On PBS: Pelosi just said "the election was never about the popular vote" but

But she said the opposite in March. :shrug:





I get her drift but :shrug:

as she should. They showed up just like everybody else. Hillary wants to disenfranchise them.

?

I think she was referring to MI & FL.

about respecting the will of the people and so forth. The statements that you think contradict what she said on PBS. I'm saying there is no contradiction. The will of the people is that Obama is the nominee. More people have showed up to support him than Hillary. If you include everybody I mean. Is there a reason Hillary does not want to count the people of Iowa?

I was just asking if you were also watching that interview at the same tome as me.

It just seemed like she was contradicting herself.

The voters who are electing pledged delegates, that's what she has meant all along. Don't act stupid.

FU!

peoples votes in the two different systems - caucuses and primaries.

...said and what she meant.

When Nancy Pelosi said, "the Democratic Party might be hurt if leaders do not nominate the presidential
candidate preferred by voters in primaries and caucuses," she was referring to the candidate who was
winning the race. She was not talking about the "popular vote" as you are insinuating. The "popular
vote" has NEVER been a metric that determines the winner. The delegate count does.

Clearly, that's what Pelosi was talking about.

Do you remember the context of Pelosi's comment? I remember it succinctly.

Hillary was suggesting that even though Obama may be ahead in pledged delegates and popular vote--that
the Superdelegates could overturn their decision. Hillary constantly remarked that the will of the
Superdelegates should be respected, and that their opinions could possibly be the opposite of the
pledged delegates.

This was back when Clinton had a big Superdelegate lead, and when she also thought she had the majority
of the Superdelegates locked down and in her corner.

Pelosi appeared on several talk shows to discuss how unfair it would be if the Superdelegates usurped
the will of the people, and took the win away from the candidate who was winning. Again, "win" to
everyone (except Hillary Clinton and her mouthpieces) means being ahead in the pledged delegates.

Nowhere does Pelosi suggest that the popular vote should determine anything. She was talking about
pledged delegates.

ALL candidates agreed to those rules.

Those rules have been in place for decades. If the rules are changed now - AFTER all the votes have been cast - the Democratic party will explode.

No candidate has ever thumbed their nose at the rules and the DNC like Hillary has. She and her surrogates are putting out false information and getting people riled up about the "unfair" rules that SHE agreed to. We are 61 delegates away from having a nominee and she is intentionally trying to split the party, so Obama can't win ... but if she succeeds if having the rules changed and she ends up with the nomination, she won't win either.


According to this post, the party has no intention of changing the rules in the middle of the game. :-)

about what appeared to me to me a discrepency in what she said?

Deal with it? Oh, another one that assumes if anyone asks
a question about this topic they MUST be for HRC? :eyes:

You know what they say about people who ass-u-me, Heather?

:rofl:

The primaries and the caucuses have yielded the results thus far, and she says to override the results of the votes would undermine the party.

was that they are suppose to overturn what happens in the elections... perhaps the party should dump the idea if they aren't willing to actually use their own system.