Some caucuses don't even report votes.

Your meme is a lie.

delegates. And then, there's more obfuscation with districts turning into congressional districts, and then... So confusing. But to keep harping about a popular vote that is not real only adds to Clinton's un-trustworthy count.

Such analyses are not uncommon and for you to assign some ulterior motive to the person or persons performing them betrays impurity of motives on your behalf that you so self righteously assign to others.


Since "truthiness" is a hill I would die on the VT senator decreased the Secretary's lead by approximately 150,00 votes last night. But by any reckoning she is leading him by well over 2,000,000 votes.

I am simply seeking a truthier answer. I have no doubt she is leading in popular vote, what, with 40 some % of states reporting so far. My issue is simply with the truth.

Hillary can, and should claim to hold the popular vote to date. She should just be careful in using spurious numbers. It could come back to bite her. She seems all too prone to that kind of attack. Why, do you suppose, is that? It only leads to people concluding that she lives a bubble that really doesn't do anything but pay lip service to their needs and desires.

I have on many occasions applauded Clinton, especially on her international work with women's rights. She used that power well. I just don't understand why someone isn't telling her that some untruthiness may really really hurt her.

When anybody discusses HRC's pop vote lead the usual demurral is her pop vote lead excluded caucuses. The author performed a painstaking analysis which includes making reasonable estimations of caucus voters and allocating them proportionally. Such analyses are performed all the time. His conclusion is that including caucus votes doesn't fundamentally change the numbers.

Caveat, those numbers exclude WI

The Pinocchio Test

The Sanders campaign is exaggerating the contributions that Clinton has received from the oil and gas industry. In the context of her overall campaign, the contributions are hardly significant. It’s especially misleading to count all of the funds raised by lobbyists with multiple clients as money “given” by the fossil-fuel industry.

Three Pinocchios

When you ignore this...

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/09/hillary-clinton-wants-to-regulate-fracking-but-still-accepts-a-lot-of-fracking-money/

but you go ahead and try to continue to the push that HRC isn't in the pocket of fossil fuel special interests

with NY in the cross hairs... HRC will have a tough time...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/nyregion/cuomo-to-ban-fracking-in-new-york-state-citing-health-risks.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-climate-change.html?_r=0

You hammer HRC on this and she's toast

You gotta go back two years with MJ? NYT?

Get real!

Thanx for kicking my thread, though.

I'm glad you agree that it doesn't matter No rec. n/t

"n/t"




P.S. Thanx for kicking my thread, though.

This way you don't have to keep being disingenuous and I don't have to entertain this as some serious matter. Independents make up the largest voting block in the US. A lot of states have closed primaries. That means that only democrats can vote for the nominee. Just like in 2008 Hillary is more popular with democrats. That means that she gets more democratic votes. If Obama had only relied on democrats to get elected we would have had a president Romney.

If you want to run around saying that Hillary is more popular with democrats, that fine, that's true but Sanders is much more popular with independents just like Obama. Trying to spin the popular vote in a primary with closed primary votes into some kind of affirmation or likability is disingenuous at best.

In national polls they are about even but Hillary's overall trend is down and Sanders overall trend is up.

There is nothing inherently disingenuous about my claim no matter how much you want it to be.

Not for the primary and not for the general election.

From the usual suspect Hillary mouthpieces I'm starting to doubt it.

The liberals are up to bat now.

RCP's tally: Clinton +2,405,170
WaPo's own flawed caucus adjustment: -132,646
Wisconsin adjustment: -134,000

That puts Clinton ahead by just 2,138,524 votes.

Sanders just keeps on diminishing down that slim margin, and Clinton has no more Deep South states left on the primary calendar.

That puts Clinton ahead by 2,138,524 votes, out of less than 18,000,000 total votes cast. That's a lot...

Let this sink in...The Vermont independent will never catch Hillary Clinton in popular votes and pledged delegates, all the obscurantism in the world, notwithstanding.

She is the worst candidate ever.

Clinton has every advantage in name recognition, national primary campaign experience, establishment Democratic party support, and corporate media propaganda as well as the almost total support of the entire superwealthy, superpowerful elite class,

Has a single major news story highlighted WHY or HOW the Sanders' campaign has managed to successfully challenge the Clinton campaign despite all of Clinton's profound advantages? Yes, the corporate media reports on the horse race because they have to, but have you seen a single in depth report on WHY or HOW the Sanders' campaign has managed to change a recent 10% point deficit in Wisconsin into a 10% point advantage with the every single member of the corporate media united in declaring the nomination already decided for Clinton? Wouldn't this count as interesting national news were the media themselves not 100% rigged in Clinton's favor?

Look at the Republican vs. Democratic candidate polls in battleground state after battleground state. Does Clinton fare better than Sanders against any putative Republican candidate in any putative battleground state in any recent poll? I have yet to see one. I know you will say that none of these polls matter because Sanders has not been "vetted" by the RW hate machine, but what do you think David Brock is doing right now other than digging around for any mud he can throw at Sanders? The fact of the matter is that Sanders is cleaner than any other Presidential candidate in modern history, and Hillary is dirtier than melting NYC slush.

In addition, what Sanders has already done to date in terms of fund raising AND awareness raising is completely unprecedented in US Presidential election history. But where is the media coverage? And since when does the overwhelming preference of independent voters not matter in a US Presidential election? Only in the bizarro world of our 24/7 every outlet Hillashill corporate media.

He will not catch her in either pledged delegates or popular vote, the latter by any reasonable reckoning.

Due to the mix of states with primaries and caucuses, the popular vote isn’t represented because they would need to all be caucuses or primaries.

Delegates do just like in 2008 when the person with more votes didn't get the nomination. It's like popular votes in the general. The electoral college destroys our voice.