Dems: Popular Vote vs Electoral College Votes?
 

I was discussing this last night over dinner with a group of friends who are members of all political parties and a few who are Independent.

I believe the DNC is in a real historic quagmire with this one.

While the popular vote is substantial, we have had several Presidential candidates lose their respective primary or/and the general election due to lack of electoral college votes (Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry)

However, here's the bear.

If we based the primary on popular vote, Sen. Obama would win

If we based the primary of electoral college votes, it looks like Sen. Clinton would win

And, the Michigan and Florida issue has yet to be resolved.

Sen. Obama is popular among the wealthy, has 90% of Black vote, and young voters. He has won the popular vote, more states, has raised more money ($240 M), has more pledged delegates but hasn't won any large states needed to win the general election.

On the other hand, you have Sen. Clinton who has won all of the large states needed to become President, is popular with white women, white men, blue collar workers who are among the key demos needed to win the general election. She has more 'superdelegates' but trails in the popular vote and in fundraising by about $90M.

Depending on which poll who see/read, voters appear to be flip-flopping over who they think is the best candidate to go against Sen. John McClain.

So, I'm curious (because I don't have the answer) if you were DNC Chairman Howard Dean, how would you resolve this?

Basing judgements off of electoral votes is silly. That's not how the Democratic primary works.

As Howard Dean I would say that a decision must occur by the end of June. And then back my hands away from it all. All of the primaries will be finished, and the superdelegates can decide. It's not Dean's job to resolve Florida and Michigan and if he doesn't stay verbally neutral he'll not be listened to by one side or the other. Florida and Michigan go up in front of the rules committee who will (hopefully) NOT seat the delegates based on the previous votes because that would shoot the party in the foot.

And after there IS a candidate I think the polls will settle down and we'll have a better picture.

I do not envy the position he's in. My gut feeling is that he'll let the "process" work, which has Obama winning the nomination because he can then make the process the bad guy and promise to "look at it" for future elections. If Obama doesn't win the general election, the whole party will be at fault on a variety of fronts. The fact that delegates are split based on the popular vote in the primary but it's winner-take-all in the electoral college so ultimately the overall popular vote doesn't matter, makes it difficult for the party to keep people from missing the forest for the trees during primary season.

Because if there are lessons to learn from 2000 and 2004, key states have been the deciding factors in who won the presidency. Hillary has shown she can win those states in a difficult election. Does that mean that Obama would not carry those states if he is the candidate against McCain? No, but it's not a given. He hasn't shown he can win in Ohio, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan (not being on the ballot is a footnote in FL & MI, there's arguments he could have/should have to make a showing and a point that he can win there).

Again, I don't envy Dean. I'm betting they let Obama take it if that's the natural course of events, but I won't be surprised -- devastated -- but not surprised, then, if the party once again hasn't gone and bitten itself in the a$$. And then the same isht keeps going on in DC.

We are talking about registered democrats voting for democrats (correct me if I am wrong, but none of the states you mentioned have caucuses). Just because Hillary beat Obama in those swing states doesn't mean she would beat McCain in November if she were to win the Democratic nomination. Take Texas for example. Hillary won Texas in the primary, but do you really think a Democrat will win Texas in November?

When people use this logic, it doesn't make sense to me.... because obviously Obama would be winning those states if Hillary Clinton weren't in the race, soooo..... I just don't see how that's an indicator of whether he would win the state against McCain.

Who is obviously immortal, btw.

ETA: I really should have read violetpretty's response first, LOL

The OP asked for opinions and that's what I gave. We need to be able to have a discussion about this situation without people squaring off.

I said it doesn't mean Obama WON'T win those states, but it doesn't guarantee he will. There's much talk about who will defect from the democratic base and vote for McCain (or not at all), if one or the other is the candidate and who will just switch and vote for whatever Dem is the candidate.

As the OP said:
So the question is, who is more likely to attract the other's support base in the general election? Will the black voters flock to Hillary? Will white men and blue collar workers flock to Obama? Or are they so anti-the other candidate that they might then see McCain as the lesser of evils or just be so disgusted they just sit on their hands? The youth support is encouraging to see especially in Obama's campaign, but time after time, the turnout in the 18-24 vote is more than disappointing. So counting on that vote to pull a candidate through may be folly.

Do I think a Democrat will win Texas? Honestly, this year, it may just depend. If McCain can't win over enough party faithful to get them out to the polls and the Democrat can energize and get the vote out among their supporters, then who knows what may happen in some of those "stronghold" states. I'd be surprised if one of these Democrats takes a state like Texas, but it will really depend on how effective McCain is in pulling GOPers in and getting them out to vote. And if he is at all vulnerable, then it may turn on which Democrat can capitalize on any weaknesses and redouble efforts to win electoral votes out of the big states.

So that was the basis of thought in my saying that there may be some validity at looking at who has been able to generate a "winning" campaign in the big states. Against another democrat or no, proving you can make someone get up out of their house and to a polling place is important to a candidates' success.

Texas is NOT in play. Not even close.

It was just an example, Shiner.

Just don't want yall to get your hopes up (blatantly lying now).

I hope no one thinks I was squaring off. I already voted and I'm over the whole thing now. :)

Dean was on Meet the Press this morning and he was asked this very question. He said that he believes that the superdelegates will go with the popular vote.

My personal belief is that Obama would be more likely to take Michigan than Clinton. I believe the "get out the vote" push will be much stronger in Detroit if Obama is the candidate. I don't see people making any extra effort to get out the vote for Clinton. Many of my Detroit resident co-workers are already saying that if Obama is the candidate, they are taking off work that day to drive people to the polls. I know, I know, it's anecdotal, but I think I work with a pretty good representation of the general population in Metro Detroit and the city itself. While they, personally, would still vote for Clinton, they will work harder to get Obama elected. I believe Obama would have won the primary in Michigan if he had been on the ballot.

ETA: When the city of Detroit votes in large percentages, the state goes Democrat. So much so, that Republicans haven't even attempted to be Mayor in Detroit in a very long time.

In my mind, Florida and Michigan are done deals, and should not be counted. Howard Dean, as head of the DNC, let the state Democratic parties in both Michigan and Florida know exactly what would happen if they did what they did. Neither state followed the rules, and therefore, their votes don't count.

I really don't want 4-8 more years of whining about a "vast right-wing conspiracy" and polarization of Congress. If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm voting for McCain.

Yep...and much of Detroit is populated by African Americans, who vote for Obama in very high numbers. As a Michiganian, by the way, I'm going to be very upset if our delegates are seated - like many, I didn't vote in the primary because my candidate was not on the ballot. If Hillary wins the nom because Michigan/FL get seated, I will write in Obama on the ballot.

I agree that our delegates should not be seated based on the results of that primary.

I think it's funny that when Al Gore won the popular vote there were quite a few demos saying that the electoral college was archaic and should be done away with. Now their party is in this situation. Is it the same thing? No but it's still funny.