Will someone with a mic please ask HRC this: How can you argue that the candidate that has an insurmountable lead over you in pledged delegates, pop. vote, and number of states (i.e., by any reasonable measure, not to mention the rules of the Democratic primary)...How can you argue that *he* has an electability problem, that he can't close the deal.

In sports, when the losing team, apparently oblivious to the fact that they're losing, celebrates a meaningless hit/run/score, the appropriate response is: SCOREBOARD.

You can make a reasonable argument that the MI vote distorts things unless you give Obama votes based on the uncommitted vote, but I don't see any kind of good argument to exclude the FL vote, which is certainly a better representation of the will of the people than any caucus result, which demonstrably distort the numbers in favor of Obama (he won the WA caucuses, for example, by 36%, but lost the WA primary by only 5% - a swing of 31% in his favor).

Uh, if you count MI and FL.

Uh, that's right because, in the end, they will count.

Be reminded that Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI, which Hillary still won with 55% of the vote.

There is no reasonable scenario where Obama can pull out a primary win without intervention by the super-ds.

Oh, Joe,

the little problem Obama has with all those counts that favor him so much is that they hang critically on excluding any results from FL and MI -- which certainly is why he did everything in his power to close down the possibility of revotes in those states.

Even his lead in pledged delegates shrivels up if delegates from FL and MI are seated in anything like the numbers represented in the primary elections in those states (even making accommodations for the uncommitted vote in MI).

Of course, Hillary is going to argue very strongly that FL and MI should count, because, you know, there are millions of voters that need to be counted.

And the only real argument that the Obama camp has to counter this is to become the Bush camp in the Bush v Gore fight over FL in 2000, trying to keep votes from being counted, the people be damned.

"There is no reasonable scenario where Obama can pull out a primary win without intervention by the super-ds."

Substitute "Clinton" for Obama in that sentence, and add the fact that she not only needs super-ds, but that she needs them to overturn pledged delegates and, most likely, the popular vote.

Joe,

Hate to break it to you, but at least two polls show that, by overwhelming numbers, most people think that superdelegates should choose either the popular vote winner or the more electable candidate.

Not a lot of respect among ordinary people for the pledged delegate count.

franklyo, since the primary in Washington state occured after the caucuses, and was known to be meaningless, I don't think it's really accurate to call the caucus results a "swing in his favor." The primary beauty contest was a swing in her favor, but a meaningless one.

Trying to make a case on anything other than head-to-head primaries that count seems a stretch.

The problem with the popular vote count is that it doesn't include several caucus states. Even to the extent it does, counting caucus votes is questionable. And yet the same HRC supporters who want MI and FL votes counted don't seem to care about disenfranchising voters in caucus states, states that followed the rules.

With regard to superdels, HRC now needs them to break to her at a rate of about 3 to 1 at least. That seems very unlikely.

HRC supporters need to face the reality that they're holding on to the equivalent of Obama being struck by lightning for her to pull out the nomination. In the meantime, McCain continues to cruise.

How is the popular vote tallied for a caucus? Is it (% of state delegates won)*(caucus attendance)?

Hey, franklyo - Clinton AGREED to excluding MI and FL. End of story.

Hey, franklyo - Clinton AGREED to excluding MI and FL. End of story.

Bill's & Hillary's performances in the PA primary race finally tipped me off the fence...in favor of Barack H. Obama.

Their conduct and the type of campaign they have stooped to leave me with a conviction that the country be damned, the party be damned and the beliefs of a majority of Democrats be damned...We (the Clintons) are somehow heirs apparent and we'll do what-ever is necessary to secure that heritage.

And that is what needs changing.

Joe -- the tally for the caucuses that goes to either candidates total in the popular is the tally of delegates, not the total of those who actually voted. Each delegate in a caucus can represent as few as 10 actual votes, or as many as 50 or more. If you take the minimum number of 10 votes per delegate allocated, Obama would have a lead in popular vote of more than 2.5M. Of course if the rules were obliterated by the Clintons and MI and FL were added to her tally for the popular vote, then it would only be fair to count the actual caucus votes. Doing so would keep Obama with a lead still of more than 2M.

