but Clinton supporters would have us believe that they care about the voters of MI and FL, it's all about voter disenfranchisement they say... yet in the same breath, they manage to discount the caucus states that didn't report popular vote totals. This to me is the epitome of hypocrisy.
I worry that, this year, of all years, with what just happened in Indiana, people are tossing around the word disenfranchisement without knowing what it actually means.
It's when you dis some enfras then you enchisement them.
I could go for some enfras this time of night. It's a shame I don't have any cash...
You have to pay for your enfras?
LOSER!
Of course I pay for them. The guy who sells them to me would go broke if I just stole them from him.
Here we have the perfect example of the Obama campaign's commitment to democracy.
***A
You should present the complete facts. The sourced data you cite from RCP states the following: ". . . The estimate from these four Caucus states where there are not official popular vote numbers increases Senator Obama's popular vote margin by 110,224. This number would be about 50,000 less if the Washington primary results from February 19th were used instead of the Washington Caucus results."
Adjusting for the fudged ~50k the numbers show:
Obama 16,964,911 Clinton 16,934,160
While Obama still slightly ahead since it's an "estimate", statistically it amounts to little more than a rounding error.
1) I trust your ability to click (which you have done). So I hid no sources from you
2) Since Obama leads by what amounts to a "rounding error", let's stop with the "Hillary is leading the popular vote"
To a lazy simpleton like me, but maybe not to other lazy simpletons with which your obscurity of the facts may have been overlooked.
Seriously, chill. Until you go bother everyone who simply claims that a candidate is leading the popular vote without sources or links, please stop making a big deal out of nothing.
I go watch some TV now. cheers.
toodle loo!
lol! This was a pretty funny exchange. Mojo'd both.
