Clinton’s Popular Vote “Lead”
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, HillaryTake a look at this…
(numbers via Real Clear Politics)
That’s right. If you count Florida and Michigan, but don’t count any votes from those 4 caucus states, she leads by just over 26K votes. That’s her argument.
And do note that Obama gets ZERO votes out of Michigan because his name wasn’t on the ballot. But if you count half the “Uncommitted” votes from Michigan for Obama (and he probably got more than that), he’s ahead of Clinton by nearly 100K votes.
What Hillary and her campaign are taking part in right now represents one THE most dishonest and disingenuous strategies they’ve employed yet.
How very shameful…
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 20th, 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 20th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
It’s absolutely incredible to me that
#1 they are selling this BS.
#2 anyone is buying it.
It’s just amazing that anyone can twist their minds into such a place that this actually makes sense.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:52 am
Obama just has to grit his teeth and take it, too. He’s not in a position where he can take Clinton to task for her misrepresentations or go to any length to set the record straight. Not in public, at least. In fact, he has to go the other way and say how great she is. I think that’s another reason why he’s gotten increasingly snippy about McCain lately. Gives him an outlet.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:39 am
[...] some bizarre reason she thinks she has a larger share of the popular vote than Obama. (Details here). Sadly - for her - no one else agrees. Or, to put it another way, everyone else knows how to [...]
May 21st, 2008 at 3:49 am
Are they going to let her get aways with something that is this dishonest?
May 21st, 2008 at 7:57 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is no popular vote count in a caucus state. That’s why “estimates” is put on this chart. They are estimating what a popular vote count would have been if the state had a popular vote, based on the people who caucused. Your average person doesn’t get a vote in a caucus state. Your averegae working Joe or Jane doesn’t have 3-6 hours to participate in a caucus. That’s why Obama, who seems to be more popular with rich dems, wins more caucuses, and Clinton, who seems to be more popular with working class, wins more “populae vote” states. I believe that is the comparison that is being drawn here.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:19 am
I’ll correct you then drdwi, because you are wrong. Obama leads if you only count the states that had popular votes too. The bottom line is that he leads no matter how you slice it unless you count only Clinton’s votes in Mich. and no one else’s. Pretty disingenuous I’d say.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:03 am
Djthedj,
You are wrong. After last night, Clinton leads in that metric.
After Puerto Rico, Clinton will lead in all popular vote metrics.
This means the democrats will nominate a candidate who lost the popular vote (Obama), which is in direct contrast to their outrage over Bush winning that way in 2000. Pathetic.