Democratic Popular Vote: Clinton: 15,805,136....Sanders: 12,029,699..............Clinton +3,775,437

[Cali_Democrat]

This discussion thread was locked by EarlG (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[Johnny2X2X]

1. A blowout

This was not a close primary. And if not for the Caucus states, Bernie would have not gotten but a hand full of states total.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Exactly

which is why Bernie's demands should be ignored.

He's in no position to make demands.

The sense of entitlement is amazing.

[Goblinmonger]

11. So you are fine just not caring what 45% of the Dem block thinks is important?

You think hope and a prayer is going to ensure they vote with Clinton if her attitude is like yours? That they should just piss off with their issues but still vote Clinton? I don't think it works that way.

[TwilightZone]

15. Sanders only won 35% of Dems, not 45%

Dems went 64/35 to Clinton. His 43% total in the primary popular vote includes independents and others who could vote in open primaries.

http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/the-partisan-gap/485795/

[Goblinmonger]

17. OK. So I'll use round numbers to adjust my argument.

You are fine with telling 35% of Dems to just piss off and vote Clinton and another 10% that they can go fuck themselves and find a different party?

Doesn't seem like you have a wonderfully winning approach to politics with that.

[TwilightZone]

23. Most of his supporters have already indicated that they'll support Clinton.

More will do so when Sanders concedes and endorses Clinton. Many of the rest will spend some time with the thought of President Donald Trump and act accordingly.

Many in the small percentage left that will either stay home or vote third-party were going to do so all along.

Your assertion doesn't fit in with reality.

[rjsquirrel]

42. ^^^^This^^^^

[pnwmom]

33. You are fine with 55% being held hostage by 45%? Kind of like a filibuster?

[LoverOfLiberty]

47. What would you have?

Honestly, what is reasonable for the loser to get?

What did Hillary get in 2008?
What did Gore get in 2000?

You guys act like you are owed something by the victor because you were able to pull out 35% of the vote.
Sanders lost. There are no consolation prizes in politics. If he wants to use his influence to try and get some of his policies implemented, he is certainly entitled to so that, though in my opinion that is only a possibility once has acknowledged that his competitor won.

[rock]

68. What did Romney get in 2012?

He had about 47% of the popular vote? What did we Democrats get from the Republicans when (supposedly) bush* won by a few hundred votes (well, actually 5 to 4 SCOTUS votes, he lost in popular votes). You're absolutely right: there is no consolidation prize in politics.

[Red Mountain]

75. SOS?

Gore didn't get anything but then again he was in the opposition party.

I think Sanders would like to see an emphasis on the issues dear to his supporters......none of which any Democrat should have issues with.

It helps us all.

[Buzz cook]

66. I'd say that indicates that Sanders and his supporters should

Reduce their demands by 65%

[rhett o rick]

30. The tally excludes a number of states. My vote isn't included in the tally. nm

[pnwmom]

34. 800,000 primary votes from Washington were also excluded.

So I don't know why we should count the caucus votes anyway. As it is, they hogged all the delegates. Isn't that enough?

[rhett o rick]

37. The 3 million difference is a lie and being used here to taunt the Progressives when we

are supposed have ended the primary fighting. The rule should apply to both sides.

[pnwmom]

39. The Bernie "win" in Washington State is a lie made by disregarding

a lawfully held primary that drew three times as many participants as the non-representative caucuses.

Bernie didn't win Washington state.

He just won the large majority of people who attended the caucuses in WA, nothing more.

[rhett o rick]

41. How ironic that you would make that claim. My point is that the 3 million figure that is being used

by this OP to bash Sanders, which I thought was verboden for everyone, is a lie. No matter how you try and try to rationalize it, the bottom line is that it's not accurate.

[rjsquirrel]

43. True but only because

it's probably larger.

[pnwmom]

45. i haven't bashed him. I'm bashing WA caucuses for not being representative.

That's not Bernie's fault and i never suggested it was.

[Andy823]

67. I totally agree

It was only like 5.8% of Washington's registered voters that went to the caucus. Not a very big number at all. I think all states need to stop using the caucus system, and instead go to a primary system.

[Bill USA]

74. it is telling that a Bernie fan calls quoting popular vote totals from RealClearPolitics 'bashing'

Bernie. IF you make an estimate of popular votes corresponding to caucus results in those states that had caucuses, the difference between Clinton and Sanders does not change much... which is why Politifact said when Hillary said she had 2.5 million votes more that Bernie (April 5, 2016: Does Clinton really have 2.5 million more votes than Sanders?) They decided that when you estimate popular votes based on caucus results the difference between Clinton and Sanders didn't change appreciably.

Glen Kessler the factchecker for WaPo also looked at Hillary's vote claim in April, did an estimate for caucus states and came up with the same result (although this was before the Washington state primary vote was in which differs markedly from the caucus results) --- not a big enough difference to matter. He gave Clinton "a rare Geopetto Checkmark".

Despite the suspicions of the Sanders supporter, the fact that caucus results are not included in the popular vote tally does not appear to make much of a difference in the final result. Despite overwhelming victories in caucus states such as Washington and Maine, Sanders gains only about 130,000 votes. That means Clinton is ahead by 2.4 million votes, rather than 2.5 million votes. Given rounding — and the fact that caucus numbers are only estimates — the difference is slight enough that Clinton’s claim, made before the Wisconsin vote, earns a rare Geppetto Checkmark.

[Lord Magus]

51. No, denying it is a lie.

If you're comfortable with lying in order to make it seem closer in your eyes, oh well.

[LexVegas]

2. Scoreboard. nt

[Exilednight]

3. How many votes did she get in 2008?

[tonyt53]

5. Uh, votes received in 2008 are really of no relevance in 2016. Really.

[Exilednight]

10. actually, they're a huge significance. it tells us how strong a candidate she is.

Did less people vote for her? If so, then she's much weaker than she was in '08 and proves she depended on the same people to vote for her without bringing in outside voters or pulling in the Obama coalition.


If she got more than she's a stronger candidate.

[onehandle]

20. Fewer Democrats voted this year period. Every poll said that they expected Hillary to win.

So fewer voted. Bernie couldn't even inspire voters, so would he be a weak GE candidate?

Anyway, this has absolutely Nothing to do with the GE.

Speaking of the GE, current indications show that she may be the strongest Democratic candidate in decades.

[Exilednight]

24. Strongest Democratic candidate in decades? We could run

Jeb Bush as our nominee and he'd be the strongest in decades against Trump.

That's like hurdling a limbo bar set 6 inches off the ground.

[brush]

31. What exactly are you complaining about? Is it that Hillary is going to win the general?

[NurseJackie]

4. Looks like a WIN to me!

[mcar]

7. K&R

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. Not too encouraging for the GE for Clinton... I don't *think*.

Roughly 45% of Dem electorate voted AGAINST her. And... whatever else you want to say about them ... they KNOW her.

By comparison: what % of GOP electorate voted against Trump? ( Should be much, much,higher than 45%; he had 13 opponents after all... at least in the beginning. No?)

You guys like to "do the math". So.... go for it.

[TwilightZone]

12. "Roughly 45% of Dem electorate voted AGAINST her" - incorrect, it was 64/35 among Dems.

Democrats voted for Hillary 64/35.

http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/the-partisan-gap/485795/

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. Mmmm. Point taken. I should have said "Dem PRIMARY electorate."

Which i normally do.

Conceding your point... doesn't that suggest a troubling weakness among those independents that are primarily drawn to the DEM in the general?

[TwilightZone]

25. Not really. The recent polls generally have independents about 40/40/20.

Which is about what one would expect.

Most independents already lean right or left, they just don't bother with party ID. The ones that lean right are leaning Trump. The ones that lean left are leaning Clinton. The small percentage that don't already lean are about split or undecided.

I suspect that will change once Sanders concedes and endorses Clinton. It'll also go up as the undecided ones (about 20% now) have some time to think about President Donald Trump.

[Smarmie Doofus]

48. Right. Interesting speculation. But back to the original question:

approximately what % of the GOP electorate ( PRIMARY electorate) voted for Trump over the combined total for 13 or so GOP primary opponents?

W. Clinton it was roughly 55% ( and 65%, excluding Indies.) against a single alternative.

So Trump's share, against as many as 13 alternatives, of the GOP primary vote was....?

[TwilightZone]

50. Doesn't matter. They're not in the race.

It's Clinton vs. Trump. How they did against their respective opponents is largely irrelevant, because there's historically been very little correlation between primary outcomes and general election results. Plus, the R side was over well before the end, so most of the alternatives were already out, meaning most people were going to vote for Trump, regardless, skewing the numbers.

The GE is a whole other ballgame.

[lancer78]

44. Independents have never

decided a national election. Obama lost them by 5 points in 2012. What wins elections is how much each party can turn out its base voters.

[Sheepshank]

65. Indies will either vote Rep or Dem.

and of those that voted for Bernie, some/most will clearly move to Hillary in the GE

[grossproffit]

14. First election?

[Smarmie Doofus]

16. Hardly.

How's yer head?

[pnwmom]

35. Look at all the people who voted against Bernie. Imagine how badly he would have done,

using your reasoning!

[LongtimeAZDem]

49. Unfounded claim

There's no way to differentiate those Sanders because they were against Clinton as opposed to for Sanders.

Just because you favor one does not imply that you oppose the other.

[Lord Magus]

55. 55% of Repubs voted against Trump.

And he only had 3 opponents who got any meaningful number of votes so saying he was held back by a large field is nonsense.

As for the Dem primary...in 08 President Obama had 53% of the primary electorate vote "against" him (meaning for Hillary, assorted minor candidates or "uncommitted&quot . Was that some sort of sign of weakness for the general election? BTW it's 43% for Bernie this year, not 45%. 45% is his share of delegates, not his share of the vote.

[HarmonyRockets]

64. In 2008 52% of people voted against Obama

right?

[beachbum bob]

80. with your thinking, obama should lost in a landslide in 2008 as he only had 100,000 more votes

than hillary in the primary

Clinton Obama
18,045,829 18,107,587

2016 not even close under any scenario....luckily its over and we go on to take back congress and keep the whitehouse....the reality...there was no "revolution" with sanders or his supporters......

[aikoaiko]

9. I thank our candidates for giving us respectable choices for this primary.

And I'm glad that the Democratic party will have a female nominee before the Republicans. I always hated that Reagan scooped us on SCOTUS.

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. Hmmm.... No offense meant. (Really!) But was there anything ELSE about Reagan....

.... and his governance ( if you can call it that).... that bothered you besides what you describe above?

Just trying to understand the mentality of some 21st century members of my political party.

[aikoaiko]

18. There were lots of things that bothered me about Reagan, but outside the scope of this OP.

[Vogon_Glory]

19. Oh, my. Somebody's narrative just got dinged

Oh, my. Someone's narrative just got dinged. The honorable senator from Vermont was supposed to have lost his primary battles because of the machinations of "corporatist Democrats," not because he got out-voted.

Ah, well. Sometimes the truth leaves a burning feeling in one's stomach before acceptance can begin.


The honorable senator from Vermont should be a mensch and concede.

[ffr]

22. Glad it was her. Can't wait to put more dems in to help her too!

GOTV 2016!

[Johnny2X2X]

26. No big difference between Sanders and Clinton

Both are considered hard core liberals based on their voting records and long time stances. You're hard pressed to find 5 issues where they actually are on the opposite sides. Many of the differences they have are just different degrees on the same side of an issue.

Some Sanders supporters have let Right Wing news sources paint a picture of Hillary for them that is not based in reality. She's been consistently liberal her entire public life.

[rhett o rick]

28. If there was no difference why was there such a bitter primary battle? The two candidates

and their respective Wings of the Party are miles apart.

[jamese777]

57. Primaries are always hard fought

It was exactly the same in 2008 between Clinton and Obama. There was only a 2% difference in voting record in Congress between Senator Clinton and Senator Sanders. That's a very minor difference.
As each candidate stakes out turf for a primary election fight, it amplifies differences that fade once the general election pits a Democrat against a Republican.

From the American Conservative Union in 2014 (a 100 rating is a perfect conservative voting record):
"Another interesting fact in our analysis is the stark reminder that Sec. Hillary Clinton is no moderate. While many in the media portray her as more centrist than self-described Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) or fringe activist Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Clinton’s lifetime rating of 8.13% is within two percentage points from those extremists. And shockingly, all three of these presidential hopefuls are even more liberal than President Barack Obama’s Lifetime Rating of 10% from when he served in the U.S. Senate. If America wants a third Obama term, three candidates will not disappoint."

[rjsquirrel]

46. Oh there's one big difference

that has defined the race.

She hasn't got a Y chromosome.

[peace13]

54. Some Hillary supporters have blinders on one brick thick!

The difference between B and H is night and day. Sanders was at a disadvantage from the get go and he hung right in there. Add in the Independent votes and he would clobber Clinton! Of course we can't because as we all know that us not part of our election process!

Regarding the Right Wing news sources. The ability for some to face the fact is astounding! My best to you.

