Bill Clinton says wife is victim of a ‘cover up

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ask Hillary Clinton - she agreed to the restrictions proposed by the DNC, not me.

And again, the candidates were not allowed to campaign in Florida.  Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan - how many times does that need to be repeated?

Which means either you do not know why exceptions were made to the rule, or are to embarassed to acknowledge the reasons for the exceptions.

Oh, and BTW, here's the data from Dave's site, for which I previously listed the link:

Candidate             Obama               Clinton

Primary votes     17,312,854       17,627,819

Caucus votes          383,317            179,604

Total votes        17,696,171        17,807,423

Hmm.  Looks like (at the moment) Clinton's total is greater than Obamas.  

[I left.]

Ask Hillary Clinton - she agreed to the restrictions proposed by the DNC, not me.

And again, the candidates were not allowed to campaign in Florida.  Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan - how many times does that need to be repeated?

Which means either you do not know why exceptions were made to the rule, or are to embarassed to acknowledge the reasons for the exceptions.

Oh, and BTW, here's the data from Dave's site, for which I previously listed the link:

Candidate             Obama               Clinton

Primary votes     17,312,854       17,627,819

Caucus votes          383,317            179,604

Total votes        17,696,171        17,807,423

Hmm.  Looks like (at the moment) Clinton's total is greater than Obamas.  

Do you have problems comprehending texts?

[Joe Republic]

CARL, you have misunderstood.  The caucus votes detailed on Dave's site are not popular votes.  There is no actual total for that, and therefore a true count of the popular vote is impossible.

[Sibboleth]

Bill Clinton continues to become a joke with every passing day. Does he not care about his legacy or something.

Bill Clinton has a legacy [qm]. Since when [qm].

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Your math is faulty, CARL.

Dave's site reports delegates, not raw votes, for caucus states.  Washington's caucus turnout was not 32,000.  Even if it were, "other candidates" would have received more than 50 votes (0.16%).  Clearly those were state delegates for "other candidates" which are an entirely different beast than raw votes.

In order to get a truly representative sample for the caucus states, you have to take state-provided turnout statistics (or estimates) and extrapolate the delegate results.  This is imperfect, as it negatively impacts candidates who failed to reach viability across many precincts, but is a more honest way than just counting state delegates, which correspond to voters at ratios around 20:1.

The DNC is not going to give Clinton a natural +328,309 margin out of Michigan, either, simply because other candidates withdrew their names because all parties (including Clinton's campaign) were on the record as saying Michigan would not count.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Joe,

I do understand.  

I have cited numbers and sources and you simply deny everything without any data because of your adoration of Obama.

I do not like Hitlery but, she has gotten treated unfairly.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Your math is faulty, CARL.

Dave's site reports delegates, not raw votes, for caucus states.  Washington's caucus turnout was not 32,000.  Even if it were, "other candidates" would have received more than 50 votes (0.16%).  Clearly those were state delegates for "other candidates" which are an entirely different beast than raw votes.

In order to get a truly representative sample for the caucus states, you have to take state-provided turnout statistics (or estimates) and extrapolate the delegate results.  This is imperfect, as it negatively impacts candidates who failed to reach viability across many precincts, but is a more honest way than just counting state delegates, which correspond to voters at ratios around 20:1.

The DNC is not going to give Clinton a natural +328,309 margin out of Michigan, either, simply because other candidates withdrew their names because all parties (including Clinton's campaign) were on the record as saying Michigan would not count.

I feel so much better having you on the other side.

Please tell me how Gallup and Rasmussen (not to mention Princeton) are also all wrong.

[Joe Republic]

Joe,

I do understand. 

I have cited numbers and sources and you simply deny everything without any data because of your adoration of Obama.

I do not like Hitlery but, she has gotten treated unfairly.

Uh, no.  You have posted incorrect information.  You can't weasel your way out of it this time.

Here's what you posted:

Candidate             Obama               Clinton

Primary votes     17,312,854       17,627,819

Caucus votes          383,317            179,604

Total votes        17,696,171        17,807,423

Hmm.  Looks like (at the moment) Clinton's total is greater than Obamas. 

The caucus vote totals on this site are not popular votes.  They are totals of county delegates that each state grants the candidates based on the results of each county caucus.  Some states (e.g. Iowa and Maine) do not record the popular vote totals, and therefore it is impossible to know the true national popular vote.

Get it?

(P.S. I actually can't stand Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  My current signature is a joke.)

[I left.]

Joe,

I do understand. 

I have cited numbers and sources and you simply deny everything without any data because of your adoration of Obama.

I do not like Hitlery but, she has gotten treated unfairly.

Uh, no.  You have posted incorrect information.  You can't weasel your way out of it this time.

Here's what you posted:

Candidate             Obama               Clinton

Primary votes     17,312,854       17,627,819

Caucus votes          383,317            179,604

Total votes        17,696,171        17,807,423

Hmm.  Looks like (at the moment) Clinton's total is greater than Obamas. 

The caucus vote totals on this site are not popular votes.  They are totals of county delegates that each state grants the candidates based on the results of each county caucus.  Some states (e.g. Iowa and Maine) do not record the popular vote totals, and therefore it is impossible to know the true national popular vote.

Get it?

(P.S. I actually can't stand Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  My current signature is a joke.)

Isn't it interesting how people run away when they see they are losing?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Joe,

I do understand. 

I have cited numbers and sources and you simply deny everything without any data because of your adoration of Obama.

I do not like Hitlery but, she has gotten treated unfairly.

Uh, no.  You have posted incorrect information.  You can't weasel your way out of it this time.

Here's what you posted:

Candidate             Obama               Clinton

Primary votes     17,312,854       17,627,819

Caucus votes          383,317            179,604

Total votes        17,696,171        17,807,423

Hmm.  Looks like (at the moment) Clinton's total is greater than Obamas. 

The caucus vote totals on this site are not popular votes.  They are totals of county delegates that each state grants the candidates based on the results of each county caucus.  Some states (e.g. Iowa and Maine) do not record the popular vote totals, and therefore it is impossible to know the true national popular vote.

Get it?

(P.S. I actually can't stand Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  My current signature is a joke.)

Isn't it interesting how people run away when they see they are losing?

So, go run away.

Oh, and what about the polls I cited?

Are they "invalid" because you say so?

[Joe Republic]

Oh, and what about the polls I cited?

Are they "invalid" because you say so?

I don't know who you're addressing, CARL, but am I to assume you've acknowledged your mistake re: popular vote totals?

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I feel so much better having you on the other side.

Please tell me how Gallup and Rasmussen (not to mention Princeton) are also all wrong.

I do think Clinton is a marginally stronger candidate.  I'm not "on the other side."  I was just pointing out that you have no idea what you're talking about re: the caucuses.

[Beet]

He is just using flowery language.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Clinton won Nevada, you dolt.

Clinton was quite happy with the restrictions on Michigan and Florida when they didn't affect her nomination.  And of course the Michigan primary was illegitimate - Obama wasn't even on the ballot!

The delegation from Nevada is currently 14 for Obama and 11 for Clinton.

[Bacon King]

Carl, Nevada did not break the rules like Michigan and Florida did. Nevada's early caucus date was specifically enshrined in the primary rules by the DNC, who felt that a western counterpart was needed to the other early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

[Democratic Hawk]

The popular vote is ambiguous, at best, depending on which measure you use but a few comments:

1) Why should MI even be tallied? Neither Obama nor Edwards, who was still in the race back then, were on the ballot. What's to be done to redress that? Allocate all the uncommitted votes to Obama; now that Edwards has endorsed him?

2) Clinton won FL handidly no doubt assisted by familiarity. I don't think for one moment, given its demographics, she was ever going to lose FL but had Obama been able to campaign and run ads in FL he might have performed better. As for MI, it's a state he may have had a fair shot at winning

3) Given that the Republican primaries in MI and FL attracted a higher turnout, it's clear to me that the DNC decision to strip MI and FL of their delegates, more likely than not, suppressed the turnout. Many Democrats in FL and MI may well have thought why bother if my vote isn't going to count for anything? [I see this given that Democratic primaries tended to attract more participation even when the GOP race was wide-open]

I can see it now. Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote ... and its courtesy of Puerto Rico! And there you have it? The nightmare scenario of one Democrat ahead in pledged delegates and the other ahead in the popular vote

Right now, inc. FL, MI along with estimates for the IA, NV, ME and WA caucuses, RCP gives Clinton a lead of 54,432 votes. Throw in MI's uncommitteds, all 238,168 of them,  for Obama and he leads by 183,736. PR is likely to change that - despite the fact that PR has no say in November

What a mess !

Dave

[Aizen]

I guess Bill doesn't care about his legacy.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

I guess Bill doesn't care about his legacy.

His legacy will be fine. By and large people will have forgotten all about this and any other crap that happened with Bill during this campaign in half a year's time.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carl, Nevada did not break the rules like Michigan and Florida did. Nevada's early caucus date was specifically enshrined in the primary rules by the DNC, who felt that a western counterpart was needed to the other early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

BC,

What happened was the DNC changed the rules so that they did not apply to Nevada.

I never said they broke the rules, just that the rules which adversely impacted Florida and Michigan were waived for Nevada

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Obamanics like Winfield  

I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read that.

If I have left the impresson that I am an Obamanic, as Carlhayden says, I really must enroll in an effective writing course.  Either that, or Carlhayden really must enroll in an effective reading course, with an emphasis on comprehension.   

[Joe Republic]

I'd have thought that CARL would've had the honesty and balls to admit when he gets something wrong, especially after having made it worse for himself by attacking the people who corrected him.  How disappointing.

[Mr. Morden]

To invoke an opebo-ism, here are the "correct" answers to all of the controversies in this thread:

1) The original DNC calendar allowed IA, NV, NH, and SC alone to vote before Feb. 5th, but there were specific dates on which those four states were allowed to vote.  From Day 1, NH said they would not agree to the DNC calendar, as it allowed NV to go before them, and they wouldn't allow that.  Both IA & NH ended up voting earlier than the rules allowed and, rather than punish them like they did with FL & MI, the DNC gave them a waiver from the rules.  (NV on the other hand did *not* break the rules.  They voted on the day that the DNC allowed them to.)

2) *However*, even though the DNC was completely unfair in rewriting the rules for IA & NH rather than punishing them, while they punished FL & MI, in determining whether an election was fair, doesn't one have to examine what the rules were at the time the election was held (no matter how unfair it was that those rules were imposed)?  On the days that the FL & MI primaries were held, it was widely understood that they wouldn't count, which is why turnout was lower in the Dem. primary than in the GOP primary.  So the entire result is tainted by the fact that people were told that it wouldn't count, and this influenced their voting behavior.  So in what sense does it meet any reasonable standard of a free and fair election?

3) Bill's "she is winning the general election and he is not" doesn't make any sense.  Yes, the regression lines from pollster.com's polling compilation have Clinton beating McCain nationally by 3%, while McCain/Obama is a tie.  But RCP's average has Obama doing slightly better than Clinton.  Either way, it's virtually a tie.

4) But any marginal advantage Clinton might have as a general election would be wiped out if the superdelegates were to actually hand her the nomination at this point.  That's because Obama is seen to have "won" the primary contest, and any attempt to "overturn" that result would be seen as Clinton "stealing" the nomination, which would lead to enormous backlash.  She can't win cleanly.  She can only win in a way that destroys her electability.

There, I have solved all of the controversies here.  No more need to continue debate in this thread.