Hillary far behind in the only measure that matters - delegates; also far behind in popular vote (voters, campaign)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As such, Hillary supporters still want to bring the two non-valid contests of which she had agreed with the DNC that the states were wrong and that the contests would not be sanctioned, supported, or counted.
To count those to states would be a slap in the face to all other states who followed the rules.
She stated that “this would be over” by Feb 5th and she was right.
That’s the day, we all knew that despite being inevitable, and the incumbent with the huge party machine and all of its advantages – she lost.
Everyone agreed that she had to win Texas, Ohio, PA and every other contest big and she failed to do so.
In fact, Obama cut her lead down significantly in those states. Only weeks ago, she had a 20 point lead and she “wins” the state by less than 10.
She can’t catch him in delegates. Nothing changed from a month ago, or weeks before then.
I personally don't feel that it would be a slap in the face to include Florida and Michigan in the process of selecting a nominee. The state's party leaders scheduled their primaries early, there were other issues to be decided and the state pays for the primaries, not the party. To discount those voters seems to me to be highly un-Democratic. That said, I do think the party leaders in those states deserve to be penalized in some way for not following rules they had previously agreed to. It's high time that the scheduling of primaries be shaken up. I've liked the idea of regional primaries, and rotating the regions so that no one area or state have undue influence over the nomination process. That would seem more equitable than having Iowa and New Hampshire dominating the beginnings of these races.
I personally don't feel that it would be a slap in the face to include Florida and Michigan in the process of selecting a nominee. The state's party leaders scheduled their primaries early, there were other issues to be decided and the state pays for the primaries, not the party. To discount those voters seems to me to be highly un-Democratic. That said, I do think the party leaders in those states deserve to be penalized in some way for not following rules they had previously agreed to. It's high time that the scheduling of primaries be shaken up. I've liked the idea of regional primaries, and rotating the regions so that no one area or state have undue influence over the nomination process. That would seem more equitable than having Iowa and New Hampshire dominating the beginnings of these races.
That's all well and good. In fact, I agree that Iowa and NH shouldn't be so prominent all the time. However, IF the elections had still gone forward with all candidates on the ballot and actively campaigning in the states, I'd be all for counting them. The fact is that it didn't shake out that way. To count these states now is certainly unfair.
To discount these voters who had no other options but to vote on the days their state's opened the polls is certainly unfair.
I think the voters should have a voice. However, to count the results from that election does nothing to get an accurate idea of what the voters of those states want.
Uh, sorry, but she's not "far behind." Of the delegates committed right now, she's about 4 percent (140 delegates) behind and there are still over 300 super delegates who have not committed.
Uh, sorry, but she's not "far behind." Of the delegates committed right now, she's about 4 percent (140 delegates) behind and there are still over 300 super delegates who have not committed.
Hahahahaha....this is ridiculous. With 9 more contest to go, a state as big as PA netted her only about 12 delegates; how in the world is she supposed to catch up? The bottom line is the race will end when she's trailling by pretty much about 120-140 delegates. This thing is over whether you accept the fact or not.
Hahahahaha....this is ridiculous. With 9 more contest to go, a state as big as PA netted her only about 12 delegates; how in the world is she supposed to catch up? The bottom line is the race will end when she's trailling by pretty much about 120-140 delegates. This thing is over whether you accept the fact or not.
So you're denying the fact that there are still more than 300 uncommitted superdelegates?
how do you seat Michigan delegates when Obama wasn't even on the ballot? Anyways Hillary needs to win over 80& of the last remaining 9 primaries to even match Obama at this point. As for Florida it sounds more plausible since both canidates were on the ballot yet why did Hillary sign a pledge agreeing that the delegates wouldn't be seated but now she is reniging on her promise? Just adding the popular vote from Florida still leaves Obama in the lead and Pennsylvannia netted her only 10+ delegates!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
