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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 08:02 PM Mar 2016

NPR, today: Yes, Clinton's Gotten The Most Votes **OF ALL**

Yes, Clinton's Gotten The Most Votes, But GOP Has More Overall
March 19, 2016 3:02 PM ET




Hillary Clinton claimed at a recent debate that she'd gotten the most votes in this 2016 presidential election.

That's true, actually.

Yes, she's gotten more votes than Donald Trump.


2016 Primaries, by candidate:

Clinton - 8,668,136

Trump - 7,548,429

Sanders - 6,131,951


Cruz 5,484,494

Rubio 3,394,134

Kasich 2,725,327

Carson 677,307

Bush 249,894

O'Malley 94,692


http://www.npr.org/2016/03/19/471102628/yes-clintons-gotten-the-most-votes-but-gop-has-more-overall


80 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NPR, today: Yes, Clinton's Gotten The Most Votes **OF ALL** (Original Post) ucrdem Mar 2016 OP
D - 14.89M, R - 20.08M PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #1
That's one reason why the sooner we end the negative ads the better. ucrdem Mar 2016 #2
Thankfully Hillary's SuperPACs are going to go use on the true enemy now. morningfog Mar 2016 #5
Unfortunately the same cannot be said of AmericanCrossroads, Freedom Partners ucrdem Mar 2016 #7
Sadly, the same can't be said for Bernie's superpacs. BainsBane Mar 2016 #52
He doesn't have any, so it's always been that way for him. morningfog Mar 2016 #62
I provided evidence that he does BainsBane Mar 2016 #73
He has none that he coordinates with, like Hillary does. morningfog Mar 2016 #74
That article explains quite differently BainsBane Mar 2016 #77
Hillary coordinates. Bernie does not. morningfog Mar 2016 #78
I am all for flipping the Senate. PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #6
LOL! Politicalboi Mar 2016 #43
exactly right. nt DesertRat Mar 2016 #68
Nope timmymoff Mar 2016 #71
More candidates = more get out the vote drives. JaneyVee Mar 2016 #4
Our primary just isn't as competitive. Only two people running... Agschmid Mar 2016 #12
Exactly.... pantsonfire Mar 2016 #80
They did have a bigger field. artislife Mar 2016 #17
Every single Hillary supporter ibegurpard Mar 2016 #65
Primary turnout is a lousy predictor of election result, so there's no cause for worry. Donald Ian Rankin Mar 2016 #3
Good point. ucrdem Mar 2016 #8
That's funny shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #15
It's a great predictor of enthusiasm and motivation ibegurpard Mar 2016 #66
How do you know that? All the evidence I'm aware of appears to suggest the converse. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Mar 2016 #72
happy kick ucrdem Mar 2016 #9
It aint even close. LexVegas Mar 2016 #10
Blessed are the waffle makers ucrdem Mar 2016 #11
LOL, confused about math I see!mwhat a clueless post! Nt Logical Mar 2016 #13
according to fivethirtyeight, GOP getting better turnout says nothing about turnout in the general shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #14
Thank you! and what I think this means ucrdem Mar 2016 #16
Yeah, you're welcome :) and Here's a little preview of the general election! shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #31
LOL, hadn't seen that! ucrdem Mar 2016 #41
Florida focus groups? shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #44
That's where Karl cooks his crack: ucrdem Mar 2016 #48
LOL shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #51
But you know now that I think of that's ridiculous shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #55
And you say Bernie supporters believe in fairytales...lol. nt artislife Mar 2016 #18
3rd place taking first place is a fairy tale, yes. ucrdem Mar 2016 #21
She doesn't have much cross over artislife Mar 2016 #23
She doesn't need much. ucrdem Mar 2016 #25
Keep dreaming. nt artislife Mar 2016 #69
Crossover from the right should be raising your suspicions shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #34
I believe the Republican vote coming out of Vermont was real though. shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #35
Nah, I just trust experienced political analysts to know more than me. shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #27
Whatever. This guy has sucked this whole year. Fawke Em Mar 2016 #32
What are you saying whatever to? That doesn't even make sense in context. shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #39
I'm saying that Nate Silver has sucked this year compared to 2012. Fawke Em Mar 2016 #45
He didn't make predictions just talked about how there's not historical correlation between Primary shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #54
In the most conservative areas of the country, generally. Ken Burch Mar 2016 #19
She won in MA, she won in MS. ucrdem Mar 2016 #20
She barely won in MA. Ken Burch Mar 2016 #22
They are conservatives artislife Mar 2016 #24
Speaking of fairytales... shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #36
You are, amelie artislife Mar 2016 #70
She beat Obama in Massachusetts by 16, Bernie by 1. Carlo Marx Mar 2016 #37
Obama was winning by 100 delegates before this point, Clinton is winning by over 300 at this point.. shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #49
Problem is you're missing the rest of the headline - But GOP Has More Overall EndElectoral Mar 2016 #26
Addition is your friend. Fawke Em Mar 2016 #28
Here you go. shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #42
As I just told you in another thread, Nate Silver has sucked this year. Fawke Em Mar 2016 #46
See my response to that thread then shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #56
Keep whistling past the graveyard. vintx Mar 2016 #29
It worked for Barack, twice. ucrdem Mar 2016 #30
Not the same math. Fawke Em Mar 2016 #33
She's going to lose because I want it to be true therefore it must be true. shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #38
In a nutshell, yes. grossproffit Mar 2016 #40
God, please read something besides her sicophant press. Fawke Em Mar 2016 #47
My husband still refuses to do the hold his nose thing for Bernie if he's our nominee. grossproffit Mar 2016 #53
Well, if you say so, and your husband agrees with you, then it must be true. shadowandblossom Mar 2016 #58
She's more popular than Bernie BainsBane Mar 2016 #50
Ha, bringing some math into gdp, ucr! Cha Mar 2016 #57
LOL, and now back to our regular faith-based Sunday posting . . . ucrdem Mar 2016 #59
Hey, ucr! Cha Mar 2016 #60
NPR has been shilling for a while now Bassomar Mar 2016 #61
Hillary should run her GE campaign now workinclasszero Mar 2016 #63
She's got a lot of Republican voters to convert ibegurpard Mar 2016 #67
86,519,347 Chose none of the above hellofromreddit Mar 2016 #64
Primaries aren't the same as runoffs ucrdem Mar 2016 #79
But, but, but...... wildeyed Mar 2016 #75
Good to be #1. K & R nt Persondem Mar 2016 #76

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
2. That's one reason why the sooner we end the negative ads the better.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 08:24 PM
Mar 2016

Another reason is that uniting around opposition to Trump will greatly help the house and senate races and the senate is poised to flip.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
7. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of AmericanCrossroads, Freedom Partners
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 08:33 PM
Mar 2016

and the rest of the VRWC gang.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
73. I provided evidence that he does
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:47 PM
Mar 2016

In the link in the post you responded to. It shows quite clearly he does, and several of his staffers just left to work for one in Alaska. Read it.

http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/

Now, there is a pro-Sanders super PAC just for the millennials of Alaska.

The Anchorage-based America’s Youth PAC, made up almost entirely of former Bernie 2016 campaign staffers, is the latest unconventional outside group to throw its support behind the Vermont senator. Its leaders broke off from the Sanders campaign last week and have holed up in an old mall on the outskirts of town, just steps away from the official campaign’s office in the same building.
. . .

The group also exists in murky legal territory, as federal election law requires a “cooling-off period” that prevents a candidate’s staff from leaving the campaign and doing certain kinds of work for a supporting super PAC within 120 days. America’s Youth PAC disputes it is doing anything illegal, but several independent campaign finance experts said it was pressing the boundaries of election law.

The so-called “cooling off period” is intended to prevent coordination with the campaign. Technically, the law prohibits former campaign staff from assisting on paid “public communications” that rely on material knowledge from the campaign. The sticking points, campaign finance experts say, are in the meaning of “public communications” and what knowledge the new super PAC used from the campaign. Canvassing is not traditionally defined as “public communications” in the way that television advertisements are
.

More at the link.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
77. That article explains quite differently
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:22 PM
Mar 2016

The purpose for prohibitions of staff moving directly from a campaign to a superpac so quickly is that it constitutes coordination.
Coordination is in fact illegal under federal law.

