Democrats’ “Nightmare” Popular Vote Scenario
A few days ago, I wrote a friend saying that the “nightmare” scenario for the Democrats would be if Obama won the popular vote without Florida but Hillary won it in with Florida.
This morning reading a piece by John Fund in Wall Street Journal’s Political Diary (available by subscription), I learned that Ms. Hillary was already claiming she has “received more votes by the people who have voted than anybody else . . . . if you count . . . the 2.3 million people who voted in Michigan and Florida.”
She can make a colorable claim to including Florida’s votes in the total since both candidates’ names were on the ballot and neither campaigned there. (Well, she did get some press attention for coming to the state on the day of the primary; some of his TV ads appeared on Florida cable stations as part of a national buy.)
But, to include Michigan when hers was the only name on the ballot? Alone among the serious Democratic presidential candidates, all of whom, including the former First Lady, signed a “pledge not to ‘campaign or participate’ in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries,” she kept “her name on the Michigan ballot” when others, including Senator Obama, removed theirs.
With her latest ludicrous claim, Ms. Hillary, in the interest of promoting herself, has accelerated the realization of this “nightmare” scenario for her party. This RealClearPolitics chart shows the numerous ways to calculate popular vote totals in the Democratic primaries and cauci. Most, even those including Florida, give Obama a slight lead. Only when factoring in Michigan (where Ms. Hillary adds to her total, but Mr. Obama cannot add to his since he wasn’t on the ballot) does she come out on top.
By making such an issue of popular vote, Hillary opens her party to further divisions. Because the Democratic candidates pledged not to campaign in the Sunshine and Wolverine state and because of the difficulty in determining Democratic vote totals in several caucus states, there are numerous ways to tabulate the Democratic popular vote total.
Maybe we Republicans should temper our harsh judgment of Mrs. Clinton. We see her yet again fostering further discord in her party.
Welcome Instapundit Readers!! While you’re here, take a gander at some of our latest posts where we discuss anti-Republican bias of gay media (here and here) and how European tolerance of murderous intolerance and provide a Terrorist Guide to American Elections.
UPDATE: Click on more for excerpts from a Democrat’s take on the problematic popular vote count for his party’s 2008 presidential candidates.In the New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg looks at the numerous ways to count the Democratic popular vote and observes:
[The]claim that Clinton is ahead in the popular vote depends entirely on taking seriously the notion that Obama has no support in a state that includes the University of Michigan and the city of Detroit—a claim that suggests that it would be appropriate to award an American Presidential nomination on the basis of an election result that looks like it was imported from North Korea.
Presuming Ms. Hillary does well in the remaining states:
[She] ould have a case [to have won a popular vote majority]. Obama would have one, too—he’d still be a little bit ahead in the popular vote according to to the rules everybody agreed upon in advance, and he would definitely be ahead in elected delegates. She would have a popular vote lead in all the count-Florida-and-Michigan categories. But neither candidate could any longer plausibly claim that he or she was unambiguously the people’s choice.
H/t: RealClearPolitics.
39 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Mrs. Clinton is evil, Mr. Obama is empty. But I rather vote for a evil person whom we know than an empty shell that we can’t fathom.
Comment by ic — April 24, 2008 @ 11:19 pm - April 24, 2008
Full disclosure: I’m a former Michigander an current Floridian, I don’t want either of these two to be president and I’m not sure how much better McCain would be. I’m a longtime Reagan Republican who wishes that there was a Republican in the race.
Both states should count regardless of who made or broke what pledges, who campaigned where or who’s name was on what ballot. Obama could have easily had his name on the MI ballot but chose on his own not to, he also could have campaigned in FL and chose not to. If he chose not to do that because he thought a Clinton would keep its word, he’s too stupid to be President. If he did it out of principal then F— him an the horse he rode in on, because there’s no honor in saying the ignorant, inbred, subsidy parasite hicks in Iowa have more of a right to vote first than residents of other states have to vote at all, and I’d be saying that even if the two states involved weren’t my current and former residence. The Dems used to say every vote had to count, that was their mantra in 2000, they can prove they mean it by seating the MI and FL delegates or deny them and prove that Democrats no longer believe in democracy.
