Quick on the trigger, you are.

Wait, what? Popular votes don't count? I don't get it...

^Hillary arrives at her 'popular vote' using some very convoluted and dishonest methodology.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^Hillary arrives at her 'popular vote' using some very convoluted and dishonest methodology.


AKA the Republican methodology.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Wait, what? Popular votes don't count? I don't get it...


Under our system, not a lot they don't. And not in a lot of respects.

District by district or maybe for State elections sure, it counts. But once we get past that level it's a delegate race and the popular vote doesn't matter and never has for either party. Same applies to the Presidential race. It's the norm for the popular vote winner to also win the election but it's not required. Constitution doesn't say a thing about popular votes, but the electoral vote.

It's in our system in other ways as well. The Congress is more or less democratic but the Senate is anything but. A State with 20 million people gets the same representation there as a State with 500,000 people.

We aren't a democracy and we never have been. We're a republic or democratic republic, or were. Heading for something else these days maybe.

As a Michigan voter that didn't bother voting "uncommitted" because I was told that our voting wouldn't count for anything - it upsets me to no end that suddenly there's all this talk of making the votes that occured actually count for something - even if that something is bragging rights. And Hillary keeps talking about disenfranchising those who voted for her, but there's never any talk about disenfranchising everyone else... This is one of the larger reasons, in my list of many, many reasons, that I'm really sick of Hillary.

Agreed, braindonut. I didn't like either much early on in this in no small part due to Obama polishing his tough on crime credentials almost as soon as he was elected to the Senate by co-sponsoring another bad drug war bill. I didn't see either of these two as a vast improvement.

But somewhere along the line she made herself look bad enough to make him look good by comparison. For me it was the Wright thing but the "disenfranchisement" arguments could have done to too maybe.

Best I can tell her position seems to be that the people who actually made the rules and enforced the penalty such as Terry Mcauliffe then went directly to work for the Clinton campaign and started trying to blame Obama for the penalties they had just imposed, blaming him for disenfranchising someone. They then went from bad to worse... it's somehow disenfranchising someone to follow the rules with the two States but it's fine for the Super delegates to override the will of ALL the voters once we're done and she takes every opportunity to remind us that pledged delegates resulting from our votes don't have to abide by that vote either. That's not trying to disenfranchise us?

But remember, it's Obama trying to disenfranchise someone, at least in the world according to Clinton.

At this point I can't tell the difference between her and a neocon, they use all the same tactics and argument styles, so given the need for change that left just one democrat in the race to choose from. He won with me by default and due to her own actions.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.