of such a thing with teammates.

So right now, you are a negative influence to the Obama campaign. You are potentially driving people away.

I was afraid of this. Maybe many Obama supporters didn't really expect to win the nomination, and now they don't want to take responsibility for it, so they will sort of self-destruct out of fear of having him not live up to expectations.

I know Maine didn't even GATHER popular vote. How can it be reported if it doesn't exist?

:shrug:

Popular Vote margins in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. The darkest purple states voted for Obama by the largest margins, while the darkest green states voted for Clinton by the largest margins. (Popular vote winners and delegate winners differ in five contests: NH, NV, MO, TX, and GU.)


Pledged Delegate margins in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, according to the election results (which may differ from current pledged delegate estimates). Obama won the delegate count in the darkest purple states by the largest margins, while Clinton won the delegate count in the darkest green states by the largest margins. They tied in NH, MO, and GU.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008

I input 25.67% for Michigan - the same percentage Obama got in his worst primary, West Virginia, where he did not campaign much and Hillary campaigned heavily (and Edwards was on the ballot).



Even if you were to give him 23.5% in Michigan he'd still have won by the numbers here. And these numbers did not include the WA state primary where he won by 38,000+ as well as a fair estimate in the caucus states that didn't keep count of the popular vote.

(FL & MI votes are both heavily tainted by the "no campaigning" ban, making them hardly better than a Saddam election.)

As far as I can tell....Anyhow, it no longer matters in the slightest, and I hope that DU comes together fully to defeat the Republicans in the Fall.

Regardless of how anyone tried to report it, there is no way to count popular vote totals. Well, I guess they could be reported incorrectly.

because you can't extrapolate the popular vote from caucus states.

So one will ever know what those numbers might have been.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is at best a charlatan.

Here's link to my post this morning:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6311032&mesg_id=6311032

She only got half the votes. Even with Obama in bed with the media and as their darling
she dared to compete and they destroyed Bill in the process of defending his wife.

The media wanted Obama and they gave us Obama so I guess we can forget all about the Clintons
now that he is the messiah.

Then why do they keep repeating the Rev. Wright and Father Phleger sermons over and over again, reminding viewers that Barack attended the church from which they spoke "for 20 years"? Hillary's lie about her Bosnia airport reception didn't receive nearly as much Media attention.

:hide:

Good for the Democratic Party!

Hillary won the popular vote 17,822,145 48.1%, to Obama's 17,535,458 47.4%. He got the most delegates and won the nomination but he lost the popular vote and no Soviet style re-writing of history will change that. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

aaaaaaggghhhhhh. please don't keep feeding into that madness.

But people sure pointed out Gore got more votes in 2000.

Your analogy is shit.

I understand your response.