Hillary Clinton leading with: 5.04 MILLION/5.75 MILLION/7.056 MILLION /7.2 MILLION votes nationwide

[agdlp]

A little primer in math...percent means PARTS PER HUNDRED. I’m using 2004 numbers of registered democrats, and the number today are much higher. Given this fact, she is leading with an even higher amount of votes.

In 2004 there were 72 million registered Democratic voters. There are at least that number today. If only democrats should be voting, and using latest Rasmussen poll results, that shows Clinton leading by 8 %, the result will give 5,75 million more votes to Hillary Clinton.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

If using foxnews latest poll, she leads by 10 %, that is 7,2 million votes

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/020108_election_release_web.pdf

If using Gallup numbers, she is leading by 7 %, thats 5,04 million votes

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104107/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx

If using rcp.com nubers, she is leading by 9,8 %, thats 7,056 million votes

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html

[Tom Strong]

1. Yeah, it's breaking now. And breaking HARD. Here comes the slime from the O team!

[UALRBSofL]

2. Will that 8 points hold up?

Cross fingers

[CoffeeCat]

5. Wow, so any time, someone has

a contribution to a post about pro-Hillary statistics, it's positioned as "slime"?

Wow.

I guess I won't point out that Dem voter turnout has increased 100 percent from
2004 in some of the states that have voted .

I guess I won't mention that you're not considering the tidal wave of new Dem voters
who are getting involved this year--who were not involved or voting in 2004.

I guess I won't mention--because it will be viewed as "slime"--that in my state of
Iowa--Dem voter turnout increased 100 percent from 2004, and many of
those votes (20 percent) were newly registered voters.

I'll just slink away here, leaving behind a trail of slime...

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[agdlp]

6. I guess you got an F in math larger tournout with the same % == more votes to Hillary

Percent means parts per hundred :-)

[maq-az]

9. No Show

I'm hoping all these new registered voters show up. We thought this in 2004 and for the most part they were AWOL on election day.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

11. They did show up. Young people voted in unprecedented numbers in 2004

New registrations were historically high as well.

Unfortunately, every other group also voted in extremely high numbers as well.

[Bluerthanblue]

10. hey- one persons slime is another person

speaking truth.

I guess mentioning that the NH polls, were far from indicative of the actual outcome would be seen as ?


I don't hold much with "polls"- If people pay attention to them, they become slaves to them.- If a poll has "influenced" anyone, it can be influenced by anyone.- so I call "bullshit" on polls.

They are nothing more than a way for corporations to screw with our free choice.


peace~

:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:- :)

[Joe the Revelator]

3. And yet, she hasn't been able to manage a delegate win ANYWHERE

She's not running a very good campaign, but keep on grasping at anything you think might help.

[suston96]

7. Yes, she has. But Obama is against enfranchising millions of Democrats in MI and FL...nt

[Joe the Revelator]

8. So, as I said, no delegate wins in contested elections...

FEEEEEL the momentum. :eyes:

[Bluerthanblue]

4. na- it's really a brazillion

:silly:

this is getting pretty ridiculous kids.


really ridiculous.


:eyes: