Popular vote totals according to real clear politics

[4themind]

Here are the current popular vote totals assuming several different scenarios, including with or without Fl and/or MI. Also they give an estimate as to what these totals would be with IA, NV, ME, WA which have not yet released popular vote totals (I'm not sure when they will be released, so maybe someone who knows can answer that)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

"Popular Vote Total 13,355,437 49.5% 12,638,175 46.9% Obama +717,262 +2.6%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 13,689,521 49.6% 12,862,037 46.6% Obama +827,484 +3.0%

Popular Vote (w/FL) 13,931,651 48.5% 13,509,161 47.1% Obama +422,490 +1.4%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 14,265,735 48.6% 13,733,023 46.8% Obama +532,712 +1.8%

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)** 13,931,651 47.6% 13,837,470 47.2% Obama +94,181 +0.4%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 14,265,735 47.6% 14,061,332 47.0% Obama +204,403 +0.6%"


NOTES from realclearpolitc

"*(Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals. RealClearPolitics has estimated the popular vote totals for Senator Obama and Clinton in these four states. RCP uses the WA Caucus results from February 9 in this estimate because the Caucuses on February 9 were the “official” contest recognized by the DNC to determine delegates to the Democratic convention. The estimate from these four Caucus states where there are not official popular vote numbers increases Senator Obama’s popular vote margin by 110,224. This number would be about 50,000 less if the Washington primary results from February 19th were used instead of the Washington Caucus results.)

**(Senator Obama was not on the Michigan Ballot and thus received zero votes. Uncommitted was on the ballot and received 238,168 votes as compared to 328,309 for Senator Clinton.)"

[gateley]

1. Would this be a whole different ballgame

if it was only popular votes that determined the outcome?

If so, I understand part of Hillary's insistence to carry on -- it's pretty damn close.

[hedgehog]

3. Close only counts in horseshoes. nt

[SoFlaJet]

2. just take Florida and Michigan out of EVERY discussion

and then maybe it will actually MEAN something. Again, and us Floridians have been saying this for 2 months now-WE ALL KNEW THE PRIMARY WOULD NOT COUNT-and about 1/3 of the voters didn't waste their time going to the polls-people gotta work and gas is expensive and everyone is busy, there's a lot of traffic-why bother? No one did

[morningglory]

5. Plus: the panhandle of Florida went for Edwards. Who gets our votes? nt

[AZ Criminal JD]

8. You speak for all the millions that voted?

There was a record turn out in Florida. So your claim "No one did." is a fantasy.

[Kber]

4. Is Obama ahead in EVERY scenario - or am I reading it wrong?

[4themind]

6. Accordng to RCP he is right now

and that's without including those 4 caucus states (assuming WA as well here). But if FL and MI are going to added as is to the popular vote, for fairer comparison, I would argue that the totals from those other 4 states MUST also be ascertained.

[gristy]

7. I guess maybe you haven't heard?

The Dem candidate for the GE is not selected based on who won the popular vote. It's not based on who one the popular vote when MI and FL are included. It's not based on who one the popular vote when FL is included but not MI. It's not based on who won the popular vote when both MI and FL are excluded.

In fact, it has no direct bearing whatsoever.

[AZ Criminal JD]

9. U.S. News & World Report is projecting Clinton will win the popular vote.

They are projecting Obama will have the most pledged delegates. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/3/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count.html

[johnnydrama]

10. no they aren't

They aren't projecting anything, they are taking the best possible Clinton finish in every remaining state and giving it to her.

Winning Montana by 20%? I don't think so.