Does Hillary Have a Legitimate Claim to the Most Popular Votes?

[lawrocket 3]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obama-disputes.html

Hillary Clinton claims that if you count the Florida and Michigan votes, she'd be leading Obama by 100k votes in the primary popular vote.

"The votes in Michigan and Florida were official," Clinton told ABC News' Diane Sawyer, "I mean, they were certified by the secretary of state. It's just that the Democratic Party can't figure out what to do with all those votes, and try to seat delegates."

"I actually have more votes from people who actually voted for me," Clinton added. "Last night's win should give a lot of fresh information to our superdelegates, because after all, the road to Pennsylvania Avenue does lead through Pennsylvania."

Here's the problem, as I see it - Obama didn't even appear on the ballot in Michigan! Obama knew that the primary didn't count so he didn't submit his name to the ballot. Therefore, Hillary receives 328,151 votes. She beat Obama by 288,167 votes in Florida. I can see some credibility in the "popular vote" claim with Florida.

So, the Michigan and Florida vote totals would give Clinton a 100k vote advantage over Obama. Wihtout them, Obama is ahead by over 500k in the popular vote.

I think that Clinton is being ENTIRELY dishonest with this. Again, if she wants to include Florida, okay. That ain't a stretch. But to include Michigan? That's just outrageous.

The holy trinity for the Dem convention is, "Most pledged delegates. Most states. Most popular vote."

Clinton can't get the most pledged delegates or the most states. If you don't count Michigan, as of right now, Obama has the holy trinity. Clinton is making an argument that she's got the popular vote, and thus should win.

Unless Obama can gain a couple of hundred thousand popular votes, this will get even nastier. Clinton WILL NOT let it die. She won't let it.

I find this to be, perhaps, the best example of why I believe that Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Unless Obama can gain a couple of hundred thousand popular votes, this will get even nastier. Clinton WILL NOT let it die. She won't let it.

Another reason why she shouldn't be in the Oval Office. Can't you see her tantrums if she didn't get her way with any foreign leader?

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[skymiles 3]

Math is never easy under sniper fire.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Here's the problem, as I see it - Obama didn't even appear on the ballot in Michigan! Obama knew that the primary didn't count so he didn't submit his name to the ballot. Therefore, Hillary receives 328,151 votes. She beat Obama by 288,167 votes in Florida. I can see some credibility in the "popular vote" claim with Florida.

I don't think Clinton should be punished because Obama didn't have the sense to get on the ballot in Michigan. He didn't refrain from getting on the ballot in Florida, so he can't claim that it was because the Michigan primary didn't count. So, yes, I think she has a legitimate claim to the popular votes that she earned in those two states.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Who cares? The nomination requirement in their own party is based on number of delegates.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lummy 4]

I believe that Obama's name was taken off the ballot in MI as were a # of other democrats because they were told it would not count.

Quote

We were told that these contests would not count," he tells Steve Inskeep. "Sen. Clinton agreed. Our name was taken off the ballot in Michigan, and in Florida we did no campaigning. Now, if people think that that is a normal democratic way of running an election, then that's not the America that I know."

source

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I don't think Clinton should be punished because Obama didn't have the sense to get on the ballot in Michigan.

What is sensible about getting on a ballot in a state where the votes won't count? I personally believe that Obama chose to withdraw from the Michigan primary as a campaign tactic. He wasn't gonna win Michigan, so withdrew. Nevertheless, the next highest vote getter was "uncommitted" in Michigan, with 238,168 - thus having 238,168 votes AGAINST Hillary.

Obama withdrew from the Michigan primary on October 9, 2007. http://michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127--177580--,00.html

Clinton chose not to withdraw from the Michigan Primary. Perhaps it was a tactic on her part, too.

As far as Florida goes, there is no law in Florida that authorizes a candidate to remove himself. So he was on, along with Clinton.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Who cares? The nomination requirement in their own party is based on number of delegates.

Which is why Clinton is so depserate to pull the Gore 2000 thing. If she can't win delegates, then she's got to have SOME reason to stay in the race.

Winning the popular vote is the only way that she can claim any legitimacy. And the best way to get superdelegates on her side.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Math is never easy under sniper fire.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I believe that Obama's name was taken off the ballot in MI as were a # of other democrats because they were told it would not count.

Quote

We were told that these contests would not count," he tells Steve Inskeep. "Sen. Clinton agreed. Our name was taken off the ballot in Michigan, and in Florida we did no campaigning. Now, if people think that that is a normal democratic way of running an election, then that's not the America that I know."

source

From your source:

"Our position consistently has been that the Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated [at the Democratic National Convention] and that we should come up with a system that is fair to all the parties involved," Obama says.
(emphasis mine -jcd11235)

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

"Our position consistently has been that the Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated [at the Democratic National Convention] and that we should come up with a system that is fair to all the parties involved," Obama says.
(emphasis mine -jcd11235)

But he also stated that the rules are rules.

