Here we go

Posted: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:53 AM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
After Clinton's victory last night, the latest out of Clinton camp is that Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama in the popular vote. Of course, as we noted in First Thoughts, this can only be done by including Florida and Michigan, which is what the Clinton campaign has done.

Coming across journalists desks this morning was the following e-mail from Phil Singer at Clinton camp with the subject, "More People Have Voted For Hillary Than Any Other Candidate":

"After last night's decisive victory in Pennsylvania, more people have voted for Hillary than any other candidate, including Sen. Obama. Estimates vary slightly, but according to Real Clear Politics, Hillary has received 15,095,663 votes to Sen. Obama's 14,973,720, a margin of more than 120,000 votes. ABC News reported this morning that 'Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama' in the popular vote. This count includes certified vote totals in Florida and Michigan."

ABC's The Note reported this morning, however, similarly to what we wrote in First Thoughts: "By one (rightly disputed) metric -- the popular vote, including Florida and Michigan -- Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama. But without the rogue states, Obama is still up by 500,000 -- and if you can find another objective measurement by which she's in the lead, let us know."

RealClearPolitics keeps a popular vote tally, which breaks down the totals. It has a line also factoring in Michigan, which has an asterisk.

What we wrote: "That new popular vote total (not counting FL or MI) has Obama leading Clinton, 49%-47%. For those keeping score, that's a difference of 483,129. ... So those remaining contests, per this conservative projection, bring Obama’s popular vote lead to 515,629. If you add Florida, that gives Clinton almost another 300,000 more. So you if you include the Sunshine State, Obama will still lead her by about 215,000 popular votes. No wonder Clinton herself decided to start talking about Michigan again, because she can't "win" the popular vote without it. The problem: Even many Clinton supporters believe it’s not a valid measurement."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

There is no way you can include Michigan in the vote totals, Obama wasn't even on the ballot. And you can't count caucus states this way either, the Clintons are now disenfranchising the voters of all of those states. But I guess the only people that matter in this country are the ones who vote for Clinton.

Todd, Rochester, NY (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:05 AM)

"Even many Clinton supporters believe it’s not a valid measurement."

That pretty much says it all.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:08 AM)

ABC is in the tank for the Clintons. Everyone knows that.

Stephanopoulos = Shill (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:09 AM)

The key from now until May 6 is to REALLY JUST focus on McCain. Really. If Hillary attacks, literally just say "I thought we were supposed to be united against John McCain; I thought that our differences pailed in comparison to the differences with McCain; then why is she attacking me instead of the real problem? We don't affect real change by squabbling."

Then go back to focusing on McCain. Then the story will become: Hillary is negative and selfish. Which is the story.

Geoff in Brooklyn (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:09 AM)

The Clinton campaign's popular vote analysis is eerily similar to the reasoning used by President Bush to have the US military attack Iraq, reasoning with only selected facts that supports one's position.

Do we really want that kind of President again?

Earl, Meegagoochie, North Carolina (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:11 AM)

Wow - this is all getting to be quite pathetic.

I'm changing my vote to Obama on May 20 - time for this ridiculousness to end. Isn't this all VERY silly? I thought we all knew the rules before the game began. Reminds me of silly Monopoly games as a kid with my brother - when he would try and cheat to win...but we always caught him in the act.

L'viller, Lou, KY (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:12 AM)

What about the 3 caucus states who don't report vote totals? If you're gonna include Florida and Michigan, you gotta estimate those.

Zeke, Tenley (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:12 AM)

Popular vote is not an accurate measurement because of all of the caucuses that are held in the Democratic primary. It would be really nice to see the media portraying this accurately but I guess that is too much to ask. In this party we elect our nominee based on delegates - not popular vote.

Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:12 AM)

If Florida and Michigan count, so should the estimate the Wharton professor did of the 800,000 additional votes Obama would have in his "popular vote" column were all the caucus states reported on an individual votes basis.

ABC is a joke (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:12 AM)

Puke Puke Puke Puke

Peoria, IL (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:13 AM)

Clinton matters! (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:13 AM)

Democrats really struggle when it comes to counting.

Ricky C., Buffalo, NY (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:13 AM)

We knew she was going to try to get Florida and Michigan. Don't give me the argument that they deserve to be heard. She is breaking the rules and cheating. The typical Clinton style. I could not vote for her under any condition, as so many Democrats I know feel. The thought of Bill lurking around the White house again pointing his finger at everyone is too much. Obama may have some negatives in the fall but she has more!

LK in VA (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:13 AM)

Of course, there is apparent buyer's remorse against Clinton, since now she trails by 10% in national polls, so there are a whole lot of people regretting their previous votes and they're Clinton voters.

Greg, N.Y. (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:13 AM)

This is retarded. I am also amazed by how the pundits often attribute her "untrustworthy" ratings to the bosnia thing. I think they are wrong on this, I think it also has to do with the same week she was forcefully making the argument that Michigan was fair, that it should count (she even went to Michigan that week. No one buys that argument. HE WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT. And if she only won Florida by 10% without Obama campaigning, imagine what the margins would have been with him actively campaigning in that state.

Kym (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:13 AM)

Why do the superdelegates allow this to go on? If any other candidate tried to change the rules in the middle of the game the party leaders would stop the discussion immediately. This lifelong Democrat is about to become an Independant.

Rules should matter-even if you're a Clinton! (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:13 AM)

There's no way someone can include Michigan, and Florida itself is an unfair measure of success when we know Obama didn't campaign there and was still relatively unknown to those voters. Hillary has proven she'll do or say anything to either win the nomination, or harm Obama's chances in November so she can run again after McCain's one term. Hillary's drug Obama through so much mud, lies and half-truths (South Carolina, Obama is not a muslim "as far as I know," pretending not to understand his "clinging to guns and religion" comment was in reference to how Republicans use divisive issues like guns, gay marriage and abortion to convince middle class Americans to vote against their best economic interests, and telling America that John McCain will be a better commander-in-chief than Obama, etc., etc.). IF HILLARY DOESN'T WIN THE NOMINATION, JOHN MCCAIN BETTER PICK HER FOR HIS VP. SHE'S EARNED IT.

Brice Sullivan (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:14 AM)

Another metric: She leads in electoral college votes with the states she has won. So far, Mrs. Clinton has won states with a total of 219 Electoral College votes, not counting Florida and Michigan, while Mr. Obama has won states with a total of 202 electoral votes and this was before PA's 21 votes. You said you wanted another metric you didn't say it had to be a good one.

Alan, NJ (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:14 AM)

W. Durant said" Great Civilizations are not conquered from external forces, but they collapse from within"

Close to 4 years ago Goerge W. Bush used the tactic of fear, divisive politics to exploit the ignorant and the un-educated to win an election. Now the results have been an economy that's in a recession. Healthcare cost that are out of this world. 45 Million people with no health insurance. A meaning less war. Gas Prices that have gone up almost 3 dollars in 3 years.

Yet still we continue to elect our candidates who use the same approach, who exploits our differences, and who uses fear. The true fall of our civilization will not be islamic terrorist, nor the Chinese, Russians or Iran. The True fall will be because of ourselves.

To be honest I am a Obama supporter, but because of his views,and leadership. I would be a Clinton supporter if she had these same traits, but she wants the office, because of ambition...not for the working man. Obama wants the office to start a trend, I think even he believes he can't change this country in 4 or 8 years..but he will be a catalyst for delivering goverment action back into the hands of the people.

One thing that struck me in the exit polls...The people of Pennslyvania believed Obama was more trustworthy than Clinton, but yet she won. What can be more important than trust. In a marriage that's the most impotant thing. My hypothesis is that with Clinton they trust her to do what she has been doing the whole time, whether to lie..say anything to get elected..some people in this country prefer to look their enemy head on, but because they know her movements..that's better than the fear of getting blindsided..(George W Bush). I have 2 fundamental questions....When did bettering yourself thru education and serving the community turn into eliteism, and Finally...Is this what we want to teach our next generation who want to serve the public that politicians normal course of behavior is to use tactics like these...is that how we want our leaders to serve us. After all we employ our leaders...it is our leaders that shoud fear the people and not the other way around.

