nuanced (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:02 PM)

Thanks!  I noticed a pattern, too, but it doesn't always work.  HP, Pat, and Nobama seem to have the inside track to post. :-)

Congrats on another SD, BO!

Okay, funmeisters, now that you're having fun with numbers, try spooning in the 'popular vote' from the caucus states----what malarkey.  Buy yourselves some video games, or go take a walk, kids.

The best will be at the end when barack is winning anyway, for he is now favored to win more of the popular vote in the next remaining contests.

There's a 1.7% difference between the two candidates in the set of numbers that has them the farthest apart (without MI or FL).  Too close to call.

I'm a Floridian ... I sure would like to see my vote in there somewhere.

ding dong the witch is dead

READ FIRST, ARE YOU ENCOURAGING CLINTON TO BREAK THE RULES?

HOW UN-NEWS WORTHY.

WHAT AN IDOT

You mean Hillary lied today?  Impossible!

What about a count with vote estimates from the 3 states who caucused but didn't report an exact vote total?  Do those 3 states not get to count in this 'popular vote' count? Did they not vote (for all intents and purposes of the "count"?)

so for all that she has to take ALL the delegates in MI for her to get her less than 135K lead? But I'm sure she'll somehow spin this. Woman please do us all a favor and just shut up. You can stay in the race if you choose but STHU!

STOP! STOP! STOP!  This "popular vote" crap is a contrivance cooked up by the Clinton campaign to attempt to cover up the fact that, within the defined metrics of the nominating process, she cannot win.  You are doing the public a disservice by dignifying it with coverage.

HRC flatly stated that the Mich primary didn't count.  Now she is saying in determining the popular vote MI does count.  She gets all her vote and Sen. Obama gets 0.  

I think her argument only reinforces the perception that HRC does not have any integrity.

On another note, shouldn't you have a metric that includes the caucuses?

Do the popular vote numbers stated above include caucuses?

This race looks pretty close to me:

With MI/FL, including "uncommitted" for Obama:
Obama: 15,254,369
Clinton: 15,150,551

difference: 103,818

Where's the momentum Hillary? I like this Chinese water torture she's being put through. Is it possible that the supers could erase any gain she got from Pa. before May 3rd? Hmmm. Nice. They've been helping to  keep her bringing up the rear for quite a while now.

God Help American if Clinton gets the nomination through back door deals and dishonesty.

The rioting will never end.

I say ''Throw more wood on the fire,"

Free America from dishonest politicians--NOW

Hey, don't have so much fun with those numbers!  The Clintons have a very serious argument that Hillary would be ahead only if Florida and Michigan are counted, and only if the uncommitted vote in Michigan is disenfranchised, and only if the 4 caucus states that did not have popular vote totals are disenfranchied...

So even if we count FL & MI delegates, she still loses the delegate count.  If we give 0 votes to Obama out of MI and 328,000 to Clinton, she would lead by only about 135,000.  After NC and Indiana, he will net much more than 135,000 votes and be able to say count the votes any which way you want and I still win.

Clinton is like the football team who goes into the 4th quarter down by 5 touchdowns and then starts celebrating after she scored one (actually, it was more like a field goal).  Relax, calm down, you still need 4 more touchdowns and there isn't enough time so just take a knee and run out the clock gracefully!

When you report numbers like that, you give them credibility they don't deserve. What about the 120,000 vote margin Obama won in the Texas caucus? Aren't there other caucuses which have gone unreported or unestimated. I know no media figure has worked it out, that if a million people went to the Texas caucus and Obama got 56% of them, he got 120,000 more "popular votes."

This is not going unnoticed.
Hey First Read!
Respectfully, could you please post Hillary's unfavorable numbers recently put out?
I'd post em myself but I am trying to figure out how to avoid making who ever is moderating this mad.
Hey nuanced, are ya still out there or did they reformat you?

Question: how would you allocate a "popular vote" from a caucus state. Is there ANY WAY to do rationally?

As you can see, I'm no statistician!

Looks like Team Obama kept it in the single digits in Pennsylvania.  According to the Huffington Post:

Clinton 54.6%
Obama 45.4%

That's a difference of 9.2%.  

Watch it here guys.  You're totally disenfranchising the voters of WA, IA, NV and ME by going down this line of thinking.

