CUT THE BULLSHIT WITH THE POPULAR VOTE MEME!!!!

The popular vote DOES NOT MATTER in primary elections. It's about delegates, NOT THE DAMN POPULAR VOTE. WHY?

1. Several states are caucus states so the popular vote is not applicable, and if anyone cries about caucus states, then where was this crying 2 years ago or 4 years ago or whenever. You don't get to cry about the rules of the game AFTER YOU'VE LOST.

2. If the damn popular vote mattered, then why not milk the large states for more votes and screw the smaller states. Heck, a campaign can just stay in New York, Texas, Florida, and California and win going away.

stop using that as something that is going to ever count in this nomination.

She needs to stop making herself look stupid

The height of the candidates is just as valid as a non-existent popular vote when primaries are only held to obtain pledged delegates.

The only way she leads in the pop vote is if you don't count several caucus states and include her votes in Michigan with absolutely no votes there for Obama

different reason I am in WA Obama wins big here but they don't count our popular votes???

Its all bullshit to me and I have been angry and can't stop being angry ever since it was on the news that she thinks she is in the lead and msm doesn't say no thats not right because....

from the daily kos:

Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:

You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;
You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and
You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.
In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates.

In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it.

There is no way for him to catch up by the way she does the math (I'm most pissed about her using MI)

If these "bitter" women/old people/poor people come to believe they took it from her/them when she had the most votes will the vote for the black guy in November?

I worry.

No one is looking at the long term impact of the Popular Vote in primaries should matter argument.

Let's say that Texas has a favorite son candidate, and he's very conservative on all of the issues. That candidate can jack up his popular vote count in Texas alone, and he'd wipe out the other states. In addition, Repugs can cross over to the Dems in Southern and other conservative states, and voila! that candidate wins the nomination because it's a popular vote contest.

And it is now obvious that Obama and those in the DNC who support his view of the party's future need to absolutely crush the Clinton machine.

I mean this. No mercy.

She has no scruples. She is ready to destroy the party to soothe her own ego. Joe Andrews needs to let one of those Clinton secrets hit the front pages. It needs to be something that will hopefully result in criminal charges. This is how you play hardball with the Clintonistas. You have to UTTERLY destroy them politically or else they will not stop. They have no sense of fairness, no concern for using racism, sexism, blahblah to get what they want.

Surely the DNC is not willing to let her destroy the party because she has a powerful coalition. They may have power, but they will NEVER have the votes.

She is living in an alternate reality if she thinks ANYONE who has given money to Obama would give ANY to the DNC or her campaign, that ANY would go out to register voters or phone bank or all of the many, many jobs that volunteers do. People on all sides of the political spectrum already hate her soo much she will also destroy down ticket candidates' chances.

I just cannot vote for her.

Excellent post RainDog! And I totally agree.

I feel like a fool for having supported the Clintons in the 1990s since it now seems that the rightwingers were right all along!

I will never vote for that bitch.

The popular vote is everything! It is the people's voice. She is woman, hear her roar!

Blah, blah, blah, blah!

Why should we only count votes from delegates that nobody knows? I didn't elect them to elect somebody for me. Where is my vote counted?

Let's flip a coin. Heads Clinton wins, tails Obama loses.

Pick a number between one and two.

Hey! Rock, paper, scissors!

Okay, I got it. Whoever sends the most money to Clinton's campaign gets to pick the president! Yeah, that's a good one!


There's a lot of good ways to select a female president.


The oldest candidate should win. Hold it, scratch that, McCain would be a shoe-in.

The candidate with the biggest tits wins

And the rules say caucuses count. The rules say Fl and Mi don't.

If the party doesn't like the rules, the party should change the rules. Maybe next time, but it's too late for this cycle.

When he was ahead in the popular vote he constantly brought that up in every soundbite he gave. His followers on DU always would cite that. Now it means nothing. What a turnaround.

There is no popular vote count. It cannot be established. And it has no bearing on anything.

eom/

:rofl:

How does it matter? How can you even count the popular vote when so many states had caucuses?

