Just include South Dakota and Montana (both this TUES) in here too since having 3 small threads isnt needed, is it?

PR (98%): Clinton 68% - 175,715, Obama 32% - 82,374

She can now make the argument that she has the most votes, and not going with her would be like Gore/Bush in 2000, now that FL and MI are back in play (FL Popular vote is being included now), though it likely won't be enough to sway enough supers to go with her unless it does indeed to go Denver and a mess occurs.

doesn't matter. it's all over. she's going to dropout soon.

I've never seen such a group of people be in SUCH denial about ANYTHING.

Honestly... it's extremely sad to watch.

But very enjoyable

She needed to gain at least 130,000 votes to legitimately claim the popular vote, including FL and MI. She didn't get that.

She could make the argument IF a) popular votes mattered and b) she were actually ahead, which she isn't.

Counting FL and the tallied PR votes, she's still behind 183,000 votes. In order to get to Hillary's math, you have to exclude the caucus states (I though every vote counted!?), and include only the MI votes for Hillary and give none of them to Obama.

I sincerely hope none of the supers fall for this nonsense.

Hmmm... according to the math, she needs 212 of the remaining 250 delegates (including superdelegates) to win, or 85%.

Oh yeah, that's gonna happen.

Obama needs 54, or 22%.

If you include MI and all the caucus states (every state should count), she is up by almost 195,000 votes. You obviously can't give Obama any votes in MI since no one voted for him. The only possible way Obama should get any votes from MI is if you count the uncommited as half the actual vote. I'm saying she can argue that she has the popular vote lead, while Obama can argue he does too, but only if you exclude hundreds of thousands of voters in a Democratic Country who broke no rules.


She's not getting the nomination (the only way for this to happen is if it goes to Denver, and her side is able to change the minds of enough pledged delegates and the super delegates, as well as any stray supers left), though if it goes to Denver, no matter the outcome, they DEMs will lose, and I'd almost be happy if that happens since they have no idea to do anything with common sense. Awarding more delegates in a state to someone who lost that state (has happened in both cases), changing the rules in the final week of the primaries, and likely excluding hundred of thousands of voters who didn't break the rules, they are the ones who broke the rules.

Losing the best chance they could possibly have at the White House just MIGHT wake them up.

You can't give Hillary ANY Michigan votes, because it doesn't count. If it would've counted, Obama would have been on the ballot.

Hillary would have lost even if Obama somehow managed to forget about an entire state.

I think math and Hillaryland do not live in the same planet.

So telling hundreds of thousands of people they count for nothing is the way to go, after we are told all the time that our vote does count? They didn't break any rules. No delegate should be seated in MI because their party, elected officials, broke the rules. Not the citizens of the state who went to the polls.

You do realize that you want to tell the hundreds of thousands who voted "Anyone but Hillary" that their vote doesn't count.

But for those interested in all the various and sundry ways to count, here's a fun Excel spreadsheet: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/ ... ester.html

Yes, because there's no way of knowing how many of those votes went for Obama and Edwards. Had they left their name on the ballot (who cares what the DNC says, let the people vote for who they want) whatever the vote totals for them ended up being should be included in their popluar vote totals. So the only thing with the uncommited vote to do now (if you count it) is to just award half of it to Obama. Again, though, both FL and MI should have ZERO delegates seated since they are the ones who broke the rules. And every accounted for vote should count from both states since excluding voters is never the way to go.

People were told Florida and Michigan wouldn't count. Counting them now is screwing over the people who stayed home and didn't vote, believing what they were told that it didn't matter. They are the disenfranchised voters in this that are rarely mentioned.

Anyway - I'm not convinced Hillary will concede. We keep being told she will but if you just go by what she and people close to her say in public, it sure sounds like she's full steam ahead to the convention. And I think there's like a 20% chance that after the convention she'll launch an independent bid.

I think i'm one of the few unbiased people about how the DNC should go so here's my opinion. Since florida and michigan moved up and they decided to break rules, none of their votes or delegates should count. Don't blame the DNC blame your state for not listening. However, since all this arguing is going on this is how I think it should be counted.

Using JuJu's excel link:

Florida - 50% delegates 100% popular vote
Michigan - 50% delegates 100% popular vote (uncommitted goes to Obama)
Puerto Rico - should not have delegates or popular vote count for anything
Texas - count both primary and caucus

That gives obama still a 250,000 delegate lead. Clinton supporters are delusional, move on.

No, if you give Obama the uncommited vote (though Edwards would have clearly recieved nearly half of it) of MI, and include every caucus, he is up 44K.

PR (100%), Clinton (68.4%) 263,120 - Obama (31.6%) 121,458

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.

The citizens of that state elected the representatives of the state who made the decision. That's called (ready?) democracy. The representatives went right ahead and broke the rules, and the DNC did exactly what they said they would do. Basically, in America, if you are warned beforehand not to do something and you do it anyway, there are consequences.

I am certain that had Hillary lost that state, you would not be making this outrageous argument now.

You know, I live in PA. When they announced the primary schedule and we were in April, I thought "Oh, hell, it will be decided by then, and we won't have a say" because that's how it usually works; a candidate already has the nomination by that time. In fact, Hillary's own people claimed that the nomination would be closed by February 5th. they didn't give a damn about my vote, or Michigan's vote, until they suddenly realized they needed it.

To go screaming "Oh these poor people, they didn't get their say" when they had basically said a big "Fuck You" to all of us beforehand is just another example of how I feel insulted by this campaign. And that's sad, because originally I was very happy with both candidates (as you can see if you read old threads).

It's beautiful how much sense Groucho is making. I'd add something, but my thoughts on this subject are exactly the same.

Still, I can't help, so just this one thing...

For most of the time I was perfectly satisfied with either Obama or Clinton, but the way she's run her campaign since it was becoming pretty clear it's going to be Obama and not her has been gross. The way her campaign (and some rabid supporters) are throwing all sense/math/logic out the window in the name of winning is so sickening.

I started out this campaign as a Clinton supporter, she pissed me off back in December 2007, and since then its just gotten worse. I saw those early advisor's comments as a sign, and sadly it was.

I went from someone who was voting for Clinton, to not wanting her anywhere near the White House, hell even though I think she's been great as a Senator, I am starting feel like that is to close.

I hate HIllary's campaign, and right now I can't really say how I feel about her, I am too frustrated.

Though the fact that Geradline Ferraro remains the sole female representation on the Presidential ticket still makes my skin crawl, that woman, I'd hit with a bus first chance I got.

That is the main problem -- a lot of Hillary supporters want a female President so bad they are willing to lower their standards.

I also would like to see a woman President. I am very happy we have a female Speaker of the House, and have worked on campaigns for women going back to the mid 80s when I was a campaign manager for a female state representative in Boston. We definitely need more women in office.

But being a woman in and of iteself is not enough. She still needs to be the best candidate of all the candidates running!

Exactly, yes, I would like to see a female President, but after Bush my main requirement is some level of competence.

Also, I want a President who does not think the rules don't apply to them, a la Bush, and Clinton seems to feel this way.

Her campaign has Clinton seem way to Bush like for my tastes.

I honestly think once this campaign is over, I could go back to liking and respecting Clinton, but every day this campaign drags on the more I am frustrated and annoyed.

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.

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.

well technically obama doesnt actually have any michigan numbers