3,154,991

[Algernon Moncrieff]

According to Real Clear Politics (and they have no reason to lie), Hillary Clinton has 3,154,991 more voters than Bernie Sanders. Hillary has 12,150,597 while Senator Sanders has 8,995,606 votes.

Sanders has won 17 states. 10 states remain undecided. Hillary has won 23 states. Included among Hillary's states are New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and Texas.

Hillary leads in pledged delegates 1645 to 1318. She leads in superdelegates 520 to 39. She leads in total delegates 2165 to 1357.

It's not undemocratic. Under the rules that both sides are forced to play by, Hillary Clinton is beating Bernie Sanders.

Clinton supporters have been accused of supporting the 1% and worshipping the wealthy and wanting a coronation and a bunch of other bullcrap. Here is irony that should not be lost on Sanders supporters:

1) In 2008, one of the talking points we had was that the Republicans were the party of old white men and that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama represented a more diverse future in American politics. In 2016, you now ask the party to accept that we were just kidding, and that we should elect a very old white guy.

2) You are now asking the party to accept that despite 3,154,991 more voters casting a ballot for Hillary Clinton than Bernie Sanders, that a backroom deal should be made at the convention to nominate Sanders because he happens to poll better against John Kasich than Hillary Clinton does at the moment.

3) Many of you are now hoping (some less privately than others) that an FBI investigation that sprung from a right wing smear campaign now delivers an indictment against Hillary Clinton. So you accuse Hillary supporters of siding with the 1% while, at the same time, aligning yourselves with Darrell Issa and Trey Gowdy.

Despite all of this, and my misgivings about Sanders at other levels, I repeat my pledge that if he is the party's nominee, he will have my vote in the general election. But stop pedaling this notion that Hillary and Bernie's relative delegate positions are undemocratic. There are 3,154,991 reasons it is democratic.

[Thinkingabout]

1. K & R, good post. Over three million more and we still have some primaries to go. You

will have to adjust the numbers but I know you will not mind doing so. Steady as she goes, sticking to her agenda and not getting rattled by Trump the Rump.

[BootinUp]

2. She went after Trump big time today in her NAACP speech. nt

Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 01:39 AM - Edit history (1)

[msongs]

3. bernie is in the top 2 or 3%. he IS an oligarch and here is the definition of the word...

Simple Definition of oligarch

: a person who belongs to a small group of people who govern or control a country, business, etc.

merriam-webster

[IamMab]

39. I still can't believe, with a 26-year Congressional resume, he tried running as "an outsider."

Outside where? Reality??

[Hortensis]

49. Lol and moan. Please. Don't degrade an important

Political concept.

Your dentist is in the top 1%, the one you run into at the store now and then, and, sure, could be considered an oligarch in his own small business. The unmarried RN down the street is in the top 2-3%, not an oligarch unless she's Nurse Rached, by your definition. The principal of the nearest grade school, definitely a dictator and oligarch, except when dealing with her bosses.

That is not what we're talking about when we worry that a small group is destroying democracy and plotting to turn us all into workers helpless to oppose their power. We're talking about oligarchs, the real thing, but especially plutocrats.

Plutocracy: A government or state in which the wealthy rule.

We're talking the top 0.01 to 0.001% of Americans here. People who count their wealth in hundreds of millions and billions. People who will never see most major boulevards wherever they go or notice how rundown they are becoming because they go almost everywhere by private plane, helicopter, and ships. They are driven in limousines from their elite, manicured communities to to private expensive gates and doors at airports, concert halls, government offices, etc, which are maintained only for them.

Do you know we have over 550 billionaires in the U.S. Half of all on the planet? We have tens of thousands who count their wealth in the hundreds of millions. Because they're funneling our national wealth into their pockets, and the most greedy of them are trying very hard to increase their ravaging of our nation, and humbling of its people.

I think some respect for the danger they pose is in order. We're not talking about our dentists here.

[oasis]

4. No need for more debates. It's time to wrap this thing up and

get to the task ahead.

[NanceGreggs]

5. Excellent post!

[Algernon Moncrieff]

6. Thanks!

Coming from you that means a lot!

[w4rma]

7. Democratic voting independents were given placebo ballots to vote on in Clinton's last 5 wins.

She has more voters because she is benefiting from suppressing Sanders's supporters in close primary states.

Also, Sanders's voters are heavily located in caucus states, but you knew that, right?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

8. I live in a caucus state

So I know too well.

[moriah]

19. Closed primaries prevent Rethugligan ratfucking.

After McCain secured the Republican nomination, in open primaries Hillary did better than she had before.

I knew when I registered Green in New York for the year I lived there (2002-2003) I would be excluded from the Democratic Primary. But NY had a thriving Green Party at the local level, unlike Arkansas where I was born, raised, and now live. I wanted to participate there more, and felt for 2004 my vote was assuredly "anybody but Bush".

I still believe firmly that ranked choice voting is the real Revolution -- it will end the "lesser of two evils" voting strategy in the GE, it would send a message to whichever Party won if a significant number of their voters only put them second....

And personally, I believe the Republican electorate is far more fractured than the Democratic, with far more people voting strategically despite disagreeing with Rethugs on social issues. Evangelicals are in the minority and their primary attempts to run Evangelicals fail. Yet, even "true Conservatives" will have a hard time believing Trump is more than just a famous guy invading their party. Evangelicals are going to see that if he has faith, he certainly only recently got it. If McCain wasn't Conservative enough, the Hair isn't either. Yet most people in this country are far more socially liberal than they were in the 80, or the 2000s. If RCV fractures any party, it will be the GOP.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

45. The Evangelicals will show up to vote for anyone but the Democrat

...but your point about the GOP is spot-on. The Evangelicals know they've been had and that they aren't getting anything substantive; meanwhile, whether they'll admit it or not, the supply siders and tax hawks know that the party positions on abortion and marriage equality are dragging down their message. If they lose this election, I think the Tea Party splits off.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Because

Also, Sanders's voters are heavily located in caucus states, but you knew that, right?

Also worth remembering that Sanders is up a net 150 delegates from caucuses, which can disenfranchise voters. Clinton +370 in primaries.

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/721117322774192128

She has more voters because she is benefiting from suppressing Sanders's supporters in close primary states.

She has crushed Senator Sanders in several open primary states. Don't take my word for it. I emboldened them:


The states listed below utilize open primaries/caucuses for presidential nominating contests.[3]

Alabama (Republicans only)
Arkansas
California (Republicans only)
Georgia
Idaho (Democrats only)
Illinois-small win
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri-small win
Montana
North Dakota
Ohio
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah (Democrats only)
Vermont
Virginia
Washington (Democrats only)
Wisconsin

https://ballotpedia.org/Open_primary


Conclusion- the independent variable that affect Senator Sanders' percentage of the vote isn't whether the primary is open or closed but whether the primary electorate is heterogeneous or not.

[w4rma]

61. If Arizona, New York and the entire South are your examples of fair elections, I don't want any part

of what you want.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. We have the rule of law and not the rule of the jungle.

If we had the latter people like the late John Gotti would be in charge. If laws were violated it is incumbent upon the Sanders campaign to pursue it.

[JoePhilly]

36. If you want to pick the Dem nominee, become a Dem.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

46. It's not rocket science, is it?

If you chose to register independent, you disenfranchised yourself.

[Matt_in_STL]

47. And in the general, should we limit the voting for the Dem candidate to the Dems as well?

Good luck with that methodology.

[anigbrowl]

69. If Sanders' voters are concentrated in caucus states....

...how is that Clinton's problem?

Yeah, things like that can tilt the field against a candidate but basically the election cycle in the US is the same from year to year, Sanders is presumably old, wise, and experienced enough to have been aware of all those factors at the outset and to make plans on how to overcome those weaknesses.

[Ed Suspicious]

76. They don't report voter totals in caucus States.

[anigbrowl]

83. Tell the poster above that

It's w4rm's claim and I don't know what it's supposed to signify.

