What Would Make a Clinton Popular Vote Lead Legitimate?
Hillary Clinton's 249,000-popular-vote plurality in Kentucky, offset only partially by Barack Obama's 108,000-vote plurality in Oregon, gives her a popular-vote lead in two of realclearpolitics.com's six metrics, i.e., counting Florida and Michigan, and including those two states and the imputed popular-vote margin in the Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine caucuses. And it puts her within reach, depending on the result in unpredictable Puerto Rico, of a popular-vote lead in two more metrics—the two that don't include Michigan, where Obama removed himself from the ballot and Clinton didn't. All of which seems to me to make a solid case that Clinton is the choice of the people.
Yes, there's also a solid argument that Obama is ahead in the metric that, after all, determines the nomination—the delegate count. But that lead consists almost entirely of delegates won in caucuses. Obama has a pencil-thin lead among delegates chosen in primaries.
Yet there seems to be no doubt that most Democrats—importantly, most superdelegates, regard Obama as the only legitimate choice, and just about no one I know thinks he won't be nominated. Only strong Clinton partisans disagree. I think this is odd, given that the process arguments are pretty evenly balanced. But then one of my rules of life is: All process arguments are insincere, including this one. Democrats, I think, are making the calculation that black voters will deeply resent what they would see as the rejection of a black candidate who has won more delegates in caucuses and (by just a little bit) in primaries. The political argument trumps the process argument, here as it usually does.
I've calculated the Obama and Clinton percentages in all of America's million-plus metro areas, as defined in this article. Here I've presented them ranked by black percentage of population in 2000. Obama does very well in metro areas with the largest black percentages, unsurprisingly, and in some metro areas with very low black percentages. He does relatively poorly in metro areas where central-city politics has polarized voters on racial lines. There's more analysis to be done here, which I may tackle over the weekend.
Million-plus metro areas ranked by black share:
| Black % | Obama % | Clinton % | |
| New Orleans | 48.3 | 63 | 33 |
| Memphis | 41.3 | 65 | 33 |
| Norfolk, Va. | 30.4 | 71 | 29 |
| Richmond, Va. | 28.0 | 72 | 27 |
| Baltimore | 26.9 | 59 | 37 |
| Birmingham, Ala. | 26.4 | 63 | 35 |
| Washington | 23.7 | 65 | 34 |
| Atlanta | 23.5 | 71 | 28 |
| Detroit | 23.4 | * | 54 |
| Cleveland | 20.4 | 49 | 50 |
| Philadelphia | 20.2 | 54 | 45 |
| Jacksonville, Fla. | 19.1 | 44 | 36 |
| New York | 18.9 | 43 | 55 |
| Miami | 18.8 | 33 | 56 |
| Raleigh, N.C. | 18.8 | 64 | 34 |
| Chicago | 18.3 | 65 | 33 |
| Charlotte, N.C. | 18.2 | 62 | 35 |
| St. Louis | 17.5 | 58 | 40 |
| Milwaukee | 15.9 | 60 | 39 |
| Houston | 14.5 | 55 | 44 |
| Indianapolis | 13.2 | 59 | 40 |
| Nashville | 13.2 | 46 | 50 |
| Buffalo | 12.7 | 35 | 61 |
| Columbus, Ohio | 12.7 | 52 | 47 |
| Louisville, Ky. | 12.6 | 43 | 55 |
| Orlando | 12.1 | 34 | 51 |
| Dallas | 12.1 | 57 | 43 |
| Kansas City | 12.0 | 50 | 48 |
| Rochester, N.Y. | 11.6 | 42 | 55 |
| Cincinnati | 11.3 | 50 | 49 |
| Oklahoma City | 10.4 | 41 | 49 |
| Hartford, Conn. | 10.1 | 51 | 47 |
| Tampa | 9.4 | 33 | 51 |
| Pittsburgh | 8.6 | 39 | 61 |
| Los Angeles | 8.2 | 41 | 55 |
| San Francisco | 8.2 | 48 | 48 |
| Las Vegas | 7.5 | 44 | 54 |
| Sacramento, Calif. | 7.1 | 47 | 47 |
| Inland Empire, Calif. | 6.9 | 35 | 59 |
| Boston | 6.8 | 41 | 54 |
| Austin | 6.7 | 60 | 39 |
| San Diego | 6.3 | 44 | 50 |
| San Antonio | 6.1 | 43 | 56 |
| Minneapolis** | 5.7 | 67 | 32 |
| Seattle** | 5.6 | 52 | 45 |
| Denver ** | 5.3 | 65 | 34 |
| Phoenix | 4.3 | 43 | 49 |
| Providence, R.I. | 4.6 | 36 | 62 |
| Portland, Ore. | 3.0 | 59 | 40 |
| Salt Lake City | 1.2 | 57 | 39 |
* Obama was not on the Michigan ballot.
