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”
I doubt that this will stay in GQ for long,
Reported.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html
The meme is a lie.
This was a two-second search on Google.
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.
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.
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.
A little dated now, but still relevant: Why Bernie Sanders is Actually Winning - YouTube
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.
Moved to Elections.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
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.
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 But without the undemocratic and outdated caucuses,* Bernie would never had a chance.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. 
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.)
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.
and a lot of people who are (rather understandably) confused over the Dems labyrinthine Nomination process. Which, actually favored Bernie. But it is weird.
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.
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)?