That super pac was chartered a year ago. He has spent this entire campaign announcing he doesn't "have" a superpac, when clearly he does. There is also another superpac run by a former staffer of his that I have posted about before. http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-shifting-stance-on-super-pacs/Content?oid=2759783

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
78. Hillary coordinates. Bernie does not.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 07:22 PM
Mar 2016

There are no PACS of Bernie's. But there are Hillary coordinating PACs. Yes it is legal, but she claims a loophole to violate the law. I agree it is flagrant and wrong.

 

timmymoff

(1,947 posts)
71. Nope
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 11:47 AM
Mar 2016

an enemy of my enemy is not my friend when it comes to HRC. She is of the exact same cloth as the gop. I am not in one bit interested in uniting. I'd rather suffer huge losses and terrible outcomes from them then vote for huge losses and terrible outcomes from her. This is your dilemma you created with the third way nonsense. The DNC has left the liberals, and if Hillary wins the nomination, this liberal will vote for every liberal candidate and leave president blank. It's not us, it's the third way. Enjoy your lust for victory at the cost of harming yourself. Negative ads will last until November, but do not be confused, her record is the most troubling of negative ads. When telling the truth about someone becomes equally as harmful as lying you have a problem. The truth being Hillary and the DNC left us long ago. We have been getting by without you, you certainly will get by and enjoy the Big business democratic party who kicks labor and other working people in the mouth. You won't get my help, you won't get my money, you won't get my support, you will get me leaving the presidential portion of the ballot blank if Hillary is the nominee. Enjoy your Frankenstein's monster.

ibegurpard

(16,685 posts)
65. Every single Hillary supporter
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 10:49 AM
Mar 2016

Better be on their knees praying nightly that all of those R votes don't consolidate behind a single candidate and that the D vote actually turns out in the General. (And that Trump is not the nominee because despite their willful blindness he IS exhibiting crossover appeal).

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
3. Primary turnout is a lousy predictor of election result, so there's no cause for worry.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 08:24 PM
Mar 2016

Primary turnout correlates quite well with how competitive the primary is, but very poorly with results in the general election.

Here's a good article with the relevant data.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/

ibegurpard

(16,685 posts)
66. It's a great predictor of enthusiasm and motivation
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 10:51 AM
Mar 2016

Pray for a brokered Republican convention that denies the nomination to Trump.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
11. Blessed are the waffle makers
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:38 PM
Mar 2016

for they shall stay home and make waffles



p.s. no, it's not close, and by any metric Hillary sewed it up on Tuesday.

shadowandblossom

(718 posts)
14. according to fivethirtyeight, GOP getting better turnout says nothing about turnout in the general
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 01:22 AM
Mar 2016
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/

They say:

"But Democrats shouldn’t worry. Republicans shouldn’t celebrate. As others have pointed out, voter turnout is an indication of the competitiveness of a primary contest, not of what will happen in the general election. The GOP presidential primary is more competitive than the Democratic race.

Indeed, history suggests that there is no relationship between primary turnout and the general election outcome. You can see this on the most basic level by looking at raw turnout in years in which both parties had competitive primaries. There have been six of those years in the modern era: 1976, 1980, 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2008."


This is not to say we should be complacent, I mean, look at what the stakes are... but I was still glad to see the article.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
41. LOL, hadn't seen that!
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:00 AM
Mar 2016

If that dopey Trump ad is any indication November is going to be a cakewalk. But I'm pretty sure his new friends with the Florida focus groups will step in and make it the usual full-spectrum psy-war.

shadowandblossom

(718 posts)
44. Florida focus groups?
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:07 AM
Mar 2016

Yeah... her pacs response ad did crack me up though... I hope it'll be a cakewalk, but I don't really think it'll be a cakewalk. Looking at what everybody did to her all through primaries, and people do buy into this stuff. Even when our opponent is more or less the antichrist... and the stakes are high. I worry. Sometimes my stomache just sinks at night thinking about what might happen. My friend bought a passport honestly.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
48. That's where Karl cooks his crack:
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:17 AM
Mar 2016

The Best Way to Vilify Hillary Clinton? G.O.P. Spends Heavily to Test It
NYT - JULY 11, 2015

ORLANDO, Fla. — Inside an office park here, about a dozen women gathered to watch a 30-second television spot that opened with Hillary Rodham Clinton looking well-coiffed and aristocratic, toasting champagne with her tuxedoed husband, the former president, against a golden-hued backdrop.

The ad then cut to Mrs. Clinton describing being “dead broke” when she and her husband left the White House, before a narrator intoned that Mrs. Clinton makes more money in a single speech, about $300,000, than an average family earns in five years.

The message hit a nerve. “She’s out of touch,” said one of the women, who works as a laundry attendant.In Orlando, the “dead broke” ad emerged as the most effective spot, partly because it captured the gulf between Mrs. Clinton’s life and those of the less affluent people gathered.

“Her reality is just so different than mine,” murmured another, as operatives from American Crossroads, a Republican “super PAC,” watched closely from behind a one-way mirror.

In rooms like this one around the country, an expensive and sophisticated effort is underway to test and refine the most potent lines of attack against Mrs. Clinton, and, ultimately, to persuade Americans that she does not deserve their votes. While the general election is 16 months away, Republican groups are eager to begin building a powerful case against the woman they believe will be the Democratic nominee, and to infuse the public consciousness with those messages.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/us/the-best-way-to-vilify-clinton-gop-spends-heavily-to-test-it.html?_r=0

shadowandblossom

(718 posts)
51. LOL
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:25 AM
Mar 2016
Oh your headline




Ack.... thank you for sharing... I'm sure other gaffes will come back to haunt us too... but she is the best person for the job and the best shot we have.

shadowandblossom

(718 posts)
55. But you know now that I think of that's ridiculous
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:36 AM
Mar 2016

He's (maybe) a billionaire and was born into money. She worked her way up from the middle class... This is stupid...

 

artislife

(9,497 posts)
23. She doesn't have much cross over
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:14 AM
Mar 2016

From the right, the left and the independents.

Only dems, and not all of them either.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
25. She doesn't need much.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:19 AM
Mar 2016

If she gets what Obama got twice, and it looks like she's on track for that, she wins, plus what Bill got twice, she wins comfortably.

shadowandblossom

(718 posts)
34. Crossover from the right should be raising your suspicions
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:34 AM
Mar 2016

Choosing your opponent is a classic technique for getting an easy fight in politics. This is not something new and the fact he does so well in open primaries ought to make you a little more suspicious.

shadowandblossom

(718 posts)
35. I believe the Republican vote coming out of Vermont was real though.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:37 AM
Mar 2016

I think the people there just really love him, even the Republicans.

shadowandblossom

(718 posts)
27. Nah, I just trust experienced political analysts to know more than me.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:24 AM
Mar 2016

Since I am not an expert and they have been giving me accurate information all primary season, unlike the mainstream media. I'm comfortable with them since all indicators so far have shown fivethirtyeight political analysts to put out good quality information. I'm very careful when it comes to sources (not perfect) and a skeptical person.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
32. Whatever. This guy has sucked this whole year.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:31 AM
Mar 2016

Bernie was supposed to do nothing.

Trump shouldn't be here.

Meh.

shadowandblossom

(718 posts)
54. He didn't make predictions just talked about how there's not historical correlation between Primary
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:31 AM
Mar 2016

and general turnout, which debunks the argument that we should expect it based on that data. That's not saying they won't have better turnout, just that primary numbers don't indicate that. Since he didn't make predictions if I remember correctly, it seems like you are just disputing facts. If that's the case which facts do you dispute?

Show there is a historical correlation and I'll listen to you. Otherwise I really can't take what you are saying seriously.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
19. In the most conservative areas of the country, generally.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:00 AM
Mar 2016

Even if she gets nominated, it will end up being close to a dead heat in the popular vote column.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
22. She barely won in MA.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:08 AM
Mar 2016

Not sure why you're so enthusiastic for someone who's that conservative on some many big issues.

It's not like there can ever be a military intervention anywhere today that could actually have feminist results. The only war that actually ever did liberate women was World War II, and that was accidental and temporary. No American war has had any positive results for any women anywhere since then.

