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.Originally posted by: JEDI
Topic Title: if hilary won the popular vote, then how come she lost?
And therefore, the popular vote count represents only a subset of all american's votes.Originally posted by: Brainonska511
That popular vote doesn't include some caucus states since they don't record popular vote count.
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.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.
... right. exactly what I said.Originally posted by: tallest1
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.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.
http://denver.about.com/od/gov...s/f/eachstatednc08.htmOriginally 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.
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.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.
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.Originally posted by: smack Down
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.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.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
POPULAR VOTE DOESN'T WIN ANYTHING IN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Nomination = Delegate Votes
Presidency = Electoral Votes
Thats because Clinton relied on an old and out of date ground machine.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.