Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(3,343 posts)
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 12:22 PM Apr 2016

Hillary Clinton has gotten hundreds of thousands fewer votes than in the 2008 primaries.

Yes I know the graphic was compiled by Breitbart, however I randomly checked some of the numbers and they're all accurate.... what's more, some of these larger 2008 totals were her running against TWO opponents.

Example 1:

Arkansas 2016

Clinton 144,580
Sanders 64,868

Arkansas 2008

Clinton 220,136
Obama 82,476
Edwards 5,873

Example 2

Ohio 2016

Clinton 679,266
Sanders 513,549

Ohio 2008

Clinton 1,259,620
Obama 1,055,769
Edwards 39,332

For comparison in 2016:


Trump: 727,585


Trump: 133,144

And both of those had Trump running against a lot of other candidates...

Draw your own conclusions
18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary Clinton has gotten hundreds of thousands fewer votes than in the 2008 primaries. (Original Post) EdwardBernays Apr 2016 OP
I think if she is our nominee then she will get shellacked. nt thereismore Apr 2016 #1
I think if she's the nominee, WE'RE getting shellacked Scootaloo Apr 2016 #2
Wallace taking the Southern States (of "Super Tuesday" fame)... NewImproved Deal Apr 2016 #5
It is not just Hillary. Arkansas has an open primary. Less total people voted in the Democratic LiberalArkie Apr 2016 #3
The same is true seemingly everywhere EdwardBernays Apr 2016 #6
Interesting research--thanks! NewImproved Deal Apr 2016 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author emulatorloo Apr 2016 #7
Surely you can find a source other than Breitbart. emulatorloo Apr 2016 #8
When EdwardBernays Apr 2016 #9
There is no reason for a progressive to promote and endorse right-wing sources. emulatorloo Apr 2016 #10
Sorry no EdwardBernays Apr 2016 #11
Don't twist my words. emulatorloo Apr 2016 #13
So EdwardBernays Apr 2016 #15
Ed I have no interest in fighting with you. emulatorloo May 2016 #16
that's fine EdwardBernays May 2016 #17
... emulatorloo May 2016 #18
I first noticed this downward trend in Hillary's votes in the New York race and posted JDPriestly Apr 2016 #12
Agreed on popularity. My gut feeling is the majority of GE voters won't let Trump win. emulatorloo Apr 2016 #14


(25,699 posts)
2. I think if she's the nominee, WE'RE getting shellacked
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 12:50 PM
Apr 2016

President Clinton or President Trump. Christ.

It strikes me that they keep comparing Bernie to McGovern. Maybe that's apt, 'cause if this is the '72 race, that means someone's gotta be Nixon and someone's gotta be Wallace, too.


(3,343 posts)
6. The same is true seemingly everywhere
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 02:31 PM
Apr 2016

Hillary Clinton is no Obama... Plus telling people that they shouldn't dream... Well.. Why vote for that?


NewImproved Deal

(534 posts)
4. Interesting research--thanks!
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 01:41 PM
Apr 2016

And this is despite the Clinton Machine's picking up most of the Black Vote, which went overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008.

Response to NewImproved Deal (Reply #4)


(3,343 posts)
9. When
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:03 PM
Apr 2016

All you see is the source you're hobbling yourself.

Besides lots of DU approved sources have screwed up big time in the past..

If the data is correct - and this is - then the only thing to do is look at it with open eyes and decide if it matters to you.. Otherwise ignore it.


(43,846 posts)
10. There is no reason for a progressive to promote and endorse right-wing sources.
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:14 PM
Apr 2016

It is not hard to find sources that >aren't< habitually smearing Democrats.

It is your choice of course, but I personally would spend the extra couple minutes to find the same information from a site that is not so egregious.

As I say you are a smart guy. In the end, posting from Breitbart or other proven lie/smear sites doesn't reflect well on you.


(3,343 posts)
11. Sorry no
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:18 PM
Apr 2016

No one was endorsing them or supporting them. That in your head.

Democrats aren't perfect God knows and plenty of sources trash them justifiably. Others are purely partisan but don't fabricate evidence. Others still lie. Others still do a combination of the above.

I'm sure if you list your favourite sources I can find posts you don't like, and hey I'm sure there's plenty of truth lurking on Breitbart...

By ignoring things based on the brand and not being willing to engage in finding out for yourself what is true you are just as blind as any ditto heads.

As for being judged by someone that can't see past a logo on a table of numbers, well..lets just say I'm not particularly crushed.


(43,846 posts)
13. Don't twist my words.
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:33 PM
Apr 2016

I am not "attacking" or "judging" you so don't need to get defensive. The ditto head comment was uncalled for.

If one cites Breitbart = that's a tacit endorsement.

You are a highly educated person from what I know from you, at some point your professors told you that "sources matter". They weren't ditto heads.

All I am saying is citing Breitbart could potentially tarnish the "EdwardBernays brand" you've worked so hard to build.

Have a great night.

And yes turnout is down from '08. Obama excited people in a way that neither Bernie nor Hillary can do. Or pretty much anybody.


(3,343 posts)
15. So
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 05:34 PM
Apr 2016


"In the end, posting from Breitbart or other proven lie/smear sites doesn't reflect well on you."

Is neither an attack or a judgement?


Citing - and in this case we mean using a graphic that is full of information they didn't generate, but merely has their logo on it - isn't an endorsement. I have have used the WaPo but that doesn't mean I endorse their position on the Iraq War. Or the New York Times - citing them doesn't mean I endorse Krugman's nonsense or any number of their commentators nonsense.

Sources matter but there you're confusing what I did. Breitbart isn't the source. And you KNOW this. If Breitbart published an article talking up Bernie and his positions would that negate Bernie's positions? Of course not.

The data is legit. By choosing - as you are - to ignore it because of - literally - a logo - you are doing yourself a disservice.

I appreciate that you think I'm not an idiot; as not an idiot let me say this: all partisan sources should be viewed as propaganda - including that from the left. If you are accepting things because of a source that's just as ridiculous and immediately rejecting things because of a source.

Sources in fact only matter if you have to take a source at their word. If you can check a source and don't bother then you're not doing the smart thing. I looked at the data before posting this and included data I checked personally that's not in the spreadsheet with the breitbart logo. I'd also hope that anyone that chooses to place merit in this voter drop off checks the data for themselves.

Anything less means you're letting someone else decide what you need to know... And that brings us back to why sources are not a big deal - if you plan on being truly informed.

Read the left and the right and middle. Check everything. Don't be scared to learn that your ideological allies are sometimes dishonest and your political enemies sometimes honest. That's the reality of the situation.

In fact thats the bottom line in this situation: Breitbart compiled data which is freely available from official sources. I checked it and it's accurate. If it wasn't I wouldn't post it.


(43,846 posts)
16. Ed I have no interest in fighting with you.
Sun May 1, 2016, 09:15 AM
May 2016

We simply disagree on the use of rightwing sources as the basis of an argument on DU.

I'm not judging you as I already know from reading lots and lots of your posts that you are a good guy. Tone is hard to do on the Internet.

Of course I take every source with big bolder of salt. Yes there is bias in all of them. I read lots of stuff and I'm not 'scared' nor do I live in a bubble.

However, I've chosen not to cite sources on DU when the majority of their content is smears and lies about Democrats. I will look for a more 'neutral' source with the same information.

If you have a different approach fine with me.

Take care and have a great rest of the weekend.


(3,343 posts)
17. that's fine
Sun May 1, 2016, 05:53 PM
May 2016

I guess to me all sources are pretty notoriously bad, and when people start to delineate between trusted and untrusted sources they are - IMO - generating a type of media outlet that doesn't exist: inherently trustworthy. Sure there's extremes, but overall I assume it's all slanted at very best and factually hooey as often as not.

I do understand your position, but also hate the whole logical fallacy - the so called fallacy of composition - that a right-wing source produces only right-wing propaganda, etc. That whole idea blinds many people to valuable truths. And the same is true for those on the right that studiously avoid all left-wing sources....

I occasionally poke my nose onto right-wing forums and the consensus belief is that ALL progressives worship Hillary Clinton... if I mention that in fact some of her biggest critics are progressives I get about the same response as I get here if I post something from an ideologically impure source... that reality is enough to make me be both extremely open and extremely sceptical.

But listen, I do appreciate the fact that you are saying nice things about me; I don't think you're a bad or mean person... and you have perfectly reasonable ideas about how best to pursue an agenda... I understand your position thoroughly and want no beef.

As you say, we just have a different approach.

Thanks for being reasonable!


(57,936 posts)
12. I first noticed this downward trend in Hillary's votes in the New York race and posted
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:21 PM
Apr 2016

about it right here on DU.

Hillary is not a popular candidate.

I think a lot of Hillary supporters are quite unrealistic about what is going to happen in the general election. Hillary is just no that likable.

A lot of Bernie supporters will not vote for her. I talk to them a lot. I'm working on Bernie's campaign as a volunteer. Hillary will have a hard time winning the Bernie supporters over. I don't think she can do it. She has bad polling numbers on honesty and for a reason.

Hillary supporters are very unrealistic about what will happen once the general election begins if Hillary is the Democratic candidate.


(43,846 posts)
14. Agreed on popularity. My gut feeling is the majority of GE voters won't let Trump win.
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:49 PM
Apr 2016

Rational Republicans will vote against him for the reasons they voted against Sarah Palin.
AA and Latino voters will crawl over broken glass to keep him out.
Some independents as well.
I think you are right that many many Bernie supporters won't vote for her.
Otoh I saw polling earlier in the primary where both Sanders and Clinton supporters said they would be happy to vote for other person if their candidate didn't get the nomination. Figure was around 75% on each side.

Maybe that is just wishful thinking on my part. Trump could still get elected because who knows what could happen between now and Election Day. Would be hell.

Still holding out hope for Bernie as our nom.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Hillary Clinton has gotte...