I was reading about the 50 NC folks that endorsed Obama, including 3 members of Congress (NYT Blog).  Were these 3 Congressional Reps already included in the vote count?  I assume as members of Congress, they'd be superdelegates.

Thanks for the updates, I live by First Read's delegate counts.

Only Hillary would begin campaigning for 2012 in 2008. That's the only conclusion one can reach when given the mathematical certainty that IS his nomination AND the tone of her campaign intent on destroying his electibility in November by lending Democratic credibility to GOP talking points.

IF there is any popular vote 'credit' givn to HRC for Michigan, it should have the 'uncommitted' voted subtracted from it.  Since this vote (which could have included John Edwards) clearly represents a strong 'non-clinto' element.  She cannot claim to be 'counting all the votes' and hearing the voice of the people by dismissing this 'uncommitted' group.  It should be subtracted to give her a net figure.  That is the only legitimate way.

chick yesterday the superdelgete count for obama was 238. Today he has gained 2, so why isn't total 240? your count shows 239...

Obama 08

What about the popular votes from caucus states.  This isn't included in the total popular votes.  Wouldn't this give Obama a substantialy higher total.

Oh, puleeeze! You guys have got to be joking!?!

The DNC has been perfectly clear, FL and MI are not being counted!

Bill and Hillary Clinton and that entire campaign have been smoking (and inhaling) too much funny stuff.

I'm not losing any sleep over the FL and MI numbers in any combo.

Obama's got the numbers right. Listen up, folks!

As fun as this is, the race is counted in delegates and supers.   Clinton campaign tactics are working at MSNBC if she has succeeded in getting MSNBC to from now on talk only about the popular vote.  

Maybe a change to the popular vote should be considered for next election, rather than raising the bar yet again.

why are you morons citing these "fun" popular vote numbers that include MI and FL??  are you freaking kidding me??  everyone knows they don't count, even acknowledged by the clintons before they suddenly needed them to count.  stop playing the hrc game, msnbc!  you guys are losing it.  i know it's probably "fun" for ratings (like holding off on calling pa for hillary last night for exactly one hour - just enough time for you guys, along with cnn and the others, to keep those ad dollars rolling in) and your own personal amusement, but the american people can't afford it anymore.  get a clue!

Hi Mr Chuck Todd,
I am a big FAN but I am getting a little frustrated that you or you MSNBC are compromising your facts. The margin of victory for yesterday`s primary is 9.2 as of now not 10. There is a difference. Can MSNBC start reporting the true results. You can find them on this link.

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?ElectionID=27

Thanks in advance for talikng this request into consideration.

I assume that these numbers don't include caucus results from WA, ME, IA, and NV?

In any case, using the popular vote as a metric is just a backdoor way for Clinton to exclude caucuses, due to the lower turnout in caucus contests.

Now is the time Obama says; "O.K., add in Florida".
He knows as well as most of America that Hillary cannot catch Obama in popular vote or in pledged delegates.
Hillary has lost the nomination.
She needed to hold on to her 20 point leads in: Texas, Ohio & Pennsylvania and she failed to do so.
Additionally, it does not matter a wit if she raises 5 million or 15 million over the next few days except to Mark Penn & Mandy Grunwald because the know they might actually get paid before the end of the year.
Obama bankrupted Hillary over super Tuesday and she has never been able to catch up.
Now she cannot compete fully in N.C. and she is flat footed in Oregon, Montana & South Dakota.
The trend is still not the friend.
We will see if white women decide to actually vote McCain and agree to toss out Roe come November as that is the only discussion still worth having.

What is "fun" is seeing that HRC has no chance of winning in any scenario. I'm for bringing the party together...I know they hate each other at this point, but how about a joint ticket with Barack on top? That way, there are none of the "wont vote for ___ if ___ wins" options. And, it just make them uniters instead of dividers after all. Time to end the divide! Go Democrat 08

Hillary is Running for 2012 .
She's a smart woman ... making Obama unelectable is the only way she has to go.Everybody knows this.There is no way that the SD's will overturn the numbers and give her the nomination.
Shamelessly teaming up with the nast right-wingers !
Shame on her. Really!.

