In an earlier posting, JohnTMay made the claim that HRC’s claim to have 2.5 million more votes than Senator Sanders was in fact nothing but:
This is just another deliberate deception by a desperate campaign made possible by a corporate media endorsing their corporate candidate.
Surprisingly, there is not a single link to any other reputable site that may refute this claim. Instead, we are treated to a football analogy as proof. I don’t know Jack about Football, nor could you pay me enough to ever bother to learn about this criminal laden “so called” sport. However PolitiFact has noted that this claim is “mostly true“. As HRC remains the front-runner for the nomination, I think it is a bit hyperbolic to call this a “deliberate deception by a desperate campaign”. Eventually, the Party will need to rally around the actual nominee. Enough with the hyperbolic attacks already, our primary has come and gone, and our delegates to the convention are already chosen. I see no point in these attacks other than to instill resentment. I have included the link to PolitiFact, to support my assertion.
Bob Neer says
Real Clear Politics
johntmay says
That in the USA, the presidential election is not decided by the popular vote?
Christopher says
…but the point was that you called it deceptive to point out. In the Dem nomination contest delegates are allocated more or less proportionally. If the implied argument is that superdelegates should support the will of the electorate then in this case they should vote for Clinton.
HR's Kevin says
because he seems to think that National polls (of a tiny fraction of the electorate) showing him doing slightly better than Hillary in theoretical match-ups is a reason for the super-delegates (who he clearly despises) to overturn Clinton’s pledged delegate lead.
Obviously to win the nomination you need to win delegates according to the rules in each state. But I would hope that the actual human beings who came out to vote for each candidate should count for something. The fact that Hillary Clinton has gotten far more American citizens to come out and vote for her than Sanders has, isn’t by itself a justification for her to be the nominee but it isn’t something to be sneered at either.
fredrichlariccia says
along with popular votes.
As progressives, can we all just start telling the truth? She’s WINNING.
” In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” GEORGE ORWELL
Fred Rich LaRiccia
johntmay says
It’s a deceptive point. It’s now spread by her allies in corporate media to discourage support for Sanders. Yes, she has “more votes” but that’s like comparing two baseball teams with virtually identical win/loss records and saying one team is light years ahead of the other because they have scored more runs.
Christopher says
She has won the most popular votes.
She has won the most pledged delegates.
She has won the most overall delegates.
She has won the most individual states.
She has won the most states that generally trend blue in November.
I can think of no measure by which Sanders is ahead in terms of actual results.
bob-gardner says
. . . who are pledged to Clinton that the number of actual votes (nationwide or in a particular state) is only a “deceptive” “true fact”.
I thought that the Sanders campaign was trying to convince these super delegates to follow the majority of voters in the primary (at least in those states where Sanders won.)
I don’t mean to single the Sanders campaign out. A lot of campaigns argue that you should pay more attention to their voters than the people who voted the other way. But it’s not the kind of argument you can win by out whining your opponents.
johntmay says
Are the antithesis to what the party says it stands for.
HR's Kevin says
I don’t think I agree, but I would hate to see the super delegates overturn the result that you would get purely from the pledged delegates in any case. Of course, that is exactly what Bernie Sanders is asking them to do!
So I guess we can assume that you are strongly against super-delegates overturning the pledged-delegate results?
HR's Kevin says
in what sense do the Sanders and Clinton’s campaigns have “virtually identical win/loss records”? Clinton has won almost 300 pledged delegates more than Sanders and it is delegates that determines who wins.
Sanders has done remarkably well, to be sure, but he is still losing by a large margin.
johntmay says
That delegate count, not popular vote is what matters. Why does the media willingly promote something that does not really matter and all it seems to do is discourage Sanders voters?
Christopher says
Clinton: 2159
Sanders: 1370
Next question?
HR's Kevin says
I think it is highly unlikely that Sanders would be able to flip any of them, but it is a theoretical possibility at least.
Christopher says
The source I had quickest access to combined them, but to your point she has about 290 more pledged delegates than he does.
HR's Kevin says
And why is it more discouraging to Sander’s voters to hear about how many more people voted for Clinton than to hear how many more delegates she has? Could it be that some Sander’s supporters like to pretend that Sanders really does have more votes but is getting screwed by the system somehow? As long as you ignore the actual number of votes, it is easier to fantasize about losing due to some conspiracy, but that fiction is harder to maintain if it requires millions of people to be in on it.
jconway says
These two facts have been true since at least the New York primary. They will be incontrovertibly true after the California primary where Hillary Clinton has a healthy double digit lead over Bernie Sanders. This is the only state remaining where he would even have a hope of catching up in the delegate count and it’s unlikely. He is laying off staff and raised $20 million less this month than he did last month. The cause endures, the hope still lives, but his dream of being President (if that was ever really his goal) has died.
So what I am asking partisans of either candidate on this site to do is recognize both of these facts. Hillary Clinton is the undisputed Democratic nominee. There was no vote rigging, no media manipulation, but a consistent and determined campaign to win the nomination. Unlike Sanders, Clinton has had a long track record with several important Democratic constituencies with chips to cash on her behalf. You can call this corruption or collusion if you’d like, I call it being a smart politician who knows her constituency.
And it is for that reason that I hope Hillary Clinton will have the wisdom to have a face to face and a heart to heart with Bernie Sanders sooner rather than later. I think her supporters would welcome her adopting his signature issues including the $15/hour minimum wage, paid parental and family leave, and meeting in the middle of their two proposals on college affordability.
I can think of no more effective surrogate for Clinton in this coming general election than Sanders, and no one I would rather see take Trump down a peg. This is where we were always destined to be anyway, and it’s time we all recognize that and work to make it happen. I am sick of the sniping, it’s not as bad as Obama v. Clinton, but it’s far more futile. It’s always been her presidency to lose, let’s help her save it from the likes of Donald Trump.