Race Tightens in Both Popular and Electoral Vote as Democratic Convention Draws Near

Five days before the Democratic National Convention begins on Aug. 25, 2008 in Denver the latest Reuters/Zogby poll shows McCain leading Obama 46 to 41 percent among likely voters, which the poll found is outside the margin of error. Reuters/Zogby had Obama ahead by 7-points as recently as mid July.

David Paul Kuhn reports at Politico:

“Only one major national survey, a USA Today/Gallup Poll in late July, has shown McCain ahead since the general election began in early June. But that 4-point McCain lead was the mirror opposite of other national surveys taken over the same period, leaving reasonable suspicion it was an outlier.

“Today's Reuters/Zogby poll conducted from August 14 to 16, by contrast, seems to follow a recent trend in other surveys.

“A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released Tuesday, and taken from August 15 to the 18, found that Obama's lead over McCain had fallen to within the margin of error, 45 to 43 percent. That same poll pegged Obama ahead by 12 points in mid June.”

Kuhn continues:

“A more tepid shift was measured in another national poll taken from August 12 to 17 by Quinnipiac University. That survey had Obama leading 47 to 42 percent. However, the same poll in mid July had Obama leading McCain 50 to 41 percent.

“The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found, in a poll taken July 31 and August 10, that Obama was besting McCain by narrow margin of only 46 to 43 percent. Pew's mid July polling had Obama ahead by 5 points. In late June, Pew had Obama ahead by 8 points, 48 to 40 percent.

“For the first time Tuesday McCain has also pulled ahead, though tenuously, in the Electoral College count, 274 to 264, according to the RealClearPolitics average of state polling that includes narrow leads in swing states. The shift occurred after Indiana—the home of Democratic vice presidential prospect Sen. Evan Bayh—switched to McCain's electoral coffer.

“The Reuters/Zogby poll, which was taken by telephone of 1,089 likely voters and had margin of error of 3 percentage points, found that no one factor explains McCain’s gain. In that poll the Republican presumptive nominee now narrowly leads among independents, a flip from last month. McCain has also sown up his base, leading with conservatives 74 to 15 percent.

“Meanwhile other polling has shown that Obama continues to have problems with his base. McCain continues to have more support from his base than Obama has from Democrats, though Pew measured an increase in support among evangelical Protestants even before the Saddleback forum Saturday night. Some of Obama’s weakness continues to be rooted in his inability to win over about the fifth of Clinton’s support.”
Read more.

Unelected Superdels Clinch the Deal for Obama

Photo credits: Getty images

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with 17,785,009 votes compared to Barack Obama’s 17,479, 990. But at the end of the day on June 3, 2008, the questionable resolution of the Michigan and Florida dilemma by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws committee and the lemming-like support of unelected superdelegates had already tipped the scales in favor of Obama.

For months Clinton stood firm against the repeated efforts by the Obama campaign and its media allies to force her to drop out of the race; thanks to her courage, determination, and outstanding leadership, the voters in every primary were given the opportunity to vote.

It is unfortunate that in their rush to anoint Barack Obama the presumptive nominee, Democratic party leaders have chosen to overturn the will of the people.

This state of affairs does not bode well for the general election or the future of the Democratic party. It cries out for a close examination of the Democratic nomination process and much needed reform to insure that sexism and misogyny will never again be used to nominate the weaker male candidate over the stronger and obviously better qualified female candidate.

In the meantime, I’ve a hunch that thousands of women who supported Hillary Clinton will continue to refuse to sit down, shut up, and get with the program of a good old boys network that blatantly dominates the Democratic party and the media.

Wake-up Call to the DNC: “The People Are Speaking; Is Our Party Listening?”

Cross posting at TaylorMarsh, Texasdarlin issues a wake-up call to the DNC: “The people are speaking. Is our party listening?”

She recalls Obama’s boast of his power to sway the populace:

“Early in the primaries, Barack Obama promised that he would win more people over the longer he campaigned. He said that every state becomes an "Obama state" once he goes there. But an interesting thing happened as winter turned to spring, and the people kept voting in record numbers. Hillary Clinton stole the momentum. Her popularity soared; her appeal broadened; and she steadfastly became the darling of the masses, even as Barack was crowned darling of the mass media”

But then New Hampshire failed to become an Obama state, and Hillary took off:

“It started back in New Hampshire, when Hillary "found her voice," but what really happened is that the American people have found Hillary. And there's nothing like raw data to illustrate the point:

“*Electoral-Vote.com shows Hillary gaining steam against McCain, now leading by a whopping 110 EV's (315 to 206), with Hillary winning key states like Florida, North Carolina, and West Virginia. (Obama trails McCain by 30 EV's.)

