Clinton might very well win the overall popular vote

[metalluk]

With FL and MI included, Obama is currently leading in the overall popular vote by about 80,000. On April 27, 2004, about 790,000 Pennsylvanians turned out for the Democratic primary. Most states have been running at least double their 2004 turnout in 2008, so one could reasonably expect 1.6 million or more votes in this year's Pennsylvania Democratic primary. If HRC wins PA by 18 points (the three latest PA polls have her up +19, +14, and +18), she'll gain about 288,000 votes in comparison to Obama, to assume a 200,000 vote lead by the end of April. After that, Obama will probably pick up some ground in Indiana and North Carolina but Clinton will gain ground in West Virginia and Puerto Rico. There is too little information on Oregon or Kentucky to justify any projection. HRC could very well win the popular vote as well as all the big states except Obama's home state. Then, it will be up to the superdelegates to make their best judgment about which candidate will best serve the interests of the party.

[Pirate Smile]

1. Obama got a zero in Michigan. If there is a revote, that will not be the case.

There are also quite a few states he won which don't have a popular vote number calculated. If we are going to start doing this then they will have to figure those numbers out.

[Avalux]

2. Why do people insist Michigan should be counted? Obama's name wasn't on the ballot.

There is absolutely no way Michigan can count as is and Florida should not either. It's cheating. Your post is irrelevant.

[durrrty libby]

16. HE took his name off the ballot. So no cookies for him

[skipos]

18. We were told that our votes would not get delegates & Hillary didn't protest

Then we had our faux election
Now you and Hillary want to say "Gotcha! Sorry! These votes are getting delegates!"

You should be very proud.

[durrrty libby]

20. You should be proud BO wants to disenfranchise 2 states

If he gets the nom it will be considered illegitimate.

[skipos]

46. Yes, Hillary's strategy of

"seat FL and MI as is (even though I didn't advocate it until I knew it was in my own best politcal interest)" is going to be sooooooo legitimate is she slimes her way to the nomination.

You've seen the poll that shows a large majority of FL disagrees with Hillary's scheme, right?

[Drachasor]

19. Way to disenfranchise voters! A revote is the real solution, but that will help doom Hillary's..

popular vote chances.

[Goblinmonger]

25. He took it off

because they broke the rules and he was doing what the party wanted him to do. But, sure, punish him for that.

[durrrty libby]

51. Yea riiight

[Goblinmonger]

54. Oh, yeah

Even in the states that Obama has lost, for the most part it has been may very marginal amounts. But for some reason he feared the wrath of Michigan. Give me a break. Michigan broke the roles set out by the party. Hillary kept trying to get votes there even though she knew it wouldn't count. And some how this is Obama's problem.

[mckeown1128]

33. sorry...in a democracy all candidates get cookies...

you can't "that sucks for him" a candidate in a democracy. This isn't communist china... everyones names have to be on the ballot... everyone running should get a chance to campaign to the voters... and the voters have to know BEFORE the election whether or not they are actually voting for delegates or not.

[cali]

52. tough shit for you hillbots that MI won't count as is

I have little objection to counting FL though I do think there has to be some punishment for the outrageous shennanigans party officials have played in that state. But Michigan, no cookies for hilly. And the sooner you little hillbots come to terms with reality the better. durrrty hilly won't be getting Michigan no matter what dirty gambit she tries. Live with it. Chew on it. Don't choke on it.

[jackson_dem]

29. Why does Obama insist on Michigan being disenfranchised?

He knows he would lose badly there...

[Orsino]

61. Poor framing.

He was supposed to leave his name off the ballot, as were his opponents. Changing our minds about that now, and attempting to hand all of Michigan to Clinton, would also be disenfranchisement.

I wouldn't object to a revote--but in the real world, more than one candidate should be in the running, right?

[meow mix]

38. Because they are OK with half the ppl not getting to vote for thier candidate

shows thier true colors..id say

[gabeana]

3. He's up by about 800,000

[Frances]

4. You make good points

This thing isn't over yet.

I think the people will want an Obama-Hillary OR a Hillary-Obama ticket.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Can we include the big-state race where Obama was on the ballot and Clinton wasn't?

