Fork Hillary - The Wooden Stake

Great Debates
141

It was a virtual tie. One can count it so either has a small victory.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Popular Vote Total 17,535,458 48.1% 17,493,836 48.0% Obama +41,622 +0.1%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,869,542 48.2% 17,717,698 47.8% Obama +151,844 +0.4%

Popular Vote (w/MI) 17,535,458 47.4% 17,822,145 48.1% Clinton +286,687 +0.8%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*17,869,542 47.4% 18,046,007 47.9% Clinton +176,465 +0.5%

Popular Vote (w/MIUncommitted to Obama)**17,773,626 48.0% 17,822,145 48.1% Clinton +48,519 +0.1%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 18,107,710 48.1% 18,046,007 47.9% Obama +61,703 +0.2%

142

The numbers you present don’t represent a tie, “virtual” or otherwise.

143

It was a bit conspicuous that the whole family wore black. In any case, I’m willing to light up a peace pipe.

144

Then I invite you to head over here.

145

1/10th of 1%, either way? That’s a virtual tie, dude.

146

Yeppers: she wins if you count Michigan; he wins if you don’t. It’s a virtual tie, alright - if it’s six of one or half-dozen of the other to you whether Michigan gets counted or not.

At any rate, so what? The measure by which the nomination is won or lost is delegates. I believe that’s not a virtual tie.

And what’s the point of considering the popular vote? I can think of two:

1) Persuading superdelegates. * That train’s not only left the station, but it’s pulled into Denver.
*
2) Demonstrating that the scoring in terms of delegates was fundamentally illegitimate, and needs to be rejected. A ‘virtual tie’ doesn’t achieve that.

So take your popular vote from Michigan, wad it up, and throw it in the wastebasket. Or take it and frame it on your wall. Either way, it means zip.

147

And I think there’s a colony of Martians living in your nose. :smiley:

That’s YHO, not a factual matter. And Obama’s demonstrated a fair degree of talent in that department, this year.

I’m good on that, so long as it doesn’t extend to giving a free pass to presentations of bogus arguments by her fanboys.

148

Popular vote measurements are 100% useless. 100%. There are different rules by state- there are states in which Republicans can vote, states in which only Democrats can vote. States that have mail-in votes. States that have early voting. States that have primaries and caucuses. States that voted in February when it was super cold out, states that voted in May when it was nice. States that voted when the Republican race was up for grabs, states that voted when it was decided. States that voted when there were six Democratic candidates, states that voted when there were two. There are people who could have voted on New Hampshire’s primary date that were dead by the time that voting took place in South Dakota.

So let’s stop with the popular vote thing. It is less than worthless. It is actively obfuscatory. It does not describe IN ANY WAY who has done better than who, and I include in that statement that the popular vote does not tell us that Obama did better than Clinton. It tells us NOTHING.

It should be instructive that there are like 8 potential ways to count the popular vote. It’s a fool’s errand.

149

It seems to me that Clinton’s argument that she has almost as many votes as Obama is very misleading. Obama’s been concentrating his fire on McCain, instead of Clinton, for some time now. Obama didn’t want to attack her for fear of alienating her, knowing that he needs all the votes he can get in November. Essentially, Obama’s been using a prevent defense and running out the clock on Hillary, allowing her to uncontestedly pile up late yards, I mean votes, knowing that he already had an insurmountable numerical delegate advantage.

150

I guess my only concern is: Are we going to count Michigan in the general election?

151

I see. Thanks. So counting MI where Obama wasn’t even on the ballot she wins the popular vote. Looking at states where Obama was at least on the ballot he won the popular vote but not by much. It all depends on how you count it.

Considering the historic occasion of both their campaigns it’s to close to matter.

152

No need to be concerned. Michigan will be counted in the general. Why wouldn’t it be?

153

We’re not going to count Puerto Rico in the general, but I bet your average popular vote theorist will add those votes to Clinton’s column… as I said, it’s a pointless endeavor.

Michigan will be counted in the general election because in the general election, Michigan counts. In the primary election, Michigan chose to violate the rules, so they “count” only at the behest of the rules committee.

As much as the total popular vote is a farce in the Democratic primary race, counting the Michigan popular vote is a sign that you’re really down the rabbit hole, because the Michigan Democratic primary didn’t even resemble an election in any meaningful way.

154

And Hillary’s done such a GREAT job of selling Michiganders on the Democratic Party, having elevated what might’ve otherwise been a quickly forgotten incident of party discipline into a big deal that everyone must be reminded of the injustice of daily, preferably several times a day.

Way the polls look, the possibility exists of Obama winning every Midwestern state except Michigan.

Yeah, I’ll blame Hillary if we lose this one and Michigan is McCain’s margin of victory. Thanks for being such a fighter. :rolleyes:

155

I would assume so. Of course, I would also assume that his name would appear on the ballot this time.

The reality is that Michigan’s primary results were thoroughly tainted by the fact that the primary wasn’t going to count, nobody campaigned there, and only Hillary’s name was on the ballot. The idea of putting the raw vote count on equal footing (for analytical purposes) with states that had a normal primary is nonsensical.

What pollster would accept data in their analysis that excluded one of the candidates? What statistician would lump that data into the rest without making some sort of adjustment to account for the completely different conditions?

156

cosmosdan asked, I answered. It clearly doesn’t mean “zip” to him.

And, dude? I am not HRC’s fanboy (and I have only said this like a dozen times). I am a Gore fan, big time. Hillary is just OK, along with Obama.

But yes, I know, anyone who isn’t a total Obama worshipper has to be a fan of his (or should I say “His”) opponent. :rolleyes:

157

  1. Well, unless Obama pulls his name again, as he figures he won’t win in the General either, and thus not having his name will give him the same excuse this time.

  2. Ah, “normal primary” like all the states with a Caucus, instead of letting everyone vote.

  3. And as you can see, RCP has also counted the data giving Obama all the “undecided votes”.

158

Where did this idea that Obama withdrew from the MI ballot because he feared a loss come from? I mean, is there written evidence of this or was it just someone’s guess that others thought sounded good when they wanted to speak poorly of Obama?

Obama withdrew from the MI ballot in early October 2007, right before the deadline to do so. Here’s some polling numbers from the same period:

In fact, from that period, the only states I see where Obama leads is in Illinois (July poll, Obama +3) and Idaho (July poll, Obama +2).

Saying that Obama was afraid of a loss in Michigan seems silly to me. You may as well say that he should have dropped out of the race entirely because he wasn’t better favored to win in any other states (with a few exceptions). If he thought wagign a campaign in Michigan would have been impossible, then why bother with all of the other states where he was behind by 10-20+ points? Baring evidence to the contrary, the whole “He was afraid to lose in MI” thing sounds as though it was made up from whole cloth.

159

So, even if MI is not counted at all, Obama won by 1/10th of 1%
Yep, that’s a Landslide worthy of Lyndon Johnson.

Boy oh boy, “trashed” indeed. 1/10th of 1%.

160

Because, he figured he had nothing to lose. In the other states, even a loss gains you delegates. In MI a win just got bragging rights. He could defuse HRC’s bragging rights by withdrawing- and indeed did so. Smart move. Of course, maybe Obama and his advisors weren’t smart enough to figure that out, but since I- and many pundits, could, I doubt it. He ran a smart campaign. Don’t you think so?