“*Over the last three months, Hillary has won more contests, gained more votes, and earned more delegates. Since March 4th, she has gained nearly 500,000 more popular votes than Barack Obama as voters in crucial battleground states have made their voices known.

“*More Americans have voted for Hillary than any other presidential candidate this cycle. In fact, more people have voted for Hillary than any other primary candidate in history - nearly 18 million so far.

“*Last Tuesday Hillary won 150,000 more votes than Obama in Kentucky and Oregon, even though delegate counts will be split fairly evenly.

“*Hillary has now won nearly 64,000 more votes than Obama in total, when all caucuses and primaries are included.”

Read More:

New Assessment May Give Clinton the Popular Vote

Photo credits: AP

Get this: the Caucus (NY Times) is reporting an assessment that might give Clinton the edge in the popular vote on June 3 after all.

Here’s the deal:

“With her expected big win in Puerto Rico on June 1, a collection of votes could give her the popular vote lead without including the disputed results from Michigan and Florida. The Clinton campaign is circulating an opinion article from the Philadelphia Inquirer, which analyzes the vote possibilities. It buttresses the heart of her new argument to the superdelegates — that if she wins the popular vote across the whole country, how can they overturn the will of the people?”

The Inquirer analysis (shown in blue) as quoted by the Caucus:

Real Clear Politics keeps track of six versions of the popular-vote total. They are, in ascending order of inclusivity: (1) the popular vote of sanctioned contests; (2) the total of sanctioned contests, plus estimated votes from the Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington caucuses; (3) the popular vote plus Florida; (4) popular vote plus Florida and the caucuses; (5) the popular vote plus Florida and Michigan; (6) popular vote plus Florida, Michigan, and the caucus estimates. After Tuesday, Clinton now leads in two of these six counts.

If you believe that the most important precept in democratic politics is to “count every vote,” then the sixth category is the most inclusive, and here Clinton leads Obama by 71,301 votes. Of course, this includes the Michigan result, where Sen. Obama had removed his name from the ballot. So while it may be the most inclusive, it may not be the most fair.

The third and fourth counts - the ones which include Florida - seem more fair. Here, Obama is clinging to a slight lead of 146,786 votes (257,008, with the caucus estimates). However, with Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota remaining, he will almost certainly finish behind her in these counts, likely by a few hundred thousand votes.

But could Clinton take over the lead in all of the popular-vote tabulations? Quite possibly. In Puerto Rico’s last major election, two million people voted. Let’s assume that turnout for this historic vote - Puerto Rico has never had a presidential primary before - will be equal to or greater than that turnout.

If Clinton were to win Puerto Rico by 20 points she would pick up at least a 400,000-vote margin. This would allow her to swamp Obama in the popular-vote counts, which include Florida, making her the leader in four of the six permutations of the popular vote. At that point, Obama would be left clinging to the least-inclusive count, which he now leads by 441,558 votes (551,780, including caucuses).

To understand how razor-thin this majority is, consider that if the Puerto Rico turnout is slightly larger than we have imagined - or Clinton’s margin is slightly greater - then Clinton would finish the primary process leading in every conceivable vote count. With two million voters, a 28 percent victory would put Clinton over the top even in the count, which excludes Florida and Michigan and includes estimates for Obama’s caucus victories.

The Caucus reports:

“Mrs. Clinton is headed to South Dakota now, where she plans to discuss the numbers at an editorial board meeting this afternoon.”

Clinton in Florida: “Let Every Vote Be Counted!”

Photo credits: AP

Writing for the Trail (Washington Post) Perry Bacon reports from Boca Raton, Florida on Hillary Clinton’s re-energized campaign following her blowout win in Kentucky last night.

Bacon quotes the second term senator from New York:

"We believe the popular vote is the truest expression of your will. We believe it today just as we believed it back in 2000 when, right here in Florida, you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and a candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner," Clinton told a crowd at retirement home in Boca Raton. "The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear: if any votes aren't counted, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished."

