Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

JUST FYI, Now MSNBC analysts saying if Hillary wins popular vote, she deserves nomination

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Tropics_Dude83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:43 PM
Original message
JUST FYI, Now MSNBC analysts saying if Hillary wins popular vote, she deserves nomination
Edited on Sat Mar-29-08 12:45 PM by Tropics_Dude83
Ann Kornblutt I believe said this on MSNBC at 11 a.m. just before Tim Russert's show aired at 12. She said "If Clinton wins the popular vote, Obama will be hard pressed to make a viable case that he deserves the nomination." Even if he is ahead in elected delegates. This was in the context of how Hillary could still win but it is still outrageous. Since when is popular vote determinative? Guess we should throw out the electoral college too!

That is NOT how we have ever chosen nominees. It's a delegate race. Even Hillary said this back in early February. Whoever is ahead in delegates wins period. Anything else is a theft.

I can't stand Cameron Hall and the "Hilbots" she interviews 24/7.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. We Should Throw Out The Electoral College
~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tropics_Dude83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Be careful what you wish for
Kerry made it close in 2004 because of the electoral college. If it had been popular vote alone, Bush would have had a decisive victory,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Exactly. With popular vote all you have to do is control the vote in a couple of states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
65. With the electoral college all you have to do is control the vote in a couple of states...
...like Ohio or Florida...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. I Would Not Have Been Pleased To Win In 04 The Way Bush* Won in 00
Those races just show how anti-democratic the EC is... As much as I despise Bush* the fellow who got 3,000,000 more votes should win the race...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Some states arent counted in the Popular vote numbers because they are caucuses
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. We're Talking About Apples And Oranges
Edited on Sat Mar-29-08 12:55 PM by DemocratSinceBirth
My concerns are confined to the EC which is anti-small d (democratic)...

Caucuses are anti-democratic too but Obama won them fair and square by the prevailing rules...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #19
41. I don't mind the EC, but I don't like that it is winner-take-all
Edited on Sat Mar-29-08 01:17 PM by dansolo
I think that the EC votes should be divided proportionally according to the popular vote, with 2 of the EC votes being at-large votes that go to the overall state winner.

Also, I would not favor any system that works off of congressional districts. That leaves it susceptible to manipulation from gerrymandering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
27. Right. Hence the cry of "Popular votes"...
from the Hillary camp. I think Obama wins that, too, at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bellasgrams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
35. Caucuses should be done away with. They are not giving
'the people' a vote. Many working people can't get to the caucuses because they have to work. If they do get to the caucus your vote doesn't count unless your candidate has enough supporters there. There is so much confusion there are to many ways to manipulate the vote. Plus there's no early or absentee voting. The vote is skewed. Your guy may have won caucuses this time but what about the next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. I agree they should be done away with, but thats for the next time
Caucuses count and dont let anyone tell you otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
25. Why are you talking about the electoral college here?
This is about the Democratic Primary, not the Presidential Election. That's the one in November - when the Electoral College decides the result. Popular votes will not decide THIS primary - the rules count delegates. End of story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. Because The Original Poster Brought It Up
Edited on Sat Mar-29-08 01:01 PM by DemocratSinceBirth
"...Since when is popular vote determinative? Guess we should throw out the electoral college too...!"

-tropic_dude 83

Super Delegates

Caucuses

The Electoral College

Byzantine delegate selection process

All anti small (d) democratic

One man one vote...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bellasgrams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #25
38. dchill, you wish it was that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Sure I do.
Don't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
48. You know that the Delegates also represent states that don't tabulate Popular vote
I guess you are one of those who wishes to disenfranchise Caucus states.

For all your talk about how Florida needs to be counted, you seem quick to discount Washington, Colorado, Iowa, etc. etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
64. I have said this for years...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. I guess they are saying "The Texas Caucus Doesn't Count"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
30. There is NO SUCH THING as a "popular vote" in a Primary that includes caucuses
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. MSNBC is in Obama's corner.
MSNBC is to Obama what Fox is to Bush.

HRC can win the popular vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. yes, we should throw out the electoral college
Were you missing during 2000?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. They Never Will Though
It would require a Constitutional amendment and the small states who benefit from the EC will never vote to outlaw it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
6. MSNBC isn't running the Democratic Party. Thank God. Howard Dean is.
Dean presides over established rules, and the established rules, known to all candidates prior to announcing a White House run, indicate that a majority of delegates wins nomination.

That's how the game is played.

Among the many things that weakenns Hillary Clinton's campaign is the sustained impression that she thinks she's the exception and that rules and regulations are for someone else but not for her.

