A Number You Probably Haven't Seen

[Clinton Crusader]

A Number You Probably Haven't Seen

by Christopher Beam
Slate
February 28, 2008

It's well-known that Barack Obama's success has depended largely on
independent and Republican voters. The corollary to that, however, has been less thoroughly reported: Obama is losing among Democrats.

Over at the Perfect World, Cal Lanier crunches the numbers and finds that Obama, despite being ahead among pledged delegates, has fewer total votes among people who identify themselves as Democrats. (He has 7,392,809 votes; Clinton has 8,229,063.) That gives Clinton as lead with 52 percent of Democrats. Lanier also breaks the numbers down by race and points out that Obama has won white Democrats in only two states: New Mexico and Illinois.

The numbers are hardly perfect. They rely on CNN and MSNBC exit polls, which are inherently rough. (Extrapolating those percentages to estimate exact numbers of voters is going to compound margins of error.) And because caucuses report delegates, not individual turnout, those stats are going to be a little murky, too. I'd also dispute their inclusion of Florida and Michigan in the count. But Clinton's lead is still large enough to be significant. It helps you understand why the party gives so much power to its 796 superdelegates. If they didn't, independents and Republicans could essentially hijack their election. It also makes you wonder whether Clinton should start citing this number, if she maintains her lead through the convention in August. Even if Obama leads in the popular vote and among pledged delegates, it might disturb party gray beards to learn that the nominee has essentially been chosen by
outsiders.

Read at: http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/Default.aspx

[libbygurl]

1. This is what I don't get.

'it might disturb party gray beards to learn that the nominee has essentially been chosen by
outsiders.'

Why the heck does the Dem party allow outsiders to determine their nominee? Why are there open primaries? So easy for non-Dems to - yes, perfectly put - HIJACK - the votes and eventual nominee.

But who cares about the Dems today, hey? More important are the Republican and independent voters, to hear the lot of so-called Dems say it!

[rodeodance]

2. Blackvelvet 04 had a thread on this----Dems had a perfectly good candidate to

go up against any Repug--hillary! what happened?

no good answer as far as i know

[rodeodance]

3. i think it was Jacksondem who has had a couple of threads on this lately--but

he went with with numbers---and i not think i read--losing dems.


ummm..

[rodeodance]

4. thanks--i just sent it to him---he is number cruncher--and will make use of it:-)

[libbygurl]

5. Good job, rodeo! Good job, CC! nt

[rodeodance]

6. help out here if you want------some obamapuppy just called me a sexist!

Forum Name Hillary Clinton Supporters Group
Topic subject com help if you want---this o. wants to sound alert for discussing sexism
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=334x2922#2922
2922, com help if you want---this o. wants to sound alert for discussing sexism
Posted by rodeodance on Sat Mar-01-08 09:53 AM


Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject Please join me in hitting alert if you object to this...
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4831298#4831736
4831736, Please join me in hitting alert if you object to this...
Posted by stevenleser on Sat Mar-01-08 09:46 AM

sexism in either direction has no place here.