Even if you cannot vote for Hillary, can you at least acknowledge that she won

[theboss]

And can you acknowledge that she got a lot more votes than Bernie?

I feel like we can have a discussion if we agree on these two basic facts.

Thanks.

[brooklynite]

1. I'd say it's MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE that they can't...

[pat_k]

9. Deleted. Response to wrong post.

[reformist2]

2. If you don't include the millions of people whose votes weren't counted, or didn't get to vote...

Then *maybe* I would believe that she got more votes. But even then, I have my doubts about the voting machines in certain cities. If we had truly fair elections, she would have lost, horribly.

[metroins]

15. Which cities?

Hillary won because of Texas, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, New Jersey. Large delegate states that Bernie didn't spend enough time or resources in.

So which cities are you referring to that bad voting machines? Are they in those states that Hillary won landslides?

Flip the win percentages from Hillary to Bernie in those states where you think there were bad machines....he still lost.

[theboss]

22. Are you suggestiong that black voters secretly love Bernie?

And their votes were changed?

Because that's how I read the idea that votes in "cities" were compromised.

This seems important.

[Armstead]

74. The complaints were not only about "cities"

[Lord Magus]

31. Oh give me a break. There weren't any such millions of votes not counted.

And the people who "didn't get to vote" are largely ones who live in closed primary states yet didn't register as Democrats despite being informed well in advance that they had to.

On the other hand, maybe you mean the people who didn't get to vote because their state held a caucus rather than a primary. That's voter suppression that heavily favored Bernie.

[tarheelsunc]

54. Who didn't get to vote?

Are you talking about the people who live in caucus states and don't have oodles of free time?

[Dem2]

60. Even if true, in every case Clinton LOST votes

Your pleas just don't make logical sense.

[bigwillq]

3. Congrats to Hillary and her team.

Hillary won and deserves to be the Democratic Nominee.

You happy now? Feel better?

[Trajan]

4. She is still short of the delegate threshold

Explain to us how she won when she has not yet captured the required number of delegates ..

[geek tragedy]

7. she got the most votes and the most delegates.

that means she won the election.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

59. You're both right in a way.

[tecelote]

78. It's not over until it is over.

Why can't you wait until the Convention?

[geek tragedy]

82. Same reason Obama and Warren and Merkley

The nomination has been decided. The convention is a ceremony--the winner has already been determined by the voters.

[Lord Magus]

32. She has.

You don't get to count superdelegates as part of the total delegates while pretending they don't count as part of Hillary's delegates.

[AgadorSparticus]

52. Dint think you could have summed that up any better. 😂

[athena]

57. The rules change when the candidate is a woman.

It was enough for President Obama to win with superdelegates, but it's not enough for Hillary.

She has a majority of the pledged delegates -- a bigger majority than Obama had in 2008. Please explain why the superdelegates should overturn the will of the people.

[lancer78]

66. I really doubt that

Maybe people want to change the rules because they don't like her policies.

[athena]

69. It's easy to find excuses

to institute a double standard.

If a rule was OK when it was applied to Obama, but is not OK when it is applied to Hillary, then there is a double standard. Even if you come up with reasons like, "We just don't like her policies", it is still a double standard.

[lancer78]

84. Oh, it is

not disagreeing with you, just saying that it is not necessarily because she is a woman.

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. Of course.

I have no problem acknowledging that she won the primary vote count. I consider that to be the case even if there weren't far more election shenanigans that any American, regardless of their political orientation, should be happy with. I have no problem acknowledging that she is virtually certain, at this point, to have won the nomination.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. I'd say she "won" since that's what officialdom claims

As to how many people voted for her, that is an open question, given the byzantine primary/caucus rules of Consolidated Democrats, Inc.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Will a polite shrug and "meh" suffice?

[theboss]

17. I'll take it

I'm not mean.

[tandem5]

10. $hillary didn't get more votes because the totals don't include...

just kidding.

[pat_k]

11. Can you acknowledge that...

...Sanders' victories in 21 states against almost impossible odds is an amazing accomplishment? Can you acknowledge that there are crucial lessons to be learned from his level of success? (Lessons that establishment Dems appear to be dismissing.) Can you acknowledge that it's a GOOD THING to work to wake up the establishment to the real lessons that need to be learned if we are to become a more successful party?

