Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-25-2016, 10:05 AM
Sitnam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,294

Hillary stole the election: facts


I realize this is a political question during an election so if deemed appropriate please send it to one of the other two forums.

All I want to know is the facts for the oft stated Facebook meme:

"She got 38% of the Vote
He got 60% of the Vote
But she gets more delegates"
  #2  
Old 07-25-2016, 10:08 AM
chacoguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durango, CO
Posts: 3,654
I doubt that this will stay in GQ for long,
  #3  
Old 07-25-2016, 10:11 AM
Duckster's Avatar
Duckster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,696
Reported.
  #4  
Old 07-25-2016, 10:12 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,685
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ote_count.html

The meme is a lie.
  #5  
Old 07-25-2016, 10:14 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,460
This was a two-second search on Google.

Code:
                Clinton	        Sanders	        Spread
RCP Total	15,805,136	12,029,699	Clinton +3,775,437
Clinton won easily and hugely. Defriend anyone who says otherwise.
  #6  
Old 07-25-2016, 10:25 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,506
I suspect this harks back to the New Hampshire primary where Sanders won 60% of the vote and so won the majority of pledged deligates, but when you factored in super delegates from the state they ended up tied.

But that was just one state, and as others have said even without the super delegates Clinton had a considerable lead nation wide. Just more sour grapes from Sanders supporters.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 07-25-2016 at 10:28 AM.
  #7  
Old 07-25-2016, 10:26 AM
pulykamell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 49,471
Um, maybe in New Hampshire? Other than that, I got nothin'. No idea where they got those numbers from.
  #8  
Old 07-25-2016, 10:37 AM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 38,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulykamell View Post
Um, maybe in New Hampshire? Other than that, I got nothin'. No idea where they got those numbers from.
I do.
Wear latex gloves. Doubled.
  #9  
Old 07-25-2016, 10:47 AM
leahcim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 3,763
A little dated now, but still relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHS-K7OuLAc
  #10  
Old 07-25-2016, 11:01 AM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 42,187
Hillary didn't steal the election. She had an unfair advantage in some ways but nothing indicates she wouldn't have still won without superdelegates and without Debbie "Sergeant" Schultz in charge of the DNC. The process may be in question but there's no way to argue that she didn't pull a significant margin in votes.
  #11  
Old 07-25-2016, 11:04 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,549
Moved to Elections.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
  #12  
Old 07-25-2016, 11:08 AM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 44,093
Also, Hillary is not the DNC and vice versa. The inner workings of the DNC are way beyond her control, if not beyond her concern.

Last edited by Chefguy; 07-25-2016 at 11:08 AM.
  #13  
Old 07-25-2016, 12:21 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitnam View Post
I realize this is a political question during an election so if deemed appropriate please send it to one of the other two forums.

All I want to know is the facts for the oft stated Facebook meme:

"She got 38% of the Vote
He got 60% of the Vote
But she gets more delegates"
She got 15,805,136 votes, he got 12,029,699 votes.

She got 57%, he got 42%, thus she got more delegates.

Yes, due to weird things like Caucuses, Superdelegates and what not, the count per state never quite matches.

No doubt, superdelegates helped Hillary. But without the undemocratic and outdated caucuses, Bernie would never had a chance.

Yes, there were some voting irregularities. There always are. By and large, where these occurred, they would have helped Hillary more if properly resolved.

Bernie lost, fair & square.

That's just a Karl Rove paid political announcement.
  #14  
Old 07-25-2016, 01:28 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitnam View Post
I realize this is a political question during an election so if deemed appropriate please send it to one of the other two forums.

All I want to know is the facts for the oft stated Facebook meme:

"She got 38% of the Vote
He got 60% of the Vote
But she gets more delegates"
That's some seriously creative math there.

Nevermind that proportionally, Bernie got the better of the delegate count. (And the actual vote count being overwhelmingly in Hillary's favor, given above.)

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 07-25-2016 at 01:28 PM.
  #15  
Old 07-26-2016, 02:49 PM
TSBG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,720
I'm not going to do the math, but maybe if you average together caucus precentage results with primary results this "makes sense"? EG Bernie won 80% of a (tiny turnout) caucus state, but 40% of a (high turnout) primary state. Hillary won vastly more total votes but in percentage she's routed...according to people uninterested in what actually happened.
  #16  
Old 07-26-2016, 03:12 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSBG View Post
I'm not going to do the math, but maybe if you average together caucus precentage results with primary results this "makes sense"? EG Bernie won 80% of a (tiny turnout) caucus state, but 40% of a (high turnout) primary state. Hillary won vastly more total votes but in percentage she's routed...according to people uninterested in what actually happened.
The numbers given exactly match the results of the New Hampshire primary, where this argument was first made. So I don't think there is any complicated math involved, just messed up context.
  #17  
Old 07-26-2016, 03:22 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
The numbers given exactly match the results of the New Hampshire primary, where this argument was first made. So I don't think there is any complicated math involved, just messed up context.
and a lot of people who are (rather understandably) confused over the Dems labyrinthine Nomination process. Which, actually favored Bernie. But it is weird.
  #18  
Old 07-26-2016, 03:27 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
The numbers given exactly match the results of the New Hampshire primary, where this argument was first made. So I don't think there is any complicated math involved, just messed up context.
I would strike the messed up context and replace it with deliberate misrepresentation. There is a non-zero faction of Sanders supporters that they truly are a revolution and he is just playing along before pulling a major GOTCHA! It's the same social media echo chamber phenomenon that has others believing Trump will Make America Great Again.
  #19  
Old 07-27-2016, 01:09 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
I would strike the messed up context and replace it with deliberate misrepresentation. There is a non-zero faction of Sanders supporters that they truly are a revolution and he is just playing along before pulling a major GOTCHA! It's the same social media echo chamber phenomenon that has others believing Trump will Make America Great Again.
I should have said deliberately messed up context.
  #20  
Old 07-27-2016, 01:32 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 17,455
It does make one wonder, though. On a level field, without the superdelegates making Bernie swim upstream the whole way, how many of those 3 million votes might have shifted toward him (people who voted for Ms. Clinton because she was ahead)?
  #21  
Old 07-27-2016, 01:37 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
It does make one wonder, though. On a level field, without the superdelegates making Bernie swim upstream the whole way, how many of those 3 million votes might have shifted toward him (people who voted for Ms. Clinton because she was ahead)?
Far less than he got from caucuses and open primaries.

If it wasnt for caucuses there'd have really been no race.
  #22  
Old 07-27-2016, 02:34 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
It does make one wonder, though. On a level field, without the superdelegates making Bernie swim upstream the whole way, how many of those 3 million votes might have shifted toward him (people who voted for Ms. Clinton because she was ahead)?
Maybe 500.
  #23  
Old 07-28-2016, 01:17 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
It does make one wonder, though. On a level field, without the superdelegates making Bernie swim upstream the whole way, how many of those 3 million votes might have shifted toward him (people who voted for Ms. Clinton because she was ahead)?
I agree with other responders that the answer is "not very many." My sense from having worked in many political campaigns is that very few people base their voting decisions on who is the front-runner.

In fact, I think there's an argument to be made that the enthusiastic support given Clinton by the superdelegates actually increased Sanders's votes. Much of Sanders's campaign rhetoric revolved around suspicion of the establishment. The SDs were probably his best example of that. Sanders could point to how few SDs he had, and complain about media outlets including them in delegate totals, and emphasize the unfairness of it all, and I think that the SD imbalance brought that home to a lot of onlookers: Damn, he's right, look at how he's getting screwed; we'd better get to one of those rallies and start getting active on Facebook and send him $27.

And early on he was hitting all the right notes with that, too, talking about democracy and how antithetical to that the SD system was and how the SDs should be required to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates--making it difficult to Clinton supporters to defend the system without sounding undemocratic. (His argument lost its moral force later on, of course, when he decided that the superdelegates should support him, despite the fact that he didn't have close to a majority of pledged delegates (democracy? screw democracy); but that was later and the argument had already been successfully made for a lot of people.)

Anyway, the superdelegates were "an outward and visible sign" of Sanders's argument that the system was rigged, and helped a) bring people into his camp and b) get them energized to spread the gospel of the campaign. From that perspective, the senator might actually have done worse in the popular vote without the influence of the SDs.
  #24  
Old 07-29-2016, 11:18 PM
Sitnam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,294
Why would SDs pledge early if it wasn't to push favor to one candidate?
  #25  
Old 07-30-2016, 12:04 AM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Let's see...they'd made up their minds already?

Examining it, SD's are overwhelmingly establishment. Given the choice between a Democrat of long standing (and much fundraising) and an independent who declared D just to run for the primary, which would you think would be a more appealing option to them?
  #26  
Old 07-30-2016, 01:24 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitnam View Post
Why would SDs pledge early if it wasn't to push favor to one candidate?
Of course they were trying to push favor to one candidate. That's why you endorse someone! And they still would have done it even if they weren't superdelegates, because that's how elections always work. Republican senators and governors and representatives weren't superdelegates, but they still endorsed candidates.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 07-30-2016 at 01:26 AM.
  #27  
Old 07-30-2016, 02:32 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Look I'm a diehard Bernie supporter, but I accept he lost, HE accepts he lost. If Clinton has a stroke or is lead away in handcuffs then maybe Bernie will be the nominee. Apart from that, give it up and concentrate on defeating Trump.
  #28  
Old 07-30-2016, 09:21 AM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
If Clinton has a stroke or is lead away in handcuffs then maybe Bernie will be the nominee.
Realistically, it would very probably be Kaine.
  #29  
Old 07-30-2016, 09:44 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 18,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Hillary didn't steal the election. She had an unfair advantage in some ways but nothing indicates she wouldn't have still won without superdelegates and without Debbie "Sergeant" Schultz in charge of the DNC. The process may be in question but there's no way to argue that she didn't pull a significant margin in votes.
In SOME ways? In what ways? How an "unfair" advantage? Because her name and face are well-known due to a prominent career in politics? Please explain.
  #30  
Old 07-30-2016, 09:47 AM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
It does make one wonder, though. On a level field, without the superdelegates making Bernie swim upstream the whole way, how many of those 3 million votes might have shifted toward him (people who voted for Ms. Clinton because she was ahead)?
This is actually a good question, and something worth exploring is what does "level field" mean. You see, no campaign is conducted on level field. No campaign is conducted as a "fair fight."

A fair fight, we have things like very specific rules about where you can hit/be hit, rules about how much "weight differential" there can be between your opponent and yourself. Rules that require the other opponent to go to their corner when they knock you down, and give you ten uninterrupted seconds to try and resume your footing to continue the fight.

Politics, to keep at the fight metaphor, isn't a Marquess of Queensbury Rules boxing match, it's a street fight. 500 pound fighters can and do get squared off against 125 lb weaklings, and the results are predictable. Hillary had immense advantages over Bernie--vast support from Governors, House members, Senators, a former President as her husband. She had a much higher national profile. She had more access to big donors. She had more access to professional political staff who had ran many large campaigns before. She had more experience in the primary system--and in fact, she made strategic mistakes in 2008 (like focusing too much on winning primaries in big states--Bernie actually repeated some of Hillary's 2008 strategic mistakes in the running of his own campaign) that she learned from.

What exactly does a "fair fight" look like? One in which Bernie and Hillary are prohibited from any "outside" support? So they cannot mention their resumes, since one has a more impressive one than the other. No politicians can endorse either candidate, have to wait for the voters to have their say. They have to spend equal amounts of money. They have to be given equally qualified campaign staff. The more you think about it, the more that it becomes patently obvious elections are not, cannot be, and never will be "fair fights." Each candidate will always come in with a set of advantages and disadvantages, and more often than not, one candidate will have a much stronger hand than the opponent. Sometimes this effect is remarkable. Like in 2012, was it "fair" that Barack Obama got to spend the primary season just raising money, no need to fight any opponents, while Romney spent tens of millions winning a contested primary? Is it fair that while the GOP coalesced around a candidate, Obama was able to run anti-Romney ads before Romney had access to general election funds? Was it fair that Obama started the general in a much stronger financial and organizational position because of these? Of course it wasn't "fair".

But that's because elections are not fair fights.

The reality is many Bernie diehards are simply too young and too ignorant of our political process to understand this, they see evil conspiracies where a wizened eye sees simple, unavoidable reality in a democratic system.

But back to how many more votes Bernie could get, defining "fair fight" differently--say there were no superdelegates, the answer is "probably not many." Bernie ran a pretty bad campaign if you were wanting to win. I think there's good evidence he wasn't running to win until after the first few primaries when he started to realize he maybe could've won, but it's too late by then. He took weeks to meaningfully modify his stump speech (which focused almost exclusively on economic inequalities) to include any talk of systemic racism. Not because he was anti-black or didn't care, but because Bernie genuinely believes that the disadvantages facing blacks are just a "subset" of broader economic inequality. Hillary was saying from the beginning of the campaign there is more to it than that. Sanders had already lost South Carolina by the time he started to change his messaging--and he had long lost any chance of appealing to the black community. Sanders is stubborn, and didn't want to change his stump speech.

Sanders also doesn't like retail politics. This means visiting the "Mothers of the Movement", doing smaller events at churches and other groups, in addition to doing larger campaign events. Sanders likes the role of college professor--a big room, he's the lecturer, telling America what it's doing wrong and how he has the answers, non-interactive. I think he viewed his large rallies as being far more effective than these small meetings where you make small talk with voters--there's also good evidence Bernie's interpersonal skills are poor, and he has little time for or little appreciation of small talk. What Bernie failed to realize is meeting with small groups of people who are very important in their local minority community, creates a vast network of surrogates who turn around and become permanent advocates in that neighborhood--for the duration of the campaign they are turning out new voters for you. This is why Bernie made almost no inroads with black or Latino communities.

There's also evidence Bernie's campaign was ran in a way that didn't spend money well. It appears that a few top advisers of Sanders were professional political media consultants who got 15% of any ad spending Sanders spent money on. These same people apparently advised Sanders spend much of his money on traditional television and radio advertising. Unsurprisingly, these are where the largest commissions are for the same people making this advice. But if you look at the demographics of the typical Sanders voter versus the typical Hillary voter, it looks like the $200m or so odd dollars he spent on TV ads had very little impact. TV advertising has little effect on young voters, who largely don't watch them. And yet, that was the demographic in which Sanders dominated. TV ads are more likely to be seen by older people, and Hillary handily won every age group above age 40. This suggests that Sanders probably could've spent more money on other types of organizing and other types of political activity. Like for example instead of running so many ads in "flashy states" where he had a "chance" of winning, maybe he could've ran actual campaigns in the Deep South where he lost sometimes 80-20. In a delegate fight changing that to 60/40 is actually quite meaningful, but pushing a "close" state like Michigan from 51/49 HRC to 51/49 Bernie has little meaningful impact at all. The only way it matters is if you buy into the failed strategy of Hillary 2008--that winning states creates "momentum" that will cause your opponent's campaign to collapse. What Hillary found out is fighting out close wins over Obama in a series of large states did little, he stayed in the race just fine, and while he was losing close fights in large state primaries he was winning monstrous margins in caucus states right to the very end.

At the end of the day, the campaign Sanders ran was basically able to get historic margins among under-40 whites, but the demographic reality is you don't win Democratic primaries with that being not only your base, but like 85% of your support.

It's also worth noting that the media and even the Democratic establishment has done a good job of soothing Sanders ego by perpetuating the myth he lost a close fought primary. Losing by 12% of the popular vote and 359 pledged delegates is a pretty strong loss. Much stronger than Obama's win in 2008. Additionally, it was arguably "stronger in reality" than some past primaries--because in past primaries more mainstream candidates, once they knew they lost (and everyone who understood the Democratic nominating process and professional politics knew Bernie couldn't win the nomination after Super Tuesday) they conceded and left the primary. If they had stayed in until the last primary like Bernie did, many past primaries look a lot closer in delegate count than this one did.

If you map that 12% popular vote loss to other forms of elections it can be pretty insane. Like in 1952, Dwight Eisenhower beat Adlai Stevenson by about 12% in the popular vote--and he won 442-89 in the electoral vote. This was called a "landslide." Even in countries that do proportional representation like Germany for example, a 12% win over the next closest party is considered huge--several of Merkel's strongish election wins her party only won by a % over the SDP, and in the most recent election when her CDU beat the SDP by over 15% it was considered a historic landslide and one of the strongest electoral showings in German history. By any real measure Sanders not only lost, he lost tremendously.

Last edited by Martin Hyde; 07-30-2016 at 09:51 AM.
  #31  
Old 08-02-2016, 04:30 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,779
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...clinton-campa/

Politifact settles it. Bias perhaps, no rigging.
  #32  
Old 05-20-2020, 08:32 AM
Sdowiat is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 61

I love this


I love stumbling up on old articles, posts and such which were taking it so much for granted that Hillary was it!

It's almost as good as the Youtube videos where the inevitable and unavoidable truth is dawning on the News Reporters who were always much presumed to be unbiased. Priceless!
  #33  
Old 05-20-2020, 08:37 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,682

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sdowiat View Post
I love stumbling up on old articles, posts and such which were taking it so much for granted that Hillary was it!

It's almost as good as the Youtube videos where the inevitable and unavoidable truth is dawning on the News Reporters who were always much presumed to be unbiased. Priceless!
Thatís earning you a warning for trolling.

Know, deep in your heart, that if you post to delight in hurting other posters your time here will be short.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017