On the bright side, he's doing better than Kasich ... so there's that.

How would you describe it to make it appear that Bernie's doing better than Hillary?

I suppose you could say something like "In the race for the Democratic nomination, Hillary is in NEXT-TO-LAST place!"

Hey! That sounds pretty good, doesn't it? (I mean, you know, on the face of it... without really thinking about what it literally means, it SOUNDS good, eh?)

doesn't include caucus states

I'm proud of his national effort to inspire people, especially young people, to work for positive change.

I've never earned 9 million votes through representing my ideas before audiences all over the country as the culmination of a long and distinguished public career. Have you?

I respect people who step up and work tirelessly and publicly for change, beyond internet grandstanding. Sanders has done that, and along with millions of other voters, I admire him for the effort.

How many R votes have there been total?

You're still wrong about most of the major issues facing our country.


edit: Not you personally OP. I just mean Hillary vs. Bernie on the issues.

I applaud you for that.

...the biggest crowds where it counts.

He'll still be in the Senate, and if he doesn't ruin his reputation with the electorate by trying to drag the party into the mud, he should remain a leading voice for progressivism. His kind, of course.

the GE will include the Independents. You know, the ones that vote for Bernie, the ones that DWS says she doesn't care about. The ones that won't be voting for CLinton...

Unless you're planning on election 'problems' in November that eliminate the Independents - she looses.

Because people enjoy sticking forks in their eyes and voting for candidates who represent the exact opposite of the candidate they previously supported.

Enjoy your drama, Bill USA.

rock on.

Republican votes were split among 17 people.

Instead of lining the pockets of media conglomerates and ad agencies.

Why don't you spend your money as you see fit and mind your own fucking business?

that the people who are in favor of a specific political candidate are supporters not fans you can sit at the adult table. Until then have fun squishing your spaghetti through your filthy little hands.

It doesn't go by the nation wide popular vote

Nobody asked you to spell out jack fucking shit, did they.

The FBI has to shit or git. That is an issue sitting on the minds of many Bernie supporters. Perhaps if she named a VP that might entice some.

n/t

Big fingers small phone.

Thank you for the clarification.

Hillary is winning, and he is LOSING to Trump.

So his claims are beyond ridiculous!

you can't compare Hillary's showing in a two person race with The Donald's in a clown car.

There is no reason to post OPs that intentionally antagonize Bernie supporters.

If you want to antagonize Bernie supporters who post insane rants, or create "new math" ... do so. Many of them are begging for it.

But there is no reason to be intentionally be mean to all Bernie supporters in an OP like this.

The loud, ranting, folks ... sure ... take them on. But there is no reason for Hillary supporters to create the fight. She's already won. Its over.

What is wrong w/you?

Why are you trying to be d-bag? HRC is gonna win the nomination and
now is the time to make nice.

primary numbers to the final general election numbers. I suspect they do not reflect as clear a picture as the raw data of our current condition. It is heartwarming and a great relief to think that these balances will hold through the GE but I fear that is a fantasy.
A snap shot of any moment in history only reminds me of the blind men and the elephant tale.

Trying to disenfranchising the majority of Democratic party voters that didn't vote for him, is pathetic.

once people get to know Bernie...uh...nevermind.

the Republican vote total cast in the primaries is 25,044,998 vs the Democratic which is total 21,102,510

but don't let math bother you

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

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

I don't like how the numbers come out but they are what they are a Trump or Cruz presidency is scary

http://www.weaselzippers.us/268826-poll-40-of-republicans-will-not-vote-for-trump-in-november-19-would-rather-vote-for-clinton/

well at least I understand why you didn't include a link

Trump got that many votes, given the kind of platform he's running on. Additionally, he really doesn't do anything but spread hate and stoke the flames of racism. What he's running on makes little to no sense.

Hello, Bill USA!

In your opening post, you write the following:

So one might make a prediction that in a head to head with Trump, Clinton would beat him without any of those people who voted for Bernie.

from the OP (my own emphasis):

First of all, we are not idiots.

