Remember in 2008 when Hillary won CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, OH, MI & NJ and still lost

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Good times.

 Don't see how that can happen again though

Yeah it's really good in a democracy where the candidate who receives the most votes still loses.

Obama won the most votes without Michigan, where he wasn't on the ballot since he didn't break the DNC rules.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Good times.

 Don't see how that can happen again though

Yeah it's really good in a democracy where the candidate who receives the most votes still loses.

Obama won the most votes without Michigan, where he wasn't on the ballot since he didn't break the DNC rules.

He OPTED to take his name off the ballot and he still received delegates, so your argument is moot. Hey, my name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, either. Why didn't I receive some delegates? The DNC just assumed that all the "uncommitted" votes cast in Michigan were for Obama and so he got some delegates because of that. It's not really a democracy if all 50 states, DC, and the territories did not get a say. And yes, I would say the same if it had been Idaho, Illinois, or Georgia that had "violated" the DNC "rules." You shouldn't punish the voters because of their state leaders' mistakes.

Well, who knows how he would have done in Michigan if he was on the ballot. Obama did win neighboring Wisconsin by 18 points, and it was a primary, not a caucus.