There he goes again. Just as I was about to put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard, rather) to explain the math behind Hillary Clinton's new popular vote crusade--and show why it has the potential to become more divisive than a mere attack on Obama--my esteemed colleague Jonathan Alter beat me to the punch. I've reposted his analysis below. Two notes before you dive in--one that helps Obama and one that helps Hillary. First of all, Jon writes that "everyone in Michigan knew on January 15 that a vote for 'uncommitted' was a vote for Obama," meaning that those 238,168 votes are rightfully his. That's not quite right. At that point, John Edwards was still in the race, and still very much viable, but his name wasn't on the ballot either. Many of those votes--although not as many as Obama--probably belong to JRE, which lowers the Illinois senator's vote total by some unknowable number. (Goes to show how absurd this whole exercise is.) Secondly, Jon says that "with a big win in Puerto Rico, Clinton could possibly erase [Obama's 166,000-vote] margin (plus several thousand more that Obama is expected to net in Montana and South Dakota)." Or not. The expected turnout in P.R. is about 600,000
, the same as South Dakota; the Montana primary will probably draw about 750,000. That means Clinton has to win by about 30 points on the island--or 180,000 votes--to catch up to Obama , then somehow hold him to a net gain of 14,000 in a pair of primaries he's expected to win by double-digits (at least 135,000 votes, combined) just to break even. That seems unlikely to me. And *even if she does* it's not like the superdelegates will suddenly side with Clinton if she does manage to overtake Obama in this uncountable "popular vote." Which means that her new crusade gives her little chance to clinch the nomination, even if she gets everything she wants--but could (since the DNC will probably compromise and halve each delegation in the end) make a lot of her supporters think the crown was stolen from her anyway.
Give credit where it's due: Hillary Clinton has shown grit and determination in finishing out the race. She has proved herself a strong campaigner. And in the week since West Virginia, she has stopped the cheap shots that had marred her campaign this year.
But Clinton has continued with one claim that could have a pernicious effect on the Democrats' chances in November. While she knows that the nomination is determined by delegates, Hillary insists on saying at every opportunity that she is winning the popular vote. And she has now taken to touting the new HBO movie "Recount," which chronicles the Florida fiasco of eight years ago. Everyone can agree that the primary calendar needs reform. But popular-vote pandering is poison for Democrats. For a party scarred by the experience of 2000, when Al Gore received 500,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush but lost the presidency, this argument is sure to make it harder to unite and put bitter feelings aside.
Oh, and it's not true.
Let me go through the numbers without making your head spin.
After Kentucky and Oregon, Obama has an official popular vote lead of 441,545.
This does not include Iowa (where Obama first broke from the pack), Nevada (where Hillary won the popular vote narrowly), Maine (where Obama won easily) or Washington state (another strong Obama state). Why? Because these caucus states don't officially report their popular votes. But if we're going to truly count all the votes, official and nonofficial, as Hillary advocates, you can't very well not include caucus states.
Adding in the unofficial tally from caucus states, as estimated by ++realclearpolitics.com++ based on official caucus turnout and the number of local delegates selected at the precinct level, that gives Obama a lead of 551,767.
Now we come to Florida and Michigan, whose popular votes Hillary says should be counted. The argument for counting them is no better than for counting the caucus states (and maybe worse, considering that these states violated party rules by moving their primaries up on the calendar, and no one campaigned there). But for the sake of argument let's count 'em. That gives Hillary a lead of 71,314.
HILLARY WINS POPULAR VOTE!
Not so fast. If the Democratic National Committee completes its expected settlement on May 31, Florida and Michigan will each get half of their votes counted. Translated to popular votes, that would subtract about 325,000 votes from Hillary, putting Obama back into the lead.
Beyond not being official numbers, there's another problem with counting Michigan in these totals. Obama wasn't on the ballot there. You can say this was his own choice, but that doesn't change the fact that had he been on the Michigan ballot he would have received a lot of popular votes. How many?
Try 238,168. That's the number of Michiganders who voted for "uncommitted." Were they possibly genuinely abstaining? Maybe a few hundred of them at most. The rest were clearly Obama supporters who launched a grass-roots campaign. Everyone in Michigan knew on January 15 that a vote for "uncommitted" was a vote for Obama.
That means that by a generous definition of popular votes (and remember, Clinton wants to enfranchise as many people as possible in her count), Obama leads by about 166,000 votes.
With a big win in Puerto Rico, Clinton could possibly erase that margin (plus several thousand more that Obama is expected to net in Montana and South Dakota). She could then proclaim that with the help of Puerto Rican voters who cannot vote in a general election, she is the popular vote winner.
The shorthand many Clinton supporters are already taking into the summer is that she won the popular vote but had the nomination "taken away" (as Joy Behar said on "The View") by a man.
What a helpful message for uniting the Democratic Party.
*Apologies: For South Dakota and Montana, I misread the voting-age population estimates as turnout predictions. Dumb. Still, it doesn't change my basic point--that Clinton needs a massive win in P.R. just to tie Obama, and even then, such a performance is will probably a) not spur the superdels to break her way and b) create further divisions among Democrats.