Harold Smith, Long Beach , Mississippi (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:15 AM)

http://twocanpete.blogspot.com/
Enough celebrating, let's have a look at that next can of worms.

twocanpete (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:15 AM)

This popular vote arguement is a joke...if you do that then you ignore the voters in the causus states. Have their population votes been added in. So what does Hillary want to do disenfranchise them/ The media iscrazy for playing this game along with them. Their was a reason why delegate vote counted and that was because how do you count the popular vote in caucus states

Grace (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:15 AM)

You know, most of us were here and voting when there were the Florida shenanigans with Gore v. Bush in 2000. Well, we saw what the Republicans did...

Now imagine you're an Obama supporter now in 2008 and you find yourself asking...could the Dems stoop lower than the Bush partisans in 2000?

In this case, hopefully our answer is not, "yes we can".

Sad at this in central CT, this may spell the end of my participation in the Dem. party. And yes, I know you don't care about me alone. But I'm quite sure I'm not alone.

When does the cheating stop? What does it say about the process going forward? I am feeling more horrified now with the Dems in 2008 then I was with the Bush forces in 2000. Who would have thought that?

Obama for our best future.

Lisa, New Britain, CT YES WE CAN! (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:16 AM)

So why not count all the votes like we are supposed to as a democratic nation? Because some of the men in this country just simply cannot fathom a woman beating a man for the president of the United States. It's a bit too EGO bruising, shall we say.

j fl (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:16 AM)

Almost 170,000 PA Republicans changed their registration to Democratic in order to vote for HRC and get their preferred candidate in the Fall. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan so of course no one voted for him there. I know in politics you do what you need to in order to win, but this stretches credulity.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:16 AM)

I can't take this crap anymore. If Hillary were my dog - frothing at the mouth and barking incessantly at things that aren't there - I'd have her put down.

Enough already! The Democratic party is imploding. Howard Dean is ineffective and worthless. ENOUGH ALREADY!!

Matt; Valparaiso, IN (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:17 AM)

Last night only gave a psychological boost to Hillary and her chances. She's still screwed without FL and MI, has no cash, and needs another string of huge wins in the Basketball Primaries next month. Not the best position.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

matt (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:17 AM)

I love that Clinton doesn't want to disenfranchise voters … unless those voters didn't vote for her.

How sleazy do you have to be to count an election in Michigan in which no other candidate's name appeared on the ballot?

Sam, Muncie, Ind. (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:17 AM)

Hillary the Hypocrite.

Leave it to Hillary to go back on the document she signed last year.
In several videos, you can also see Hillary saying Michigan and Florida can not count unless they change their rules to meet the DNC requirements (which they did not).

Dan, Madison, WI (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:17 AM)

GO Hillary!!!

You will be a great Madam President.

American People, USA (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:17 AM)

I say GIVER HER Florida's votes as a good gesture but do NOT allow her to count Michigan. That is an utter travesty if that happens since he name was NOT on the ballot. what a crock of sh*t

christian (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:18 AM)

These scenarios remind me of It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World - remember those hilarious scenes when Milton Berle, Mickey Rooney, Ethel Merman, Phil Silvers, etc. were all trying to figure out a way to pocket the most stolen loot.

Senator Clinton, it's very simple.

If you were against the Iraq War, you should have stood up to President Bush and said so at the time. You didn't.

If you were against not counting Michigan's votes, you should have stood up and said so at the time. You didn't.

Despite all of the spin all over the place last night, you have lost this nomination.

I don't know where the Democratic Party is on this. When are they going to stand up to the Clintons? Why are Bill and Hillary and Terry McAuliffe able to twist and turn everything until it suits them? You cannot win a state where everyone agreed - including you - that it wouldn't count!

You lost. And no matter how much you twist and turn it - you still lost - to Barack Obama.

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:18 AM)

The people of Michigan and Florida didn't change the primary dates. So is it fair to deny them their right as an American to vote?

Sharon Stone. (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:18 AM)

Michigan, and Florida = Rogue States

-Domenico Montanaro

That's funny.

donna (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:18 AM)

Keep ignoring Puerto Rico.

Another 250 mill margin for Hillary.

