NY Times Op-Ed : Clinton Could Win Popular Vote

The NY Times published an op-ed today claiming Hillary Clinton has a shot at winning the popular vote.

Here's the link, more after the jump.

The piece begins:

WHILE Hillary Clinton probably can’t catch Barack Obama in the race for most pledged delegates at the Democratic presidential nominating convention, she does have a shot at overtaking him in the popular vote.

The standard they lay out for the vote count is as follows:

Granted, Mrs. Clinton boasts that she has the lead already, but her count includes the votes in the unsanctioned primaries in Florida and Michigan. A fairer calculation would eliminate the ballots cast in those two states, as well as the votes from caucuses where no statewide tally of the actual vote was compiled. (Those states are Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington; Mr. Obama won three of them.) Territories that do not possess any Electoral College votes should be ruled out, too.

So right off the bat, they are admitting they are excluding votes in several states, 3/4's of which were won by Sen. Obama.

Additionally, the piece fails to make any mention of the depressed turnout in caucus states, or the informed decision of candidates fighting for delegates to compete for votes everywhere instead of just focusing on population centers.

The board did take pains to stress that the popular vote is only "...a persuasive argument to use with the wavering superdelegates." But there is no mention of the inherent flaws in relying on the popular vote as determinative.

The popular vote cannot become ingrained in the campaign narrative as a fair measure, for the simple reason that it isn't.