Hillary Wins Puerto Rico, Gains Popular Vote Lead

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary in Puerto Rico (CNN):

	# Votes	%Votes
Clinton	263,120	68%
Obama	121,458	32%

By some counts, Hillary has claimed the popular vote lead. Citing Real Clear Politics, Jeralyn at TalkLeft lays out two different popular-vote counts:
 

Total Votes With Florida and Michigan and without the caucus estimates:

• Hillary: 17,605,496
• Obama: 17,350,032
• Hillary leads by 255,464  votes

Total votes with Florida and Michigan and the caucus estimates for IA, WA, NV and ME:

• Hillary: 17,829,358
• Obama: 17,684,116
• Hillary leads by 145,242 votes

Markos at Daily Kos thinks that Hillary isn't ahead in the popular vote, because he doesn't count any of her Michigan votes -- though her name was on the ballot and she did get 328,309 votes. 

The arguments just keep getting more and more... interesting.  The final two primaries will be held on Tuesday, in Montana and South Dakota.  Memeorandum has commentary.

Related BN-Politics Posts:

* The "Unity" Shuck & Jive: Obama Opposed Counting Florida's Votes 100%

* Video: DNC Hearing, Florida Delegate Stripping

* Obama Campaign Wants Bill Clinton to Heal Rift?

Comments

[Adam]

The Michigan primary was a farce. I don't think you're even trying to deny that. You're argument basically boils down to "This metric best represents the will of the people if we ignore that Obama wasn't on the ballot". It's fine to BLAME Obama, if you want, but simultaneously arguing that this count therefore represents the true will of the people is absurd.

If you're going to count the Michigan votes, then why not count the votes from the nonbinding primaries in Washington, Idaho, and Nebraska? Everyone was told THOSE wouldn't count, either. And those votes actually had two candidates on the ballot. I would argue that the Washington primary was more reflective of the true will of the MICHIGAN people than the Michigan primary was. 53-47 or whatever it was is a whole lot more realistic than 55-0.

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight has a nice calculator where you can pick your own popular vote metric. 972 combinations in all!

Of course, discussing how many popular vote measures can dance on the head of a pin is pretty meaningless. If the election were decided by nationwide popular vote, then no state would use a caucus and the campaigns would have strategized differently. As it happens, though, the nomination is chosen by delegates, and Obama will pass that threshold within 48 hours.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

Of course you don't think I'm arguing that MI's primary was fair -- precisely because I NEVER argued that. There's no "thinking" about it.

I do think that delegate distribution is a different issue in DNC land than the popular vote.

I also think that Hillary got the votes that she got. The voters could have just as easily voted uncommitted or for one of the other candidates who left their names on the ballot.

And how many Hillary supporters stayed home because they were misled to believe that their votes wouldn't count? Not many people ask that, but it's a valid question.

Fact is, we don't know.

Real Clear politics (in one scenario) gives Obama all the uncommitted votes from Mi -- which is clearly more than he did get, because some of those voters likely supported Edwards, Dodd, or Richardson.

How many more rewards should Obama get from a state whose election he, from the outset, sought to invalidate despite the DNC's appeals process and all to curry favor with the 4 early states?

It was HIS choice.

YOU SAID: "If you're going to count the Michigan votes, then why not count the votes from the nonbinding primaries in Washington, Idaho, and Nebraska? Everyone was told THOSE wouldn't count, either."

In your quest to use hyperbole, you created a FALSE ANALOGY.

It's false, because there never was a rule or appeals process that could have enabled WA's, ID's and NB's non-binding primaries to count. There WAS, however, an appeals process that would (and did) allow MI's and FL's binding-primary votes to count (at least in part).

That's a very important distinction that can't be validly overlooked.

We've already agreed that the popular vote doesn't matter IF a candidate hits the magic number.

It DOES count in terms of persuading superdels. I've been saying that for weeks, and you've recognized that argument as a valid one -- because it is.

We also both recognize that Barack needs fewer superdels at this point than Hill, so his battle is far less uphill.

Why are you now posing the argument that popular votes don't matter at all?

OTHER ISSUE

You like and believe in Obama/his campaign. I clearly don't -- for all sorts of reasons that you have a different take on.

It's NOT an insult to you. Please don't take it as one. I don't get mad at you for disliking Hillary.

The only times I've felt like being snippy when 1) when I get the sense that you've not fully read my args before countering, and 2) when I get the sense tht you're really arguing against someone's else points.

Based on your usual comments, it seems that your main concern is whether Obama wins -- NOT because you have a silly crush, but because you BELIEVE that he will be better for the nation than Hillary or McCain.

I'm not a soldier, either. In fact, you've seen me point out some places where I disagree with the campaign's talking points. I have my own analytical skills, as my comments should evince to you.

I support Hillary, but to me there's far more at stake than whether she or Barack or John win (in terms of process integrity).

It's long been my nature to contemplate future events and potential for abuse -- and law school only intensified that tendency.

Our differing focus is likely why we sometimes end up arguing apples v. oranges.

[Adam]

"And how many Hillary supporters stayed home because they were misled to believe that their votes wouldn't count? Not many people ask that, but it's a valid question."

Actually, it's been asked, and a comprehensive effort at an answer was given, here:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/michigan-what-would-have-happened.html

The bottom line there is that Hillary supporters, whose candidate was actually on the ballot, were much more motivated to show up on primary day than Obama supporters, who could only cast a lame "uncommitted" vote. "Uncommitted" got over 50% in the two Detroit congressional districts, by the way.

Oh, and that's two million voters projected.

"Real Clear politics (in one scenario) gives Obama all the uncommitted votes from Mi -- which is clearly more than he did get, because some of those voters likely supported Edwards, Dodd [sic], or Richardson."

According to exit polls, 23 percent of the undecideds preferred Edwards/Biden/Richardson over Obama. Also, according to those same exit polls, 12 percent of HILLARY'S voters actually preferred Obama, and another 7 percent preferred Edwards.

See, it cuts both ways. Put the two together and it's basically a wash for Obama and a loss for Clinton.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225987/

Interestingly, if you trace out those votes (i.e. just forget about all the people who didn't show up, and only count the voters who showed up), and divvy them up according to stated exit poll preferences, then you end up with (drumroll please) 69-59, Clinton. Kinda crazy.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/adventures-in-lannyland.html

You can of course reject these numbers and/or question the accuracy of exit polls. But the bottom line is that you DON'T know that it's a fallacy to assign Obama all the undecideds. It's entirely possible that his support among the actual voters that day was even greater than that.

"a state whose election he, from the outset, sought to invalidate despite the DNC's appeals process and all to curry favor with the 4 early states?"

Again, they signed a pledge to not participate in the primary. I think it's fairly obvious that having one's name on the ballot counts as participation. Again, I point you to the precedent of 2000, when BOTH major candidates pulled their names. Hillary signed the pledge. Hillary knew the precedent.

"YOU SAID: "If you're going to count the Michigan votes, then why not count the votes from the nonbinding primaries in Washington, Idaho, and Nebraska? Everyone was told THOSE wouldn't count, either."

In your quest to use hyperbole, you created a FALSE ANALOGY."

The popular vote metric has never had anything to do with the rules. The rules say that the candidate with a true majority of the delegate votes at the convention wins, period.

I never claimed a general equivalence between those nonbinding primaries and Michigan's decertified primary. I am simply pointing out that these are other votes for the candidates that are not being counted. So if we are just talking about the collective will of the voters, why leave those out? Why not count those votes too?

Why should the possibility of delegates being reinstated affect whether we count those votes as representing the real preferences of real people or not? I am just trying to pin down the rationale. To me, it seems somewhat selective. The nature of those primaries were different, but they all had real actual voters involved in them, who cast real preferences. Again, the popular vote has never been about delegates. If you want that, just look at the delegate count.

"Why are you now posing the argument that popular votes don't matter at all?"

I'm not. Superdelegates are free to weigh popular vote, or electability, or whatever they like into their decision. My point is that the popular vote, as a metric, is poorly defined to the point of not having any real meaning.

Moreover, if overall popular vote was a metric that carried any importance, every state would use an open primary in an effort to maximize their impact. They didn't, because up until now nobody has raised a hue and cry over popular vote. We have a patchwork of different approaches in the primaries, and adding it up to one vote is a flawed approach even if we ignore the Michigan/Florida issue.

[Adam]

"Based on your usual comments, it seems that your main concern is whether Obama wins"

Well, that's my OVERALL best outcome, given the conditions as I see them, and as I have seen them since mid-January.

