The latest in a series of metrics: how about the electoral-college vote?

March 24, 2008

I miss January. It seems like quite a while ago, but after the Iowa caucuses, there was general agreement about the metrics for the Democratic presidential race. The Obama campaign said it was a race for delegates; the Clinton campaign said it was a race for delegates. The Obama campaign said Florida and Michigan shouldn’t count; the Clinton campaign said Florida and Michigan shouldn’t count. Merriment and joy swept over the land.

It’s grown considerably more complicated since then. Hoping to find a scenario that makes Hillary Clinton’s nomination more likely, her campaign has floated a series of competing and ever-evolving metrics. We should count delegates, but caucuses aren’t as important as primaries. And delegates aren’t as important as the popular vote. And red states aren’t as important as blue states. And small states aren’t as important as big states.

Over the weekend, we heard a brand new one from a campaign surrogate and possible Clinton running mate: let’s count by electoral votes.

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.

He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.

“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

In a primary, of course, electoral votes are not relevant, but the Clinton campaign is trying to use them as an unofficial measure of strength.

Bayh’s comment may not have been a stray remark. Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson followed up by telling the NYT, “Presidential elections are decided on electoral votes,” suggesting this is a new argument being pushed by the campaign.

I wish it weren’t.

The NYT added this:

Mr. Obama, of Illinois, is ahead of Mrs. Clinton, of New York, in most other leading indicators: popular vote (by 700,000 votes out of 26 million cast, excluding caucuses and the disputed Florida and Michigan results, a difference of about 3 percent); delegates (1,622.5 compared with 1,472.5 for her, according to The New York Times’s count); and number of states (27 compared with 14 for her, excluding Florida and Michigan). The opinion polls are mixed but give Mr. Obama a slight edge.

Sure, Obama’s leading in all of these traditional ways of picking a nominee, but what about Bayh’s proposed way of counting? It’d be close, but if we count by electoral votes, Clinton would enjoy an edge: “Mrs. Clinton has won states with a total of 219 Electoral College votes, not counting Florida and Michigan, while Mr. Obama has won states with a total of 202 electoral votes.”

The problem, of course, is that it’s just not credible to keep searching for new ways to juggle the results to get the conclusion one wants. If the Clinton campaign had recommended this metric tally in, say, December, it’d be easier to take it seriously now. As it stands, though, it starts to look like the campaign will keep looking for new counting methods until it’s pleased with the one that shows its candidate ahead.

Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said that the idea of using the Electoral College as a metric was specious because the Democratic nominee, regardless of whom it was, would almost certainly win California and New York.

True.

So, maybe we can just stick to the usual way of measuring the results?

This is just a variation in the big state argument they’ve been using. One flaw in this argument is that there is no correlation between winning a state in a primary and how one does in the general election as the population of primary voters is different from general election voters. A candidate like Obama who gets more support from independents and Republicans, in addition to support from Democrats, could easily lose to Clinton in a primary but have a better shot of winning the state in the general election.

One example is that Clinton has a considerable lead over Obama in Pennsylvania but some polls show that Obama does better than Clinton against McCain in polls with hypothetical general election match ups.

If they are trying to argue that winning the equivalent of more electoral votes is in itself meaningful, this doesn’t hold up at all. The nomination process is clearly based upon delegates won by the candidate, not how many electoral votes there are in the states they won.

  • This isn’t playing well in the press. MSNBC just had a roundtable in which it was dismissed as “desperate” and “grasping at straws.”

    Time for the supers to weigh in.

  • One advantage of this primary is that it’s tipped the hand of power hungry, fact-challenged Democrats like Bayh, who supports telecom immunity. Probably should have a little primary challenge of his own the in the near future.

  • Guess if you can’t win by the rules, keep changing them and moving the goalposts. Just goes to show how dishonest shillary’s supporters can be – they must have some real vested interest in protecting the criminality behind this administration.

  • “I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country,” Bill Clinton said in Charlotte, N.C. “And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.”

    And to think he was talking about Mr. Campaign-laws-don’t-count and Mrs. Election-rules-don’t count. The birds are chirping; the daffodils are blooming; silly season is upon us.

  • It occurred to me that Hon. Sen. Clinotn’s pledged delegate count is now enough to secure the nomination if all the supers side with her. This means that her only real chance at the nomination—in which scenario Hon. Sen. Barack is ‘hit with a political meteor’—is not influenced by any further campaigning on her part. Either Sen Barack avoids any meteors, or he does not, in which case, the supers will abandon him at the convention. Please, do the party a favor!

  • If Hillary is really serious about winning this thing, she should suggest a pie-eating contest between the candidate’s spouses. Frankly, I think Bill could take Michelle on this one.

  • You know I was wondering how Senator Obama was leading in the popular vote.

    They don’t count Florida. So not getting their delegates wasn’t punishment enough, now they don’t even get considered in their popular vote.

    I can understand Michigan, where Senator Obama’s name wasn’t on the ballot, but both Senator Clinton and Obama were on the ballot in Florida, and the turnout was a record high (which has been the case just about everywhere). Why not count those votes in determining the leader of popular votes?

    And yes, I know the answer.

  • Yeah, let’s count California’s electoral college votes towards Clinton, even though she got just over half of them. And let’s pretend that Obama wouldn’t get all those votes if he got the Democratic nomination.

    Jesus.

    The Clintons and their supporters obviously no longer give a shit what anyone thinks of them. They are giving everyone the finger from their bunker.

    They kinda remind me of the Bush clan that way.

  • Suggestions that somehow Hillary is not playing by the rules are ridiculous. People making the charge never support it. They can’t. The rules are simple. A candidate must get 2025 delegates to win. Those are the rules. For weeks Obama fans have been touting the metric that he won the most states. Well, the number of states you win has nothing to do with anything in presidential politics, not in the primaries, nor in the general election. As things stand right now neither Obama nor Clinton can win without the super delegates. They are both vying for super delegate votes to put them over the top. Neither of them are breaking the rules in doing this. Yet Obama supporters insist that Hillary is somehow breaking the rules by competing for super delegates. Again, this charge is a lie. If the Clinton campaign wants to push the idea that winning the states with the most electoral college votes is an important metric well then they certainly have that right. It is at least as honest a measure as saying Obama won the most states. The talking points about Hillary somehow trying to steal the election are spawned and promoted by the MSM. The Obama folks parrot these talking points for their own selfish reasons even though they have no basis in fact.

  • This is just stupid. As I think you pointed out before, even though Clinton won Massachusetts, it’s not like Obama would lose it in a general election. Or, to put this another way, just because Clinton won Ohio doesn’t mean she’d win Ohio in the general election. If the Clinton campaign really wants to run with this nonsense, they need to compare Obama against McCain using electoral votes and Clinton against McCain using electoral votes. Of course, it’d require a ridiculous amount of polling to do this, so they’re just going to pretend that what they’re saying is the same thing. Ridiculous.

  • The popular vote shouldn’t matter either, all that matters are the number of delegates. We started this thing with rules, why do they don’t seem to matter any more?

  • Howard Wolfson is really losing it – the latest is he’s referring to Gen. McPeak as “Merrill” (Morning Joe – 3/24)

  • Lance,

    Go ahead and count Florida. It changes nothing. She only nets 288,000 – not enough to cover the 700,000+ lead.

    But ultimately, what does that matter? Caucuses still aren’t counted in the popular total. Why don’t we count them?

  • “For weeks Obama fans have been touting the metric that he won the most states….”

    Uh, no. We’ve been touting the fact that he leads (and will likely continue to do so til the end) in the number of pledged delegates. The fact that he won more states is just another thing to brag about. 🙂

    Nice try,Johnny.

  • Electoral college is how presidents get elected, should we ignore this altogether, just like we are ignoring FL or MI? Once again, this is related to the fact that she is winning all of the big swing states that make or break a presidential election, only it now has a solid number that can be tallied.

    This is all about courting superdelegates, and is fair.

  • You see, a full house beats three of a kind, except on Mondays. And a royal flush always wins except for three days after a full moon in March.

    😉

  • I wonder if anyone will point out that the “let’s count by electoral votes” spin contradicts the older “only big states count” spin. In the electoral college, small, rural states are far more powerful on a per-capita basis than are large states, due to the addition of two electors per state to match the state’s Senate delegation. Thus a Wyoming voter counts nearly three times as much as a California voter, at least in the electoral college.

    For weeks Obama fans have been touting the metric that he won the most states.

    Actually they’ve mostly been touting the metric that Obama has won more pledged delegates and more votes overall. The “he’s won more states, too” argument is just icing on the cake. Way to go, ignore the stronger arguments.

    Yes, it’s true Clinton could win the nomination if she got a sufficient supermajority of superdelegates. If you think that’s a plausible scenario at this point, then I’ve got this great deal on the deed to a bridge you might want to bid on over at eBay.

  • …’ve got this great deal on the deed to a bridge you might want to bid on over at eBay. -jimBOB

    Make a corn flake shaped like Illinois and you’re on.

  • This is a distorted metric that gives California’s electoral votes to Clinton, even though Obama would carry California just as easily. It’s not just an artificial and bizarre way to measure electability, it ignores the Clinton campaign’s consistent record of “not getting it” when it comes to winning elections. At every step of the way Obama has found new voters, and at each step of this process Clinton has chosen to ignore states in which she was not competitive.

    It should also be noted that Obama’s popular vote lead is still substantial when Michigan and Florida are counted. Al Giordano has pointed out that even if you gave Clinton the MI and FL delegates she “won,” she would still trail in the delegate count.

    None of this, however, changes the fact that the Clinton campaign can still win if they’re willing to escalate their scorched earth campaign to deny the nomination to Obama. All they have to do is keep campaigning for John McCain like they’ve been doing, continue with their veiled racist attacks, and continue to hyperventilate every time Obama or an Obama surrogate responds to their attacks. Already they have convinced a large part of the Democratic party that it’s Clinton or nothing. That’s something they can deliver on, because with Clinton you do get nothing — nothing but more failed Republican economic nostrums, as evidenced by HRC’s call for Alan Greenspan and Bob Rubin to come up with some solutions for all the problems they created.

    I shut down my blog a few weeks ago because I cannot ramp my anger down to an appropriate level suitable for an Obama supporter (and I’m still getting used to saying that). Nonetheless, the fact remains that Obama has electrified our nation with his positive message, and Team Clinton is doing their damnedest to weaken our presumptive nominee.

    It’s time to call it like it is: Bill Clinton was our best Republican president in recent decades, and his wife would just give us more of the same pro-corporate hooey.

  • “As it stands, though, it starts to look like the campaign will keep looking for new counting methods until it’s pleased with the one that shows its candidate ahead.” – Mr. CB

    Or until they just wear everyone down which results in capitulation out of frustration with not wanting to listen to whatever they come up with next. It’s a very childish game of “We are too”/”You are not” and Camp Clinton shows every intention of saying “We are too” as long as anyone wants to play the game. It may be one reason why the media is still counting them in. Just knowing that they will continue to display the persistence needed to push the illusion of full engagement is enough to keep the media waiting to see who’s got the most stamina. A dead horse might be resurrected after all. Or so Camp Clinton would have us believe.

    Bullying a stupid, ineffective, even delusionally ridiculous message until the world gives up and accepts the inevitable is RepubCo 101. RepubCo has gotten away with bargeloads of B.S. for no better reason than that they stood their ground and wouldn’t let go. Hillary imagines the added satisfaction of not only getting what she wants but doing it in spite of the world telling her she couldn’t have it.

  • “RepubCo has gotten away with bargeloads of B.S. for no better reason than that they stood their ground and wouldn’t let go.”

    Including a fat, shiny presidency of their own.

  • “If the Clinton campaign wants to push the idea that winning the states with the most electoral college votes is an important metric well then they certainly have that right.” -Johnny

    She certainly does, but then we’re just getting into “silly season.” The DNC doesn’t use electoral votes to determine its nominees for a very good reason: the electoral vote counts are determined by measures that take into account the total state population (# of Representatives), Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and unregistered individuals alike.

    The DNC, instead, uses past Democratic primary involvement as its main metric for delegate determination; a reasonable approach, given that party membership varies from state to state. Hillary’s argument essentially implies a fundamental flaw with the DNC’s delegate appropriation (not saying it’s perfect), and implies that the Electoral College is the “correct” way to view the situation. This is the same woman who argued for the reform of the electoral college in her 2000 Senate campaign, insisting that it was fundamentally flawed. She made promises to abolish the system.

    So, yes, Hillary has every right to argue that the Electoral College should be used as the primary measure in determining the Democratic nominee… Simply having the right doesn’t make her argument sound…

  • David Pliouffe from the Obama campaign had a nice line:

    “Next they’ll be saying that only states beginning with ‘N’ should count.”

  • “Let’s just have the last Democratic President decide” – HRC

    What amazes me is her support continues to hold even though it is getting fairly obvious how she regards the rules and their application to her. They are good until they don’t favor her. Very parallel to how Bush feels about laws and their application to him.

    This race was so tight and my feeling was both candidates would have satisfied me, that is until Obama started edging out. Unfortunately, I now understand why they were/are despised by their political opponents.

  • If the Clinton camp found out that, in an Alaskan Primary, Hillary got 4 Lesbian left-handed Eskimo votes and Obama only received 3 Lesbian left-handed Eskimo votes, they’d suddenly decide the Lesbian left-handed Eskimo vote should be the metric used to determine the candidate.

    And they’d claim 2 of Obama’s Lesbian left-handed Eskimo voted don’t count, because they’re “lipstick” Lesbian left-handed Eskimos. In a stunning display of graciousness, they’ll allow them to count as half-votes.

    Reminds me of the desperate tactics morning radio shows go to prove they’re #1 in the morning. Sure, Imus used to be #1 in the morning…among males over the age of 60 making more than 60,000 a year. And his advertisers reflected that, but nobody was fooled into thinking he’s REALLY “#1 in the morning.” And now I’ve no idea if his current ratings upon his return even do THAT well.

    If you have to keep qualifying your victories, then they’re probably not victories.

  • Why not total up whatever number you like for each candidate and then multiply by body weight or by IQ or by how many jacks they can pick up in ten throws or the number of cows in the state they come from?

  • Greg at #17 said:
    Electoral college is how presidents get elected, should we ignore this altogether, just like we are ignoring FL or MI? Once again, this is related to the fact that she is winning all of the big swing states that make or break a presidential election, only it now has a solid number that can be tallied.

    This is all about courting superdelegates, and is fair.