[theboss]

18. Sure

He did good stuff.

I actually voted for him.

And...he lost....

[pat_k]

25. I wish that more DUers...

... expressed it. Many posters lately are posting things that basically say "We won so shut up" over and over again. Yours doesn't fall into this category, but the volume of the other type has made me a little more reactive than I usually am.

[geek tragedy]

24. yes to all of those things.

what Sanders accomplished should be a learning opportunity for the DNC and Clinton

[pat_k]

26. Deleted.

My original response was a +1 to a response to supporting a post of mine. A little silly.

[Hav]

12. What difference does it actually make?

It either rubs it in again for Bernie supporters who will/might vote for Clinton or you get an admission of something undeniable from some who won't vote for Clinton. I don't see the point.

[theboss]

23. Because you can have your own opinions but not your own facts

Part of the issue in the aftermath here is this idea that Bernie didn't actually lose. If we can't agree on that, I don't know how we find common ground on anything else.

[Garrett78]

30. You make a good point.

In a similar vein, when Republilcans refuse to acknowledge basic facts (such as the reality of anthropogenic climate change), there's really no hope for Republicans and Democrats even discussing how to address the issue (much less reaching a compromise).

[demwing]

43. Fact - Hillary is winning, but has not won

Being entitled works both ways

[Kelvin Mace]

13. Also, I have a question for you:

Given all the lectures on "pragmatism" and "win at all costs" that I have received from HRC supporters as to why I MUST vote for her, when will those arguments apply to HRC and her supporters and compel them to actually try woo disaffected liberals and independents with something other than insults and abuse? For example, if firing DWS and picking someone like Warren as VP would bring 50% of us to the voting booth, doesn't "pragmatism" dictate that this must been done?

[theboss]

16. I want Warren as VP

She's awesome, and I think she has a real chance of causing Trump to have a stroke.

Also, I'm not really a Hillary supporter. I'm a Democrat and was making this same pitch to Hillary supporters in 2008. Losing sucks but it's a binary political system. Regroup and prepare for the next election.

[leftofcool]

47. If she causes Trump to have a stroke...............

I will bow down and kiss her feet!

[VulgarPoet]

19. I can't shake the feeling that Warren as VP would be the equivalent of Clinton muzzling her. nt

[Kelvin Mace]

28. I have faith in Warren

and as much as I dislike HRC, I don't think she is that stupid.

A Warren VP slot would do much to unite the party, and a united party would eviscerate Trump. It is the only thing which would recapture the youth vote and create a "making history" narrative that would blow Trumps BS off the front pages. Also, he would be such a misogynist ass, he would galvanize the female vote the way Obama did the Black vote.

Firing DWS would be icing in the cake.

[floppyboo]

14. She Won.

Democracy on the other hand hasn't been feeling too robust these days. Closed primaries in state tax paid elections is just plain rude. I can't understand why those rules stand. Why do the participating states agree to be raped of cash like that?

But given the rules as they stand - she won. And I do believe she will listen and act on making the process more democratic. Can't do it all at once! And cheers to the states who have voted to get rid of SD's next election. More steps. The party has a wonderful opportunity under Hillary to prove that they can be accountable. Her 'trustworthy' #'s should climb. It'll all be swell!

[Lord Magus]

34. Why do you oppose closed primaries but have no problem with the voter suppression known as caucuses?

It seems obvious to me which is more problematic, and it's not closed primaries.

[Garrett78]

39. Yeah, there's nothing more vote-suppressing than a caucus.

Many people simply aren't able to take part in a caucus (and a caucus doesn't allow one to keep their vote private, meaning some who *could* participate if they have the time are not going to do so). Whereas closed primaries simply require someone to register with a party (a registration they can then change again if they want to).

Not that I'm suggesting every primary be closed. But complaints of voter suppression ring hollow when they don't make mention of caucuses and they promote grand conspiracies.

[floppyboo]

49. I totally oppose caucuses. Are you trying to pick a fight?

Or were you responding to some other post? I would appreciate an apology.

[Lord Magus]

85. No, I wasn't.

I was just referring to the fact that you only mentioned closed primaries in your post. My apologizes for making unwarranted assumptions.

[floppyboo]

87. And I'll take some blame here too - The Primaries vs primaries - can be confused.

[demwing]

44. Shes winning, but hasn't won

For someone who claims to strictly adhere to facts, why are you so insistant on pushing a non-fact?

