Hillary needs to burn in political hell...

[Jeepers]

If you add caucus tallies I'd say that Bar beat Hill but its understandable that a hill supporter wouldnt actually use facts in an argument...

Do you by chance still think that hill has a chance here?

 

[Care4all]

If you add caucus tallies I'd say that Bar beat Hill but its understandable that a hill supporter wouldnt actually use facts in an argument...

Do you by chance still think that hill has a chance here?

But Jeepers? How is saying what you are trying to say, is using the facts?

Caucuses HAVE NEVER BEEN TALLIED in to the Popular Primary vote count...in our ENTIRE HISTORY, so why do you want to change this now to include caucuses...they never have been included in the popular vote counts?

And as I have stated, the Democratic Party HAS NEVER HAD A NOMINEE THAT HAD NOT WON THE PRIMARY VOTE COUNT, period jeepers.

And as said, this Popular vote has NEVER included Caucus votes....NEVER, and in order to measure once democratic nominee to another you must have apples vs. apples to compare....not apples vs oranges as you are trying to do?

Obama won the Caucus vote, that has gone to his column already.

The popular vote is a different category....and no Democrat has ever won the Nomination, that did not ALSO carry the popular vote other than Obama.

In states like Texas, everyone votes in the Primary, but in the afternoon or evening.... a handful of the same people that cast their votes, go to the caucus at night... from what i understand?


Care

 

[Larkinn]

But Jeepers? How is saying what you are trying to say, is using the facts?

Caucuses HAVE NEVER BEEN TALLIED in to the Popular Primary vote count...in our ENTIRE HISTORY, so why do you want to change this now to include caucuses...they never have been included in the popular vote counts?

And as I have stated, the Democratic Party HAS NEVER HAD A NOMINEE THAT HAD NOT WON THE PRIMARY VOTE COUNT, period jeepers.

And as said, this Popular has NEVER included Caucus votes....NEVER, and in order to measure once democratic nominee to another you must have apples vs. apples to compare....not apples vs oranges as you are trying to do?

Obama won the Caucus vote, that has gone to his column already.

The popular vote is a different category....and no Democrat has ever won the Nomination, that did not ALSO carry the popular vote other than Obama.

In states like Texas, everyone votes in the Primary, but in the afternoon or evening.... a handful of the same people that cast their votes, go to the caucus at night... from what i understand?


Care

And no woman has won the Democratic Nomination for president and then gone on to win the presidency, so obviously she can't win either.

I see your point, Care, dishonest cherry picking statistics IS fun!

 

[Care4all]

And no woman has won the Democratic Nomination for president and then gone on to win the presidency, so obviously she can't win either.

I see your point, Care, dishonest cherry picking statistics IS fun!

huh???

 

[Larkinn]

huh???

Meaning that those stats are true, but meaningless.

 

[Care4all]

Meaning that those stats are true, but meaningless.

well, say what you wish, but they are historical statistics that have been kept since these primary contests as they are now began....

but go ahead and keep looking foolish by your blind adoration for your candidate, it won't help him win, but make it more difficult....than it would if he faced his weaknesses head on.

care

 

[Care4all]

you can't add cacuses to the popular vote count because caucuses have already been accounted for in the statistics....

and Obama won the caucus count.

Hillary Clinton, won the Popular Vote count and Obama lost the popular vote, that's just a fact, and the statistics of such, WILL BE recorded in our history as such.

 

[Jeepers]

you can't add cacuses to the popular vote count because caucuses have already been accounted for in the statistics....

and Obama won the caucus count.

Hillary Clinton, won the Popular Vote count and Obama lost the popular vote, that's just a fact, and the statistics of such, WILL BE recorded in our history as such.

I get it. votes only count if they help out hill...

 

[Jeepers]

...IT DID have alot to do with how I felt females were being stepped on and ridiculed...geez, i saw several main stream media cover her white flowered casual shirt and ferragamo shoes.........there were skits of her being the wicked witch of the west, calling her a bitch on latenight...mimicing her shooting a rifle, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...

What about the hill camp releasing the pic of Obama in native african garb... Was that not a review of outfit and accessories...

Seriously Care.. You keep talking about both minor and made up issues... Hillary played the victim time and again with bill getting his feathers all ruffled when people were picking on his wife... how many times did we hear how unfair the media was... give him a pillow why dont you... ask him the first question for a change..

