• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

if hilary won the popular vote, then how come she lost?

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
27,101
1,261
126
thought # delegates = # of population of state?

so if she had majority of votes, then why did she not have the majority of delegates?
 
Dec 10, 2005
21,001
2,472
126
That popular vote doesn't include some caucus states since they don't record popular vote count.

States also had delegates distributed in different ways - such as heavily democratic areas got more delegates or areas with high turn-out in previous years got more.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: JEDI

Topic Title: if hilary won the popular vote, then how come she lost?
The assumption that she won the popular is questionable, at best. Hillary won the popular vote only if you count the votes from Florida and Michigan, both of which violated the rules set by the party, and ignore the results of the states that held caucuses, instead of primary elections. Hillary and every other Democratic candidate pledged not to campaign in those states, and every candidate, except Hillary, withdrew from the race in Michigan.

If you want a better question, think about the problems with the electoral college. Gore won the popular vote, and he lost. If the will of the people had determined that election, we wouldn't have had the Bushwhackos' horrific war of lies in Iraq. :(
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
That popular vote doesn't include some caucus states since they don't record popular vote count.
And therefore, the popular vote count represents only a subset of all american's votes.

As confusing the math is, the democratic party including its running candidates agreed to abide by the process for counting each state and the rules that each participating state had to follow
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
I could be wrong on this, but wasn't it only like 3-4 caucus states that didn't report their popular vote totals, and even with the estimations of where they'd be at, she still won the popular vote (with MI/FL included).

she lost because Obama used the rules to his advantage -- just look at Texas, where Hillary won the state popular vote and Obama still won more electoral votes. he racked up a string of small-state caucus victories thanks to some enthusiastic supporters and help from moveon.org, and Hillary was never able to overcome the delegate advantage, despite winning several major states even after Obama was long the front runner.
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
I could be wrong on this, but wasn't it only like 3-4 caucus states that didn't report their popular vote totals, and even with the estimations of where they'd be at, she still won the popular vote (with MI/FL included).

she lost because Obama used the rules to his advantage -- just look at Texas, where Hillary won the state popular vote and Obama still won more electoral votes. he racked up a string of small-state caucus victories thanks to some enthusiastic supporters and help from moveon.org, and Hillary was never able to overcome the delegate advantage, despite winning several major states even after Obama was long the front runner.
According to the rules agreed on and signed by all candidates, the popular vote count of caucus states would not be a deciding factor, nor would the votes of a state violating DNC rules count.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: tallest1
Originally posted by: loki8481
I could be wrong on this, but wasn't it only like 3-4 caucus states that didn't report their popular vote totals, and even with the estimations of where they'd be at, she still won the popular vote (with MI/FL included).

she lost because Obama used the rules to his advantage -- just look at Texas, where Hillary won the state popular vote and Obama still won more electoral votes. he racked up a string of small-state caucus victories thanks to some enthusiastic supporters and help from moveon.org, and Hillary was never able to overcome the delegate advantage, despite winning several major states even after Obama was long the front runner.
According to the rules agreed on and signed by all candidates, the popular vote count of caucus states would not be a deciding factor, nor would the votes of a state violating DNC rules count.
... right. exactly what I said.

but it doesn't change the fact that she won the popular vote. ;)

edit: also, the DNC decided that MI and FL count, so there. :p
 

sammyunltd

Senior member
Jul 31, 2004
717
0
0
ROFL. Obama crushed her in the Texas caucus. If we count all caucuses (in terms of popular vote), Obama is way ahead in popular vote.

Plus, Obama didn't campaign in MI and FL whereas Hillary did (in MI, and FL her name got her the win), so it's arguable to count these in the popular vote if you want to be "politically correct".
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,573
1,533
126
Like Hillary said many times, if it were winner take all, she would have won long ago.
Like the republicans, thats why Mccain won so fast over the others.
As a democrat, I have to add only the democrats could screw up an election process so badly. I still think Howard Dean is a jerk and a moron.
Why they meet and make these retarded rules is beyond logic.
Maybe thats one reason the republicans keep winning where it counts.

And no doubt the democrats will put on another one of their namby pamby love fest conventions, while the republicans go right for the throat.
Remember Zell Miller?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Once again, loki lies to only himself when he says---but it doesn't change the fact that she won the popular vote.

