home

For Declaring A Winner Tomorrow, The Popular Vote Trumps The Delegate Count

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:11:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Why? Because delegate results will be delayed:

The wait is almost over for Pennsylvania's Democratic presidential primary Tuesday, but voters may have to wait a little longer to find out who won the most delegates to the party's national convention. As in other Democratic contests, Pennsylvania awards delegates based on the statewide vote and the vote in individual congressional districts.

Unlike most states, Pennsylvania has a large number of counties split into multiple congressional districts. That could delay results by a day or more as election officials work to assign votes to the appropriate districts.

The popular vote prevails for once. Hurray!

< The Goal Posts: PA An Elimination Game For Clinton | The Overwrought Reaction To The Clinton Ad, Part II >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    For Declaring A Winner Tomorrow, The Popular Vote Trumps The Delegate Count | 57 comments (57 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    never (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Turkana on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:20:39 PM EST
    the pledged delegate count is all that matters. not that it's necessarily a reflection of the will of the people, but it's all that matters. not that pledged delegates are allocated in anything even close to a democratic fashion, but they're all that matter. they're all that ever mattered. at least for the last two months, anyway.

    God had them in mind when he created (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:37:21 PM EST
    the universe.  It's all a flowing together to a self actualized universe now.

    Parent
    well this is an important moment (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Turkana on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:55:27 PM EST
    in the history of religion!

    Parent
    This election (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:49:34 PM EST
    is not about the "will of teh peopel" it's about "teh pick of teh party".

    In other words, it's just dumb.

    Parent

    Interesting perspective (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by SpinDoctor on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:38:42 PM EST
    If that was the metric used by the media in November of 2000, then today President Al Gore would be reminiscing about his 8 years in office, Vice-President Joe Lieberman would still be a Democrat and likely running against his good friend John McCain.  I'm a big fan Armando, but I think this post is more about you feeding red meat to the Clinton masses then an objective and analytical approach to the impact of a modest Hillary win in the popular vote.

    If Hillary wins by a modest margin, but like Texas, Obama wins the delegate count, her victory would be pyrrhic at best.  Perhaps if the super delegate totals were trending toward Senator Clinton, you might have a point.  However, given the few primaries left, the SD migration to Obama and the expectations that Hillary needs a double-digit win tomorrow, my suspicion is anything less than a 8% victory tomorrow will be portrayed fairly by the media as her death knell.

    The delegate count (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:51:50 PM EST
    not hat i'm a Clinton supporter--looks very arbitrary.

    Calling it a Byzantine system is an insult to a very well organized Empire that survived and thrived for a 1000 years.

    The GOP mst wonder what the PR system is there to accomplish.

    Parent

    After Reading What SuperDelegates Said... (none / 0) (#36)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:43:16 PM EST
    Many of the undecideds are sitting back, waiting and watching to see what transpires.  They are not tipping their hands and they are giving a big finger to Howard Dean's "you superdelegates need to decide now" b.s.

    After Hillary's win tomorrow, and looking back on Obama's poor performances this past week, who knows, maybe some of the decideds may want to change their vote and move it out of the Obama column.

    Parent

    Counting votes -- how fiendish can you get?? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:39:50 AM EST
    I'd stay away from counting whatever doesn't go O's way as emanating from HRC supporters though.

    It's bitter and clingy.

    Obama's been in high gear driving away undecided independent support; uncommitted Dem support he might otherwise and easily have if he and his followers didn't behave in such an arrogant, petulat way; formerly uncritical (and free) media support; and the support of any party newly-concerned at the appalling candidate weaknesses Obama's been showing all on his own.

    Ya know, stuff he actually said and did weren't put there by Sen. Clinton, as much as Obama's gummy-WORMs like to stomp the superstitious truism that she's responsible for her own sins and his, into their belief system.

    If you were smart, you'd be working damage control. Trolling blogs is counter-productive.

    Parent

    Darn... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:29:13 PM EST
    There are two political candidates on the Democratic side who are trying to figure out how to win.

    I'm shocked.