But that's not what motivates my arguments here. I am extremely confident that Obama would still have won the nomination had the decision been 73-0 with 55 new uncommitted delegates. It still wouldn't have made enough of a dent. His lead is just too big.

But, as you say, "there's far more at stake than whether she or Barack or John win (in terms of process integrity)." I agree completely. But in my opinion, penalizing Michigan and Florida was a necessary first step towards fixing the primary process as a whole, ending the Iowa/NH cartel, and getting a reasonable, back-loaded primary process that can be about issues and retail politics in stead of money and gaffes.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

You're right: even at 73-55, Obama's chances of winning are big.

What would have reduced the chances was a 100% counting of FL and MI, because that would have increased the magic number significantly -- or even just FL.

He still might have won, but it would have taken longer.

Here's another example of why I think you're sometimes selective in which facts you argue (or overlook):

"But in my opinion, penalizing Michigan and Florida was a necessary first step towards fixing the primary process as a whole"

I've given you very solid evidence (weeks ago, in fact) about how FL's Rs made it happen -- to cause trouble for Dems with the DNC -- yet you write a sentence stating that FL needed penalizing?

Despite rule 21-c-7? Despite the legislature's make up? Despite the paper trail and my state's past election problems (machines)?

This, to me, suggests that nothing I shared with you mattered: that you think what I said was incorrect.

Fine: then attack my "facts" with evidence. If I'm proven wrong, I'll re-shape my opinion accordingly.

You haven't done that.

All you need do is call Florida's House Clerk and the Senate's secretary for the current break down (which is only a couple of numbers off from 2007, when the primary date was moved: House, 76 to 42 (1 vacancy); Senate, 26 to 14.

Is it wise for the DNC to try to hold Florida (or any other R state) accountable for what the Rs do?

We can't even get good education funding. We couldn't stop that miserable property-tax bill. We've been aching and screaming for years, because we can't do ANYTHING via state lawmaking.

That's why the Dems jumped at the chance for a paper trail when the Rs (mischievously) offered the chance.

My face is now blue, because I've explained all of this to you. I'm not making it up.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Rs amend or override that bill in the next legislative session: they really don't want paper trails.

And did you know that our legislature meets starting in March and only for 60 days?

Thus, the primary date was set before the end of May 2007. thus, when Obama supporters say (like NH's representative did) that the DNC gave FL opportunities (in December 2007) to move the date to Feb, they are speaking out of their -- noses.

The next convening of the lege would be in March 2008 -- unless Gov Crist convened a special session AND persuaded the roughly 100 Repubs (out of our 140 legislators) that they should move the primary date to Feb.

You honestly think that the snickering Rs were going to reverse themselves -- or that the R-gov who signed the bill would call a special session?

Nothing that happened in the DNC's August and December 2007 meetings would have made a difference. Did you watch the August one, btw?

Oh, and yes, back in 2006, Florida's delegates were trying to negotiate for earlier primary date at DNC meeting. SO WHAT? Most states did. Negotiating is what the states do before settling on actual rules.

Are those the YouTube videos you've been talking about?

In 2007, the Dems tried every argument they could to make their Republican-moved primary date valid.

Deaf ears.

I'm snippy now. Though I've explained the FL-politics stuff in blog posts (and to you direcly) repeatedly over some weeks, today you just ignore the major distinctions between FL and MI and say that FL should have been penalized.

That seems like knee-jerk defense of the position that benefits the candidate you support. Nothing more.

And what about 2012? Republicans will likely STILL hold a super majority in both houses because of the way they'd carved up the districts in 2000.

They're about to reapportion again (2010). In other words, we'll likely be under R-rule through the next decade. Period.

How will the DNC handle the nation's 4th largest state? By punishing it every time FL's Rs schedule early primaries?

If so, what do you think FL's Rs will do in the future?

I know. The media (and Obama and the DNC) DON'T talk about such details and likelihoods -- so it's easy to just NOT consider them when you proclaim that FL should have been penalized.

'Sorry about the emotion, but this is about far more to me than whether Hillary or John or Barack wins -- in part, because I'm a Floridian.

[Adam]

I'm not disoputing that the Republicans control the vote in Florida. That doesn't change my opinion on how the process should work, and whether there should be penalties for an early primary.

There's nothing at all selective about this. I have consistently maintained that the goal is to fix the schedule in the long term, and that means there must be penalties that are enforced in red states and blue states alike. The DNC needs to set a reasonable schedule, and they need to have a big enough stick to enforce it.

Political parties should not be using state money to fund party primaries. It's a party matter and parties are private organizations. The state should make the general election infrastructure available to the parties if they wish to use it, but the actual funding should be up to the parties themselves. This takes the whole "but it was the other party's fault!" argument off the table.

If the R's won't move the primary to an approved date in Florida, then the Dems should run their own. Or they can use mail-in ballots like Oregon does, which works quite well and is relatively cheap. The Florida Democratic party had options other than sticking with the January date. They decided that rather than work for a new primary process, they would play chicken with the DNC.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

A caucus was not acceptable. First, in general, they tend to discourage participation. You know that.

In Florida, it's WORSE because of the way the Republicans drew our congressional districts in 2000. District 16, for example, includes Palm Beach County (Dem) on the SE coast, and stretches across the state to the SW coast (Republican counties). It's more than 150 miles from end to end.

District 6 (my dist) includes bits and bobs from Jacksonville (NE) and moves roughly diagonally down the center of the state, hitting 7 other counties. It's more than 100 miles.

That's the problem with being a large peninsula AND a panhandle state -- under a legislature that loves databases and intended to water down Dem districts.

You might be right about a mail-in primary. THAT could have worked. Obama objected to that.

I DON'T expect you to know about FL. God knows, I don't know about CO.

But before you form opinions about such important issues as whether a state deserves to lose its votes, you'd be wise to get yourself acquainted with that state's landscape -- beyond what campaign and media sound bites purport.

[Adam]

There's not one caucus site for a congressional district. Just for comparison's sake, there were 44 Democratic caucus sites in the city of Denver.

Caucuses reduce turnout, and are totally unacceptable for a general election. But I still think they are fairly representative on the primary level, and they serve to help party organizations a lot. Those states that had record caucuses now have record levels of Democratic party activity.

Markos had an interesting comment on this, where he basically said, maybe Texas's crazy prima-caucus is actually a GOOD approach:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/30/13502/7159/640/525143

---

Overall, I don't think the Obama campaign handled the Florida and Michigan situations well. I agree with the decision to take his name off the Michigan ballot, and I don't think he was under a moral obligation to get out in front of re-votes. But it was an opportunity to show leadership, and in retrospect it would have been the best strategic decision as well. They decided to, basically, clam up and see what happened.

I don't think you can really put the blame for no re-votes at the Obama campaign's feet, but they certainly weren't marshalling their forces to cause them. Clinton did show leadership on the issue, but only when it was clear she needed the votes, and only when it was really too late for a realistic re-vote to get organized. So I really don't give her much more credit than Obama.

By the time the discussion moved to how to count the votes, it was 99.5% political maneuvering (by both sides) and .5% real concerns about fairness. The only good outcome was a new vote, and that didn't happen.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

"I don't think he was under a moral obligation to get out in front of re-votes. But it was an opportunity to show leadership, and in retrospect it would have been the best strategic decision as well."

You're right, of course: his strategic decision stunk -- but it SHOULD have been about MORE than whether his strategy backfired.

It SHOULD have been about whether or not MI's and FL's Dem voters got to vote. He should have demonstrated concern about the process.

His own CHOICE showed that he did not care about process or enfranchisement: he cared about his numbers.

And he can't now validly claim public-relations points now for promoting MI's or FL's voters' rights.

You also said:

"Clinton did show leadership on the issue, but only when it was clear she needed the votes, and only when it was really too late for a realistic re-vote to get organized."

First, you are completely speculating on Clinton's motives. You might be right, you might be wrong.

I laid out plausible reasons for her delayed involvement in a LONG response to you a week or two ago.

Remember too: other people were already fighting for re-votes -- both in MI and FL back in late Feb early March.

My plausible but speculative interp might be wrong, but it's just as plausible as your interp -- yet you state your speculative interp as though it's a fact.

Why? And is it coincidence that Obama's campaign (and certain of his big media supporters) have turned that interp into conventional "wisdom" -- sort of like they turned "Florida broke th rules" into a sound bite?

Also, Hillary DIDN'T wait too long. Her people were trying to raise money for FL's re-vote back in March. That was enough time.

