Three myths that keep getting repeated and are driving me bonkers

I imagine no one on DU is falling for this unless they want to ;), but I am so tired of no one in the m$m correcting these points.
Edit to add: And thanks, Sandi_4_Edwards, please add your own.


1) "Clinton was the underdog in Indiana"
She said this again this a.m., when it's not true.

http://politicalmaps.org/indiana-primary-maps-may-6-2008/

Indiana’s primary on May 6th is a pivotal primary providing Hillary Clinton a final chance to derail Barack Obama’s path to the nomination and offering Barack Obama an opportunity to clinch the nomination. If Obama beats Clinton in both Indiana and North Carolina on May 6th, then Clinton will be left without a reason to stay in the race. Clinton is favored to win Indiana as the demographics resemble Ohio and Pennsylvania, however Indiana is expected to be more competitive.


2) "Clinton won Texas"
No she didn't, and everyone needs to stop saying that!

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/01/846611.aspx

Delegate update: Obama wins TX
Posted: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:12 AM by Domenico Montanaro


From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
NBC News has allocated the remaining nine Texas caucus delegates, 7-2, in favor of Obama. That means the Illinois senator has won the most delegates, 99-94, as a result of both the Texas primary and caucuses.

Obama now leads by 129 in the overall delegate count, 1637-1508. Obama leads by 162 pledged delegates, 1415-1253. (There remains just one delegate unallocated from Democrats Abroad.) Clinton leads among superdelegates, 255-222, per the NBC News Political Unit count.

Also note, the Obama campaign has passed around that it has picked up two delegates in Mississippi, showing Obama with a 20-13 lead. NBC News' count remains 19-14 for Obama so far.


And 3) "Clinton has more popular votes"
Again, NO! The difference is even greater since Tuesday, so don't buy into this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/07/politics/main4078586.shtml
Clinton's Path To Victory Slipping Away

snip//

Clinton’s arguments that she can still win have largely evaporated after last night. In the popular vote, Barack Obama added more than 230,000 to his overall total in North Carolina, compared to the 20,000 Clinton won in Indiana. Even if Clinton and Obama were allocated votes from the disputed contests in Florida and Michigan last January, Clinton could still find herself trailing in the popular vote lead.

more...

and

5. Nor is a she a zombie......as far as we know.

These myths need to be refuted with hard cold factual evidence.

We're still waiting.

pushing these 'facts' when they are not true!

I think most people who pay attention know she is either lying or spinning wildly and it only makes her look weak and desperate. She's twisting in the wind.

The others who don't pay attention, the infamous low information voters, neither grasp what she is saying or likely don't care one way or the other because they are too busy watching 'American Idle' and only catch glimpses of politics on the TV in the breakroom at the plant.

hilLIAR.

The HRC I see on TV saying things I know she is way too smart to believe IS not the same HRC who I liked as First Lady.

She has really disappointed me.

Of course, we can add the statistics on the numbers of white blue-collar workers who have supported Obama (and the fact that most Dems do NOT win more than 50% of their vote in a GE--they are Republicans!), etc. etc.

without blinking.

It also makes this thread pointless.

nt

You have access to Google and RealClearPolitics just as much as I do.

Do your own damned research.

It isn't the responsibility of the person responding to you.

If i recall out of the MULTITUDE of polls, there was perhaps ONE that had O with a small lead that was statistically insignificant.

that makes her the underdog, of course, not the person trailing in 99% of the polls... just the one trailing in the 1%.

...Oba-maniacs have a short memory.

your post to crap.

There. You're gone.

They don't like being called on their factual inaccuracies.

Isn't it funny how RCP began putting an asterisk next to ARG's polling and did not include them in any averages after Super Tues.

Zogby and one other, as I remember. They each had Obama up by a couple of points, briefly. No one took those polls seriously.

Outlier polls show up often. They don't mean that the candidate they briefly show as being ahead then becomes the favorite.

especially Terry McAuliffe, repeat these false statements.

Thanks for posting them.

:hi:

but that doesn't matter to Obama fans.

Every contest has rules.

Tesha

agreed to long before this began, and it is the hillary folks that would prefer to violate them or ignore them.

rules are rules, fuck the voters.

Not to defend Repukes...but if it had been reversed and Al Gore got less votes but won the electoral college we'd be talking about how great the electoral college is right now.

If Kerry would have won Ohio but lost the popular vote do you think we wouldn't have fought for that?