Comment by MarkD — April 24, 2008 @ 11:51 pm - April 24, 2008
Sen. Obama (D-Buyer’s Remorse) will not be the Dems candidate. There are Wrights yet to come, Ayers a’lurking and another Michelle stupidity just around the corner.
Yeah, the Dems will go with evil. The country won’t, but hey….
Comment by Denny, Alaska — April 25, 2008 @ 12:14 am - April 25, 2008
Hmmmmm.
1. Obama did clearly choose to remove his name from Michigan. Something that he wasn’t required to do so. And something a prudent politician shouldn’t have done either.
2. Obama on the other hand did not choose to remove his name from the Florida primary. Why that is, I don’t know. But it does show that Obama had a choice in both states and exercised that choice in both states.
You could make the argument that Obama was foolish to remove his name from the Michigan primary.
After all, as Will Rogers put it, Obama doesn’t belong to an organized political party, he’s a Democrat.
Comment by memomachine — April 25, 2008 @ 12:18 am - April 25, 2008
I haven’t heard anything about how the preferences of the Florida and Michigan voters will be weighed by the superdelegates. If they aren’t factored in, it seems like something that could come back to bite Dems in their collective ass come November. Should be great fun to watch.
Comment by Jon — April 25, 2008 @ 12:55 am - April 25, 2008
Hillary Clinton = selfish bitch
But then you already knew that.
Comment by David — April 25, 2008 @ 1:08 am - April 25, 2008
I doesn’t really matter any more. If Clinton wins the nomination, she will be unable to escape the impression that she stole it. She might well have lost anyway, but this should seal her defeat. If by some chance the winner asks the loser to be the running mate, the public will throw up, again pretty well guaranteeing defeat. I wouldn’t expect either of these to be a publicly debated issue, but the impact will be there. Obama can’t win, and if the Obamaniacs don’t wake up and realize this, they will drag their party down to defeat. Obama has demonstrated that he can’t win big states, and if he loses to Clinton there, while Clinton would probably lose the bulk of them to McCain, then he will guarantee an electoral sweep for McCain. The reasons are arguably ugly, but they are there and can’t be driven away with high rhetoric.
The only real chance the Democrats have is to dump both the candidates in favor of somebody else. Edwards is obviously waiting in the wings for just this scenario, but losing VP candidates don’t make good POTUS candidates. They could turn to Gore, but I suspect Gore wouldn’t be able to expand beyond his monomania for global warming.
It is useful to keep in mind that few former VPs have gone on to win elections. Of those who won without having taken the office by virtue of the death of their predecessor, only Jefferson managed to win two terms, and the circumstances were quite different back then — there are three former VPs who won a single term, J. Adams, Van Buren and Bush senior. You could throw Nixon into this group, but he lost before he won. Of those who won election having already served out a partial term, only T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman and L. Johnson won reelection — the roster of those who didn’t includes such luminaries as Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson, and Arthur. And there’s always Ford.
It says a lot that Clinton has only the meaningless popular vote to support her claim — maybe she should check with former President Gore.
As long as McCain doesn’t get cocky and deviate from his low-key campaign strategy, he should win in a breeze.
Comment by Pink Pig — April 25, 2008 @ 1:12 am - April 25, 2008
There’s a real good calculator for determining the popular vote, based on turnout estimates and margin of victories.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html
I don’t see hrc making up the popular vote difference withou t Florida, but if you inculde Florida she really could win the popular vote.
