Why not Hilary as VP nominee?

[Jon]

I know.. a system that is abit more representative than the winner take all system is very unfair.. States are rarely homogenous. Can you justify a worse system just to benefit your candidate.. I can't even though I am the beneficiary of this system. Look, Hillary's over confidense led her to ignore the smaller states and caucuses.. Obama worked that ground game cause thats all he had.. its that simple.. thats why she lost. She did lose btw...

She won the popular vote.

 

[busara]

She won the popular vote.

only if you use fuzzy math.

The Problem With Clinton?s Popular Vote Math | Newsweek Voices - Jonathan Alter | Newsweek.com

 

[jillian]

She won the popular vote.

so did Al Gore...

and?

 

[Shogun]

she'd just have him shot, er, commit suicide out in the woods....


I applaud her speech yesterday. I still think she should bide her time until '16 and dive into the race as our version of Thatcher.

 

[Care4all]

I know.. a system that is abit more representative than the winner take all system is very unfair.. States are rarely homogenous. Can you justify a worse system just to benefit your candidate.. I can't even though I am the beneficiary of this system. Look, Hillary's over confidense led her to ignore the smaller states and caucuses.. Obama worked that ground game cause thats all he had.. its that simple.. thats why she lost. She did lose btw...

setting what happened in this primary election aside for a moment jeeps...though the democratic system of primaries seems like it is the FAIR way to go with proportional assignment of delegates, i think we need to rethink it for one main reason....this is NOT how our elections are held, which is a winner take all on electors in ALL states but 2.

THIS is how the presidential race is set up, and how it is WON.... to have a system set up to pick our primary candidate for President, with a system that does not mimic how how Presidency is actually won....thru electors...

we are dicked from the beginning and almost trail the republican side of the aisle on that point alone, going in to the Presidential campaign because the guy/gal we picked thru proportional delegates, we picked as a winner on terms that does not WIN the Presidency.....

i think it needs to be reconsidered.

 

[Jon]

only if you use fuzzy math.

The Problem With Clinton?s Popular Vote Math | Newsweek Voices - Jonathan Alter | Newsweek.com

There's nothing fuzzy about it. Her name was marked on more ballots than every other candidate in the Democratic primaries. Cutting Florida and Michigan popular votes in half is ignorant. The DNC did NOT cut the votes in half, they cut the delegates' votes in half (and then reinstated them, further nulling the argument). As for the caucus states, those are INCLUDED in RCP's tallies. The guy who wrote your article is an idiot.

RealClearPolitics - 2008 Elections - Democratic Vote Count

Please read the second and third totals. The third total counts Michigan. The fourth total counts Michigan AND the caucus states. Note the asterisks beside these numbers.

**(Senator Obama took his name off the Michigan Ballot. Uncommitted was on the ballot and received 238,168 votes as compared to 328,309 for Senator Clinton.)

Giving Obama all 238,168 of those votes is not only ignorant, it's wrong. John Edwards was still running a strong campaign during this election. Obama would need 176,466 of the 238,168 uncommitted votes to win the overall popular vote. So, for him to beat Clinton in the overall popular vote, you would have to assume that Edwards AND Richardson would receive less than 61,702 votes combined, which I do not believe would have happened. But, I can't assume anything. Statistically, however, Edwards polled around 12% in the exit polls, which is rougly 67,977 votes.

So, say what you will. The fact remains: her name was marked more than anyone and probably still would have been even if his name was on the Michigan ballot.

 

[Jon]

so did Al Gore...

and?

Al Gore was robbed, period. I remember the day it happened, all too well. I almost cried.

 

[glockmail]

Al Gore was robbed, period. I remember the day it happened, all too well. I almost cried.

Wow even the MSM doesn't believe that lie anymore.

 

[busara]

There's nothing fuzzy about it. Her name was marked on more ballots than every other candidate in the Democratic primaries. Cutting Florida and Michigan popular votes in half is ignorant. The DNC did NOT cut the votes in half, they cut the delegates' votes in half (and then reinstated them, further nulling the argument). As for the caucus states, those are INCLUDED in RCP's tallies. The guy who wrote your article is an idiot.

RealClearPolitics - 2008 Elections - Democratic Vote Count

Please read the second and third totals. The third total counts Michigan. The fourth total counts Michigan AND the caucus states. Note the asterisks beside these numbers.



Giving Obama all 238,168 of those votes is not only ignorant, it's wrong. John Edwards was still running a strong campaign during this election. Obama would need 176,466 of the 238,168 uncommitted votes to win the overall popular vote. So, for him to beat Clinton in the overall popular vote, you would have to assume that Edwards AND Richardson would receive less than 61,702 votes combined, which I do not believe would have happened. But, I can't assume anything. Statistically, however, Edwards polled around 12% in the exit polls, which is rougly 67,977 votes.

So, say what you will. The fact remains: her name was marked more than anyone and probably still would have been even if his name was on the Michigan ballot.

exactly, fuzzy math. you need to do the "dont include those votes, count these, include puerto rico with isnt a state, this poll stated this, ....."

 

[Jon]

exactly, fuzzy math. you need to do the "dont include those votes, count these, include puerto rico with isnt a state, this poll stated this, ....."

No, all you simply have to do is include EVERY vote. But, I guess you're too ignorant to notice that.