You just find these talking points at some cheap dive you frequent or from some similarly confused, if not deranged, buddy via pmails and im's and you think they work.

Florida was about trying to following the rules, the republicans didn't like it so they sued, SCOTUS changed the rules - they interfered with the state's function in conducting an election.

LOL, you ought to try to understand the rules before you refer to them. Obviously you don't, but it is a given the rules don't matter much to you anyway given your participation here.

personal. You should take a break if it gets you this upset.

Whether you consider it a talking point or not, more voters in Texas supported Clinton than Obama. Cope with it, Merh.

I'm laughing my ass off at you and others that keep using the lame reasoning and distorted talking points.

Like I said, you don't know shit about the process, you might have picked up bits and pieces and read someone else's tirade and you think you are equipped with the facts, but you aren't.

And whether you like it or not, more voters have voted for Obama, even if hillary breaks the rules to get the florida and michigan votes (and her word, that silly pledge she signed - matters not to those that support her, her lies are "just politics as usual").

Be angry at your girl for signing that pledge, for agreeing to abide by the rules. Be angry at her for her lies and for taking the campaign for granted, for assuming that the nom would be her's by Feb 5, for running such a pathetic and negative campaign. And now be angry at her overtly racist stand that make her more desperate and pathetic than ever before.

Her failings are her failings.

What's the talking point?

I made a simple assertion: more voters in texas supported Clinton than Obama. That's my argument here. You're dragging in a lot of bullshit from other fights. You seem to be carrying a grudge, and you resent me because I'm friends with some people you now hate. That's no reason to act this way.

the rules here condemn others for "not following the rules". You have to understand the rules and have respect for them, you don't understand the rules of the elections and you don't understand the pledge Hillary made and is now trying to violate. Breaking her word would not put her ahead, she is still behind in all counts, to include the popular vote. Hillary did not win Texas, but again, you have to understand and appreciate the rules to be able to recognize the truth.

I don't hate a soul, even you in this existence or in any previous existence. And I don't hate your buds, any of them. I've challenged you all on your bullshit talking points and double standards and pointed out the lies. I've never attacked you or anyone else, go read the exchanges. LOL, the attackers have been those who cannot handle being called on their double standards and lies and childish ways. It has been your buds that have personally attacked me and have gone out of their way to try to hurt, you two sharing some special insight into my mental health. What is funny is from all of their posts here, they may want to realize how glass their house truly is.

I could really unload a wagon of truths if I hated as accused. You should see the number of posts I've deleted that could have been devastating, it's not worth it in my book. Pixels on a screen, bullshit and empty words. I've held no grudges, but as we in the south like to say "I may forgive, but I'll never forget".

For you, I'll never forget your dogging Gore, the eat crow luncheon you should have enjoyed - I think Seabiscuit's thread finally topped the arrogance of that one. Like I said, if you don't abide by the rules you may want to stop trying to point it out when others don't follow them the way you think they should.

You really should take a break from the internet. You're not making any sense.

I've made plenty of sense and you know it. ;)

Here is a poem just for you all! :eyes:

:thumbsup: zombies and socks and rude girls unite -
it's all about the winning, all about the fights.

Morals and ethics and feelings be damned,
if hill can't have it, nobody can!

:hi:

the point I made - that more voters in Texas voted for Clinton than Obama. The rest is just insane nonsense and made up fantasies. I never dogged Gore. That's a figment of your imagination. I suspect you're talking about my prediction that he wouldn't win the Nobel. I was wrong on that one. In the same post, I said he wouldn't run for President, too, but I don't see you bringing up how right I was. People make predictions here every day. What's creepy is somebody bringing them up 7 months later in a totally unrelated discussion - do you keep files on me?

that is not how they run their elections and choose their delegates. Again, a funny thing about the rules and all, you have to understand and respect them. And Obama is ahead in the popular votes. Addressed several times over.

And no, I don't keep files on you, Seabiscuit's mighty thread reminded me of how much fun your Gore thread was. And with all the good Gore has done, why on earth would he run, he knows the clinton's all too well.

I ask you again to review your posting history, you began the personal attacks, you are the one that likes to try to shove a knife in someone while pretending to be so above it all. I've merely responded to you and called bullshit on your bullshit and weak talking points.

bringing in conversations from other threads, some of them 7 months old, is creepy, stalkery behavior.

I made no claims about the importance of Hillary getting more votes in Texas - I simply pointed it out as a fact, and that seems to upset you somehow.