Oh, right, there wasn't one. :eyes:

[metalluk]

36. Despite being a Clinton supporter,

I agree with your point. Michigan can't be counted without a do-over, but a do-over is a necessity. Clinton will win the do-over, but obviously not 55% to 0%. On the other hand, the turnout will be much greater for a hotly contested primary. Clinton could realistically pick up 200,000+ votes, judging from what happened in neighboring Ohio, which has a similar total population, a similar percentage of black voters, and similar concerns. Then, with 280,000 from PA and about 290,000 likely from Florida, she's pulled even.

[SoonerPride]

6. Welcome (back) to DU.

But you are wrong, CyberPieHole.

She cannot win.

[sorrybushisfromtexas]

7. Why count Florida and Michigan?

They broke DNC rules. They were told they would not count. They do not count. Rules are rules. It is up to the DNC and the democratic parties inFlorida and Michigan to figure out a do over. Those do not and will not count if there is not a do over.

[karmicglee]

21. Most Democrats want MI and FL to count

Either by letting the January vote count, or by calling for new elections in those states:

[metalluk]

30. I agree.

MI and FL will not count without a do-over. A do-over is a must; otherwise voters in MI and FL will be justifiably irate at the Democratic Party and the Democrats need those states to win. Clinton will likely win both states in a do-over. Obviously, Obama will get at least a respectable share of the votes in Michigan. Clinton's advantage in Florida could increase or dwindle, but if we assume she wins by the same 290,000 votes, that alone reduces Obama's lead 500,000. The uncontested Michigan primary drew roughly 600,000 Democrats but a hotly contested primary would draw more. The turnout in 2004 in Michigan was very light and offers little guidance as to what would happen in a do-over this year. If Clinton does as well in Michigan as she did in Ohio (Michigan has about 10 million people and 14% blacks; Ohio has about 11.5 million people, 12% black), winning by roughly 230,000 votes and takes Pennsylvania by 280,00, she's still makes up the 800,000 deficit with just those three states.

[madfloridian]

8. Florida's possible mail in won't be until June. They get to decide.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5016226

[jmg257]

9. He is supposed to be up by over 600,000 after Mississippi. BIG gap to close.

[MadBadger]

13. Hes up over 700,000

[metalluk]

35. Yes, but

Clinton can make that up with just three states: PA, a Florida do-over, and a Michigan do-over.

[karmicglee]

44. What\'s so \"popular\" about caucuses?

I think we should come up with another name other than \"popular vote\" when referring to elections where half the vote is cast in caucuses. Caucuses are known for extremely low voter turnout due to working families not being able to be there on time, and shy voters being intimidated by the more raucous crowd.

[boppers]

50. self delete, test passed, no idea why poster is escaping quotes.

[JoFerret]

10. IF that proves true

...imagine there were no issues of personality or policy between the candidates - which one would be the surest win in November. Tweedledee (HC) or Tweedledum (BO)? Remember - no personality or policy differences.

This is purely a strategy to win based on where the support is and the electoral college system.

[metalluk]

48. Who would have the best chance to win?

Contrary to nearly every other poster on this site, I'll concede that one can't be sure about what will happen in the fall. There are too many imponderables that could upset the apple cart, regardless of which candidate the Democrats nominate.

According to the latest polls relating to the general election, McCain either slightly trails or slightly beats either Democrat and the difference between the two Democrats vs. McCain is negligible, at present. National polls don't reflect the actual electability of the candidates very well, however, because it is the electoral college that counts. One would have to have separate polls for every state to objectively determine which candidate has the better chance of beating McCain.

I personally believe that Obama, in comparison to Clinton, has BOTH more upside and more downside. Since he is a relative newcomer, the public's views about him are more fluid and subject to change either to his benefit or to McCain's benefit. I personally believe that Clinton would either win or lose by a small margin whereas Obama could produce results anywhere between landslide for and landslide against. I don't claim that that difference makes either one a better choice.

I believe that one vulnerability for Obama is the experience issue and that McCain will hammer away at it for the entire election period. Clinton's vulnerability is that she is generally a less likeable person than Obama. She has high negatives. McCain also has some personality short-comings but much more experience than Obama, so a McCain-Clinton contest would be a battle between somewhat similar deficits whereas a McCain-Obama contest would present the voters with markedly different deficits in the two candidates.

I also believe that Clinton supporters who are dissatisfied with Obama are more likely to crossover to vote for McCain that are Obama supporters dissatisfied with Clinton. Many Obama supporters might stay home, but many Clinton supporters would go to the polls to vote for McCain.