** Denotes cities in states that held caucuses.
Tags: Democrats | presidential election 2008 | primaries | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | race
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (51) | Print
Reader Comments
OBAMA WINS POPULAR VOTE
By any REASONABLE measurement, the popular vote was very close. In fact, it could really be considered a toss up, an even split.
However, if one had to proclaim a winner of the popular vote by using REASONABLE fair measurements, there was a winner. The winner was Obama and not Clinton as the writer so obviously favors.
If one includes all results as agreed to by all candidates at the start of the campaign season, Obama wins.
If one changes the rules in the middle of the campaign season and counts all results where both Clinton's and Obama's names appear on the ballot, Obama wins.
If one goes even further by changing the rules in the middle of the campaign season and includes Michigan where Obama's name does not appear, who wins??? If you count all the votes (uncommitted to Obama and include all 50 states, you know states like Iowa, Maine, Neveda, and Washington), it's Obama again.
In fact, the only way Clinton wins is by giving her 300,000 votes and Obama 0 in the Michigan election or, if you include uncommitted, by only counting 46 states (and, silly me, I thought all 50 states had elections). To me, that's UNREASONABLE.
Yes, there was a winner of the popular vote. It was close. By any REASONABLE, definition, it was OBAMA.
By any REASONABLE measurement, the popular vote was very close. In fact, it could really be considered a toss up, an even split.
However, if one had to proclaim a winner of the popular vote by using REASONABLE fair measurements, there was a winner. The winner was Obama and not Clinton as the writer so obviously favors.
If one includes all results as agreed to by all candidates at the start of the campaign season, Obama wins.
If one changes the rules in the middle of the campaign season and count all results where both Clinton's and Obama's names appear on the ballot, Obama wins again.
If one goes even further by changing the rules in the middle of the campaign season and includes Michigan where Obama's name does not appear, who wins??? If you count all the votes (uncommitted to Obama and include all 50 states, you know states like Iowa, Maine, Neveda, and Washington), it's Obama again.
In fact, the only way Clinton wins is by giving her 300,000 votes and Obama 0 in the Michigan election or, if you include uncommitted, by only counting 46 states (and, silly me, I thought all 50 states had elections). To me, that's UNREASONABLE and not really fair. This is the only way anyone can say Clinton won the popular vote.
Yes, there was a winner of the popular vote. It was close. Yet, by any REASONABLE definition, it was OBAMA.
OBAMA WINS POPULAR VOTE
By any REASONABLE measurement, the popular vote was very close. In fact, it could really be considered a toss up, an even split.
However, if one had to proclaim a winner of the popular vote by using REASONABLE fair measurements, there was a winner. The winner was Obama and Clinton as the writer so obviously favors.
If one includes all results as agreed to by all candidates at the start of the campain season, Obama wins.
If one changes the rules in the middle of the campain season and counts all results where both Clinton's and Obama's names appear on the ballot, Obama wins.
If one goes even further by changing the rules in the middle of the campain season and includes Michigan where Obama's name does not appear, who wins??? If you count all the votes (uncommitted to Obama and include all 50 states, you know states like Iowa, Maine, Neveda, and Washington), it's Obama again.
In fact, the only way Clinton wins is by giving her 300,000 votes and Obama 0 in the Michigan election or, if you include uncommitted, by only counting 46 states (and, silly me, I thought all 50 states had elections). To me, that's UNREASONABLE.
Yes, there was a winner of the popular vote. It was close. By any reasonable, definition, it was OBAMA.
advertisement