I really recommend taking a break - you seem to be confusing the internet with real life.

how dare anyone question your talking points or facts, challenge your positions, that must mean they hate you or are stalking you or are creepy or need a break. :rofl:

You take the internet much too serious, sorta like those zombies and socks that can't stay away from DU after being shown the door, it is some odd obsession. This is a world of pixels on a screen, ideas written on the screens are just ideas, opinions, just opinions.

What is sad is how some folks cannot make the distinction between real life and this place - how dare someone disagree with them, and then the turmoil and the gossip and the "well I never" posts begin.

LOL - I'm cool with it all, I know this is just a world of pixels and opinions, my life doesn't stop if I'm not the cool kid or the queen of snark.

BTW - you aren't even honest about the purpose of your post in this thread, so just to remind you:



There was absolutely nothing innocent about your post, just another jab at Obama supporters, broad brushed and small minded as ususal.

:applause:

:rofl:

They knew it was part of the system there and they weren't ready for it. There's no caucus in the GE, but many states have them as a measure of ability to organize successfully at the grassroots level, in addition or instead of campaigning through TV, radio and other ads, and her campaign failed in that respect.

Obama has pwned her on the ground game, and it does matter because we've got to play it for the next 5 months. The Republican ground game is very very good and has been a key element of Bush's strategy in the last 2 elections.

the most popular votes.

It's one of the most troubling traits of Hillary's campaign: the outright use of lies, repeated often, and using such bald faced lies to try to spin events.

These aren't spins of facts. These are facts invented, fabricated, with no basis.

Updated for this last Tuesday.

Note the color of Texas.

<cough cough>

Obama isn't going to be running against Hillary in the GE. It's possible that there are states where either one would beat McCain.

primary is somehow indicative of the entire voting population's preference in a particular state.

that now marked the beginning of Clinton's comeback. perhaps this is another thing that people will repeat bit that makes absolutely no sense. delusional

supporter for quite awhile, it just doesn't make much sense to me. Yet they continue to float this race baiting idea... Why she doesn't get out with some dignity in tact is beyond me.

in eloquent speeches, the heavens will part. The skies will shine down.

"Oh..... and Death to the Infidels"

Paid for by

He won the working class whites in Minnesota for sure.

From DailyKOS:

Hillary Wins the rustbelt (Ohio, Penn, maybe Mich?), and Obama wins the heartland (Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana?). He also won the white working class in Virginia/Maryland as well. note: Obama's actually polling even, or ahead of Clinton in Michigan currently. But what this all suggest is, it doesn't mean, he "can't win" those "rustbelt states" in the General (

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/23/11012/4636/77/5...


From WSJ:

Sen. Clinton won them in Georgia, Missouri and New York, while Sen. Obama captured the working-class male vote in New Hampshire, California, Maryland and Virginia.

I am sure he has won working class males in many other states as well.

I'm bookmarking this and passing on the word at work.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121025552050277171.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

snip//

Tuesday's dual primaries technically yielded a split decision, as expected. But once Democrats grasped the final results -- Sen. Clinton's near-loss in Indiana's primary, where she recently was heavily favored, and her larger-than-expected defeat in North Carolina -- the New York senator took on the air of a loser, even to many of her own supporters.

Much like CT/NJ was Hillary country because of the proximity to the NY media market and NH was supposed to be Mitt country because of its proximity to the Boston media market, Obama was thought to have an advantage in IN.

the contrary. But A for effort.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/04/obamas_illinois_advantage_in_i.html

I'm not saying Obama should have won IN.

But early in the race, these places were considered various candidate's turf.

That's hardly the same as saying he's FAVORED to WIN to STATE

Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has a running start in the May 6 Indiana primary. Most of the Democratic-rich northeast part of the state is in the Chicago media market and voters there already know Obama.

Hillary was always favored to win in Indiana.

Except she wasn't.

Before the primaries, Obama was considered to have an advantage as has been discussed.

After PA & OH it was speculated that Hillary had the advantage because of similar demographics but even then the speculation was that the race would be closer than PA or OH.

In mid April 4 polls came out showing Obama with various leads and Zogby's tracking poll had him ahead for the last week.

There were a few polls with Obama in the lead and they were outliers.

The average of the polls showed her with a sizeable lead.

She was favored.

That the problem with absolutes.

Also wouldn't polls showing her with a sizable lead be the outliers demonstrated by the actual voting results. :shrug:

A few outlier polls never meant that Obama was "favored" in any real sense of the word.

No one - anywhere - thought he was favored to win, regardless of a few oddball polling data.