• 
• 
• 
• 
by Paul West
When Bill Clinton flew to Puerto Rico the other day, it highlighted what may be the most peculiar quirk of the '08 campaign: The people of Puerto Rico cannot vote in the November presidential election, but they could decide whose name appears on the ballot.
Hillary Clinton, in fact, is counting on it.
Her strategy for wooing undecided superdelegates involves running up the score in the remaining primaries. She can't overtake Barack Obama in the delegate count during the primaries and caucuses, but eclipsing him in the popular vote count is still a possibility.
Doing so would strengthen her case to the superdelegates that she has more broad-based support than Obama and is the strongest candidate against John McCain. A number of her leading backers, including New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine and Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha, have explicitly stated in recent days that Clinton needs to win the popular vote to have a credible chance at getting nominated.
At the same time, her campaign is pushing back against those who want Clinton to quit the race, maintaining that the contest with Obama is still incredibly tight. To bolster that argument, they point to the neck-and-neck popular vote count.
The last big primary, in Puerto Rico on June 1, could prove decisive in that measurement, which both candidates have called an important sign of their success.
But counting popular votes in this convoluted election year isn't easy. Thank Florida and Michigan for that, as well as the often-confusing caucuses in other states.
As a result, it is entirely possible that both Clinton and Obama will claim to have the most popular votes when the primary season ends in early June. So far, after more than 25 primaries, Obama has an advantage of more than 700,000 votes, or about 2.5 percent of the more than 26 million Democrats who've participated.
The figures don't include two of the largest primaries, since they were held in violation of the nominating rules and the national party invalidated them in advance.
In Florida, about 1.5 million Democrats turned out for the primary, even though no delegates were at stake, many drawn by a statewide property tax referendum. The presidential candidates, by prior agreement, had not made campaign appearances, and Clinton won by almost 300,000 votes. Her campaign includes Florida in its popular-vote tally; Obama's does not.
In Michigan, Obama and most of the other Democratic candidates removed their names from the ballot; Clinton left hers on and got more than 325,000 votes, which she counts in her popular-vote total.
Clinton campaign aides say they'd be willing, for purposes of figuring a nationwide total, to distribute the 237,000 Michigan votes for "uncommitted" among the candidates whose names weren't on the ballot. That would still give Clinton a 250,000-vote lead over Obama in the state. However, if the primary votes were apportioned according to the results of that day's exit poll, her Michigan edge would shrink to about 65,000.
According to RealClearPolitics, which has various vote-total permutations on its Web site, Obama's national lead in popular votes shrinks to 94,000, a mere 0.4 percent out of the roughly 28 million votes cast, if Florida and Michigan are included and Obama is given zero votes in Michigan.
Another complication: counting caucuses. Several caucus states, Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine, did not release popular vote totals, even though hundreds of thousands of Democrats participated. Obama's camp adds the estimated caucus vote in those states to each candidate's total and claims an overall popular vote lead of more than 800,000 nationwide.
(Want to split more hairs? In Washington state, which held a non-binding primary 10 days after its caucuses, Obama's advantage would shrink by about 50,000 if the primary vote were counted instead of a caucus estimate. The Obama campaign uses the caucus count, since neither candidate campaigned in the period between the caucuses and the primary, and the primary had no effect on allocating delegates.)
Obama, looking ahead to the largest remaining state contests, told reporters on Friday that "Indiana may end up being the tie breaker," since he is favored in North Carolina and Clinton has the edge in Pennsylvania.
He said nothing about Puerto Rico, where the Clintons have gotten the jump on him. The Caribbean island may actually provide Clinton with a bigger popular vote boost than any of the remaining contests, with the possible exception of Pennsylvania. As a senator from New York, she represents the state with the largest Puerto Rican population, and she's won the Hispanic vote, sometimes by as much as 2-to-1 over Obama, in earlier primaries.
Bill Clinton, during his two-day visit to Puerto Rico last week, urged voters to "give her a good margin" and promised that, if they did, their voices would be heard "all across the United States."
But should they be heard? Even though the island will send 63 delegates to the Democratic convention, it has no electoral votes and plays no part in the general election.
It's "a legitimate question" whether Puerto Rico's primary should be included in the popular vote count, said an Obama spokesman, who did not provide an answer. However, the Obama camp has already included the primary in American Samoa (which also has no electoral votes) in its popular vote tally. Excluding Puerto Rico could well be taken as a slight to Hispanic voters. And on Monday, the Obama campaign said the results of the Puerto Rico primary should be included in the popular vote total. "The Obama campaign is campaigning hard to win as many votes as possible in Puerto Rico, despite the early lead gained by the Clintons. We view each vote cast in the Puerto Rico primary as being as important as the votes in any other primary or caucus," the campaign said in a statement.
The Clinton position is clear. Puerto Rico's 2.3 million registered voters -who have a history of turning out in far higher proportions than U.S. voters -could seal her victory in the popular vote count.
With some polls giving Clinton a double-digit lead in Pennsylvania, even before the controversy over Obama’s “bitter” remark, she may soon cut into his popular vote advantage. And that could mean things are about to get messier for Democrats.
Comments
Why does a Hilary win in PA make things 'messy'?
Wasn't BHO going to drop out if she won PA?
Isn't he just extending the deadline on this disastrous, divisive end game to a campaign that's faked its way to near the top of the ticket?
If Obama had been so adept with painting Petreus into the peace pact corner--that would be ALL the news media were discussing right now.
Double standards dominate media coverage of this campaign. And it's ruining further the lost credibility of mainstream news.
Posted by: citizentompaine | April 13, 2008 9:39 AM
THIS IS "HILLARY - OUS" - HILLARY IS TRYING TO COUNT A HALF MILLION OR MORE NON-LEGITIMATE VOTES AND SHE IS STILL LOSING ANYWAY
Posted by: HILLARY'S COVER UP | April 13, 2008 9:57 AM
HILLARY TOOK THE BAIT
today's papers are all filled with Obama expressing regret for his remarks..tho when you read what he says, it's not that, it that he could have used better words, etc.
I think they're setting up Hillary for the coup-de-grace on this one.
By suggesting that they're on the defensive, my guess is they're allowing this story to grow. Tempting Hillary to say more. Hillary has already, in my opinion, taken the bait, and repeated McCain's magic phrase: that Obama's "out of touch".
now, I suspect, after letting this story grow, the Obama campaign will counter punch big time & deliver Hillary's coup de grace.
Hillary took the bait. She's going to lose Penn & Ind. on this one. To get an idea of what the Obama counter punch is like, see the u tube video of his response (350,000 views in 2 days ....and it's just starting)
Obama's Response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow
Posted by: kevin larmee | April 13, 2008 10:08 AM
It's nice that the Clinton campaign is allowed to define the rules of the nomination process as they see fit. And in true form, they believe everyone else should accept they're idiotic reasoning as truth. I guess when there are entire articles devoted to this convoluted notion, that gives the Clinton campaign hope. Why does the press continuously push the Clinton talking points?
Posted by: Joe | April 13, 2008 10:27 AM
Regarding all-important popular appeal...
The attitude of the Oprahma campaign is "Don't question us and don't think, Primitive Little People... we know what's best for you!"
Add to that Obama's Spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright and the Theology of Hate...
Plus Obama's financier and long time friend Tony Rezko and the Chicago-style politics... "Gimme my cut"
So who will more popular appeal in the general election? (Here's a hint: she wears pantsuits.)
Posted by: MJ | April 13, 2008 10:45 AM
To MJ: Please clarify what you are accusing Obama of in regard to Rezko. I read his lengthy explanantion of the relationship given to the Chicago newspaper and was satisfied. There was no exchange of political favors that I could see. Even the most frequently cited misstep -- previously underestimating the amount of money Rezko raised for him -- was only exposed when Obama himself told us the new amount! He has been extraordinarily forthcoming. The amount he paid for his house was fair market, and the Rezko purchase of the adjoining property was explained. Obama admits it was a mistake but, good Lord, this is hardly major corruption.
But I keep seeing people on blogs evoke the name "Rezko" usually in whispers and only as innuendo. Again, please clarify.
Here, I'll help get you started. "I accuse Obama of _________." Just fill in the blank. Specifics, please. Not just "can we really trust this guy, etc."
Posted by: bd | April 13, 2008 11:47 AM
The more Clinton talks about her path to the popular vote the more she supports the nomination of Barack Obama. I have a very bad feeling that if the tables were turned the Obama campaign would have a much tougher time legitimizing a strategy path to the popular vote. Pathetic.
Posted by: Matt | April 13, 2008 11:59 AM
Cling to their guns? Anti Trade?
Obama loving media is conveniently ignoring some of the things he said.
First of all the media is trying to make his gun comment into having something to do with "HUNTING?" That is total BS. He was clearly saying that people are "BITTER" and they take their guns and commit crimes such as MURDER and ROBBERY. He is demeaning all these people by saying that since they are "BITTER" they have become a bunch of CRIMINALS! Hunting? Give me a break.
Second he was saying that all these "BITTER" people are anti-TRADE because they are "BITTER." What is he implying here? He is IMPLYING that these trade deals such as NAFTA are GOOD and that the only reason people are against it is because they are "BITTER." Again contradictory statements. Go in front of blue collar PA folks and say he is against trade deals. Then go in front of MULTI-MILLIONAIRES and BILLIONAIRES and say he is for it.
All this was said behind closed doors at an OIL BILLIONAIRES MANSION to other very rich people. From what the media is reporting Obama does not allow the media in these fundraisers with rich people. What plausible reason does he have for that? Unless of course he does not want what he is saying to come out! An Obama supporting Huffington Post reporter who was at the event wrote about it because she was shocked. My question now is WHAT OTHER GARBAGE HAS HE BEEN SAYING BEHIND CLOSE DOORS IN ALL THE FUNDRAISERS HE HAS HAD WITH THE SUPER RICH (WHERE THE MEDIA IS ALWAYS BANNED BY OBAMA)?
Posted by: Ordinary Johnny | April 13, 2008 12:44 PM
Oh Please, you American are so stupid and naive. I'm an Australian and have been following this election since the start. All the American people are so buying into this Barack Obama it isn't funny. You know for every bill that needs to be voted on, he doesn't vote, he stays back on the side line. He really hasn't done much for Illionis, yet you American's think he is the right person for the Democratic party. Please. He is only in his 40's, he is still a baby, he is first term senator and you people think he is going to change America (USA i should say). Please you people are dreaming. He is the most arrogant politican i have every seen in my life. Not only did he lie about Rev Wright (oh i never head Rev Wright say anything bad about the USA, 9/11 etc. Please what i load of rubbish. This is the guy he considers as an uncle, someone who he looks to for spiritial advise, some he has know for 20 years and is a good family friend. Yeah i'm sure he never heard anything. WHATEVER. Then what about his wife saying for the first time in her adult life she is proud of her country. This basically makes up comments from Rev Wright. She is only proud cause Obama is in the lead by a few delegates.
If you want the rest of the world to have respect again for the USA and for the USA to get out of the whole that Mr Bush has gotten your country in, you will vote for someone that is is actually going to make a difference and fix your country. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Here is a lady that went to top colleges in the States, was on the impeachment committee that impeached Nixon. She also FOUGHT for the African Americans for acceptance, she was a lawyer, first lady of Arkanas, first lady of the USA, has frought for health care in the USA, yeah it might not of gone through that time but at least she tried. And she continues to try and fight for what she believes in, and has done so since the 60's yet you people think she is doing it for herself. I have read over 10 books on Hillary, looked up her life etc and she is the right person for the job.
She is not giving American speeches like OBAMA she is offering real solutions for the USA. Something she has been doing for over 40 years.
VOTE FOR HILLARY, wake up. Take it from someone that doens't live in your country.
Be smart use your vote wisely.
GO HILLARY R CLINTON. All the way. AUSTRALIA is behind you 100%
Posted by: Daniel Wilken | April 14, 2008 6:52 AM