Well, just because "they" don't talk about it doesn't mean "they" know what they're talking about!
So, because it's on TV it must be true? Or, because the blogosphere is filled with a huge majority of Obama supporters, unlike the election results which SOMETIMES mirror actual Democratic voter sentiment-- because it's the CW on TV and online--then it must be true, right?
Sorry, but it's just not the truth.
The truth is, Hillary Clinton has received more DEMOCRATIC votes in the DEMOCRATIC Primary than any candidate in U.S. History.
"They" don't seem to like to talk about that too much. That takes nothing away from the reality that it is the truth, despite what "they" might say.
Awesome. The next time we have a primary where you have to win the most DEMOCRATIC votes, Senator Clinton should definitely run. May be she can become president of the DEMOCRATS one day
Sorry, that's Howard Dean's job. And with the exception of FL and MI, he's doing pretty well imo.
Too bad we DEMOCRATIC votes in DEMOCRATIC primaries are not the way we choose our nominee.
...PARTY nominee! Now there's a concept worth fighting for, IMHO. Imagine that, a primary candidate that actually wins the primary because the greater amount of registered Party members actually voted for that candidate!
What a wonderful concept!
But not this year. Those goalposts don't move.
Once again, you're trying to change the rules mid-game. Stop whining about a process that all candidates were very well aware of before they signed on. And if they weren't, then, tough
...are implicitly flexible, as is self-evident by the very existence of SuperDelegates, and by the reality that, on a national level and on a state-by-state level, the internal power structure of our Party does whatever the hell they damn well please, whenever the hell they please, no matter how they might candy-coat it at any given point in time.
This is truth.
The rules of the game say that all delegate votes are up for grabs, all the time. The concept of "pledged" delegates is a myth. Just ask the pledged delegates that were elected as Clinton supporters that are now stating they're going to vote for Obama. Just ask all the Obama supporters that were up in arms, just weeks ago, about the concept of Clinton actually trying to coerce them into switching their votes. (Oooops! Better not ask those Obama supporters about that, huh? Then they'd have to admit to some pretty gross hypocrisy. And, we can't have that, can we?)
we know they're not bound to a candidate by rule. We know they vote in August. We know superdelegates can change their mind. We know all of this. But you bring this up as though the delegates are flooding to Senator Clinton. Not the case. Everyone seems to forget that superdelegates are not stupid to buy into the bullshit arguments about the popular votes.
If the polls are the indicator of who's supposed to be our nominee, then f**k it, next election let's save us some money, and ask SUSA to pick our nominee for us. Even better, ARG!
I'm not sure how else to explain this to you but YOUR. CANDIDATE. LOST
I'm not sold. If a candidate can generate enthusiasm from those not (yet) in the party, and that enthusiasm can be used to further our goals, we win.
You may be making an intellectually honest argument. Senator Clinton is not. She has consistently changed her definition of victory as it suits her.
So people in Virginia, Washington, and other states where there is no party registration shouldn't get a say?
Why are you trying to disenfranchise people in those states?
