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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Evidently needs reposting: Hillary is NOT winning the popular vote. That's not how primaries work. [View all]senz
(11,945 posts)72. Thank you. Yes, lies need to be countered.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
108 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Evidently needs reposting: Hillary is NOT winning the popular vote. That's not how primaries work. [View all]
TalkingDog
May 2016
OP
Nope. I'm saying throwing that number out is propaganda. The number means nothing.
TalkingDog
May 2016
#11
So, it's kind of like Sanders telling his people to keep sending money, he's going to win?
anotherproletariat
May 2016
#14
And you guys got that lie wrong too. Bernie doesn't ask his supporters to send money
pdsimdars
May 2016
#86
Would you prefer they use a number like 2M? Is that closer to what you perceive to be reality?
LonePirate
May 2016
#57
The popular vote is one measure. Hillary is winning every measure, Bernie losing by every measure.
tritsofme
May 2016
#17
The winner of the Kansas primary or caucus has gone on to become the Democrat nominee
SheilaT
May 2016
#45
He's behind in every other metric, as well, including the only one that matters, delegates.
TwilightZone
May 2016
#20
"Hillary still wins. EVERY TIME" Nobody and I mean NOBODY knows and understands that better than the
Number23
May 2016
#69
seriously. someone took the population of the state and said 72% of those should be
MariaThinks
May 2016
#35
The point is, correcting for all the caucus-goers results in at most +200k for Bernie
Tarc
Jun 2016
#95
Didn't Washington have a non binding vote and Hillary won? Using your theory say
Thinkingabout
May 2016
#43
Replace caucuses with primaries and I bet Clinton surpasses 2383 without any superdelegates.
Garrett78
May 2016
#48
Yes since most of Sanders wins is in caucus states, caucuses suppress the senior
Thinkingabout
May 2016
#50
Caucuses get romanticized, but the fact of the matter is they suppress turnout in a big way.
Garrett78
May 2016
#44
Washington is a really bad example considering 700k voted in the non binding primary vs. 230k in the
tandem5
May 2016
#49
She's closer to "winning" than Sanders even if it only 2.8 million, rather than 3.0 million lead.
Hoyt
May 2016
#51
This post is bizarre. If you added up all the results of the primary and caucus voters Clinton would
underthematrix
May 2016
#56
Did California vote yet? Do you apportion their votes based upon polling even before they vote?
Ed Suspicious
May 2016
#60
It's actually not all that misleading... And there was a popular vote count for Washington
Agschmid
Jun 2016
#106