Obama, on the other hand, opposed such efforts. Check out the CNN transcript (early March) of Carville debating Wilhelm on the issue.

Clinton's campaign offered a solution: raise private funds.

http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-carville-on-cnns-the-situation-room/

If you CLOSELY read Wilhelm's answers, you'll see that he wanted to stick to idiotic sound bites about "following rules" AND tried to dodge the bare-bones issue of funding and scheduling re-votes.

Carville was relentless in guiding the conversation back to the issues. It's with reluctance that Wilhelm merely agreed (ultimately) to discuss it later. It was even worse to watch.

My point is that Obama's campaign did not want to go on record point-blank saying that it opposed re-votes, but its repeated actions (and inaction) suggest that it DID OPPOSE re-votes.

Obama even opposed mail-ins, though he didn't seem to mind Oregon's mail-in primary. That and he reportedly supported mail-ins in Illinois.

Back to Hillary: even if you were right about Hillary's hypocrisy, would that be a good enough reason to deny a good work-out for MI and FL?

Yes -- but ONLY to people who were more interested in promoting Obama's interests than in protecting the integrity of the process.

[Adam]

"it SHOULD have been about MORE than whether his strategy backfired.

It SHOULD have been about whether or not MI's and FL's Dem voters got to vote. He should have demonstrated concern about the process.

His own CHOICE showed that he did not care about process or enfranchisement: he cared about his numbers."

You can't make that connection at all (OR: you could apply it equally to everyone associated with the primary process). It was not his job to make a re-vote happen. As I said last post, I don't think he was under a moral obligation to get out in front of a re-vote.

It would have been a good move and shown leadership, but it seems like EVERYONE collectively had their heads in the sand in December/January/February. Looking back on it now, it seems crazily shortsighted. But if the party leaders in Michigan and Florida were whistling Dixie, why should Obama have been the one rallying a re-vote?

Again, it would have been nice, but it doesn't say anything bad about him that he DIDN'T. Same for Hillary, too, although I disagree with leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan.

" "Clinton did show leadership on the issue, but only when it was clear she needed the votes, and only when it was really too late for a realistic re-vote to get organized."

First, you are completely speculating on Clinton's motives. You might be right, you might be wrong. "

I'm not speculating about motives there. I'm talking about what the time of year and the delegate count was when Hillary started pushing for the re-vote. It's just an empirical observation.

I may THINK that it was a cynical play for delegates, but that it was very late in the process, and that she needed those delegates desperately, is not really in dispute.

"My point is that Obama's campaign did not want to go on record point-blank saying that it opposed re-votes, but its repeated actions (and inaction) suggest that it DID OPPOSE re-votes."

They weren't active. They should have been working for the re-votes. I don't deny that. It would have been the right P.R. move, and better strategically as well.

That said, it really WAS too late. Although Obama didn't vocally support it, it was judges and legislators in Michigan that killed the re-vote, not Obama. Florida's re-vote barely got off the ground, right?

"even if you were right about Hillary's hypocrisy, would that be a good enough reason to deny a good work-out for MI and FL?"

Absolutely not. But I think all the talk in March was just too late. The die was cast.

My suspicion (and I stress, this is JUST speculation) is that the Clinton people figured that the re-vote effort would fail, but needed to push for a re-vote as a prelude to getting the January delegations seated. That was the ultimate goal from the start, because Hillary knew that no re-vote would turn out any better than the vote they had already had.

I don't think this was the plan from the start (i.e. December). But after the February win streak, they knew they needed MI/FL, so they set out preparing a strategy to get those delegates.

Again, that's pure speculation; you needn't respond to it.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

"It was not his job to make a re-vote happen. As I said last post, I don't think he was under a moral obligation to get out in front of a re-vote."

You're right in one sense. From the perspective of a candidate who was concerned only with his numbers, he did NOT have a moral obligation to push for re-votes.

If he'd wanted to convince 2+ million Dem voters (plus a bunch more Hillary supporters) that he would be the type of president who would care about the voters and the process, it WAS his job to push for revotes.

By not doing so, he made millions of voters question what kind of leader he would be. He missed the boat -- and CONCRETELY (i.e., no speculation needed) revealed something about himself in the process.

In FL (and tand nationwide) we already saw a guy take the White House without caring about the voters and the process: GWB in 2000.

NO, I didn't get that from Clinton's spin masters -- I drew the parallel months ago, when re-votes became a media issue. So did Damozel (separately).

Trust me, many voters from Florida (and other states) drew the same parallel on their own.

Madliene Albright even joked about it when she spoke at my law school (well, the Florida taxpayers' law school).

Here's what she said (I took notes): "Democracy is good. Even in Florida, you've been able to participate occasionally." She got big, sardonic laughs.

Upshot: even if Obama, personally, didn't care about FL and MI, he darned sure should have pretended that he did.

He failed to do so. And it will haunt him -- though not with the type of supporters who actually cheered and hooted on Saturday when a speaker would make pro-disenfranchisement statements.

"I'm not speculating about motives there. I'm talking about what the time of year and the delegate count was when Hillary started pushing for the re-vote. It's just an empirical observation."

Yes, you are speculating on motives (she didn't care until she needed votes). That is based firmly on the assumption that she had NO OTHER reason to delay her entry into the fray.

Your "empirical" observation seems to involve a confusion of correlation and causation.

"I may THINK that it was a cynical play for delegates, but that it was very late in the process, and that she needed those delegates desperately, is not really in dispute."

Admittedly, I don't know about MI's re-vote and can't argue either way. At the same time, I don't necessarily accept you interp as factual.

It was NOT too late in FL. Florida's lege didn't even go into session until early march, and Gov Crist publicly said (late Feb/early Mar) that he supports a revote -- he just wanted someone else to pay for it.

That's when Hillary's people started looking to raise private funds. And it was enough time -- especially if they'd settled on a mail-in (like Oregon has).

If you read that CNN transcript closely, you'll see that Obama's representative tried to avoid admitting that the campaign was against a re-vote: he just didn't want to point-blank admit it (bad sound bites and PR points).

http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-carville-on-cnns-the-situation-room/

"I don't think this was the plan from the start (i.e. December). But after the February win streak, they knew they needed MI/FL, so they set out preparing a strategy to get those delegates."

You MAY be right. I can't read her mind. Again (as I laid out in detail a week or 2 ago), another plausible explanation was that she figured Sen. Nelson and Karen Thurman might succeed on their own.

Why intervene if they still had a chance (and they did in March up until Gov Crist said "we won't pay for it").

And right after that was when Clinton's people stepped up and started offering solutions (private funds).

On WHAT do you base the speculation that Hillary hadn't, by December, already strategized about when she would need to get involved in pushing for a re-vote?

The media didn't even start mentioning it until late feb/early mar. Embarrassed as I am to admit it, I'd never considered re-votes as a solution. When I first heard about the proposal, I thought it was a novel and creative solution.

I wish I'd thought of it on my own.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

I sent you the NQ link BEFORE I read your comments about caucuses. Coincidental.

That said, I totally disagree: not only with your assertion but also with Markos's numbers.

That and I can't believe that you brought up the TX prima-caucus as a good thing to ME -- given that some weeks ago I used it as an argument for how unrepresentative caucuses can be.

Do you remember none of the important points I bring up? :)

Let's look at the numbers (per CNN: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX).

TX Primary

Hillary 1,459,814 51%
Barack 1,358,785 47%

Hillary won by 101,056.

TX Caucus

Barack 23,918 56%
Hillary 18,620 44%

Barack won by 5,298.

I read that Obama got more TX delegates than Hillary, though she won the primary by 101,056 votes -- about 19 TIMES MORE votes than the number by which Obama won the caucuses.

I told you about the disparities weeks ago in a comment. Have your really forgotten?

About 2.8 million people showed up to TX's primary.

Only about 42,000 people showed up to TX's caucuses.

In short, about 66 times MORE people voted in the primaries.

That and the caucuses went on past midnight in some places -- not good for people who had to work early or had kids and couldn't afford babysitters 'til 2 am.

You REALLY think the caucuses are a good thing?

And where is Markos coming up with participation numbers in the 600,000's?

Does he have a unique definition of "participation"?

[Adam]

Do you not see how differently you are treating Obama and Clinton differently?

NEITHER of them got out in front of a re-vote before March. In fact, Hillary specifically said the votes wouldn't count.

For Obama, this means he cynically only cares about the White House. For Hillary, she was just biding her time, hoping the states would take care of it, until it was the right moment (?) to start pushing for a re-vote.

