Counts FL and MI for Clinton without giving any MI votes to Obama.
Basically, it's the most absurd metric possible, and I'm not sure how Clinton and her supporters can push it while keeping a straight face.
I mean, Clinton herself said that Michigan would not matter before the vote, and now, with the way she's counting it, the popular vote margin from MI "counts" for more than twice her "giant" margin in Pennsylvania.
Give me a break, please.
I'm from Michigan and ALL the word coming down the pipeline is that there is NO way she gets her optimal Michigan results, none at all. They are going to adjust for Barack not being on the ballot.
A friend and neighbor of mine switched from Clinton to Obama after he heard her talking on NPR about MI, saying that the election was perfectly fair even though Obama's name was not on the ballot. His wife was already an Obama supporter, but this was what moved him from Clinton. It was so outrageous, so disingenuous, so undemocratic -- and said in that clam tone as if it actually made sense.
I heard that interview too. I couldn't believe the audacity . . .
All she did was acknowledge her understanding of the DNC ruling at that particular time, and she want on to say that we couldn't just abandon Michigan. Rules, except for 20C, were used in stripping Michigan of its delegates, and rules are being used now to get them reinstated.
As to popular vote totals, it is indeed unfortunate for Obama that he chose to remove himself from the ballot. Howard Dean has acknowledged that the raw vote totals count and have always counted. The DNC had no authority to strip the popular vote totals from the certified elections in MI/FL.
If Obama removing himself from the Michigan ballot could be used to nullify the results of that election, then I suppose Hillary could have pulled herself off the ballot in Illinos - and then we'll throw out all those votes.
"it is indeed unfortunate for Obama that he chose to remove himself from the ballot."
And, sharing in the spirit of your non-condescendingly conciliatory tone, I would like to reach across her supporters and say that it is indeed unfortunate that we are being subjected to such transparently specious contrivances as 'popular vote' totals which are sold as if they were real while they barely work in Hillary's favor when they are cooked, bent, scrambled, twisted, and doctored.
Unfortunate indeed.
For blatant dishonesty, Hillary Clinton-like spin and disingenuousness.
You know damn well that Barack Obama did not remove his name from the ballot in order to render the results of MI invalid you liar. If he had not removed his name he likley would have gotten about 50% of the vote.
removed his name for that purpose, but apparently his supporters feel that it was the effect is.
... without giving any MI votes to Obamam?
WTF are you talking about? Hillary's always said he should get the uncom. votes.
You sure she has ALWAYS said that?
Then it should be very easy for you to find a link to that effect.
It should also be very easy for you to determine whether or not the RCP vote counts include uncommitted votes for Obama, and if not, to add them in and be honest about what that new total is.
That is simply not true.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l
Take a look there and explain to me where her +50k is coming from. Keep in mind RCP's "with FL & MI" gives 0 to Obama for the uncommitted.
So Hillary is only ahead at all if:
(1) You count MI/FL but don't count uncommitted (2) You don't add in estimates for IA/NV/ME/WA
Uh oh, this might be where you realize that the complete trust you've been putting in your candidate might be misplaced :-/
"She also reminded us of something that's been mentioned a few times here on the blogs, but that we're not seeing all that much of on the teevee, and that's that they've finally acknowledged that - after her BLOWOUT of a win in WV (my word not hers - hey she won by 41% of the vote!) she's retaken the lead in the popular vote.
By some 50,000 votes."
Look at RCP: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l
The metric you are purporting gives no votes to Obama in Michigan (it also doesn't include the totals from 4 states, but that will resolve itself on its own).
Now that you realize this, retract this popular vote argument (as she won't win the popular vote without treating MI in this manner) and find some other way of spinning away Obama's entirely legitimate win.
that the raw vote totals from MI/FL do indeed count. In fact, they have "always" counted since the DNC ruling had to do with stripping these states of delegates only. The DNC had no authority to strip these states of their pouplar votes. You can't turn 2.3 million voters into ghosts. It was indeed a very bad decision for Obama to remove himself from the ballot, against the advice of many of his advisors.
