Hillary wins the popular vote in the Democratic primaries

[Chilly]

Actually, for the "you won the popular vote" prize, you don't even have to put a quarter in the slot. You just get it because you say you do. Even though you and a few of your psychophants are the only ones that actually believe it.

 

I take that back, most of them probably don't even believe it, they just say it.

 

I would have figured that the Obama supporters like yourself would have just given up on trying to argue the point, since it isn't relevant to the price of rice in China, or anything else.

[Kelly the Dog]

I would have figured that the Obama supporters like yourself would have just given up on trying to argue the point, since it isn't relevant to the price of rice in China, or anything else.

First, I think it's clear that Obama won the race, won it fair and square, and there really isn't any argument about it.

 

It wouldn't ultimately mean anything, obviously, if Hillary did win the popular vote, because that isn't the determining factor and everyone everywhere knows it. But it still does mean something in my mind, in the evaluation of the game, whether it's the scoreboard or not. I think it needs to be clear that in the true, official, fair contests, more people actually did go out and vote for Obama than Hillary. It was very close, but Obama did win that metric, too. Hillary is a good politician, and if her opposition was Al Gore or John Kerry this year, she probably would have won the more popular vote and the more delegate vote. But she didn't win either.

[PastaJoe]

The rule that says votes count in primaries where the people who actually make the rules say the votes don't count.

 

She hasn't tried to change that rule; votes determined how many pledged delegates the candidates got (except for Michigan, where exit polls count more than votes, and caucuses). But there's no debate that delegates are what count at the convention. Until they vote at the convention, superdelegates choose the criteria they want to decide how to vote. It could be popular votes, or it could be whose stronger in swing states, or who sends them a Christmas card. It's up to them. And it's up to the candidates to convince the superdelegates. No rule change there.

 

Try again.

[Chilly]

First, I think it's clear that Obama won the race, won it fair and square, and there really isn't any argument about it.

 

It wouldn't ultimately mean anything, obviously, if Hillary did win the popular vote, because that isn't the determining factor and everyone everywhere knows it. But it still does mean something in my mind, in the evaluation of the game, whether it's the scoreboard or not. I think it needs to be clear that in the true, official, fair contests, more people actually did go out and vote for Obama than Hillary. It was very close, but Obama did win that metric, too. Hillary is a good politician, and if her opposition was Al Gore or John Kerry this year, she probably would have won the more popular vote and the more delegate vote. But she didn't win either.

 

Here is where your argument gets hairy:

 

true, official, fair contests

 

You'll be arguing until you're blue in the face over that word "fair". If you wanted to say "Officially", thats fine, but there is no way at this point in time to have any popular vote count be "fair".

[Kelly the Dog]

She hasn't tried to change that rule; votes determined how many pledged delegates the candidates got (except for Michigan, where exit polls count more than votes, and caucuses). But there's no debate that delegates are what count at the convention. Until they vote at the convention, superdelegates choose the criteria they want to decide how to vote. It could be popular votes, or it could be whose stronger in swing states, or who sends them a Christmas card. It's up to them. And it's up to the candidates to convince the superdelegates. No rule change there.

 

Try again.

Sure, she's not officially trying to change the rule. Just her argument for why superdelegates should align themselves with her, and her latest ad campaigns have unofficially changed the rule.

 

By the way, the pledged delegates from the actually voting can change their vote, too, should Hillary see if she can change their minds, too?

[Kelly the Dog]

Here is where your argument gets hairy:

 

true, official, fair contests

 

You'll be arguing until you're blue in the face over that word "fair". If you wanted to say "Officially", thats fine, but there is no way at this point in time to have any popular vote count be "fair".

The "fair" ones are all the states that actually had legitimate primaries and caucuses, with no controversies. ANYONE ANYWHERE, in my opinion, without a dog in this hunt, would look at the Florida and Michigan races and not call them completely fair elections. They would look at all of the others and call them completely fair. How hard is that to figure out, or why is it in any disagreement?

[K-9]

Any estimates as to how many Clinton votes came from republicans in states where they were allowed to cast ballots in democratic primaries?

[PastaJoe]

Sure, she's not officially trying to change the rule. Just her argument for why superdelegates should align themselves with her, and her latest ad campaigns have unofficially changed the rule.

