http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/us...nt&oref=slogin


In 2000 the liberals claimed that Gore won the popular vote thus he should be President not Bush.

So libs, if it turn out that Hillary is indeed the winner of the popular vote are to going denounce Obama as the Democratic candidate winner or are you going to show your true colors and stick with Obama and not the winner of the popular vote?

If it is good for Gore why not Hillary?

Not that it matters because of this crazy super delegates process where the voters voice is not heard but should be fun watching you guys try to explain this away.

Caution! You are entering a "Total Spin Zone". The Democrats will do their political dance and Obama will be the nominee. True colors will be displayed

You're ignoring an important factor in this whole business, Lost Soul: Hillary is wrong. She does NOT have a clear popular vote lead. The only way she can claim that is by including a state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot, and another where, following the DNC rules, he didn't campaign.

The whole situation is a mess, and there isn't a clear front-runner in popular vote, but Obama comes closer to being one than she does.

Hey its her claim not mine!

But if they do include Fl and Mich, which the DNC is discussing as we speak, will those votes be more than enough to clearly put Hillary in front with the popular vote?

If so, after 2000 how can you libs deny her the winner if you claimed Gore won solely by taking the popular vote?

The Republican party has been campaigning harder for Hillary Clinton than any liberal or Democrat I know. Why is that?

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

The DNC can decide whether to seat the delegates elected in Florida and Michigan, but that has nothing to do with popular vote totals. The problems with how to count those totals so as to get a realistic picture of who won the popular vote in the primaries remains, regardless of what happens with those delegates.

Also, you have to remember that a lot of states use the caucus system rather than primaries. How do you measure the popular vote in those states when there is no election to measure it by? And finally, what about Republican crossover voters who have no intention of voting in the general election for the person they voted for in the primary? Should their votes count for purposes of determining who has the most popular support? Arguably, no, but then how do you distinguish them from Republicans who are genuinely so dissatisfied with McCain and/or Bush and/or the GOP in general that they've truly crossed over and not just voted as a ploy?

Given all this, the only tool we have to tell which candidate would receive more popular votes is by polling, which puts Obama clearly in the lead. But I'd be the first to say that isn't entirely adequate. What would be needed is a uniform primary system that can show popular support without fudge factors. Since there is no such thing, we can't really tell.

But all of the indications we DO have suggest that Obama, not Clinton, is in the lead on this.

dah!! the longer these two nincompoops fight each other, the easier it will be to beat them in November. Hillary will fight until the convention, you can take that to the bank. I say to Hillary - You go girl!!!!

__________________
I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."
-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008

So...either the party is gonna be hypocritical for not backing the popular vote winner...or err they're gonn be hypocritical by not counting the votes of the state they vowed to count all the non military votes of in 2000?

So which standard of hypocrasy do you wish to take?

You and your hatred of "liberals"..... anyway, to the point at hand: it's an easy one to explain. In 2000, the argument against Bush's "election" wasn't to do with Gore winning the popular vote, but that Bush was essentially appointed President by virtue of the Supreme Court stopping the recount (which incidentally had Gore in front). Gore wasn't the first candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election, which is more an indictment on the electoral college than anything else.

Or, neither of the above and somebody didn't read my more detailed examination of the whole business.

Wow!! You'd better notify the NY Times!!Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

and while you are informing the NYTImes of their error - you might want to let these folks know too:
* Associated Press
* The New York Times
* The Wall Street Journal
* CNN
* St. Petersburg Times
* The Palm Beach Post
* The Washington Post
* Tribune Company
o Los Angeles Times
o Chicago Tribune
o Orlando Sentinel
o The Baltimore Sun
and the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago who conducted an exhaustive study on the subject.

Thanks for this "groundbreaking" information....

__________________
I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."
-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008

That's not what happened (eight years ago). Gore lost.

[edit] Alex posted the information for you.

Also, where is it that LS said anything about hate? It looks like you read a bit more into that post than there actually was. [/edit]

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

All liberal sources

The conclusion of the exhaustive study was that Gore would only win in Florida, if all the votes were counted.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

you should really grow up....Your man lost, get over it.

__________________
I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."
-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008