    Parent

    PA is not about the nomination (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by koshembos on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:34:30 PM EST
    The Democrats cannot but nominate Obama. Doing otherwise will cause not only political upheaval but will disenfranchise the African American community. PA is about emphasizing what the nomination fight have ended up being. It's a fight between the party of the workers, tolerance, caring (especially health care) against a movement that throws aside all the goals progressives have for the worship of a candidate with unclear stance and an iffy chance to win in November.

    Since the results are known, PA may emphasize the Democrats giving up the presidency for another 8 years.

    So, (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    disenfranchising FL and MI are okay then?

    [rolls eyes]

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:19:28 PM EST
    My guess is the SD's will ignore this little fact (since MI and FL SD's also can't vote unless something changes between now and then). They will congratulate themselves on saving the Democratic party with an Obama nomination, only to have the car go off the cliff, ala "Thelma and Louise", but without the hotness of Brad Pitt.

    Parent
    I'll see your threat (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:14:07 PM EST
    And raise you:

    If they nominate Sen Obama the party will be split forever in two. The dems will lose everything. Women and elderly will abandon the party to start the "we are p-oed old woman party" (POOWP).

    Then Sen Obama will get CLOBBERED in the GE, causing massive loses and lose of House and Senate. Followed by floods and earthquakes.

    Did I mention the frog and locusts?

    Parent

    Lifelong dem here (none / 0) (#32)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:20:14 PM EST
    yellow dog, straight ticket.

    I won't give him my vote.  He has not earned it.  

    Parent

    I hope you realize (none / 0) (#34)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:29:35 PM EST
    That I am trying to maintain a little humor. For some reason I am in a good mood about tomorrow, its either insight or complete denial.

    I guess we'll see soon enough.

    Parent

    Yes, of course! (none / 0) (#35)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:36:01 PM EST
    And I am equally as prescient-or deluded.

    And I still won't vote for the man.  My voice means more to me than that.  He is not experienced.  He has shown nothing that makes me think he can do the job.  A weak president is just as destructive as an overly powerful one.

    I will vote straight dem downticket, but unless Clinton is at the top, I'll either write in her name or leave that blank.

    Parent

    My vote also has to be earned (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:52:47 AM EST
    If the machinery doesn't award the nominee to someone who straight up won on merit and a transparent accounting, I'll support worthy candidates down-ticket. I'll join, support, and donate to a campaign to write-in a ticket.

    And otherwise watching McCain make mincemeat out of Obama's platform to unite with, um, the guy making mincemeat out of him.

    YES, I will be enjoying frosty Pilseners with "my stories", but hey, Obama doesn't need it so it all fair and square by TeamO's scuzzy math. If I switch, it'll be from lager to robust ales in the Fall.

    Obama previously had my support. He lost it through his own bad behavior and poor judgment and has yet to earn it back or shown that he deserves the job he's running for. NO MORE ANNOINTED EMPTY SUITS. We need a real leader. He's not The One.

    Parent

    Guess the Moderates who leave aren't relevant? (none / 0) (#42)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:36:05 PM EST
    I suppose that the reality that more of her supporters indicate they will exit the party isn't an "unheaval?"

    OK.....although I haven't every understood this argument.

    His supporters are more likely than hers to support her,  11% to 28% is roughly the numbers.

    Parent

    Hahahaha (none / 0) (#43)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 08:18:37 PM EST
    Funny that. Considering Sen Obamas campaign is all about Sen Obama and his special status, while Sen Clintons campaign is about helping others.

    But hey, whatever.

    Parent

    Wow that is a lot of Obama campaign lines (none / 0) (#51)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:34:34 PM EST
    in one post. Honestly there is no point trying to point out all the erroneous information.

    Let's just say if Sen Obama does get the nomination you are ok with the concept of President McCain...

    Parent

    Obama said and did stupid things all on his own (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:59:23 AM EST
    Sen. Clinton had nothing to do with that. What she did do is earn my respect and support with hard work and by answering my questions and concerns about what she'll bring to the job.

    I like that she's done the homework, worked hard on the campaign, and spoken candidly about her record -- good OR bad.

    I like that she'll directly meet with her critics and go head to head even with her worse enemies. She's got guts, brains and a proven record of service.

    Cult of personality is a bogus charge and only smacks of a campaign in deep denial of its own failings.

    I don't need another cribbed speech or Movement Moment brought to me by ObamaCorps.

    Parent

    Free clue: Obama's the one running for office (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:14:24 AM EST
    Clinton supporters think Obama should be the one to reach out to THEM?

    Any candidate running for office damn well better reach out to potential voters and explain his or her platform and what s/he plans to bring to leadership.

    Obama is not entitled to the presidency, even if he did have a substantial record to run on, even if he did have an impressive innate Charisma, even if his supporters think he -- and they -- are all that.

    It's called democracy.

    Your irony meter, wheezing as it is, doesn't play into this at all (and shouldn't) but your basic comprehension skills and logic could use some work.

    And another thing, why do Clinton supporters, or any voters, have to explain their votes to you or anyone? Where do you get off thinking that's your purview or even your business?

    You're not entitled to DEMAND that either, as you have no standing in the matter.


    Parent

    Affirmative reasons for supporting HRC are above (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:12:06 PM EST
    In fact, they're in the post you responded to, explicitly outlining how Sen. Clinton earned my respect, support and vote.

    Parent
    So present that to the Dems and see how it plays (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:34:27 AM EST
    If they declare him the nominee on his own scuzzy math, they know there will be hell to pay.

    The bottom line is, all this over-hyped surefire "support" Obama has claimed up to now isn't cast in stone.

    Do you really think undecideds and non-Obama supporters will mutely fall in line just because he pours some of famous Charisma(TM) on them like so much waffle syrup?

    Don't pretend that Obama is mystically entitled to all those tasty chickens, voters and dollars just because, eg, Obot Kos says he's totally The One.

    He's weak, unprepared, and apparently incapable of handling stuff he should be able to do in his sleep by now. There's no way he should be handed the keys to the WH, and that's based on his own record, character and abilities.

    Parent

    You just said in a previous post what the (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by halstoon on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:55:55 PM EST
    matrices are for determining a winner. She'll probably get more votes, but will she get enough more?

    And she's still the winner in TX despite his delegate win, so this is not a first.

    we (Dems) need reform (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by dem08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:07:11 PM EST
    I went from being a twice each Clinton supporter to Obama, but no matter what else happens from this Primary, we need a reform.

    In my state, NY, you vote popular vote and delegates, but the delegates are not identified. They are just a slate.

    I have nothing against a caucus, theoretically, but an open ballot with thirty days to vote by mail or something similar seems more fair to me.

    Weird rules and multiple votes and money make the Democratic Primary a thing of ugliness. (I said already I hate all the money raised and spent. My guy is a money-raising machine, as are Bill and
    Hillary, but money  and the stupidity of the rules each corrupts the process....)

    Oh, they know what (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:15:23 PM EST
    precinct goes with what district. Either of the campaigns could tabulate this, but Governor Rendell would have to give the SoS a special instruction to release the numbers officially tomorrow night.

    I'm guessing he won't.

    I am guessing he won't either (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:18:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Interesting point. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:49:25 PM EST


    Parent
    SWEET! (none / 0) (#2)
    by americanincanada on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:17:52 PM EST
    We will have the popular vote right away and that will give greater media attention to it. wonderful!

    Now you're talkin (none / 0) (#5)
    by catfish on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:23:59 PM EST
    This post good.

    The popular vote will hold (none / 0) (#6)
    by Lahdee on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:30:58 PM EST
    the cycle, followed closely by the 55 delegates awarded based on the popular vote. Thoughts on the remaining 103 will commence whenever a vacuum is detected prior to actual release.
    The simple story, who won the popular vote, should prevail early in the evening. Will that discussion be expanded to include the missing MI and FL? Who knows.

    As a person who believes (none / 0) (#7)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:36:35 PM EST
    that delegates and the electoral college should be eliminated, this makes me very happy.

    How would that be any different (none / 0) (#10)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:45:44 PM EST
    than in other states?  Day of the primary discussions almost ALWAYS revolve around popular vote.  

    Maybe the popular vote discussions goes on a day or 2 more than usual, but that is unlikely.  By Friday the discussion will be about Indiana and North Carolina.  

    Hey, don't worry... (none / 0) (#11)
    by reynwrap582 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:46:12 PM EST
    I'm sure the MSM will come up with delegate counts all by themselves.  It doesn't matter if they're right, it's not like anyone is going to report on how they got it wrong.

    I agree (none / 0) (#12)
    by drewohio1 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:47:01 PM EST
    The Popular vote will go for CLINTON BIG TIME !! I hope to see it by at least 500,000 margin for Hillary, I think she will win by 30 to 35 percent !!!!

    Please enlighten me (none / 0) (#15)
    by Chimster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:16:06 PM EST
    I know this is a dumb question, but here goes anyway. I don't think I've ever heard the definitive answer.

    If we know that neither Dem candidate can reach the elusive delegate number to guarantee the nomination, do the rules state somewhere that the person with the most delegates at the end of the contest is the nominee?

    The rules require at least 2025 delegate votes (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:29:35 PM EST
    -- both sorts of delegates, pledged and "super" -- and no fewer than that, no way.  Them's the rules.

    If neither has that number on the first ballot at the convention, they go to another round, when pledged delegates no longer are pledged, and on and on . . . at least in the olden days.

    This time around, it probably will be decided before the convention by super-delegates declaring for one candidate or the other, sufficient to reach 2,025 (actually 2,024.5, but among all the sorts of delegates, there are no half-delegates . . . so far).

    Parent

    The rules say that the Super Delegates decide (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:23:32 PM EST
    And they can base their decisions on anything.

    Parent
    Percentage points will be the big ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:20:52 PM EST
    ... talk. If HRC doesn't win by at least 20%, then the talk will be that it is finally over for the campaign.

    Then, if there is still time to talk, it will be about campaign coffer dollars. Can HRC even continue if she gets at least a 20% point win?

    20%??? You think if Obama gets (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:30:22 PM EST
    slaughtered by 15% he's a viable candidate?
    Try that on the SD's.

    Parent
    The fear on the Obama side (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:32:36 PM EST
    is palpable.

    How much would Obama have to spend in PA to win against McCain? What about the other states where Clinton is currently favored over McCain in the general?

    The SD's will be looking at that metric very closely.

    Parent

    He is outraising McCain (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by independent voter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:51:51 PM EST
    3:1, 4:1, 5:1 per month, while he is NOT THE NOMINEE. Just wait, he will CRUSH John McCain in fundraising and will have the ability to outspend him 10:1 if necessary.

    Parent
    But didn't Obama (none / 0) (#30)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:18:01 PM EST
    say that he would accept public financing if his opponent did that and hasn't John McCain said that he will be using public financing?  I guess this is a snark.  8^)

    Parent
    No, he did not say that, (none / 0) (#38)
    by independent voter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:50:20 PM EST
    but nice try. Are you rooting for the GOP this time around?

    Parent
    Well, MarkL, would you ... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:06:44 PM EST
    ... think Hillary Clinton was a viable candidate if she got slaughtered by 35.3 in Georgia?

    Or by 31.9% in Illinois?
    Or by 24.9% in Maryland?
    Or by 28.2% in Virginia?
    Or by 24.5% in Mississippi?
    Or by 23.6% in Wyoming?
    Or by 20.7% in Vermont?
    Or by 52.4% in Hawai'i?
    Or by 21.8% in Louisiana?
    Or by 34.2% in Minnesota?
    Or by 34.2% in Colorado?
    Or by 48.2% in Kansas?
    Or by 24.6% in North Dakota?
    Or by 28.9% in South Carolina?

    Those are some reasons why Hillary needs to win by more than 20%. Another reason is that the delegate math is so bad for her (mostly because of the above). Still another reason is that she was winning PA by 19% just a couple of weeks ago -- expectations are high. And on and on.  

