If You Count All The Votes In Democrat Primaries Hillary Leads Obama By Over 154,000 Votes (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/if_you_count_all_the_votes_in_democrat_primaries_h illary_leads_obama_by_ove/)

Going by the coverage Obama receives in the media you’d think he’s on a downhill jog toward victory. But the truth is that when you go by the popular votes in the various Democrat primaries/caucuses (including those votes cast in Florida and Michigan) Hillary leads Obama. Easily (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmU2ODY1NGZhMTZjYTE2YjkxZjI2NGYxYWIxMjA1MWI=).
Hillary’s vote margin in Kentucky, with 100 percent reporting: 249,374.
Obama’s vote margin in Oregon, with 88 percent of precincts reporting: 94,668.
Hillary’s gain in the popular vote margin last night, as of now, no matter which states you count: 154,706.
According to the RealClearPolitics math (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html), Hillary now leads if you count Florida and Michigan AND if you count the estimates of caucus states Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington. If you don’t count the caucus states, she leads by an even wider margin.
So what does this mean? For one thing, it means that more Democrats would seem to be supporting Hillary than Obama. For another, it would also seem that if Obama wins the nomination it will be an illegitimate victory seeing as how it came without counting votes in two of the nations most populous and vital swing states.
I know the liberal love affair with Obama knows no boundaries in terms of departures from logic and reason, but do Democrats really want to nominate a guy who can’t even win the popular vote within the party itself?

According to the RealClearPolitics math (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html), Hillary now leads if you count Florida and Michigan AND if you count the estimates of caucus states Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington. If you don’t count the caucus states, she leads by an even wider margin.

Oh gee whiz, really? Clinton has the lead if you count Florida and Michigan? ROFL! I'm convinced!

How many times have you seen the person with the most votes get asked to drop out of the race ?

ROFL! I'm convinced!

ummmm was that sarcasm?

Considering that Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, I suppose Hillary's margin of victory was quite high. Also, not campaigning in Florida made a much bigger impact on Obama than Hillary, considering that he has consistently a much more effective campaign on the ground in the clutch. Even facing bad odds, the superiority of Obama's grassroots efforts have done much to close these gaps.

Actually i posted this more for the act of comedy. Hillary and her supporters are much like the Houston Chronicle and their coverage of the Texans. About week 8 you will see all kinds of formulas and scenarios that show the Texans still have a chance for the playoffs,when infact they dont have a prayer.

Ah. I shoulda known. Sorry, I've been a little quick on the trigger lately. But to be fair, could you put in a winking smiley or something to help out the less subtle of us?

Considering that Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, I suppose Hillary's margin of victory was quite high. Also, not campaigning in Florida made a much bigger impact on Obama than Hillary, considering that he has consistently a much more effective campaign on the ground in the clutch. Even facing bad odds, the superiority of Obama's grassroots efforts have done much to close these gaps.
oh, but Obama did campaign in FL..he ran ads.:D

Some of the insane convoluted logic I've heard out of the Clinton campaign lately has been pretty amazing. She signed on knowing what the rules are - she can't change them now. We all know damn well she wouldn't be saying these things if the tables were turned. The only legit point she's making is that she's doing better among the white working class.

I always figured she have a hard time conceding. I wonder how long she'll stretch this out. I wouldn't put it past her to carry it all the way to the convention, lose at the convention, and then file some sort of federal lawsuit to overturn the results.

Some of the insane convoluted logic I've heard out of the Clinton campaign lately has been pretty amazing. She signed on knowing what the rules are - she can't change them now. We all know damn well she wouldn't be saying these things if the tables were turned. The only legit point she's making is that she's doing better among the white working class.

I always figured she have a hard time conceding. I wonder how long she'll stretch this out. I wouldn't put it past her to carry it all the way to the convention, lose at the convention, and then file some sort of federal lawsuit to overturn the results.


IIRC - no one really signed anything. The agreement was verbal and addressed campaigning in the 2 states, not what would or wouldn't count.

In FL there were ~ 1.5 million REAL votes that elected REAL people and determined REAL issues (taxes fer instance) so to not count those votes would be saying they weren't REAL and not legitimate. That's a stretch.

You can count the votes and not count the delegates ... they are 2 totally different issues.

If I were a Democrat living in Michigan or Florida, I would be angry as hell about my vote being ignored.

Angry at who though?

Mainly at whoever decided to put the primaries on the dates they were on. I don't think the voters should be punished for that stupid decision.

SO do you think they should ignore their own rule and allow the votes to count? It is a tough decision. In a normal year it wouldn't matter because the nomination would be wrapped up by now, and the DNC could feel OK about making an example out of the rulebreakers. But, this is a unique year, and those votes actually mean a lot now, and could decide who the nominee is. I think they should count them due to the special circumstances involved.

Angry at who though?

I would be pissed too,but I would of been pissed way before any voting took place. FL and MI had sealed their own fate when they announced they were pushing their dates up. Those two states were not seating delegates at the convention long before a single vote had been cast.

I would be plenty pissed at the people who continued to go through with the earlier primary date,even with the fact of no delegates being seated. I am wondering why there was no uproar then.

I think at this point it is impossible to seat them based on the results in hand. Obama didnt even appear on one ballot,and both agreed not to campaign there. With this side being so close,i find it hard to count those results given the circumstance.

Well if the idea was to make thier votes more important it worked.

SO do you think they should ignore their own rule and allow the votes to count? It is a tough decision. In a normal year it wouldn't matter because the nomination would be wrapped up by now, and the DNC could feel OK about making an example out of the rulebreakers. But, this is a unique year, and those votes actually mean a lot now, and could decide who the nominee is. I think they should count them due to the special circumstances involved.
I would tend to agree with you here. And you're right about it being a tough decision too.

Considering that Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, I suppose Hillary's margin of victory was quite high.
That's why all these people running around claiming Hillary won if you count Michigan are absolutely wrong. Obama was not on the Michigan ballot. Counting Michigan's primary would be massively unfair.

Of course, it is a primary after all, and all this "will of the people" talk is garbage as well. The party is choosing its candidate; the "will of the people" is immaterial except insofar as the party would like to nominate a popular candidate.

but voluntarily removed his name ...

but voluntarily removed his name ...
In accordance with DNC rules, yes.

If he removed his name voluntarily and Hillary didn't, then I think Michigan is fair game. Hillary had the foresight to realize that there would be a controversy about Michigan (duh) and that there was a possibility that the votes might get counted.

If he removed his name voluntarily and Hillary didn't, then I think Michigan is fair game. Hillary had the foresight to realize that there would be a controversy about Michigan (duh) and that there was a possibility that the votes might get counted.
So she ignored DNC rules, just like Michigan and Florida did, and you propose rewarding her for that?

Talk about inviting chaos for this election, not to mention what would happen in 2012 when the states realize that they can ignore DNC rules all they want and still get away with it.

Some of the insane convoluted logic I've heard out of the Clinton campaign lately has been pretty amazing. She signed on knowing what the rules are - she can't change them now. We all know damn well she wouldn't be saying these things if the tables were turned. The only legit point she's making is that she's doing better among the white working class.

I always figured she have a hard time conceding. I wonder how long she'll stretch this out. I wouldn't put it past her to carry it all the way to the convention, lose at the convention, and then file some sort of federal lawsuit to overturn the results.

The Florida legislature { Republicans } were the ones who made
the rules governing Campaigning.Yes,she did agree back as late as
October.But she's also right that the Florida Democratic voters
who truned out and voted,shouldn't be denied.
She also didn't take her name off the Michigan Ballot,as agreed
to earlier.Obama did.
Hillary doesn't play fair,but the voters need'nt be the victim of
her political gamesmanship.
Hillary is far the more likely candidate to beat McCain.
Obama doesn't stand a chance,except in places like the deep
south with heavy black populations,like Louisiana etc.
Obama can't even make a poor showing in the Appalachians
region,which means,parts of Penna.,Ohio,Kentucky,West Virginia.
I've heard the entire Primary,by Democrats that the Superdelegates
are bound by Party to nominate THE best candidate.
Not necessarily the one with the most Popular vote,or
Elected Delegate total.But the candidate that shows best.
Now,their changing that tune,because Hillary can never,
Mathmetically surpass The Bama in pledged Delegates.
That means the Supers,could decide to swing for Hillary
and cause major CAOS,and might even mean a Riot come Dem
Convention time.Al Sharpton has already warned of the likelihood.

So she ignored DNC rules, just like Michigan and Florida did, and you propose rewarding her for that?

Talk about inviting chaos for this election, not to mention what would happen in 2012 when the states realize that they can ignore DNC rules all they want and still get away with it.
It just seems really unfair that the votes of the Democrats in Michigan and Florida basically don't count.

It just seems really unfair that the votes of the Democrats in Michigan and Florida basically don't count.
They voted to contravene DNC rules. And the time for a revote has long passed. The DNC is well within its rights to deny those two states the privilege of participating in the nomination process. The voters of Michigan and Florida dug their own graves.

They voted to contravene DNC rules. And the time for a revote has long passed. The DNC is well within its rights to deny those two states the privilege of participating in the nomination process.

I believe the DNC can opt for a 1/2 vote implimentation.
But I believe,the waiting period did expire.The Governor of Florida
insists that a another primary for Florida voters is out of the
question.Florida's state budget won't pay for it.
The DNC { headed by nutjob Howard Dean } needs to start
acting like grown-ups and make a decision,one way or another.
The real issue here,is does this Country really want to put
it's future in the hands of such Boobs,like Dean,Pelosi or Reid.
There flat out incompetent.

In accordance with DNC rules, yes.

five states were in violation ... MI, FL, IA, NV and SC

Why did they penalize MI and FL and not penalize IA, NV, SC ????

Simple ... they knew Hillary would easily win MI / FL and Obama would easily win IA / SC and not sure about NV.

DNC = Obama ... they intentionally shut down the 2 Hillary states ... simple as that.

I do remember hearing more then those two states moved up thier primary, and wondered why FL and MI were the ones singled out. I think even CA moved thier up didnt they?

I do remember hearing more then those two states moved up thier primary, and wondered why FL and MI were the ones singled out. I think even CA moved thier up didnt they?

hadn't heard that before but you could well be right. A lot of underhanded stuff went down.

five states were in violation ... MI, FL, IA, NV and SC

Why did they penalize MI and FL and not penalize IA, NV, SC ????

Simple ... they knew Hillary would easily win MI / FL and Obama would easily win IA / SC and not sure about NV.

DNC = Obama ... they intentionally shut down the 2 Hillary states ... simple as that.
That actually makes sense, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

[/QUOTE]I know the liberal love affair with Obama knows no boundaries in terms of departures from logic and reason, but do Democrats really want to nominate a guy who can’t even win the popular vote within the party itself?[/QUOTE]

dubbya didn't win the popular vote. In fact, he was appointed by the supreme court. Now THAT is a departure from logic and reason.

man, echo2 and dop back at the same time. Isn't that some sort of sign of the end of times?

an anti-clinton conspiracy?

LOL that's like an anti-bill gates conspiracy in the microsoft offices...

that not every liberal loves Obama.

Personally, I just can't love a dude that thinks there are 57 states.

five states were in violation ... MI, FL, IA, NV and SC
Can you find a citation showing me that Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina were in violation? Iowa certainly wasn't; their primaries have been held that early since 1972. I have no idea about the history of the other two, but your idea that the DNC did this just to favor Obama is absolutely ludicrous, unless you think the DNC is a bunch of psychics...the decision to disallow Michigan and Florida was made well before Obama became a first-tier candidate.

EDIT: South Carolina held their primaries in 2004 on February 3, two days before the February 5 date the DNC set for non-grandfathered states.

EDIT 2: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina were allowed their primaries before February 5 by the DNC in August 2006. I guess Miss Cleo must have worked with the DNC back then to try to get a brother nominated by the Democrats, eh? Cite: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21130

Here is rule 11A of the Dnc rules committee ... taken from this PDF ...

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf

snip<---------- cut here -------------->snip

Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as "no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February" (Iowa), "no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February" (New Hampshire), and "no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February" (South Carolina).
Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That's more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That's more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That's more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

snip<---------- cut here -------------->snip

Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That's more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That's more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That's more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

IIRC - no one really signed anything. The agreement was verbal and addressed campaigning in the 2 states, not what would or wouldn't count.

I didn't mean that she literally signed on to something. Just that she knew the rules going in.

As far as IA, NH, SC, and NV go - the Dems let them go earlier because all of the other states were trying to jump to the front of the line. IA has always been allowed to be the first caucus and NH has always been allowed to be the first primary. SC and NV were allowed to join the club at the front because the the Dems wanted greater representation early in the election of black and hispanic voters respectively, under the ultimately flawed (this year) idea that by the time those groups normally get to vote, the candidate has already been chosen.

I didn't mean that she literally signed on to something. Just that she knew the rules going in.

As far as IA, NH, SC, and NV go - the Dems let them go earlier because all of the other states were trying to jump to the front of the line. IA has always been allowed to be the first caucus and NH has always been allowed to be the first primary. SC and NV were allowed to join the club at the front because the the Dems wanted greater representation early in the election of black and hispanic voters respectively, under the ultimately flawed (this year) idea that by the time those groups normally get to vote, the candidate has already been chosen.

overall the dem primary process is a total mess and seriously flawed not only in practice but in philosophy.

The idea of a caucus borders on Marxism and might as well be replaced with the Central American practice of issuing punch cards and when you're stopped by the police and your card isn't punched it shows you didn't vote so they shoot you in the head. Did I mention, there is only one real candidate on the ticket and that's the police's guy? Ok, that's back a few years when we truly had 3rd world countries (they have now moved up to 2nd world) except in Mexico where they don't even bother with the punch cards ... they go straight to the shooting part.

At most of the caucuses, there is no party affiliation ... you can switch to dem for a day and switch back to republican the next day. There is no ID check for citizenship or even if you live in the state. Just show up and go stand in a corner when the bell rings. Then they count up the 18,000 or so (less than 2% of the state population) and assign the same number of delegates to Obama as Hillary would get by winning Pennsylvania with 1.5 million voters. Yeah that's fair.

How about Nevada's caucus (or was it an open primary?) where they established 9 temporary caucusing spots to accommodate the 60,000 members of the hotel workers unions, most of which are known (and openly admit) to being here illegally? And they were practically forced to vote by their union bosses. That's it for me on the amnesty issue and the drivers license issue... screw it ... let them all in and hand them class 1's as they cross over.

Or how about Iowa's caucus where they decided to let hundreds of college students from Illinois vote because they were (or once did) attend an Iowa college and they even provided bus service to get them there. Of course, they all voted for Obama.

The rules committee makes up the rules and then massages them to taste with what they think is clever enough to make the general public think they are being fair ... like juggling black and Hispanic states for the purpose of affirmative action and disenfranchising Florida and Michigan because those states' republican legislatures and governors established rules that the dems had to go along with due to being the minority.

If McCain becomes the next president, the dems deserve it.

Maybe it wasn't such a good idea for the dems to let The Grateful dead and Oprah choose their candidate.

Plus The Democrat way of distributing Proportionally the
number of elected delegates,by past voting patterns or by
% of district that was represented in the last election is kinda
goofy.Winner take all is the only way.
Also,Redistricting is not fair.

Plus The Democrat way of distributing Proportionally the
number of elected delegates,by past voting patterns or by
% of district that was represented in the last election is kinda
goofy.Winner take all is the only way.
Also,Redistricting is not fair.

Thanks Foolsworth ... I knew I missed a couple of key points in my rant ...