... without giving any MI votes to Obamam?
WTF are you talking about? Hillary's always said he should get the uncom. votes.
You sure she has ALWAYS said that?
Then it should be very easy for you to find a link to that effect.
It should also be very easy for you to determine whether or not the RCP vote counts include uncommitted votes for Obama, and if not, to add them in and be honest about what that new total is.
That is simply not true.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l
Take a look there and explain to me where her +50k is coming from. Keep in mind RCP's "with FL & MI" gives 0 to Obama for the uncommitted.
So Hillary is only ahead at all if:
(1) You count MI/FL but don't count uncommitted (2) You don't add in estimates for IA/NV/ME/WA
Uh oh, this might be where you realize that the complete trust you've been putting in your candidate might be misplaced :-/
"She also reminded us of something that's been mentioned a few times here on the blogs, but that we're not seeing all that much of on the teevee, and that's that they've finally acknowledged that - after her BLOWOUT of a win in WV (my word not hers - hey she won by 41% of the vote!) she's retaken the lead in the popular vote.
By some 50,000 votes."
Look at RCP: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l
The metric you are purporting gives no votes to Obama in Michigan (it also doesn't include the totals from 4 states, but that will resolve itself on its own).
Now that you realize this, retract this popular vote argument (as she won't win the popular vote without treating MI in this manner) and find some other way of spinning away Obama's entirely legitimate win.
