Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


On Clinton and her supporters grasping for straws: the popular vote argument.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters have been using increasingly desperate logic to try and justify to the uncommitted super-delegates to vote for her at the Democratic Convention, even if Obama is ahead of her in “pledged” or voted delegates.  One example of that was Senator Evan Bayh – Clinton supporter and DLC member – suggesting that it’s better to measure the success of the candidates not by delegates earned, but by the electoral votes of the states they’ve won.

The other one of course has been popular vote.  The supporters of Clinton down there and the Clinton contingent amongst the blogs up here keep getting on suggesting that if Clinton wins the popular vote, even if behind on delegates, that would be enough reason for superdelegates to vote for her rather then Obama.

Interesting argument, except it’s a scenario not going to happen – Markos at Daily Kos explains why, as he discusses record registration of Democrats voting in Pennsylvania:

Obama’s current popular vote advantage is 813,051, which omits turnout for the Texas caucuses (which Obama won). Let’s say turnout is ridiculous, with 100 percent of Democrats voting. That means that if all 4 million voted, and Clinton won by 20 points, that 800,000 vote advantage would still not be enough to overtake Obama in the popular vote. And given Obama’s currently huge lead in the only other large state left in the race — North Carolina — her chances of making up the deficit are practically zero. But of course, turnout won’t be 100 percent, and she won’t win by 20 percent of the vote. So it won’t even be this close.

I look forward to the next moving of goalposts that the Clinton team comes up with to justify her staying in the race and to use to  appeal to super-delegates to vote for her.


4 comments to On Clinton and her supporters grasping for straws: the popular vote argument.

  • Ted

    You could be right James.
    Obama and Hillary are going to have to smoke some sort of peace pipe, one has to be the others running mate.  Kennedy hated Johnson, but needed him to win the south. Winning has to be the overiding bases for the candidate and running mate selection.  The only other solution is what Time magazine Joe Klien has suggested, and have Al Gore accept a draft, but that may make every one angry.

  • James

    I don’t believe those polls for an instant. People are just saying that they’d vote for McCain because the primary battle is heated and they think that  having that revealed in a poll will help their candidate of choice once it’s over they’ll find some convenient reason to change their mind and vote for the Dem candidate whomever it is (So basically Obama).

    Personally I think they would be suicidal (sadly not all that unprecedented for the Dems) to not go with Obama. I can easily see all those new voters he’s brought in not voting for McCain but just deciding to stay home. Plus, I’d think that there would be a sizable backlash from the African-American community if the first viable African-American candidate has the nomination taken away from him by unelected (Super) delegates after amassing victory in every real barometer (Delegates/Votes/Contests).

  • Ted

    This just released CNN-Gallup poll spells bad news for Democratic unity, -high defection rates

    This Drudge linked Rasmussen poll confirms bad news for Democratic unity.

  • Ted

    If they redo Florida and Michigan, Hillary has a chance of making up the popular vote.
    Nevertheless, it is delegates that win the nomination. Hillary’s people, weather its Bayh, Carrville, or whomever, have every right, under the rules to try and convince the super delegates to support them.
    Hillary’s best argument is her claim that she has the ability to win key purple states such as Ohio, Penn., Michigan, and Florida.  A must for the Democratic nominee.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.