The popular vote matters, but who won it doesn't.

A lot of people seem to be getting hot under the collar about who won the popular vote (the answer, as far as I can see, cannot be made clearer than "it depends how you count").

I think that this is a mistake. Both candidates (and all the other candidates) agreed beforehand that the election would be decided by delegates, not popular vote. So while the approximate ration of votes cast can send messages, it makes no difference whether Senatot Obama won one fifth of a percent more or one tenth of a percent less of the popular vote than Senator Clinton.

The two important facts are:

1) Senator Obama won the delegate count. That means that he is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, and the only thing standing between John McCain and world domination, and that we (by which I mean those of you in America) would be drastically cutting of your noses to spite your faces if you don't vote for and support him.

but also

2) Senator Clinton won almost exactly half the popular vote, and therefore

2a) She and her supporters have just as much right to call themselves Democrats, and to be respected as such, and to have their views listened to, as Senator Obama and his.

2b) Senator Obama desperately needs her and her supporters' backing to have any chance of beating McCain, which means that we desperately need him to have that backing.

..that assuming they (her coveted supporters) share Hillary's views....her views are almost exactly the same as Obama's. So people keeping saying this about "their views....their views"....which views does Hillary hold that Obama doesn't that they feel are soooooo important and being neglected. When Edward's supporters said this it could justifiably mean that Obama needs to give more voice and focus on labor or poverty issues because those were his signature pet issues.....If it were Biden supporters, national security and foreign policy......Kucinich, ending the war.......and on and on......but other than her being more hawkish than Obama, what subjects did she give constant voice to on the campaign trail that were drastically different than what Obama did? I mean yes we know she got a lot of the white appalachian vote but was she really giving voice constantly to any specific issue that was important to that demographic? Or did they just not like Obama? And yes she got a lot of the white middle aged female vote but unless I'm wrong she wasn't constantly speaking about women's issues on the trail, wasn't emphasizing abortion rights any more than Obama not talking about discrimination and sexual harrasement in the workplace or any of that.....her appeal to those two largest groups was a cross between name recognition from the 90's, dislike/distrust of Obama, and self identification/empathy. So what "views" exactly should Obama be listening to because unless I missed something major it doesn't seem like there are that many if any.

And I don't think there are any or many Obama supporters who don't want to listen to views or say that he shouldn't. What people mean when they talk about this is, let's be brutally honest.....they want Obama and his supporters to beg.

Not because I was backing Clinton - I thought that Obama was marginally the preferably candidate - but because Obama will have a better chance of winning if he and they do, and I don't want to see McCain as president.

All that Obama won was the arduous duty of having to win. That means that unifying the Democratic party is his responsibility, and his alone.

Whether or not Clinton's supporters are justified in being angry at Obama is irrelevant (my personal view is that they have every cause to hate Obama's supporters on DU, but it's unfair to blame the man himself, but that's neither here nor there). What matters is that they do, and that unless Obama changes most of their minds he won't win.

:eyes:

Also Obama, to do him justice, appears to be doing a fine job of reaching out to Clinton's supporters, I am unsurprised to say. It's his supporters who are, in many cases, risking alienating Clinton supporters, and it doesn't matter a damn if they look weak or ineffectual.

Personally, I couldn't stand the way they acted after the Iowa primary, especially since it was at the expense of my candidate. But once Edwards dropped out, I sucked it up and got behind the nominee.

I have zero tolerance for drama queens who put themselves before winning this fall.

Whether or not you think they're idiots is irrelevant, they still have votes, and Obama still needs those votes.

"Zero tolerance" is only an attitude you can afford to adopt towards people whose help you don't need.

They're just not THOSE idiots.

That's my issue with this whole thing. If you want him to beg and look weak and be humbled and all that then people should say that. Not this bullshit about hearing "their views" and having "their voices heard" because that's really a crock. If you think he should beg then fine, just say that. This isn't about people's views or any issues it's about placating people's bruised egos. Some of that should be done but let's face it, the ones who NEED that convincing are precisely the ones who will never be convinced so it's ultimately a losing game.

Sorry, folks. Elections just don't work that way.

He's won. Begging from a position of strength looks humble, not humbled.

Clinton has influence with her own followers and can make a big difference as to whether they are receptive to Obama or not. It his HER responsibility to make sure that they are receptive to him.

It is true that it is his responsibility to win them over to support him, but if she were act or speak in a way that deliberately turns them against him (some of us think that she already has, but there is time to reverse it), then it makes it much harder and in some cases impossible for him. In that case she would share the fault if he loses in November.

Who the heck said they didn't? That is a massive strawman. Clinton and her supporters have a right to call themselves Democrats if they act like Democrats. The few, like notorious angry woman, who act like racist Republican idiots, do not.

Senator Obama of course needs the support of his party rank and file. However, Senator Clinton attempting to hold her supporters hostage as bargaining chips in order to demand the vice presidency would be contemptible. At the moment I do not see clear evidence that she is doing that, instead I see some of her supporters acting as if this were the case.

That said, I actually do not have a problem with Clinton on the ticket. If Obama decides that is the best course of action, I am fine with it. The reality is that I don't vote for vice presidents, and even really bad choices for that slot, such as Dan Quayle, do not seem to hurt the ticket itself, nor is there good evidence that the VP wins elections.

I worry that in some cases that may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

FWIW, I would have a massive problem with Clinton as Obama's running mate - I think she'd make a fine vice-president, but an awful vice-presidential candidate, because while she'd probably net Obama more votes than any other running-mate, she'd net McCain still more, I suspect. I hope to see her offered a cabinet post, Senate majority leadership or some other senior role, though.

While a few posters here might behave as you have suggested, for the most part this is not the case. Claiming that this is 'regular' is a huge distortion. The people called dinos and traitors here recently, in relation to the primary campaign, have been those who publicly state their inability to accept and support the results of the primary process.

have just as much right to call themselves Democrats, and be respected as such, and have their views listened to, as Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator Biden, Governor Richardson, and theirs.

To the extent that any of these folks are willing to unite, pitch in, and work hard to elect the democratic party nominee, on the nominee's terms, they are democrats and should be listened to.

There is no particular consolation prize for second place in this, even with a close finish, and there never has been.