I see that Hillary's supporters have decided to go the "Sore/Loserman" route regarding Obama's win

yesterday. There entire primise is more of the same RW talking point bullshit that their candidate and her husband love.

Whats the purpose of the primary? Do we take each candidate's popular vote total, add it all up and august and give the nomination to whoever got the most votes, or does our system use Delegates?

If you answer that truthfully, you'll understand why Hillary lost yesterday. In a system where delegates are the only prize, whoever wins the most, wins the primary.

Why is that so hard to understand? How can NOT winning the most delegates be spun into a win for anyone?

before you call all the hillary supporters 'gestapo' again you will recall bush got more electoral votes and gore more popular votes. so now obama gets more delegates/electors and clinton gets more popular and that becomes suddenly good for...you ta da. you have now adopted and supported the bush strategy.

have a nice day

Now, if you were using your head, you'd remember that the bitch in 2000 was that Gore HAD the votes to with the electorial college, in Florida, but the supreme court wouldn't let us count them

Don't go changing history.

nt

I thought it had to do with New England seafood industry.

and even if you do, and insist on your criticism, you are stating that the Democratic party had adopted and supported the Bush strategy as viable.

and even if it comes for her, she still isn't going to compete in SC, so she'll lose whatever she gained going into super tuesday.

freepers. Judging from all your negative posts Wolsh, are ye then a Freeper?

The world wants to know.

My title says that Hillary supporters are calling the "Obamanation" sore losers. Go look at some of the posts for Lirwin and others on the front page.

Hillary won the cause because she had more votes than Obama. She beat him by 6%. The delegates are important, but are not the deciding factor in determining the winner (votes are).

Votes don't count for shit. In a week the vote totals are forgotten, but the delegate count remains.

Are you a left over from the ole Yahoo discussion boards? If you want to talk about delegates and losing you may want to see the total ass kicking Obama is getting in that race as well http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D Thank god we only have two more weeks of this bullshit. After Obama is eliminated on super Tuesday what will your hopeless spin be? Are you just Pissed that the Kerry kiss "o" death endorsement didn't work out the way you had hoped? Do you Obama supporters work in shifts? You are not doing your candidate any favors by sliming the opponent over and over. In case you have been in a cave let me explain it to you. It Isn't Working. All you, and those like are doing is pissing us off more and motivating us to get out in droves to support our candidate. Perhaps when you get the kids to put down their video games and get out and vote you may actually have a legitimate voice. I think the bigger headline should read. Despite Endorsement Of Obama, Union and Latino voters overwhelmingly Turn To Clinton For Change.

Does your mommy know you're using the computer this morning?

Exactly:

"I think the bigger headline should read. Despite Endorsement Of Obama, Union and Latino voters overwhelmingly Turn To Clinton For Change."

:thumbsup:

and it seems at most Obama will get one more delegate than Hillary out of Nevada, the delegate total is pretty meaningless. What counts are political perceptions and the political trend reflected by the sentiments expressed by those who participated in the Nevada process, not how the complicated machinery of it allotts the handfull of dfinal elegates.

On the perception level the vast majority of news coverage calls Clinton the winner in Nevada. That gives Clinton momentum, not Obama. As for political trend lines, Clinton established in Nevada that she is the candidate who had the most support there AND more important, she established that she is the candidate with overwhelming Hispanic support. The latter was the reason why Nevada got moved up by the DNC early in the primary season in the first place, to give a showcase where the votes of hispanics could be weighed and registered in the process.

You can claim victory for Obama over the delegate count if you want, but it is a completely hollow victory you claim. It is not the victory Obama wanted or needed. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton would NOT trade places with Obama over the Nevada results if she could, and I have no doubt that Barack Obama WOULD trade places with Hillary over the Nevada results if he could.

that Hillary came in a near tie. close second in Iowa for the same reasons?

The fact is --Obama and Hillary are tied for delegates in NV (one in dispute) and she won the more newsworthy popular vote.

memories--good ones. as my dad used to us it--"stop bellyaching" (and we did-te he)

You're funny.

so I guess it depends how we're counting things these days.

she received one more delegate than Edwards. That's my point. Of course she was third.

Just stop this crap!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

in a competitive primary or caucus.

:wow: just :wow:

:rofl: