|
06-01-2008, 08:23 AM
|
|
|
|
31,610 posts, read 39,296,023 times
Reputation: 14230
|
|
|
Interesting watching CNN and the news report on why Hillary is so popular in Puerto Rico. The answer was Bill and what he did. Who is running Hillary or Bill? Seriously how many votes would she have gotten if she had never been married to Bill? Her supporters keep saying she got there on her own merits and not the coat tails of a MAN. Ok if thats the case why do they keep invoking his name to get votes. West Virginia you know the deal we LOVE BILL and you are married to him so you must be ok and will bring back the days of your husband. Hmmmmmm I think she played that a number of times. Maybe she lost because she wasn't that woman who got to where she is and was going to win based on her own merits.
To stay on topic, Hillary isn't leading the popular vote for a number of reasons including 35% of her votes are really for Bill.
|
|
06-01-2008, 08:26 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Downtown Greensboro, NC
3,491 posts, read 8,361,126 times
Reputation: 629
|
|
|
actually the idea that Hillary leads in popular vote is flawed because of the situation in Michigan and that fact that the votes arent counted in the caucuses. But the reality is it doesnt matter because the nominee is elected by DELEGATES not the popular vote.
|
|
06-01-2008, 08:27 AM
|
|
|
|
289 posts, read 351,424 times
Reputation: 50
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by paperhouse
Hillary can use this as a ploy to sway undecided superdelegates. Will of the people, yadda yadda yadda. Isn't that what the Democrats have been wanting all along? Or was that just while Obama had the popular vote lead?  |
Well obviously you haven't been following to closely have you. The democratic Primaries were never about popular votes because of the way they ran them some States didn't have a number on the popular votes. It was always about the delegate count and that was never changed even though some of you insist that it does matter. What about all the voters in the Caucus States Hillary doesn't want them counted but wants to claim she won the popular vote. |
|
06-01-2008, 08:31 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Washington state
7,208 posts, read 9,091,143 times
Reputation: 1895
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by paperhouse
About 200 last time I looked. I know Obama has had a few come out in his favor, but they are still out there. Speaking of which, when is Robert Byrd going to endorse Hillary? WV went to her, shouldn't he be doing the will of the voters? Ted Kennedy (yes we know he has a tumor) should as well. There's a whole host of others that should change their endorsements based on the will of the people for both candidates.
FYI: NC still has 2 super spots that haven't been chosen yet. I'm sure there are others as well.
|
A "few" coming out for Obama? How about 328.5. Robert Byrd already has endorsed Obama.
As for the subject of the OP, from First Read:
Quote:
|
Also, according to those with knowledge of the Michigan agreement, it is fair to claim Clinton the winner of Michigan. But they caution against counting her popular vote in the state.
|
|
|
06-01-2008, 08:52 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Albemarle, NC
7,730 posts, read 13,673,055 times
Reputation: 1509
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsiderlookingin
Well obviously you haven't been following to closely have you. The democratic Primaries were never about popular votes because of the way they ran them some States didn't have a number on the popular votes. It was always about the delegate count and that was never changed even though some of you insist that it does matter. What about all the voters in the Caucus States Hillary doesn't want them counted but wants to claim she won the popular vote.
|
Popular vote determines delegate allocation. I'm not saying Hillary is playing fair, but it's her one card left in the deck. So many Obamatards have claimed he should get support from the supers because he won the popular vote. Will of the voters and all that jazz. Well, depending on how you count the votes, Hillary may lead now in popular totals. Even if she doesn't, there are several supers that have gone against the wishes of their own states to endorse the other candidate. Shouldn't they vote based on their states' outcome? I mean, will of the voters, and all that jazz again.
I know you Obama supporters find it hard to believe, but the superdelegates are given their job to do what is best for the party. I believe most will vote for Obama since he is the clear leader in delegates. I bet you he will spend the next 6 months trying to overcome the idea that he didn't win it fairly. Never underestimate a woman (or a Clinton) who has been scorned. In the bag? Not if Hillary has anything to say about it.
Fight on, liberals. Fight on. |
|
06-01-2008, 09:33 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Texas
38,861 posts, read 24,161,938 times
Reputation: 24780
|
|
Hillary Clinton leads in the Popular Vote
One more Clinton lie to add to the basketful that they're already known for.  |
|
06-01-2008, 09:48 AM
|
|
|
|
430 posts, read 1,132,917 times
Reputation: 131
|
|
|
I had heard several times that states don't even count the popular vote. THey said that there isn't a real way of knowing for sure a true refection of the popular vote. I do agree with a prior posting that in Puerto Rico and elswhere there are a lot of people that went with Clinton because they like Bill or remember they were better off when he was president and I agree that if that is true it takes down her own merit.
|
|
06-01-2008, 10:30 AM
|
|
|
|
580 posts, read 1,630,477 times
Reputation: 108
|
|
|
I support Hillary Clinton
Hillary for president
Woot Hillary
|
|
06-01-2008, 10:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: London UK & Florida USA
7,923 posts, read 8,555,990 times
Reputation: 2059
|
|
|
Many if not all Presidents and nominees win without having the popular vote. If the criteria was popular vote then Hillary might have a case, depending on the final figures. The nominee is decided by Delegate count NOT popular vote. Obama has won this nomination. If the full delegate count had been included in Fl & Mi instead of half votes, Obama would now be over the 2118 needed and Hillary still wouldn't have 200 delegates.
If full votes had been counted -- Obama 2120 Clinton 1971 with three primaries to be contested still.
Last edited by geeoro; 06-01-2008 at 11:14 AM..
|
|
06-01-2008, 11:25 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Texas
38,861 posts, read 24,161,938 times
Reputation: 24780
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by geeoro
Many if not all Presidents and nominees win without having the popular vote. If the criteria was popular vote then Hillary might have a case, depending on the final figures. The nominee is decided by Delegate count NOT popular vote. Obama has won this nomination. If the full delegate count had been included in Fl & Mi instead of half votes, Obama would now be over the 2118 needed and Hillary still wouldn't have 200 delegates.
If full votes had been counted -- Obama 2120 Clinton 1971 with three primaries to be contested still.
|
As a matter of fact, Bill Clinton won two terms as president without ever gaining a majority of the popular vote. |
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.
Hillary Clinton leads in the Popular Vote