Clinton’s talking history, Bacon reports:

“While counting the votes in Florida and Michigan, both states where Clinton won the popular vote, would help her candidacy, Clinton cast her cause in historical and moral terms in a speech that quoted the Declaration of Independence, described the struggle of blacks and women to earn voting rights and invoked the legacies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman. And her staging was even more clear, starting off talking to a group of seniors in Palm Beach County, the place known for the so-called dimpled chads and a confusing ballot that resulted in some Democrats voting for Pat Buchanan rather than Al Gore.

‘“I believe the Democratic Party must count these votes. ... Count them exactly as they were cast," she said. "I am here today because I believe the decision our party faces is not just about the fate of these votes and outcome of these primaries, it's about about whether we will uphold our most fundamental values as Democrats and Americans. ... I believe that both Senator Obama and myself have an obligation as potential Democratic nominees, in fact we all have an obligation as Democrats to carry on this legacy to ensure in our nominating process every voice is heard and every vote is counted. This is a core mission of the modern Democratic Party.’”

Bacon continues:

“Her tone was a departure from the fiery populist rhetoric of recent days, in which she has cast herself as an underdog. Instead, in a soft, almost pleading voice, she said she believed that ‘whether you voted for me or Senator Obama or Senator Edwards, each vote is a prayer for our nation.’”


Bacon summarizes Clinton’s rallying cry:

“The crowd of several hundred loudly applauded, as her supporters do all over the country when she takes up the issue of counting the Michigan and Florida delegations, which has become a central plank in her longshot campaign to overtake Barack Obama. Clinton wants to count votes in Michigan and Florida, which could allow here to overtake Obama in the popular. If she won the popular vote, her aides said, along with maintaining her strong poll numbers in states like Florida against Sen. John McCain, it would strengthen her argument to Democratic superdelegates to chose her over Obama, who has won the battle over delegates selected through Democratic primaries and caucuses.”

Hillary Makes Her Case in the Bluegrass State

In today’s New York Times, a confident Hillary Clinton campaigns in Kentucky in the run up to the primary in the Bluegrass state tomorrow.

(Be sure to read my footnote to the Times article on the underhanded strategy of Obama and Edwards in Michigan and of the Obama campaign in Florida.)

The Times article reports:

“Mrs. Clinton has continued to make the case that she is a better candidate than Mr. Obama, delivering a stump speech in Bowling Green that highlighted many familiar points: that she will be ready on Day 1, will be a more capable commander in chief, and is more experienced in foreign policy matters.

““I’m going to get to work as soon as I’m inaugurated to make sure that we do build a strong and prosperous middle class,” she told a crowd at the Maker’s Mark distillery in Loretto, Ky.

“And she has argued to audiences here that she is leading in the popular vote, based on a count that includes the elections in Florida and Michigan, whose votes were moved up in violation of Democratic Party rules. (Mr. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan; neither candidate campaigned in Florida.)*

‘“I’ll tell you where this race stands right now,” Mrs. Clinton told a crowd in Mayfield on Sunday. “Right now I am leading in the popular vote. More Americans have voted for me. And the states that I have won are states that a Democrat has to win to be elected in the fall.”’

*What the Times article fails to mention above is that Mr. Obama chose to take his name off the ballot in Michigan, and he and John Edwards both urged residents of the Wolverine state to vote uncommitted to humiliate Clinton. Despite the “old politics” style strategy of those two young men, Clinton won handily in Michigan. The Times article also fails to report that even though the party forbade candidates to campaign in either Michigan or Florida, the Obama campaign ran ads in Florida prior to the primary. Hillary followed the rules, and the voters turned out in force to support her.

Peter Daou Shatters Myths from the Obama Camp

Wow! Over at HuffingtonPost this morning, Peter Daou is breathtaking as myth buster. Daou shatters three major myths about the Democratic race. First off he nails the Obama camp with the same charges I’ve been repeating endlessly for weeks now:

“MYTH: Barack Obama is running a positive campaign that will unite Americans.

“FACT: Barack Obama and his advisers have conducted a divisive "full assault" on Hillary's character.”

Daou explains:

“While talking a lot about the politics of hope, change and unity, Sen. Obama and his campaign have been conducting a relentless and singularly personal assault on Hillary's character. They have blanketed big states with false negative mailers and radio ads and have described Hillary and her campaign as ‘disingenuous,’ ‘divisive,’ ‘untruthful,’ ‘dishonest,’ ‘polarizing,’ ‘calculating,’ ‘saying whatever it takes to win,’ ‘attempting to deceive the American people,’ ‘one of the most secretive in America,’ ‘deliberately misleading,’ ‘literally willing to do anything to win,’ and ‘playing politics with war.’