It's the entitlement virus, and she's got a bad, bad case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tropics_Dude83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Changing the rules in the middle of the game sorry
When this started, the rules were whoever gets to 2,024 or 2,208 first wins. Not whoever wins the PV wins. Even Clinton said that before she collapsed. Change to a PV system next time. Not this time. Too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Right. Obama leads in delegates. The most delegates wins the nom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bellasgrams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
44. No, it is not the one that has the most votes, it's the one that has
the magic number.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #44
67. Delegates, voting as delegates, determine the nomination in Denver.
Swear to god.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Asgaya Dihi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
29. Right
Whatever your feelings on the popular vote, electoral college, or any of the rest of it, changing the rules in the middle of an election is a real bad idea. Everyone knew how a caucus and all the rest of it worked and everyone had the same chances to plan their campaign strats and compete under the same rules. If they didn't do as well as they wished that's just poor campaigning.

It's a bit late in the game to move the goalposts now. If you want to talk change for next election I've my doubts about the system too but we don't change the rules in the middle of the game. This one we finish with the same rules we started with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #6
62. Yes
but it appears neither candidate will have a majority of the delegates going into the convention, so the superdelegates will have to decide.

The popular vote is a pretty good criterion for helping them decide which way to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
7. What total bullshit.
The Clintons can't cheat their way out of this one
no matter how many flaks they pay off.
Besides, they are running out of money.
Lets see how long their dirty tricks team holds
together without their big fat salaries.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bellasgrams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
46. C U, What are you talking about? It's clear you're a Clinton hater
but how do you think they could cheat? BO is the one that has the cash and questionable backers to help him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #46
56. Yeah I'm pissed at Hillary. Very simply what I'm talking about
is that the Clintons keep trying to redefine the rules of the Primary in their favor.
Where I come from that's called cheating. We've selected our candidates through
the delegate process for generations and you don't change the criteria mid-game.
Compound that with Hillary's and Bill's outright lies, their public attempts at intimidating the
Superdelegates (a la Nancy Pelosi), their smearing of Obama (from drug dealer to radical muslim),
and the general thuggishness of their team (judas) and a dozen otheur heinous acts and
I am quite disgusted indeed and yeah, I'm pretty darn angry with the Clintons.
I didn't start off that way either... I once supported Hillary but she has totally earned every
ounce of my disrespect. And she deserves to lose as ugly as she's run her campaign.
I am embarrassed that Hillary is a Democrat. She's no good.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #56
70. Both sides are playing the same kind of game.
Edited on Sat Mar-29-08 05:03 PM by igil
They want to somehow impose a moral rule on superdelegates. There is none. The unpledged leadership delegates can vote however they please.

But we have some people using threats: Don't overturn the vote for Obama, because if you do then you lose the black vote. Others use some sort of "this is what I consider moral, and you're immoral if you don't agree" calculus: Don't overrule a majority of the pledged delegates. Don't overrule the majority of the voters.

Oddly, the "Don't overrule a majority of the pledged delegates" *has* to be nuanced and apply at just the right level to give the desired result. If you don't take it at the national level, but at the state or more local levels, well, that's also immoral. The added rule has to be just so, otherwise, well, we don't get the moral result.

Then there's the outrage at HRC's ruminations over the necessity of pledged delegates remaining true to their candidate ... whether on the first vote or the second vote. I say it's fake because when HRC lost a delegate in Iowa (because, I assume, some HRC delegates decided to change their minds and cast their lot in with BO--a legit decision on their part)--it was greeted with whoops of joy. Any outrage that relies primarily on 'my candidate's right and yours is wrong' is, IMO, deeply rooted in hypocrisy.

There are no rules on how the unpledged official and leadership delegates should vote. Moreover, when push comes to shove, they're just delegates. Anything else is trying to impose a new rule mid-process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
9. What about the voters who didn't go to the polls b/c they were told that
this was a delegate race? However, if they would have known it was a POPULAR vote race they would have rushed to the polls. This is why you DO NOT CHANGE THE RULES in the middle of the game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
10. I don't completely disagree with that
But it depends how they count Michigan and Florida. If they count all of Clinton's Michigan votes and 0 for Obama that's completely unfair.

We need our nominee to have unquestionable legitimacy. If one candidate has more elected delegates but one has more votes, or if Michigan and Florida would alter the outcome, the nominee will be crippled in the fall by a lack of legitimacy. Clinton being ahead in the popular vote while Obama leads in delegates is a nightmare scenario, because one side will feel like it was stolen no matter what. If that's the situation at the end of the primaries they pretty much have to run on a joint ticket to avoid a meltdown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
11. Wrong
Whoever the 2025 delegates decide on gets the nomination- being "ahead" is irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
17. That's bullshit. If popular vote was the goal, Obama would have run
a much different campaign, with a bigger focus in highly-populated states and primary states (rather than caucus states). They can't change the rules and measurements 3/4 of the way through the race. This is the media's way of pretending Hillary still has a chance, to keep the horse race and interest/ratings going. Keep moving the goalposts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tropics_Dude83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. I couldn't agree more with you
And actually I think to myself sometimes if I use this rule this time of not "changing the rules in the middle of the game", am I being hypocritical when this is juxtaposed against my support for Al Gore in 2000. I don't think so. I think the Florida courts had broad authority to resolve an election contest in any way they saw fit. Thus, changing the rules in the middle of the game didn't apply in Florida 2000 but it does apply here.

Sorry I'm talking to myself there a but lol but anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
18. In 2000, Bush planned to argue popular vote if Gore had won the electoral college.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
21. Did she explain how to count the popular vote in a caucus?
Our corporate media experts are farking clueless!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. There is no critical thinking or fact or logic going on--the media just takes
Hillary's new goalposts as their meme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #21
40. Easy, caucus votes don't count!
That wouldn't work for Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
22. It has to be by delegates and states.
Edited on Sat Mar-29-08 12:52 PM by mmonk
Early states had more than two candidates on the ballot and also early voting. That skews the popular votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bellasgrams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
24. Dude 'not how we have ever chosen nominees', would you want to
go back to the days of the smoke filled room where a hand full of men decide who the nominee is? I'd much prefer the popular vote, that gives the 'people' their choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tropics_Dude83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Again, take it up next time
Next time, get rid of delegates and say that the winner of the national popular vote at the end gets 2,025 or 2,208 delegates.

Those weren't the rules this time! Too late to change them now that your candidate is losing sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:58 PM
Original message
and "if the skies open up, and the angels sing"
then she should win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
28. That's only one person's opinion.
Ann Kornblutt is only one analyst of many at MSNBC and the vast majority of them would disagree with what she said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
31. Is there a chance she can win the popular vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tropics_Dude83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. A chance but even that is tough
It requires winning PA 65-35 and NC or IN 65-35 as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. How do you count the "popular vote" in a caucus? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #34
43. Why would you not count it?
I participated in a caucus. I watched them vote and I watched the votes counted. In many ways, it was more fair than a traditional election is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. I'm asking how you count it...sounds like you're saying you just add the
number of people who show up to caucus to the popular vote total. Is that what you're saying? It that what's happening now? I'm asking 'cause I don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. I only know how it worked in my state
37,000 participated in the Democratic caucus. We stood in line for hours and voted in a fair caucus. It wouldn't be right to say those 37,000 votes don't count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. So the 37,000 people who participated in your state were added to the
popular vote totals? That's what I'm trying to figure out. When you show up to caucus, do you get added to the popular vote total? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Well we only had caucuses
so I am assuming our caucus votes were added to the popular vote total.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. You assume your caucus votes were added to the PV total, but you're not
sure. I'm not sure either. That's what I'm trying to find out. :-) I wonder if anyone knows... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
36. I have been watching conventions since Eisenhower won - they
have always been based on delegate count. I do not want the rules changed. If one cannot win under the existing rules they should not be trying to change the rules just for their own benefit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bellasgrams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #36
50. nope, I remember staying up late on convention night waiting to
to see who was chosen to be our candidate. If it was strictly delegates they would have known be forehand
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. Yes, delegates do negotiate when it is not a solid win. But it is still
the delegates not voter count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
42. LOL! She can say what she wants, but that is NOT how it works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
45. Why are we supposed to "care" what an MSNBC Analysts says?
Working for General Electric doesn't provide the kind of credentials that will make me listen to that person.

Of course the Corporate Media think Hillary should win. Bill did sign the Telecommunications Act of 1996, didn't he? http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/06/28/teleco...

And Hillary did vote for this corporate record breaking profit driven war, right?

So yeah, of course, an MSNBC "Analyst" would be rooting for the Corporate candidate.

What else is new? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
49. Popular vote?
Yeah - who cares what the voters think!
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
52. It doesn't matter. Hillary is unlikely to catch him on any level.
Her one and only hope is swaying the superdelegates. If you happen to be one and want a cushy job, now's your time to act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
53. So why didn't they demand Gore become president in 2000?
Do they just make shit up as they go along?

BTW: Obama is currently way ahead in the popular vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bensthename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
58. Sounds good, but it AINT gonna happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Life Long Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
59. Obama has it covered.
Obama is going after the popular vote in PA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sulawesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
60. Popular vote means nothing when a subset of the contests are caucuses
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
63. It matters for winning the GE
The Dem candidate has to be able to win as many states as possible in the GE, especially large electoral states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUyellow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
66. When do they make the rules? WAKE UP PEOPLE... YOU ARE ALL BEING PLAYED
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sueragingroz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
68. If she gets the popular vote and did it in the states that matter
you are darn tootin that she is best placed to capture the WH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
69. People in caucus states don't count!
Considering the popular vote is all that now matters and they're not a part of it.

So Iowa, Washington, Minnesota and others, please pack your bags and go home. The Democratic party no longer has any use for you. Perhaps the Republicans will be willing to honor your votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 01st 2014, 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC