What Would Make a Clinton Popular Vote Lead Legitimate?
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.
Fuzzy fuzzy math
Re: Jessica of NJ @ 10:31:30 AM:
What she said, Mr. Barone. You're shillin' some mighty stinky doo-doo, I mean, what do you owe the Clintons? 'cause this post is sad, truly sad. What this country needs, more than anything else, is a president who can play by the rules, not try and change them (like a petulant, spoiled brat with a poisonous sense of self entitlement) as she goes or after the fact, or after losing to a faster, stronger, better, more mature, and far more organized candidate. If you and Ms. Clinton don't like the rules then go to work after Obama seals the nomination and change them for the next go round. This one's over. I read somewhere that you were a tight, smart read, Mr. Barone. They were wrong. This is crap you're peddling, and you should be embarrassed.
I don't know
what exactly would be a legitimate popular vote win for Hillary. But I do recall a Barone column in November/December 2000 saying that Al Gore's team was using "fuzzy math" to "heist" the election. But isn't that also what Hillary is essentially trying to do with the nomination?
Leaving aside personal opinions of the candidates, it's clear that Hillary is trying to argue that some states are somehow more equal than others, and only try to count those that favor her (as Gore was accused of doing with his call for hand recounts in a few Democratic Florida counties--why not the whole state?) According to Hillary's team, several states that held caucuses should be treated essentially as they don't exist, but Puerto Rico--which is not a state and has no say in the November result--should be viewed as fully legitimate? Not a sensible argument for anyone not a hardcore Hillary partisan. (And to be fair, if we discuss the popular vote and electability then we should downplay Obama's wins in nonstates like the Virgin Islands and American Samoa, as well as Democrats Abroad who have to vote absentee from their home states in the general.)
And then there's the whole Michigan/Florida imbroglio, whose penalties Hillary supported when they were first imposed and now she wants to ignore? Aside from the selective enforcement of rules to help her campaign, fully seating those state's delegations would set a bad precedent--break the rules and you won't suffer any real consequences. It would be an open invitation to hold early contests even earlier, no matter what the schedule says--at that rate Iowa will be having its 2012 caucus in 2010! (I think that FL and MI should have half their delegates seated--to show that sanctions will stick, but denying them any representation is going too far IMO.)
Also, there is the question of how Michigan's "uncommitted" delegation should be seated. Here, as in Florida 2000, the question of "voter intent" comes into play. It was pretty clear that a vote against Hillary was for uncommitted, which mostly meant votes for Obama (did Edwards or anyone else seem likely to clear the 15% threshold for delegates? I doubt it.) But Team Clinton essentially wants to treat Michigan as if nobody intended to register any support for Obama, an argument that cannot possibly be made with a straight face.
With all these questions and imponderables, it seems that the popular vote was essentially a tie. Regardless of which candidate an observer likes better or who they think is more "electable" (arguments for that can be made for both Dems), I don't think that Hillary's campaign has a very good case regarding the popular vote. And if the PV was intended to be so important, then why would any state have caucuses instead of primaries anyway?
Who will be minding the store?
I haven't read all of this. I don't suppose anyone else will either, including this. So what?
It is all about power. Who will make tha best president? President of what?
Power to the party. Promise anything to continue in office or gain enough votes to be re-elected.
Does anybody give a damn what happens to the Country in the meantime?
The Republicans have established that they are just as corruptible and incompetant as the Democrats. I am not a pessimist, but a pox on both parties.
When the chips are down, most Veterans will vote Mc Cain.
Hillary fable-desperate strokes by desperate folks
Fuzzy math - counting illegal michigan & Fl primaries - a real stretch
Hillary signed off on DNC rulings and disenfranchisement.
Flip-flopping(as is her wont) for accidental favourable results. Absurd
No matter how you count legitimate primary votes , delegates , super delegates Obama leads.
The low level Clinton campaign driven by ego vs the higher road Obama campaign driven by ideals . June 4 - superdelegates will put it to rest - and Obama can find a pragmatic idealist for VP ( obviously not Hillary). Perot put Bill into office and Obama will keep Hillary out of office.
I know she doesnt wish for it - but if a poor old uneducated gun - toting white Cathiolic woman with a Hillary campaign button should assasinate Obama ( celebrating the 40th June anniversay of RFK's assasination ) she wants to be first in line to pick up the mantle.
There is a dark empty space in her soul - it is best for all of us that she be gone
Уважаемые студенты, к вам просьба!
Уважаемые студенты, любители приколов, и ненавистники преподов :)
Обращаемся к вам с просьбой найти преподавателя без определенного имени и фамилии, на основании голоса и его коронных фраз.
Человек пропал или просто грамотно скрывается, судя по всему он преподает или преподавал в одном из московских ВУЗов,
если есть время, пожалуйста прослушайте пару MP3 файлов на сайте pizdopidor.ru есть прямые ссылки, возможно это ВАШ учитель.
Модераторы, не сочтите за спам, адрес сайта мы размещаем исключительно только как текст, нам очень нужно донести весь огромный объем информации до людей, а не засорять интернет ссылками.
Адрес сайта с дополнительной информацией pizdopidor.ru
B.S ALL PRESIDENTS
I HATE PRESIDENTS.
=]
FUCK THE SYSTEM.
HAVE A NICE DAY =)
LOVE
BONITA
OH... IMMA GRAFF ARTIST... I WILL BE POSTIN BULLSHIT ON PRESIDENTS FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE!!!
FUCK PRESIDENTS...
DON'T VOTE... BECAUSE THEY WILL CHOOSE WHOEVER THEY WANT ANYWAY!!!
DUMB FUCKERS....
THEY INPOSED WAR ON A IRAN!!!
WTF IS THAT ABOUT
THEY ARE GREEDY FUCKERS WHO WANT ALLL THE FUCKIN LAND
FUCK THAT...
LOOK AT ALL THEM INNOCENT LIVES OUT THERE GETTING KILLED FOR WHAT????
FREEDOM??
FUCK THAT... NOT FREEDOM...
THEY ARE GETTIN KILLED FOR LAND!!!
DUMB FUCKS
GREEDY ASS PPL.
FUCK BUSH... HE IS A DUMB FUCK
Michigan/florida
The democracts need to walk a fine line with the florida/michigan issue.
The probelm with not seating and counting voters in Michigan and florida is the effects it might have on those "swing states" in general election in November. You might end up having bitter voters in both of those states if they are not counted now and democracts need those 2 swing states in November if they are to win general election.
If you go ahead and seat and count voters in FL and MI,even though she will still be behind in the delegate count,you most likely put Hillary ahead in the overall popular vote,and that gives her plenty of ammunation to take this thing to the convenation in Aug.I honestly could not blame her if she is ahead even by the slightest of margains in popular vote to take this thing forward,it's the superdelegates who decide and she has a somewhat convincing arguement then.