Total Obama Clinton
TOTAL 12,891,604 12,217,745 (w/o FL&MI-w/caucuses and territories)
TOTAL 13,460,645 13,403,104 (w/FL&MI,w/caucuses)
TOTAL 12,535,451 12,058,560 (w/o FL&MI - excludes caucuses)

TOTAL 13,104,492 13,243,919 (w/FL&MI - excludes caucuses)

who have a chance to correct inequities reflected in the pledged delegate count.

Let us repeat for the umpteenth time. Some states did not count votes, only delegates.

If she makes the way the party counts votes a campaign issue in the following way (and it is probably too late now as there are no ways for her to get a REAL popular vote for her to use as rationale for her to be president).

But if she's going to go down this path, in order to sound intellectually honest and not just sour grapes, she should do the following:

1) Campaign to have more standardization on how the different states participate in the nominating process so that we don't have the gamesmanship that states like Michigan and Florida tried to do, nor do we exclude voters because they have a caucus system instead of a primary.

2) Recognize that the caucus system, though its flawed in some respects has strengths as well, especially in this year with a very poorly informed public with very sad state of affairs in our "free" press, and electronic votes really casting doubt on integrity of our electoral processes.

3) As part of your commitment to Super Delegates say that you would:

a) Completely revamp what was passed in previous legislation like the Telecomm act and Reagan's earlier taking down of the Fairness Doctrine. Make it a goal that the citizenry is more informed at the grass roots level and not manipulated by voices of the few so that the group format of the caucuses has less intrinsic value that it does today in being an educational process as well as a voter participation process, that is especially valuable in a state like Iowa where they are the first out of the chute and need to feel well informed to set the pace correctly.

b) Commit to making sure we have national standards for our voting practices and NO paperless ballots anywhere. That way, we can trust the results of primaries far more than we do today vs. caucuses that don't have the ability to be manipulated through voting machine election fraud like primaries do.

Without these corrections, moving away from caucuses might do more damage than good! If Hillary were to address these issues instead of trying to oversimplify it, then it would seem less likely that she is trying to manipulate an outcome for her to win the nomination, and more like she has a principled objection to what she perceives is hurting her and who she represents. To dismiss caucuses out of hand just won't do it for me.

Obama will clinch on June 3

Obama leads by minimum 264,641 on May 19

Obama leads by minimum 118,033 today; will lead in Popular Vote on June 3

The ONLY way Hillary could be leading in the popular vote on June 3 would be to disenfranchise all Michigan voters who wanted to vote for Obama but could not.

Or to make some kind of estimate of the popular vote he might have received in MI, but not do the same for caucus voters in states where their individual votes were not shown in the totals - and also to not count the WA primary (even though it's a similar situation where the people voted but were told their votes would not be counted).

Since her theme is to NOT disenfranchise voters, this would be contradictory and quite obvious to everyone including the Superdelegates and the American Public.

It's the only explanation now. Even Chris Matthews said it is the only conclusion that can be taken.

BUT IF YOUR SUCCEEDS THEN I WILL PERMANENTLY FIX MY KEYBOARD TO TYPE ONLY IN CAPS.

If she is so concerned about disenfranchising voters, then why is she always ignoring 40% of the Michigan voters? The only way she can claim that she has the popular vote lead is by ignoring the voters who voted Uncommitted in Michigan. If she really believes that their votes should be ignored, then she should go on record.

Why is it so hard for her to tell the truth? If she wants to finish out the Primary Season why can't she campaign on her merits, rather than lies? And why are Democratic Officials letting her diss the Party?

She was asked all the usual MSM crap... rural white voters... blah blah.

Then she was asked about May 31 and the "popular vote" Clinton claim.

Pelosi got a little smile and said unequivocally, that "Delegates are the "currency of the realm" in the Democratic Convention."

She said she hadn't gotten any calls regarding a "flood of delegates," but that she was confident we will "have a nominee in early June."

Please name a time in history when Dems have chosen the less popular of two candidates, then went on to beat the Republicans in the GE.