I wonder how it will go?

You all do realize, don't you, that the same argument is now present within the Democratic party that was present in the 2000 election, in which Bush was claimed to have "stolen" the election because of the electoral college? Who wins? The person with the popular vote, or with the electoral votes?

This election: Popular vote = Hillary. Electoral vote = Obama

In 2000: Popular vote = Gore. Electoral vote = Bush.

Interesting. The Dems are in the same dilemma for which they have excoriated Bush for the past 8 years. Payback is a b.i.t.c.h.

Indeed; adding to the fire brand fuel is this dilemma of UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES;

"Duh" Generation, HATE HUNGRY and,

EATING THEIR OWN!!

That is all!!

The difference is you gay hating, racist, fascisti had best get used to saying PRESIDENT OBAMA.

We can hope!!!!!

It is hers IF she wants it and he CANNOT do anything about it, without putting at serious risk to his chances in the November election. because she knows and so does he, a significant number of her core supports are NOT likely to vote for him otherwise.

He knows it for sure AFTER tonight. Michelle is going to be even more unhappy about Hillary's America comrade. It was a brilliant strategy she laid out. Ran an informal trail balloon for public consumption, SHE WANTS THE VP SLOT. Then, tonight during her speech SHE took out her gauntlet and threw it symbolically at his feet in a challenge to his messianic preeminence. She never once tonight acknowledging his VICTORY, in contrast she PUSH her agenda and her steadfast position that she is the best candidate "for HER America," not his Obama nationalist and left coasters America.

Hillary took control of Obama tonight. If he does not take her as VP, he risks his candidacy and decreases significantly his appeal to her base, that his unquestionable, Obama’s, nationalist race baiters and the bitter Americans, which clings to religion and guns, he and his left coasters like Dean and Pelosi fear the most and rightfully so.

Of course, in this scenario, one term, DON Mc Cain's “CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE,” will be a beneficiary if Obama and the Dean Pelosi Left coasters appear to reject her apparent, wink, wishes to be the VP!


If he rejects her or she makes it appear like he or the left coasters who now control the party, do, she can walk away knowing her chances for 2012 are improved and that she may help Obama lose, while appearing like she helping him win.

I mean really the alternative to VP is she can make a significant impact, while preparing for 2012, in Congress, with the growing majority who will then pretty well set their own agenda with or without Obama and or Don McCain. The risk is a Jimmy Carter Presidency and and even more inept do little to nothing Congressional majority than we have had these last two years under the Dean Pelosi Left coasters.

He says and acts like, it is not personal, how naive and neophyte of him. Bill and Hillary intend he and the left coast insiders KNOW DA-MN well it is personal!

THAT IS ALL!!

Concerning the original post on this subject: Looks like the Dems have the same problem as Gore had in the 2000 race. Bush won the electoral votes and Gore won the popular votes.

Tonight, Hillary's popular votes conceded to Obama's electoral votes. So, are the Dems going to say that Obama "stole" the election from Hillary?

If not, why not?
Payback is a beach.

What say the libs that post here? Comments on who won the race? This isn't about the war, yada, yada, yada.........this is about the race for President ...........

who won the Dem candidate race? and, how?

Clinton's speech today was very excellent!
Viva Obama!!
Viva Hillary!!
May the SoloNavian anti-gay fascisti rot in hell.

Thanks, SoloNav, for invitations to make response, even though I keep saying I am not a left wing liberal communist Castroite.

Your OP confused me. Yes, Hilary had more popular votes during the primaries, but the Democratic primary is about delegates and superdelegates (mirroring electoral votes, I guess), and she lost. I am not sure about the parallel to the 2000 election.

I do not know, but I suspect if Obama chooses Hilary after she has basically begged her to choose her for VP, he is caving in. It will look to some voters as if he took orders from the lady and her ex-president hubby. VP candidates are seldom if ever the campaigner who came in second place. I cannot think of an example in the last 100 years. Even Gore was not close in the 1992 primaries, if I recall correctly.

I do not know if Obama needs Hilary to win the general election. I think Obama or McCain could self-destruct in the coming months.

No, you're not confused Fit. You know what I was saying: The principle remains the same regardless of what you want to call it............one guy(or girl) gets the popular vote, while the other has a group of people that do the electing. Happened to Bush and now it's happened to Hillary. Comeon! Surely, you're not that dense. And, quit playing dumb.


Looks like you're wrong on the last statement. One of them will win. HOpefully, McCain......the lesser of two evils.

Let me correct: My post should say it happened to Gore, now it's happened to Hillary. Both won the popular vote but didn't win the election. Did Obama "steal" the election from Hillary? If not, why did Bush "steal" the election from Gore??????

If one election is legal (Obama vs Hillary), so is the other (Bush vs Gore).

Let me repeat: Payback is a beach.

Many said in 2000 that the electoral college was a huge mistake, but it obviously is not going to be changed. Presidential elections are about the college, not popular votes. I have no sympathy for the Hilary supporters crying in their lattes about how they lost the delegate votes. Gore supporters mainly complained how electoral votes were stolen for Bush, while ignoring that Gore did not carry his home state, which would have made him win the election. SoloNav, I think we agree here.

I do! They was robbed by the lefts insider job in a "party Putsch" using its organizational apparatus to sneak an Obama win in via the easiest of all forms of voting schemes to manipulate, caucuses

NO ONE has ever won such a lopsided portion of the primary election apparatus, the secretive, insider hard ball exclusionary Caucus system, and NOT DONE AS EQUALLY WELL in the traditional voter ballot casting primary system. NO ONE, EVER until DEAN and OBAMA, that is!!

Point number 1:

The Primary vote reveals a much closer 56%-37% margin of victory,Barack Obama's ridiculously unrepresentative win from the caucus vote was a 70%-17% margin of victory.

The caucus system is designed in rules, insider control, timing and attendance requirements for the party elite, at the exclusion of the working class and lesser educated participants in the primary process. Even a cursory examination of the Caucus rules in the various states would attest to its setup propensity to exclude anyone but the organized party apparatus it is built around.

Caucuses: Barack Obama 9, Hillary Rodham Clinton 2, Edwards 1.

Primaries: Barack Obama 21, Hillary Clinton 19
* some states had cacaucus & primary

Caucus systems result in massive voter suppression


Inadequate accessibility, fluency issues and the exact time and place distortions, complicated positioning and voting rules, easy manipulation of voters who turn out all reflect on requirements that lower voter participation in caucus.

In 2008 primaries have averaged 400% greater voter turnout in eligible voters than caucuses

Primary Average turnout -19.2%

Caucus Average turnout 4.5%

Caucus more controlled by insider party members who CAN BE STACKED to favor an outcome..

http://www.talkleft.com/media/2008caucusreport.pdf

THAT IS ALL!!

The Avenger is here. I feel aroused. Life is good. There is nothing like the musky smell of well used juicy young republican !assass! in the morning!