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
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Evidently needs reposting: Hillary is NOT winning the popular vote. That's not how primaries work. [View all]Tarc
(10,495 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
108 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Evidently needs reposting: Hillary is NOT winning the popular vote. That's not how primaries work. [View all]
TalkingDog
May 2016
OP
Nope. I'm saying throwing that number out is propaganda. The number means nothing.
TalkingDog
May 2016
#11
So, it's kind of like Sanders telling his people to keep sending money, he's going to win?
anotherproletariat
May 2016
#14
And you guys got that lie wrong too. Bernie doesn't ask his supporters to send money
pdsimdars
May 2016
#86
Would you prefer they use a number like 2M? Is that closer to what you perceive to be reality?
LonePirate
May 2016
#57
The popular vote is one measure. Hillary is winning every measure, Bernie losing by every measure.
tritsofme
May 2016
#17
The winner of the Kansas primary or caucus has gone on to become the Democrat nominee
SheilaT
May 2016
#45
He's behind in every other metric, as well, including the only one that matters, delegates.
TwilightZone
May 2016
#20
"Hillary still wins. EVERY TIME" Nobody and I mean NOBODY knows and understands that better than the
Number23
May 2016
#69
seriously. someone took the population of the state and said 72% of those should be
MariaThinks
May 2016
#35
The point is, correcting for all the caucus-goers results in at most +200k for Bernie
Tarc
Jun 2016
#95
Didn't Washington have a non binding vote and Hillary won? Using your theory say
Thinkingabout
May 2016
#43
Replace caucuses with primaries and I bet Clinton surpasses 2383 without any superdelegates.
Garrett78
May 2016
#48
Yes since most of Sanders wins is in caucus states, caucuses suppress the senior
Thinkingabout
May 2016
#50
Caucuses get romanticized, but the fact of the matter is they suppress turnout in a big way.
Garrett78
May 2016
#44
Washington is a really bad example considering 700k voted in the non binding primary vs. 230k in the
tandem5
May 2016
#49
She's closer to "winning" than Sanders even if it only 2.8 million, rather than 3.0 million lead.
Hoyt
May 2016
#51
This post is bizarre. If you added up all the results of the primary and caucus voters Clinton would
underthematrix
May 2016
#56
Did California vote yet? Do you apportion their votes based upon polling even before they vote?
Ed Suspicious
May 2016
#60
It's actually not all that misleading... And there was a popular vote count for Washington
Agschmid
Jun 2016
#106