Brent, the problem with your dismissal of the WA primary is that, even if it didn't count in the delegate selection, it still drew far more voters than did the caucus. Which could hardly be a more convincing argument that caucuses disenfranchise voters, and shouldn't be taken very seriously as an index of the will of the people -- which democrats and even most Democrats think is most important.

And reggie, you are missing the whole point about democracy. Clinton's basic expression of resignation early on to not counting FL and MI is hardly going to trump fundamental principles of democracy. She and others might have been OK with not counting MI and FL, if they didn't figure into the final outcome, just nobody much cared that absentee ballots in CA in 2000 (as opposed to the votes in FL) didn't really get counted for a long time because they didn't figure into the outcome. But if the votes in FL and MI do make a very real difference -- and it's now clear that they indeed do -- that is the precise point at which one has to return to basic principles such as counting the vote of everyone as best as one can to determine the legitimate winner.

Sorry Hillary, much more people have voted for Obama even if you count Florida. Nobody can count Michigan because Obama wasn't even on the ballot. And I'm tired of people saying that Obama prevented a revote. He doesn't control those states, he can't veto the idea if they decided to revote. Fact is, those states have better use of their money than a revote to help out Hillary.

MI and FL screwed up by breaking the rules. They will be seated at the convention, they just won't get to decide the nominee. Obama still has the most states, most votes, most delegates, and under the rules we started with he will become the nominee. Eventually Hillary and her supporters will accept that they have lost.

It's kind of amusing to see Obama supporters now claiming that it's not fair to use the raw caucus votes in a determination of the overall popular vote, because that would "disenfranchise" caucus states, since far fewer voters show up for caucuses than for primaries.

You see, that has ALWAYS been the problem with caucuses -- that it disenfranchises voters. That's why Obama has done so well in caucuses, because he effectively can stack the deck against the will of the people by having his activist crowd turn up in overwhelming numbers -- witness the 31% swing from caucus result to primary result in WA. Somehow, you don't hear from Obama supporters that the pledged delegates based on the caucuses should be denied the candidates, because it "disenfranchises" voters, do you?

No, according to the Obama camp, caucuses are perfectly OK, and not disenfranchising when it comes to the pledged delegates, but terribly unfair and disenfranchising when it comes to counting the popular vote.

But you can't have it both ways, can you?

Fl & MI are out because the states tried to cheat. I caucused for Hilary in Minnesota, but I believe it would be wrong and unfair to include the results from FL and MI. Short of a self-destruction by Obama, he will win the process with more votes, delegates, states etc. He will be the nominee. If through chicanery things go otherwise, a lot of people would be turned off from the process. I might also.

Its like my lawyer always tells me, "you are a victim of the facts".

frankly0 -- note post at 11:05. the raw caucus votes are not counted, only the allocated state delegates. If the raw votes were counted, Obama would have an massive lead in the popular vote. But, as Sage notes. It doesn't matter, we have always chosen a nominee by delegates -- Obama will have the most at the end based on the rules set at the beginning of the game, so he will be the nominee. Might as well get used to it.

Anyone who considers themselves to be a small d democrat has to count every vote....and that includes flrida and michaigan.....

It is undemocratic not to count Florida and Michigan. UNDEMOCRATIC.....real simple

It is also unDemocratic, big D Democratic to not count Florida and Michigan...after all the point of a nomination battle is to get a nominee who can win the general election.

Only biased, non democratic people are telling 2.3 million people that their votes should be thrown in the garbage.

Anyone who considers themselves to be a small d democrat has to count every vote....and that includes flrida and michaigan.....

It is undemocratic not to count Florida and Michigan. UNDEMOCRATIC.....real simple

It is also unDemocratic, big D Democratic to not count Florida and Michigan...after all the point of a nomination battle is to get a nominee who can win the general election.

Only biased, non democratic people are telling 2.3 million people that their votes should be thrown in the garbage.

Anyone who considers themselves to be a small d democrat has to count every vote....and that includes flrida and michaigan.....

It is undemocratic not to count Florida and Michigan. UNDEMOCRATIC.....real simple

It is also unDemocratic, big D Democratic to not count Florida and Michigan...after all the point of a nomination battle is to get a nominee who can win the general election.

Only biased, non democratic people are telling 2.3 million people that their votes should be thrown in the garbage.

I'm confused, but that's nothing new: according to Real Clear Politics, if you add in the caucus estimates, Obama STILL leads HRC in the popular vote even if you include Florida and Michigan.

Or am I missing something in the way these hairs are being split?

Debcoop --

I believe there's been at least one poll out of Florida showing that the vast majority of Florida Democrats think it would be unfair to count the Florida primary.

Here's a link to the one I'm thinking about.

Now to be sure, I want to see some effort to seat Florida's delegates, either 50/50 or split proportionally based on the bastard primary of January 29th.

Michigan? Screw 'em. It's the party leaders in Michigan who decided to flaunt the DNC. All the candidates agreed to pull their names from the ballot, but Hillary (yeah, I know she has this noncredible excuse about deadlines) broke that promise. Counting Michigan would be democratic in the same way that Stalin and Saddam Hussein were "democratically elected leaders."

As a Florida voter I am strongly of the belief that our votes should not be counted. Many of my friends and family were visibly turned off from the process because they knew their votes would not be counted. Democratic turn-out was lower in Florida relative to 2006 rates than in any other state other than Michigan. It was the only swing or contested state in which Democrats did not overwhelmingly outvote Republicans. This should tell you that the states vote can not be viewed as representative.

Anyone who has a sincere interest in looking at the popular vote count should go to the site:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html

Interestingly, the projected overall result for PA is almost precisely on the money, even if the turnout is a bit low, and Hillary's projected percentage margin a bit high.

Put in 0% for all the future election margin results to get a clear picture of where things stand today (you can probably simply leave the PA result as projected, since the resulting number is so close to actual vote.)

You will note that in line 50, for example, Obama is shown to be losing the popular vote so far by over 50K votes. Likewise, Obama is losing in line 46, though by only a few thousand votes. (The difference between the two being whether one counts the WA caucus or primary toward the popular vote).

I'd expect that is what Hillary is talking about when she says more people have voted for her.

Anyone who considers themselves to be a small d democrat has to count every vote....and that includes flrida and michaigan.....

It is undemocratic not to count Florida and Michigan. UNDEMOCRATIC.....real simple

It is also unDemocratic, big D Democratic to not count Florida and Michigan...after all the point of a nomination battle is to get a nominee who can win the general election.

Only biased, non democratic people are telling 2.3 million people that their votes should be thrown in the garbage.

Hey Hillary and all her supporters who want to count Michigan, why don't we also count the people who voted Hillary during the NY Senate campaign. Obama was not on that ballot either. Maybe she ran for class president in grade school without Obama on the ballot. We can count those too and then we will also ignore all the caucus state. I bet if we twist logic and credibility to the breaking point we could make an argument for her. Yeah Hillary! Listen up you SD's: If you look at her at just right angle, and not too directly and just ignore the facts and then stretch the truth and ignore common sense, you could maybe ignore the facts enough to just maybe determine that she is in fact not loosing by all measures and somehow determine against all reason that even though she has won only half as many states as Obama and is way behind in delegate count that she is the strongest candidate. Yeah, that's it, the strongest candidate is the one that comes in second. New Hillare Slogan "two is better than one." It will be Hillary vs. Huckabee in the fall. I am sure the SD's are buying all this crap. Give it up Hillary, you are making yourself and your supporters look stupid.

Hey Reggie,

Clinton agreed that the FL and MI delegates would not be seated at the convention. Neither candidate ever said that the actual votes of the people will not matter.

When the super delegates decide on who to vote for, it is entirely appropriate that they consider who won the overall popular (one person one vote) tally. To include the MI and FLA voters in that equation does not run counter to either the rules as they were made by the Democratic party or to the pledges that were made by the candidates.

frankly0,

I know quite a few people in Florida and Michigan who did not bother to vote in the election because it was meaningless. How is it within the basic principle of democracy to count an election that people did not vote in because they knew it would not count? Does this comport with any concept of fair play or is this just victory at any cost for the Clinton campaign?

