My SDP colleague Mr. Heppler mentions the possibility that H. Clinton will end up winning more popular votes than Obama, thus giving her a substantial claim to the nomination. Michael Barone follows suite. After some very interesting historical context for the current exit polls (Hilary is winning the Jacksonians!), he gives us this:
Clinton now leads in the popular vote, if you include the Florida and Michigan results, by 121,943 votes. And even if you include the imputed totals for the Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine caucuses, she's ahead by 11,721 votes. It seems to me that this provides the Clinton campaign with an important talking point, though one they're probably reluctant to use over the next two weeks. Reluctant, because the likely Obama victory in North Carolina could erase this popular-vote lead, and) an offsetting Clinton margin in Indiana seems unlikely (or at least risky to project from current polling). But looking ahead from May 6, Clinton is likely to regain that popular-vote lead (including Florida and Michigan) and quite possibly could gain a popular-vote lead counting just Florida and not the more problematic (because Obama was not on the ballot there) Michigan.
Since the nominee is selected by delegate votes and not popular votes, the latter will only be important in so far as they sway unpledged delegates. I can think of two reasons why a super delegate might take the popular vote seriously:
First, a delegate might regard the popular vote as morally binding, even though it has no direct legal status.
Second, a delegate might regard the popular vote as an indication of strength in November, and so believe that nominating the candidate most popular among Democrats is the best way to win the White House.
Either way, it strikes me as very dubious to count Michigan or Florida. When only one candidate is on the ballot in one state, and breaks party rules by being the only one to campaign in the other state, there is no reason to regard the vote in either state as an authoritative statement of the popular will. The obvious solution to this problem was to have new contests in both states. Short of that, neither should be counted.
Besides, there is no way to tally the caucuses, because many of them did not keep a count of popular participant, so we can't know what Obama's tally would have been if primaries had been held in those states. It is useful to note how far ahead one candidate is over another in the popular vote. But it should not be regarded as binding. If the South Dakota and Montana Primaries pass with neither candidate having enough votes to be nominated, then the Super Delegates will have the responsibility for deciding the matter. It is their decision, and no other criteria, that will matter.
Recent Comments