Hillary's Popular Vote Notion only 'Popular' with the Punditocracy
It is incomprehensible to me that Mrs. Clinton can seriously be touting the notion, with the support of the punditocracy of CNN and Fox, that she is leading in the popular vote and should therefore be seriously considered as the most electable candidate in the November election. She's including those who voted for her in Florida and Michigan's name recognition ballot saying that to exclude them would be to disenfranchise them. What about the Democrats in Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii and Wyoming who did not cast ballots because they were playing by the pledged delegates playbook and voted by caucus. What about them? Certainly if the rules are going to be changed and judgment is based on the 'popular' vote those voters in the eleven caucus states and Samoa will be disenfranchised. What about them?
And what about us? What about the American people? Haven't we had enough of Mrs. Clinton's mad antics in her pursuit of the realization of venal personal ambition; her 'say anything, do anything, no matter what' effort to manipulate our all too willing media to gull this country's populace into believing that her wretched illegitimacy is indeed legitimate. How much mendacity do we have to suffer, how much brazenness do we have to swallow before someone, anyone, has the decency, the common sense, to relieve us of this terrible trifle, this pathetic madness?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Interesting that in discussing the selection process for candidates who may hold the highest elected position in the land, that the rules governing such a selection process are treated so loosely by the trailing candidate. Can you imagine any sport where the team behind gets to re-interprete the rules in their favor. Bill Clinton protests that his wife is unfairly being pressured to resign from the race; however if the shoe was on the other foot, Obama would have been forced from the race months ago. Clinton has been cut way more slack because of her husband, than Obama ever would have. For the Clinton's to complain about the deck being stacked against them is ludicrous and only adds to the ridicule that the Clinton's are deservedly getting. If Obama does get the nomination and that looks pretty likely, Clinton could play an important role in ensuring he wins, and an important role in his administration. But if she keeps up this charade, she will become an afterthought. It's not as if as each years passes, more and more attractive Democratic politicians will emerge, and challenge her leadership. Not becoming president is not the end of the world. She can still be an important player in our national life, but not if she continues down the path she is going.
Indeed. The goal posts in this game have a permanent travel visa and are, in fact, now out there somewhere in the parking lot instead of someplace inside the stadium.
Based on what I have witnessed her personally say throughout this campaign as excuses and attempts to divide the democrats, I know it would have been Hillary Clinton, personally, saying that Obama should drop out every chance she could by saying shit like "well Wolf, I respect Obama's candidacy but he cant the pledged delegates which is how we nominate our nominee so I dont exactly see why he is spending his supporters' money on a campaign that isnt going to succeed." THE most divisive and untruthful politican in America. Thats an achievement for sure, but it doesnt mean your are going to be given the nomination
I started this Primary with Edwards as my first choice. Once Edwards dropped-out, I gave both Hillary and Barack the same, equal attention and focus on the issues. I first thought it was going to be a really tough decision because both Hillary and Barack did not differ very much on the issues at hand.
Low-and-behold, a leopard shows it's true spots when under extreme pressure. Hillary, began ever so subtly to attack with "implied", comments and half-truths. Barack sat idle while the attacks hit him. Barack didn't really even defend himself much at the beginning. From there I saw Hillary increase the negativity and attacks. Finally, Barack defended himself, and merely pointed out facts, but Hillary's attacks still came. Barack was now being labeled as "attacking Hillary", which was extremely far from the truth.
It was becoming more and more clear that Hillary was doing and saying ANYTHING to win the votes of whatever demographic she happened to be in at the time. Also, I saw her playing the victim, gender, and race-cards. I was extremely disappointed when the race card was played. Everyone thought is was originally the Republicans' that did. But, nooOOO, it was HILLARY'S campaign.
Considering the current administration and the last 8 years of a Republican Congress, honesty is key. At least if you are going to "mis-speak", have an understanding and a clue that we are in a digital age, where many things can be FACT-CHECKED!
- Blast
As I recall, Obama was an avid supporter of the popular vote early in his campaign; so much so, that Repr John Lewis of Atlanta [one a Clinton supporter] was threatened publically if he did not change his vote and support Obama; Repr Lewis is black and his black constituency wanted him to support another black person. Even if he didn't agree with the popular decision. Now all of you want to change tactics again? So this ihow it is going to be?
Write-in vote in November: Hillary Clinton. She may or may not be the nominee, but she will have my vote. Obama and his wishy-washy tactics can go by-by as far as I am concerned.
Obama is showing no inconsistency in supporting TRUE popular vote contests, but this current election is NOT one of these. Popular vote is a legitimate measure of voter support only if ALL the states had popular vote contests.
Caucuses by their very nature have turnouts far smaller than primaries. To count the votes in caucus states (or to ignore them completely) on the same scale as primary votes is to grossly underrepresent these states. For example Minnesota's caucus votes amount to about 1/5 the representation of Wisconsin's primary votes, even though they have roughly the same pool of voters. How is that fair? Caucus states - who did everything legitimately - do not deserve such grossly disproportionate representation in determining their party's nominee.
In this election season, the "popular" vote metric disenfranchises ALL the caucus states (including mine, Hawaii) and is therefore fatally flawed. It is the height of hypocrisy to tout the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan, while at the same time disenfranchising the more numerous caucus states.
Next election, the Democratic party can make revisions to this complicated system. But for now, it's a DELEGATE race, and that's how it should be counted.
If you write-in Mrs. Bill Clinton's name, you must enlist in the military. You will be guaranteeing that McCain will keep the Iraq war going for years with lots more American and Iraqi deaths and dismemberments. If you allow that to happen because you're having a hissy fit, choose the service branch of your choice and put your body where your mouth is.
Oh kewl. Then you will validate yourself as redundant. Now go away. Thanx for playing.
Why not be honest and simply vote for McCain then? That is, after all, what you vote for with your write-in concept. If what you really want to see is pushing the Supreme Court so far right (which is very likely to happen in the next 4 years) that women's and minority issues will fall completely off the radar for, oh, maybe the next half century, have at it.
If that's what you really want.
About that balance of power thing, I do appreciate that Obama pledged one of the very first things he would do (because it would be totally within his power as president) would be to revisit the 700+ presidential signing statements and un-sign them. Never heard Hillary being very interested in diminishing presidential power in favor of restoring balance to our government.
I guess such a thing would never occur to her.
So you're actually voting for McCain, then....
To me as an American, believes that the popular vote should be the desiding factor. Why should we vote if our vote doesn't count. To me it's only common sence.
Please understand up front: I do not like the way electoral politics sometimes plays out (esp. what happened in 2000, though that was really more to do with corruption at the polling centers and a Supreme Court one person too far to the right that they could not resist unconstitutional election tampering).
Still: Do you live in a large city or some more rural area? The whole reason for electoral voting was an attempt to prevent NY, LA, Atlanta, Houston and the other huge urban centers from deciding all our presidents. That is what you get when the purely popular vote rules elections.
Yeah, if you do not live in those huge urban centers, you might just as well stay home, because the huge population centers are the majority (sorry, but that's almost a complete "duh" statement, like "the sky is bue").
Of course, then there would never be an "Appalachian problem" for any candidate, and it would also make the primary process to be very, very much shorter.
Here in the UK, we don't all get our say either - it's first past the post and sometimes governments are elected with far fewer votes than the losers - they just got more MP's.
I guess we all just have to suck it up - at least you guys get another vote in Nov. Ours is just a one off.
Ok first off, primaries are Party run, its like a private org decideing who their ceo is going to be. By right party leaders could go into a smoke filled room and make their decision. The whole disenfrangizeing of voters is a stawman. It does not bother repubs when they have a nominee that hits the required number of delegates, that is it...it does not matter how many more states have not voted.
In a primary it matters on delegates...not popular votes. There are many ways that a candidate gets delegates...winning the right area in a state can garner more delegates then winning the state. It takes knowing what you are doing. There is a difference in how repubs work their primaries...they do a winner take all. Dems have a porportional delegation of delegates, again depending on where the candidates votes came from.
Your vote most certainly counts. When Obama won those 33 states ...Clinton won 18....that gave Obama more delegates.
Not to mention caucus states don't count the popular vote per se. We elect representatives delegates to the county, state, and national conventions based on turnout at the caucus, and who votes for whom therein.
Exactly right. All Madame Inevitable ever had was her inevitability, and she doesn't even have that.
Precise and well said. And the conclusions is who in their right mind would want a leader of this great country who is so devisive, whose ego surmounts any sense of reality, who, in fact, has no contact with reality, who continues to want it both ways - her way, that is, who clearly stated that the votes 'count for nothing'. It's a frightening thought to say that someone who only makes decisions based on her well-being, not on law - who continues to bend the law to her favor, is in opposition to fairness and truth should even be in the running for the highest office of the country. She is diametrically opposed to truth, candor, reality, best interest of the party and country. Go away Billary. As you said the 'votes count for nothing'. Listen to yourself.
Sounds a lot like the world according to Bush doesn't it ,lol.
Every time I hear that woman say she has the popular vote I know she is counting Michigan and Florida and it burns my arse because she is telling her supporters a bare faced lie ! She signed the aggreement not to seat these states yet now she not only wants them seated in full and all the votes she recieved in those states but also the undecided votes meant for Obama and the deligates that go along with it. In short she wants 100% of all the votes no matter who they voted for and all the deligates no matter who they should go to. This woman is such a bare faced cheat I can't stand to see her face any more. There is no fairness or compromise in any bone in her body ,she is dispicable .
I have not attacked her personally before this latest leak on her plans to sabatoge the elction if she isn't handed the nomination ,but now I simply can't hold back my disleke for this woman .
I hope the party gives her the boot for holding them hostage to her whims .
She is the worst role model for any woman and makes me embarrassed for all woman when I hear and see what she is doing to win this nomination.
Hi. Michigan voter here.
Okay, to be fair, what the candidates signed was an agreement not to campaign in those states. Though, of course, in a New Hampshire interview, Sen. Clinton said the votes "would not count." There was a period at the end of that statement (back then).
However, speaking of disenfranchisement, how can anybody argue popular votes in Michigan, when you are at the same time discounting 33,000 Obama write-in votes, and the untold thousands who may have voted for Kucinich or Gravel, mischief-voted Republican or stayed home because they believed what both the Rules Committee and the candidates told US: The vote would not count?
Hillary Clinton wants the White House back TOO MUCH. She is willing to play dirty, deceive, disseminate, whatever it takes.
Don't we already have that? Haven't eight years of it been enough? I used to be a Hillary supporter, but no more. I don't like the way she has acted throughout this campaign. She has shown herself to be as corrupted by power as the Bush regime. We need something new -- someONE new. Hillary Clinton could have been it. She has blown it. How sad.
Heck, even Bush was unwilling to throw his own party into disarray (or under the bus) during the primary process to chew his way into the Big Oval. Put in that perspective, what can we learn about another Clinton presidency? (Yes, that last was purely rhetorical; I have my views fairly well cemented, and based totally on my own observations, thoughts and research... .)
Mr. Sutherland took the words right out of my mouth. Hillary's desire to pull the wool over our eyes is shameless. She'd say and do anything, even accept the nomination knowing full well the American people didn't vote for her, in other words, steal the election. She's so blatantly ambitiouse, she'd throw her whole party under the bus, and the Obama campaign and supporters have to pretend she has a leg to stand on so as not to alienate Democrats that support her. Poor Hillary, if only she could make us see that rules and the voting process aren't really important. What's important is that she's the most viable candidate. She and Bill don't live by rules, so this is killing her. Wa,wa,wa,
The Obama-ites together with their favorite have managed to accomplish the almost impossible; DIVIDING THE DEMOCRATIC P:ARTY VIA SEXISM.
Though there may be plenty of women who support him, there is and will remain a strong segment of women and their supporters who will no longer be counted among the for-sure Democratic voters.
The rampant and vicious sexism here and elsewhere will reap its own rewards.
Maybe even causing the next president to be a Repulican. Satisfied? And then i'm sure that the Obama-ites wil try to blame her...though he/they will have brought it upon himself.
Then...will you be happy?
Sexist, are you kidding? What about, "he isn't a Muslim...as far as I know." "Jessie Jackson won in South Carolina too." "They are only voting for him because he is Black." "All the WHITE, hard working Americans support me."
The "Obama-ites" have not done this. Hillary Clinton has herself only to blame. She's the only one who has played these nasty politics (via, in large part, Geraldine Ferraro). I started out a Hillary supporter. No more. We don't need any more of this nastiness.
Nonsense. I see no sexism. Clinton is a tragically flawed vessel for your aspirations without any need to consider her gender.
She is the wrong face to put on the party. No more Clintons, no more Bushes, let us step into a bright new day.
I am a raging feminist, and I want you to know this anger at Hillary is not mainly a sexist anger. It is an anger that, finally, we have a woman candidate, but, darnit, it's Hillary Clinton playing dirty politics. Is Hillary the one you want to point to when you tell your children that women can do anything? Not for me -- I want my boys to know that it's character and integrity that matter, not gender.
This is NOT sexist, and I'm so angry that women find Hillary bashing to be ONLY sexist. Has there been some serious misogyny? YES. Is it the reason Hillary lost the primary? NO. Let's untie behind the party that really cares about women, and vote for Obama in November. Otherwise, you will have a very real sexist in the White House. Please think about this.
I think Madame Inevitable and her followers accomplished that, with her overweening and and bottomless sense of entitlement.
She voted for the war.
CLINTON SAID BEFORE SHE ADMIRES CARL ROVE. I BELIEVE HER NOW ,BECAUSE SHE ACTS LIKE HIM. DURING THE 2000 RECOUNT BUSH ACCUSED AL GORE HE WAS TRYING TO STILL THE ELECTIONS WHEN IN FACT HE WAS THE REAL THIEF. SEE SIMILARITY HERE?. I DON'T WANT REPUBLICANS IN THE WHITE HOSE BUT I DON''T LIKE TE CONGENITAL LIARS IN THERE EITHER
No ALL CAPS!!! please.
Uh, wait a minute...
Isn't "taking the popular vote" the reason most often cited for Al Gore winning the presidency in 2000?
Talk about a double standard!
TimmySlagle,
She is not winning the popular vote. It goes like this," I am winning the popular vote IF.......IF......IF....IF all these things that should have happened, really happened. But they didn't so I am SPINNING the data to make my false accusation appear accurate and make voters mad so they will come and riot at the DNC committee so that I can get what I want."
You're right.
She's not winning the popular vote, unless we decide that every vote MUST be counted. (Which sounds a lot like the case Al Gore made)
Obama was on the ballot in Florida (and took himself off in Michigan) even if he was given all the votes for "uncommitted" in Michigan, Hillary still wins.
Duh, yeah if we were in a presidential election. This is a nomination process. The election is not until November.
http://www.thisnation.com/question/021.html
"This is a nomination process'
Oh I'm sorry. I actually thought the Democrat Party was Democratic.
Why even bother staging an election, if you're just going to appoint a candidate?
Gee, Timmy - Gore actually DID win the popular vote. When Katherine Harris stopped the counting, Gore was up, but they had not finished in two counties. Also, Katherine and her republican henchman acted in a most despicable way when they hired a private company to expunge all felons, and 'others who MIGHT not be eligible,' from the voter lists. The result: over 20,000 Floridians were expunged from this list for no reason than their names bore some similarity to the names of known convicts, and were turned away from the polls. The most notable was a pastor who had never been convicted of anything, but whose name was identical to a felon who was expunged, except for his middle initial, which was different. Somehow, to the horror of most thinking Americans, it has become OK to try shenanigans to 'fix' elections. We would have been a lot better off with Gore than with the thugs now in control. We have forgotten neither 2000 or 2004.
Excuse me, George Bush won the popular vote in 2004 by three MILLION votes.
You obviously have forgotten.
THe similarities between 2000 and 2008 is that in both years we have an unethical candidate breaking the rules in order to give themselves an advantage. Like it or not the electoral college is part of the rules. I don't like it, but it was not the central issue. The central issue was George Bush's massaging of the vote totals and "fixing" the voter lists.
Besides Hillary's "popular vote" lead is a bunch of smoke and mirrors anyway.
Duhhhhhhhhhhhhh ! Hillary doesn't have the popular vote unless your counting all the votes cast for her and the undecided ones in Florida and Michigan ! I suppose you think her demand to not only take all those votes but also any undecided votes and all the deligates giving Omama 0 votes and 0 deligates is a real fair compromise to settle Florida and Michigan ? If you do that you are just as unscrupulous as she is !
Donald Sutherland totally roxx.
Thank you Mr. Sutherland!
Smart man. I was never a Donald Sutherland fan before...but I am now!
Damn Donald! I've always admired your acting but you the Big Dawg! with the bitch slappin'.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
