Why Clinton’s Claim Of Having 3 Million More Votes Than Sanders Is A Total Lie

[silvershadow]

Why Clinton’s Claim Of Having 3 Million More Votes Than Sanders Is A Total Lie

In an article posted to the New York Daily News, Activist and writer Shaun King made a startling revelation which could change the way we view the entire Democratic primary race.

Since the tide has turned in the direction of Hillary Clinton, the candidate has put much emphasis on her apparent lead in the popular vote. According to Hillary Clinton, she leads Sanders by more than 3 million votes nationwide. This is the number that we hear cited commonly at events and in corporate media. This number helps to give legitimacy to Clinton’s campaign in the face of Sanders’ populist message. Though Sanders may complain about how the system is rigged and wonder why Superdelegates aren’t more loyal to their constituency, Clinton has always had the power of the popular vote behind her.

But what King revealed in his groundbreaking article is that the 3 million vote advantage Clinton holds is a lie.

This is due to the fact that primary races don’t just feature voters going out and casting a ballot. Instead, several states opt to hold caucuses where a group of representatives vouch for their candidate. The candidate with the most representatives in the room wins in that district, and the candidate which wins the most districts is the winner of the state.

more: http://trofire.com/2016/05/19/hillary-clintons-claim-3-million-votes-sanders-lie/

[YouDig]

1. In regular math it's 3 million. In #berniemath, who knows.

[insta8er]

10. You didn't even read the article now, did you...yeah you didn't...you are right..

a snide remark just goes so much further than actually reading something.

[YouDig]

11. I already saw the movie.

[insta8er]

19. Ah, ok sorry that explains everything...no reason to think yourself. Getting your "news" dished out

30 seconds at a time. You are right...thanks for confirming it!

[YouDig]

43. Washington was a caucus. The turnout is low.

If you want, go with 2.9 million to account for the extra Bernie caucus votes you think he should receive. Or 2.8 million. Does it make any difference?

[pokerfan]

72. Washington State's presidential primary is May 24

But the results are going to be "disregarded" by the state Democratic Party. Still, it will be interesting to see the numbers.

[Andy823]

73. Well in Washington state

Only 5.8% got out to vote in those caucuses. I think they need to get rid of the Caucuses and go to a regular primary in every single state.

[workinclasszero]

69. Thats a great movie!

A laugh riot!

[lakeguy]

25. that one above is paid by the post...

not paid to read the truth.

[oasis]

34. America can only get the truth from pro Bernie sources. Got It.

please keep us posted.

[asuhornets]

41. There's no need to read it..The OP title says it all...

[Arneoker]

120. If I were a Bernie supporter

I would try to suppress this article. It is embarrassing in its ridiculousness. And it is very short and easy to read.

What if things were reversed and Bernie were winning the primaries and Hillary were winning the caucuses, except that Hillary were still ahead in pledged delegates? We'd be hearing a different tune, about more evidence about corrupt Hillary, and how the game was rigged.

[tomm2thumbs]

91. Remember, April Showers Bring May Flowers

[MariaThinks]

18. This is Bernie math - 3 million voters are 3 million votes - how disgusting and stupid.

[workinclasszero]

68. In Bernie math thats minus 3 million votes for Hillary

And 50 million plus for Bernie.

I hope that clears things up for you.

[bvar22]

70. The OP was posted at 2:43 PM.

Your response is time stamped 2:44 PM.
SO, YEAH.
You never read the OP and just Knee Jerked a meaningless one-liner.
What a waste.

[YouDig]

71. You think this is the first time I've seen #berniemath?

[tomm2thumbs]

89. Remember, April Showers Bring May Flowers

[griffi94]

2. The vote total doesn't take into account

all the people that would have voted for Bernie had they actually voted.

[YouDig]

4. Also the negative votes of Hillary voters that deep in their heart want Bernie but don't know it yet

[quickesst]

20. OK...

... that made me chuckle. +1

[Arneoker]

122. It also doesn't take into account

How all the people would have voted for Hillary in the caucus states, had they been primary states.

We could play this kind of game forever, and of course never get anywhere at all.

[KingFlorez]

3. None of those states would be worth 3 million votes or more

At most it would probably total around 500k votes, but it's likely less than that. Caucuses don't turn out many people.

[Agschmid]

7. Yup.

[KingFlorez]

12. I'll add that Washington has it's non-binding primary next week

So whatever the results are of that can be added to the overall popular vote total.

[notadmblnd]

62. Neither does already once rejected democratic politicians in GEs

But like an unruly child that won't heed their parents warnings- they're gonna have to beat their own asses to figure that out.

[KingFlorez]

66. Blocked

I don't have time for angry Bernie fanatics.

[silvershadow]

83. Blocked. I don't have time for delusional Hillbots. nt

[notadmblnd]

110. I musta hit a nerve with that one.

[snort]

133. Bye

[onenote]

95. Adding caucus state totals does not significantly cut into Clinton's lead

Shaun King could have figured out the popular vote totals in the caucus states if he wanted to. But he's either too lazy or he realized that if he did, it would kill his argument. So he just decided to peddle some stupid. Stupid as in suggesting, implicitly, that Bernie's total should include 71 percent of the 7 million people in Washington state, notwithstanding the fact that a whole lot of those people (a) aren't of voting age; (b) are Republicans; (c) didn't participate in the caucus.

But hey, if all of the folks living in Washington should be factored into the popular vote total, let's do it for all the states. There are 19.75 million people living in New York. Let's give 57.5 percent of them to Clinton -- that increases her margin over Sanders by around 5 million to over 8 million.

Anyway, here is a link to a thread containing some links that will give you fact-based estimates of the votes associated with the various caucus states.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2004252

[Meteor Man]

104. More Fuzzy Math

Caucus votes cannot be mathematically adjusted to a popular vote number without making subjective assumptions.

[Bohemianwriter]

119. I guess voter purges is a sure thing to win an election...

Just ask Jeb Bush and his purge in Florida in 2000. The Hilary camp must have picked up a few tips right there.

And now, Hilary is showing her true republican colors by wooing Bush donors.

A family they have had close ties with since the 80s. No wonder Bill so easiy could continue Reagan's war on AA and Hispanics with his "war on drugs" as wel as unleashing Wall Street even more, giving tax cuts to the rich on the backs of vulnerable communities whose kids Hillary so blatantly labelled "Super-predators".
The Bushies and the Clintons share the same political values!

[Arneoker]

124. Yes, when fuzzy math doesn't work, try lying

Bill raised taxes on the rich. The right wing whined about how that was going to tank the economy.

[Bohemianwriter]

128. Really?

By how much?
Since WHEN since Reaganomics have taken USA in a chokehold have the rich been taxed higher from one president to the next?

Other than that, it seems that Hillarybots are never capabable of writing more than one liners, thinking they are Jon Stewart clones.

I have yet to read enything of substance of what is inside the fuzzy mind of a Hillarybro.

[onenote]

129. Finished last in debate class?

Your non-rebuttal of the information demonstrating that the article shared in the OP is full of crap says it all.

[Bohemianwriter]

130. Project much?

If I should analyze the level of education of an average Hillarybot who live in their own reality, they never seem to be able to come up with more than one liners, pretending to be Bill Hicks while actually saying nothing and is less funny when faced with some unpleasant truths.

A rigged system is a rigged system,. Unless you thinking that the Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 was clean elections, you would be outraged by the blatant contempt your side have for the democratic process.

But you are not. You wallow in Wall Street support, false accusations and pure rejection of a system that is destroying both parties from within.

If you think that Wall Street gives money to both sides do it from the goodness of their hearts, you are a deluded naive, and a typical representative for the Americana sucker who have voted against their own interests since Reagan committed treason in 1980 to win an election.

Seems that your candidate have adopted the tactics of the republicans. And some of you have your heads so far up the anus of DLC that you can't see it clearly...fogged and drugged up on the manure that the Establishment have served as roses the last 35 years.

I am surprised that alleged democrats and "progressives" adapt a language and rhetoric of republicans.

Well....Not really...Seeing who Hillary "pals around" with and who she takes money from, she is definitely not a friend of OWS, the working stiff or even minorities.


She has never said "I share the same values as peace loving pacifists who wants to get money out of politics and equality under the law".

I have noted her saying she is pro gun and loves church goers. How well would that sit with the people the same gun owning church goers want to discriminate by law?

How the hell can she share the values of both progressives and Bush donors at the same time?

Do I share the same foreign policy views as the Bushies? Because that is what Hilary does, and she claims to be progressive, running a clean campaign without Super PAC support. And neither have the party leadership rigged the system against Bernie. Al the discrepancies that has hurt Bernie voters in earlier primaries are just coincidences and should be dismissed..As easily as their votes can be dismissed.


One meme I particularly love from Hillary bots are "it doesn't matter how many people he gathers as long as they don't vote!" As if people who are willing to stand in line for hours just to listen to someone speak wouldn't bother going to the polls and actually vote.
Another meme is how CORPdems think that all primaries In a two party system, should be closed. And only "loyal" party members (like in NY where they had to register in OCTOBER to vote in the primary) should be allowed to vote or have their votes counted.

Discard the 100 000 votes purged in Brooklyn alone. Make it seem as Hilary owns the state of New York despite the fact that Bernie won the vast majority of the counties outside of a city I still love.

The only people full of crap are Hilary bots who throws temper tantrums over something that never happened rather than focus on their own affiliation with a system so steeped in corruption you must be blind and brainwashed not to see it.,


How many Hilary voters were railing against the Patriot Act and the scape goating after 9-11?
How many Hilary voters supported Chris Matthews attack on Bill Donahue as un-American for not supporting the invasion of Iraq in 2003?

Want to talk about rhetoric and purity tests?

I am sure you wil fail it and fall in line with moderate repubicans of the 90s. NOT the progressives and lefties that has been demonized by the media and power pimps since the 70s.

That's only an assumption by the way. Based on the litte you managed to scribbe down without help

[onenote]

134. Lots and lots and lots of words

And nary a one directly addressing the claim that the caucus results should translate magically into millions of popular votes for Sanders.

[Bohemianwriter]

139. Apparently, Hilary supporters have problems reading...

sentences and context longer than one line slag offs. Apparently, you should concentrate on learning how to read before starting to talk about grown up things like politics, corruptionl, electionh fraud and voter suppression. Things that are apparently a foreign leanguage to the people who oh so wellk enjoy the oppression that doesn't happen to them,

No wonder why I have never been given a rational explanation to why people use their votes in an irrational way., You couldn't write more than a two liner if your life depended on it. I get the same crap from republkicans. Which shows that you both dfeed frojm the same trough if ignorance and bigotry.

What's it like living in a world of privileged ignorance and aversion to words...?

[Txbluedog]

5. I guess Bernie would prefer that all his voters who tweeted their votes be counted also

[MattP]

55. Weak tea coming from another newbie

[Agschmid]

61. Well when your only point of contention is someone sign up date...

[Arneoker]

125. Maybe they were a lurker, and is that the only argument you can come up with?

[Hoyt]

6. OK, maybe it's only 2.8 Million. Then, again, maybe the demographics in a lot of those states

favor Sanders because they are largely white and rural. Just the facts.

[brush]

16. Those white an rural states don't equal 3 million. Sanders supporters are trying everything to . . .

get around her lead in votes.

Too late, it just ain't happening.

He screwed up and wasn't interested in the AA votes in the southern primaries so he's stuck with his piddling vote totals in those nearly all-white rural state caucuses that he loves so much.

Seems about right.

[PeaceNikki]

42. Hate? What hate?!!!

[PaulaFarrell]

64. dismiss then

Is that better?

[eastwestdem]

8. While I don't think the relatively small number of caucus goers will make a dent in the numbers...

I would still be impressed if she led by a million votes.

[MattP]

56. Youre new yourself everybody starts somewhere

[PaulaFarrell]

65. sorry but he/she has been here nearly a year

Compared to someone who signed up last month.

[Hav]

111. Why does it matter anyways?

Why do the arguments of new posters get dismissed so often here by the same kind of arguments? The point eastwestdem made wasn't even provocative and yet he gets his registration date and post count thrown in his face. What's the point of that? Are the arguments of new posters automatically worthless until they've been a member for a year or share the same opinions? This is nonsense.

[PaulaFarrell]

116. It's because there is a suspicion some are paid trolls

there was an influx in March/April and they seemed to share a lot of the same talking points. That's the reason, you may disagree with it.

[Arneoker]

126. Apparently you are too

You can't answer the argument

[sheshe2]

141. You may want to edit your stats...

You responded to eastwestdem and they have 222 posts.

[dchill]

9. HRC only counts the votes that HRC counts.

All others don't count. This convention is closed! (Throw gavel.)

[griffi94]

17. They all count

Hillary just has millions more than Bernie.
Millions and millions even.

More delegates as well.
Hundreds more delegates.

[PaulaFarrell]

67. well no not millions and millions

For that to be true she would have to at least have two million people plus two million, ie 4 million

[pdsimdars]

48. I am sick and tired of the Sanders campaign pointing out FACTS!

[silvershadow]

84. +1.

[oldandhappy]

13. is any of this going to matter in the GE?

There seem to be so many steps in the primary systems. In the GE I vote, it is counted, it goes towards the state count for the electoral college. I have learned a lot about the state party systems in this election cycle. Required a very sophisticated election team to wade thru all the rules.

[AgingAmerican]

14. Everything coming from Hillary's campaign turns out to be a lie

EVERYTHING

[HooptieWagon]

23. Only when their lips are moving.

"English only"
"Sanders a non-participant in Civil Rights"
"Throwing chairs"
etc

Just a growing list of 2016 Clinton lies to add to those of the past 4 decades.

[msongs]

40. got links to hillary clinton saying any of those things? nt

[HooptieWagon]

44. Her CAMPAIGN surrogates certainly did.

They may or may not have been under sniper fire at the time.

[pdsimdars]

49. and the all time classic . . dodging sniper fire

[uponit7771]

50. Yeah, math is a corporate shill !!!

[madokie]

131. Pretty much

[randome]

15. So you're counting as votes...those who didn't...vote?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Corporate666]

21. Calm down

and embrace BernieMath!

It's simple.

Each vote for Bernie actually represents 2 or 3 votes, because of all the people who would have voted for him but were denied/repressed/had to work, etc.

Each vote for Clinton only counts for about half, because those voters are low information and don't know what is good for them, and we all know Clinton voters are only 3/5ths of a real person.

Caucus votes count for 10-100 votes each for Bernie, and for Hillary a caucus vote counts for -10 to -100 votes, because she lied and cheated to get the vote (which otherwise would have gone to Bernie)


So using the simple math above, Bernie is actually ahead by 800 million votes.

Simple.

[randome]

57. 800 million?! LOL!

You're killing me!


[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[FlatBaroque]

22. It was horseshit the first time she said

and it's horseshit the millionth time she says it.

[Ferd Berfel]

24. Interesting

[TwilightZone]

26. So, 3m lead in actual votes cast = lie. "Sanders is ahead" with no basis in reality = truth.

Do I have that about right?

[silvershadow]

27. 3m lead + 1 FBI investigation = too close to call until she is exonerated. She hasn't been.

[pkdu]

28. Here you go...

[link:|

[lunamagica]

29. Even Sanders doesn't dispute this. He always claims in his speeches that he has 9 million votes

That's over 3 million behind Hillary's 12.5.

Do you believe if he even thought the difference wasn't so big, he wouldn't be screaming from the rooftops?

And yet, he doesn't. You know why? Because the amount of voters in Caucasus wouldn't make a real difference.

Also, it's not like only Sander supporters voted in Caucasus. If we counted them, her vote count would also rise. But not by much, for either one of them

[silvershadow]

30. Thank you. For some reason they like to scream it from the rooftops like it means something. nt

[Arneoker]

127. Thanks for letting us know that in a democracy

Having more votes doesn't mean anything. Oh the facts we learn here!

[AzDar]

36. K & R

[silvershadow]

37. Thank you! nt

[msongs]

38. oh look shaun king bragging about the most un-democratic form of elections nt

[PeaceNikki]

45. Bernie Math

[pdsimdars]

46. And these kind of things are the crucial facts

For instance, @BernieSanders won 81% in Alaska.
Not a single of those votes are included in the popular vote tallies.

Washington State has 7.2 million people. @BernieSanders won 71% of the votes. NONE of those votes count in the "popular vote totals".


It is easy to see from numbers like these that those "vote totals" do NOT mean what Hillary is representing that they mean.

Just one more Clinton mis-representation of the facts.

[silvershadow]

47. +1

[Txbluedog]

51. Let's see what happens in the Washington primary

[ISUGRADIA]

74. Washington

7.2 million residents


Only 240,000 voted in the Democratic Caucuses

[silvershadow]

85. Can you blame them? Who in their right minds counts votes by caucuses?...Nevermind. nt

[GreatGazoo]

132. +1

[beachbumbob]

52. Lol...try as they might the results are what they are

Hillary had won...has insurmountable delegate and vote advantage...sanders has lost...Now will he be a class act or a clown?

[silvershadow]

54. He will do just as he as succinctly and professionally stated he would do. Finish this primary so

as to not further disenfranchise people as has already happened coast to coast. Once was the time (albeit, briefly) the DLC supported a 50-state strategy.

[CrowCityDem]

53. It's not a secret, and it doesn't change the fact that 3 million more people have voted for her.

[Gothmog]

60. Yes, Clinton is winning the popular vote — by a wide margin

Shaun King's analysis is simply wrong https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/19/yes-hillary-clinton-is-winning-the-popular-vote-by-a-wide-margin/

The idea that the popular vote totals are flawed because caucuses aren't included has been floating around for a while. The point of questioning the sum is obvious: To question the extent to which Democratic voters (and independents voting in Democratic contests, who usually favor Sanders) have preferred Clinton as the party's nominee.

This has been floating around so long, in fact, The Post's fact-checkers looked at this issue at the beginning of April. Did Clinton at that point actually lead by 2.5 million votes, as she claimed? No, she didn't.

She led by 2.4 million votes.

The Post's Glenn Kessler arrived at that figure by taking estimates of how many people came out to vote in caucus contests and applying the final vote margin to that population. This is admittedly imprecise, as King notes, since in some caucuses (like Iowa's) voter preferences can and do change. Kessler's total included Washington, despite King's insistence -- and in Washington, he figured that Sanders had the support of 167,201 voters to Clinton's 62,330. Despite that, still a 2.4 million advantage for Clinton.

It's worth noting that caucuses, for which it's harder to calculate vote totals, are usually in smaller states and/or have smaller turnout. King's concern about ensuring Alaska's huge Democratic voting base is included in the tally is answered by Kessler's math.

What's more, Kessler continued updating his tally as results came in. The most recent update was after the contests on April 27, at which point her wins in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and other Northeastern states had extended her lead to "just over 3 million votes" -- including his estimates for the caucuses. (By my tabulation of Kessler's numbers, it's 3.03 million.)

Since then, there have been five contests.

Indiana. Sanders won with 32,152 more votes.
Guam. Clinton won with 249 more votes.
West Virginia. Sanders won with 30,509 more votes.
Kentucky. Clinton won with 1,924 more votes (per the latest AP count).
Oregon. Sanders won with 69,007 more votes (per AP).

In total, then, Clinton's lead over Sanders in the popular vote is 2.9 million. The difference isn't because the total excludes Washington. It's because it includes more recent contests from the past 14 days.

That number will continue to change. There are only two big states left -- New Jersey and California -- both of which vote June 7. Clinton leads by a wide margin in New Jersey, where more than a million people turned out in 2008. She has a smaller lead in California, where about 5 million voted in the Democratic primary eight years ago. For Sanders to pass Clinton in the popular vote, he would need turnout like 2008 in California -- and to win by 57 points.

[silvershadow]

86. The popular vote doesn't win primaries. The delegates choose, and many are not bound

in any way by the popular vote. This primary may well yet expose how Human "Persons" vote vs. how "Corporate Persons" vote.

[Gothmog]

90. Then the premise of your own thread is wrong

The facts are the facts. Clinton has 2.9 million more popular votes than Sanders and the claims in your OP are false

[silvershadow]

93. You might take that up with the author, then, if you are unsatisfied with what I have presented. nt

[Uponthegears]

103. Actually GM

It's Kessler's analysis that is pure stomach lining.

Sean's point is that not taking into account that caucuses involve fewer voters than do primaries grossly underestimates the number of votes a caucus winner would have received IF the state had held a primary instead.

Now Kessler is free to question whether you can legitimately make that extrapolation (in fact, I would tend to agree that you can't) BUT what he does instead is to estimate the number of CAUCUS VOTERS and then act like he's addressed the issue raised by Mr. King. That, my friend, is a LIE.

[The Second Stone]

63. The Broletariate does bs math, believes in Loch Ness monster

Mathematically, one voter equals one voter, and proportionately, the delegates are awarded based on voters or population represented. We all get that if you discounted entirely the votes that Hillary won, and counted the votes that Bernie won, then Bernie would be a unanimous winner. But he isn't. He lost.

[workinclasszero]

75. "The Broletariate"

[Gomez163]

77. I'm totally stealing that.

[workinclasszero]

78. IKR?

[redstateblues]

81. Good one Comrades!

[The Second Stone]

96. Bros of the world, slack-off!

BS gives everything for free!

[workinclasszero]

102. "Bros of the world, slack-off!"

Stop your killing me!

[The Second Stone]

106. Benghazi! Benghazi! The FBI will prove the secret email server

is a corrupt tool of the Sidney Blumenthal/Vince Foster connection! We will give the capitalist running dogs the rope that they need to hang themselves for free! They don't have to buy it! Whitewater! Lewinsky!

We will go full Newt Gingrich on your asses.

We will make Barbara Boxer, that corrupt supporter (and parent-in-law of the Clintons through a marriage connection I don't recall) pay for her support!

Establishment! I said Establishment!!!! And by that, I mean "the Man". Or in this case, "the Woman". Something, something, Establishment. There shall be no Establishment of Religion!

By Establishment, I men (mean, sorry, I meant mean) the working apparatus of gobblement. Er. Government. DWS! We was wobbed! We're wobblies! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World

[Bohemianwriter]

123. The contempt...

for the poor and the working class thickens. The same contempt the same campaign had for African American "Obamabros" in 2008...The contempt Hillary showed African American kids by labelling them "super-predators"...

And these are the people you expect to fall in line and vote for a smear merchant and proffessional victim with the party machinery and corporate media covering her arse?

[Gomez163]

76. Because math has a Hillary bias.

[Octafish]

79. THAT's the Big Lie everybody is talking about.

Catapault it enough times and everybody'll think it's true.

[silvershadow]

87. Thank you. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

94. That is very true.

I've seen it reported various places that only 400-500 Democrats "voted" in Alaska's caucus, when in actuality that was the number of delegates sent to the state convention. We had somewhere around 400 participants from my district alone (40 districts in AK). The Anchorage caucus was so well attended that the fire marshal showed up and made some of the districts go outside for their fan-out.

Alaska is a small state, but even if only 10,000 people caucused, that's quite a bit different than 400.

[puffy socks]

80. Oh geez

Yay! more Bernard math


Yeah we know , Bernie's staying in until the convention! Onward HO!

[Maedhros]

82. The point of this is to try and minimize the perception of Sanders' support.

It's smoke and mirrors designed to create the illusion that Hillary has more strength that she really does.

[silvershadow]

88. Exactly. This whole primary has been a stage-managed event straight out of Corporate PR vs.

an actual campaign.

[beaglelover]

92. But what the wise (yeah right) Shaun King fails to factor in

is Hillary's caucus voters. She did win some caucus states after all. So, the 3 million overall advantage that Hillary enjoys in the vote count is more than likely highly accurate!

[onenote]

97. Do you even bother to apply critical thinking to the articles you link to?

Because its hard to believe anyone who gave a moment's thought to King's article would not see how absurd it is.

Case in point: King specifically cites the fact that there are 7 million people in Washington state but they weren't credited to Bernie's despite his 71 percent victory in the caucus there. But that 7 million contains (a) a lot of people who aren't eligible to vote; (b) a lot of repubs; (c) millions who didn't bother to participate in the caucus.

The reality is that it is possible to figure out the popular vote participation in caucuses, something Shaun King is too lazy or dishonest to have done.

Here is some information. Enjoy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2004252

[silvershadow]

98. Do you ever give any critical thinking to supporting a candidate under current FBI

investigations, thereby tainting my own good name with more Clinton crap? I kind of take that personally.

[onenote]

99. So I guess the answer to my question is no, you don't.

Thanks.

[silvershadow]

100. Read it however you will. Your non-answer and snide original remark tell me all I need to know. nt

[onenote]

107. and your posting of articles that can't be defended by you tells me everything I need to know.

[silvershadow]

108. One only needs to

One only needs to step outside the echo chamber to see what the real world is thinking writing publishing talking about etc.

[onenote]

113. The real world doesn't think that Bernie should get credit for 71 percent of 7 million

Washingtonians.

Only a bad propagandist.

[silvershadow]

114. Oh? Aren't those the rules we agreed on? nt

[onenote]

115. I don't know what rules you play by.

But apparently they involve you getting points for nonsensical, non sequitur posts.

[The_Casual_Observer]

101. You are just kidding right?

[FlatBaroque]

137. Another astute and probative commentary by The_Casual_Observer

[trudyco]

105. I was hoping it was adjusting based on the exit polls. /nt

[MineralMan]

109. No, it's not.

[CentralMass]

112. K&R

[Lil Missy]

117. More Bernie Math. In the real world it's 3 million more.

[Bohemianwriter]

118. What makes me wonder...

Is why primaries have to be held during a timespan of more than 5 months...

[RBInMaine]

121. More delusional conspiracy theories.

[Tarc]

135. Shaun King, #2 Sanders shill (as no one can top HA Goodman)

The caucus numbers do not move the needle much, if any, against the 3,000,000 vote lead.

Sanders ppl just need to come to grips with the fact that more people prefer Clinton to Sanders. It doesn't make them devilish or evil.

[asuhornets]

136. OK..thanks for letting us know...

[99Forever]

138. Lies. Clinton business as usual.

[silvershadow]

140. I love your signature line! :D nt