Jerome Armstrong makes some pretty good points here:
The real popular vote is very close. Clinton leads by just 12,506 votes, a lead of .04 percent. The numbers I passed on in a post yesterday about Clinton’s lead in the popular vote excluded estimates from 4 caucus states, which I didn’t realize until being able to check in later (and updated the post). I see that Markos flipped out with a tirade about it.
But, rather than be content with calling out a math error, Markos has to up the ante audacious to demand we “count the count the Michigan “uncommitted” votes for Obama”. Ah, well, John Edwards was still in the race at the time and was surely in the same boat, having also pulled his name off the ballot in Michigan. At least Markos isn’t calling for Texans that caucused to have their votes counted twice, or that Puerto Rico votes won’t count… yet.
No one but Obama is to blame for his having no votes in Michigan. His campaign came up with the gambit to take his name off the ballot in MI to score cheap points in IA, and his campaign took the lead in convincing Edwards and Richardson to follow along and remove their names from the MI ballot to try and force Clinton to follow suit (my sources are from top people in the Edwards campaign). it didn’t work, Clinton took the hit of the political stunt and kept her name on the ballot in Michigan.
I get the idea that Markos is talking about with the uncommitted votes, and believe that they will represent themselves in delegates. Chris Bowers has a couple of posts up about this here and here. The allocation of the MI vote that went for Obama, 72%, should translate into his getting at least that many of the uncommitted delegates from MI. Obama will get delegates from MI. The uncommitted delegates can move to Obama. MI has already begun the process of selecting the delegates, and its probable that Dean is favorable to backing the half-delegate vote solution (as thats what the rules support). I’m not sure about how Florida will be solved. They may not go along with a half-vote delegate solution, but they may not be given a choice. On the other hand, if Dean thinks he has to get candidate approval for a FL and MI solution, then nothing is more likely to happen anytime soon.
Regardless, the next time you are accused of being a hack for counting MI, here is your response.
UPDATE, lifted from my comments:
Personally I don’t think that you count MI; at best you re-allocate according to exits. My point is just that it ain’t just the right-o-sphere that thinks these arguments are valid. But I do think that Armstrong does make some reasonable points in there, that I will admit I never thought of. And you won’t hear me admit that every day.
There was never an agreement to remove names from the ballot. Dean told them to, Edwards and Obama said “sure,” and Hillary did not. I can see the argument that Hillary is making: They made their choices in the hopes of getting a bump in Iowa and New Hampshire by maintaining their special status. She did not. She probably took a bit of a hit in both states because of it. I can see the p.o.v. that says it is now Obama’s turn to take the hit.
I also feel less than sympathetic toward Obama given that his surrogates were actively opposing a re-vote in MI for obvious reasons (even more obvious given Ohio and PA), something that Armstrong doesn’t touch.
Ultimately, Jay Cost is correct: There are about 16 different ways to count the popular vote for the Dems, ranging from not using any caucus estimates for the four states that didn’t keep count but using MI and FL, to using caucus estimates for those state, plus counting the TX caucus, but not counting MI/FL. And there is the question whether to use the WA caucus estimates or the non-binding WA primary estimates. Do you allocate uncommitted votes to Obama if you count MI? Or use the exit polls to approximate? Or not give him any?
There are straight-faced arguments that can be made for any result with either of those. I think Hillary probably has to win the popular vote without counting MI, and with the caucus estimates (not double-counting the TX caucus or using the WA primary), and with FL, to have an argument that will sway many superdelegates. I think if she wins the popular vote without using FL, MI, or the caucus estimates/guesses, she will have a very strong argument.
Of course, it doesn’t matter what I think or what you think. It matters what the super-delegates think.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
If you look at the Michigan exit polls, voters were asked who they would have voted for if the candidates had been running. It was 46 for Hillary, 35 for Obama, 12 for Edwards.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Why in the heck don’t those idiots take a vote in Florida and Michigan to get rid of this huge arumentative stalemate?
April 24th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Armstrong is an intellectually dishonest Clinton hack (at least during the recent months of the campaign season). To say that Michigan was a legit competition is absurd. Use his talking points at your own risk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTY_bp1dTA4
April 24th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Because Obama is afraid of re-votes.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
And because they don’t want to spend the money. I’ve always been with Hillary on this issue though.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
SteveS,
Personally I don’t think that you count MI; at best you re-allocate according to exits. And you’ll never hear me arguing for Armstrong’s intellectual honesty. Point is just that it ain’t just the right-o-sphere that thinks these arguments are valid, and he does make some reasonable points in there.
Regardless, the problem with the video is that there was never an agreement to remove names from the ballot. Dean told them to, Edwards and Obama said “sure,” and Hillary did not.
I also feel less than sympathetic toward Obama given that his surrogates were actively opposing a re-vote there, for obvious reasons (even more obvious given Ohio and PA.
Jay Cost is correct: There are about 16 different ways to count the popular vote for the Dems, ranging from not using any caucus estimates for the four states that didn’t keep count but using MI and FL, to using caucus estimates for those state, plus counting the TX caucus, but not counting MI/FL. And there is the question whether to use the WA caucus estimates or the non-binding WA primary estimates. Do you allocate uncommitted votes to Obama if you count MI? Or use the exit polls to approximate? Or not give him any?