She has to minimize damage in NC, and win big in IN, WV, and KY. He should win MT and OR, but would need a large margin.
make her margin in IN 10 pts-like OH and PA
+80K
her loss in NC needs to be single digits, but a 9.5 pt win nets obama -118k
16 pt margin for hrc in the clingy states of KY and WV, nets a +112k
she loses OR by 5.5/33k
she loses SD by 10/10k
she loses MT by 10/14k
If you included Florida, she trails by 209K.
After the above scenario she would only pick up 17k, bring her to 192K deficit.
Enter Puerto Rico:
http://www.uaw.org/solidarity/rnews/04/q3/r9/r9n302.cfm
“Puerto Rico is the one U.S. based region that ranks among the highest in the world in voter turnout. In presidential election years, the Puerto Rican voter turnout was 77 percent. In a non-presidential year, the turnout is around 66 percent.”
2 million vote in the Presidential election of 2004, 81%.
Hillary wins 55-45, and she clears 200k.
Comment by paul — April 25, 2008 @ 1:32 am - April 25, 2008
The popular vote would indeed be “meaningless” IF Obama won a majority of delegates. BUT he cannot possibly “win” a majority with pledged delegates and his current super-delegate commitments. The argument for Clinton, therefore, (assuming she wins a majority of the popular vote with Florida but not Michigan included), is that the “will of the people” is at least as important as a plurality of delegates.
Given Obama’s increasing difficulties with white, middle class Democratic voters, this is a viable case. Super-delegates must think about winning the White House, but also about the effect on the down-ticket.
Comment by Jim Addison — April 25, 2008 @ 1:44 am - April 25, 2008
in a more simplistic sense…
There are roughly 4.2 million votes left out there.
Include FL and she need to pick up 210k.
She wins the remaining votes by 52-47, and she made up the difference. Much easier than having to win the delgates.
Her weakness is NC.
Her strengths are KY, IN, WV, PR.
The remainder tilts in her favor.
Comment by paul — April 25, 2008 @ 1:57 am - April 25, 2008
“The popular vote would indeed be “meaningless” IF Obama won a majority of delegates.”
If you are a super delgate who hasn’t voted, 2 questions:
Why have you waited?
What will you use to determine your vote, the other delgates, or the popular vote?
Comment by paul — April 25, 2008 @ 2:00 am - April 25, 2008
I can just imagine if HRC pulls it off,
Obama would become the second famous African-american to get screwed in Colorado. (kobe being the first.)
Comment by paul — April 25, 2008 @ 2:08 am - April 25, 2008
I agree whole-heartedly with MarkD. I don’t think it’s going to matter much who McCain picks as a VP- I will still retain the same level of distrust with him.
However, the democrats have provided hours of laughter to make me forget the pain. Thank you Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, Rev. Wright, Michelle Obama, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Teddy Kennedy, Joe Biden, Geraldene Ferraro, John Kerry, Al Sharpton, Jeese Jackson, Oprah Winfrey, Jack Murtha, John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, plus a cast of thousands from Hollywood- you have made this a most memorable presidental campaign. And it ain’t over yet! Thank you, so called “progressives”!
Comment by Elroy Jetson — April 25, 2008 @ 2:13 am - April 25, 2008
Jim Addison — April 25, 2008 @ 1:44 am - April 25, 2008
Very rational, Jim. There’s just one problem with your thinking. We are talking about Democrats. PC-ness will win the day, Obama cannot be denied. Black trumps woman, the supers don’t dare sink the Messiah.
Comment by Steve-o — April 25, 2008 @ 2:24 am - April 25, 2008
To add to the nightmare:
1. If the Dems had a winner take all system like the GOP, Hillary would be ahead (she would have taken all the votes in California, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc) even without Florida. As you know, in the general election, most states are winner take all.
2. If Hillary were to persuade the superdelegates to vote along with the majority of their state, she would win the majority. This is because, once again, most of the superdelegates come from the populous states that Hillary won.
The second fact gives the superdelegates an “out” when they are accused of subverting the will of the people. They can say that they are simply voting with the national majority (should Hillary come out on top with Florida) or that they are voting with the majority of their state (this should work especially well with Florida superdelegates).