Then there's the issue of blue states versus red states. Someone in the Democratic Party needs to do a realistic assessment of each candidates chances in each state. For example, will Obama's special appeal in traditionally republican states be enough to actually win those states or will it merely reduce the margin of Republican victory? Will Clinton's advantage in some of the pivotal states produce wins in those states or merely close losses? Everyone on this site will be delighted to speculate in whatever ways they believe advance their candidate's interests, but few if any of these speculations are actually supported by genuine analysis. Hopefully the Democratic leadership will do a more thorough analysis than people do here.

[JoFerret]

55. Thoughtful good stuff. But what should

happen given the hypothetical scenarios?

(Almost impossible to imagine as it is so impossible to take the personalities out.)

[think4yourself]

11. PA is not hers.

Guilliani and Florida anyone? Nobody can predict PA. We'll have to wait and see. Hillary is doing a fine enough job of imploding all over the place. So no one can predict what NEW skeletons are gonna pop out of her closet. And where's those Tax Returns?

[PseudoIntellect]

24. PA is most likely hers, though.

It's a big block of her types of voters. Fewer AAs, more older people, etc.

[think4yourself]

28. This is another falsehood created by HRC

Born and raised there, 25 years. It doesn't matter where you go in the US, Hillary is running a bad campaign. Have faith in PA. 5 weeks is a long time for Hillary to continue her implosion.

[metalluk]

32. You need to argue that HRC

also controls the polls. I based my projections on neutral polls, not anything coming out of the Clinton camp.

You are right that 5 weeks is a long way to go. Clinton's lead could shrink or it could grow. Lately, it's been growing but that could change. There are still undecided voters, but they are just as likely to go for Clinton, given the prevailing demographics of the undecided voters.

You're entitled to hope that Obama's situation will improve, just as Clinton supporters are entitled to hope that she will continue to gain momentum.

[DogPoundPup]

12. Hillary wins the popular vote?

She IS damned popular with the Limpball republicons! You lamebrains are worthless.

[Rowdyboy]

14. You have a right to your own opinion but not to your own facts...Obama leads nationally by 800,000

votes not 80,000 votes. Nice try. The following was before Mississippi added another 100,000 votes to Obama's margin.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080312

Obama now leads the popular vote with 13.3 million to Clinton's 12.6 million, a gap of about 702,000 votes, according to RealClearPolitics.

[metalluk]

41. Actually,

I don't dispute your number: 800,000. That's without MI or FL. I'll also gladly concede that MI can't be counted without a do-over. Florida could, because it was at least a level playing field, but the citizens of Florida want a do-over and will probably get it. If Clinton wins by 280,000 in PA, the same margin she previously won by in FL, and wins MI by the same margin that she took Ohio (not the 55% to 0% she won by without Obama on the ballot), she's made up the 800,000 with just those three states.

[DerekJ]

15. Question. By your own method of estimation, how many will vote in NC?

and how much out of that will Obama net?

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Not Sure If Clinton Would Win, Or If They Wouldn't Count

Those are the only two options as I understand it.

[IsItJustMe]

22. and then again, she may not win the popular vote. LOL

[zulchzulu]

23. You mean, if she cheats...

[elixir]

26. Sounds plausible to me. Thanks for breaking it down.

[Goblinmonger]

27. Right, the old big states argument

We'll just dismiss Texas in which he won the most delegates. And Illinois which has one of the three biggest cities in the nation in it. And anything else that is statistically insignificantly smaller than a state Hillary has won.

God I tire of this.

[dbonds]

31. One more time...

Unless there is a revote, nothing about FL or MI count. They did not have an election there.

[TeamJordan23]

34. Obama's camp claims they are up over a Million votes if you include caucus states.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/12/obama-camp-our-popular-v_n_91118.html

[Rowdyboy]

39. Thats only if you use math and numbers to get your results....

Obama leads by nearly a million votes, not the 80,000 that the OP invents.

[TheDoorbellRang]

37. Sorry. Odds are she won't. Here's the math BEFORE Mississippi

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5013309

Before yesterday's primary, her best case scenario -- with a revote in FL and MI and assuming a turnout 4X larger than 2004 in all the remaining state races -- she'd still have had to beat Obama by 5% across the board to surpass him in the popular vote.

When I get some time, I'll have some fun figuring out her new odds after Mississppi.

[Johnny__Motown]

40. April 22 and MI & FL can't count unless they re vote. Also NC will wipe out any PA gain she gets

Obama is way ahead in the popular vote too. Deal with it

[metalluk]

45. It's highly unlikely that NC will offset PA.

The two latest polls from NC show Clinton behind by either 4% or 7% (versus Obama trailing by around 16% in PA). And since the population in NC is roughly 9 million versus 12.5 million in PA, Obama's pick-up in NC will likely be a third or less of what Clinton gains in PA. That still leaves WV and Puerto Rico where Clinton will gain ground, IN for Obama, and several unknown quantities.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

49. what makes you think NC is anything like SC?

[Ravy]

42. I would guess that a mail-in FL revote would help her do that.

I would imagine extremely high turnout if they mailed us ballots to fill in and return, which would unfairly skew the popular vote, imho.

[4_Legs_Good]

43. I think you missed a zero on your Obama popular vote lead...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Shows Obama up by 702,162 votes.

Only if you count Florida and Michigan do you come up with your approx 80,000 value, and that is, of course, absurd. Assume a split in Michigan (which upon a revote I think is the best Clinton could hope for - polls have her behind a point or two), and Obama is still up 407,000, including the 300,000 Clinton would have got from Florida had she carried it by 17 points in a real primary, which, let's be honest, she wouldn't. Not that she wouldn't necessarily win, but she won New York by 17 points, her home state. I think Obama could easily chip her down to 10 points max.

Anyway, it is possible that she'll close the popular gap (though personally, I really doubt it), but I think you should be fair about the starting point and *at least* not count Michigan as Obama was unable to get a single vote there as he wasn't on the ballot. At the very, very least, give him the 40% "none of the above" vote.

David

[metalluk]

47. Good points.

"Only if you count Florida and Michigan do you come up with your approx 80,000 value"

I agree that counting Michigan -- as is -- is absurd but counting Florida is not, since it was a level playing field (neither candidate campaigned and both were on the ballot).

"Assume a split in Michigan (which upon a revote I think is the best Clinton could hope for - polls have her behind a point or two"

The latest poll from Michigan, dated 3/6, has them dead even, but Clinton is gaining ground among undecideds, so that could change by the time a re-do occurs.

"the 300,000 Clinton would have got from Florida had she carried it by 17 points in a real primary, which, let's be honest, she wouldn't."

I think she'd do better in a re-do of Florida because the elderly vote and the Latino vote are turning against obama.

"I think Obama could easily chip her down to 10 points max."

Or lose another ten points. That's why a the game needs to be played. You think your team will improve; I think my team will improve.

"I think you should be fair about the starting point and *at least* not count Michigan as Obama was unable to get a single vote there as he wasn't on the ballot."

Fair enough. Even with that concession, HRC can catch BO. That's why the game needs to be and will be played out to its just conclusion, so we all can know for sure.

[Sulawesi]

53. Caucus states are way underrepresented in the popular vote count...

[Apollo11]

57. Because fewer people take part in caucuses - compared to primaries.

[Vinca]

56. I don't think so. If there is a revote in MI & FL - which is only fair -

it'll probably follow the pattern to date. They'll split the spoils and Obama will still be ahead. It will be extremely difficult for her to make up the current gap and overtake it.

[Inuca]

58. Just one comment

among many possible. HRC will NOT win PA by 18%. She is likely to win it, but by a much smaller margin. Even using an analogy with OH, I guess (no facts, so apologies if I am wrong) that the weight of the major urban centers in the overall population is higher in PA than it was in OH, and they are likely to go heavily for Obama. This being said, I think it is mathematically possible for her to win the popular by a paper thin margin, but is also extremely unlikely. If she does, this would be her ONLY relatively valid argument to try to sway the SDs her way. But given how unlikely a popular vote win is and how much damage is being done to the party and the country (and the whole damn world id the end result is McCain as president) in the process.... well.... she should just give up, but she won't :-(.

[cooolandrew]

59. I'd imagine her negative campaign will of depressed votes big time by now. Negativity is

a destructive force.

[chascarrillo]

60. THERE IS NO OVERALL POPULAR VOTE

There's no record of popular votes in caucus states, so any "popular vote" total leaves them out, and is thus invalid.