The Popular Vote Fallacy

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

Miande — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:31:14 GMT

If the Democratic Party delegates would follow what actually ha been decided at the polls and award the nomination to the man who has won it, all this would go away. But as long as Hillary keeps sendinf coded racist messages that she somehow deserved the nomination even though she has lost, we will continue to have these empty discussions.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

kamakiriad — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:57:57 GMT

You win the nomination by having 2025 DELEGATES. Popular vote is irrelevant. Electoral College is irrelevant. Electability is irrelevant unless it's brokered at the convention. Caucus vs. Primary is irrelevant. Florida and Michigan are irrelevant. What counts are DELEGATES, and no matter how much the Clintons try to squirm and find another metric, DELEGATES are STILL all that matters. Delegates are all that count. They are welcome to stay in till Obama get's 2025, but what is the point since they can not catch him? At this point it's just childish refusal to accept that they lost to a better campaign. They continue to hope something will stick to the wall. They keep praying that if they whine loud enough, someone will change the rules of the process to hand them a victory they didn't earn.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

hayden23 — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:02:38 GMT

One often overlooked point, I feel, is that the process for allocating delegates is a poor one. The goal of the allocation should be to, ideally, reflect the popular vote. An alternative, although less desirable, goal would be to mimic the electoral college process- winner take all. Now, those who favor Obama argue that he has won the most delegates and that all must play by the rules as they are established. This is true, but the rules also are such that superdelegates can use whatever factors they deem appropriate to make their decisions. This, too, is part of the process and rules as they exist. If they choose to use an approximation of the popular vote as a factor in their decision, that is their right under the rules (including Florida, Michigan, or whatever they feel is appropriate).

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

RANDYIS51 — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:36:34 GMT

We hold other countrie's in contempt and always think they are "fixed". Why more and more do our elections look like that? There is always a "reason" Voters who didn't push the handle good enough, election computer failures, etc. In popular elections, the lines to vote overwhelm many local systems. Instead of having serous reform, we just happily assume, all of the elections were held in a fair, real manner. The older I get, the more I am frightened of this broken process.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

pinkpanther87413 — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:43:04 GMT

Oh Mrs. Clinton, don't you have to be popular first? Your husband is, very, but he is not you. So how much of her popularity, is derived by Bill?? Unite, overcome, and don't go electing a scab out of spite! This is good? This is what we DEMAND the WORLD to do, as we do? Boy talk about a ignorent teacher but POPLUAR?

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

putoff — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:43:24 GMT

It's amazing how people are willing to wrangle with the facts when the facts won't allow them to claim what they want. Hillary Clinton and those who support her extreme position are just giving credence to all of the past Republican claims that she is devious and willful. Her conduct is totally unpatriotic. She should be ashamed of herself. I'm shame for her!

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

col55 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:13:23 GMT

The trickery of the Clinton campaign is endless...I was telling my husband the same thing yesterday...that these Clinton supporters came out and seemed so generous/evenhanded claiming that if Hillary did not win the popular vote, she could not be the nominee. Even some Obama supporters fell for it - I saw some positive comments to this on the blogs. Until you stopped and realized that this is a stealthy ploy to push the concept of using the popular vote as the yardstick for a win. Even though the established rule in the party is that the delegate count is what translates to a win.

The Clinton camp is going to keep repeating "popular vote" over and over until it gets accpeted as legit. They have learned over the years that a lie repeated enough can become fact in the minds of the public.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

Emile Mervin — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:16:05 GMT

If you were a stranger to the Clintons and heard Hillary is polarizing or that together with her husband would do or say anything to win or get their way, then this nomination process should enlighten you.

The Clintons may not only now be looking to damage Obama badly enough so the Americans will vote McCain, but badly enough so that Hillary can make another run in 2012.

The problem is, even though I back McCain, Hillary's 2012 plans could be in serious trouble if enough Democrats and enough Independents and a small portion of Republicans vote for Obama in the fall. Obama will be 50 and Hillary will be 64. It will b e like middle age versus old age.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

Elizabeth828 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:28:39 GMT

As blogger #2 wrote, "a lie repeated enough can become fact in the minds of the public." Has anyone else considered that the Clinton's set us up with this fallacious reasoning and spinning and so we have tolerated it ad nauseum from Bush-Cheney, et al? Nearly every word out of the Clinton's mouth, especially regarding the campaign, is twisted logic. I for one cannot tolerate another 4-8 years of lies repeated again and again, as if repeated enough will make it true. Thank you, Mr. Romano, for pointing out the extent of these false claims.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

JenniferAmelia — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:48:25 GMT

The popular vote tally has no relevance at all in the nominating process? Man, what planet are you living on? I GUARANTEE YOU if Obama pulls a GW and steals the nomination from Clinton because he has a higher delegate count even though she has more of the popular vote there will, and should, be a fracas.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

PatrynXX — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 01:14:15 GMT

RE: The popular vote tally has no relevance at all in the nominating process? Man, what planet are you living on? I GUARANTEE YOU if Obama pulls a GW and steals the nomination from Clinton because he has a higher delegate count even though she has more of the popular vote there will, and should, be a fracas.------------

As the writer said, the caucus votes don't count the popular vote. So how Obama could steal an election via delegates vs popular votes is thrown out the window. I'd be guessing if they did come up with a popular vote (via a psychic???) with those 4 states, The popular vote would probably be even wider in Obama's favor.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

Northlite — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 01:17:39 GMT

The logic-twisting, simply shameless, daily unbelievable spin out of this campaign is a real turn off to this D-leaning independent voter. I liked Bill a lot, then a little less when he lied under oath, but I still had a lot of respect for his presidency. I was skeptical of Hillary, but when she won the votes of New Yorkers, worked hard in the Senate, and then won re-election, I was impressed. I seriously considered voting for her in my state's primary.

