This is 50 for me this week. See you all next Saturday. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > This winning the popular vote claim is bogus. The way the > clintons get there is by counting hillary's vote in michigan > but not giving obama any votes there, which is absurd, plus > they don't count the caucus states.
Please see my post "Clinton Has the Numbers" from the Philly Inquirer about the various different ways Clinton could "get there" with the popular vote. Hillary's all for counting all the votes, well I spent > a lot of time participating in the iowa caucus, why does my > vote not count? Same for all the other caucus states. If > you actually count all the votes obama wins easily. Please see "Clinton Has the Numbers," particularly categories 2 and 6, which include estimated caucus votes. > Plus, this is a primary election, the popular vote doesn't > matter - it's about delegates. No-one's ever thought about > counting the popular vote in a primary election before. I'm not sure there's ever been a primary election where the popular vote and the delegate count were in conflict, certainly not since the current delegate system was adopted. No one's thought about it before because there was no reason to think about it. This time, there is. See my post #177815, which quotes from a column by ABC's Cokie Roberts and her husband, Steve, about how the current system makes it more likely, in a close race, that the delegate count and the popular vote will be at odds because of the weird way delegates are apportioned. Regardless of what's supposed to "count," it's very bad P.R. for the party and the winning candidate not to have won the popular vote. Normally that doesn't happen; this time, it may very well happen, and it could be a big negative in the general election.