Reality is ... the media kept saying dont count hill out yet after she was walloped for 11 straight victories... I say it was the media that kept her afloat for so long...

You however are missing the big picture here.... You really dont want another republican presidency....

 

[Jon]

There is only ONE way to count the votes: by counting the number of times a candidate was selected on a ballot. This includes caucuses, Florida, Michigan, every single vote that was cast. When you do that, Hillary Clinton received more votes than Barack Obama. Period.

Even if you give Barack Obama the 40% of uncommitted votes that were cast, his margin of victory is a mere 60,000 votes. If you're ignorant enough to think that John Edwards wouldn't have gotten at least 60,000 votes in Michigan, then you're too ignorant to be posting on these forums.

It's simple math. I'm not skewing the numbers. I'm not throwing out caucus votes. I'm counting the number of times a candidate was chosen from a ballot. Clinton wins. End of story.

 

[ReillyT]

There is only ONE way to count the votes:

That is clearly not the case.

 

[Jon]

That is clearly not the case.

Even if you include the caucus votes, Clinton still received more votes than Obama.

"Clinton math" seems to be okay when the Obama camp wants to use it. It's ridiculous to claim Obama won the popular vote. But, I've come to expect ridiculous shit from Obamanites.

 

[MsWikia]

There is only ONE way to count the votes: by counting the number of times a candidate was selected on a ballot. This includes caucuses, Florida, Michigan, every single vote that was cast. When you do that, Hillary Clinton received more votes than Barack Obama. Period.

Can you provide the source for this information? Thanks!

 

[ReillyT]

Even if you include the caucus votes, Clinton still received more votes than Obama.

"Clinton math" seems to be okay when the Obama camp wants to use it. It's ridiculous to claim Obama won the popular vote. But, I've come to expect ridiculous shit from Obamanites.

If, as many people believe, the elections in Michigan (and to a lesser extent) Florida, were fundamentally unfair and not a true gauge of popular support, and hence don't include them, Obama wins the popular vote. This would be one way of looking at the popular vote.

 

[Ravi]

If, as many people believe, the elections in Michigan (and to a lesser extent) Florida, were fundamentally unfair and not a true gauge of popular support, and hence don't include them, Obama wins the popular vote. This would be one way of looking at the popular vote.

Except now the delegates have been awarded, sort of, so I'd assume you must also count the popular vote in the two states.

 

[Jon]

Can you provide the source for this information? Thanks!

RealClearPolitics - 2008 Elections - Democratic Vote Count

 

[Jon]

Except now the delegates have been awarded, sort of, so I'd assume you must also count the popular vote in the two states.

Absolutely. If you want to count delegates, you have to count the votes.

 

[Ravi]

What about the hill camp releasing the pic of Obama in native african garb...

This is another of those rumors that were never proven true. In fact, isn't the Drudge report the only source of this rumor?

 

[ReillyT]

Except now the delegates have been awarded, sort of, so I'd assume you must also count the popular vote in the two states.

Why? Delegate counts and popular vote are two different metrics that aren't even directly related (as delegates are apportioned to districts unevenly). The decision to include Michigan and Florida was a political decision. It says nothing about the fairness of the votes in these states.

By the way, what I am saying isn't outlandish. If you look at RealClearPolitics - 2008 Elections - Democratic Vote Count, they analyze the popular vote in six different ways, all of which include Florida, which is open to debate. Clinton wins under three of these scenarios, and Obama wins under three of these scenarios.

I am not saying that you can't make a case that Clinton won the popular vote. I am saying that you can make a case that either candidate won the popular vote. It just depends which of several reasonable approaches you choose to employ.

 

[ReillyT]

Absolutely. If you want to count delegates, you have to count the votes.

No you don't. Popular vote is fun for us to talk about, but in the end, is not the significant statistic for choosing the nominee. Delegate counts are the significant statistic. Popular vote is separate, and can be gauged by any number of approaches, most of which have been alluded to here.

I guess if you wanted to analyze the popular vote by the same approach that was used to analyze the delegate count, you could only count half of the popular vote of Florida, and half of the popular vote of Michigan, giving Obama the Michigan uncommitteds. This seems like jumping through a lot of hoops to arrive at a number which is essentially arbitrary.

BTW, if you did jump through all those hoops, I believe you would find that Obama would win the popular vote, not that it would actually mean anything. It would be arbitrary no matter who won.