Fact--what fact? A rather dubious contention at best.

But a very close and hard fought campaign none the less between too highly similar mainstream democratic candidates.

And the contrast between Obama and McCain is extremely stark.

And if loki does not like the FACT that Obama won, he can like it or lump it. The rest of the world has moved on, why are you still clueless?

And maybe you need to troll under your own bridge.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Hypothetical:

State 1 100,000 democratic voters, 100 delegates.
State 2 150,000 democratic voters, 150 delegates.

Election:
State 1 Hillary 90,000 votes, 100 delegates.
State 2 Hillary 70,000 votes, 0 delegates

Total votes: 250,000 Hillary got 160,000 votes; Total electoral votes 250, Hillary got 100. Hillary got a majority of the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Because of a convoluted and , frankly, f*d up system that gives a disproportional influence to smaller states and caucuses, and not nearly enough weight to wins in the largest, most crucial states. Caucuses are undemocratic in the first place and with him having more fervent supporters he was able to rack up lopsided delegate totals there.

If the system was fair and representative of the voters then the pledged delegates would have been extremely close just like the popular vote, and the superdelegates could have gone either way. Obama won due to a seriously flawed system that he was able to exploit better thatn Clinton.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
once again, Lemon Law misreads and misinterprets my post to force me into some kind of preconceived notion or idea he has of me and my views.

nowhere did I dispute or complain about Obama winning the DNC primary.

if you can't bother to read my posts, please move on before replying to them. why are you still so clueless?
 

Kerouactivist

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2001
4,655
0
76
Any "total" that counts MI and FL are BS and should be thrown out....

Is it just me or are the hi'liar'y supporters pretty much the same as Paulbots at this point...basically just grasping for straws...

They should get together and give out awards to each other for "winner in their own minds"

Hopefully, at least the women that voted for Clinton will come around given the fact that if McCain gets elected their right to choose will probably be gone...barring a supermajority in the senate of dems which seems higly unlikely at this point.

Heck, I could understand a vote for Nader in opposition but actually voting for McCain is crazy considering the ideological standpoint of the majority of women Clinton supporters...
If McCain wins because of their support they wil have no one to blame but themselves when the right to choose gets taken away...

Basically, to Clinton supporters....Grow the fuck up...if you don't like Obama fine...don't vote for him (hell vote for Nader) but realize what that means when you do and ask your self if you are willing to accept that...

 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Because of a convoluted and , frankly, f*d up system that gives a disproportional influence to smaller states and caucuses, and not nearly enough weight to wins in the largest, most crucial states. Caucuses are undemocratic in the first place and with him having more fervent supporters he was able to rack up lopsided delegate totals there.

If the system was fair and representative of the voters then the pledged delegates would have been extremely close just like the popular vote, and the superdelegates could have gone either way. Obama won due to a seriously flawed system that he was able to exploit better thatn Clinton.
http://denver.about.com/od/gov...s/f/eachstatednc08.htm

I'm sorry but where does the type of election come into.

Get over it hillary lost, and she lost trying to change the rules.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
ultimately, I think the right person won... (imo) Hillary would have made a better commander in chief, but Obama is more likely to deliver the white house to the democratic party and help them increase their margins in congress.

but just because the right guy won this one time doesn't mean the system is perfect -- this is the same system that produced John Kerry, after all. we can start by getting rid of super delegates.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
ultimately, I think the right person won... (imo) Hillary would have made a better commander in chief, but Obama is more likely to deliver the white house to the democratic party and help them increase their margins in congress.

but just because the right guy won this one time doesn't mean the system is perfect -- this is the same system that produced John Kerry, after all. we can start by getting rid of super delegates.
The only problem the super delegates caused this time was giving delusional hillary supports hope causing the witch to stay in the race much longer then necessary.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
POPULAR VOTE DOESN'T WIN ANYTHING IN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS

Nomination = Delegate Votes
Presidency = Electoral Votes
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: loki8481
ultimately, I think the right person won... (imo) Hillary would have made a better commander in chief, but Obama is more likely to deliver the white house to the democratic party and help them increase their margins in congress.

but just because the right guy won this one time doesn't mean the system is perfect -- this is the same system that produced John Kerry, after all. we can start by getting rid of super delegates.
The only problem the super delegates caused this time was giving delusional hillary supports hope causing the witch to stay in the race much longer then necessary.
which could be a problem in and of itself... the capacity for party insiders to override the vote of democratic voters is still in place.
 

Screech

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2004
1,202
6
81
*return from lurking for a while*
To say she won the popular vote is quite a stretch. Here's why. Take a look at these numbers:

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...cratic_vote_count.html

Now, you will notice that when MI and FL are not counted, Obama wins. However, let's look at the count totals where everything is counted, including MI, FL, and the caucus estimates. We will actually try to count EVERY vote, not just the ones that a certain side wishes to count.

Obama: 17,869,542 47.4% Clinton: 18,046,007 47.9% Clinton +176,465 +0.5%

So, hillary wins by 176,465 votes, right?

Eh, no, not really. Remember, the whole idea behind this is that "Every vote must be counted," a very respectable goal, so it's about time that someone actually tries to count every vote. Hillary has a 176,000 margin only when you assume that all 238,168 of the uncommitteds in MI didn't support anybody, but that is, obviously, a pretty stupid assumption. If you give Obama all the uncommitteds, he wins the popular vote; if you give him none, he loses it. (Although both by such a small margin as to not matter, but that's beside the point). So, just for purposes of completeness, let's use the breakdown in votes we saw in florida. Of the 50% who didn't vote for hillary, 66% voted for Obama (Let me clarify: Obama got 33% of the total votes, which is 66% of the 50%), and the rest mostly for edwards. So, if we assume a similar breakdown of votes in the MI uncommitted, giving Obama 66% of the uncomitteds, he receives 157,000 votes. Hillary's theoretical margin of victory in the popular vote is then something more like 20,000 votes, but even that is an obviously flawed analysis, since polls conducted in MI after the primary (and after Obama has gained name recognition) show a much closer race between him and hillary (Amazing what having your name on the ballot can do for you, eh?), and more importantly, it is essentially impossible to be able to say where the line should be drawn in the uncommittteds without a revote. The only way you would accurately be able to say who won the popular vote would be to have new primaries in MI and FL, but Obama would likely do better in both and Hillary would then lose this whole popular vote argument, as well as any arguments for delegates that stem from it.

In short, the argument over the popular vote is completely asinine. 1) The election isn't determined by it, and 2) Nobody really won it anyway.
*return to lurk status*
 

sapiens74

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2004
2,162
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
POPULAR VOTE DOESN'T WIN ANYTHING IN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS

Nomination = Delegate Votes
Presidency = Electoral Votes



Well said



Bottom line here is the DNC Nomination system is setup similar albeit way more complicated to our electoral college.

Effectively keeping states like California not counting as much as 20 states due to population density

Sucks for the losing candidate, like Al Gore, but ultimately it balances the rights of states and tries to prevent mob rule....


Tries....


 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,313
761
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
I could be wrong on this, but wasn't it only like 3-4 caucus states that didn't report their popular vote totals, and even with the estimations of where they'd be at, she still won the popular vote (with MI/FL included).

she lost because Obama used the rules to his advantage -- just look at Texas, where Hillary won the state popular vote and Obama still won more electoral votes. he racked up a string of small-state caucus victories thanks to some enthusiastic supporters and help from moveon.org, and Hillary was never able to overcome the delegate advantage, despite winning several major states even after Obama was long the front runner.
Thats because Clinton relied on an old and out of date ground machine.

Obama built his from the ground up. And last I checked people from Chicago are kinda good at building ground machines.

The Clinton Campaign, made fatal flaws last year, that were only realized once the primary season got under way. They were expecting a corination, and didnt bother to building better ground machines in the majority of states.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Yeah no shit the election isn't determined by popular vote. The point is that the disparity between the popular vote and the delegate count tells us something about how the system works and whether it fairly represents the will of the people. I think most people would agree that in a true democracy, everyone's vote should count and count equally.

Unfortunately our government chooses to manipulate the vote of the people with archaic systems based on delegates and electorates. So, just like Bush's election in 2000, I question any result that is not consistent with the popular vote. If more people would question these things maybe we wouldn't still be stuck with the f*d up voting systems in this country.

This is why the OP is confused and I think he/she has every right to be.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY