Let’s examine the “will of the people” in selecting our 2008 Democratic nominee. Many party leaders and superdelegates have emphasized its importance.
First, it should be noted that the DNC’s decision to strip Florida and Michigan of its delegates made no mention of disregarding the popular votes from these two battleground states. After all, how can you ignore 2.3 million citizens, including a record turnout in Florida, who insisted on casting ballots even though officials told them it was pointless? That would be un-American. (See more thoughts about Florida and Michigan below).
So…setting aside the matter of Florida and Michigan delegates –a matter to be reviewed by the RBC on May 31 — let’s take a look at the popular vote.
Following Hillary Clinton’s historic 41-point win in West Virginia, in which she netted nearly 150,000 votes, the popular vote totals from Real Clear Politics (RCP) for the primaries are:
Total votes cast: 33,391,125
Clinton: 47.7% (HC leads by 29,471 votes)
Obama: 47.6%
Total votes cast, including estimates from the caucus states of IA, ME, WA, and NV: 33,949,071
Obama: 47.7% (BO leads by 80,751)
Clinton: 47.5%
Notes on the Popular Vote:
1. As stated above, there is no authority for disregarding raw votes from Florida and Michigan. Any claim that they should be excluded from popular vote totals is especially problematic given Obama’s opposition to re-votes in both states, and the fact that he ran TV ads in Florida in violation of the pledge. Also keep in mind that Obama voluntarily removed his name from the Michigan ballot, against the advice of some of his allies, for political gain in Iowa. As Obama now heads to Florida and Michigan, presumably to campaign for general-election votes for the Democrats, it’s increasingly ludicrous to cling to the position that these 2.3 million votes shouldn’t count towards selecting his party’s nominee.
2. The RCP estimate of popular votes that includes caucus states is skewed towards Obama given the undemocratic nature of caucuses. There are now at least three examples — Texas, Washington, and Nebraska — where the candidates were virtually tied in primary elections but caucus results in the same states heavily favored Obama. Two new myDD stories provide excellent analyses about this dynamic, here and here.
3. A blogger also points out that Clinton has now won the popular vote in 195 US Congressional Districts, compared to 187 for Obama. Including Florida and Michigan, it would be 227 for Clinton and 195 for Obama.
A virtual tie:
By June 3rd, no matter how you slice it, this race will be a dead heat.
Clinton is likely to lead Obama (and McCain) among all votes cast in presidential primaries, even when including the skewed caucus results. Obama will maintain his pledged delegate lead, but it will be narrower than it is now, possibly within 100.
Of nearly 20 million votes cast and among 4,000 or so delegates, they will be separated by a fraction on both metrics.
How Superdelegates will decide:
Now, Obama and his supporters rightly point out time and again that delegates, not popular votes, determine who wins the nomination. True, but only if you get 2210 pledged delegates. Since neither Clinton nor Obama will reach that number — it’s the responsibility of the automatic (or “super”) delegates to vote at the convention.
You may disagree with the power and authority given to the superdelegates — and the party could change its rules after this election — but that’s for the future. Currently there are no rules requiring the superdelegates to award the nomination to the leader of pledged delegates.
The purpose of the superdelegates is to ensure that the best general-election candidate, and best potential president, is nominated. Any factor may be considered, including the “will of the people” as reflected in the popular vote. In fact, to overturn the peoples’ choice based on the results of a complex delegate apportionment system (itself in need of reform) could backfire in November.
13 responses so far ↓
Delilah // May 15, 2008 at 12:19 pm
But the media says Obama is far, far ahead of Clinton in every possible vote and delegate count!
Of course, they ignore the asterisks (indicating NOT COUNTING Florida & Michigan votes and delegates).
We’re on the brink of surviving a truly disastrous, asterisk-laden 8 years of BushCo; and now, we’re told to ignore the asterisks once again?
Not hardly.
dianej // May 15, 2008 at 8:30 pm
The WND today had a story about Hillary running on the Indepent ticket if she does not get the Dem nomination. What do you think of this?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64283
BC30 // May 15, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Texas Darling:
Thanks for the post, but the number for your “Total Votes Cast” is using just Obama’s numbers. Total votes cast is more than 33 mil.
texasdarlin // May 15, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Oops, good catch BC30. Thanks!
TomD // May 15, 2008 at 10:22 pm
You write: “First, it should be noted that the DNC’s decision to strip Florida and Michigan of its delegates made no mention of disregarding the popular votes from these two battleground states.”
That’s fine…except for the fact that the winner is determined by DELEGATES; the popular vote is irrelevant. (Just ask Howard Wolfson, who said as much right after Iowa.) Clinton arguing about the popular vote is like someone being behind in a basketball game and saying “But we made more free throws,” to which the obvious response from the winning team is “So?”
I guess this another example of the Clinton’s playing only by the rules when it suits them?
JRR // May 16, 2008 at 12:09 pm
You wrote “there is no authority for disregarding raw votes from Florida and Michigan.”
I think you forgot that raw votes has NO AUTHORITY OR BEARING in the primary process! Your entire premise is made up and it is a riot that you are adding provisions to something that doesn’t exist!
Thanks for the laugh.
TomD // May 16, 2008 at 12:49 pm
JRR:
Looks like we won’t get an answer…
Here’s what really rich: the writer argues for Michigan and Florida to “count” because otherwise we would “disenfranchise” them (nevermind that there is no constitutional guarantee of a party primary vote…), but then summarily dismisses the votes of Democrats in caucus states. We can argue over the wisdom of primaries v. caucuses, but to disregard the choices of voters in caucus states seems particularly disingenuous given the writer’s (flawed) thesis.
BC30 // May 16, 2008 at 4:03 pm
TOM D:
the premise on going off of the popular vote is this:
while we go off of delegates, there is a big broo-ha-ha about Super Delegates not over-turning the will of the people. Additionally, leaving OUT Michigan and Florida entirely puts Clinton behind around 500,000 votes in the popular.
There are 1.690 million Kentucky dems.
(http://www.kentucky.com/329/story/393155.html)
If her poll numbers hold-up, she will make up that ground. Which means, she could VERY well win the popular vote WITHOUT Michigan and Florida. And then, what about the Super Delegates over-turning the will of the people?
Obama people scared yet?
This is why they want her to drop out. It needs to go thru Puerto Rico. A landslide in Puerto Rico will put her over the top, so says the evidence.
Texas Darling, I love your blog.
Gob Bluth // May 16, 2008 at 4:34 pm
TomD and JRR are correct. And who the hell cares how many Congressional districts each one of them has won? A pointless and inane measure.
It’s about delegates. Pure and simple. Certainly, super delegates may look to success in the popular vote in making their individual determination, but other than that, the only point of the popular vote is to award delegates. End of story. It’s really rather simple to grasp.
The fact of the matter is, Senator Clinton should not have agreed to the DNC terms with regard to Michigan and Florida. But she did. She was wholly unconcerned about the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters until their interests aligned with hers. How utterly transparent.
texasdarlin // May 16, 2008 at 9:17 pm
God Bluth, your facts are wrong.
The candidates’ pledge had nothing to do with delegates or popular vote. The only thing they agreed to was not to campaign. Unfortunately Obama didn’t stick to the pledge and let ads run on national tv in Florida.
Did you open that link and read the pledge?
Gob Bluth // May 18, 2008 at 6:01 pm
TD,
My facts are not wrong. However, yours are. I did read the pledge, and the language of it is quite plain. Yes, the candidates did pledge not to campaign. But to contend, as you do, that it stops there is to be intellectually dishonest.
In plain language, the pledge says that signatories agree to neither campaign *nor* participate in any election contest outside of the DNC pre-approved window. You rather conveniently omit the latter in your description.
“Participate” is not a defined term within the document (which, as an attorney, I find odd….) so we must assume that the word carries the meaning it would in the ordinary parlance. To not participate in an election contest, means just that - to not participate in an election contest.
Further, the Senator herself said, quite clearly and unambiguously, while campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire that the contests in Michigan and Florida didn’t count. So….why the change of heart??
The word ‘participate’ seems quite clear and readily understood. Of course, I’m sure the Clintons have their own definition of “participate” just as they have their own definition of “sexual relations with that woman” and, unforgettably, “is.”
texasdarlin // May 18, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Gob — right, neither of them participated in the previous primaries. But the rules also allow subsequent review and solutions to be proposed and approved, such as re-votes. The original decision was not locked in cement, but subject to modification over time. That’s the way the system works — always a review and appeal process. It’s called due process — and it’s a fundamental American value.
Thanks for the comment, though.
Gob Bluth // May 19, 2008 at 5:37 pm
First, I think you misunderstand due process. That would necessitate, however, a lengthy treatise not suitable for this format. Simply put, however, due process has nothing to do with this and is simply not applicable in this context.
You say, “the original decision was not locked in cement.” So you concede that the Senator now wishes to backtrack on her commitment.
Furthermore, this is, in essence, a contract between the signatories, and is not subject to modification, or a review and appeal process. That is just a silly assertion.
Regardless of questions of procedure, substantive questions remain:
-Senator Clinton - of her own volition - signed the pledge in September of 2007. Commencing only in January of 2008, the Senator began to express misgivings about the terms of the pledge. So, what changed between 9/07 and 1/08 such that she did a 180-turn on the pledge?
-Why did she herself say, while campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, that what was going on in Florida and Michigan didn’t count?
Leave a Comment