[liberal_at_heart]

9. Bernie was somewhere around 3% in the national polls when he declared his candidacy.

He is now just about dead even with Hillary in national polls. Hillary has money, power, super PACS, name recognition, free media coverage. Bernie has none of that. In fact, up until recently there has been a media blackout on Bernie. There have also been many, many, many voting irregularities that have caused either unintentional or maybe even intentional voter suppression. So is it surprising that Hillary has more votes? No. Is it surprising that Bernie is now almost tied in the national polls when he started out at 3%? No. Whether we like it or not, delegate counts are what decides elections and Bernie is still very close in the delegate count and is poised to do very well in many up coming states.

[JoePhilly]

37. We don't pick the nominee based on polls.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. To see democrats salivating at the mouth waiting for an

Indictment of another democrat, is just kind of nauseating.

I would never want such a thing for sanders. If he were winning I'd be less excited than I am about her, but no way in hell would I want him stopped via an indictment.

I'm hoping that most of these people are just right wing trolls who disappear after the primaries

[w4rma]

11. As if Sanders would ever do something dishonest like that, like Clinton did?

And no, I'm not a troll, but I'm also not a "New" Democrat.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. She didn't do anything dishonest.

[w4rma]

13. Ignoring the actual potential crime, she set up her server to bypass the Freedom of Information Act.

That is the epitome of dishonesty.

[SwampG8r]

28. She didnt?

It was honest to involve blumenthal when obama had banned him?
It was honest to hide emails.from foia.lawsuits on an unapproved home server?

[randome]

40. Obama did not ban Clinton from getting advice wherever she wanted.

He banned Blumenthal from being on the State Dept. payroll. Maybe because of optics, maybe because of budget, who knows?

And your other question shows your bias because you automatically assume criminality.

This is why Sanders supporters are not taken seriously. You can't be objective and you cry 'Wolf!' every chance you get.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[SwampG8r]

50. We were discussing honesty not criminality

Obama banned blumenthal and hillary ignored.him and used him against obamas wishes.
Thats dishonest.

[uponit7771]

22. The more they hide the taxes the more I think its possible they did do something dishonest

[Surya Gayatri]

17. ..."kind of" nauseating? It makes me gag and retch.

These salivating vultures are NO Democrats.

So true what you say about Sanders. NEVER would I wish such a fate upon him, in spite of my reservations about his fitness to be President.

[libdem4life]

56. My...gag and retch. Perhaps a teaspoon of baking soda would help.

Other than that over the top, Bernie folks are NOT chomping at the bit for some witch hunt. Just awaiting the inevitable, like everyone else. Will it affect the election, who knows. Bill did OK with his follies and lies, so that many see HRC able to do that, as well, is understandable.

Oh, and the Foundation investigation will bring, gasp, Benghazi!!!!! back in a new way. This is just the latest. But go ahead and play the ostrich card.

Gosh, I forgot "salivating vultures". What a hoot.

[DesertRat]

14. K&R

[That Guy 888]

15. "It's not undemocratic" - Wrong, even if Sanders didn't run it would have been undemocratic.

Her former campaign manager is in charge of the group that runs the elections, decides who is a registered Democrat, how the debates were scheduled, how the votes are counted, everything. The debates were scheduled in a manner that was supposed to clear the opposition before super Tuesday. She lobbied for Super-delegates before any other candidates announced, and while some might argue that was smart, I say it's small "d" undemocratic. Every action she took was designed to make voting in the Democratic Party Primary irrelevant. That's the epitome of undemocratic.

[liberal_at_heart]

16. well said!

[uponit7771]

21. More sophistry and half truth. 1. She lobbied the SDs last time and lost, 2. she's been around so...

... her 6 deg of seperation becomes 1 deg, not her fault Sanders pisses everyone off vs making alliances, 3. Those "southern states" shouldn't have matter since Sander campaign said they didn't put too many resources in them

4. It's never Sanders fault of for anything, his gun votes his wall street cfma votes his votes against immigration and his 94 crime bill votes...

NEVER his fault for anything including losing this primary

[Algernon Moncrieff]

27. Any voter can decide to be a Democrat

Register to vote, and check the box that says "Democratic Party." Her former campaign manager had nothing to do with that.

[That Guy 888]

52. People were removed from the rolls in New York. Right before the primary.

Who knows where the notification were sent to.

I'm glad you agree with the rest of my post.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

54. Were more than 3100000 voters removed?

Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Would they all have shown up? Would they all have voted for Sanders?

[That Guy 888]

57. Is Mother Jones now a RW source?

Election Justice USA, a national organization formed after the botched Arizona elections on March 22, tried to help voters whose affiliations had been switched without their knowledge by filing a lawsuit to make the primaries open to any registered voter. A judge dismissed that request on Tuesday, but the group hasn't given up. Shyla Nelson, a co-founder of the organization, said there is an ongoing lawsuit seeking a review of all the provisional ballots submitted by voters who reported being removed from the rolls against their will. The group is also seeking to have provisional ballots (sometimes referred to as "affidavit ballots" in New York) counted before the state certifies its primary results on May 5.

Nelson told Mother Jones that an evidentiary hearing will be held in the case on April 29. The group is nonpartisan, said Nelson, who noted that there are Republicans among the 700-plus reports of election troubles the group has collected. She added that until there's a full understanding of improperly disqualified ballots, the results of the election are in doubt.

"If that had not happened, would that have changed the outcome of the election?" she asked. "It may have. And so long as that's out there as a question, I think we're looking at some deep fundamental questions about how we conduct our elections systematically, and what it is that we need to do to ensure that we're not left with so severe a level of doubt in that process."

[Algernon Moncrieff]

59. I never said MJ was a RW source

I never said they were right all the time, either.

[That Guy 888]

72. That is the title, read the post. It contains an excerpt from Mother Jones.

Often in the Hillary Clinton Group any post that cites a news source is said to be from: A) a DU'er knowingly and purposefully using a right wing source and B) Immediately repeated by all the Bernie Bros who don't care.(Other Sanders supporters and I ask people not to use RW sources in threads that do, but apparently Clinton supporters prefer not to see that ...in the name of party unity?)

Especially take note of the part that is bold(as in darker than other text) in the body of my post. It is in part a quote from Election Justice USA's

"If that had not happened, would that have changed the outcome of the election?" she asked. "It may have. And so long as that's out there as a question, I think we're looking at some deep fundamental questions about how we conduct our elections systematically, and what it is that we need to do to ensure that we're not left with so severe a level of doubt in that process."

[Algernon Moncrieff]

75. I've seen nothing that would cause me a "severe level of doubt"

...except the Nebraska Caucus, which ought to be outlawed.

I've never seen an election without some irregularity somewhere, but by the by, Hillary has simply gotten more votes than Bernie. I realize no one on Bernie's side wants to believe that, but it is the case.

"May have" means "didn't" in this context. If there were fraud or irregularity that led to a 57-43 lead in votes by Hillary (pending the Indiana result, of course), we'd know. We're not talking Bush/Gore margins here.

[That Guy 888]

81. Yet, not everyone is you.

"May have" means "didn't" in this context.

Again, according to you

[anigbrowl]

70. Don't try change the subject

Nobody suggested Mother Jones was a RW source, but your responding as if it was is just an attempt toshame the person who asked you a question you don't want to answer.

[That Guy 888]

71. If you're going to get involved, follow along.

Read the post, it is on topic.

[That Guy 888]

58. Once again was Clinton's strategy designed to knock out ALL competition before a vote was cast?

You don't seem to want to admit that if that strategy becomes the norm, there will be no primaries in the future, just money and influence.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

60. You don't seem to admit that Hillary Clinton has more votes, states, and delegates.

Over 57% of the electorate (to-date) isn't buying what you are selling. It's that simple.

[That Guy 888]

62. You don't seem to admit that Hillary Clinton gamed the system to the detriment of democracy.

How did she get those votes, states, and delegates? That has been my point from the beginning.

Will Debbie Wasserman Schultz control the general election to make it more favorable for your candidate?

You really have no problem with meaningless predetermined primaries from here on out?

Does the general election have super delegates to schmooze?

Will the media be as friendly to Clinton when she's running against trump?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

63. She got those votes and delegates by people going to polling places and caucuses

It's the same way Bernie Sanders got his votes and delegates.

I would not call all of the primaries meaningless from here on out, but there is every indication that Hillary Clinton will have more than enough delegates to win on the first ballot.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not my favorite party leader, but she represents a very blue district in one of the largest and most politically influential states in America.

The General Election is not the primaries. Primaries are when parties choose their candidates. The General Election doesn't have super delegates, but it also doesn't have caucuses in which the undecided and small candidate voters are browbeaten into supporting someone else. The two are different animals.

The media will not be "friendly" to either candidate. Every passing day from August to November will be filled with dirt and scandal. The series with Kerry Washington will pale by comparison. This is the race the media wanted, and it will be must watch television until November.

Sanders scores well in polls now, but he has not been subjected to unbridled Republican attacks; Hillary has not made a big issue of his age (which the Republicans certainly will); Donald Trump has not chosen to say anything about Jane Sanders (I'll leave that to your imagination); and comparatively little red-baiting has been done. In the event that Bernie Sanders is the nominee, I think we're in for a rough four months.

[That Guy 888]

73. She had tremendous help before the primaries started. A thumb was on the DNC scale in her favor.

I would not call all of the primaries meaningless from here on out, but there is every indication that Hillary Clinton will have more than enough delegates to win on the first ballot.

Sorry, I was apparently unclear. All Democratic Primary elections in the future will favor Clinton's approach in this current primary. If you had a candidate without Clinton's high negative favorable rating, the campaigning would (mostly) be limited to the general election.

From one of my previous posts:

So what IMO makes Secretary Clinton's campaign radically new? The elimination of voter input into the nomination process. If Secretary Clinton succeeds, why will any future Democratic nominee attempt to get to know the average voter? Why listen to ordinary Democrats (or Americans for that matter) when you only have to amass money (enough to outspend your opponents) use the momentum of monetary success to get support of leaders before the primary even starts, and reduce the average voter to easily stereotyped blocks (Women, Blacks, LGBT, Latinos, blue collar, “hard working rural Whites”, etc.) with leaders that can be impressed by your cash raising acumen.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not my favorite party leader...

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was her campaign manager in 2008! Imagine if at the start of the 2008 primary then Senator Obama's Senate campaign manager was in charge of the DNC. Debates are weekly in order to get his name recognition up against the better known Clinton. For the most part, they use the format Senator Obama is most comfortable with, and avoid the "Town Hall's" that Clinton prefers. When the "neutral" DNC head appears on cable or network news he speaks favorably of Senator Obama but does not mention other candidates. Does that help you understand what I'm talking about? Debbie Wasserman Schultz should have stepped down even if Sanders did not run because her past relationship represents a huge bias in favor of one of the candidates(Wasserman Schultz did nothing to erase that impression).

Sanders scores well in polls now, but he has not been subjected to unbridled Republican attacks; Hillary has not made a big issue of his age

She largely left those "artful smears" to her surrogates. Clinton's no spring chicken either, which is why that didn't get more traction. As far as the Clintons being attacked, the attacks have been in a rw frame. She ignores critics from her left, partly because marginalizing the left is ok in the DNC, and partly because they are based in reality Clinton does not want to address if she doesn't have to: super-predator("No one has asked me about that, before" ) her Iraq war vote ( I have no idea what her current excuse on that is), and most importantly what her State Department emails contained (Libya is a policy the she lobbied for, approval of a military coup in Honduras, wanting a more belligerent foreign policy than President Obama)

Donald Trump has not chosen to say anything about Jane Sanders (I'll leave that to your imagination)

No need, I've seen Clinton surrogates attack her. If Sanders won the primary would they work for Trump? The Clintons have a reputation for vindictiveness.

...comparatively little red-baiting has been done.