Quibblling about votes in Michigan and Florida or who delegate counts is really ridiculous. The fact is that nobody will mobilize the Republicans like Hillary will. A vote for Hillary now will be the same as two votes for McCain later.

Republicans are mindless and vote more on hate than on principles and Every Republican has had 16 years of hatred for Hillary. The fact that the Republican noise machine is pushing for her is more than enough for me to know what they are hoping for.

The idea that states like New York and Cali will swing Republican if Hillary doesn't get the nod are ridiculous.

Hillary has already lost and it is time for Dems to unite and turn their guns on McCain.

She's lost her mind, and so has that "husband" of hers.

Shochu John,

The fact is that Hillary pushed hard to get revotes in both FL and MI, and this clearly would have been the fairest solution. The Obama camp did everything they could to make sure that those revotes didn't come about, raising one lame objection after another to prevent them.

The issue then becomes, what is the best representation of the will of the people in FL and MI, given the circumstances. Obviously, it's to count the primaries as is, with whatever accommodations might be made in the case of MI to deal with the "uncommitted" vote.

And, if the FL and MI votes are "unfair", because not everybody turned up to vote, how about any and all caucuses, which systematically have only a small fraction of the number of voters turn up as compared to any primary?

Point is, the elections in FL and MI, flawed as they are, are vastly better as representations of the will of the people than any caucus -- and no one in the Obama camp is saying, throw out the caucus votes because they disenfranchise voters.

1) Hillary said Michigan wouldn't count. Yes, she won it. But she only beat Uncommitted by 12% or so. This state can't be counted. It isn't little "d" democratic to count an election where no one else is on the ballot. Many Dems, like in Florida, knew it wouldn't count and didn't vote. I think a re-do would be acceptable, but I think logistically difficult. Perhaps split Michigan evenly and then have Florida count for less (split the delegates in 1/2), since it was really just a beauty pageant based on name recognition (of which the Clinton name dominates). As a follow-up argument to the notion that primaries should hold the same democratic value is just laughable -- the purpose of primaries is to select a nominee and a platform. The process is determined by the party. The party created a primary system, which allows for voters to cast their ballots for delegates. But the national party determines the platform and candidate for the general -- and if the state's don't abide by those rules, then the national party can do what it pleases. The rules were laid out at the beginning, and while it may seem unfair, that was how everyone played. To change it now is patently against the principles of democracy and the Democratic party.

2) Hillary is the popular vote winner if, and only if, you include Michigan and Florida and remove Caucus states. If you include caucus states and MI and FL, Obama is still ahead.

3) While Obama lost in PA, he actually gained on many of Hillary's constituencies. In a state that is the most demographically advantageous -- fewer blacks (but still enough to stoke the fears of racists), the 2nd most old-people after Florida, and a ton of non-college educated -- Obama lost by less than he lost Ohio.

4) The party is not going to self-destruct by giving the election to Hillary and risk losing out a generation of young voters, AA voters, and Independents -- few of whom will cross over in the numbers that HRC would need them to in the general to win.

5) To make an argument that she is the stronger candidate is a joke. While there are some racist dems (much to my disappointment), there will be enough crossover by Indies and reconciliation between the Dems to have an Obama presidency. The fact that he didn't win PA in a primary doesn't mean a thing about the general. The two situations are not analogous. It baffles me why no one is calling people out on this "big-state" commentary. Obama isn't going to lose New York or California.

6) The arguments about Caucuses as being unfair are bunk. Maybe they are, but it doesn't matter because that's what states chose as their model and the campaign's campaigned how they did because of it. This is also true for population -- if population was the key determining factor -- then Obama wouldn't have spent only a day in California.

She may be winning among the democrats, but the last I remember the November election is open to Independents and Republicans. And, in the states where they have been able to vote, Obama has trounced Hillary.

"Point is, the elections in FL and MI, flawed as they are, are vastly better as representations of the will of the people than any caucus..."

What is ridiculous about this statement and all who share the sentiment about the caucus states is that Bill Clinton himself benefitted from the exact same represetative voting system. There was no complaining then (I'm guessing because he was winning the votes in those states).

Point is, if it was good enough for Bill, then it should be good enough for Hillary.

INTERESTING FACT:

The only reason the Obama and Edwards and the other Dem. candidates left their names on the Florida Primary Ballot is because of a Florida Election law that states that a candidate for a particular party can not be on the General Election ballot unless his/her name appears on the ballot for that Party's primary.

frankly0,

Comparing the Florida and Michigan non-elections to caucuses is frankly silly. Everyone knows what the rules are of a caucus going in. Everyone is welcome and everyone knows how it is counted. As to Obama "blocking" revotes in Michigan and Florida, he certainly expressed concerns about method, as well he should given the fact that the entire Michigan democratic machine is backing his opponent ad Florida has had problems conducting even normal elections in the past, but that is a a far cry from "blocking" any revote.

Further, you contiunally gloss over the fact that Hillary agreed to these rules beforehand. She AGREED that FL and MI do not count. If they were only agreeing to not count FL and MI in the event that there results would be irrelevant anyway due to one candidate securing the nomination early, it would hardly be a punishmnet for violating DNC rules. Harold Ickes voted in favor of this sanction before political expediency changed for him. You can spin it all you want. This is a blatant attempt to change the rules from what both candidates agreed to to ones that favor Hillary. No dice.

messiah Obama wants you to accept things JUST THE WAY THEY ARE. Thats why his followers parrot the same ideology as messiah Obama. messiah Obama says he is the savior of the world. Trust me.
NO OBAMA I don't trust you and I won't vote for you. Senator Hillary Clinton by all rights is the nominee of the Democratic Party. I'm tired of elections being stolen. Florida and Michigan DO count. If they aren't then mainstream Democrats don't count either which leaves me out of the picture therefore why should I vote?

I'm willing to be that the votes of Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine (caucus states that have not released popular vote totals) aren't include in Clinton's count.

If Florida and Michigan do count, why did Hillary, your rightful nominee, agree not to count them beforehand?

All of the pro-Hillary arguments for changing the rules now crumble when it is pointed out that she had no problem disenfranchising FL and MI before she needed them.

Brent, the WA primary was as indicative as FL or MI. It did not count, and the votes meant nothing. The only reason ballot went out in the mail (No one went to polls in WA) was because it was a GOP primary on that date as well. Thousands of Democrats did not vote in the primary because they knew it did not count. It was all over the news here that it didn't count. The caucus is what counted in WA. This is a delegate race. The popular vote is meaningless because lots of states don't even have a popular vote. Do you propose simply not counting all the caucus states? The size of the states is meaningless beccause in the GE the whole dynamics switches to a GOP vs DEM race. The system was set up as a delegate race. Anyone that attempts to change the system because they are loosing is not fit to represent the Party. Isn't one of the objectives of getting DEMs back in power to restore integrity and ethics in government? You can not acheive that by cheating to get there.

HRC always forgets to note that she SIGNED an agreement acknowledging that she would not participate in the Florida and Michigan primaries. That's above and beyond changing the rules in the middle of the game.

It's impossible to unravel a system that's part primaries/part caucuses/part primaries in which the electorate is told (and the candidates agree) that the election won't count to suddenly come up with a different metric (popular vote instead of delegates) halfway through the process. The agreed metric is delegates, and there's no reason to change that mid-play.

All candidates knew what the deal was going in; some came up with a better strategy than others. Who wants someone in the White House that prefers to redefine reality to accommodate failed strategies ("if we'd played by different rules, i would have won") instead of coming up with a winning strategy (and organization) to begin with? Is that what Hillary calls ready on day one? Isn't that exactly the kind of immature thinking we're trying to get out of the White House, not into the White House?

If there really are any undecided superdelegates, they're well aware that purely looking at the popular vote as a straight number makes no sense, as it obviously disenfranchises all caucus states right off the bat. If there's any number they're paying attention to other than the delegate count, it's the state by state polling vs. McCain, and Obama is doing fine on that score too.

Uh, if you count MI and FL.

Don't you also have to exclude Iowa, Nevada, and the other caucus states to get the number Clinton's claiming?

"It is undemocratic not to count Florida and Michigan. UNDEMOCRATIC.....real simple"

So was Hillary being undemocratic when she signed the pledge not to campaign in those states, and made public statements that those votes wouldn't count?

The next time I hear a Clinton supporter explain this one...it'll be the first time.

Just saw some math on the so-called "big" "important" states like NY, NJ, OH, TX, PA etc. Out of more than 1200 delegate votes up for grabs, HRC won only 42 more than OB. ONLY 42 more! This is why she should get the nimination !?!

Just saw some math on the so-called "big" "important" states like NY, NJ, OH, TX, PA etc. Out of more than 1200 delegate votes up for grabs, HRC won only 42 more than OB. ONLY 42 more! This is why she should get the nomination !?!

Just saw some math on the so-called "big" "important" states like NY, NJ, OH, TX, PA etc. Out of more than 1200 delegate votes up for grabs, HRC won only 42 more than OB. ONLY 42 more! This is why she should get the nomination !?!

"So was Hillary being undemocratic when she signed the pledge not to campaign in those states, and made public statements that those votes wouldn't count?"

Yes.

Everyone talks about this in terms of what is fair for the candidates. How about what is fair for the voters? Since they are virtually identical on policy, and each brings his or her own very positive personal qualities to the table, I don't particularly care who wins. However, I would be one very PO'ed hombre if I took the time to vote in Florida or Michigan and it didn't count because some DNC stiff said the state party "broke the rules".

The idea that the votes in MI and FL should be counted, as they were conducted, is simply pathetic. First, ALL the candidates agreed they would NOT count, including Hillary. That's a deal breaker for me right there. Her grotesquely obvious, self-serving flip flop on something so basic as the rules of the contest should raise serious concerns about whether she has the right qualities to lead this nation. The fact that her non-stop pushing of this issue carries the possibility of ripping the party apart pretty much disqualifies her in my mind as to being the standardbearer for Democrats this fall. Setting these aside, lets look at a few of the other reasons that including these votes is a joke:

1. No other major candidate, other than Hillary was on the ballot in MI, which makes this vote more akin to the "elections" held in the Soviet Bloc during the Cold War (not to beat a dead horse, but her decision to leave her name on the MI ballot, again, in hindsight, raises serious questions about her character), so the idea that leaving out this vote has anything to do with obstructing "democracy" reflects a fundamental ignorance about what that term actually means;

2. The actual turnout at these primaries, esp in MI, almost certainly didn't reflect what would have occurred in a REAL vote, since the message sent to voters beforehand was that these votes DONT COUNT;

3. Obama, along with the rest, following the rules agreed upon by ALL candidates, didn't campaign in either location. Combined with their early dates, contrary to the AGREED upon rules of the party, meant that Obama, a relative unknown, didn't have the opportunity to make his case to the people of these states, while Hillary was able to ride on the coattails of name recognition; the reality is that in every state Obama has campaigned he has either cut into Hillary's lead signficantly (OH, TX, PA), or won outright.

4. When someone breaks the rules, there should be consequences. FL and MI broke the rules, and were punished with the agreement of all the candidates. One of Clinton's top advisors (Ickes) was one of those who agreed to the punishment. You risk throwing future primaries into chaos if it is shown that states, especially big ones, can simply ignore the rules of the contest.

I am certain that delegates from MI and FL will be seated at the Convention in one form or another, but to base them on the "votes" that took place, much less to allow them to decide who wins, would be both ridiculous and a travesty.

Finally, there is the simple question, "would you feel the same way if the situation was reversed?" As an Obama supporter, I would be embarrassed completely if my candidate was pushing this perspective, and, especially after what happened in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, couldn't support using this argument as a basis for claiming victory. And in the end, that is my perspective on those who push this idea, shameless. We are supposed to be different from the Bush's, Rove's and Catherine Harris's of the world. If not, then what's the point, other than the desperate desired to obtain power.

Remember, Hillary didn't have to push this issue. It was not inevitable. It was a conscious choice by her and her campaign. Contrary to what the Clintons would like us all to believe, not all primary contests are like this (e.g., look at the Dem Senate primary contest in MD in 2006). One can seek elected office, and still maintain one's integrity. The fact that she has, without hestitation, pursued this shameful tactic tells me everything I need to know about her as a potential leader of this nation.