That's an enormous double standard. You're assuming the best possible scenario for Hillary's motivations and the worst possible scenario for Obama's.

--

"Why intervene if they still had a chance"

Is there any real doubt that speaking up earlier, banging the drum BEFORE March, particularly in Michigan, would have helped? If so, why? If not, then why are you placing Hillary on a higher moral plane?

Crist would have said something earlier if the voices had been loud in January or February. There would have been plenty of time to organize a re-vote at that stage: privately funded, through the mail, whatever.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

You didn't respond to what I wrote:

"You MAY be right. I can't read her mind. Again (as I laid out in detail a week or 2 ago), another plausible explanation was that she figured Sen. Nelson and Karen Thurman might succeed on their own."

I was merely challenging (as I did weeks ago) YOUR implication that she didn't give a flip about MI or FL until she knew she needed votes.

To challenge that, I needed only to propose plausible alternatives. I OUTRIGHT STATED that I don't know if they were her reasons, just that they were plausible.

Why are you challenging them as though I had claimed to believe that Hillary was thinking those things?

__

You said: "NEITHER of them got out in front of a re-vote before March. In fact, Hillary specifically said the votes wouldn't count."

1) Obama NEVER got out in front of a re-vote. You acknowledged that in an earlier comment when you said that he should have.

Obama claimed to support it, but his campaign opposed every proposal and dragged its feet. Did you look at the CNN transcript yet (Wilhelm v. Carville)? It's a good example of what I'm talking about.

2) Hillary DID acknowledge that the votes would not count. Some weeks ago, I described the context of that statement. I THINK I gave you a link to the video.

She was asked why she didn't take her name off MI's ballot. Her answer was something along the lines of, "If MI isn't going to count, why does it matter if my name is on the ballot."

That's FAR different from saying, "The votes shouldn't count," or "I'm fine with the votes not counting."

You have repeatedly injected these types of meanings into her statements (as have the Obama campaign and the media people who didn't want FL and MI to count).

We went over that point some time ago. Why are you re-stating it as though it's a fresh, unchallenged point?

__

Yes, I DO view Obama through a more negative lens than Hillary.

Some 5 or 6 months ago, I had an open mind to him, even a positive view.

It has become increasingly negative because of his campaign's CHOICES and ACTIONS.

You might not see those same choices/actions as negative, but I DO -- based on who I am and what I value.

I view GWB through a negative lens, too -- which got more negative with time because of his CHOICES and ACTIONS.

Sometimes, my dirty lens MIGHT unfairly color my opinion (like my thinking that Obama's campaign STARTED the RFK thing). You pointed out the lack of evidence, and I CHANGED my interp accordingly.

I expect a certain amount of spin from politicians. I'm not deeply offended, for example, that Obama puffed up his resume or that Hillary puffed up hers (though the Bosnia lie did offend me).

Once a politician's spin reaches a certain point (in frequency and/or degree of dishonesty), however, I find it unacceptable.

Obama has already hit that point with me. Consequently, I don't believe much that he or his campaign says, unless I can verify it. [That's how I feel about GWB's public statements.]

The back-door taking of special-interest money (while he enticed supporters with CLAIMS that he was free from such taint) was a big one for me.

The claims of being anti-divisiveness (while his campaign promoted a bellicose attitude) was a big one for me.

The claiming credit for wanting to see MI and FL count or have re-votes (while his campaign opposed them) was a big one for me even beyond the obvious dishonesty.

The false claiming of credit for major involvement with three pieces of U.S. Senate legislation wasn't big on its own, but when added to other misrepresentations, it took on significance.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get where I'm at.

IN short, I get the sense that Obama's campaign is on the same path as GWB in terms of the extent to which he will mislead the public about events and facts.

Not accepting it from GWB, why should I accept such tendencies from Obama?

I don't necessarily believe that this is who Obama the PERSON is.

Frankly, I think that he has received bad advice from Axelrod and others.

[Ok, it was good in terms of numbers, but very bad in terms of the lasting impression he has made on many people about his credibility.]

At the same time, it has been Obama's choice to take that advice, and apparently he found frequent manipulation and dishonesty an acceptable tactic.

I DON'T expect you to agree with me, because you honestly didn't take exception to such issues when I posted about them.

But your merely stating that they weren't big deals didn't change my mind (because of who I am).