“This ‘full assault’ on Hillary's integrity and character has reached a new peak since Hillary's victories on March 4th. One of Sen. Obama's top surrogates equated President Clinton with Joe McCarthy; another called Hillary a ‘monster;’ and his campaign manager held an angry conference call claiming that Hillary is ‘deeply flawed’ and has ‘character issues.’ That's neither unifying nor hopeful. If Sen. Obama really is the prohibitive favorite some say he is, these negative attacks make absolutely no sense. Why would a frontrunner seek to attack and divide? If Sen. Obama can't unify Democrats in a primary, how can he unify Americans in a general election?”

Allow me to repeat Daou’s question: “If Sen. Obama can't unify Democrats in a primary, how can he unify Americans in a general election?”

In the second myth, despite what all the pundits are saying – Howard Kurtz’s column in yesterday’s WaPo was titled: “Hillary’s Last Rites?” – Daou shatters this one as effectively as he did the first:

“MYTH: The delegate ‘math’ works decisively against Hillary.”

“FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.”

Daou explains:

“‘The Math’ is actually very simple: with hundreds of delegates still uncommitted, NEITHER candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination. And EITHER candidate can reach the required number in the coming weeks and months. That is indisputable. No amount of editorials, articles, blog posts, charts, graphs, calculations, formulas, or projections will change the basic fact that either candidate can win. Pundits who confidently proclaim that Hillary has no hope of winning because of ‘the math,’ have counted Hillary out of this race three times before. Each time they based their sober assessments on 'facts' and 'realities' -- and each time they were wrong.

“In a campaign with dozens of unexpected twists and turns, bold prognostications should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Look no further than Sen. Obama's ‘full assault’ on Hillary's character to judge whether he thinks this election is over. The fact is this: Hillary and Sen. Obama are locked in a very close, hard-fought campaign and Hillary is demonstrating precisely the strength of character required of a president. Her resilience in the face of adversity, her faith in the voters, her capacity to rise to every challenge, are part of the reason she is the best general election candidate for Democrats. And it is why she is increasingly strong against John McCain in the polls at the same time that Sen. Obama is dropping against Sen. McCain.”

Finally, Daou shatters the myth about the superdelegates:

“MYTH: For Hillary to win, super delegates must ‘overturn the will of the people.’

“FACT: The race is virtually tied, the ‘will of the people’ is split, and both candidates need super delegates to win.”

Hint: As Daou explains, the election is not over yet:

“The Obama campaign and Sen. Obama's surrogates have engaged in a sustained public relations effort to convince people that the election is over and that if super delegates perform their established role of choosing a candidate who they believe will make the best nominee and president, they are somehow ‘overturning the will of the people.’ They have the audacity to make this argument while quietly and systematically courting those very same super delegates. They are courting them because they know that Sen. Obama needs super delegates to win. The Obama spin is being parroted daily by pundits, but it is patently false. The race is virtually tied; the ‘will of the people’ is split. By virtually every measure, Hillary and Sen. Obama are neck and neck -- separated by less than 130 of the more than 3,100 delegates committed thus far and less than 1% of the 27 million+ votes cast, including Florida and Michigan. Less than 1%.
“An incremental advantage for one candidate or the other is hardly a reason for super delegates to change the rules mid-game. Despite the Obama campaign's aggressive spin and pressure, the RULES require super delegates to exercise their best independent judgment, and that is what they will do. Even Sen. Obama's top strategist agrees they should. If not, then why don't prominent Obama endorsers like Senators Kerry (MA) and Kennedy (MA), and Governors Patrick (MA), Napolitano (AZ) and Richardson (NM) follow the will of their constituents and switch their support to Hillary? After all, she won their states. And if this is truly about the ‘will of the people,’ then Sen. Obama's short-sighted tactic to run out the clock on a revote in Florida and Michigan accomplishes exactly two things: it disenfranchises Florida and Michigan's voters; and it hurts Democrats in a general election. Apparently, for the Obama campaign, the ‘will of the people’ is just words.”

Note: Peter Daou is the Clinton Campaign’s Internet Director.