[rhett o rick]

27. I thought we were done with primary OP's starting today. Why is this necessary?

And how typical to disenfranchise the voters of Iowa, Nevada, American Samoa, Maine, Northern Marianas, Alaska, Washington, Guam, and the overseas Americans.

[Else You Are Mad]

29. I think they are still working on the change over.

Skinner posted that sometime soon the site will be down for an hour or so for the change over.

So, hopefully soon it will happen.

[rhett o rick]

32. LOL. Trying to squeeze in a last minute shot at the Progressives here. Good Grief. nm

[Else You Are Mad]

36. Exactly.

I can't wait until the gloating, vile attacks against Bernie and his supporters is over.

[Cali_Democrat]

38. Posting the popular vote totals from the primary is a vile attack?

[Else You Are Mad]

40. No, not at all.

I was referring to the other, more negative posts that have vilified and mocked Sanders and his supporters in a very immature and offensive way that were posted last week which will no longer be tolerated.

I was not referring to the post at hand, your post was valid and not vile at all. Sorry if it seemed like I was referring to your post.

[jamese777]

52. Updated Numbers

The totals in the OP are not up to date and some votes are still being counted.
As of 6/20/16
Hillary Clinton: 16,663,802 (55.5%)
Bernie Sanders: 12,872,148 (42.9%)

Clinton over Sanders by 3,791,654 votes.

Hillary Clinton: 2,218 pledged delegates
Bernie Sanders: 1,833 pledged delegates

Hillary Clinton: 555 Unpledged delegates
Bernie Sanders: 47 Unpledged delegates

Hillary Clinton: 2,773 total delegates
Bernie Sanders: 1,880 total delegates

Clinton: 34 primaries & caucuses won
Sanders: 23 primaries & caucuses won

Clinton has 390 more delegates than needed
Sanders still needs 503 delegates.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

[RoccoR5955]

53. I guess that caucuses count as popular votes.

Interesting.

[LongtimeAZDem]

59. No, it just means

That they had a choice of two candidates, and decided to vote for the other one.

Beyond that, any claim to their motives is unfounded speculation.

[SaschaHM]

62. If Sanders supporters want to forward the narrative that there was nothing redeeming about..

Sanders' message that would cause people to vote for him and that his 12mil votes were only Anti-Clinton votes, I say let them.

By that same logic, 17 million people voted against President Obama in the 2008 primary.

[George II]

58. I haven't read down this thread, but for those who may say that the caucuses....

...aren't included in that total, it's been estimated that turnout at caucuses was much lower as a % of registered voters than straight primaries, and the difference of 3.77 million votes would be diminished by only 700,000 or so.

[Lord Magus]

60. Probably significantly less than 700,000.

Especially since 11 out of 17 caucuses actually do provide popular vote totals.

[George II]

61. Yes, it's really a lot closer to zero but I was being on the safe side.....

...and I see that some for which votes votes are not available are relatively tiny like Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, North Dakota, etc.

[Sheepshank]

63. A mandate, one might say

A mandate to implement her platform policies.

[Red Mountain]

76. The platform is about US.....

not her. Correct?

[jamese777]

85. Are we running for office on the platform?

She will be.

[tibbir]

69. I'm sorry.....did I misunderstand Skinner's post about civility?

[Cali_Democrat]

71. What do you mean? nt

[SFnomad]

73. Look at the time on the OP ... it was BEFORE the changeover

All the old OPs are still here and they haven't been locked.

[Lazy Daisy]

70. So much for unity

[SFnomad]

72. This OP was posted BEFORE the changeover

You might just want to delete your post.

[Jon Ace]

77. Good showing by Sanders (nt)

[Number23]

78. She whupped him. She whupped him good. And the entire world knows it.

[Ash_F]

79. Wrong numbers are unhelpful information.

notsoclearpolitics?

[TwilightZone]

81. Feel free to provide the "correct" numbers.

[Ash_F]

82. We will never know the correct numbers due to our ridiculous system.

[Cha]

83. Yep, the primaries are OVER.. with HIllary Clinton as the WINNER!

Mahalo, Cali!

[4dsc]

84. Too bad Sander's collect voted from all sides of the aisle

something Hillary won't be able to do in the general. Sorry but it's going to take more than this one sided fact to win the general.

[jamese777]

86. The Good News

is that every day more Republicans are saying that they can't bring themselves to vote for Donald Trump.