From
Real Clear Politics: "One thing many people haven't noticed about Hillary Clinton's 55 percent to 45 percent victory over Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary is that it put her ahead of Obama in the popular vote. Her 214,000-vote margin in the Keystone State means that she has won the votes, in primaries and caucuses, of 15,112,000 Americans, compared to 14,993,000 for Obama."
It's funny how, when Obama was ahead in the popular vote, we heard about it all the time.
Update: As several commenters have pointed out, that figure includes Florida and Michigan, which the DNC is not including.
Here's the breakdown. Sorry about that... I read the article last night, got excited, and posted without thinking enough about it.
###
10 comments:
..except this is using the Michigan and Florida primary vote, whose primaries were disallowed and where Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot.
This is just more spinning by Clinton propagandists.
Well..I guess you can interpret things anyway you want...that is the Liblog way...but...your comments only prove one thing...
Yes, Hillary can win and is ahead only if Obama IS NOT on the ballot as was the case in Michigan...nor did he even campaign in Florida.
The rules are the rules...and the Clintons never cared much for the rules or ethics...
That's bit dicey. You can't really use the Mich and Flor numbers at face value, because Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Mich, there was no race in Florida. It's a bogus number, but I would argue that she probably would be ahead, had those two state conducted normal contests. At least tied, based on what the consistent demographics have shown. She would have won Florida handily, and Michigan probably would have been a Ohio, Pennsylvania scenario.
You're as tricky as Hillary.
You're counting Michigan and Florida in those totals, which were primaries that didn't count because they broke the rules by holding them early.
Of course, in Michigan, Obama wasn't even on the ballot because of this. Despite no other candidates being on the Michigan ballot, Hillary got only 57%. Had Obama been on that ballot in Michigan, he'd had received many votes, might have even won in Michigan, who knows (Detroit and all).
So this argument that Hillary now leads the popular vote is an disingenuous as the rest of Hillary's campaign.
Yappa Ding Ding, ditto what Scott tribe said.
Yappa Ding Ding, ditto what Scott tribe said.
Yappa Ding Ding, ditto what Scott tribe said.
Yappa Ding Ding, ditto what Scott tribe said.
If the popular vote is used to measure Clinton and Obama's support by Democrats who voted in the primaries, and the expectation is that the superdelegates use this measure as one of the ones used to decide who to elect, then obviously the votes cast in both Michigan and Florida should be considered.
"obviously the votes cast in both Michigan and Florida should be considered."
I voted for Clinton in the Michigan primary, and would still have done so if Obama had been on the ballot.
But I know lots of Democrats here who voted in the Republican primary, voted "uncommitted", or just stayed home.
So I don't think that primary had much value as a measure of relative popular support for the two candidates in Michigan.
Post a Comment