If you plan to play by the rules, what do you do?

If you don't plan to play by the rules, what do you do?

The rules were known going in.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

"Our position consistently has been that the Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated [at the Democratic National Convention] and that we should come up with a system that is fair to all the parties involved," Obama says.

But he also stated that the rules are rules.

Well, which is it? Does he think the delegates should be seated, or does he think the "rules are rules"? He can't have it both ways; which is the lie?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

apparently, he thinks the delgates should have never been pulled away. But, since they were, that's the way he approached it. The rules are rules. He pulled out of the election. It should not be held against him that he honored the agreement.

Had he stayed in ithe election, he could priobably have claimed at least 200k votes. But he cannot now since he pulled out.

Don't go changing the rules after the game.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Don't go changing the rules after the game.

Yeah, because voters actually having a voice is bad. What do those voters think the US is, a democracy/representative republic? How silly of them.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Don't go changing the rules after the game.

Yeah, because voters actually having a voice is bad. What do those voters think the US is, a democracy/representative republic? How silly of them.

The election is in November. No one's vote will be tossed. Primary votes for party nominees don't enjoy such status.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The election is in November. No one's vote will be tossed. Primary votes for party nominees don't enjoy such status.

Are you suggesting the primaries are not an integral part of the election process? If not, I don't understand how you could come to the conclusion that "[n]o one's vote will be tossed." That is exactly what occurs if their votes aren't counted.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[MajorDad 0]

Think we are watching Clinton jump the shark on this one.

Major Dad
CSPA D-579

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The election is in November. No one's vote will be tossed. Primary votes for party nominees don't enjoy such status.

Are you suggesting the primaries are not an integral part of the election process? If not, I don't understand how you could come to the conclusion that "[n]o one's vote will be tossed." That is exactly what occurs if their votes aren't counted.

There's really no point in debating if the two parties have the right to do what they want with primary votes. That's fully established.

Many states restrict voting to registered members. I approve of this restriction.

Democrats added hundreds of superdelegates who have no responsibility to the votes cast.

And both parties have choosen to invalidate states that tried to jump the schedule.

Votes are being tossed left and right and democracy lives on just fine. You can still vote for Hillary as a writein in November if you can't stand her loss.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And both parties have choosen to invalidate states that tried to jump the schedule.

Are you sure about that? The Republicans are counting the primary votes of those two states. They decreased their value, but are not invalidating them.

Quote

You can still vote for Hillary as a writein in November …

I'll vote against the least desirable candidate, as usual, by voting for the candidate of the opposing party (of the two parties that actually matter in our system). If I were going to waste my vote with a write in, it certainly wouldn't be for Clinton or Obama, it would be for someone qualified for the job.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Are you sure about that? The Republicans are counting the primary votes of those two states. They decreased their value, but are not invalidating them.

We used to count blacks as 3/5th of a person too, but I don't think anyone would consider that acceptable today.

[tbrown 26]

This is Hillary's third big lie, the other two being sniper fire in Bosnia and the woman and baby who supposedly died somewhere of something she would prevent from happening, or something like that.

Obama had the good grace not to campaign in Florida, and even withdrew his name from the ballot in Michigan. But the bitch will take her votes wherever she can beg, borrow, or steal them. She thinks the White House is her birthright.

If she wins/steals the nomination, first of all the black vote will mostly get pissed off, call it a white man's system and stay home, thus electing John McCain.

And as much as McCain has NOTHING to offer except more of the same old shit and the vague hope that he will kick the bucket sooner rather than later, I'll probably vote for him over THE CLINTONS.

Heil Hillary ? None for me thanks....

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

We used to count blacks as 3/5th of a person too, but I don't think anyone would consider that acceptable today.

Yet you have no problem not counting votes at all?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

apparently, he thinks the delgates should have never been pulled away. But, since they were, that's the way he approached it. The rules are rules. He pulled out of the election. It should not be held against him that he honored the agreement.

"Our position consistently has been that the Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated [at the Democratic National Convention] and that we should come up with a system that is fair to all the parties involved," Obama says.

(emphasis mine -jcd11235)

Perhaps it shouldn't. But it sure highlights how his position has not been consistent like he claims it has.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Amazon 7]

After watching the series on HBO...John Adams.... we should go back to that model...

have an election.. elect all the delegates... and they vote for who they are committed to...

top number of electors= President
next highest number of electors=Vice President.

And the individuals do not campaign the people who support them do that.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

We used to count blacks as 3/5th of a person too, but I don't think anyone would consider that acceptable today.

Yet you have no problem not counting votes at all?

For the nomination process? None whatsoever. The Democrats and Republican national parties need to take control of the process - if states are left to their own, we'll get the sort of result we had this year, with the schedule so frontloaded that a month in we're down to 2 candidates from each party, yet 4 months later, still have 3 of the 4. Hardly progress.

The parties warned the states and lacking follow through on punishment, states would continue to act as self centerered children.

The truly ridiculous part is that California still has the June election.