I find it so interesting that no analyst is asking the Dems about how the Clinton campaign is 'poisoning the well' when it comes to FL and MI. If Clinton, time after time, BLAMES Obama (not DNC rules) for the states' situation, isn't she essentially telling Dem voters that he is against their interests, even if he becomes the party nominee?
That strategy will be a PERMANENT wound to Obama much as the "leadership threshold" statements are. After being told that Obama is 'against them' in the primaries, I don't see Dems in FL and MI running to his support in the general election... even if Sen.Clinton goes recanting door-to-door.

First Read might also want to note that the final vote tally in PA was Clinton 54 Obama 45, not 55 to 45.  Please go over to the PA SOS site, your numbers need a little correcting.

NO, NO, NO . . . this is lazy journalism . . .
Do your homework!!!

Your numbers make the incorrect assumption that "Caucus delegates" equal "votes", while in fact, each caucus delegate represents MULTIPLE VOTERS

http://www.dcourage.com/Caucus%20Study.pdf

Obama actually leads by at least one million popular votes

Stop taking your story lines directly from the Clinton spin-meisters . . . it's irresponsible journalism

If Clinton is going to credit Obama with ZERO votes in Michigan, why doesn't she just go all the way and count all his black votes as only 3/5ths of a white vote like the Constitution originally said?

Then she's WAY ahead!

Just shameless.

Is Clinton so narcissistic that she'd suggest the last option, with MI/FLA giving Obama 0 in Fla?

Yep.

It's the same use of flawed logic, using only the data that supports one's arguement, that Bush used to take us to war.

Who cares about the popular vote other than Hillary?  Please stop reporting this nonsense, lest disenfranchise all voters in Iowa, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the rest of the caucus states that went heavily  (+20%) for Obama.  LISTEN UP OBAMA SURROGATES:  http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/23/01152/2705/129/501246

You should mention that last estimate excludes the caucus states which don't report vote totals, which would put Obama over the top in any formulation.

I think in MI you shouldn't put "Uncommitted" for Obama- you should subtract their number from Clinton! After all, they voted "against" her.

There's no way you can come up with popular votes for caucus states.  The process is really a party building exercise in addition to a selection process for a nominee.  As you know, delegates will be the ones casting votes at the convention and those are the only numbers that matter. Forget the other stuff.  

I must say interesting but not even worth entertaining the last 3 options since the rules are the rules. rule are not to be broken just to pump up the pride of a losing candidate.Sorry Hillary that sounds nice but it does not work. People from Fl. said on TV that they knew the rules and accepted them but would still vote dem in November.Face the facts campaigning just for Super Tuesday was a losing tactic. To think up all of these new ways to give yourself a victory outside of the Rules of theh Party is oe of the reasons you are untrustworthy.            Obama dont stoop to their tricks and lower yourself to their level. Remember that when you stand in crap you smell like crap.They stink of it to all end and you dont. If you go negativethey will portray you as picking on Hillary then she will get more sympathy votes.Just stay on message and on course and you will find favor.

Hey HRC - you beat him by 10 points and he still picked up 2 supers to your 1.  How d'ya like them apples?

YES WE CAN!!

Superdelegates are a non-issue. No sane superdelegate wants to be part of the death of the Democratic Party.

In the 1986 Democratic primary for governor of Alabama, the narrow win by Charles Graddick was overturned by party officials for valid legal reasons. They determined that his narrow margin of victory was the result of his illegal misuse of his elected office of attorney general.

As a result of the Democratic Party's justifiable overturn of the public vote, Guy Hunt was elected as the first Republican governor since the 1870's. To this date, most Alabama governors are Republican.

None of the reasons Hillary Clinton comes up with for the superdelegates to overcome the valid public vote  even remotely compares to the valid reason the Alabama Democratic vote was overturned.

Just like Chris Matthews send today, the media is keeping up this delusion that Hillary is still in this race.  Why do we go through this exercise, because Hillary says so.  I guess she has the grip on the Media that she has on the weak super delegates

Honestly why humor them with these FL/MI numbers? You are helping them move this goalpoast. Are you also going to put one up showing the votes in the iowa, nevada and so on too?

The Media only pushed the Florida Michigan issue for ratings and money and staff promotions and new media segments.

The DNC established rules advising that if any state pushed up their primaries their delegates would not be counted.

