Evidently needs reposting: Hillary is NOT winning the popular vote. That's not how primaries work.

[TalkingDog]

It's propaganda, having little to do with the truth.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Hillary-and-Her-Surrogates-by-Rob-Kall-Hillary-Clinton_Popular-Vote_Surrogates-160511-219.html

Take a close look at Washington state, which Bernie won with 72.7% of the votes. RealClearPolitics gives him zero votes, with its 7.2 million population.

The same goes for Maine, where Bernie had a 29% spread and Alaska where he won over 81% of the vote. Zero. Zilch. Nada. In Wyoming, Bernie is given 32 votes, not 32,000. He is given 32 votes.

It's ridiculous. But it's not ridiculous that Clinton claims she has a three million popular vote lead. It's an intentional, obscenely misleading, dishonest claim.

When a super delegate claims he or she is representing the will of the majority, basing it on the three million lead popular vote, it's based on a lie. Challenge that superdelegate.

[YouDig]

1. #berniemath

[TalkingDog]

2. #MathLikeHonestyIsHardForHilbots

[Buddyblazon]

21. Sock puppet...

Ya dig?

[YouDig]

27. Math is good.

[Buddyblazon]

28. #sockpuppetsarebad

.

[YouDig]

30. 8 days. Are you excited?

[Buddyblazon]

31. #sockpuppettryhard

Ya dig?

[YouDig]

32. Well, I'm excited. It's nice being on the winning side.

[WhiteTara]

3. Bernie won the caucus with a far smaller number

of voters. Hillary won the primary with a much larger voting public.

Let's challenge Raul Grijvala. Hillary won Arizona and he won't switch from Bernie. So hypocritical. I know it hurts to lose if you are attached to a particular outcome that won't happen.

[TalkingDog]

7. I'm not attached to an outcome. I'm attached to the truth.

Primaries are not decided by the popular vote. It's a specious, wiggle word, "depends on what the meaning of "is" is, claim.

Hence calling it propaganda. It's meant to promote an idea without any basis in fact.

[sweetloukillbot]

53. So people show up and vote, and the one with most votes wins

That would make it a popular vote wouldn't it?
#BernieDictionary

[annavictorious]

76. 3,000,000 more people have voted for Clinton than voted for Sanders.

That's a fact.
You don't get to impose idiosyncratic definitions on the reality based world.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[SCantiGOP]

77. Of course it's a fact

I need to quit reading these BS OPs.

[Demsrule86]

89. Primaries are not decided by popular vote

However, it can be used as metric to indicate strength...and she won a great deal more popular vote...and as I pointed out in an earlier point...Washington state voters came out for the non-binding primary by 3 times the numbers in the state caucus. Hillary won. Delegates are what we use to determine the winner of a primary which is why Hillary Clinton will wrap this up on June 7th and Bernie becomes an also ran...that is the reality and you can kick and scream...flail around but the math is the math.

[brush]

4. Huh?

Were not the votes counted on all those contests he won?

What do you proposed that the vote gap be?

2.8 million, 2.7, 2.6, even just a flat 2 million?

Take your pick, still a pretty big gap.

[TalkingDog]

9. Reading the article is a good idea if you want to clear up confusion.

I know it's difficult, but I believe in you!!!!!

[brush]

12. Just post the number, pls.

[Buddyblazon]

24. Reading is hard...

.

[brush]

33. Ah . . . you don't have one. Don't waste our time. It's a holiday.

[Ed Suspicious]

52. I won't open the book therefore words do not exist.

Airtight argument you have there.

Compelling.

[brush]

59. Too challenging to write a post that includes the numbers you claim?

Back up your statement with information instead of posting a link.

[samson212]

61. Cliffs notes

Since you're not interested in clicking the link, I'll summarize for you. The gist of the article is that the popular vote count does not accurately portray the results of the primary. First of all, caucus states don't get counted on the popular vote total -- you can't get an apples to apples comparison. Some of Bernie's biggest margins are in caucus states, and those voters are not reflected in the vote count. So, when you ask for "numbers", you've already missed the point. Secondly, when pretending to attempt to include the caucus states in the count, the numbers given (by real clear politics) are grossly below any reasonable approximations.

Furthermore (this is my analysis), talking about the popular vote count is already flawed from the get go, since what actually counts in the primary is delegates, who do not represent the same number of voters in each state.

[Renew Deal]

5. How many people participated in Maine?

It was something like 45,000. Washington which Bernie eventually lost was 230,000.

And of course it doesn't include Hillary's caucus wins or Washington and Nebraska elections which were won with more voters participating.

[anotherproletariat]

6. So what you're saying is that in 'reality' Sanders is winning?

Please, do tell.

[TalkingDog]

11. Nope. I'm saying throwing that number out is propaganda. The number means nothing.

The popular vote does not decide the candidate in the primary race.

[anotherproletariat]

14. So, it's kind of like Sanders telling his people to keep sending money, he's going to win?

These were not Hillary's numbers, they are available on many major media sites...whether totally accurate or not, most politicians would use them to their advantage. Are you new to politics?

[pdsimdars]

86. And you guys got that lie wrong too. Bernie doesn't ask his supporters to send money

because he's going to win. The Hillary campaign made that up as just one more fake thing to smear him with. We send money for the joy of having that wonderful message of Bernie's to get out.

You think people would be embarrassed with all the lying they have to do to be a true Hillary supporter.

Personally, I feel uncomfortable when I lie.

[brush]

15. The popular vote of the people voting in Dem primaries or caucuses does though.

You're not being clear.

[samson212]

63. Popular vote does not decide the primary

Delegate count does.

[brush]

75. Well, if you leave out the step of popular votes

We all know the popular vote count in the individual contests determines the delegate count.

What's your point?

It's got to be more than "the popular vote" doesn't count when it's the first thing that does count.

[samson212]

92. Are you being serious?

It's really simple. Counting the popular vote across the whole country just tells you the number of people who voted, it doesn't tell you much about what the outcome will be. Of course the popular count is relevant in a single state, but when combining them, you skew the data. If only we had a way to count the votes that was more relevant to the outcome... oh wait, we do! It's the delegate count! Which Hillary is winning by a substantial, but (in my opinion) not insurmountable margin. Why aren't we talking about that? Oh yeah, because the 3 million number is more shocking.

[brush]

94. Now are you being serious?

Nearly a 300 delegate lead is just as impressive as the 3million vote lead. After all, the 3 million vote lead is how she got the delegate lead.

[samson212]

96. Yes, it's a big lead.

It's 270 delegates. 270/4051 = almost 7% spread. Yes, people voting contributes to that lead, obviously. My point, which you seem to be ignoring, is that citing the delegate lead is meaningful; citing the popular vote count is misleading.

[brush]

97. What, your point is so deep that I keep missing it?

No, I get your point.

You don't want people noting that Clinton has more votes.

That's fine. She has more delegates too.

[samson212]

100. Not that deep, but apparently still hard to follow for you.

I don't care what you "note". Just don't use misleading figures, and then accuse the other side of ignoring math. It makes my hypocrisy allergy act up.

[brush]

101. Well, there is that — math

He has no chance you know. He started out good but ran a poor campaign after he started losing.

"His campaign committed a series of fatal strategic errors mostly attributable to incompetent staff work and an unforgivable lack of preparation against the Clinton Machine.

Among the bullet points in the campaign’s post-mortem, we can’t help but to note that Bernie & Company mistakenly went negative against Hillary, unnecessarily careening onto and embracing the low-road. Bernie, meanwhile, deeply excoriated the Democratic Party establishment and the superdelegate system, only to circle back, groveling now for establishment support after it’s too late. The Bernie get-out-the-vote effort failed to turn impressively massive rally crowds into actual votes, time and time again. Bernie himself stoked discontent and conspiracy-mongering within the party by misleading his supporters about delegate math while also failing to properly educate his ground-game activists about voter-registration and primary rules state-to-state.

Perhaps his deadliest error occurred when he pledged to run his campaign solely on individual donations famously averaging $27 when, in a general election matchup, he would’ve suddenly confronted a stratospheric pile of GOP cash that would’ve invariably crushed his chances unless he backpedaled. The list goes on and on. And now he’s willing to participate in a stunt — a debate between the GOP winner and the Democratic loser. A political exhibition bout.

These are all factors to take into consideration, and a farcical stunt-debate between Bernie and Trump wouldn’t have ameliorated Bernie’s self-inflicted damage, nor would it have sufficed as a last-minute Hail Mary. At the end of the day, it only would’ve managed to illustrate how a failed Democratic candidate was just as willing as Trump to debase himself within the idiocratic narrative."