[floppyboo]

50. Who are you responding to? Maybe you should check first before you type.

Editing: I still stand by my "She Won'. She won being the presumptive nominee. It isn't over. Many things can happen, and I have a gut feeling that they will. How it ends? Dunno.

[demwing]

63. You're right - I thought I was responding to the OP

sorry

[floppyboo]

72. hugs

[litlbilly]

20. No and Hell no.

[floriduck]

21. I'll wait to see how the TrustVote lawsuit turns out before I decide.

[MineralMan]

70. Case dismissed.

No standing.
Wrong jurisdiction.
Frivolous suit.

You'll wait forever for that.

[floriduck]

88. ;-))

[msongs]

27. acceptance and acknowledgement are the first steps to recovery. some people never recover because

those two steps are too daunting

[azmom]

29. She won the battle, but won't win the war.

Enjoy your time.

[theboss]

33. What the hell does that mean?

[demwing]

45. Means NO

[Trajan]

81. This is what it means

Hillary, through hook or through crook, had accumulated a greater number of delegates ...

She did that through Machiavellian techniques of manipulating party machinery to deny Bernie voters their chance to vote for him ...

So yes, thanks to graft and manipulation of the polls using party leadership control to alter voter rolls ... Hillary now has a larger number of delegates ...

However, like the 'unskewed polls' of yesteryear, these results mask the true feelings of the electorate, which is an overwhelming support for the policies and philosophies that Bernie brought to the fore ...

Just because you manipulate the vote, that doesn't change the underlying fact that Bernie's promotion of Democratic Socialism has far greater support than Hillary's half assed moderate republican policy positions ....

So, enjoy your ill gotten prize, right wingy Hillary fans ... Just because you snuck your way onto the dias, doesn't mean the actual support for Bernie's vision will disappear ...

Hillary 'won' this time around, but the wave of support for a return to New Deal values has only just begun ...

The days are numbered for the Third Way oligarchs in the DNC ... Your choice will get their go ... But we will be back, stronger than ever, come four years ...

The Third Way is done for ... We shall bury it the next cycle ...

[procon]

35. No, let's not beg the losers for a pat on the head.

This is such an incredibly demeaning plea for validation, it makes me want to scream in frustration. Hillary, and the millions of voters, organizers, activists and campaign workers deserve better. The millions of Democrats, liberals, progressives, independents (and some Republicans, too), men and women who will come together to elect the first, woman President.

Perhaps not right now, but in time, most of Sanders supporters will join in. A few never will and their is no need to court their capricious favors. Just leave them to their bitter recriminations and let them rehash their favorite conspiracy theories and pass around their speculative fiction stories. It's all they have now, and they should be allowed to enjoy their misery unimpeded.

[leftofcool]

48. I agree!

[Todays_Illusion]

36. No, because I think that what I witnessed was a manipulated outcome and the absence of a big

wave of enthusiasm about this nomination is evidence that something is missing and that word for it might be, winner.

[restorefreedom]

37. nope. there was fraud, disenfranchisement, and cheating. nt

[TSIAS]

38. I acknowledge she won

Just like I have to admit Nixon, Reagan, Bush, etc. won. So did Trump. That doesn't necessarily make it right.

[Silver_Witch]

65. This I like!

Thank you!

[democrattotheend]

40. Yes, I do

I think that in a fair playing field, Bernie might have gotten more votes. But regardless of what could have been or should have been, it is indisputable that Hillary got more votes this season.

[demwing]

41. Nope

Hillary is winning, but has not won.

As far as whether she won more votes, if you're referring to the "2 million more votes" figure, you do realize that NONE of the caucus states are included in that count, right?

You're asking us to agree to two untruths. My answer is in the subject line.

[Lord Magus]

46. You realize that is a LIE, right?

Most caucus states are included in that count. (And it's actually closer to 4 million more votes.)

[liberalnarb]

42. I admit it. And I WILL support her in the general.

Happy?

[Pastiche423]

51. Never

It's been my platform, as it were, to never vote for criminals.

[aikoaiko]

53. I will acknowledge she has an unsurpassable lead in popular and delegate votes

And when the convention delegate is finalized, I will acknowledge that she won.