    Parent

    hey tort- ANY DEM has a chance (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kenosharick on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:32:26 PM EST
    at maybe 5 out of your list of states. Crow all you want about Georgia, or Miss., or the Carolinas or Dakotas. NO DEM WILL WIN THOSE. However, State by state polling shows HILLARY DOING MUCH BETTER in the all important swing states of OHIO, PENN,and FLA. He is actually tied with mccain in Mass- Mass for petes sake should be a runaway for Dems (Hillary is up by more than 15) and he might lose it.

    Parent
    Flawed logic N/T (none / 0) (#44)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 08:19:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Turn your argument around: If (none / 0) (#48)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:23:20 PM EST
    Hillary can kill Obama in a diverse state like PA after so long, you have to wonder what's wrong with Obama?

    Parent
    You wish. (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:42:18 PM EST
    The only way she would leave the race is if Obama wins.  I don't think that is going to happen.  You set your ridiculous bar to spin your own story.  You are already aware the people on this site don't support her leaving unless Obama wins.  So your point to trotting out 20% would be what?  To annoy?  So you can come back tomorrow and say I told you so and do your 'she needs to quit before she destroys Obama and the party' dance? I, personally, am fervently hoping Obama implodes.  You should check out Craig Crawford today on c-span.  He says superdees are going for Obama even though they know he is going to lose as they hope the new people will build the party in the long run.

    Parent
    My point was to be ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:12:37 PM EST
    ... realistic. You can see in my post above why HRC needs a 20%+ point win in PA. Only that will balance expected Obama gains in NC and at least leave HRC in a comparable position as she is in today (which is losing badly, but much closer to the finish line).

    If HRC doesn't win by 20%+ points in PA, does she really want to leave the race on a bad note after North Carolina?

    In addition, the campaign finances are just not there to continue. This is just being realistic.  

    Parent

    Why does she need 20%+ (none / 0) (#46)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 08:20:34 PM EST
    This makes no sense. She needs around 10% to be on the road to overtaking him in popular vote, and that's the deal.

    Parent
    Obama doesn't set the standard (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:44:40 PM EST
    although his surrogates would like to believe that.

    I'm totally thrilled to hear the radio news tonight.  "Electability" is the new buzzword.

    Not delegate count.

    Even the conservatives are ranting about SDs and electability.  

    That's an excellent sign that she's turned this narrative around.

    Parent

    I hope so (none / 0) (#52)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:35:30 PM EST
    That would be an amazing accomplishment considering the hostile media environment.

    Parent
    Oh, because Newsweek, dKos's boss, said that? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:33:52 AM EST
    Sad story, true story, Newsweek and Kos don't get to pretend that any HRC win, and by how much, in PA is "actually" a loss.

    Were they to try after PA voters have weighed in, it would look worse on Obama than Sen. Clinton anyway.

    What you can bank on is this: Fervent Obama fans are deeply convinced that he's The One and his sense of entitlement, based on a lot of feelgood gossamer, no doubt gave him and his supporters a lofty, if substantially frail, sense of destiny.

    However, serious support like dollars and party machinery isnn't going to fall in behind the rather ego-based exercise of making Obama and his camp feel good, certainly not at what that will cost in the long term.

    (Their exponentially weird, gaffe-ridden performance and bad behavior are a separate issue. The fan boiz are way past the wild-eyed p!ss-drinking stage of madness and on to tearing planks off the ship to throw into the bonfire to maintain a fizzled sense of excitement. Let them do it, but using their own resources.)


    Parent

    A better solution (none / 0) (#27)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:05:08 PM EST
    Since this is PA, I think there's a better solution.

    Cancel the primary, and have Clinton and Obama go to every bar in Wilkes-Barre (where there's a bar or a church on almost every intersection, it seems), drinking boilermakers at every stop.  First one to pass out or fall down, loses.

    I'm in favor of that! (none / 0) (#33)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:21:53 PM EST
    Since Hillary would definitely win.

    Parent
    For Declaring A Winner Tomorrow, The Popular Vote Trumps The Delegate Count | 57 comments (57 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment