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.
.
Obama was the underdog in 2008.....when he declared in 2007, most didn't give him a chance.
Hillary was the favorite in 2008 and a huge favorite in 2016......see the difference?
Obama won in 2008 because he was an outsider going against a Bush 3rd term and the market crash helped Obama a lot.
Hillary is running as an Obama 3rd term in an election cycle that is anti-establishment.
Yeah, my bad. Bernie actually netted a minus 200 votes in the Guam caucus. Point is, Bernie's caucus totals don't help when comparing his total votes to Clinton's, his supporters shouldn't go there, right?
Yeah, my bad. Bernie actually netted a minus 200 votes in the Guam caucus. Point is, Bernie's caucus totals don't help when comparing his total votes to Clinton's, his supporters shouldn't go there, right?
Caucuses are more elaborate than primaries. Caucuses usually require a minimum of 2-3 hrs participation. Primaries are just like any other election - it's just simple voting. If all states held open primaries it probably wouldn't change the math much either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
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 200 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.
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.
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.
Well, much as I hate to disagree with a fellow Hillary supporter, your numbers are not correct - for some, you are using state delegate equivalents rather than votes.
WA State had about 230K attendance so Bernie had a net of of about 168K there. Other caucus states were smaller - AK you are right, it was about 6K actual votes. CO he netted about 23K. Hillary won Iowa, very close but no net votes for Bernie there. She also won Nevada and netted about 4K votes, almost offsetting Alaska.
I know this has all been posted before but when you calculate caucus attendance and allocate "votes" based on percentages, Bernie only nets something around 200K. Before tonight, Hillary was ahead by almost 3.1 million, so adding in caucus numbers takes it to about 2.9 million. Most people would round that to 3 million in general conversation. But for accuracy when discussing actual numbers, sure, let's go with 2.9 million.
Well, much as I hate to disagree with a fellow Hillary supporter, your numbers are not correct - for some, you are using state delegate equivalents rather than votes.
Point taken, I tend to confuse those and happily concede that Clinton "only" leads Bernie by 2.9 million, give or take.
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.
She leads by more than 2.9 million votes after accounting ALL caucuses, see this for breakdown of estimates of some of the caucuses : [URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/06/is-hillary-clinton-really-ahead-of-bernie-sanders-by-2-5-million-votes/[/URL]
Yup. Sanders supporters should read and accept it and weep, but most will blame the media, then weep anyway.
thanks, I knew it had been analyzed and discussed before but I couldn't remember where. I still think it's close enough to 200K to call it that - any difference is just a rounding error at this point.
Yup. Sanders supporters should read and accept it and weep, but most will blame the media, then weep anyway.
He's done and dusted.
For too long I sought reconciliation with his supporters but I'm over it. They can get on the Hillary train or not, I don't care anymore. I trust and hope her campaign has done the math - if the best course is to dump the self-described progressives and instead go for the moderates, works for me.
[quote=EveryoneIsAnIsland;44099630
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.[/QUOTE]
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. 