I am a member of the Republican wing of the Republican party, but I switched sides and voted for Clinton in Virgina, partially as Operation CHAOS but partially because I was scared witless of Obama at the time. Now, however, I think he would be easier to beat, event though the media would be 100% on his side.
Comment by Zach — April 25, 2008 @ 3:32 am - April 25, 2008
I love it! The Democrat electoral college (superdelegates) is going to ignore the will of the people, ignore the popular vote, not count all the votes, and select Barack Obama.
Forget Hillary stealing the nomination, according to their own standards, Obama is already stealing it!
Comment by American Elephant — April 25, 2008 @ 3:43 am - April 25, 2008
For all the talk of “popular vote” we must realize that the old votes were only acquired through lack of knowledge - i.e. from Iowa-on the votes were truly based on hope, and an Obomber we didn’t know.
I would love to see a nationwide recount - the “popular vote” would probably be the cankled Hildebeast by a 2-1 margin.
Comment by apb — April 25, 2008 @ 4:22 am - April 25, 2008
If FL and MI Dems get screwed, I wonder how many will vote for McCain (or not vote at all) out of spite? That’s what I’d do!
This really is too much fun for words. Months ago I wanted all this over; now I wish it would go on like this forever. Partly because the agony of the Dems is pure delight but also because this postpones the turmoil to come in our own sick house. If it’s not close in Nov., I’m writing in Fred.
Comment by Peg C. — April 25, 2008 @ 6:55 am - April 25, 2008
If Hillary wins does that mean we get to say “Selected not elected” for four years?
Comment by Vince P — April 25, 2008 @ 6:59 am - April 25, 2008
Peg: The Dems were so cocky at the start of this year it’s really fun to see them self-destruct isn’t it?
Comment by Vince P — April 25, 2008 @ 7:24 am - April 25, 2008
Well, I am a Michigander and a Detroit resident, and in our primary I voted for the candidate I genuinely want to be elected in November–and despite being a lifelong Democrat and former party activist, it was John McCain.
I’m a one-issue voter this year and I would not feel at all safe or confident in either Clinton or Obama, much less their advisors, having charge of national security and defense.
Comment by Alex Bensky — April 25, 2008 @ 7:30 am - April 25, 2008
Where is the media with their 2006-like “Culture of Scandal” with all these Democrats who are finding themselves in trouble..
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/another_dem_governor_may_lose.html
Another Dem governor may lose his job
Ed Waage
Illinois Democrat Governor Rod Blagojevich is facing impeachment talk from within his own party in the wake of the plea agreement of Rezko pal Ali Ata. The Chicago Sun-Times reports
The impeachment drumbeat at the Statehouse grew louder Wednesday, a day after the blockbuster accusation by a former state official that he got his state job after pouring money into Gov. Blagojevich’s campaign fund — including a $25,000 check in an envelope he presented to the governor.
Two House Democrats said discussions on a possible impeachment resolution targeting Blagojevich accelerated after Tuesday’s disclosure by Ali Ata, whom the governor appointed to a $127,000-a-year post running the Illinois Finance Authority.
Only a month ago, Democrat Eliot Spitzer resigned as Governor of New York when a Federal investigation into possible money laundering led to Spitzer’s involvement with a prostitute. Spitzer resigned after he checked with leaders in the New York legislature who informed him that impeachment would be forthcoming if he failed to resign. Blagojevich may find himself in the same situation as his own party is starting to revolt against him.
