General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Conservatives are having a complete meltdown... Enjoy. [View all]RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)She doesn't have 3 million+ more actual votes than Bernie Sanders. Not in any way that makes any sense.
Hillary Clinton got 309,000 votes in Alabama's Democratic primary.
Minnesota has a greater population than Alabama, and has substantially more Democrats than Republicans.
But because Minnesota uses the DNC's preferred method of conducting a presidential preference poll, the caucus, the total vote count was only 204,610. And Bernie Sanders won 62/38.
The pledged delegate count is the only realistic way to come close to an assessment of the difference in support demonstrated by the primary/caucus process. And at this moment, the pledged delegate count is:
Clinton: 1,682 (55%)
Sanders: 1,361 (45%)
That's a difference of 321 delegates.
259 (80%) of that difference came from these primaries:
South Carolina: Feb. 27 (25)
Texas: March 1 (76)
Georgia: March 1 (44)
Virginia: March 1 (29)
Louisiana: March 5 (27)
Florida: March 15 (58)
Every one of those contests was a primary. That's the only reason why she has the 'vote count' spread.
Since March 15, Clinton hasn't won a state with the margins that she did in each of the above. And Sanders has won 9 of 15 states, as well as 'Americans Abroad.'
Many of us Bernie Sanders supporters are hoping that the Clinton Campaign is being very sober about this information, because we really, really don't want a President Donald Trump.
Unfortunately, just like she did in 2008 ('we've got more votes but right now he(Obama) has more delegates'), Clinton has spoken of the vote count in the same terms you refer to. Which is utterly wrong and inflates the actual demonstrated level of support for her candidacy coming out of the primary/caucuses process. I hope that's only primary/caucuses propaganda talk, because if it's the actual attitude inside the campaign, there is a very serious problem.