McAuliffe says Clinton staying in, will win popular vote

Haruko · Post by **Haruko** » 2008-05-13 02:50am

So I was browsing CNN after looking to see if any new superdelegates have committed, and noticed a story with the headline given as title for this thread, and thought "why should I care what this 'McAuliffe' says?" So I read it and learn that he's Clinton's campaign chairman.

Oh, that prick. Here's what he said:

CNN wrote:(CNN) — Despite calls from some for Hillary Clinton to abandon her presidential bid, her campaign chairman insisted Monday she will stay in the race until the last primary and predicted the New York Democrat will overtake Barack Obama in the popular vote.

“We are going through to June 3," Clinton Campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe said on MSNBC Monday. "I can unequivocally tell you we are in until June 3.”

“We will move ahead in the popular vote. There are 1.1 million Democrats in West Virginia, there are 1.6 million in Kentucky, 2.4 million in Puerto Rico. We win by these huge margins, have good turnout there, we will pick up a significant amount of the popular vote."

Polls show Clinton will likely score big wins in the next two primary states, West Virginia and Kentucky, though it remains virtually impossible for the New York senator to catch Obama in the pledged delegate count. She lost her lead among the party’s superdelegates on Monday.

Montana and South Dakota hold the last two primary contests on June 3.

Emphasis added.

Um. . . what about Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana? Isn't Obama expected to do quite well in those states? So well that he'd balance whatever gains Clinton made, or do much towards balancing it out? And, that said, even if MI and FL was counted, wouldn't she still be behind significantly, like over a hundred thousand?

By the way, is Puerto Rico firmly in Clinton's grasp like Kentucky and WV? I've seen the figures for Kentucky and WV showing Clinton with a huge lead, but I haven't seen anything for Puerto Rico. Anyone got a source with numbers?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-05-13 03:04am

Clearly, South Dakota, Montana and Oregon don't count.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2008-05-13 03:11am

Puerto Rico is a Clinton stronghold, but as a territory its votes only count for half of a vote instead of a full vote.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2008-05-13 03:45am

Somehow, 5:54 in this clip seems hilariously appropriate.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-05-13 09:08am

Unless the dead turn out and vote for Hillary in numbers that'd make Mayor Dailey blush, Hillary will not have a majority of the popular vote.

Unless you include Michigan and Florida.
Include those, then it's possible.
Doubtful, but possible.

Never mind the fact that voters in both states were told the primary didn't count, so who knows how many just stayed home and that in Michigan, Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot.

And Hillary still only won with less than 60% even when the other choice is 'none of the above'.

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2008-05-13 09:16am

I love this new metric they're touting, because it's the only meaningless number that makes her look good if you include Michigan and Florida, as well as completely ignore all the caucus states.

Never mind the fact that nominees are picked on the delegate count, not popular vote.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-05-13 09:24am

Natorgator wrote:I love this new metric they're touting, because it's the only meaningless number that makes her look good if you include Michigan and Florida, as well as completely ignore all the caucus states. Never mind the fact that nominees are picked on the delegate count, not popular vote.

Sssh! Never mind she agreed and is on record about Michigan and Florida not counting dozens of times.
Ignore what we said before, listen only to what we say now.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-05-13 09:51am

What I think is funny is that, I think it was Michigan, there were only two choices on the ballot: Hillary Clinton and "undecided". And even running against "undecided", she still got only 55% of th evote... and yet she's trying to claim ALL the delegates. Supposing the DNC caved in, real math would give her 55% of the delegates and the rest would go to Obama... in other words, no real change.

The whole Clinton campaign team is smoking something, and I don't know what it is, but it must be some good shit.

Haruko · Post by **Haruko** » 2008-05-13 10:56am

In MI, CNN reports the following results:

Clinton 328,151 (55%)
Uncommitted: 237,762 (40%)
Kucinich 21,708 (4%)
Gravel 2,363 (0%)

Uncommitted was a significant contender. I believe that if Obama was on the ballot it would have enticed more people to vote. Isn't MI one of the big states in population? Aren't the results unusually small? Clinton believes the results are just as fair as they would have been had Obama put his name on the ballot. I don't know what she bases that on.

As a friend said:

She just wants the votes to be counted as they are, especially if Obama was not even on the ballot.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-05-13 11:24am

Haruko wrote:In MI, CNN reports the following results:

Clinton 328,151 (55%)
Uncommitted: 237,762 (40%)
Kucinich 21,708 (4%)
Gravel 2,363 (0%)

Uncommitted was a significant contender. I believe that if Obama was on the ballot it would have enticed more people to vote.

