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.