Actually there has been plenty, at one point that was the only form of coverage that Sanders received in the media.

[Surya Gayatri]

18. Wish I could rec this a 100 times. Excellent OP.

[uponit7771]

20. +1, Actual quote " Ride this wave of democratic energy to overwhelm right-wing opposition ". Weaver

... Devine "Team Used Car Salesmen" have sold them a good song

[libdem4life]

55. And Brock sings in the choir? n/t

[uponit7771]

66. Compared to the "Sanders as a chance give us your money" squad? hell yeah

[libdem4life]

67. Give us your money squad...what the heck does that mean.

Especially in contrast to the multimillionaire Clintons, the speaking fees and the Foundation and....

Please, enlighten us all.

[Sancho]

23. It's not only Democratic, but this primary is consistent with party tradition (almost).

Bernie was given an open door, even though he really didn't deserve to run as a Democrat. He bit the hand that fed him by stealing data, refusing to raise money for other candidates, and attacking the current popular President.

Bernie has been notably ungrateful, and that's one reason that many current office holders and party leaders don't want to endorse him.

Also, major Democratic organizations like unions, social justice groups, and newspapers have carefully analyzed candidates, polls, and records. It has been a virtual sweep that prefer Hillary over Bernie. It's not a CT, but representative scrutiny thinks that Hillary has better positions and a better historical record.

In fact, Bernie has not won a single battle except two Demographic groups: college students who notoriously fail to vote and "Archie Bunkers" who have an interest single issues (like gun control). In every other demographic Hillary is even with Bernie or way ahead (women, immigrants, minority, seniors). That's the Democratic base that Hillary is winning hands-down.

There is no evidence that Bernie should do anything except concede and urge his supporters to get behind the Democratic party for the election. If Bernie doesn't do that, then he is being an ass.

[NurseJackie]

24. Excellent reply ... thank you!

[Algernon Moncrieff]

44. + 1

[djean111]

26. The independent investigation showed that Bernie did not steal data. When you say he stole data you

just sound deberately uninformed. Hard to let that meme go, I know.

And Bernie was invited to run as a Democrat, because if he did not, the vote would be split and Hillary would lose. Now people are pissy because Bernie has interrupted what was supposed to be a cakewalk of a coronation. 3% to 47% or whatever. If Hillary was such a great candidate, how the fuck did that happen?

The DNC is using Bernie. They figured he would have been a flash in the pan, dropped out before now, and handed over his supporters, his money, and his grassroots organization to Hillary. There is absolutely no scenario where people who figure the establishment means no good for them, and so were uninterested in what they see as the Same Old Shit, getting energized by, and voting for, Hillary.

That is why he was welcomed to run as a Democrat - stop acting like he somehow forced his way in. How would that even be possible?

[Sancho]

30. Spin it however you want - the actual investigation report is published.

Bernie's staff purposefully stole reports from the data. He dropped the suit before he lost.

The DNC has been very nice to Bernie, and he doesn't deserve it. He should drop out, campaign for other down ticket candidates, and quit attacking Obama.

He's not welcome, but tolerated. He will soon be a footnote.

[djean111]

33. For me, and many others, the DNC will be a footnote.

Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats.

All under Debbie DINO. Not Bernie's job to save a Party that is obviously being disassembled.

Keep up the good work, Debbie! This looks deliberate. And not Bernie's fault, nor his job to fix.

[Demsrule86]

31. What are you talking about

The investigation found that four Bernie staffers accessed Hillary data including boots on the ground date over 25 times and saved/copied it. One was fired four were not. He dropped his suit as a result on a Friday...like all pols do in that sort of situation.

[pnwmom]

32. It showed that his campaign searched through proprietary data belonging to Hillary AND

saved the results of those searches on the system.

Maybe that doesn't meet your definition of "steal" but it meets mine -- and many others.