It's telling that in a state where his name wasn't on the ballot and he made no effort to campaign, "Uncommitted / Barack Obama" still got such a high margin. Had he campaigned there... who knows?

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2008-05-13 12:30pm

Natorgator wrote:I love this new metric they're touting, because it's the only meaningless number that makes her look good if you include Michigan and Florida, as well as completely ignore all the caucus states. Never mind the fact that nominees are picked on the delegate count, not popular vote.

Ahh, but you see it should be the popular vote that matters! Because it's the people's will that should lead the country! Just look at 2000. Al Gore won the popular vote, but because George Bush won the "delegate count" in the Electoral College he was made President! Do you support George Bush as President you damn Republitard?! SEE! THIS IS THE KIND OF THING HILLARY IS AGAINST! PEOPLE WHO ARE FOR GEORGE BUSH AFTER ALL THE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, VIOLATIONS OF PRIVACY, INTERNATIONAL USES OF FORCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS NOT CARRIED OUT BY A CLINTON! WHY I BET YOU WANT TO STAY IN IRAQ ANOTHER HUNDRED YEARS YOU MCCAIN ZOMBIE! GO TO HELL!

Sheeeeesh.

The Democratic Party needs less people like you, and more people from the roots of the party and the people. Someone who shows what America is really like. Like, oh I don't know, Hillary Rhodam Clinton...

Gerald Tarrant · Post by **Gerald Tarrant** » 2008-05-13 02:27pm

Depending on which numbers you use Clinton actually has a chance of catching Obama.

Code: Select all

                               Obama                       Clinton                Spread
Popular Vote Total             16,003,521	49.5%	     15,266,942	  47.3%	  Obama +736,579	+2.2%	
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*     16,337,605	49.6%	     15,490,804	  47.0%	  Obama +846,801	+2.6%	

Popular Vote (w/FL)	         16,579,735	48.7%	     16,137,928	  47.4%	  Obama +441,807	+1.3%	
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*     16,913,819	48.7%	     16,361,790	  47.1%	  Obama +552,029	+1.6%	

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)**     16,579,735	47.9%	     16,466,237	  47.5%	  Obama +113,498	+0.33%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*     16,913,819	47.9%	     16,690,099  	47.3%	  Obama +223,720	+0.64%

from Real Clear Politics Link

Clinton still has a small chance of winning closing the gap shown in the 2nd group. If you use the Michigan numbers and with uncommitted going to Obama, then the gap narrows by another 100,000. The popular vote is close.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-05-13 10:06pm

The fuzzy number they use and which they claim allows Clinton to be "winning the popular vote" is to count Mi and FL, discount caucus sttes which don't report voter totals and don't give Obama any of the votes in MI for "uncommitted." Basically in the absolute WORST case that anyone could make she is winning by about 100,000 votes (or by about 10k if you do count the caucus states without reported voter totals).

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-05-13 10:42pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:The fuzzy number they use and which they claim allows Clinton to be "winning the popular vote" is to count Mi and FL, discount caucus sttes which don't report voter totals and don't give Obama any of the votes in MI for "uncommitted." Basically in the absolute WORST case that anyone could make she is winning by about 100,000 votes (or by about 10k if you do count the caucus states without reported voter totals).

In other words, to use Republikan-style creation-math and cheat.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2008-05-13 10:46pm

Is there any way for them to stop Hillary from trying to run in the general election as a third party if she tries to?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2008-05-13 10:50pm

Shinova wrote:Is there any way for them to stop Hillary from trying to run in the general election as a third party if she tries to?

Frankly? No. Any qualifying citizen, Hillary Clinton included, can declare candidacy for the Presidency as an independent.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-05-13 10:51pm

Shinova wrote:Is there any way for them to stop Hillary from trying to run in the general election as a third party if she tries to?

None at all. Of course, it means she's no longer a member of the Democratic Party and no longer entitled to a red cent of the party's campaign fund, nor can she use the organisation in any way, shape or form. She would have to create an independent presidential campaign entirely from scratch, and given the general incompetence of her present campaign, I'd say Hillary would be spinning her wheels in mud and looking crazier than Ross Perot when he started babbling about the CIA infiltrating his daughter's wedding.

Which means that if she's interested in salvaging any sort of political future for herself, we won't see a third party campaign from Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2008-05-13 10:51pm

Cause it looks like she's fully into the delusion that she's entitled to the white house. If she ran as an independent, that would destroy the Democrat's chances of taking the presidency, and give McCain a free win.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-05-13 11:00pm

Shinova wrote:Cause it looks like she's fully into the delusion that she's entitled to the white house. If she ran as an independent, that would destroy the Democrat's chances of taking the presidency, and give McCain a free win.

That would be assuming that she could actually draw that much of the vote away from Obama in that circumstance. Ralph Nader has pretty much poisoned the well for third-party bids for at least the next three or four election cycles given how both failed spectacularly. Third party challenges are rarely even noticeable and Ralphie-boy has pretty much ensured that they will be regarded as nothing but a nuisance for years to come. And as I pointed out, we're talking about a rather incompetent campaigner here. As well, all the Republikans who turned out to boost her primary votes won't be voting for her in the general election but going for McCain anyway. So the question is how thin Hillary's support would actually be and what resources she'd have left to even attempt a third party bid.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-05-13 11:05pm

Patrick Degan wrote:So the question is how thin Hillary's support would actually be and what resources she'd have left to even attempt a third party bid.

What resources? Isn't Shillary $20mil in the hole?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-05-13 11:07pm

General Zod wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:So the question is how thin Hillary's support would actually be and what resources she'd have left to even attempt a third party bid.
What resources? Isn't Shillary $20mil in the hole?

She's tapping the family bank accounts to keep her ramshackle pursuit of destiny alive even for one more month.

Gerald Tarrant · Post by **Gerald Tarrant** » 2008-05-13 11:35pm

Shinova wrote:Is there any way for them to stop Hillary from trying to run in the general election as a third party if she tries to?

The conspiracy mongering about Hillary is more that she's running to spoil Senator Obama's chances, then run and beat McCain in 2012. This only works if the party has been sufficiently divided, and if all those revelations about Senator Obama's associates* stick and influence general election voters. Senator Clinton has certainly demonstrated the selfishness to think in those terms.

*Ayers -who was in the Weather Underground-, Reverend Wright, and some of Obama's outspoken advisers who've made some verbal gaffes in front of the media.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-05-14 01:36am

Haruko wrote:In MI, CNN reports the following results:

Clinton 328,151 (55%)
Uncommitted: 237,762 (40%)
Kucinich 21,708 (4%)
Gravel 2,363 (0%)

Uncommitted was a significant contender. I believe that if Obama was on the ballot it would have enticed more people to vote. Isn't MI one of the big states in population? Aren't the results unusually small? Clinton believes the results are just as fair as they would have been had Obama put his name on the ballot. I don't know what she bases that on.

As a friend said:

She just wants the votes to be counted as they are, especially if Obama was not even on the ballot.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the latest proposals from Michigan's Democratic party have included giving all of the "Uncommitted" votes to Obama. I can't remember where I read that though.

Haruko · Post by **Haruko** » 2008-05-14 08:03pm

I knew it. . . the Clinton campaign is already at it again:

CNN wrote:Clinton campaign: We're ahead in the popular vote

(CNN) — Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said Wednesday Hillary Clinton has overcome Barack Obama in the total popular vote.

“Senator Clinton took the lead in the popular vote last night because voters believe she is the candidate best able to beat John McCain and lead our country," McAuliffe said.

Is he right? That depends on which measure of the popular vote is used.

Four different scenarios of the total popular vote have been kicked around: (1) only counting primary contests without factoring in Florida and Michigan, whose contests were not sanctioned by the national party, (2) counting primary and caucus contests without Florida and Michigan, (3) counting primaries and contests and Florida but not Michigan, and (4) counting all primaries and caucuses including Florida and Michigan.

Clinton trails in all four counts, but by significantly different margins. In the first scenario she trails by by about 397,000, in the second she's behind 699,000, in the third she has a 405,000 vote deficit, and in the fourth scenario she trails by 77,000 votes.

The fourth scenario does not give Obama any votes out of Michigan, where he did not appear on the ballot.

The only scenario in which Clinton would appear to have the lead is a fifth scenario that only counts primary states – including both Florida and Michigan – and excludes any votes cast in the party’s caucuses. In that count, Clinton currently holds a lead of about 225,000 votes.

McAuliffe: caucuses don't count.

RIPP_n_WIPE · Post by **RIPP_n_WIPE** » 2008-05-14 08:26pm

So Obama really didn't win in Iowa. Sheesh! This whole time i've been lied to by the media.