    As to the first part of this arguement, we do not use the Electoral College during the nominating process. Besides, the population of voters during the general election is not the same as that of the Democratic primary.

    Regarding your second point, sure, the Clinton campaign can try to court supers with this silly Electoral College arguement, but frankly, most supers are smart enough to realize that in a general election either Clinton or Obama are going to win the big blue states. But which of them is more likely to peel away a purple state or two? And which one is more likely to force McCain to spend time and money shoring up support in traditionally red states?

    To me, this latest arguement from the Clinton campaign is weak and smack of desperation.

  • the Clinton campaign can still win if they’re willing to escalate their scorched earth campaign to deny the nomination to Obama.

    I don’t think this is true. I think there must be rising disgust among the superdelegates with the increasingly transparent desperation on the Clinton side. The SD’s may be wary of crossing such a powerful faction within the party, but this sort of behavior isn’t winning Hillary any friends.

    I also don’t think it’ll cause lasting damage to Obama. We have months to go to the actual election, during which you can count on a tsunami of sewage coming at Obama from the GOP. Dealing with that will make Hillary’s attacks look minor. No one will remember them come November.

    I also don’t think these personal attacks will matter to the final outcome. The economy’s going into the toilet, and as the incumbent party candidate, McCain will take the damage from that. He also has to deal with his support for the deeply unpopular war. No amount of crap thrown at Obama will save him.

  • Johnnie
    Bravo, well said.

    My daughter favors Obama because she thinks that come November nobody will vote a woman… or at least not enough.
    I favor Clinton because, like me, she is a moderate, and because I admire her courage and stamina as she breaks the thickest glass ceiling there is… and I think America is ready.

    The goal, ladies and gentlemen, is to win in November.
    I think Clinton has a better chance in the swing states. Can’t win without them.

  • You’d think that Obama, as a law professor, would know that it’s electoral votes, not numbers of states that count in electing the president. Most people know this from grammar school. Isn’t it a bit disingenuous for him to pretend otherwise?

  • I just realized what the Clintons are trying to do: They want to play CalvinBall. No rules, just make it up as you go along.

    Obama supporters should just say “You already lost”. You lost when you decided to throw the rules out.

  • In fact, the electoral college exists to prevent just the kind of argument Obama is presenting in the “more states” claim. Otherwise the one man, one vote would go by the boards and citizens of larger states would not be adequately represented in the election.

  • Nell,

    What Johhny said was not ‘well said,’ and no one addressed it because it was drivel that, up until you tried validate it, needed no response.

    Johhny first posits there is no basis in fact that Clinton is not playing by the rules. I submit Harold Ickes, Florida and Michigan as evidence that she does not wish to play by the rules that she and Ickes approved and upheld prior.

    Johhny says that for “weeks Obama fans have been touting the metric that he won the most states,” but conveniently glosses over that this particular argument has been nothing more than an addendum on the broader issue: Obama has an unbeatable delegate lead. Popular vote and the number of states won as well as several other metrics are only afterthoughts. The key is, Obama doesn’t have to do any fancy parsing to say he’s winning.

    Yet Obama supporters insist that Hillary is somehow breaking the rules by competing for super delegates. -Johhny

    This is just a strawman argument. Other than her 180 on Florida and Michigan, no one is saying she’s breaking the rules; however, her limited and convoluted metrics are absurd and meaningless. It pains me to think any of the superdelegates would fall for smoke and mirrors like this.

    So, really, what Johhny wrote, wasn’t ‘well said.’ It was mostly just railing at strawmen. Blah, blah, blah.

  • there must be some great footage out there of clinton in iowa praising caucuses as the height of democracy.

  • Johnny and Impartial – you’d think that you’d read the entire story before commenting. Particularly the part about the electoral votes only counting in the *general* election. You can’t dispense the electoral votes now, nor can you assume that they will be divided in the general election the way they are in the primary. In fact, there’s really almost *no* way for them to be the same. You should know that from grammar school. Isn’t it a bit disingenuous for you to pretend otherwise?

  • I think Clinton has a better chance in the swing states. Can’t win without them.

    I agree the swing states are important, but why do you think Clinton would do better there?

    Look at the SurveyUSA state-by-state matchups for key swing states:

    Colorado:
    C 42, M 48
    O 50, M 41

    Florida:
    C 51, M 42
    O 45, M 47

    Michigan:
    C 44, M 44
    O 46, M 42

    Missouri:
    C 44, M 48
    O 42, M 48

    Ohio:
    C 50, M 40
    O 50, M 40

    Oregon:
    C 44, M 48
    O 49, M 41

    Pennsylvania:
    C 47, M 46
    C 42, M 47

    Virginia:
    C 40, M 50
    O 47, M 47

    Washington state:
    C 44, M 46
    O 52, M 38

    Wisconsin:
    C 48, M 44
    O 51, M 40

    Obama has a stronger showing in Colorado, Michigan, Oregon, Virginia, Washington state, and Wisconsin for a total of 67 EVs; Clinton does better in Pennsylvania and Florida for a total of 48 EVs; they do equally well in Ohio (both win) and Missouri (both lose).

    http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/
    http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

  • Re # 33

    You don’t sto[p counting votes in the middle of an election just because you’re ahead.
    Those are CalvinBall rules. You allow all states their chance to vote first, like it or not.

  • You’d think that Obama, as a law professor, would know that it’s electoral votes, not numbers of states that count in electing the president. Most people know this from grammar school. Isn’t it a bit disingenuous for him to pretend otherwise?

    No, what’s disingenuous is suggesting that because Hillary won New York and California in the primaries, that these states would only go Democratic if she were the nominee.

    If Hillary’s the nominee, do you think we’d lose Massachusetts and Illinois because she couldn’t take them in the primary season?

  • #37

    Obama has been claiming that he has won because he has the most states and so have his supporters for some time now. It is not a question of misreading the article. Just pointing out the “inconvenient” facts. Article doesn’t change the facts that only electoral votes are significant and that every state has a right to cast their votes for their candidates before any candidate is forced by the other side to give up.

  • TR

    You’re talking about apples and oranges. It doesn’t matter whether or not Obama
    COULD win those states; what matters is who DID win them. That is a silly premise; Hillary could claim the same about the states that Obama won and no one coulc dispute that either. Each is pure speculation until proven/

  • No matter what statistics you pull out and manipulate, the fact remains that electoral votes are what count by the existing rules and counting by states is the attempt to change them.
    No one has an adequate number of pledged electoral votes at this point in time and it is perfectly appropriate, if inconvenient, for any candidate to continue until someone does.
    In fact, it is fairer to the state who have not yet had a chance to weigh in.If you can’t see that you have no concept of fairness.

  • This electoral votes thing is actually pretty old, Jerome Armstrong was offering this spin weeks ago.

    Obama has been claiming that he has won because he has the most states and so have his supporters for some time now. — Impartial
    No, he’s been claiming he’s ahead in the delegate count, which is why he’s winning. In addition to his delegate lead, he does have more votes, more states, more money, and more national support than Clinton. For someone so inevitable, she’s been in second place the entire way through the primary, and yet she keeps trying to find some kind of spin to claim that she’s actually ahead. It’s getting really annoying.

    No matter what statistics you pull out and manipulate, the fact remains that electoral votes are what count by the existing rules and counting by states is the attempt to change them. — Impartial
    Wrong. As was mentioned earlier in the comments, the electoral vote counts all voters and this is for people willing to vote in the democratic primary, not all voters.

  • TR

    Are you saying HRC should not be credited with winning the CA and NY primaries because in November Obama would win them anyway?

    And that Obama can’t take credit for winning MA and IL in the primaries because HRC would take them in November anyway?

    I think the Obama folks are trying to disempower HRC in any way they can. She should drop out, she can’t win etc. Any effort she makes to win over BHO is dirty. Unladylike?

    Debating you guys makes me dizzy.
    And Johnny, I agree with you. Bravo, well said.

  • You’re talking about apples and oranges. It doesn’t matter whether or not Obama COULD win those states; what matters is who DID win them.

    Are you serious?

    Then answer this question: If Hillary’s the nominee, do you think we’d lose Massachusetts and Illinois because she couldn’t take them in the primary season?

    By your nonsensical reasoning, Hillary Clinton couldn’t win Mass. and Illinois because she didn’t win them in the primary.

    Sorry, let me write that as a Clinton Cultist would: Hillary Clinton COULDN’T win Mass. and Illinois because she DIDN’T win them in the primary.

    Do you really believe that? These are known as the big blue states because (a) they’re big and (b) they’re reliably blue.

  • Bayh (and Wolfson) are just pushing a variant of the Clinton campaign’s claim that Hillary has the advantage because she can win the big states, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio and Obama can’t.

    Win these states? These are primaries, against Obama not McCain, where also she often has the advantage of support from officials such as Pennsylvania’s governor and Philadelphia’s mayor.

    It is nonsense to contend that Obama would not do well in these states. Does Clinton believe that those who voted for her in the primaries will suddenly become Republicans?

    homer http://www.altara.blogspot.com

  • Obama supporters should just say “You already lost”.
    RacerX

    Okay…Clintonian sycophants—You already lost.

    The funniest thing of this “metric” is that the power that’s lined up behind Clinton today is the exact same power that argued against the Electoral College after the political rape/pillage/burn of the elections by Bushylvanian barbarians 2000 and 2004. This isn’t to say that “all” anti EC sentiment came from the Clintonians-to-be; just that they were the most vocally against it before they were for it.

    Besides, she’s run her line out too far in Pennsylvania to financially maintain the position. She’s overextended her depth, spread dangerously thin on the front line, and is now without sufficient reserves to maintain a protracted campaign. If this were a military campaign, I’d be calling it “Clinton’s Gettysburg.” All Obama has to do now is to push on from this point, continue active pursuit of a wavering opponent, and “go for the kill.”

    Adopting a battlefield mentality will also be the best way to beat McCain….

  • the fact remains that electoral votes are what count by the existing rules and counting by states is the attempt to change them. – Impartial

    ”I’ve always thought we had outlived the need for an Electoral College, and now that I am going to the Senate, I am going to try to do what I can to make clear that the popular vote, the will of the people, should be followed.” – Hillary Clinton

    Do I have to say it again? Pledged delegates are the electoral votes of the primary season. I think the Clinton campaign just got excited that they finally found a measure of votes by which they were winning. My opinion aside, Clinton has every right to argue for this interpretation of primary results, whether or not it contradicts her personal beliefs.

    Regardless of what system you use to determine which candidate “should” win, the fact remains that the supers reserve the right to overturn the pledged count if they feel the need.

    Personally, I think the whole tit-for-tat between the campaigns is ridiculous. It’s time they stop crying to the super delegates about which method of counting is the most precise, put on a brave face, and tell the super delegates, “You were elected by the people of your respective states. We trust that you will make the decision that is best for our party and our nation.”

    Then, they should both strap on their campaigning shoes and hit the trail. Obama backers: stop whining about Hillary’s persistence and run her into the ground through intelligent and respectful discourse.

  • Are you saying HRC should not be credited with winning the CA and NY primaries because in November Obama would win them anyway?

    And that Obama can’t take credit for winning MA and IL in the primaries because HRC would take them in November anyway?

    No, I’m saying this is a pathetic, laughable, and desperate line of argument which has been rightfully dismissed as a pathetic, laughable, and desperate line of argument by political journalists, political scientiest, and other election observers. The only people who are treating it as a real rationale are the Clinton Cultists who are grasping for any straw which will save them.

    The Clinton camp is the one saying we should try to predict general election performance based on primary states; I’m saying that’s stupid. Primary results compare Clinton and Obama against each other, but that isn’t the matchup we’re going to see in a general election. Luckily, we have polls which compare Clinton-McCain versus Obama-McCain matchups in the general. Those are the two possibilities for the fall election, and those are the comparisons which matter.

    I have a hard time believing you can’t understand this, so I’ll have to assume you’re being purposefully stupid or else a Republican trolling to sow division here.

    Either way, congratulations, you two just inspired me to make another $100 donation to Obama in your honor. Keep it up, and you’ll have me maxed out to the $2300 primary season limit in no time at all.

    Frankly, I suggest other people do this, too. Maybe if the trolls realize they’re only helping Obama with their willful stupidity, they’ll stop.

  • Pingback: Masson’s Blog - A Citizen’s Guide to Indiana » Evan Bayh: Catching a bit of The Stupid

  • The Clintonians use every other Republican strategy they run across, why wouldn’t they use the Republican Method for finding new facts?

    1. unfasten belt and unzip fly.

    2. drop pants.

    3. lean over.

    4. reach between legs and withdraw new “fact”.

    5. holdt up new fact and wave it around (to “air it out”

  • I’m waiting for the next suggestions:

    “If we just pick the nominee alphabetically, then obviously Clinton would be the nominee in 2008, then Dodd and Edwards get their chance… Obama just doesn’t have the alphabetical advantage needed to win a general election.”

    “If you add in Bill Clinton’s lead in the popular vote, then Hillary comes out way ahead.”

    “We should really only count the delegates from states where the nominees have either been senators or claim it as one of their ‘home states’.”

  • I think the delegate count is also in doubt, the superdelegates were created to keep an unelectable individual from becoming the nominee.

    Remember that many thousands of people who have already voted would not have voted the way that they did if they knew about the Reverand Wright’s sermons, or about Obama’s refusal to repudiate the man.

    Just because a bunch of people in here are screaming how Obama has already won does not make it so, HRC could still beat him in the delegate count if she wins by a landslide in the upcoming states, however unlikely this may seem.

    The Jeremiah Wright controversy may not seem to be holding Obama back so much, but it isn’t over yet.

  • Oh, I forgot to mention that pledged delegates may end up switching from Obama to Clinton because of the Wright controversy, the constituencies that those delegates represent will demand it!

  • …HRC could still beat him in the delegate count if she wins by a landslide in the upcoming states, however unlikely this may seem. -Greg

    ‘Unlikely’ doesn’t begin to cover the margins she’d need to overcome Obama’s delegate lead. You make it sound like it is possible, but it’s not.

    To put it in perspective, Hillary didn’t even win by a margin necessary to overcome Obama in Michigan, where she was the only candidate on the ballot.

    It is simply out of the realm of realistic analysis to imagine Hillary overtaking Obama’s delegate lead.

  • Governor Bill Richardson came out to finally endorse Barrack Obama. Richardson said that Obama’s’ speech on race was his deciding factor. The speech showed the leadership qualities Richardson was looking for. I have to agree with Richardson, as he said that, it’s time for Clinton to step down, and the Democrats to come together.
    Clinton cannot beat Obama’s numbers no matter HOW they parse it. That is an undeniable fact. Clinton’s campaign knows this very well. As Nancy Pelosi (speaker of the house) said, “This is a delegate race, period. If the super delegates turn over the will of the people, it won’t be good for the Democratic Party” When Clinton thought she would have it in the bag, after California. Florida and Michigan did not matter to her then. Just like Clinton dismissed the 11 state streak Obama had, because “NONE OF THOSE SATES COUNT ANYWAY”. How “disenfranchised” do those sates feel, by Clinton? What an atrocious thing to say. Clinton goes on to attack Obama this way:
    He has not crossed the “Commander in Chief threshold” like John McCain has.
    He cannot be trusted to answer the phone at 3am.
    His only experience is a speech from 2002.
    That he is disenfranchising voters in Michigan and Florida (even though she agreed to the same rules he did when those states stepped out of line in the primary process).
    And, as Bill Clinton intimated , he doesn’t love our country, like Hillary and McCain do.
    Those are some serious blows against someone in your own party and might seriously hurt his chances of winning the general election. In fact, every day that Senator Clinton stays in the race is another day she spends money damaging Senator Obama. And every dollar she spends is a dollar in John McCain’s pocket.
    It almost makes you ask – does she want him to lose?
    If Obama wins, then Senator Clinton couldn’t run again until at least 2016 (unless something goes terribly wrong). At which point, she would be almost as old as John McCain is now. If she’s ever going to become president, she has this narrow window.
    On the other hand, if Senator Obama sustains serious political wounds going into the general election and winds up losing, then Hillary Clinton is sitting pretty in 2012.
    That’s how much Clinton cares about the Democratic Party!!
    Obama has two former presidential candidates backing him now. They know who has the best chance with the Republicans in Nov.

    Just because Obama did not bring up the past with Clinton, do not think the republicans won’t.
    When the Clintons tax records, Bills’ Foundation, and Library funding sources are revealed, it could destroy the party for decades. There is 1/2 BILLION dollars in funding alone to explain! If it were all kosher, it would have been known long ago. There is an ongoing fraud lawsuit in California, which the media has not been reporting as well.
    Here is the link to the YouTube video explaining this upcoming fraud trial in California. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_SNCz8YNrE I believe it is April 24th, 2008.

    Hillary Clinton cannot be elected under these circumstances.
    There will be another time for a woman to run the Whitehouse. It’s not this woman, not this time.

  • Greg, if the Rev. Wright is going to be dragged into this discussion, does that mean you’re ready to discuss in detail HRC’s relationship to “The Family,” the rightwing religious group she belongs to?

  • How about splitting the superdelegates in the same proportion as the overall delegates won?

    That would be fair to all concerned, and could include MI and FL.
    This will not break any existing rules, except that MI and FL delegates get seated in spite of breaking the rules. But since the split is in proportion to the overall delegate count, they will not skew the results.

    Not that I am saying fair to all concerned, not trying to make a particular candidate win.

  • Nobody here in Britain and Northern Ireland has even heard of Hillary Clinton’s supposed work for Ulster peace.

    I was so amazed to hear her claim a role in N.Ireland peace that I checked the facts.

    She claimed to have “brought Catholic and Protestant women together.”

    In fact, this claim comes from a time she was invited to attend one meeting of a cross-community womens’ group that had been meeting regularly for nearly two decades. She gave a brief speech, left, and now claims to have brought these women together. Far from helping them, she is trying to claim credit for what they did. They brought themselves together years before Hillary had even heard of Northern Ireland.

    Everyone in Britain finds Hillary’s claims either laughable or offensive.

    Here are the words of David Trimble, who won a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE for his work in ending the Troubles:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

    Nobel winner: Hillary Clinton’s ‘silly’ Irish peace claims

    ‘Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a “wee bit silly” for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.

    “I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around,” he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely “the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets” during elections. “She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.”‘

    PS Everyone in Britain and Ireland, and Europe generally, vastly prefers Obama to either Hillary or McCain, two sides of the same nasty coin.

  • The problem I’m having with all of this is that I want Obama to win, but I don’t want Hillary to lose. Right now, they’re both losing. There is no reason for Obama and Hillary backers to attack each other like this. Cut it out! Follow the rules established at the beginning of this primary season and that’s it. May the best person win, with no regrets.

  • Re #15,

    Thanks Doubtful, I didn’t have the number. So now we just have to see if she can make up the difference with Pennsylvannia, etc.

    I think Johnny is right (#11), the RULES are you WIN when you get 2025 (if you don’t seat Florida and Michigan). Either candidate has to get the votes of the super delegates to get there, so either candidate has an equal chance of winning (not 10% to 90%).

    I think TR makes a good point (#38) by the state by state analysis. Of course those might not be the best swing seats to study. That however is the best grounds for a super delegate to decide on.

  • “I miss January. . . . the Clinton campaign said Florida and Michigan shouldn’t count.”

    Absolutely false.

  • There will be states that go Democratic in the GE no matter who the Dem candidate is.

    There will also be states that go to the GOP in the GE no matter who won the Dem primary or caucus.

    Then there are the swing states.

    Finally, as I recall, some weeks ago Obama supporters were pointing to his electoral college votes, which at the time put him ahead of Hillary.

    So Hillary is just doing the same thing. Big deal.

  • Nell (#31),

    By what basis do you feel Clinton would do better in swing states? Sure, you might be able to claim she would do better in Ohio, but Obama can just as easily argue that he can flip a couple of purple states and force McCain to defend many red states. To me, it seems silly to say that traditional blue states won’t vote for Obama…and the arguement that Clinton can win more swing states is also shallow.

  • Odd that this site’s members of the America-for-Clintons Party maintain that The Empress would do better in swing states, yet Obama always fares much, much better among swing voters.

    There’s also this little problem, and it isn’t likely to get any better as Sen. Clinton continues to flat-out lie about her Bosnian Adventure.

    The First Narcissists need to GO. AWAY.

  • I don’t really care who uses the metric, because it’s a stupid metric. It just doesn’t work that way. Even with America’s woeful voter turnout and even with this year’s amazing primary turnouts, primary turnouts are still woeful compared to general elections turnouts.

    Here’s an example or two…

    VA has 4,448,852 registered voters out of a population of 7,078,515 (2000 Census for population and 06 election for registered voters…both numbers have probably gone up). Obama got 623,141 votes to Clinton’s 347,252 votes, a 64-35% split. The total number of Democratic votes was 970,393. Or you could be less impressed with 970,393 by thinking of it as what it is: 22% of the registered voters. Even adding the Republican totals only gets you 33% of the registered voters.

    NY, who’s numbers are a little harder to find, looks even worse. The Democratic total amounts to only 20% of the registered voters, and because the registered voters number i found is old…20% is probably low.

    CA actually has decent looking numbers (against older reg. voter totals), with a full 49% of the population participating…but the Dems still only drew 31%.

    So in VA, Obama won 64% of 22%. In NY, Clinton won 57% of 20%. And in CA, Clinton won 52% of 31%.

    Now tell me, anyone, how that translates into electoral college votes…

  • To use an appropriate sporting analogy for the season…and perhaps one that some folks who aren’t getting this will understand…

    The Clintons’ argument is the equivalent of a basketball coach saying, during the middle of the game, that if the three point line on OUR end was only 12 feet away from the basket instead of 19, more of the shots we made would have been three pointers, so if that was the case, we’d really be in the lead. That’s what REALLY matters. Uh-Huh.

    For those who aren’t into college hoops, how about football?

    This just in, According to New England Head Coach Bill B. The New England Patriots actually DID win the superbowl. On gameday, it was just an incorrect way to tally the points. See, instead of points scored, if we used the total number of offensive plays run, we actually would have won the game. Or maybe if we used prettiest uniforms, maybe that would mean we won. See, the SCORE shouldn’t really count…

    Sorry for the piss poor analogies, but it’s just so damn obvious to me…

  • Here’s how this argument is proven ludicrous:

    If whomever won a state primary will win that state in the general, then both Obama and McCain will win Illinois if Obama is the nominee, but if Clinton is, both she and McCain will win New York.

  • This isn’t playing math tricks. All those 3 metrics repeated by Obama followers are ridiculous themselves, especially the crap of “how many states one candidate has won”, which means NOTHING.
    The rule says the purpose of the primary of a party is to pick a candidate the party believes having the biggest chance to win in Nov. The super delegates system was particularly designed for this purpose. The crap of “pledged delegates” is just hijacking the rule. All these 4 are just factors for the SD to make their decisions. NONE of them is the rule!
    Obama is obviously the weaker for GE. Even if we buy his point of whoever from DEM can win NY and CA, Obama still has 0 chance to win OH, MI, FL, and PA, especially after his effort (or let’s call it dis-effort) to disenfranchise voters of MI and FL.
    Please don’t pretend as if Obama can win any of Georgia, Idaho or North Dakota.

  • Hillary is the most power hungry, man hating, bull dyke in the known universe.
    She is the worst piece of *hit to come down the pike in my lifetime. I hope there is a resounding flush soon and we all watch Hillary go down the bowl.

  • Bayh (also Wolfson)is just pushing a variant of the claim by the Clinton campaign that Hillary has the advantage because she can win the big states, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio and Obama can’t.

    Win these states? These are primaries, against Obama not McCain, where also she often has the advantage of support from officials such as Pennsylvania’s governor and Philidelphia’s mayor.

    It is nonsense to contend that Obama would not do well in these states. Does Clinton believe that those who voted for her in the primaries will suddenly become Republicans?

    homer http://www.altara.blogspot

    • Comments are closed.