Blagojevich does have a strong supporter in Illinois Senate President Emil Jones. It was Jones who thwarted an effort recently by the Illinois House to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to allow a recall of key elective officers by the voters (currently, only the legislature can remove a Governor). The Blagojevich administration has helped Jones’ wife, Lorrie Rickman Jones, secure a plum job in the Illinois Department of Public Health two months before Jones married her and a $70,000 raise after he married her. It was also Jones, a Democrat, who helped Obama in his rise to power in the Illinois Senate and thence to the US Senate
[snip]
Comment by Vince P — April 25, 2008 @ 7:44 am - April 25, 2008
What is interesting to me about the Democrat debacle is how it parallels the liberal philosopy. No standards, no rules, no regulations. That leads to chaos. Liberalism in a society leads to chaos. Liberalism in the Democrat primary season leads to such funny entertainment. This Party is making up the rules of the game as they go along. Kind of like Florida 2000. How perfect!
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 25, 2008 @ 9:11 am - April 25, 2008
Arriving here from the happy environs of Instapundit, we are displeased at the impertinence of the author of this very modest place. The person misconstrues our kind condescension in choosing to tarry here as an invitation to familiarity. What could possibly be more cringeffective than such “incursions insinuantes?
If we were dealing with a person who was sensitive to the appropriate tone and the social realities, we might deign a glance of appraisal - might advise on the less than perfectly harmonious interplay of colors, the faulty juxtapositions of narrative mood. After all, one of the obligations placed upon our selves is the cultural improvement of our lessers. But one is disinclined to cast pearls before upstarts. No, indeed, we withdraw.
There are places where the elevated patronage of vaunted habitues of Instapundit is sufficiently recognized and observed. At such a place you may attend me.
Comment by Neil Ferguson — April 25, 2008 @ 9:35 am - April 25, 2008
The time has come to seriously consider the concept of co-president for Mrs. Clinton. The duties of the Vice-President are not detailed in the constitution. It’s perfectly reasonable and legal that Mrs. Clinton and Senator-elect Obama could both run for president, one focusing on International issues, one on Domestic issues. This is the only way to save the party at this point. The whole is stronger than the two parts.
Comment by Yes We Can — April 25, 2008 @ 9:35 am - April 25, 2008
Doctor Dean is ordering that the hemorrhaging be stopped “sorta” STAT. He wants June 15 to be the day when the nomination is clearly decided and the spirit of Rodney King (”can’t we all just get along”) be invoked.
Just what plan Doctor Dean has for avoiding a Fort Marcy Park epiphany, is not known to me. When it comes to Hillary Clinton, I do not think that Doctor Dean understands the sophistication required when you set out to shove 20 feet of red hot chain up the ass of a wild cat that has a toothache and hot flashes.
I wonder if the Democrats will decide not to televise the
riotsconvention?Comment by heliotrope — April 25, 2008 @ 10:01 am - April 25, 2008
Hillary’s argument to superdelegates is that the popular vote is somehow indicative of the Electoral College votes she would win in November.
But she expects to roll up popular votes in a Dem contest in Puerto Rico, a territory with NO electoral votes in the fall.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If the rules are to be broken to count the popular votes in disqualified contests in FL an MI, because they represent EVs that the Dems can’t afford to write off, what’s your rationale for counting popular votes that represent no EVs?
Comment by Norm N Conquest — April 25, 2008 @ 12:02 pm - April 25, 2008
#24 - WTF are you talking about? You sound like an Academic. Well, we are Jacksonians (mostly) here. Of course you don’t understand.
Comment by GayPatriot — April 25, 2008 @ 5:45 pm - April 25, 2008
He’s talking about your “welcome instapundit readers! please have a look around” post. Might be mocking, but it sounds rather tongue-in-cheek to me.
Comment by American Elephant — April 25, 2008 @ 7:42 pm - April 25, 2008
I don’t see what is evil or selfish bout pointing out that you are the popular vote leader, that just a good campaign tactic. It gives her donors hope and continues to get her money, she keeps her supporters with her and keeps her primary chances alive. The Dems primary system is stupid and broken, just do winner take all and be done with it.
FL will most likely be counted as is, there is just no reason not too. They all were on the ballot, no one campaigned there either. Obama was riding his South Carolina win and his big, useless, Kennedy endorsement was all over the news. He still lost, FL dems just didn’t care for him.
MI is going to be a terrible to deal with, I would say just send the delegation and let them vote how they choose. Obama and Clinton will do their best to win over the largest amount of them.
The fact of the matter is, she will fight for this because she, like a lot of us, don’t believe Obama can win. Everyone talks about her thinking more about the party than herself, well…some of us believe she is trying to save the party from itself.
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — April 25, 2008 @ 8:00 pm - April 25, 2008
Obama got hammered in FLA because Hispanics can’t stand him. For whatever reason. In November, Arizonian McCain could win a bigger share of Hispanics than W did and that’s a major story.
I’m still saying who ever loses their bid for the Democrat nomination, their followers are going to be mad as hell and they will go ballistic. Democrats don’t lose and just shrug and go on with their lives. If they lose, it is someones fault. Bush, the white folk, Bill C, the man, Nader,the media, DIEBOL, the Supremes, anyone but the candidate. So prepare yourselves for lots of constant whining from the vanquished Clinton or Obama trolls.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 25, 2008 @ 8:58 pm - April 25, 2008
Obama got hammered in FLA because Hispanics can’t stand him.
One of these days, the Democrat Party is going to realize that if most Hispanics wanted Democrat socialist and leftist economic theory-based governments that blamed the rich and business for all of society’s problems, they would have stayed in the countries they left.
But then again, when you’re in denial about what leftist and socialist economic theories do to a country, you can see why they would miss that.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2008 @ 1:15 am - April 26, 2008
OT: I just found out my son is gay. I feel much better after visiting this site. Thank you for the much needed perspective — and your patriotism. WF Buckley’s vision of erudite conservatism is well represented here — and I will recommend you to my son.
Comment by Air Force Trojan — April 26, 2008 @ 3:54 am - April 26, 2008
#29
Sounded like an attempt at William F. Buckley.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 26, 2008 @ 4:48 am - April 26, 2008
My bet is that “Neil Ferguson” in #24 is the British exemplar of hoof-an-mouth disease. His syntax, near Spoonerisms, and quaint use of the royal “we” all point to a fop out of oxygen. The invitation to seek him out so that we might attend to him is characteristic of a shy and shallow persona which becomes engorged with ego boosting bravado when masked by anonymity.
Comment by heliotrope — April 26, 2008 @ 10:58 am - April 26, 2008
#33: Good luck wth your son.
If he isn’t filled with resentment from real or imagined childhood angst, and if he is a rational person.. then I suspect you won’t notice much different about him.
However, if you think he’s harboring some victimization angst or if he thinks the United States is no better than Iran, then I would say you might want to talk very honestly with him about his inner-most feelings.
Comment by Vince P — April 26, 2008 @ 2:09 pm - April 26, 2008
Air Force Trojan, thanks for coming by.
Four years ago, I was on several levels convinced that there were no other gay conservatives out there. GayPatriot has been a welcome community for me and an opportunity to show the rest of the world that, yes, Virginia, there ARE gay people whose sexual orientation doesn’t turn them into liberal antimilitary moonbats.
I hope your son visits — and you, of course, are more than welcome here.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 27, 2008 @ 12:45 am - April 27, 2008
I think it’s heartening that Air Force Trojan feels a little better knowing that while his son may be gay, at least it doesn’t mean he has to be a liberal.
Comment by American Elephant — April 27, 2008 @ 7:54 am - April 27, 2008
[...] Given the margin of her victory, I’d care a lot if I were a Democrat. It’s not just that she won the Mountain State by forty points (or 144,000 votes), she’s also favored to win Kenucky next week, the most populous state which has yet to vote. A victory there could narrow the popular vote lead he currently enjoys, possibly even push her ahead if Florida is factored in, creating what I termed “The Democrats’ ‘Nightmare’ Popular Vote Scenario.” [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Hillary’s Meaningless Mountain State Victory? — May 14, 2008 @ 2:30 am - May 14, 2008