There are straight-faced arguments that can be made for any result with either of those. I think Hillary probably has to win the popular vote without counting MI, and with the caucus estimates (not double-counting the TX caucus or using the WA primary), and with FL, to have an argument that will sway many superdelegates. I think if she wins the popular vote without using FL, MI, or the caucus estimates/guesses, she will have a very strong argument.
Of course, it doesn’t matter what I think or what you think. It matters what the super-delegates think.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
One thing I’ve always liked about Hillary is I know that she doesn’t like Howard Dean very much.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Sean, you were cited in Michael Barone’s blog. Congrads on that!
April 24th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Thank you!
April 24th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
You are well on your way in becoming a professional pundit.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
You just can’t count MI in the popular vote. Obama wasn’t even on tha ballot. You can make a case that they their delegates should be counted but you can’t make a reasonable argument that the vote tally in MI should be included in the popular vote tally.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
What, if Hillary removes her name from North Carolina, would Obama’s votes not count there? That makes her road to a popular vote victory pretty easy.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Looking at this practically, the superdelegates would probably not overturn the pledged delegates if Hillary is behind in the popular vote but ahead when you add Florida and Michigan or even just Florida. These people worship at the altar of the DNC. You would have to have really compelling evidence that she was stronger against McCain than Obama. For example, you’d have to have her leading McCain by 10 while Obama trails McCain by 10. Right now you do not have that.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
“Jay Cost is correct: There are about 16 different ways to count the popular vote for the Dems”
HAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!
Words cannot describe this awesomeness.
And if we thought Bittergate was turning off the white vote, wait until BOTH candidates are speaking Spanish as they pander to Puerto Ricans.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Many Democratic voters won’t understand the whole process anyway, regardless of the outcome.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Clarence,
I don’t think the supers are going to accept the frame you work within of “turning over” the pledged delegates. After all, there are supers endorsing Hillary even while she does not have the lead in either count. Some will simply view themselves as part of the process, independent of the pledged delegates. In fact, they may view it that they are preventing the pledged delegates from usurping the true will of the people, expressed in actual votes.
More likely, it will be whomever promises them the best posts in their Administration.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“Obama wasn’t even on tha ballot.”
- because he willingly took his name off the ballot. If he seriously believes that it is alright to snub who knows how many voters in what is probably the biggest swing state in the 2008 election, he doesn’t deserve the nomiantion
April 24th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I love the Tolkien reference.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
The argument if Obama was or wasn’t on MI ballot is just dumb. All the candidate agree not campaign there, there wasn’t any obligation of remove themself off the ballot. Why Obama didn’t remove himself from Florida’s ballot?. He made a political decision of not participate in the MI primaries.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Falz, Obama took his name off the ballot because he knew he was going to lose MI and didn’t want to get hurt by it. Anyone here remember how Mitt scared away Rudy, McCain, & Thompson from competing in IA in summer of 2007? They too tried to play it off as though they had not been defeated, but everyone knew why they weren’t there. Its the same thing with Obama. For that reason I think it is legitimate for Morgoth to say she has had more people vote for her than anyone else. On the other hand, also I think that Obama is right to say the nomination should be decided by the pledged delagates. Just like the electoral college system, voters per se were not the goal of each contest, the pledged delagates were.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I followed this election pretty close, and I don’t remember a single post, comment, interview…anything, where a caucus-goer in Iowa or voter in NH thought more of Obama for taking his name off the ballot in Michigan, and less of Hillary for leaving it on. Find me one somewhere, or else I have to think this argument that Hillary “took a hit in IA and NH” is totally bogus.
In any event, the contest wasn’t about getting votes, it was about winning delegates. No matter what the Clintons say after the fact.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
“In any event, the contest wasn’t about getting votes, it was about winning delegates. No matter what the Clintons say after the fact.”
Yup. And superdelegates are part of this. And unlike the delegates, there is no formula for them to follow. They can choose to look at the pledged delegate count — and some will buy the argument that “hey, rules are rules, and this is how we allocated the will of the people.” Some will look at PA, where she won 55% of the vote and picked up 52% of the delegates, or the Texas primacaucus, or whatever, and decide that they’ll go with total votes counted.
Delegates gives Obama a claim to the superedelegates loyalties. Votes gives Clinton such a claim.
You must not follow this very closely if you don’t think that people in NH and IA are pretty jealous about their first-in-the-nation status.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
By the way, the best thing about this whole thing is watching Obama make Bush’s 2000 arguments: The rules are the rules, we would have campaigned differently with different rules, don’t count the votes in Florida — grand!
April 26th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
My recollection is that of the three candidates Armstrong mentions it was Richardson who bailed on Michigan first, and that Edwards and Obama quickly followed suit. But I agree with his main point, that Obama has nobody to blame for himself for pulling hisname off the ballot there. He quite possibly could have won the primary there had he stayed on the ballot.