Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She's leading the old coot by more than 3 million votes and has spent less per vote than he has. She didn't use one bit of dirt she has on him to win the nomination. Uh-huh, she's weak all right.
Hillary has been running for President since 2005, just follow the millions and Super Pacs with the Clintons.
Biden gave her a gift by not running....the DNC is backing Hillary and she is way below her vote count from 2008.
yeah she is weak alright.
by the way, she won't make it to the nomination of 2,384 delegates on her own, she will need the SUPER DELEGATES to get to the finish line......that's weak for a candidate that has been running for President since 2005 and the DNC handed her the easiest nomination path.
She's leading the old coot by more than 3 million votes and has spent less per vote than he has. She didn't use one bit of dirt she has on him to win the nomination. Uh-huh, she's weak all right.
That's a bit inaccurate since the voters are not counted in caucus states, such as Washington. but I'm pretty sure she is still leading by a lot.
Exactly. Jeff Weaver was asked a few nights ago by Chris Matthews when Hillary has ever run a negative ad against Bernie or attacked his character and Weaver couldn't give him a straight answer. They were only looking at the numbers. By the way, every time you say she's weak, are you saying Obama was a weak candidate in 2008 when Hillary got 18 million votes and won most of the final contests?
What are you talking about? Obama did not have a lead of 300 pledged delegates a month before the final constest. Not even close. Of course she is weak when she is having so much trouble getting people to rally around her at this stage of the campaign with her lead and the entire media establishment behind her, they have donated milllions to her, basically acting like an extension of her campaign.
If they show a map of Kentucky in tomorrow's news stories that shows where the "uncommitted" Democrats for president were predominantly located you will see most of them are in Eastern Kentucky. That's coal country. You know who those "uncommitted" Democrats are? Those are Donald Trump voters who will cross over in November. They voted in the closed Democrat primary to vote for other Democrats further down the ticket.
Saw it earlier Tuesday evening on MSNBC but I'll bet few or none of the Internet stories will mention it in their reporting.
That's a bit inaccurate since the voters are not counted in caucus states, such as Washington. but I'm pretty sure she is still leading by a lot.
Caucus voters are counted in most states. Bernie won these caucuses: IA, NV, Am. Samoa, Maine, WA, N. Marianas, AK, and Guam. (I'll spare his supporters the Nebraska embarrassment.)
We know exactly how many WA voters voted in the caucus: 19k for him vs 7k for her, so a net of 12k for him. Alaska, he netted about 6k votes, Guam, about 200, he lost N. Marianas by 37 votes. The others, all somewhere between WA and N. Marianas, mostly on the low side.
If you combine all the votes he netted in all the caucuses and then just for fun multiply them by say, 100, they still don't equal even a "bit" of the 3+ million Clinton lead.
So you don't have to waiver and be pretty sure. You can be dead sure that she actually and factually won the popular vote by a landslide and the delegate vote by the equivalent. Because arithmetic.
What are you talking about? Obama did not have a lead of 300 pledged delegates a month before the final constest. Not even close. Of course she is weak when she is having so much trouble getting people to rally around her at this stage of the campaign with her lead and the entire media establishment behind her, they have donated milllions to her, basically acting like an extension of her campaign.
That isn't what I wrote at all. Just the opposite. I wrote if you think Hillary is a weak candidate (with an approx 280 lead in pledged delegates) then you must also believe Obama was weak, since he didn't have even half her lead. In June the totals were Obama - 1,828 and Clinton - 1,726. The superdelegates put Obama over the top to win the nomination. Still, in Nov 2008 he won by a very large margin.
I also disagree that the media has been behind her. The media hates Hillary. However, after it became clear that Bernie had no mathematical chance of winning, I don't see how any news source can be called biased for stating the facts.
Caucus voters are counted in most states. Bernie won these caucuses: IA, NV, Am. Samoa, Maine, WA, N. Marianas, AK, and Guam. (I'll spare his supporters the Nebraska embarrassment.)
We know exactly how many WA voters voted in the caucus: 19k for him vs 7k for her, so a net of 12k for him. Alaska, he netted about 6k votes, Guam, about 200, he lost N. Marianas by 37 votes. The others, all somewhere between WA and N. Marianas, mostly on the low side.
If you combine all the votes he netted in all the caucuses and then just for fun multiply them by say, 100, they still don't equal even a "bit" of the 3+ million Clinton lead.
So you don't have to waiver and be pretty sure. You can be dead sure that she actually and factually won the popular vote by a landslide and the delegate vote by the equivalent. Because arithmetic.
Wasn't Hillary only behind by 124 delegates in 2008
Apples and oranges because the state primaries were in a different order. But your point is well-made in that she was a stronger candidate than Bernie is now.
What are you talking about? Obama did not have a lead of 300 pledged delegates a month before the final constest. Not even close. Of course she is weak when she is having so much trouble getting people to rally around her at this stage of the campaign with her lead and the entire media establishment behind her, they have donated milllions to her, basically acting like an extension of her campaign.
Does that mean Obama was weak in 2008 because he never lead by more than 150 delegates? Clinton leads by almost 300 delegates. Just because you don't like her doesn't mean she's weak. You're just making pathetic excuses in an effort to rationalize why Sanders is losing: 'It's the media! It's the Democratic establishment!' What's next? Extraterrestrial mind-control manipulating more voters to support her?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987
Wasn't Hillary only behind by 124 delegates in 2008
I don't remember the exact figures, but the fact is 2008 was a much closer contest than this year. Any remotely plausible chance Sanders had of winning ended on April 26. Now his supporters are just bitter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That isn't what I wrote at all. Just the opposite. I wrote if you think Hillary is a weak candidate (with an approx 280 lead in pledged delegates) then you must also believe Obama was weak, since he didn't have even half her lead. In June the totals were Obama - 1,828 and Clinton - 1,726. The superdelegates put Obama over the top to win the nomination. Still, in Nov 2008 he won by a very large margin. 