If that's not acceptable, then I guess we don't have anything to discuss.

[floppyboo]

55. ^this^

[Todays_Illusion]

83. I will acknowledge that HC is the candidate after the convention, but I don't think I will call it a

win even then. There was too much manipulation, to many dirty tricks, and the elections themselves raised too many flags, Iowa,Arizona New York, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, the South and the grand finale, California.

[ButterflyBlood]

56. I voted for Sanders. And I admit she won fair and square.

And I'm going to vote for her in the general election in November. Really nothing else to discuss.

[itsrobert]

58. +1

nothing more to it. exactly.

[TheKentuckian]

61. Sure and plausibly but I think the process sucks so much ass in general that

If it came out it was all fake ass pro wrestling tomorrow I'd rate my shock level as about a 2 on a 10 scale while if it could be indisputably apparent that the process is fair and honest it would at least be an 11.

It is also hard to ignore that consistently all shenanigans, errors, media coverage oddities, mistakes, shifty maneuvers, and "one offs" have an ridiculously strong conservative bias no matter what the race.

Even if I stipulate probable cause on this though, I think it is an extremely bad idea to go Turd Way to the point of essentially thinking it is irrational, dangerous, and counter productive. I hope I am surprised, I'd love to have daily crow for eight years but I'll have to see it to believe it, I haven't the prerequisite mustard seed of faith.

A secretive, banker friendly, security state loving, corporate enabling, drug worrier, free trading neocon with dicey ass evolve way after the fact judgment? Really?!? You tell me we have common goals and feed me this? Are you fucking kidding me? Are we aiming for serfdom or something? Are we against being citizens and are instead desperately scrambling to be subjects?

Yeah, Ronald Reagan also won decisively and we've been losing like hell ever since no matter what face, party, race, and I expect gender he manifests it will be another term for the old evil devil. Not one of the worst possible guises I'll fully grant but stuck in really bad groove and trying to lock in some more, almost certainly it seems to me. I see no other intent.

[bvf]

62. Sounds like you're trying to put yourself to sleep.

Pleasant dreams.

[Silver_Witch]

64. She won; she got more votes...

and now the discussion is what?

[Waiting For Everyman]

67. No, she didn't win. Not until the convention.

More votes? Can't even be discussed with the amount of manipulation that went on. 3 million votes haven't even been counted in CA yet.

The AP doesn't create reality, even though they may think they do. They create appearance. It's not the same thing.

[Betty Karlson]

68. no and no: she has not won before the unpledged ones cast their votes.

and number of votes doesn't matter that much since cuacus and primary have different vote tabulations.

So these 'facts' are not basic, they are convoluted.

[MrMickeysMom]

71. No....

I cannot do that at all. I can't put a set of blinders on after the overwhelming numbers of people brought into the Democratic party that have rallied around Bernie Sanders and have been disenfranchised as voters.

Provision ballots are supposed to be ignored? What kind of blinders do you have on? Are they made out of folded up pieces of WallStreet promises?

If the premise of discussion is to swallow a line of horse shit that is legally in the courts now for a just cause, then you don't have much of a thread here.

[Live and Learn]

73. As soon as she actually has. But that doesn't mean it will have been won fairly. nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

75. She won.

We lost.

[pdsimdars]

76. You do know that Bernie won 72% in Washington.

And there are 7.2 Million people in Washington.
For that, Bernie got ZERO votes. None, nada, zilch.

It was like that for many of those caucus states where Bernie won by LARGE margins. ZERO VOTES.

Ya think that has anything to do with those vote totals?

[Armstead]

77. I'll give you that IF you acknowledge that even though he didn't "win".....

Bernie came very close and got a large enough percentage (somewhere aorund 40-45 percent) that he and his supporters deserve to be taken VERY seriously as a representation of the preferences and goals of the overall population, not just some disgruntled "fringe."

[kayakjohnny]

79. Sorry, I don't trust anything about our elections any more.

Including the perceived votes totals anywhere in this country.

I'm sour on the whole process right now.

And I would be too if Bernie benefited from it.

I want fair elections and we don't have them.

[laserhaas]

80. It is not official

Until it is official

[David__77]

86. "Won" is an evaluation at this point.

I agree that it is a fact that she received more votes than did Sanders. I believe that she will win the nomination at the Democratic convention.