But the spinning and spinning, and then the Bosnia thing, and now, after all their carping about Obama talking to the Canadians, her Director of Strategy, who Ickes recently described as only behind Hillary in the campaign hierarchy, is talking with The Ambassador, The Ambassador, about getting a free trade agreement. And Hillary wants to tell us that Penn wouldn't have immediate access to her if she were elected. Yah, right! This is a sign of the self-serving, self-enriching monster that the Clintons have become.

Now, sadly really, I've seen enough of the Clintons.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

davis2000 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 01:33:22 GMT

It will be grossly unfair for Hillary to try and steal the nomination from Barack. He has earned it and Hillary should chill out. The supperdelegates should not overturn the will of the people. Barack won 32 states and Hillary only won about 15. All states are equally important and Hillary should know that. Barack has overun Hillary just the way Malltropolitan.com is overunning online stores now because of their greatly discounted prices. The American people should fight for their votes and not allow the supperdelegates to shove their own nominee down their throat. May the best candidate with the most pledge delegates and popular vote win.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

Setay — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 01:39:11 GMT

He didn't say the popular vote was irrelavent; he said it didn't exist. The Clinton campaign is obsessed with the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida that they are forgetting that by suggesting that Superdelegates be decided by popular vote that they are openly disenfranchising Maine, Washington, Iowa, and Nevada (Obama won 3 of those 4) and you certainly can't call Washington and Iowa irrelavent.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

solarpower — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 01:40:52 GMT

"I GUARANTEE YOU if Obama pulls a GW and steals the nomination from Clinton because he has a higher delegate count even though she has more of the popular vote there will, and should, be a fracas."

Hilarious! More of the "accuse your opponent of what you are doing" tactics that the Clinton campaign holds dear. The person who needs to steal the nomination--and is actively undermining all the rules pertaining to the nomination contest because she is behind--is Clinton. Obama is ahead in PLEDGED delegates (yes, Hillary, they exist) and the popular vote. What happened in FL and MI is sad, but it is the fault of the Dems in those states. They brought this not only on themselves but upon the national process.

Obama doesn't HAVE to "steal" anything... he is WINNING, and he will remain ahead despite the despricalbe efforts of the Clinton campaign to make this personal instead of about issues. Obama has sealed the win in the Character column,

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

Vote4Prosperity — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 01:41:52 GMT

To all you Clinton BAshers and Obama's supporters! Since Obam always gets the free pass and we are blindsighted lambs following the press...Yes Obama brings change the WRIGHT CHANGE,

THE MEDIA AND OBAMAS BULLIES WANT TO BULLY HILLARY OUT OF THE GAME-OBAMA AN ANTI-AMERICAN SUPPORTER FOR TWENTY YEARS. HILLARY WILL WIN THE POPULAR VOTE AND IF PEOPLE KNEW WHO OBAMA REALLY IS INSTEAD OF DRINKING THE KOOL AID HE HAS OFFERED WITH HIS EMPTY WORDS. HE HAS BROUGHT US ALL BACK 40 YEARS WITH HIS RACIAL BANDWAGON . HIS SPEECH WAS TO DIVERT THE PEOPLE INTO THINKING RACE, BUT THE REAL ISSUE HERE WAS THE HATRED HSI MENTOR OF TWENTY YEARS VOMITED AGAINST AMERICA AND AMERICAN PEOPLE. HOW SAD THAT NO ONE HAS CARED ENOUGH TO REAL;Y TAKE A LOOK AT THIS HYPOCRITE...THE MEDIA COVERS UP

63.) I have the best plan to cure the Mortgage Crisis - LIAR. [03/30/2008] You and your campaign buddy Penny SubPrime Bank Collapse Prizker have had your little fingers full of subprime cash - Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans: Obama received $266,907 from Lehman, $5395 from GMAC, $150,850 from Credit Suisse First Boston, $11,250 from Countrywide, $9052 from Washington Mutual, $161,850 from Citigroup, $4600 from CBASS, $170,050 from Morgan Stanley, $1150 from Centex, and last but certainly NOT LEAST - Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs. I am sure that cash all came from folks who knew the subprime loan they had was a dream, eh?

64) I played greater role in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion - LIAR - [03/31/2008] It was found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer. Read Obama had greater role on liberal survey

65) I did NOT play the race card: - LIAR - [03/31/2008] Obama was the first to play the race card. According to Phialdelphia Inquirer, Quietly, the storm over the hateful views expressed by Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has blown away the most insidious myth of the Democratic primary campaign. Obama and his surrogates have charged that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has deliberately and cleverly played the race card in order to label Obama the “black” candidate. Read more here

66) I did not take money from oil companies: - LIAR - [03/31/2008]

THE FACTS: True enough, Obama does not take money from oil companies. No candidate does. It is illegal for corporations to give money to politicians. Corporations, however, do have political action committees that collect voluntary donations from employees and then donate them to candidates. Obama doesn’t take money from PACs. He also doesn’t take money from lobbyists.

But he does accept money from executives and other employees of oil companies and two of his fundraisers are oil company executives. As of Feb. 29, Obama’s presidential campaign had received nearly $214,000 from oil and gas industry employees and their families, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Clinton had received nearly $307,000 from industry workers and their families and Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely GOP presidential nominee, received nearly $394,000, according to the center’s totals.

Two of Obama’s fundraisers are Robert Cavnar, the chairman and chief executive of Houston-based Mission Resources Corp., and George Kaiser, the president and CEO of Tulsa-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. Source: Associated press via Yahoo News

This is the LAUNDRY LIST OF LIES. Updated to reflect new dishonesties.

.) Selma Got Me Born - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - LIAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn’t allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili - LIAR, your name is Arabic and ‘Baraka’ (from which Barack came) means ‘blessed’ in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years,until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.

8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.

13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.

15.) I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ‘08 - LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.

17.) Oops, I Misvoted - LIAR, only when caught by church groups and democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, you didn’t write it,introduce it, change it, or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - LIAR, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - LIAR, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - LIAR, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - LIAR, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - LIAR, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel.

30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet - LIAR, after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how you and he were working together on getting FARC recognized officially.

31.) I Didn’t Run Ads In Florida - LIAR, you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost.

32.) I Won Michigan - LIAR, no you didn’t.

33.) I won Nevada - LIAR, no you did not.

34.) I Want All Votes To Count - LIAR, you said let the delegates decide.

35.) I Want Americans To Decide - LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - LIAR, you passed 26, most of which you didn’t write yourself.

37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - LIAR, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. Obama has stopped saying this.

38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - LIAR, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

39.) I Don’t Take PAC Money - LIAR, you take loads of it.

40.) I don’t Have Lobbysists - LIAR, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - LIAR, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - LIAR, Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients.

43.) I Inspire People With My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with other people’s words.

44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate - LIAR, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.

45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - LIAR, you weren’t in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date - AGAIN.

46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - LIAR, your plan leaves us all to pay the 15,000,000 who don’t have to buy it.

47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - LIAR, both companies you site as having sent you letters about this conflict have no record of any such letter ever being created or sent.

48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone - LIAR, you won’t wear a flag pin and you don’t put your hand over your heart during the Anthem.

49.) My Wife Didn’t Mean What She Said About Pride In Country - LIAR, your wife’s words follow lock-step in the vein of Wright and Farrahkan, in relation to their contempt and hatred of America.

50.) Wal-Mart Is A Company I Wouldn’t Support - LIAR, your wife has received nearly a quater of a million dollars through Treehouse, which is connected to Wal-Mart.

51.) Treehouse Is A Small Company - LIAR, the CEO of Treehouse last year, made more than the CEO of Wal-Mart, according to public records.

52.) University Of Chicago Hospital Pay Is Fair - LIAR, your wife’s pay raise was nearly 150% her already bloated rate and the hospital is a Non-Profit Hospital, which made $100,000,000 in the last 3 years. They overcharge blacks VS whites for services, and overcharge everyone in general by 538%!

53.)I Barely Know Rezko - Only 5 Billed Hours - LIAR, you have known him for 17 years, and decided to do a real estate deal with him during a time when he was proven to be under investigation. Despite this, you divided your property and had them take off $300K before the mortgage problems started. Then Rezko’s wife buys the lot beside it that you can’t afford, saving you $625,000.

54.) My Donations Have Been Checked Thoroughly - LIAR, you only gave back Hsu ($72K) and Rezko (first $66K, then when caught lying $86K, then when caught lying again $150K and now caught lying YET AGAIN OBAMA, it’s $250k) their money when publically called on their involvement in your campaigns.

55.) My Church Is Like Any Other Christian Church - LIAR, your church is so extreme, the pastor who married you, Rev. Wright, just got done blaming the US for 9/11 and named Louis Farrahkan their person of the year.

56.) I Disagree With My Church All The Time - LIAR, you still have yet to repudiate Wright, who married you and your wife, and you still donate large sums of money to assist the church in furthering its message - hatred and revenge. You donated in 2006 alone, $22,500 to the church that you so terribly disagree with. That is nearly $500 PER WEEK - that sure is disagreement, Senator Obama.

57.) I Have Clean Connections Despite Rezko - LIAR, you are not only connected to Exelon and Rezko, you are also connected to Hillary PAC supporter Mr. Hsu, AND an Iraqi Billionaire of ill repute, Nadhmi Auchi, who ripped off people in the Food For Oil, Iraqi deal. Seems Mr. Auchi may have helped Obama buy his million dollar property long before Obama had millions of dollars. Wonder what favors Mr. Auchi expects, when Obama leaves Iraq free to be taken over by special interests such as him.

58.) I never heard sermons like Rev. Wright’s, that have been in videos all day, You Tube - LIAR! 3 days later during your Mea Culpa BS speech you said “Did I hear controversial statements while I sat in that church? Yes I did.”

59.) The Passport Invasion is a conspiracy to find dirt on me! - LIAR. Your own Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor is the CEO of the company that looked into your records. PS - You had them look into yours to hide the fact you looked into Clinton’s and McCain’s more than a year before!

60.) Rev. Meeks has nothing to do with my campaigning - LIAR. Rev. Meeks appeared in ads for your Senate Campaign, donated to you, and helped raise money, then AND NOW. PS - He also seems to despise America.

61.) My wife didn’t mean America is ignorant, she was just using a phrase - LIAR. Again, MicHELLe’s comments perfectly sync with Wright’s, Meeks’, and Farrakhans, both in language, anger, and direction.

62.) I am very Anti-Terror - LIAR. [03/30/2008] One of your good pals is long time radical and terrorist William Ayers, with whom you have been seen in the last 12 months and who has helped the now jailed khalidi, Professor at Columbia who invited Ahmadinejad to the University, to raise money for Palestinian terrorism attacks against Israel. PS - Your church published a pro Hamas Manifesto - guess you weren’t there on THAT Sunday either? How lucky for you.

66) I did not take money from oil companies: - LIAR - [03/31/2008]

This is the LAUNDRY LIST OF LIES. Updated to reflect new dishonesties.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

Vote4Prosperity — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 01:45:36 GMT

The list below is all of Obama's lies that the media so conveniently has never mentioned to the people. The lack of responsibility that the media, specially MSNBC and CNN has displayed ist truly unfair to the people that take the time to watch thinking they are getting everything they need to know about Obama!

The free pass is rediculous! and People before voting for this Anti-American suportrs should get informed. Ask Ask Ask, that is why these blogs excist!

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

WestCoastMessenger — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 01:51:42 GMT

If the DNC wants to try to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan, and if there are more repeated attempts by the likes of Pelosi, Leahy, Dodd, Dean, the MoveOnOrgees and the Daily Kos Mafia to negatively impact the voting by more working class Democrats in more states, then Obama will begin to look more like Robert Mugabe and his band of goons. I strongly suggest we allow the voting to continue peacably to avoid demonstrations on the streets of Denver in August. ABCNews reports the popular vote, as does Newsweek. All the sudden this bozo wants to say it doesn't exist. I can hold up one of my fingers and show you my vote about your particular idea.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

ScribeGT — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 01:56:21 GMT

I believe, Vote4, that these blogs also exist so that we can see the relative intelligence of the people who are taking positions and their reasoning for doing so. For example, I pay much more attention to arguments by people who can spell words like "exist" and "supporters" correctly.

Hillary does not need to be "bullied out of the game" -- she has already lost. She cannot beat him delegates, and as Stumper points out, delegates decide this. If she sets a precedent that delegate totals should be ignored, then we might as well toss the entire primary process out and simply say that the power brokers of old Washington, D.C. will decide who the nominee is, regardless of who votes for whom. (Ask yourself -- if the positions were reversed, in terms of states won, delegates won, can you honestly say you would not be calling for Obama to get out of the way and let Hillary claim the nomination?)

I was a huge supporter of Bill - he was the first President I ever voted for with real enthusiasm. But what I have seen in this campaign is that when the rules don't work for them, the Clintons try to get them changed -- even when they themselves have signed off on those rules. When states don't vote for them, those states are deemed "unimportant" or in some other way dismissed. I have lost all respect for both of them.

Simple fact -- if Hillary had a strong rationale for her candidacy and had made that case during the time she was the presumptive nominee, Obama never would have made any inroads. But her whole rationale is, "It's my turn now," and sorry, that's not good enough.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

Mastersgirl1 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:07:19 GMT

Vote4,

Your comments were so venomous and the tone violent. Thank God that individuals with your brand of rhetoric are not given power and influence or high level authority. If so, we'd be in trouble!

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

solarpower — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:12:49 GMT

It ought to be easy to dismiss instantly anyone who focuses on Wright. Sadly, ignorance of the past runs rampant.

Do a little research about Wright in comparison to MLK. It's quite obvious that they are very similar. If you are somewhat educated, open minded, and paying attention, you will understand what Wright preaches against: the perpetuation of injustice by the government. Seeing him as anti-American is proof of one's own disconnection from the problems faced by normal people in this nation.

But people like Vote4Prosperity are here with an agenda: spread lies and distortion to scare people away from Obama. It's worth noting that, while V4P is most likely a GOP operative, it's entirely possible that V4P is a solid Clinton supporter. While no liberal worth the name would ever spread intolerance for any purpose, it was one of Clinton's Iowa campaign managers who sent out the email lie about Obama being Muslim. And it was an elected Clinton surrogate who claimed that the jihadists would be dancing in the streets if Obama won. While it is true that people all over the world will dance in the streets if Obama wins, this sort of fearmongering from a "fellow" Democrat is stomach-turning. It's sadly obvious that "Democrats" are often a long way from also being principled liberals.

Re: FL and MI, it's very simple. The DNC is RIGHTFULLY penalizing FL and MI for deliberately breaking the rules. Punish your own officials by electing better ones who will actually do the right thing, instead of selfishly attempting to hold the entire nomination process hostage. The primaries in Fl and MI are meaningless shams because the candidates did not campaign. Clinton additionally broker her word by leaving her name on the MI ballot after signing a pledge that forbade participation. YT video has surfaced showing that FL Dems were really not fighting the GOP controlled legislature about the early primary date.

There is no case to honor the results of those primaries. The DNC is working on seating the delegates to honor the PEOPLE of MI and FL, but the state Dem leaders will not be rewarded for their regrettable acts.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

odelljones — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:30:50 GMT

which i hear is similar to your unbiased reporting fallacy

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

tdavis001 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:40:13 GMT

Sadly, most people haven't seen this for what it is. It is the equivalent of changing football's winner to being the one who runs up the most yards. While it is interesting, that's not how you play the game.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

il10per — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:42:40 GMT

Damn. That's it. I kept scratching my head wondering just what the Hell kind of ridiculous low life scam Hilly could POSSIBLY have up her sleeve that would be of ANY effect on the outcome of this primary.

You've hit the nail square on the head. Now I realize why all of a sudden Michigan and Florida are so absolutely essential to her. It's the only path she has left to try and subvert the process and steal the nomination.

Say what you will about the Clinton's but love em or hate em, you have to admire them. They're FORGOTTEN more about how to beat the system than any of us lesser mortals will ever know. And when you look at their track record it stands alone, virtually uncontested in the annals of Sleaze and corruption. It's too bad they can't use that scheming, conniving, swindler expertise on foreign leaders with the same aplomb as they employ it on their own government. Well That salts it. I'd have to say at this point Barack Obama is finished (he just doesn't know it yet). It's a shame to have the nomination stolen from you when you've won it fairly, but this IS politics after all. HELLOOOO John McCain.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

sick of clintons — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:48:38 GMT

TO VOTE FOR PROSPERITY. YOU ARE DAMN FULL OF SHITS, LIES AND RACISM. VOTE FOR OBAMA 08. PEOPLE LIKE YOU SCARE ME.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

jdmailman — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:55:14 GMT

Hey, let's play by the rules, as long as I win.

Hillary

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

an obama girl — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:57:19 GMT

Hillary talks out both sides of her mouth!!

Hillary wants everyone to believe she cares about the voters of Michigan and Florida!

Her games is to make the American people believe that Obama some how wishes to disenfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida and that she is on their side.

Out the other side of her mouth she says...... Superdeligates need not follow the will of the people! She believes they should do what is best for the party, to include...overturn the will of the people. ,

Bottom line...Hillary is saying count the votes of Michigan and Florida'...BUT...if the votes are not for me.... then... the superdeligates should ignore the vote of the people and give her the nomination!

Hillary care nothing about americas people and their votes.

He makes jokes on late night television about being shot at in Bosnia, while every night..... American soldiers lay in wait of another round of gunfire!!

SHAME ON HIllary Clinton...She has no respect for our military solderiers or the voters of america unless it is to her benifit!

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

heartofusa — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:59:53 GMT

Back to the issue of popular vote, Senator Clinton is trying to circumvent the system both ways. Claiming that the popular vote should determine who gets the nomination, then she states that delegates, which are won and allocated based on the popular vote, are not required to vote for the candidate that they represent. By trying to persuade and still delegates, she is saying that the popular vote doesn't count.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

valadezaj — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:08:53 GMT

I'm stick all of this crap about Hillary stealing the nomination. The votes aren't in yet folks! When the last state votes on June 7 then we can see where we are.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

MilesTrane21 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:26:54 GMT

I am an Obama supporter, but I do not believe in the delegate system. I believe the people should have all the say, not a partial say or a say where the people could even possibly be overridden. However, because of the caucuses and the Florida and Michigan situation. Florida could be considered fair but Michigan was completely undemocratic. So I believe that we should move on to delegates. I do not believe that Hillary is evil, or doesn't care about the American people, but she is somewhat machiavellian. She believes that she should be President by almost any means possible but she is not truly machiavellian because I do not believe she is doing it for personal gain, but because she believes she would be the best for the American people. I disagree. If Democrats want to win against John McCain we should hurry up and finish this race. I do not see how she could win unless she put the decision of the party's nomination in the hands of superdelegates, which would turn off much of the enthusiasm we have now, making it impossible to beat McCain, which is a very depressing prospect. I do not see what Hillary gains from staying in the race. I do not believe that it is possible for her to win the Presidency. The Reverend Wright "scandal" is a moot point. Yes, Republicans will use it incessantly against Obama, but I do not see what good it will do them. This purported "scandal" has already had so much news coverage, I think it has done its damage. Hillary should do what is best for the party and herself and drop out. If she did, my respect and many others' would rise for her.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

obholmen — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:29:46 GMT

There is a further fallacy to the idea that it is possible to determine a popular vote total to include caucus states. Allow me to use my own state of MN as an example.

Minnesota is a caucus state with results of 66-32% in favor of Obama which yielded an excess of caucus voters of 73,115 for Obama. This figure is included in the media created margin of approximately 700,000 for Obama. But, because turnout in Caucus states is considerably lower than in primary states (Clinton is right about that), the margin of victory is also held down.

Neighboring Wisconsin has a similar sized electorate. If the same number of voters turned out for a Mn primary as in Wisconsin and if Obama had the same 66-32% majority, his voter margin would have been over 340,00 rather than merely 73,115. Or, if Obama carried a hypothetical Mn primary by the same pct as neighboring Wisconsin (58-41%), then Obama's popular vote margin would have been 190,000 instead of merely 73,115. Even if Obama's margin of victory would only have been 10%, his popular vote margin would have been 110,000 --- still considerably more than he is credited with when only including caucus margin of victory.

Treating the vote totals in caucus states in the same category as primary vote totals significantly disadvantages the caucus states. Even though Mn's electorate size is comparable to Wisconsin, there were 5 times as many voters in the Wis primary as in the Mn caucus. This makes the Wisconsin primary 5 times more important than Mn even though the electorates are essentially equal.

Another reason why it is a myth to suggest there is such a thing as a popular vote total. If the rules are unfair, change them but do so before the primary season not after. For this season, stick with the rules.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

MilesTrane21 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:32:02 GMT

Excuse me, "However, because of the caucuses and the Florida and Michigan situation" should also have "the popular vote is not legitimate."

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

valadezaj — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:33:31 GMT

Because of that remark I just donated 20 more dollars to the Hillary campaign. She's staying in until June. The last 10 states ARE going to vote no matter how much you guys try to stop it.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

valadezaj — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:34:55 GMT

I was responding to obholmen's comment.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

valadezaj — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:36:32 GMT

I meant the 3rd comment under mine. The reply button is disabled it seems.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

mjno — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:42:54 GMT

IF NEWSWEEK and MSNBC quit trying to ruin a real election, she would have the popular vote.

www.hillaryspeaksforme.com

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

an obama girl — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:48:00 GMT

vote4proserty

I can see from your laundry list and the clinton's tax return who you are getting your money from...

Check out Mr. penn and Hill-billys manager Maggie and their relationship to mortgage companies...for the real zinger....check out who is giving money to the clinton bank account!(foriegn oil companies)

who is staining dresses and the american reputation? Clinton

who has friends in high places killing themselves to bury the lies? Clinton

who is turning their backs on terrorists in the 90's? Clinton

who is has been convicted of illegal cash financing in New York? Clinton

who served in a white house that has been empeached for lying to the american people? Clinton

who tells whoopers about being shot at in Bosnia? Clinton?

who has horrible ties to whitewater? Clinton

who served in white house during empeachment? Clinton

who stis around making jokes about being shot at while americans are serving in overseas wars? Clinton

who asks for $ for woodstock while americans suffer mortgage crisis? Clinton

there is one TRUE liar and she wants to steal this election and the white house!

she will do and say anything to take this election from the people

your artical and facts are as misleading as the rest of the hillary campaign!

She is a lier now and forever! the american people will never forget...reguardless for your MISSTATED FACTS!

for the record. the racism started with Billy Boy Clinton in South Carolina!

JUST AS IN ALL THINGS CLINTON THEY WILL TRY TO DENY THAT AS WELL!

THE CLITONS MAY ATTEMPT TO WIN THE BATTLE. SHOULD THEY BE SUCCESSFUL...THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WILL LOSE THE WAR!

HILLARY AND BILL...GO HOME TO YOUR DIRY MILLIONS

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

mjno — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:48:19 GMT

OBAMA lost the women's vote in PA. First asking a hillary supporter if she would take off her button if he kissed her. Then, while touring a factory calling the women "sweetie" and "beautiful"

WWW.STOP-OBAMA.ORG

HE TALKS OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH...FACT.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

valadezaj — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:49:06 GMT

I just stand in awe of how much crap Hillary has been able to take. The republican attack machine will be a piece of cake compared to everything she's had to take from all the pundits and critics. Hillary is a real fighter. Go Hillary!!!

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

pinkpanther87413 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 04:06:16 GMT

If any thing is nice about all this is the superdelegets are letting all the people have there say, then if they need to do there job, then so be it, but they have not forced either person to drop, nor have they even asked, and i give them kudos for there attitude at this time.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

Jammetrymon — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 04:08:43 GMT

Assured by the DNC that the Florida and Michigan primaries were "preseason contests" that had no bearing on the regular season, Obama used the common sensical approach of saving his best game for the regular season. Yet now, with his current significant lead in the popular vote, and insurmountable lead among delegates, Hillary wants her preseason victories to count for the regular season. Are you kidding me???

At this point, there is no need to argue the pros and cons of the Democratic candidates. Based on the rules that both candidates stipulated to at the outset, Obama, would have to throw an air-ball from 2 centimeters to blow the nomination. That won't happen.

Yet, as Obama now turns his attention to the more important matters, like keeping the Bush era of economic, military, environmental and moral disaster, from resurfacing in the form of sidekick McCain in 2008, the Hillary campaign is pulling every conceivable string to sabotage the mission as they continue to make futile attempts to discredit the candidate that will represent our only hope of preserving what's left of our creditability, democratic freedoms and prosperity.

And those Hillary supporters who now proclaim their allegiance to McCain in the event of an Obama nomination, are not only placing their own creditability as Democrats in question, but also their sincerity of supporting the changes that both Hillary and Obama aspire to achieve. Should these defections result in a Republican victory in November, so be it. At least those of us who voted to dethrone the dark side will be able to sleep better at night.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

coolrepublica — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 04:21:50 GMT

I am one of these people who will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. I can't stand Obama. He rubs me the wrong way. I am from a country where politicians are all Obamas. They all talk like him and they all make the same promises. I know Obama. I have seen Obama type politicians after they take office, and it's not pretty.

Rich people with too much time on their hand may who require "HOPE" to get up in the morning and drive to the nearest Starbucks, but are too lazy to buy a Tony Robbins CD to motivate them can vote for Obama. I don't drink coffee and I'm not a stuck up intellectual, and I can't stand people who jump on bandwagons just because. So this November if Hillary is not the nominee, I will vote for McCain. McCain is the real deal. He talks the talk and walks the walk. I like him. I will sleep just fine knowing he is president. I can't say the same for Obama.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

col55 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 04:39:31 GMT

Look...all of you Hillary supporters who are "threatening" to vote for McCain if Hillary loses...could we say "sore losers"? What is your ther explanation? The man has run a ridiculously clean campaign.

BTW, here is what Bill Clinton had to say 4 years ago about all this "hope" talk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo&feature=related

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

PatriotGrl — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:27:27 GMT

Oh! Get over yourselves. The popular vote doesn't count and it never has. In primaries, we have delegates; in the general we have electoral college votes. If the popular vote counted, Gore would have been president in 2000. So you may not like the rules, but the rules they are... just as the rule (ratified and agreed by everyone in advance) was that Florida and MIchigan wouldn't count. Where was all the outrage about "disenfranchising voters" when the original decision was made?

What's worse, if I understand the primary system, despite the premise of their being "elections" primaries really are nothing more than a contest held by private organizations (political parties), which could theoretically select candidates any way they like without input from the public at all. Therefore, this whole question of "disenfranchising voters " because state representatives chose to break the rules of the private organization (the political party) to which they belong, is specious. If we didn't count Mihigan's and Florida's votes in the general election, that would be disenfranchisement. Now it's just a tough break. That's the rules - you may not like it, but that's the way it is.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

Johnny1967 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 09:09:06 GMT

This articles analysis is exactly on point. But there is also something else.

Allowing popular votes to matter favors states holding primaries rather than caucuses becaue by nature more people come out to vote in primaries. There has never been an intention to favor caucuses over primaries. Thus, to make poplular votes matter is simply illogical.

The purpose of holding caucuses or primaries is the same: to allocate pledged delegates. There is no contest for popular votes. Otherwise, all states will tend to favor primaries to weild influence. The reletive influence of each state is factored by the allocated delegates. Not by how many people show up to primaries or caucuses.

The name of the game for the candidates is to rack up pledged delegates and supuerdelegates. To throw in competition for popular votes in the primary season is just intellectually bewildering.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

Thevail — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 09:14:38 GMT

Any Hillary supporter that votes for MCCain if Hillary doesn't get the nomination was never a real democrat anyway, or else they are stupid beyond belief and just the sort of people to be motivated by paranoia and revenge. Hillary and Obama have 93% the same voting record. They are both liberal democrats.

