Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
From your source it states "Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals"
"Senator Obama took his name off the Michigan Ballot" Under Obama for MI it says "Michigan** 01/15 - " <-- it's blank.
So again tell me why you are sooo sure Clinton won the popular vote? Your source seems to state otherwise.
The case to argue Obama won the popular vote has one fundamental flaw: you have to assume that he all 40% of the people who voted Uncommitted were voting for Obama and not Edwards.
If you're actually naive enough to believe that Obama would have gotten that much of the vote, I won't waste my breath arguing with you.
The truth is, a poll just a day before the vote showed that Obama only accounted for 42% of the uncommitted vote.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-12-michigan-poll_N.htm
If there were no uncommitted vote, if Obama and Edwards had their names on the ballot, there's a possibility Clinton could even have gotten more votes. But if you want to argue that Obama REALLY would have received all those votes in Michigan, please do so. Only fellow Obamanites will listen, the rest of the intellectual world knows better.
Either way, Clinton won the popular vote. There is no debate.
Now you are just being childish and stupid. There clearly is a debate, as is recognized by the pundits, media and the candidates themselves. Stomping your feet and saying it is so does not make it so.
All this debate means it actually does mean something.
Now you are just being childish and stupid. There clearly is a debate, as is recognized by the pundits, media and the candidates themselves. Stomping your feet and saying it is so does not make it so.
In fact, since arguably neither Florida nor Michigan were fair elections
damn.. THATS rich like sugar sprinkled corn syrup.
What about the hill camp releasing the pic of Obama in native african garb... Was that not a review of outfit and accessories...
just another lie jeepers, drudge rumored she released it for goodness sakes with no substantiation....this WAS conservatives, setting obama fans up to hate hillary...you bought in to it....
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..
towards the end of the primary bill did call foul on the media, but they ALL PLAYED IT as though he was nuts, and continued to bash her daily....daily, by the hour....
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...
i don't know what planet you've been on, but the media has been pushing hillary to quit since february, some as early as january, and daily, hourly, someone on the media is talking about why hillary hasn't quit, for months on end, even after she continued winning and whooping his butt in some of the primaries.
You however are missing the big picture here.... You really dont want another republican presidency....
It means something to nerds like us, but it has no bearing on the political future.
How were they not fair? Who were they unfair to? Everyone in Florida had the same opportunity to receive votes. That's fair. Yes, Michigan is hard to gauge. But we DO know how many people voted for Clinton in Michigan. We do NOT know how many people voted for Obama, but if you want to argue that the 40% all went to Obama, your argument is extremely flawed. Polls from the day before suggest that Edwards would have received some 13% of the votes in Michigan, had his name been on the ballot. That's well over the number it would take for Obama to receive less votes than Clinton in the overall primary.
Let's make it simple. Who's name was chosen more in the selection process, based on the actual results? Clinton. If you want to make up imaginary numbers to show that Obama woulda, coulda, shoulda won, go ahead. They're meaningless.
It means something to nerds like us, but it has no bearing on the political future.
It could, and you're fooling yourself if you think it doesn't.
If you would like to know why many people don't think Florida and (to an even greater extent) Michigan were fair, please review any one of the tens or hundreds of posts over the last week that indicated why they weren't fair. Primarily, the reasons deal with the lack of campaigning, and the effect of telling people their vote won't count may have on outcome and turnout.
If your argument is that more people checked a box next to the name Clinton than Obama, and that every checked box should count regardless of the state in which it was cast, then you have a stronger argument. I just don't think that is the only reasonable way to measure the popular vote.
It's also irrelevant now that the outcome is fait accompli. The fact is that Obama has the delegates.
So your method of counting the popular vote is based on what MIGHT have happened IF something else happened? Yeah, that holds up.
The truth is, if campaigning were allowed in Michigan and Florida and if voters were not told their votes wouldn't matter, who's to say Clinton wouldn't have won by substantially larger margins? Who's to say Gravel wouldn't have won? Who's to say that people wouldn't write in Mickey Mouse and he would have won? We don't know what WOULD have happened, we know what DID happen. Based on what DID happen, Clinton wins.
If you want to base your calculations on flawed assumptions, be my guest.
You are quite right. We don't know what would have happened, which is the argument for not counting those votes at all. You are free to count them if you think it is the better metric, but you should be aware there is a debate on this, and many people disagree with you.
It's also irrelevant now that the outcome is fait accompli. The fact is that Obama has the delegates.
