Bill Clinton says wife is victim of a ‘cover up

[CARLHAYDEN]

Strangely enough, Bubba is correct!

First, lets look as some recent polls:

Polling Organization          McCain v. Clinton          McCain v. Obama

Rasmussen                         45%         47%             45%          45%

Princeton                            44             48                46             46

Second, lets look at the primary results:

Obama          47.24%
Clinton          48.10

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ever heard of  the "margin of error", CARL?

Maybe someone can explain the basics of survey research to you some day.

Three surveys, two from quality sources, all agree.

Oh, and Hillary beats McCain in Gallup by five points (well in excess of the MoE) whereas B.O. loses by two points.  That's a spread of seven points.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

Please try reading carefully.

First, I specifically acknowledged that Clinton goofed in essentially ceding the caucus states to B.O.

Second, yes, I acknowledged that the Obamanics like Winfield and you want to exclude the results of Florida and Michigan. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

Uh, did Nevada jump the gun (I.e. violate the timeline)?  If so, why are those results "valid," and those of Florida and Michigan invalid?

[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!

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?

[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.  

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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