Democratic Popular Vote Totals
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, HillaryWith Florida and Michigan…and Iowa and Nevada and Maine and Washington.
That’s right…because if you’re going to count popular votes from states that really shouldn’t count, then why not include popular vote totals from states that held caucuses but didn’t release popular vote counts?
So, what would those totals be? (Numbers from RCP)
Popular Vote with Florida and Michigan
Obama - 16,596,184 - 47.8%
Clinton - 16,496,600 - 47.5%
Advantage Obama - +99,584 - +0.28%
With Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington
Obama - 16,930,268 - 47.9%
Clinton - 16,720,462 - 47.3%
Advantage Obama - +209,806 - +0.60%
Either way, he wins. And again, he wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan so he received ZERO votes in these totals. However, since 238,168 voted “uncommitted” in that primary, it would be fair to split those between Obama and Edwards and give Obama 119,084. So it could be argued that his total with Florida and Michigan is actually 218,668 and with Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, it’s 328,890.
Why do I bring this up? Well, once again, Hillary is making the popular vote argument. She did it in her victory speech tonight (right after she led off by asking for people to donate money at HillaryClinton.com…classy). She’s also trying to say that the new delegate total is 2,209, not 2,025.
So just keep these numbers in mind in the coming weeks when her campaign keeps making these arguments.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 13th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, Hillary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Obama will be at his inauguration and Hillary will still be trying to campaign
May 13th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
The “popular vote count” from the Iowa caucuses isn’t released by the state party; that would make it “too much like an election” and New Hampshire would get mad. An approximation of it exists at state party HQ - but it’s based on “realignment” totals and not the walk-in-the-door total.
As for “counting” the Michigan vote, that’s simple: credit Hillary for the votes, then subtract the uncommitted vote that was AGAINST her.
an Iowa Democrat
May 13th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Why are you not giving the total popular vote from all states that have had primaries, including New York, California, Texas, etc. etc. etc.? Your article is deceiving at the least, at the bottom line, dishonest.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
This reminds me of the first Bush win when Al Gore had the popular vote, but Bush won; what is really going on here? Clearly the superdelegates don’t respect the wishes of the people based on the popular vote. Why did we waste our time going to the polls? Superdelegates changing with the wind, “touchy, feely, good feeling” about Obama? 1+1=2 It’s disappointing that the democratic process isn’t representing our democracy.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
We are paying for Carter’s politics in the middle east to the tune of a trillion dollars, this is nothing compared to the damage any of these three idiots will do, especially the least experienced and most raciest Obama…its scary to think of the social and economic damage he will do to the country….the world for that matter.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Paula, those numbers do include ALL of the other primaries. That’s why it says “Popular Vote with Florida and Michigan” and then “With Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington.”
My point was that some are saying Florida and Michigan are being left out, but what about the other 4 caucus states that don’t release popular vote totals? That’s why I presented the totals above.
Honestly, this really shouldn’t have been THAT hard to figure out and accusing me of being dishonest is pretty weak. I provided a link to where I got the number. Do your research next time and click the link.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:12 am
The only real point to the popular vote noise is electability, an argument for swaying superdelegates. The electability argument applies entirely to the wins in specific states liable to actually be in play in the fall. In “safe” states, either side, it’s meaningless. It is otherwise a non-issue, just as it is when arguing against the results from the Elcetoral College.