Hillary Clinton Lost
By ThePresidentialCandidates.US on Jun 1, 2008 in Hillary Clinton
Hillary, You Didn’t Win. Now Don’t Wine.
Hillary Clinton Needs 153% Of The Remaining Delegates.
The First Woman Must Be The Right Woman.
RE: The Popular Vote
The popular vote has never been an important metric in the nomination process. As the Clinton campaign said after they won New Hampshire (at which time they were ahead in delegates) – this nomination process is all about the delegates.
The popular vote is a bogus metric to use because the nomination process is not a national primary. All of the states use different ways of voting from closed primaries to semi open primaries to open primaries to caucuses (which are entirely different.) The popular vote metric over counts the votes of states in “open primaries” (which bizarrely enough would over count the votes of “Operation Chaos” Republican voters who voted for Clinton to weaken the Democrats.) The popular vote basically discounts the votes in caucuses entirely! Particularly the four caucuses that did not release popular vote information at all. Those four states are not counted *at all* in a popular vote tabulation.
Even if the popular vote was a reasonable metric to use (and it’s not) Obama leads Clinton in any reasonable calculation of it. The only way Clinton “wins” this bogus popular vote metric is by including votes from Florida (where both candidates agreed they would not campaign) & Michigan (ditto with the added bonus of Obama not even being on the ballot!)
It’s very sad that Clinton continues to peddle this popular vote lie to her supporters, it’s even more sad that many of them seem to be buying it. It’s the height of elitism for the Clinton campaign to sell these lies to their supporters – they are banking on their supporters being too ignorant & too stupid to realize they are being lied to.
Do you even read the news? Obama got more Republican votes from the primaries than Clinton. Also, caucuses are the most undemocratic process there is. Imagine having caucuses in Myanmar or Iran; it would be insane. Before posting something like this, please research the fact. Unbelievable!
leafless | Jun 1, 2008 | Reply
1. Obama got more Republican votes early on when it was Republicans crossing over for Obama because they wanted to vote for him in the fall. Later on when Rush Limbaugh’s “operation chaos” started up – there were more Republicans voting for Clinton, and most sinister – they were voting for her with no intention of voting for her in the fall, only to prolong the Democratic battle for the nomination.
2. RE: caucuses being “undemocratic.” I will not argue that caucuses are the best system to use – that is an argument to have for another time – the fact is they are the system in the 14 states that currently use them. You can’t just throw out the rules afterwards because things didn’t go as you would have liked. It’s like arguing after the general election that the popular vote is a better way of selecting a President than the electoral college – I agree with that by the way – but that doesn’t mean it’s relevant to is the winner with the system at hand. You can’t wait until you’ve lost to start complaining about the rules of the game.
admin | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
Furthermore – what is really “insane” is counting the votes in a state where you ran unopposed. (see: Hillary Clinton in Michigan.)
admin | Jun 2, 2008 | Reply