The "Popular Vote"

Last year, Hillary Clinton's team adamantly stated "its about delegates, not the number of states, not the popular vote, not how many caucuses you win... it's about getting the right number of delegates". Hmmm, really?? Now, it seems the Hillary camp is all about asserting the idea that she should be the democratic nominee because she has "won the popular vote". When you look under the covers, Camp Hillary doesn't quite count all of the votes in her calculation of the "popular vote".. including seven primaries! Below is a copy of Rachel Maddow's recent blog... (She can be found on 92.1 FM in Madison or at http://airamerica.com/maddow)

I'm so TIRED of our politicians and media skewing information so that the mass population is kept uninformed and confused...
******************************************

Maddow: Popular Vote
By Rachel Maddow

One of the potential outcomes from yesterday's Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting was that there would be doubt cast on the "magic number" of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. That didn't happen. There is an agreed-upon magic number: 2118.

If there hadn't been a new agreed-upon magic number after yesterday's meeting, the Clinton campaign could argue that she should stay in because no one has clinched the nomination.
Now that there is an agreed-upon magic number, will Clinton agree to leave the race after Obama reaches that magic number?

No.

Clinton adviser Harold Ickes on Meet the Press this morning would not agree that if Obama achieves 2118 delegates, Clinton will concede. He said instead that he does not believe that Obama will achieve that milestone (I don't believe in smaller-than-standard spare tires, but apparently they do exist).

Now the campaign has unveiled their new ad -- about how she's winning the popular vote.
I'm at MSNBC and am having trouble with html here -- the link to the ad is here:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/new_hillary_ad_i...

The Clinton Campaign spokespeople are in lockstep explaining how Clinton's winning the nomination because she's winning the popular vote. They're apparently going to keep claiming that even after Obama reaches 2118 delegates.

Here's my question.
If a popular vote victory is going to be considered important enough that it precludes a concession from Clinton even after Obama apparently clinches the nomination (by winning 2118 delegates)... then, um, I think I have to raise an uncomfortable fact about how the "popular vote" is being tallied.

Chuck Todd just explained on MSNBC that the tally being used by the Clinton campaign to explain its popular vote victory... does not include:

GUAM
VIRGIN ISLANDS
DEMOCRATS' ABROAD
WASHINGTON STATE
MAINE

In addition, the popular vote tally only includes estimates of the vote total in:

NEVADA
IOWA

For the record, Obama won six of those seven contests (Clinton won the Nevada caucuses).

How on earth can you justify a popular vote "victory" that includes vote tallies from Michigan, but not six within-the-rules, legal contests that Obama won?

I think it's hoopty to accept the popular vote as ar elevant primary measurement anyway -- but to buy the *tally* that doesn't count six contests that Obama won? That's honestly bizarre.

Rachel