What Would Make a Clinton Popular Vote Lead Legitimate?

I am having a helluva itme seeingg www.usnews.com in Firefox 9.3, I just thought IK would let you know?

seo lace of AL 1:25AM May 03, 2010

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.

MIKE of GA 3:58AM June 07, 2008

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.

MIKE of GA 3:44AM June 07, 2008

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?

Michael Karns of 12:33PM May 28, 2008