Yes, because there's no way of knowing how many of those votes went for Obama and Edwards.

And if you count how many baseballs were hit in the recent game, team A was up by eight. Too bad the rules required you to instead run around the bases and get home.

You can't give any to Superman either, as he also wasn't on the ballot. I am astounded, dumbfounded and insulted by the Hillary people who broke the rules of the game and are now trying to claim the moral high ground. You must really think we're stupid. Have you noticed yet that your argument has not worked on those of us who are not blind Hillary supporters?

Yeah, but we're not in Bizzaro World, where everything is the opposite.

Here are the latest popular vote numbers from RCP. Clinton is ahead only when you don't give any vote to Obama in MI and count all votes for her. However, breaking the votes down that way (328,309 to 0) doesn't make sense when the pledged delegates in MI are assigned 69-59. The most logical way would be to assign the popular votes in MI by the same percentage (54%-46%) to each candidate too, and in that case, Obama would lead by more than 50,000, not to mention he is going to gain some more on Tuesday.

As I have argued in the past, within the context of the 2008 Democratic nomination contest, any attempt to determine who won the "popular vote" should adhere to democratic principles itself, as best as can be done. This is because the "popular vote" is not a legal argument, and not specific to any campaign, but instead a moral one based on abstract principles of democracy. As such, popular vote totals should do the following:


Include the will of all those who participated in delegate selection contests for the Democratic National Convention.

Allocate only one vote to each participant in those contests.

In cases where participants did not have their preferences recorded, do everything possible to estimate those preferences.

Failure to do this is to engage in the "popular vote" argument in bad faith, since it turns a moral argument about democratic principles into a selective, partisan argument about power. And yes, one side is more guilty of the other on this front. However, that does not lessen the principles involved--it lessens those who twist those values.

According to the above principles, with South Dakota and Montana left to vote, Hillary Clinton currently holds an extremely narrow 19,899-vote lead over Barack Obama in the popular vote. Here are the current totals:


Clinton: 17,916,763
Obama: 17,896,864


These totals include Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington, even though no official popular vote numbers were kept. They also include Florida, even though there was only minimal campaigning in the state before the primary took place and even though many people thought it wouldn't count. These totals also include Michigan, even though Obama's name was not on the ballot. They do, however, also allocate 72.91% of the "uncommitted" vote to Obama, which is the amount of the uncommitted vote exit polls indicate he would have received in the state had his name been on the ballot. In short, these numbers are the final line from the Real Clear Politics popular vote count, minus 64,504 votes in Michigan that came from people who indicated they would have supported either John Edwards or Bill Richardson, had they been on the ballot.

Now, with about 275,000 votes left to go in South Dakota and Montana, and with Obama holding double-digit leads in both states, it would be pretty surprising if Obama did not end up as the winner of the popular vote. Of course, since these are estimates, there is also a small margin of error in this count that might throw the outcome of the "popular vote" into question. Undoubtedly, supporters of both sides will also continue to push different totals, for all of the reasons listed above. However, this count is really the only popular vote total worth making, because it is the one that most closely adheres to the democratic principle of one person, one vote. It is, course, still imperfect.


Unless something surprising happens on Tuesday, Barack Obama will narrowly win the popular vote. Despite all of the imperfections in the system, that should still matter to anyone who holds democratic principles and intra-party democracy as valuable. Just as importantly, it should also make plain the need reform the process in determining our nominee, so that a disaster like this never happens again. While it is unlikely anyone reading his will ever live to see another nomination campaign this close, it isn't only close elections where adhering to democratic principles matter. We need to do everything we can to make sure that the system is as fair as possible to all of the people participating in the process, and about upholding our own values in the process, not just about electing the cult of personality of the month. That is a perspective that I think has been largely forgotten in this nomination campaign on both sides, and needs to be regained as quickly as possible.

well technically obama doesnt actually have any michigan numbers

Great, now the Obama supporters are making the case that votes are irrelevant.

Yeah Corpse, what's the point of using popular vote as a statistic if you only count Hillary in Michigan? It's not like Obama will be left off the ballot in the general election. The only way the popular vote thing makes sense is if you count his Michigan numbers.

Obama doesn't have any MI votes.

True, which makes Hillary's argument that we should count "everyone's" vote so idiotic -- because no one counted Obama's support in Michigan. Surely there is at least one person who would have voted for him?

Obama doesn't have any MI votes.

Obama doesn't have any MI votes.

There's no talking to some rabid Clinton supporters. No amount of simple math or a review of the rules everyone agreed to follow (and as others have mentioned, rules that Clinton was okay with before she started to lose) is going to sway anyone who's so blindly following.

Such stubborn anti-reasoning speaks volumes.

You're a bit thick really arent you. When the MI primary went down people knew it wouldnt count. It wasnt as if it happened then they found out later it wouldnt count. This is the reason why Obama/Edwards etc took their names off the ballot. Had their names been on the ballot do you think Hillary would have got as many votes as she did? Do you think Obama would have got 0 votes honestly?

Hillary is pathetic. If her supporters are so vast and passionate then why aren't they supporting her financially like Obama's? She claims to have more people vote for her than anyone in a primary election history yet she's $20 million in debt.

It makes sense in a way that the repuliblicans that switched over to the Democratic party to vote for Hillary in the primaries wouldn't dare give up a penny to actually support her campaign.

So while she's out bragging about her 17 million popular vote. Isn't it reasonable to assume a decent percentage of that 17 million (probably 5% or less but still a large number) only voted for her to cause this scenario. And there is no way she's going to have their vote in November in states like Ohio and PA...

The superdelegates aren't all dumb. They more than likely know whats on.

Y'all need to stop being so bitter and just face it : HILLARY LOST

They voted for "Uncommited", and "Uncommited" is not on left in the race. At the time, Richarson and Edwards were still in the race, and saying all those uncommited votes would go for Obama is stupid. Edwards would have at LEAST received 15% (though I think more around 20%) of those Uncommited votes. All the Uncommited can be counted as "anyone but Hillary", but that anyone isn't just Obama, because more than just Obama was in the race at the time.

Of course Obama wouldn't have received 0 votes in MI had he left his name on the ballot for people to vote for him even if it didn't count. That's why splitting the "uncommited" is the best thing to do at the moment.

No one is arguing whether or not Clinton has lost, she has. What people are arguing is over the votes. By not counting the votes in MI, the DEM party is going to risk losing MI to McCain in the fall.

So you're saying that half the people who voted uncommited should be counted as Hillary votes? How can you justify any of those votes going to her when she was the ONLY name on the ballot and they STILL chose not to vote for her? Are you saying they would've changed their vote to Hillary if she had competition?

Do you realize how little sense this makes?

aldkfjadkfjladfk

I just made more sense than this argument.

They DID count the votes in MI, despite being under no obligation to do so. Why hasn't that shut up the Clinton supporters? Because nothing short of crowning her the Queen of America will satisfy her supporters.

Never said that.

I said half the uncommited should go to Obama, while the other half would go to Edwards if he was still in this, but he isn't, so there's just nothing left to do with them since only Clinton and Obama are left. Since Hillary received Hillary votes in MI, they should obvioulsy be counted. Those were actual votes, for an actual candidate.

I'm not one of those die-hard supporters.

I said half the uncommited should go to Obama, while the other half would go to Edwards if he was still in this, but he isn't, so there's just nothing left to do with them since only Clinton and Obama are left. Since Hillary received Hillary votes in MI, they should obvioulsy be counted. Those were actual votes, for an actual candidate.