 

artislife

(9,497 posts)
70. You are, amelie
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 11:42 AM
Mar 2016

Big hearts come out of your eyes when she says no to single payer. You leap over babbling brooks when she talks about the good Monsanto does to farming. You happily wave good bye to Honduran children when they are sent back with a message pinned to their shirts.

I have watched the cheers to her stances by this site, the further right she goes, the happier and more determined you all get.

 

Carlo Marx

(98 posts)
37. She beat Obama in Massachusetts by 16, Bernie by 1.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:44 AM
Mar 2016

And Obama received extraordinary amounts of media coverage whereas Sanders is either ignored or sand blasted with hit jobs.

shadowandblossom

(718 posts)
49. Obama was winning by 100 delegates before this point, Clinton is winning by over 300 at this point..
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:18 AM
Mar 2016

One reason for the difference is that they appealed to different groups then, she got more of the people who like Bernard Sanders now in that race... Now her coalition looks more like Obama's did then. Anyway, what your saying doesn't seem like it has any meaning to me. That idea kind of cherry picks facts to make a picture that is desirable to you and ignores the broader picture of whats going on.

EndElectoral

(4,213 posts)
26. Problem is you're missing the rest of the headline - But GOP Has More Overall
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:24 AM
Mar 2016

That unfortunately is the Achilles Heel in the optimism.

Once all those votes parsed between Trump, Rubio, Kasich and Cruz are all representing one GOP candidate, the Democratic candidate is going to be facing a huge uphill slog as the numbers fall short.

Even in the Florida Primary, 50K voters LESS voted for the Demcoratic candidate and 3 million MORE for GOP candidates than they did in 2012. That swing is significant.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
28. Addition is your friend.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:24 AM
Mar 2016

Add her's plus Bernie's (minus 37 percent) and then add Trump, Cruz, Rubio, et al, minus 12 percent.

She loses, hon.

shadowandblossom

(718 posts)
42. Here you go.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:00 AM
Mar 2016
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/

Not sure why that would make you feel better about Sanders, since by your reasoning their odds would be identical in the general... Seems more like the sort of thing a Republican would gloat over. But anyway here's a link with a debunk to your post.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
46. As I just told you in another thread, Nate Silver has sucked this year.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:12 AM
Mar 2016

But, I'm married to an insurance underwriter, so deal with it.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
30. It worked for Barack, twice.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:30 AM
Mar 2016

It worked for Bill too, a little differently, but then again I wonder if maybe Ross Perot didn't also get an encouraging phone call from the governor.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
47. God, please read something besides her sicophant press.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:17 AM
Mar 2016

My husband, who's tried to talk me into doing the hold the nose thing, even says so.

That's why you guys are so ardent about us doing so.

grossproffit

(5,591 posts)
53. My husband still refuses to do the hold his nose thing for Bernie if he's our nominee.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:30 AM
Mar 2016

I'm still working on him.

shadowandblossom

(718 posts)
58. Well, if you say so, and your husband agrees with you, then it must be true.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:44 AM
Mar 2016

That settles it.



Your life is your life. As for me, I'll hold my nose and vote for him if I have to.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
59. LOL, and now back to our regular faith-based Sunday posting . . .
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:55 AM
Mar 2016

heya Cha! nice smackdown on seabeyond's post

Bassomar

(58 posts)
61. NPR has been shilling for a while now
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 04:01 AM
Mar 2016

TOo bad the outcome for the GOP is greater, there is not excitement on the Dem. 2016 will be Gore 2.0.

 

hellofromreddit

(1,182 posts)
64. 86,519,347 Chose none of the above
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 10:40 AM
Mar 2016
Data

Average turnout: 27.3

Total eligible voters: 119,008,730

Maybe everyone should cool it with the smarmy negative campaigning?

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
79. Primaries aren't the same as runoffs
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 02:30 AM
Mar 2016

as the stakes are lower and caucuses at least are more involved than regular elections. That stands to reason but the point has also been made statistically in a recent FiveThirtyEight article posted here:


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»NPR, today: Yes, Clinton'...