Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(960 posts)
Tue May 17, 2016, 07:24 PM May 2016

Debunking Hillary’s Specious “Winning the Popular Vote” Claim

The claim that Hillary is winning the popular vote is one of the most deceptive, specious claims the Hillary Clinton campaign and her surrogates are making. The mainstream media is echoing and giving a total pass on this egregiously dishonest claim.

This is very important for several reasons.

1- Superdelegates are arguing that they are, by supporting Hillary, representing the majority of voters. The truth is that this not true.

2- The mainstream media repeat the “Hillary is winning the popular vote” mantra, or allow Hillary and her surrogates to make the specious claim many many times every day.

Actually, the claim is an affront to the truth, based on the numbers.

The truth is that caucus states don’t have a popular vote. That doesn’t make their vote less important. It just changes how the people of that state choose to make the decision on who to select in the primary.

Most people making claims about Hillary’s popular vote advantage talk about her having around a three million vote lead. I went to the 2016 Democratic Popular Vote page on RealClearPolitics. The page, not including West Virginia, shows Hillary with a 3,135,834 lead.

Then I took a list of the caucus states that Bernie has won, and he’s won almost all of them.

I dug up 2015 census data on the populations of those states and then pulled from Real Clear Politics, the total votes and the winning spread for Sanders in the caucus states. The numbers are below. First observation— for states totaling roughly 35 million people, some which Bernie won by 70%, he is given a total spread advantage of 160,000 votes. That’s outrageous.

Caucus states:

2015 populations according to wikipedia

Take a close look at Washington state, which Bernie won with 72.7% of the votes. RealClearPolitics gives him zero votes, with its 7.2 million population.

The same goes for Maine, where Bernie had a 29% spread and Alaska where he won over 81% of the vote. Zero. Zilch. Nada. In Wyoming, Bernie is given 32 votes, not 32,000. He is given 32 votes.


4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Debunking Hillary’s Specious “Winning the Popular Vote” Claim (Original Post) insta8er May 2016 OP
True. deathrind May 2016 #1
Yup. Democratic independents weren't counted in the closed primary states. w4rma May 2016 #2
Clinton math. nm rhett o rick May 2016 #3
Preposterous disinformation ProgressiveEconomist May 2016 #4


(31,700 posts)
2. Yup. Democratic independents weren't counted in the closed primary states.
Tue May 17, 2016, 07:30 PM
May 2016

Not even if they showed up to vote on placebo ballots.


(5,818 posts)
4. Preposterous disinformation
Tue May 17, 2016, 07:36 PM
May 2016

Last edited Tue May 17, 2016, 09:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Caucuses are the LEAST democratic way of choosing state delegates, because they can be overrun by zealots. No way caucus totals deserve to be weighted by factors of 10 or 50 as if they were random samplessamples of large vote-eligible populations. Give me a break.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Debunking Hillary’s Speci...