Hillary's claims popular vote lead.
Clinton's claim to the popular vote includes counting ballots in Florida and Michigan - two states that chose to schedule early primaries in defiance of party rules - and doesn't count caucus states such as Iowa, where numbers have never been released.
Clinton said she and Obama are "still separated by less than 200 delegates out of more than 4,400" - and that neither candidate will have reached the magic number needed to take the nomination "when the voting ends on June 3."
She drew cheers when she told Kentucky voters she would continue the fight "until we have a nominee - whomever she may be."
Find the article here. For the longest time I felt that it was a few hardcore Obama partisans that were envisioning this nightmare scenario. Gang, I'm starting to get the feeling she's gonna go Samson on us and pull down the temple over her. As a UK paper cheekily intoned today, "Missing: One Concession Speech."
Ugh sorry, should say, "Hillary's claim to the popular vote lead"
Changed the title and didn't reedit... you know what I'm sticking with haven't had my coffee yet.
May 21, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The popular vote argument is not new. The article that you cite does not take into account last nights results.
Hillary is now ahead even if you include the caucus state estimates.
Go to RCPGo to RCP
May 21, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, she is not.
May 21, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
What part of the numbers you disagree with?
May 21, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The part where you do not count the votes against her in MI. She has said that it was a fair election in MI because Obama's supporters could vote for uncomitted but then does not count those votes for him. If we just count her votes and do not count his she wins every state.
May 21, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
All of it. Your numbers hinge on the fundamental dishonesty of counting illegitimate and disqualified votes for Clinton while omitting same for Obama. If we are going to forsake all the principles of a lawful, fair election, at least we ought to be consistent about it.
I am not belittling Clinton's achievements in the valid and honest contests in the least but this Michigan and Florida argument is like having an NFL team insist they should get points for their pre-season games, and that the other teams should not. They would be laughed out of their stadium, which is a pretty appropriate response to this whole "strategy."
You have to play by the rules you yourself set up. We have seen what happens otherwise.
May 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary wins Puerto Rico in a blowout she does have a chance of getting the popular vote lead without counting michigan. I agree popular vote is a bogus metric since not all states have primaries but it will be used as some sort of argument. I don't think it works with the superdelegates who are politically savy but if she wants to have a reason not to concede until the convention this will be part of her reasoning. Of course that is the nightmare scenrio for Democrats. It is extraordinarily divisive for her to claim legitimacy based on this flawed popular vote total. If it gains traction with her voters which it no doubt would, then they would feel the primary process was stolen from them by the superdelegates. There is no way at this point that Hillary can win without having the superdelegates throw it her way so it isn't really worth discuss that possibility.
May 21, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink