Clinton has no plausible way to win the popular vote - Political Forum

W.E.B. Du Bois · #1 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 10:20 AM

Have a look at some analysis by MSNBC's political director, Chuck Todd:

First thoughts: Contest No. 45 - First Read - msnbc.com

Quote:

*** The popularity contest: That brings us to the popular vote... According to our turnout estimates (based on past results and talks with the campaigns and also assuming a bump), it is unlikely that Clinton will completely erase Obama’s lead in the popular vote without factoring in Florida and Michigan. Here's a fairly rosy scenario for Clinton, which assumes big wins in her states and somewhat narrow wins for Obama in his states of the contests that remain.

So that projection gives Clinton a net gain of 167,500 popular votes for the rest of the remaining primaries -- if everything plays out by the projections above. Obviously, we encourage folks to play around with these numbers themselves. So Team Clinton couldn't get there with also adding Florida; they'd need Michigan, too... and maybe even try and count total Puerto Rico votes -- which, turnout-wise could look like Oregon, but in reverse. So MAYBE she could net another 60,000 votes out of Puerto Rico. Of course, if Clinton gets a big win out of Pennsylvania, she might be able to narrow the gap in places like North Carolina and Oregon and then suddenly her net popular vote take could increase. To have ANY chance of selling legitimacy to this popular vote game, she'll need to cut his lead without the use of Michigan. Maybe, she can include Florida; there are a chunk of superdelegates who would give her that, but most will not give her Michigan.

Even in a pretty bad scenario for Obama, Hillary still can't get the popular vote. Only if Obama's campaign basically has some catastrophic failure, can she get the popular vote.

TheHat · #2 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 03:31 PM

The popular vote wont matter at the end of the day. The Democratic Party negated popular vote back in the 1970s when they instiuted the Super-Delegates to make sure they didnt have anymore landslide losses. I know they still have Carter and Dukakis but none the less, the Super Delegates are the "kings to whom on bended knee the masses will praise."

mairead · #3 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 05:26 PM

Will the super delegates not go along with the wishes of the people? Do the wishes of the people matter over there, they don't much matter here
Best of luck for OBAMA tonight in PA anyway

SamInTheSouth · #4 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mairead

Will the super delegates not go along with the wishes of the people?

If they did, what would be the point then of having them in the first place?

W.E.B. Du Bois · #5 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 02:08 AM

Have a look at this video guys. It's the same guy who I quoted from in the OP. He's an awesome guy.

W.E.B. Du Bois · #6 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHat

The popular vote wont matter at the end of the day. The Democratic Party negated popular vote back in the 1970s when they instiuted the Super-Delegates to make sure they didnt have anymore landslide losses. I know they still have Carter and Dukakis but none the less, the Super Delegates are the "kings to whom on bended knee the masses will praise."

The popular vote is the key. It's too powerful a concept to ignore. The popular vote = legitimacy. You cannot win a US election without legitimacy. The other half of the (D) coalition will defect without the other side having legitimacy. The Republicans will beat the winner into the ground if they win by unelected delegates and overturn the popular vote with unelected delegates. What makes this an even more flawed strategy for HRC is that a lot of her super delegates are NOT EVEN ELECTED OFFICIALS. They are PARTY officials. You want to win because of the votes of party bosses?

mairead · #7 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 02:12 AM

According to the TV new here at 6am, GMT it appears that Clinton has won the popular vote in PA with 99% of votes counted, but Obama is leading in the super delegates race.
I take it then, that if Obama gets more overall super delegates votes, then Clinton will have to concede.
Excuse me if I don't get everything right here, I am somewhat ignorant of American political strategies, and that's why some of my questions appear daft..

notahack · #8 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 07:30 AM

This is a primary to see who the Democrats will throw against McCain. It doesn't matter if Oprahma has more delegates. It's so close that if the DNC decides that HillBilly will give McCain a better fight, then she will be the candidate.

Interesting factoids that popped up during the counts last night. More people said they will stay home and not vote if HillBilly is anointed. On the HillBilly side, more % said they would throw over to McCain than not vote at all if Oprahma is chosen.

That is a huge point for the DNC to look at and a point I raised previously. If HillBilly runs in November, it will be a smaller voter turnout but less Dems will cross the line to McCain.

If Oprahma runs, you will see Dems from HillBilly cross to McCain and Oprahma may be too liberal to pull it off against a more centrist Republican in McCain.

The Clintons know the electoral college process all too well and a small voter turn out might be the ticket to Penn Ave for the libs this year. With the political hacks and big machine politics, the Clintons could pull this off and the DNC knows that. It's not about "what the people want", it's about winning the coveted oval office.

mairead · #9 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 08:26 AM

Thanks for that explanation.

TheHat · #10 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

They are PARTY officials. You want to win because of the votes of party bosses?

Party officials are even that more important. The party is more important then anyone candidate so therefore the party official, which is what the super delegates are, will be the deciding factor.