Latest South Dakota Poll: Clinton headed for another landslide... (no, really)

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Clinton 60, Obama 34

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Clinton 60, Obama 34 is no Obama home run.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

uncontrollable knee jerk!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Clinton 60, Obama 34 is no Obama home run.

It's the 10th inning.

[GaryC 7]

Interesting outcome we may have. Obama will have a majority of the delegates but not enough to win outright. Hillary will have more votes than Obama but not more delegates. The winner will be decided by politicians and not the people. Hillary does have a valid point. If the dems were playing by the same rules the reps were she would have already won the nomination. How do you dems feel about the person who get fewer votes being the nominee? How do you feel about politicians rather that the voters deciding who won? If it's Obama will you call him an illegitemate candidate because he didn't win the popular vote and someone other than the voters decided he won? Sounds strangly familure. Does the 2000 election ring any bells?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hillary will have more votes than Obama...

Hillary's "popular vote" argument excludes many caucus states where popular vote counts were not reported. Delegates is really the only meaningful metric, because every contest produced metrics, whereas not every contest produced a popular vote count.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hillary will have more votes than Obama...

Hillary's "popular vote" argument excludes many caucus states where popular vote counts were not reported. Delegates is really the only meaningful metric, because every contest produced metrics, whereas not every contest produced a popular vote count.

Exactly. The popular vote argument is based on Hillary's fuzzy math. It's not a measure that really makes any sense - or any difference.

[GaryC 7]

Hillary will have more votes than Obama...

Hillary's "popular vote" argument excludes many caucus states where popular vote counts were not reported. Delegates is really the only meaningful metric, because every contest produced metrics, whereas not every contest produced a popular vote count.

Exactly. The popular vote argument is based on Hillary's fuzzy math. It's not a measure that really makes any sense - or any difference.

So your saying that Bush won fair and square in 2000?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hillary will have more votes than Obama...

Hillary's "popular vote" argument excludes many caucus states where popular vote counts were not reported. Delegates is really the only meaningful metric, because every contest produced metrics, whereas not every contest produced a popular vote count.

Exactly. The popular vote argument is based on Hillary's fuzzy math. It's not a measure that really makes any sense - or any difference.

So your saying that Bush won fair and square in 2000?

Name one state that does not report popular vote counts in the general.

[GaryC 7]

Hillary will have more votes than Obama...

Hillary's "popular vote" argument excludes many caucus states where popular vote counts were not reported. Delegates is really the only meaningful metric, because every contest produced metrics, whereas not every contest produced a popular vote count.

Exactly. The popular vote argument is based on Hillary's fuzzy math. It's not a measure that really makes any sense - or any difference.

So your saying that Bush won fair and square in 2000?

Name one state that does not report popular vote counts in the general.

What difference does that make? If you add up the votes that can be counted she wins. It's their own fault the have a screwed up system.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hillary will have more votes than Obama...

Hillary's "popular vote" argument excludes many caucus states where popular vote counts were not reported. Delegates is really the only meaningful metric, because every contest produced metrics, whereas not every contest produced a popular vote count.

Exactly. The popular vote argument is based on Hillary's fuzzy math. It's not a measure that really makes any sense - or any difference.

So your saying that Bush won fair and square in 2000?

Name one state that does not report popular vote counts in the general.

What difference does that make? If you add up the votes that can be counted she wins. It's their own fault the have a screwed up system.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hillary will have more votes than Obama...

Hillary's "popular vote" argument excludes many caucus states where popular vote counts were not reported. Delegates is really the only meaningful metric, because every contest produced metrics, whereas not every contest produced a popular vote count.

Exactly. The popular vote argument is based on Hillary's fuzzy math. It's not a measure that really makes any sense - or any difference.

So your saying that Bush won fair and square in 2000?

No, I am not saying that at all. Now, a President can legitimately be elected with a minority of the popular vote. While that's odd, that's the way the game is played. The 2000 election was a bit more complex than that.

[Dan J 277]

Hillary will have more votes than Obama...

Hillary's "popular vote" argument excludes many caucus states where popular vote counts were not reported. Delegates is really the only meaningful metric, because every contest produced metrics, whereas not every contest produced a popular vote count.

Exactly. The popular vote argument is based on Hillary's fuzzy math. It's not a measure that really makes any sense - or any difference.

So your saying that Bush won fair and square in 2000?

Name one state that does not report popular vote counts in the general.

What difference does that make? If you add up the votes that can be counted she wins. It's their own fault the have a screwed up system.

General election and primary elections are run by diffrent rules.

The general election is pretty much conducted the same way in every state accross the country.

But primaries varies in how they are conducted. Some are open, others are closed. Some are caucuses, others are primaries. They are all held on different dates, which can influence the outcome if the dynamics of the race change. Territories get delegates, but have no electoral votes in the general election.

The popular vote is not very accurate metric for the primary process.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Dan + Gemvita

[GaryC 7]

Hillary will have more votes than Obama...

Hillary's "popular vote" argument excludes many caucus states where popular vote counts were not reported. Delegates is really the only meaningful metric, because every contest produced metrics, whereas not every contest produced a popular vote count.

Exactly. The popular vote argument is based on Hillary's fuzzy math. It's not a measure that really makes any sense - or any difference.

So your saying that Bush won fair and square in 2000?

Name one state that does not report popular vote counts in the general.

What difference does that make? If you add up the votes that can be counted she wins. It's their own fault the have a screwed up system.

General election and primary elections are run by diffrent rules.

The general election is pretty much conducted the same way in every state accross the country.

But primaries varies in how they are conducted. Some are open, others are closed. Some are caucuses, others are primaries. They are all held on different dates, which can influence the outcome if the dynamics of the race change. Territories get delegates, but have no electoral votes in the general election.

The popular vote is not very accurate metric for the primary process.

Neither is the dem way it seems. Your party shot itself in the foot this year. Just no getting around that.