— Bob Cesca is a regular contributor to Salon.com.

[samson212]

102. Way to change the subject

And ignore my arguments. If you'd like to start a new thread with that article, I'll respond in more detail, but here's a brief overview.

• "He has no chance you know" -- great argument. Lots of substance there.


• "mistakenly went negative against Hillary" -- when? I keep hearing this, but I've seen no actual evidence of it.


• "failed to turn ... into actual votes" -- I don't think that's entirely true. There have been some remarkable turnouts this election cycle. Do you have some data to support this argument? Because Mr. Cesca doesn't list any.


• "...by misleading ... about delegate math" -- Really? I'm getting the feeling that it's the Hillary camp and mainstream media that are doing this. This is, for instance, what's happening in this very thread.


• This article is talking about how ridiculous it is that Bernie would debate Trump. Is it? Seems pretty awesome to me. I'd love to see someone actually take Trump to task for his bloviating. Someone who is immune to his inevitable attacks along the lines of "I'm anti establishment".

[brush]

104. Hard to argue with though. He's losing.

[samson212]

107. OK, cool

Wait, I can do it too, watch: Hillary will lose the General Election. It is known.

[TwilightZone]

23. You clearly have no idea what the word "propaganda" means.

It does not mean "facts I don't like".

[samson212]

64. You clearly have no idea what the word "facts" means.

It does not mean "numbers used to convey an irrelevant and misleading half-truth".

[LonePirate]

57. Would you prefer they use a number like 2M? Is that closer to what you perceive to be reality?

Bernie has received fewer votes overall this primary season. There is no disputing that. Does it really matter if it is by 2M or 3M? There's not much meaningful difference in the leading by X votes when the lead exceeds seven digits, like it does in this race. Picking nits does not change the reality.

[hrmjustin]

8. Sanders would get 100,000 to 150,000 votes more.

That is it.

[asuhornets]

10. Alternate reality at its' best....nt

[NorthCarolina]

13. Yep. -nt-

[Agnosticsherbet]

16. She is winning the delegate vote, by much larger margins than Obama.

And she has won the popular vote, which gives her that delegate lead.
And she has won more states, which is a marker of her preference by the Democratic party.

Caucuses, that are planned methods of disenfranchising voters, alone have not been her strength.


The popular vote is a sign of the preference of the Democratic Party.

Superdelegates are not going to coronate a candidate that failed to win the approval of a majority of the Democratic Party. We elected Presidents not monarchs.

[tritsofme]

17. The popular vote is one measure. Hillary is winning every measure, Bernie losing by every measure.

Popular votes, pledged delegates, super-delegates, you name it, Bernie has lost it, along with the nomination. This contest has been over for a long time.

[MissDeeds]

18. And Bernie won the Kansas caucus

by 67.7%. Quite a landslide.

[TwilightZone]

26. Red states don't matter.

Or so we've been told.

[SheilaT]

45. The winner of the Kansas primary or caucus has gone on to become the Democrat nominee

for the past fifty years now.

Hope that holds this year.

[ISUGRADIA]

71. Turnout

40,000 Democrats in Kansas

While Clinton won Arkansas with 66% and a 212,000 Turnout

[oldandhappy]

19. Bernie has 10 million that she will want, and the money also. Just wait.

[TwilightZone]

20. He's behind in every other metric, as well, including the only one that matters, delegates.

She's also ahead in the popular vote, even if you account for caucus turnout.

Her are some totals including the states RCP didn't include and an explanation about why the "she didn't win the popular vote" assertion is ridiculous. Enjoy.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

[workinclasszero]

22. Bernie math sucks

[MariaThinks]

34. the video is brilliant

superdelegates only count if they vote for Bernie.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Maths

[beachbumbob]

46. Math and reality doesn't work in bernieworld...

Why free stuff and not having to pay for it is so popular there

[samson212]

65. This meme depresses me.

I don't know anyone who says that Bernie is currently winning. I certainly don't think that. Starting from a false narrative always turns me off.

The really weird math is in insisting that it's impossible for Bernie to win. "Unlikely" or "difficult" (both legitimate descriptions in my opinion) is not the same as "impossible". "Behind" is not the same as "lost". "Not that far behind" is not the same as "time to quit".

[Corporate666]

81. Is it possible that...

I could randomly dial a phone number and it would be Kate Upton, and I could talk her into going on a date with me where I would win her heart and get married to her on Friday?

It's possible.

Is it probable? No. Likely? No. Remotely possible? No.

Is it an unlikelihood that is so hugely improbable that it's virtually indistinguishable from an impossibility? Yes. And does it make any sense whatsoever to speak about it as if it's a viable proposition? No. Does it make sense to hope for it, plan for it, expect it? No. Should I remove my profile from the dating site and keep this week open just in case? No.


Bernie winning is no different. It's so hugely improbable as to be a statistical and realistic impossibility. When some of the folks on this forum object to people saying it's over, they are engaging in a middle ground fallacy. For those that don't know, it's claiming somewhere between to opposing positions lies the truth. Religious kooks use it all the time... "you can't prove the Noah's ark story is untrue, so my belief in it is at least as reasonable as your skepticism".

Except it's a logical fallacy and the middle ground is not the correct position. Just like it's a logical fallacy that Bernie might win and it's premature to speak otherwise.

[samson212]

90. Totally untrue

Bernie has had surprising upsets before, with margins bigger than he needs in California. Randomly dialing Kate Upton is something like 1:300,000,000. You really think it's that unlikely that Bernie wins big on Tuesday? When you say "statistical and realistic impossibility", are you saying that you have actual numbers that back up your claim? How can you? Usually, when one appeals to mathematics to prove a point, one includes the mathematics.

[Number23]

69. "Hillary still wins. EVERY TIME" Nobody and I mean NOBODY knows and understands that better than the

folks that keep making absurd OPs just like this one.

[ecstatic]

83. +1000. nt

[upaloopa]

25. Bernie math again! He did not win 72% of 7.2 million votes

in Washington.

Bernie math can be used to prove anything you want to yourself. But Bernie math is not reality.

[MariaThinks]

35. seriously. someone took the population of the state and said 72% of those should be

counted for Bernie???

[Txbluedog]

38. Ignoring the later state primary where Hillary won

[PaulaFarrell]

82. seriously. no one said that. ever. n/t

[samson212]

66. That's not the claim

The claim is that counting Washington as 0 votes is a little surprising when Bernie got a 72% margin in a state of 7.2 million people. Whatever the turnout was, surely 0 is a low estimate. Also, we shouldn't even be talking about the vote count, for reasons explained in the article and above.

But please, continue refuting ridiculous claims that no one has made.

[Corporate666]

80. And when you look at turnout in primary states and then...

...apply the percentage to the number of people in caucus states, and then split that number according the percentage each candidate won the caucus state....


Hillary is ahead by 3 million votes.

It's clear as day except for #BernieMath believers.

[samson212]

91. Ignoring the point again

Yes, if you make an attempt to massage the numbers so that you can pretend that an apples-to-apples comparison is possible, that's a reasonably accurate number. The point is that the number isn't meaningful. DELEGATES AREN'T AWARDED WITH THE SAME PROPORTIONALITY IN EVERY STATE.

You can't misuse math, and then accuse the other side of ignoring math.

[Gothmog]

37. And yet the Washington primaries showed a vastly different result

[ProgressiveEconomist]

39. PREPOSTEROUS disinformation

Caucuses are undemocratic enough without totals being multiplied by six figures.

Caucuses can and this year were overrun by one-note zealots. It's not as if caucuses are random samples of the population. Caucuses need to be ABOLISHED, not aggrandized to outweigh actual votes in primary elections.

EPIC fail.

[samson212]

67. So, because caucuses are bad, so are caucus goers' votes?

Baby with the bathwater?

[Tarc]

40. Pretty sure this lie was debunked a month or so ago, but I'll do it again

3,023,373 is the reported Hillary margin.


Around 230,000 participated in the Washington St. caucus; if Sanders carried the state at 72.7%, that'd be a net of 104,420.

122,000 for Colorado, a 59% win nets 21,960.

46,000 for Maine, 64.3% win nets 13,156.

We're at 2,883,837, with the rest that may not have been included in the total...Alaska, Wyoming will only add negligible amounts.

Many...many. many...more people have voted for Hillary Clinton than for Bernie Sanders this primary season. No amount of obfuscated #berniemath can affect #realmath.

[samson212]

68. Did you read the article?

The point was that the popular vote count is not a useful statistic. If you want to replace the primary system with one where everybody votes, and those votes all have equal value, then that statistic is the whole story. As it stands now, it's misleading.

Also, when you say "many, many more people...", you're ignoring the size of the whole. Yes, 3 million more people. Out of what, 60 million? (Guessing -- what's the real number here? Is it even possible to know how many people have voted when vote totals aren't always released?) So, 5% more. In a contest whose result is determined disproportionally on a state by state basis.

That's a lead. But saying "omg 3 million, #berniemath, he can't win!" is insulting and misleading. The delegate count is a more compelling argument. So long as you leave the super delegates out until the convention.

[Tarc]

74. Yes. The article writer is lying

Take a close look at Washington state, which Bernie won with 72.7% of the votes. RealClearPolitics gives him zero votes, with its 7.2 million population

The writer places two things that are completely unrelated (what % Sanders won Wash St. by alongside the total population of the state) side-by-side, attempting to get the reader to subconsciously link the two.

"What?!!", the reader thinks, "well if there's 7 million people and he won 70% of the vote, why, there's millions that could be going uncounted when they report that Hillary-leads-by-3mil!"

That is Grade-A horseshit, and a Rovian tactic to boot; it seeks to invalidate the oppositions assertions not with factual proof, but rather with sloppy innuendo and misrepresentation.

Noting that Clinton has earned almost 3 million more votes than Sanders overall this primary seaosn is noteworthy.

[samson212]

93. It's not a lie. At worst, he's doing the same thing you are.

Do you really think that the number of people in a state is unrelated to the win margin, when we're talking about how many people voted? That's a stretch, I think.

You do have a point that putting those numbers next to each other may be misleading. I didn't feel misled, though. It's the truth. And anyway, the point isn't "look how many votes were ignored", it's "look how blatantly RCP is being disingenuous".

The Rovian tactic here is not letting up on the (dubious) claim that the race is over, and that Hillary has won by a landslide, when the real story is that an enormous number of people in this country aren't happy with her as an option.

Saying that something is noteworthy (I agree, actually, that it is) does not negate the fact that the statistic is being used to mislead. Oh, look, another Rovian strategy! Accuse your opponent of what you are doing!

[Tarc]

95. The point is, correcting for all the caucus-goers results in at most +200k for Bernie

Saying "Hillary is up by 3 million votes" vs. "Hillary is up by 2.8 million votes" is really a distinction without a difference.

[samson212]

99. That's your point. You're ignoring my point and the point of the article.

The actual point is that the 3 million number is misleading and not a useful metric. It doesn't matter if you try to adjust the number to compensate for the fact that some states are caucuses. The fact is, you can't make an apples-to-apples comparison. I don't know why this is so complicated; use a number that makes sense, is relevant, and supports your point -- the pledged delegate gap!

Also, since we're on the topic, it's pretty shady to say "ok, let's do the math, since you've pointed out that caucuses are not counted in the total -- 230,000 people, times 0.72, gives Bernie 104,420 more votes, net." You're just further illustrating why an apples-to-apples comparison is impossible. 230,000 people is about 3% of Washington state, so it's not fair to make a comparison, when in states with primaries, turnout is higher by several orders of magnitude.

If turnout had been comparable to, say, Georgia or Vermont (roughly average states for turnout this year), which was 30%, you get a much higher number -- 7,200,000 * 0.3 = 2,300,000; 2,300,000 * 0.72 = almost 1.7 million. That's over half the gap you're so proud of. If turnout had been comparable to NH (52.4%, the highest turnout in this primary), the net vote gain would be 2.7 million, which almost accounts for the entire gap by including just one state. So let's not talk about math, if you're not willing to actually look at the numbers.

[Tarc]

103. It isn't a useful metric TO YOU because it looks bad for Sanders

I think we're done here.

[samson212]

108. Really? Nothing to say about my argument?

If that were an accurate characterization of my reasoning, why would I have told you to use the delegate count as an argument instead? You said that the article in the OP has been "debunked", and proceeded to throw a bunch numbers at the wall to see what sticks, while completely missing the point of the article! If you want to ascribe my adamance to my political views, then I guess I missed the point -- you're not really interested in the truth. I guess it's safe to assume, therefore, that you aren't interested in the democratic process. Just the coronation.