"I would be one very PO'ed hombre if I took the time to vote in Florida or Michigan and it didn't count because some DNC stiff said the state party "broke the rules"."

What happened between the DNC and the state parties in MI and FL strikes me as far from ideal, but voters in those states were told IN ADVANCE that their vote wouldn't count. That alone makes it a severely flawed competition. (Let alone that candidates weren't allowed to campaign etc.)

There's no way to "fairly" unravel this to suit a losing candidate who wants to adjust the rules, and so it looks like we're stuck with the last resort:

Play by the rules as they stand.

Hillary's argument for including MI and FL:
disenfranchised million of voters. Now if
Obama had won those states, would she still
passionately want to include them? Would she?

Now you see the real problem. Those two states
only matter to her AFTER the fact.
The argument of disenfranchised only matter
when she discovered she won. Everyone agreed
that those two states should not be included.
And now she wants to change the rules in the
middle of the game. Sounds like 3rd world
politicians to me.

~ Jess

The headline of this post is "HRC: "More People Have Now Voted For Me Than For My Opponent""

Is that a truthful statement? After all, Obama is well ahead in the popular vote (as well as in every other metric).

Try this: go to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html

In the top orange field under "Net Clinton Votes" enter ".094" (= 9.4%) to reflect the result of yesterday's primary. In the remaining orange fields directly below this field, enter "0" (as these contests haven't yet taken place and are thus not included in Hillary's claim).

Then look further down for the counts obtained under various scenarios. In almost all cases (all but 2), it's Obama who has received more votes than Clinton. Clinton has only obtained more in TWO scenarios (and these are only slim leads as it is):

-- "Include MI and FL. Exclude Caucus Estimates. No MI Votes To Obama."

-- "Include MI, FL, Caucus Estimates. Use WA Primary. No MI Votes To Obama."

In other words, the ONLY scenarios in which she is ahead are the ones in which Clinton voters in Michigan count, but Obama voters do not. So much for Clinton weeping for the disenfranchised voters of Michigans, huh?

This is a blatantly dishonest statement by Hillary Clinton, pure and simple. How do the Hillary supporters commenting here feel about that? Is it fair for Hillary to make such a claim?

It's very simple: Florida and Michigan must be excluded from the tabulations because the DNC announced prior to the voting in those states that the results would not count toward the nomination. Counting the results for that purpose now would be changing the rules after the fact, in order to benefit a particular candidate. It would also disenfranchise people who did not vote in those primaries because they believed the DNC when it declared that the results would not count.

@Frankly0

How can people support just letting the votes from FL and MI count without a revote? Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in MI.

It's absurd to think that HRC supporters can try to steal this nomination by hook or by crook and not suffer a wicked backlash. Dean and the other at the DNC are not going to let that happen.

And HRC would lose the national election, period. Why, oh why, do you think the Republicans want her instead of Obama?

Do you think those disenfranchised Republicans and Independents supporting Obama now are going to vote for Hillary? Not a prayer.

Couple that with a split down the middle of the Dem party after a stolen election, and you have the recipe for 4 more years of Republican rule.

Holy crap, she's using the Michigan votes to draw her conclusion. What a jackass. Hillary Clinton has no principles. If she's the candidate you might as well vote for McCain because there's no difference between them.

I still don't get the argument that Obama BLOCKED revotes in Michigan and Florida. He doesn't run the MI or FL state parties. If anything, Hillary has more supporters among the party officers (at least in FL, I am not sure about MI). If they wanted to do it, they could have. Seems to me like a really good play on Hillary's part. She doesn't actually WANT a revote...she wouldn't gain enough from that...it wouldn't put her ahead. The only way for MI and FL to help Hillary is for the votes to stand as they are. It would still be pretty much split down the middle. Instead, she can encourage her cronies in the MI and FL party to block revotes, claim it was Obama blocking it, AND say that since a revote is not possible, it is only fair that the original votes be counted and delegates seated. Sounds like a very sneaky win, win, win to me. I don't know that this is actually what happened....but it makes more sense than the idea that OBAMA blocked revotes. He has no reason to. Revotes wouldn't make much of a difference in the delegate or pop. votes numbers. Obama has the money to spend if need be to campaign in those states (hmmm....does Hillary? Another reason she may not have REALLY been for a revote). Finally, Obama never said he was against a revote...he just wanted to make sure the METHOD was fair to voters.