And before there's a cow had about that, we need a liberal President and here's why. We've had nothing but arch conservative neo-cons for 8 years. Conservatives get into wars, but they never get you back out. Conservatives will save businesses, but never the individual who works for one. Conservatives create initiatives on healthcare reform from the top, but never do anything to help the people paying for it.

There is a balance in our government that conservatives go too far one direction and then a liberal goes too far the other way, but it BALANCES OUT. Common sense people, please.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

ervinst@hotmail.com — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:34:40 GMT

Most of the delegates are elected.. ..the elected ones should , I think, Follow what their state has done as far as electing delegates to the convention. The super delegates are also mostly elected...therefore why should they not be following in the same line.. If the voters are not , according to the Clintons , not involved just because they voted against her then why vote at all.

Politicans so far are not looked upon very well by the public,,and why is that..could it be because they don't feel that they are represented by anyone now ? They , the politicans and these so called Delegates are all elected officials are they not ? Or do we now as individual voters need to have lobbist for us like all these large companies are doing and buy their votes .. but then, the votes we the people use to elect officials should be considered more than any lobbist since it was we the voters that put them in DC to represent us to start with. The lobbist are buying our elected officials,,why? It is time for that item to stop....maybe then this country will move ahead rather than continue to lose ground in the eyes of this world we all live in.

My thought would be to either have all elected degelates either be elected by primaries or caucus, one or the other to elimnate the difference..

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

austria2 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:40:45 GMT

After all those long explanations you made, you simply concluded that 'the rules...say that the superdelegates are free to decide however they want....' That's it. We the people just wait. Is that hard to do? Even Jesus had to tell her mother (who tried to hasten his death), 'Woman, what have I to do with thee? MINE HOUR IS NOT YET COME.'

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

austria2 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:42:01 GMT

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

C. MacLean — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:00:59 GMT

Good lord, if there was ever an argument to make that the Democrats shouldn't govern, this is it!

All these convoluted rules about caucuses, popular votes, delegates, 15% minimum majorities (isn't that an oxymoron?) super delegates - a kindergarten class could do a better job picking sides for dodgeball!

We are stuck with the current rules, such as they are, for this cycle, and to change them mid-process would eliminate what little credibility we as a party have left, but after the election, the rules need a major overhaul.

For what its worth, here's my 2 cents:

For the presidential election year, have two primaries: one in March, one in May. Let states with less than 6 million people vote first in March, the others in May. (Or if 6 million isn't the number that helps out the smaller states, chose a number that does). An alternative might be a cutoff based on the total number of House seats per state, rather than population.

Use a straight popular vote. For every 100,000 popular votes, award one delegate. (or 150,000, or 50,000, whatever cutoff point makes sense in terms of population - I don't have absolute numbers available to pick an appropriate ratio, but someone out there does).

This way, the delegate will accurately represent the popular vote, but in the event that no one candidate gets more than 50% of the overall popular vote, the convention can still settle the issue with 1st, 2nd, 3rd ballots.

But please, Democratic Party, come up with something before 2012, or the inmates will continue to run the asylum.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

WindmillJouster — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:08:48 GMT

The more I learn about the complicated bureaucratic rules governing this whole nominating process, the more I (with something akin to despair) believe HRC will be the nominee. In a labyrinthine system such as this one, victory will go to the one who can navigate the dark, murky corridors.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

Chapalody — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:11:59 GMT

One of the reasons Hillary gave for not dropping out of the race, is that she was so concerned about the rights of voters to be heard. She was their voice. To make a comment that Michigan wouldn't count for anything actually shows how Hillary really feels about the rights of voters to be heard. The people have their rights to vote, as long as those votes are counted as hers. How does it go in the mind of Hillary? If you voted for her, your voice was heard. If you voted for Obama your voices can still be heard if the Super Delegates switch their pledges over to her.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

HolyRoller — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:21:19 GMT

Why will virtually NO MEDIA tell the truth about Sen. Clintons real reason for staying in the race? The actual reason is that, it is QUITE POSSIBLE, that very soon, the truth about Sen Hussein will hit mainstream news. Whether MSNBC or Newsweek likes it.or not WHISTLEBLOWER magazine has a special edition due out at the end of April...The Secrets of Barack Obama. I have been told that his muslim religious youth(incl. attending mosque in Chicago), his donations from terror fund raisers, his terror links, a close relationship with Louis F. and the Nation of Islam, his continued support for his ethnic cleansing Kenyan cousin, his criminal associations in Illinois....etc.

Clinton knows she may be the DNC's only viable option. The BarackStar will soon burn out.

NOBAMA!!!

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

jazz4111 — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 01:04:30 GMT

I never thought I'd ever find anything Tony Blankley said interesting - but in regard to the popular vote and Sen. Obama's advantage, last week on "Left, Right and Center" (NPR radio) Blankley said this: Sen. Obama leads Sen. Clinton by roughly 720,000 votes. Of that number, 600,000 come from Illinois and of that number over 400,000 come from Cook County (Chicago). In other words, 60% of his majority comes from his home district. I found that surprising and fairly interesting. I also think it's worth noting that both all the Republican primary races and the general election are "winner take all" elections. If that were the case in this year's Democratic primary elections, Sen. Clinton would already be over the top and have clinched the nomination. I am a Clinton supporter and will vote the Democratic nominee in November or sit out the election (for the first time in 40 years). But I must admit I am beyond appalled by the vicious and vituperative comments made in this and other blogs (like the Huffington Post) against Sen. Clinton by Sen. Obama's most ardent supporters, and can't help but wonder how all these angry supporters think they are helping him by so alienating voters like me. If I don't vote in November, it will be because of them, not because of him (who I happen to like and admire). The extent of their hatred, the intractibility of their refusal to acknowledge that we all deserve respect and consideration in the Democratic Party are what is really hurting his cause and making any "unifying figure" argument ludicrous. If you lose people like me, I honestly believe we will all lose in November.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

CorinneA — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 11:42:38 GMT

Even thought the popular vote does not make sense, you might want to see how difficult it will be to change the popular vote positions:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/25/143953/828/92/483001

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

lp5402 — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:45:09 GMT

If you eliminate Obama's votes in Illinois , don't you also have to eliminate Clinton's votes in New York? Either suggestion makes no sense.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

Teri B. — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:21:23 GMT

Clinton now leads in the popular vote.

I wonder, has anyone even bothered to ask themselves what is the purpose, intent, or even moral relevance of these DNC "rules" Howard Dean has imposed upon the voters of Florida and Michigan, particularly when balanced against the basic civil right to vote and have one's vote counted?

Let's ask ourselves about our deep moral convictions regarding the DNC's rules that were purportedly violated by Florida and Michigan, which Howard Dean claims warranted the DNC's actions of stripping them of their representation. Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries, like numerous other states, states that weren't punished in the most drastic way possible, by stripping the voters in those states of their Constitutional rights to representation. Only Florida and Michigan had their representation at the convention stripped. And why? Do any of us actually care whether Florida, Michigan, California, South Carolina, New Hampshire or any of the other states' legislatures moved up their primaries? Does moving up the date of their primaries disenfranchise some minority segments of those states' populations? Did moving the dates create some barrier that would make it more difficult for voters to vote, such as historic injustices like applying literacy tests, or land ownership requirements, or any other historically egregious voting equity violations? No. No, there was nothing patently unfair, or even comprehensibly wrong with these states moving up their primaries. What IS unfair, unreasonable, and IMO unconstitutional is denying only these two states equal representation.

And what is the significance of this strange checker board arrangement of primary dates anyway? In fact, in recent history the votes of the citizens in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early primary states carry vastly more significant weight than that of their fellow citizens in other states, based upon this arbitrary primary schedule. What of Constitutional equal protection provisions?

None of it makes a lot of common sense, yet astonishingly, Obama supporters, such as Howard Dean, expect us to blindly accept and support this dubious, twisted travesty of democracy they're trying to sell the American public? WHAT?!? Have the American people lost the ability to reason? If these kinds of shenanigans took place in an election the United States had undertaken to monitor in a fledgling democracy, we would declare the election a fraud.

The fact is that Florida's and Michigan's votes WERE officially and legally certified by the Secretaries of State in those states. Much as the "rules is rules" advocates like to talk about the DNC's rules, they refuse to acknowledge the controlling voting LAWS. These figures ARE part of the National popular vote totals.

Now, you might complain that the candidates didn't campaign in Florida - well, then Senators Obama and Clinton are on equal footing there, and official elections were held and record numbers of voters went to the polls in Florida and VOTED.

Or you might complain that Sen. Obama's name wasn't on the ballots in Michigan, while Clinton and Obama Supporter Dodd did not choose to withdraw their names from the ballots.

And what sort of legal argument Senator Obama might use to make his case that these voters should be stripped of representation? He removed his own name from Michigan's ballots voluntarily, but apparently he thought better of removing his name from Florida's ballots. Further, in both of these states, when given opportunities to correct the wrong DNC Chairman Dean perpetrated against the voters in these states, by agreeing to revotes, Sen. Obama alone blocked all attempts at revotes, knowing that Sen. Clinton had, and still has, significant leads in polls those states. Astonishingly, in reality, Sen. Obama is arguing that democratic voters in Florida and Michigan, so important to any victory for the democratic party's nominee in the general election, should pay the ultimate consequence, disenfranchisement, for the actions of their republican majority legislatures. Yet he is unwilling to live with the consequences of removing his name from Michigan's ballot, and he is unwilling to live with the legally certified voting results. Hmmm . . . this seems like a self-serving and meritless argument.

So, yes - Senator Clinton now leads in the popular vote, and I'd like to remind the Super Delegates (who few of us even knew existed a year ago), that Senator Obama said, in his speech after Super Tuesday that the Super Delegates must not overturn the will of the people, as well as what Speaker Pelosi said recently, that "[i]t will do great harm to the Democratic party if it is perceived that the Super Delegates overturn the will of the people. That is consistent with the delegate voting his or her conscience.”

There are several states who have yet to vote in this primary, and THIS TIME, their votes will matter as much as any other voters in the country - INCLUDING Florida's and Michigan's voters, whose votes MUST be counted - that is, if we still consider ourselves a free and democratic country.

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

coll.env — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:17:14 GMT

I am just waiting for the DNC to put the OK Stamp on Florida and Michigaan so the Clintons will once again have their way !!!

I see two republicans in Bill and Hillary !! Why in the Hell doesn't she just run as Mccains Vice President !!

re: The Popular Vote Fallacy

Deefromtexas — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:23:42 GMT

Excellent presentation of facts. It will be very hard for Clinton or Obama to win the National Election. Clinton can't win enough votes in the Border South, Deep South, Midwest Plains (Obama has won 7 Midwest states already), or Mountain States. Obama has a much better chance of winning in those states then Clinton. So, without each other, it's unlikely we will be putting a Democrat in the Whitehouse. It's also impossible to determine how many Republicans voted for Clinton due to Rush Limbaugh push to get Republicans to vote for Hillary. Hillary is making it impossible to win in November.