Bill Clinton says wife is victim of a ‘cover up

[Franzl]

Er,

First, I noted that Winfield ignored the polls.

Let me add Gallup to the list     McCain v. Clinton     McCain v. Obama
                                                    44%        49%         47%         45%



Second, it is true the Clinton really goofed in failing to organize effectively in the caucus states.  She should be ashamed of her ineptitude.

Oh, and BTW, the primary results I cited are correct.  You have to ignore the results in a couple of states to get the result Obama supporters want.

Finally, since Clinton got her "second wind," she has been doing very well against Obama.  Part of this is probably due to people getting a better look at Obama.

You basically ignored everything Winfield told you.

[Franzl]

Please try reading carefully.

[Franzl]

Actually, CARL, you ignored Winfield's very valid point about the legitimacy of the Michigan and Florida contests.

Your primary result between Obama and Clinton - can we see the math behind it?  Acknowledging that Clinton screwed up the caucus states through an ineffective campaign does not justify ignoring their results in the primary 'result.'

First, here's the link to the primary results:

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008&off=0&elect=1&f=0

Second, of course the Florida and Michigan results are "illegitimate" as Clinton won.  Interestingly enough, other states which "jumped the gun" in the slection process (Nevada for example) are considered ok.  Hmm.  I wonder why.  I guess that its "valid" to question Clinton's wins, but not "valid" to question B.O.s.

There is no point arguing with you.

[Franzl]

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!

Perhaps you didn't understand the question, so I'll break it down for you into three questions:

First, did Nevada hold its selection process earlier than provided for by the rules?

Second, are Nevada's delegates allowed to count whereas those of Florida and Michigan are not?

Third, why is it that Nevada (to cite just one example) is allowed to have its delegates count, but not Florida or Michigan?

Regardless of whether you agree with the fact that Nevada was allowed to hold their caucuses before February 5, it was, in fact, part of the rules. The rules might not be fair, you can argue that. But then you should focus on changing the rules before the primaries start.

You can't wait until you are losing, and then decide that you want to protest.

[Franzl]

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?

[Franzl]

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?