Secondly, I guess Hillary won't need any of those 9.1 million votes to get elected. She won't get mine.

Game over.

Math.

Don't expect a lot of crossover. She is not liked by many.

Even LESS liked than Hillary Clinton.

Independent voters have a limited voice and Sergeant Schulz want's to keep it that way.

Technically, the count is accurate, but

In reality the claim that Clinton is leading the votes is another Hillary distortion, a reflection of the dishonesty that leads to her being highly distrusted by most voters. But none of the mainstream media have called her on this distortion.

For example, in Washington state, where there are, according to the 2015 census numbers, about 7.17 million people, here are the numbers, Sanders won 19,159 votes for 72.7%. Clinton won 7,140 votes for 27.1%. Based on those numbers, Bernie Sanders gets a 12,000 voter advantage in Hillary's way of counting. Really? 12,000 voters are all the credit Bernie gets for winning a state with over seven million people? (actually, over 250,000 participated in the caucuses. Still those numbers don't reflect the size of the state's population.)

If you do the math on all the caucus states, Bernie's wins could easily represent populations that exceed Hillary's 2.5 million votes, not even including the primary state votes he won. It is insulting to the people of Washington to suggest that they be counted based on the 26,000 who voted in the caucuses.
Because Minnesota is a caucus state, Bernie only gets an advantage of 45,000 when it should be hundreds of thousands. The same is true in Kansas, where he only gets credit for 14,000 advantage, when it should be at least 80,000. Colorado would give him a 23,000 advantage based on caucuses, but he should get at least a 120,000 advantage based on population.

This applies to the following caucus states that Bernie won, Washington, Utah, Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, Nebraska, Maine, Idaho, Alaska, and Hawaii, representing about 32 million people.
Bernie won many of these by 60, 70, even 80%. Of course some are primarily conservative, which has an effect on the numbers. Let's say that Democratic leaning voters represented 45%, which would be 14.4 million. If Bernie won with an average of 60 to 40% that would be a 20% difference, or 2.9 million. Of course voter turnout has to be figured in.

Let's compare Massachusetts with Minnesota. MA has about 6.7 million people. Minnesota has about 20% less, with 5.5 million. Hillary won MA by a 1.4% margin. Bernie won MN by a 23.4% margin. Hillary gets 17,000 margin for her miniscule margin win. Bernie, with a margin thats gets 44,000. A proportional accounting, for a state that large would give him close to 750,000, or 700,000 more. The same kind of math applies to all the caucus states mentioned above.

The truth is that using popular vote numbers is a deceptive way to talk about comparing campaigns. An honest candidate would not attempt to do so. Clinton embraces it.

and it really shuts down these yahoo's!

It is 'math' until the real 'math' is revealed and then it is bluster, bullshit, and insults.

campaign. From what I can tell, the numbers mentioned in the OP are from the spreadsheet to which a link was provided.

Now, if you use the link that was provided in the OP and looked at the spreadsheet you would see that for the Washington case you cited, the spreadsheet shows:

Clinton getting 7,136 votes
Sanders getting 19,135 votes .... FairVote indicates on the spreadsheet that the Spreadsheet was "Updated by FairVote, April 27, 2016".

That looks pretty close to the figures quoted by you from OPednews. Actually, the numbers mentioned in the OPEdNews article were from the RealClear Politics site. IS OpEdnews saying these are the numbers Hillary's campaign came up with?? I'm confused, is Hillary responsible for numbers computed by RealClear Politics?

Outrageous!
2 different methods, one requires fewer actual voters.
I would imagine that the fairer way to measure this would be to extrapolate the number of people represented, than the total number of voters.

F-B-I I-N-V-E-S-T-I-G-A-T-I-O-N

I thought they only reported county delegates, not actual votes.

Clinton got 18 million votes in 2008, assume she'll do the same this time. That still tells us nothing, really, about her ability to get 70 million votes in the fall.

It's really poor logic to look at the primary numbers and say that Hillary can beat Trump without any help from Bernie supporters.