I still don't get the argument that Obama BLOCKED revotes in Michigan and Florida. He doesn't run the MI or FL state parties. If anything, Hillary has more supporters among the party officers (at least in FL, I am not sure about MI). If they wanted to do it, they could have. Seems to me like a really good play on Hillary's part. She doesn't actually WANT a revote...she wouldn't gain enough from that...it wouldn't put her ahead. The only way for MI and FL to help Hillary is for the votes to stand as they are. It would still be pretty much split down the middle. Instead, she can encourage her cronies in the MI and FL party to block revotes, claim it was Obama blocking it, AND say that since a revote is not possible, it is only fair that the original votes be counted and delegates seated. Sounds like a very sneaky win, win, win to me. I don't know that this is actually what happened....but it makes more sense than the idea that OBAMA blocked revotes. He has no reason to. Revotes wouldn't make much of a difference in the delegate or pop. votes numbers. Obama has the money to spend if need be to campaign in those states (hmmm....does Hillary? Another reason she may not have REALLY been for a revote). Finally, Obama never said he was against a revote...he just wanted to make sure the METHOD was fair to voters.

a) Clinton AGREED that Mi and Fl would not count
b) when a person is not on the ballot, one has NO idea how many would have supported him. No idea, period. The 55% for Hillary mean strictly nothing, they might include any number of people who would have wanted to vote for Obama and then voted just for the Democrat available,
c) many independent and Democrat-leaning voters registered Republican when they heard that the Democratic vote would not count - were there a new vote, they would be excluded _ THIS is what makes a new vote unfair - one cannot turn back the clock;
d) changing rules in the middle of the game (at the insistence of the player who suddenly has to gain by the change) is DISHONEST, period,
e) Clinton, on the one hand, keeps saying that people should not be "disenfranchised", yet, on the other hand, insists that pledged delegates are not bound to the popular vote, not "pledged" to the people who voted for their candidate (of course, if that candidate is Obama) - which is the ULTIMATE DISENFRANCHISEMENT of people; this is DISHONEST, period;
f) the Clintons are dishonest to the core, as all of the above shows (and people who follow their ever-changing "reasoning" as to what should count and what not, are equally dishonest - none of them are stupid, all of them know the arguments I brought, they just choose to conveniently ignore them - this is DISHONEST),
g) Obama has picked up five more superdelegates after Pennsylvania (Oklahoma, Nebraska, and three Congressmen from NC - together with the bulk of prominent Edwards supporters in NC),
h) NYT has virtually withdrawn its endorsement of Clinton; but Richard Scaiffe Mellon has endorsed her!
i) which brings us to the final point: who says Clinton is a Democrat? Her PROMISES certainly are, but how do you now she is going to deliver on them or even honor them? Mark Penn aside, what about Bill's 800 000 speech to promote a free trade agreement with Colombia where union leaders are assassinated on a daily basis: do you think Americans will EVER be able to compete with such a country? That American unions would ever survive in such a competition? Now Bill is on Limbaugh - who urged Democrats to vote for Clinton so as to destroy Democratic hopes in the election (as does Bill Kristol, and everybody in the McCain camp - they have just publicly expressed their delight with the Pennsylvania results which give Clinton a pretext to continue). What about Bill on Fox News? What about all the PAC and lobbyists money Clinton has taken? Have you forgotten that BILL Clinton's promises in the 1990s included laws to force auto-industries to increase fuel-efficiency? Forgotten once he got elected since auto-industries were among his major donors. And on foreign policy Hillary is avowedly more hawkish than McCain. What on earth makes any thinking being believe she is a Democrat, except for formally? Or perhaps you understand that she is not and just pretend not to? Which is, again, DISHONEST.