Both FL & MI decided to overthrow the rules knowing  they would either in the RNC's case loose 50% of their delegates (suprising that the press does not address this issue AT ALL because the RNC fell in line and did not complain about loosing 50% of their delegates).  But the RNC especially FL Gov talked continously about how FL Voters are disenfranchised interesting) and Fl as was MI told they would loose all their delegates should they disobey the national DNC rules.  Both states proceeded.

All major Florida newspapers and pundits from the state kept advising the DNC at the state level that the national DNC was serious, but they insisted that they did not care and talked trash about the National DNC, thus proceeded to pass the law in the FL legislature to have the FL primary early.  

Sen. Clinton signed a pledge as did Sen. Obama stating that the FL & MI votes would not count and they committed to the national DNC rules knowing that FL & MI would not be seated.  Sen. Clinton said  publicly that FL & MI did not count, "its just a beauty contest:

Once Sen. CLinton fell behind she quickly set aside her WORD (Trustworthy) and start complaining that the folks in FL and MI were being disenfranchised.  Had she been in the lead she would not have complained.

The Media followed and only choose to interview those in FL who agreed with Sen. Clinton.  Check the media interviews you won't find one person in FL that they interviewed that said they were not disfranchised and agreed with the National DNC rules.  You see that doesn't make for good TV and ratings.  

Millions in FL agree with the National DNC and we don't feel that we are disfranchised.  At least the media should they have been responsible journalist and should have reported BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE. THEY CHOSE NOT TO IN LIEU OF RATINGS.

Now the entire country thinks we are sitting in these states mad as mad can get because we ALL have been disenfranchised.  SIMPLY NOT TRUE1  When in essence it's just like any other issue we have millions that DISAGREE with Sen. Clinton AND many that AGREE.  

THIS IS NOT A ONE SIDED ISSUE AND THOSE OF US WHO DON'T AGREE WITH THE MEDIA OR SEN. CLINTON CHANGING HER WORD OR THE CONTINUED MEDIA FODDER ARE VERY ANGRY THAT THE MEDIA HAS CHOSEN TO REPORT ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STORY.  

The media will not report the actual process of what happened between the National DNC and both states FL and MI.  The media nor Sen. Clinton (since she took back her word)will not recognize or acknowledge that Sen. Obama played by the rules and most important KEPT HIS WORD.

IF YOU CAN'T TRUST A PRESIDENT'S WORD WHAT DO YOU HAVE?

Only CNN reported that the majority of those Floridians that showed up at the poles TO vote were overwhelmingly Republicans NOT Democrats!

The only reason that a number of Democrats showed up at the FL poles was because of Admendment 29 a promise by the FLA Gov and the entire FL legislature to decrease all Floridians Property Taxes.  Otherwise the number of Democrats voting would have been substanially less because we knew our votes would not count.

Many of us showed up to vote for the bill and many showed up to stop the Admendment because we knew that passing this Bill with no budget would result in many city, state, and local employees including our schools loosing their jobs, which is exactly what the state is experiencing now while they cut the overall state budget substantially.

So playing with the numbers is just not RENSONPSIBLE JOURNALISM when the media knows the DNC rules and the DNC has said it will comply with the rules, it's just plain all about the ratings.

THE MEDIA HAS REACHED FAR PAST BEING RESPONSIBLE JOURNALIST.  LET'S HOPE THAT THE CURRENT REPORTING AND PLAYING WITH NUMBERS 'JUST FOR FUN' IS NOT WHAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO EXPECT IN THE FUTURE.  WE EXPECT THE TRUTH NOT SOME GAME CONTINOUSLY CONDUCTED FOR MEDIA FODDER WHEN THEY KNOW THESE SENARIOS ARE NOT REALISTIC AND WON'T HAPPEN.  

We the American people are much smarter than the media thinks we are.  They should remember we are the Voters and will make up our own minds without any Media help.

I find it offensive that people quote these "popular vote" numbers that don't include any estimate of votes from the Iowa, Nevada, Maine or Washington caucuses.  So what if it's harder to get authoritative numbers from those contests - it shouldn't be about doing the easy thing, it should be about reporting the right numbers.

It's bad enough that the Clinton campaign tries to diminish the role of caucus states, it's that much worse when the mainstream media buys into that view as well.

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