 

WTF? How do you unofficially change the rule? What rule? You're really reaching now.

 

 

By the way, the pledged delegates from the actually voting can change their vote, too, should Hillary see if she can change their minds, too?

 

You said it, it's part of the rules, she isn't trying to change that rule. But usually these people are strong supporters, and therefore she should concentrate on superdelegates first.

[PastaJoe]

Any estimates as to how many Clinton votes came from republicans in states where they were allowed to cast ballots in democratic primaries?

 

You'll have to ask an Obama supporter, they're the ones who don't use actual votes to determine the winner, but look at exit polls for perceived intent to determine how many votes someone should be given, ala Michigan.

[Kelly the Dog]

WTF? How do you unofficially change the rule? What rule? You're really reaching now.

 

 

 

 

You said it, it's part of the rules, she isn't trying to change that rule. But usually these people are strong supporters, and therefore she should concentrate on superdelegates first.

My mistake. Sorry. You're right. Where I went wrong was believing Hillary was being truthful and talking about real votes when she said "I am winning the popular vote."

 

If she wasn't, she was unofficially changing the rules, counting votes that don't count. Like I said.

[Kelly the Dog]

You'll have to ask an Obama supporter, they're the ones who don't use actual votes to determine the winner, but look at exit polls for perceived intent to determine how many votes someone should be given, ala Michigan.

You realize, don't you, that there were more Hillary supporters in the committee room than Obama supporters? It was 13-9 I think they said.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24905193/

 

The deal passed 19-8. Thirteen members of the committee had endorsed Clinton for president, so she wasn't even able to keep her supporters together.

 

Thanks for playing.

[Chilly]

The "fair" ones are all the states that actually had legitimate primaries and caucuses, with no controversies. ANYONE ANYWHERE, in my opinion, without a dog in this hunt, would look at the Florida and Michigan races and not call them completely fair elections. They would look at all of the others and call them completely fair. How hard is that to figure out, or why is it in any disagreement?

 

Yup, they weren't completely fair elections. Its also not completely fair saying someone won the popular vote, but not taking into account two of the more populous states in the US. That was largely my point when I was wondering why the Obama supporters are even responding to this argument: Any claim of a moral victory here based on popular vote totals is worthless.

[Kelly the Dog]

Yup, they weren't completely fair elections. Its also not completely fair saying someone won the popular vote, but not taking into account two of the more populous states in the US. That was largely my point when I was wondering why the Obama supporters are even responding to this argument: Any claim of a moral victory here based on popular vote totals is worthless.

Fair enough. I don't think it's completely worthless. I give Hillary a substantial amount of credit for it being this close. I guess I would give her more credit if I thought more people in elections that were untainted actually wanted her to be the candidate.

 

Like I said before, it doesn't mean anything, but it holds some weight for me. The only elections we can go on, for that metric, are the untainted ones. If she won more in those, it would hold some water for me. That's all. I understand why some would think it's meaningless.

[pBills]

So pasta, let me as you this. Even though Obama leads in all phases except popular vote (I'm giving you that one), you feel as though Hillary should take this to the convention and fight it out, drag it out? More less waste more time?

[X. Benedict]

So pasta, let me as you this. Even though Obama leads in all phases except popular vote (I'm giving you that one), you feel as though Hillary should take this to the convention and fight it out, drag it out? More less waste more time?

 

Taking this to convention would be a political disaster.

[Chilly]

Taking this to convention would be a political disaster.

 

'Sup, pasta?

[pBills]

Let's see if Pasta feels that way.

[KD in CA]

Taking this to convention would be a political disaster.

 

 

Not for John McCain.

[pBills]

It would be wonderful for him... although the onslaught of democratic messaging would be amazing. Fast and furious. I am quite sure that many firms are out there just biting at their nails, waiting for the nomination to be handed down.

[/dev/null]

Hillary is only in the race for two reasons:

 

1: At best the VP nomination. Or at least a major cabinet role (Health Care reform maybe )

 

2: Most importantly, to get Obama campaign to help pay off her campaign's substantial debt. The Clinton's have loaned Hillary's campaign several million dollars of their own money

 

She hasn't been "in it to win it" for some time now