Democratic popular vote

KingRaw!

KingRaw!

I dare you to stop us GL
This is counting All caucus states, Florida and Michigan.

Clinton-17,650,671

Obama-17,596,239


Well, I guess Clinton is winning the popular vote. But in Obama's defense, his name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. If he had put his name on the ballot, then he would be winning the popular vote. But Clinton got more votes. I can't deny her that...


Here's the current popular vote count when you follow DNC rules

Obama-16,685,941

Clinton-16,227,514
 
KingRaw! said:
This is counting All caucus states, Florida and Michigan.

Clinton-17,650,671

Obama-17,596,239


Well, I guess Clinton is winning the popular vote. But in Obama's defense, his name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. If he had put his name on the ballot, then he would be winning the popular vote. But Clinton got more votes. I can't deny her that...


Here's the current popular vote count when you follow DNC rules

Obama-16,685,941

Clinton-16,227,514
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think that Florida is debatable, but the very idea of giving any weight whatsoever to the Michigan results, is ludicrous.

But, I thought right from the beginning ions before any of us knew what this was going to come to, that telling Michigan and Florida to f off was one of the stupidest moves I had ever seen

Unless anyone can point me to the two swing states the RNC told to get fucked, we're not counting you because we don't like what your state party leaders did? Or, even show me a state where the Republican party in that state even tried to disobey the RNC? No way. This shit simply does not go down in the R party. Democrats are dumb.
 
That is one very close Primary vote. Extremely close. There is little doubt that it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that she has no support among those people.
 
Well, a state with a closed primary would have less turnout than a state with an open primary. Totalling up the votes like that isn't practical whenever so many states use so many systems.
 
Watermark said:
Well, a state with a closed primary would have less turnout than a state with an open primary. Totalling up the votes like that isn't practical whenever so many states use so many systems.
Click to expand...

Exactly .. which is why the popular vote doesn't nominate candidates .. delegates do.

The Clintons will try anything, sink to any level for power.

... and the sheep just follow along.
 
If the DNC got together one day and said, hey, we're going to have the election all at once, and all on a closed primary, then totalling the votes would make sense. Not under this system though.
 
The popular vote doesn't elect candidates, but it does give delegates that do and it also is considered by the Super Delegates when they make their final choice....

And if Democrats stick to what they SAID they believed in 2000, the vote of the citizen is what really counts.... just a tad of hypocrisy exists here....

Florida and Michigan sadly, will be disenfranchised next year too, unless the DNC changes their rules and allows them to run on January 15/29th...which is their primary date, chosen by their legislature and there is NOTHING AT ALL while in the minority, that Floridians can do to change it.

So from here on out, florida and michigan will never be able to count in our primaries.

Do you think that is right?

The head DNC, Howard Dean, should be FIRED for how he handled this primary....he must be fired for what he has done.

We may not win this presidential election, because of it...

The caucus states were counted in the popular vote count, I believe it was extrapolated in to people....?
 
Hillary is not saying she she should win BECAUSE of the popular vote, she is saying that she will win the General because of the way the popular vote has come down, and that she should be considered for the super delegate's choice because she really is the one that the Democrats support, slightly moreso than Obama, and that she can win the primaries in the states needed to win, based off of this popular vote....

SHE IS NOT SAYING she should win the nomination because of the popular vote alone and SHE IS NOT changing rules midstream as you all try to imply for partisan reasons....

She is saying, to the super delegates, VOTE FOR ME, i will bring you a Democratic President in November.
 
Care4all said:
Hillary is not saying she she should win BECAUSE of the popular vote, she is saying that she will win the General because of the way the popular vote has come down, and that she should be considered for the super delegate's choice because she really is the one that the Democrats support, slightly moreso than Obama, and that she can win the primaries in the states needed to win, based off of this popular vote....

SHE IS NOT SAYING she should win the nomination because of the popular vote alone and SHE IS NOT changing rules midstream as you all try to imply for partisan reasons....

She is saying, to the super delegates, VOTE FOR ME, i will bring you a Democratic President in November.
Click to expand...

Popular vote is yet another false metric invented by the Clintons.

a. No democratic candidate who has won more delegates has been denied the nomination .. EVER .. but the democrats should start with Obama?

b. A simple examination of the movement of superdelegates since supertuesday CLEARLY demonstrates that they aren't buying what Hillary is selling. Hillary started this contest with a lead of over 100 superdelegates, now she's behind.

What made her lose such an almost insurmountable lead?

Why did her own supredelegates switch to Obama .. even many from states she won?

Why does Obama have more support from Senators than she does, including women in the Senate?

Why did the Co-chair of Clinton's Hispanic Leadership Council endorse Obama?

"The defection came as a new poll showed that Obama would handily defeat John McCain in California in November — and do so by a larger margin than Clinton would." ... didn't she win California?

Why did Clinton's former campaign manager endorse Obama?

How about Greg Craig, who served as special counsel to Bill Clinton during his impeachment, former national-security adviser Anthony Lake, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, Senators Clare McCaskill, Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota, Bob Casey, of Pennsylvania, Jay Rockefeller and Robnert Byrd, of West Virginia (where Clinton won big), and many more who know the Clintons and have long relationships with them?

It doesn't take rocket science genius to recognize this election is over and has been over for sometime.
 
blackascoal said:
Popular vote is yet another false metric invented by the Clintons.

a. No democratic candidate who has won more delegates has been denied the nomination .. EVER .. but the democrats should start with Obama?

Absolutely Correct! And this is precisely what the Hillary camp is shooting for, a majority of the Delegates, both Pledged and unpledged super delegates. Those are the RULES.

b. A simple examination of the movement of superdelegates since supertuesday CLEARLY demonstrates that they aren't buying what Hillary is selling. Hillary started this contest with a lead of over 100 superdelegates, now she's behind.

Today's hearing going on, may and will change the total delegate count, the total delegates needed will be moved up to a higher number...around 2115 - 2250 or so, if all are seated from the sanctioned state, according to the Rules.

When this happens Hillary will have a far better chance than what she had...

What made her lose such an almost insurmountable lead?

Her lead was taken away immediately when the DNC ILLEGALLY took away all of Florida's delegates and all of Michigan delegates via their Rules committee according to the DNC Charter/Constitution and the Rules of the DNC Primary....they over reacted and stripped states of their delegates, of which they were legally not permitted to do according to their own charter and Rules.

Why did her own supredelegates switch to Obama .. even many from states she won?

Why does Obama have more support from Senators than she does, including women in the Senate?

Why did the Co-chair of Clinton's Hispanic Leadership Council endorse Obama?

Because the REAL RULES of the DNC and their charter were never reported by the Obama loved media, the media failed us in doing any kind of investigating reporting and ACTUALLY READING THE RULES and Bylaws and reading the actual DNC Charter and reporting on it....

The entire public believed that Hillary was a loser, that Obama was the leader...garnering her less support, mainly due to "everybody wanting to support a winner" especially if politically conected as the superdelegates are...

So, IF THE TRUTH HAD BEEN REPORTED from the very beginning, that AT LEAST 1/2 of Florida and Michigan delegates SHALL BE seated at the convention.... and ALL of the uncommitteds and superdelegates shall be seated also, and this had been the reporting all along that according to the rules and bylaws ALL of them could ALSO BE REINSTATED IN FULL....

THEN Hillary, would have still been in the lead and would have garnered MORE support than she was able to do, as the press and the obama camp and the blogs spun it.
Click to expand...


This is a tragedy....an injustice, especially to the Floridian Democrat voters, whose representatives did give the effort to stop the florida republicans from moving the date to 1/29 via an amendment that was shot down by the republicans.

and michigan, who followed the rules too, but then one of the early states got permission to break a rule, and move their primary up , WHICH ONLY THEN MADE MICHIGAN in violation, who applied for permission to do such, but was unfairly denied.

this all is not as simple as it appears.

obama was not reqired to take his name off the ballot....HE CHOSE to do such because he CHOSE to use this to pander to the early states, like iowa, telling them when campaigning there, that HE KNOWS they are important and should be important and MICHIGAN deserved the sanctions basically....just a bunch of politicking kissing butt to iowa, using him taking his name off the ballot to PANDER for more IOWA votes....THAT my dear, was OBAMA'S CHOICE.....

hillary should NOT BE BLAMED for his own political CHOICES???? for goodness sakes!!!
 
Last edited:
Care4all said:
This is a tragedy....an injustice, especially to the Floridian Democrat voters, whose representatives did give the effort to stop the florida republicans from moving the date to 1/29 via an amendment that was shot down by the republicans.

and michigan, who followed the rules too, but then one of the early states got permission to break a rule, and move their primary up , WHICH ONLY THEN MADE MICHIGAN in violation, who applied for permission to do such, but was unfairly denied.

this all is not as simple as it appears.

obama was not reqired to take his name off the ballot....HE CHOSE to do such because he CHOSE to use this to pander to the early states, like iowa, telling them when campaigning there, that HE KNOWS they are important and should be important and MICHIGAN deserved the sanctions basically....just a bunch of politicking kissing butt to iowa, using him taking his name off the ballot to PANDER for more IOWA votes....THAT my dear, was OBAMA'S CHOICE.....

hillary should NOT BE BLAMED for his own political CHOICES???? for goodness sakes!!!
Click to expand...

I know you don't think Clinton has ever done anything wrong .. but here is the bottom line .. the superdelegates are not, let me repeat, ARE NOT going to swing to your side based on a mystical popular vote.

You have ZERO evidence that is going to or has occured .. in fact, ALL, as in EVERY, bit of evidence proves the contrary.

From my perspective, you are arguing with yourself, because no one believes Clinton is going to sway delegates or superdelegates to overturn this election.

What Hillary IS blamed for is running an incredibly flawed campaign. The nomination was hers to lose, and lose it is exactly what she's done.

There is a thread here that details just how badly her campaign was run and why she lost this nomination. As I said in the thread, I doubt very seriously if you have the boldness or confidence in your position to actually go to the thread and challenge its conclusions.

All your screaming and shouting amounts to nothing.
 
blackascoal said:
I know you don't think Clinton has ever done anything wrong .. but here is the bottom line .. the superdelegates are not, let me repeat, ARE NOT going to swing to your side based on a mystical popular vote.

You have ZERO evidence that is going to or has occured .. in fact, ALL, as in EVERY, bit of evidence proves the contrary.

From my perspective, you are arguing with yourself, because no one believes Clinton is going to sway delegates or superdelegates to overturn this election.

What Hillary IS blamed for is running an incredibly flawed campaign. The nomination was hers to lose, and lose it is exactly what she's done.

There is a thread here that details just how badly her campaign was run and why she lost this nomination. As I said in the thread, I doubt very seriously if you have the boldness or confidence in your position to actually go to the thread and challenge its conclusions.

All your screaming and shouting amounts to nothing.
Click to expand...

As I have said before, her two largest favorable states were taken away from her, from the beginning, which put her in a trailing positon...by a FAULTY MOVE of the DNC and also ILLEGAL MOVE based on the DNC Charter, their constitution, which requires that all Delegates be Seated at the convention from ALL 50 STATES, not 48 states, but 50....

So the DNC's f-up is what caused her loss along with her own political campaign mistakes....

What YOU are doing wrong and setting people OFF that will never come out to vote for Obama, is YOU having been calling for hillary to quit when she has garnered more than half of america's votes....

If you think Obama can win this race then LET HIM WIN THE RACE, FAIR AND SQUARE, instead of legally and otherwise, pushing Hillary OUT, before the game or race has been won...

That is simply disrespectful and visceral....

Care
 
Topspin said:
she's bowing out after tuesday's defeats no need to get panties in a bunch
Click to expand...


that's what I think. Clinton will come out loudly and strongly for obama, and support him. I'm pretty sure about that.

And clinton and obama partisans need to chill the f out, and get on board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top