[oberliner]

41. Yes, she is

This article is idiotic.

In Washington State, the turnout at the caucus was 230,000 people. In Maine, the turnout at the caucus was 46,000 people. In Alaska, the turnout was 11,000. In Wyoming the turnout was 7,000 people.

Adding all of those together, you get a total of around 300,000 voters. Giving Bernie 80 percent of those voters would result in 240,000 to Hillary's 60,000 for a net of 180,000 votes for Bernie.

That does not really make any significant dent in the the popular vote total of three million that Hillary Clinton has.

This Wikipedia chart includes the estimated voter totals from the caucuses in its calculation, and Hillary still has an approximate lead of 3 million votes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

[Trenzalore]

42. I think Washington is a poor example

They had a primary after the undemocratic caucus and Hillary handily beat Sanders in that.

[Thinkingabout]

43. Didn't Washington have a non binding vote and Hillary won? Using your theory say

in a big populated state, if you recalculate a state like NY or Texas and take the proportion of the state population and use the percentage of the voting results and then Hillary would still have the popular vote and by a larger number. This calculation may make you feel good but it is not reasonable unless you take each state results and calculate the percentages to population and then we could compare apples to apples.

[Garrett78]

48. Replace caucuses with primaries and I bet Clinton surpasses 2383 without any superdelegates.

[Thinkingabout]

50. Yes since most of Sanders wins is in caucus states, caucuses suppress the senior

And handicapped.

[Garrett78]

44. Caucuses get romanticized, but the fact of the matter is they suppress turnout in a big way.

Caucuses should be done away with. Many working people, parents, persons with disabilities, people who want their vote kept private, and others simply don't care to participate. Even what was essentially a meaningless WA primary had much higher turnout than the WA caucus.

As for superdelegates, I don't think they're looking at the popular vote so much as the pledged delegate margin.

[LiberalFighter]

47. Why is the total population of a state used? It is not relevant.

The only numbers that matter are the people that actually voted.

The spread is based on voters not population under both the primary and caucus states. When you include everyone you are also including Republicans, non-voters, minors and others not eligible.

[tandem5]

49. Washington is a really bad example considering 700k voted in the non binding primary vs. 230k in the

caucus that counted.

[Hoyt]

51. She's closer to "winning" than Sanders even if it only 2.8 million, rather than 3.0 million lead.

[Andy823]

54. Fact is

I Washington state turnout for the caucus was only like 5.8% of registered voters. We also had a primary vote, for show only, but Clinton win that one with around 56%, not sure exactly, of the vote. Fact is caucus's are BS, and very few people run out for them. Primaries are much more fair, and allows more voters to actually voice their opinion.

If every state had been a primary instead of a caucus, I think Bernie would have been a lot further behind than he is now.

[JoePhilly]

55. And one time at band camp ...

[underthematrix]

56. This post is bizarre. If you added up all the results of the primary and caucus voters Clinton would

still have more votes. She also has more pledged delegates, and more superdelegates and her total delegate count is just shy of the 2383 required.

This post seems to be logic free

[Ed Suspicious]

60. Did California vote yet? Do you apportion their votes based upon polling even before they vote?

Superdelegates vote yet?

No?

Then shut the fuck up with superdelegate counts.

[underthematrix]

79. You're in your feels and you're mad.

Like I said logic free!

[samson212]

70. Gah! That's not the point!

The point is that the 3 million number is misleading and irrelevant! And anyway, everybody agrees that she's winning.

[cui bono]

85. No, her total delegate count is not just shy of the 2383 required.

She doesn't get any supers until the convention. Period.

.

[Peace Patriot]

58. K&R x 1,000!

Thanks, Talking Dog!

[jcgoldie]

62. No it didnt need reposting

Its still bullshit.

[senz]

72. Thank you. Yes, lies need to be countered.

[madokie]

73. You can bet your bippy

that anything clinton concerning numbers in this primary is a big ass lie.

[Gothmog]

78. Yes, Clinton is winning the popular vote — by a wide margin

Shaun King's claim that Clinton is not leading in the popular vote is simply wrong https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/19/yes-hillary-clinton-is-winning-the-popular-vote-by-a-wide-margin/

The idea that the popular vote totals are flawed because caucuses aren't included has been floating around for a while. The point of questioning the sum is obvious: To question the extent to which Democratic voters (and independents voting in Democratic contests, who usually favor Sanders) have preferred Clinton as the party's nominee.

This has been floating around so long, in fact, The Post's fact-checkers looked at this issue at the beginning of April. Did Clinton at that point actually lead by 2.5 million votes, as she claimed? No, she didn't.

She led by 2.4 million votes.

The Post's Glenn Kessler arrived at that figure by taking estimates of how many people came out to vote in caucus contests and applying the final vote margin to that population. This is admittedly imprecise, as King notes, since in some caucuses (like Iowa's) voter preferences can and do change. Kessler's total included Washington, despite King's insistence -- and in Washington, he figured that Sanders had the support of 167,201 voters to Clinton's 62,330. Despite that, still a 2.4 million advantage for Clinton.

It's worth noting that caucuses, for which it's harder to calculate vote totals, are usually in smaller states and/or have smaller turnout. King's concern about ensuring Alaska's huge Democratic voting base is included in the tally is answered by Kessler's math.

What's more, Kessler continued updating his tally as results came in. The most recent update was after the contests on April 27, at which point her wins in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and other Northeastern states had extended her lead to "just over 3 million votes" -- including his estimates for the caucuses. (By my tabulation of Kessler's numbers, it's 3.03 million.)

Since then, there have been five contests.

Indiana. Sanders won with 32,152 more votes.
Guam. Clinton won with 249 more votes.
West Virginia. Sanders won with 30,509 more votes.
Kentucky. Clinton won with 1,924 more votes (per the latest AP count).
Oregon. Sanders won with 69,007 more votes (per AP).

In total, then, Clinton's lead over Sanders in the popular vote is 2.9 million. The difference isn't because the total excludes Washington. It's because it includes more recent contests from the past 14 days.

That number will continue to change. There are only two big states left -- New Jersey and California -- both of which vote June 7. Clinton leads by a wide margin in New Jersey, where more than a million people turned out in 2008. She has a smaller lead in California, where about 5 million voted in the Democratic primary eight years ago. For Sanders to pass Clinton in the popular vote, he would need turnout like 2008 in California -- and to win by 57 points.

Clinton is only up on Sanders by 2.9 million votes and that is a real number

[akbacchus_BC]

84. Mrs. Clinton will be the nominee, she has the super delegates.

She will beat Trump at the GE, he is not viable. I have no idea why Trump got the Republican nomination. Just a bunch of fools running. Pretty sure if Webb had turned up at the GOP debate instead of the Democratic debate, he could have been the GOP nomination. At the least, he was in the Army!

[Demsrule86]

87. Washington State-bad choice

You picked a bad example, because in the Washington primary which makes it easier for all to vote( although it was non-binding), she cleaned Bernie's clock. Sorry about that ...but this brings us to my next interesting point. More people vote in primaries than caucuses...and Washington is a particularly bad example because in a primary that awarded no delegate three times as many people came out and voted for Hillary than in the caucus where Bernie won by a large margin (small turnout) and was awarded 72 delegates which while he technically won, does not indicate the will of the voter. The primary clearly shows this.

"Far more voters took part in Washington’s Democratic primary than its state caucus, preliminary counts indicate. Roughly 230,000 people participated in the Democratic caucus, The Stranger reported in March. In contrast, more than 660,000 Democratic votes had been tallied in the primary as of Tuesday, according to The Seattle Times. That lopsided reality makes it more difficult for Sanders to argue that his candidacy represents the will of the people."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/washington-primary-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/484313/

[randome]

88. Okay, try this on for size.

Sanders is not winning the popular vote more than Clinton is not winning the popular vote. There. You get to see 'Sanders' and 'more' and 'winning' in the same sentence. Everyone wins!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[book_worm]

98. Right...Bernie is winning the popular vote

[MFM008]

105. 3 things that need reposting

June 7
June 14
June 16

work on it.

[Agschmid]

106. It's actually not all that misleading... And there was a popular vote count for Washington

Sure it doesn't count, but she won more votes in that state when they held primary.

Caucuses have egregiously low turnout, she certainly is winning the popular vote even if it is an estimation.