[JoePhilly]

38. + 1

[TCJ70]

25. I don't disagree that Hillary will be the nominee...

...but focusing on the difference in vote count, in my mind, is Nora's important as the percentages. 57% vs 43%. All along Sanders was discounted as some fringe crazy guy who wouldn't garner more support than his own state. This is clearly not the case and the Democratic Party needs to wake up and see that a significant portion of their constituency identified with Sanders, his message, and his methods.

[Demsrule86]

43. I would agree with you

If he was not being so disagreeable...trying to overturn the will of the voters will negate all the good he as done.

[aaaaaa5a]

34. Let's not forget that most of Sanders wins came in Cacauses.

I have turned to the point where I think caucuses are very undemocratic and do not reflect the will of the voters. A state that holds a caucus disenfranchises voters the same way voter suppression, regististration issues, etc., etc., do.


The majority of Sanders wins are in these non-democratic voting states. True, in some of those states, had they held a primary, Sanders popular vote total would be higher. But he also would have very likely lost more states too.


When you compare Sanders and Clinton in just the states that held primaries (a more apples to apples comparison) Clinton's dominance is actually greater.


In realty, while we hold a 50 state contest, Sanders has only won 3 states of serious political influence legitimately.

Wisconsin (Good win)
Michigan (Good win)
New Hampshire (Battle ground state)


Meanwhile Hilary has won:

Pennsylvania (Good win)
Ohio (Battle ground state)
Florida (Battle ground state)
Virginia (Battle ground state)
Arizona (Battle ground state)
North Carolina (Battle ground state)
Illinois
Massachusetts
New York
Texas
Illinois
Missouri
Georgia (Possible battle ground state)

You will notice in the above example I left out most of the southern (majority black vote) states, even though they held primaries and are far more legitimate victories than the ridiculous, voter suppression, low voter turn out caucus states that Sanders usually wins. It is a true test to what really matters to get elected President.

And even under this important example in examining each candidates strength, Hillary DOMINATES.

Bernie Sanders has run a great campaign. But folks, this is not a close race.

[artislife]

51. I just went to the 3rd meeting of the WA caucus yesterday

We voted practically on each line of the 11 resolutions to the platform. We were still at it at 7pm --6 hours after start time. That seems to be the most democratic way.

We had candidates plead for our votes, we heckled at the ones who tried to rationalize their superdelegate vote for the candidate who was whipped in our caucus.

It was long, hot and no food or open beverages in the gym..but over one thousand people did it. And that was repeated all through the state.

[aaaaaa5a]

64. Excellent post. Thank you for providing some information

As to how a caucus works.

Whether it's super delegates, pledged delegates, unbound delegates, or caucuses, 2016 has opened a lot of eyes as to how our democracy really works.

[artislife]

65. There is still one more step in Olympia

before the elected Delegates go to Philly. Sadly, I wasn't chosen. We had over 50 of us vying for 15 slots that would be divided in half by gender.

The first day was about 2.5 hours, the second was also a 7 hour plus event. One caucus in Tacoma was still caucusing at midnight. The school kicked them out and they caucused in the parking lot.

Lots of emotions, the divide here in WA is very deep.

[Justice]

35. Thank you. Great Post.

[SidDithers]

41. Well said...

Sid

[kstewart33]

42. K & R. nt

[workinclasszero]

48. "Hillary Clinton has 3,154,991 more voters than Bernie Sanders."

Gee I just read a post from a Bernie fan claiming Hillary has no popular support!

[jcgoldie]

53. Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded nt

[aaaaaa5a]

79. Hillary has received more votes than any candidate running in 2016.

Democrat or Republican.

She has 3 million more votes than Bernie. And 2 million more votes than Trump.

[workinclasszero]

82. And thats why she will be our next President

And also why Bernie fans haz a sad.

[Number23]

74. Nothing IN THE WORLD could explain the shrieking bullshit about emails littering this forum

better than this OP.

K&R

[snot]

77. Could I just point out,

There is 6 years' age difference between Bernie and Hillary. If Bernie's "old," so is Hillary.

[BootinUp]

78. And the number is only going to get bigger as we will soon see. nt

[Armstead]

80. Essentially 12 to 9....yes it's winning, but that 9 is hardly an insignificant total