Popular Vote Poison: How Hillary's latest math hurts the party.

by Jonathan Alter

Give credit where it's due: Hillary Clinton has shown grit and determination in finishing out the race. She has proved herself a strong campaigner. And in the week since West Virginia, she has stopped the cheap shots that had marred her campaign this year.

But Clinton has continued with one claim that could have a pernicious effect on the Democrats' chances in November. While she knows that the nomination is determined by delegates, Hillary insists on saying at every opportunity that she is winning the popular vote. And she has now taken to touting the new HBO movie "Recount," which chronicles the Florida fiasco of eight years ago. Everyone can agree that the primary calendar needs reform. But popular-vote pandering is poison for Democrats. For a party scarred by the experience of 2000, when Al Gore received 500,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush but lost the presidency, this argument is sure to make it harder to unite and put bitter feelings aside.

Oh, and it's not true.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/138109

And also...

Adding in the unofficial tally from caucus states, as estimated by ++realclearpolitics.com++ based on official caucus turnout and the number of local delegates selected at the precinct level, that gives Obama a lead of 551,767.

Was this article posted earlier? being at work I must have missed the boat.
:wtf:

...... DELEGATES .......

to vote for the nominee at the convention?!

...if you leave out the 5 caucus states.

I'm convinced that she's making these fucking insane arguments--just to rankle
the Obama supporters.

I mean, who in their right mind would use an equation that leaves out five states?

She's punishing us and playing psy-ops because, in her warped mind--Obama and his
supporters took away the Presidency, which she considers her birthright.

Look for more stupid arguments.

I'm pretty sure we'll be getting one outrageous claim from her at
least every other day.

It won't change the outcome. All we can do is trudge forward as Hillary the
toddler throws one tantrum after another.

But then it's okay to discount those that didn't vote for her.

When she talks about having more popular votes, it's a meaningless statement because she is disregarding the participation of the caucus states. It's like having a basket with two types of fruit: apples (delegates selected from caucuses) and oranges (delegates from votes). The way things have unfolded, she's won less fruit, but has more oranges than apples. She spins this by suggesting that oranges are more valuable than apples, therefore, she's somehow "winning". I don't get that logic.

Clinton does not respect the rules. When the fiasco regarding Michigan and Florida happened, there was an understanding that the candidates would not actively campaign there because those two states did not follow the rules set by the Democratic Party regarding the timing of their primaries. Some may think that the Dem. party rules are dumb, but that's irrelevant. Rules are rules. You don't change them by defying the party's rules to suit your needs.

Rachel is absolutely right. The Dem party is on a suicide watch, If Clinton continues to behave so recklessly, she will kill our chances of electing Obama to the WH. If McCain wins, Democrats are not going to forget what she did in the 2008 race. She won't have the support needed to run in 2012 or 2016. Her senate seat could also be jeopardized. Her political career will be over.


So far, Obama has played the rules. He is winning this fair and square, based on the current Dem. party rules.