Margaret, Columbus, Ohio (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:19 AM)

If superdelegates overturned the results of the public vote, it would be the death of the Democratic Party. When the Democratic Party officials overturned the results of the public vote in the 1986 Democratic primary for governor of Alabama, it had sufficient legal justification, but it resulted in the next closest thing to the death of the party.

Gregory Peek, Birmingham, Alabama (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:20 AM)

someone please explain to me how one can possibly count Michigan considering BARACK OBAMA WAS NOT EVEN ON THE BALLOT? Not to mention that caucus states do not represent an accurate popular vote count either?

B Dub, Raleigh, NC (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:20 AM)

Pennsylvania Site: Clinton 54.3
Obama 45.7

In order for MSNBC to match their rhetoric, you round Clinton's up and Obama's down. That's hardly the way it's taught in school, at least not regular school. No wonder Chuck Todd didn't want to criticize ABC's debate several days ago. Looks to me that 8.6 would be accurate, but you need to have it be a ten point win to keep killing air time. What happened to "anything less than ten, and she will have to think about getting out". MSNBA, ABC...no difference. Just change the figures to match the bull.

Teri Busick (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:20 AM)

she will say anything to win, but theres still 9 more states that needs to vote if is not over. and she still can not win without counting votes from MI & FL. but I delegates decided the "winner" not the popular vote.

d for Obama (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:21 AM)

BARACK CAN NOT CARRY THE BIG STATES WHICH IT TAKES TO WIN IN NOVEMBER....BOW OUT NOW
GIVE DEMOCRATS A CHANCE TO TAKE BACK THE WHITE HOUSE

SHARON,FL (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:21 AM)

THIS IS ABSURD! I'm tired of this game. Pledged delegates and super delegates nominate candidates... not "popular vote". How can you even print this without explaining to everyone how the "popular vote" disenfranchizes not 1 or 2 states... but 13 STATES!!! All caucus-only states have disproportionatly viewer voters, therefore leading to a less significant popular vote spread. This is ridiculous... not more playing nice... no more distractions... time for our media and our campaigns to get honest. This is over... its time to focus on McCain.

Blake, Devner, CO (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:21 AM)

*Yawn* can we please get to McCain. Stop moving the goal posts and lets end this.

Tim, Reading, PA (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:21 AM)

'Rogue States'

That's a good one. I got a good chuckle out of that. Ron Allen yesterday, and now Domenico today telling it like it is. GREAT.

donna (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:21 AM)

ABC News just continues to diminish its credibility as a legitimate news source. How can you possibly include the Michigan popular vote in your overall popular vote total when it's obvious that Obama's name was not even on the ballot. This coupled with your poor effort at a biased debate is why you've lost a great deal of credibility and respect.

Walter, Columbus, Ohio (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:21 AM)

ohhh....hillary by ten!!!...hey!, why is it that obama outspend her by 3 to 1 and lost..what does that say about his economics?.......really has to make you think...

not for odrama (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:23 AM)

CONGRATULATIONS HILLARY!!!!!
With your BIG win in PA, you will do well in the remaining states, count in FL & MI votes and you will win the popular vote. The media is now starting to recognize that obama is not the glory guy they have made him out to be - maybe now they will give Senator Clinton the respect she deserves and has earned.
This might be a good time for obama to step aside - "for the good of the party"!

Molly (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:23 AM)

Spin, Spin, Spin! We'll see how the Clintons spin the upcoming Peter Paul trial this Friday.

Peter Paul (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:23 AM)

Could some of those suburbian white women be Limbaugh's?

donna (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:24 AM)

Please upadte your prercentages with accurate numberrs it was not 55% to 45%. Put up real numbers fro mthe electrions people and quit rounding them off!
8.5% is not 10%

ron (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:24 AM)

So now, Hillary is saying that she is ahead of the popular vote if you include Michigan. She should make this argument: if Obama had not been on the ballot in any state so far, I would be way ahead!

If I remember correctly, she won a whopping 55% of the vote in Michigan, with Obama not on the ballot. That is real impressive. Every time I think Hillary Clinton cannot possibly sink any lower, I am proven wrong.

Obama in 2008. Integrity matters and the Clintons have none. Just ask their creditors.

Sick of corruption, sick of the Clintons (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:24 AM)

Insidious.

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:24 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=936250