According to Dave, Clinton is now ahead by 34144 votes (about 0.08%)of the total caucus+primary vote. In other words, very, very close. If she were to end up recieving more popular votes than Obama she may be able to spin it as a counter to his "I got the most elected delegates" argument. What do you think, could it matter at the end and will the candidates try and get it? Discuss.
Well, including discounted MI and FL, Clinton is ahead in popular votes. This is RCP's take on it:
This is RCP's take on it:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htmlPopular Vote Total - -
Obama: 12,992,769 / Clinton: 12,406,988
Popular Vote (w/FL) - -
Obama: 13,568,983 / Clinton 13,277,974
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* - - Obama: 13,568,983 /
Clinton 13,606,283Now my guess is that Obama will win the most pledged delegates, yet it is not entirely inconceivable that Clinton won't win the popular vote given the contests which lie ahead
Right now, I'd say Obama stands to win WY (caucus), as well as MS, OR, MT and SD; while Clinton stands to win PA, WV and KY
That leaves IN, NC and PR (the latter of which won't be electing the president this fall)
If OH is any barometer, then Clinton should win PA handidly by a similar margin given its demographics, as well as well as winning WV and KY by double-digit margins; which means that Obama has to win MS, OR, MT and SD big to offset that
IN, where Obama had been leading, may well close; while there are signs in NC that, although he is ahead, Clinton is closing. He needs to campaign intensely in those two states. I recall Jojourner saying that Hoosiers don't like Clinton; while IN, some say, is pretty much IL without Chicago. That said, Clinton did receive an early endorsement from Evan Bayh, a potential VP pick should she win the nomination, which should count for much more than Jay Rockefeller's endorsement of Obama counts in WV, which, demograpically, is as Clinton country as you can get
So, it's not inconceivable that Clinton won't win the popular vote. Then, of course, there is the issue of MI and FL, which somehow will need a satisfactory solution come the Convention, if not before hand
Now, if Clinton is ahead among the popular vote come the end of the primaries in early June and Obama is ahead among pledged delegates, which seems likely, unpledged superdelegates will be torn on the 'legitimacy' issue - and you can bet Camp Clinton will be arguing that having won the states that matter she is in a stronger position than Obama against McCain come November. Obama has won many states, and in spite of how handidly, which are near certain to vote Republican. Clinton will be making that argument
Obama must do every he can to run her close in PA, and really up the game by going all out to win IN and NC. To his credit, Obama hasn't cherry-picked his states, which is why he's doing as well as he is
Perhaps, in the few days preceding March 4, Obama errored tactically by focusing in OH, when he should have devoted more time to TX. But because of how TX allocates two-thirds of its delegates by state senate district by primary and one-third statewide by caucus, he could well have won TX, while losing it. Many delegates remain to be allocated in both contests. A primary win in the popular vote, however, would have been psychologically beneficial
That said, it was right for him to campaign in OH, given its pivotal status as a 'decider' when it comes to the general
Dave
