What’s Next?

If you thought I was done with the insane rambling of reddit users, you were wrong! Currently at the No. 2 spot is this classic:

To the nearest percentage point, Hillary won PA by 9%, not 10% - a difference with important psychological ramifications, and one that is being misreported

OMG GUYS SHE WON BY 9% NOT 10%!!!!! THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE!!! WHY IS NO ONE REPORTING THIS!!!!!

To prevent this happening in the future I recommend that we switch to a base 16 maths system so it’s less likely we’ll run into this ‘is it single or double digits’ mess again.

I’ve been poking around dailykos and there seems to be this strange idea that bringing up the popular vote is Clinton changing the rules: this is flat-out untrue. The rules state that a candidate needs 2,025 votes to win the nomination, at this point we know that neither candidate can reach that number without superdelegates and there are no rules on how superdelegates should vote. It’s generally assumed they’ll go with electability tempered by legitimacy (i.e. if a candidate entered with a reasonable lead, they’re unlikely go with the other one because it’s they personally consider them more electable).The reason popular vote is important is because if Obama wins narrowly on pledged delegates and Clinton wins narrowly on popular vote, neither one can claim an overwhelming legitimacy to the superdelegates.

Clinton winning the popular vote doesn’t mean that superdelegates have a moral obligation to vote for her, it means they’re freed from the restraint of having one candidate being the obvious favourite of the electorate and can go with whoever they feel is more likely to succeed in November. These aren’t new rules: these are what the old rules mean when you get two candidates neck and neck going for the finish.

Huh, something interesting happening here. Clinton currently seems ahead in the popular vote. At the end of the day neither candidate can win solely through pledged delegated at this point and raw popular vote is a more democratic measure of support than delegates (mostly due to caucuses which tend to have a far lower turnout, but will still deliver the same amount of delegates meaning a far smaller group decides the outcome). Walking into the convention with a lead in the popular vote would be a major plus for Clinton as it casts doubt on Obama’s legitimacy and allows factors like electability to be brought up without being an override of the democratic process.

If nothing else it drives home something that Obama supporters seem to keep forgetting, the Clinton supporters are not a small minority in the party that can be ignored.The worst that Clinton supporters are doing is saying that Obama is the wrong Democrat, what Obama’s supporters let fly a lot is that Clinton isn’t a real Democrat. Seeing as Clinton isn’t a real Democrat, what does that say about the half of the party that looked at the choice and choose her? Say all you want about Clinton creating a divide at the top of the party, Obama’s supporters seem content to push that divide right down to the bottom.

(h/t Reclusive Leftist)

UPDATE: ABC have since updated the page and now makes it clear that this lead only exists when the voters from Michigan and Florida (where Clinton was the only mainstream candidate on the ballot) are included.