Personally, I would prefer we go to a popular vote system and I’ve said as much on this site, but you don’t try to change those rules when you start losing. It’s dishonest, and Hillary knows it.

If everyone knows this, then why do so many Dems still say that FL should have been permitted to change the rules on vote counting in 2000, and that SCOTUS disallowing that was a subversion of the will of the people?

Meaning the popular vote would trump the delegate votes, right?

No, meaning the superdelegates could overturn the delegate count if they see fit. I’m pretty sure I made that point pretty clearly

Let’s also not forget that in the not too distant past somebody won the presidency without winning the popular vote. That’s how our system works sometimes.

Personally, I would prefer we go to a popular vote system and I’ve said as much on this site, but you don’t try to change those rules when you start losing. It’s dishonest, and Hillary knows it.

They’re free to overturn what the voters have “said”

Meaning the popular vote would trump the delegate votes, right? If HRC gets more popular votes and BHO gets more delegates — good luck with recoiling of the “popular vote” one man one vote stuff. It will be totally hollow.

So no, I don’t demand the impotency of the super-delegates. They’re free to overturn what the voters have “said”, but I also understand the reality of what that would seem like to a massive amount of Dems. You obviously don’t. That’s fine, but it doesn’t make Hillary’s shifting rhetoric any less intellectually dishonest.

They both knew the rules before all of this started. Given that, one doesn’t go into a contest, begin losing, complain that the rules aren’t fair and then try to spin the media that the way “victory” should be determined needs to shift. That’s nonsense…and it’s also exactly what Bush has done in Iraq.

If you want to characterize this as whining, by all means. But I know better. This is outrage at a beltway insider trying to game the system because it isn’t delivering the outcome she wants.

Hillary would have had to be dead not to have won that state – and even then she would have stood a good chance. It’s over already, she’s through, she’s done, she can’t win, mathematically it is nearly impossible. So lay off the stats, the trash talk, the “fighter” crap. She’s a loser – has proven to be a loser – and is finished. The Democratic party is changing – 52% is the Obama demographic and 48% is the old Clinton demographic – it’s close but is not in her favor. Her demographic is shrinking and dieing (or otherwise not procreating) – his is growing, starting businesses, finishing college, and having children. What do you think the SD’s are going to do. The onlyt alternative is Hillary pulls menopause demographic and starts a 3rd party…….otherwise she’s done.

I’ve said time and time again that the Democratic party lets the superdelegates “overturn” the pledged delegate count at their own peril.

Absolutely, you have. You have also time and time again gone on about the primacy of “the will of the people” – which is obviously most clearly represented by the popular vote. So I am just wonder which one it is — although I think I know — which ever nominates Barrack Obama. Pledge delegates or popular vote — and if its pledge delegates then you abondon the primacy of the popular vote meme and it’s illogical to demand the impotency of the super-delegates.

If it’s not dishonest, then it just doesn’t make any sense. The impression that is being projected from the Obama camp though is just good ole’ fashing political whining from a guy that is suppose to be so outside the beltway.

Sorry Justin, but 15,095,663 of your fellow Democrats disagree with you (so far). More than agree with you. Thats the problem with Democracy.

This is me pleading for her to stop it. At the very least, if she’s going to continue on, stop giving one specious argument after another for what’s supposed to matter and what’s not supposed to matter. I mean, are you telling me that the “if we ran this like Republicans” argument actually passes the smell test with you?

What is dishonest is: 1) Proclaiming a love for the popular vote, but not wanting to count Florida AND Michigan, because of a professed adherence to party rules, and claiming that the super-delegates, a creature of party rules, should have something less than a decisive vote in a very close match. There is Dishonesty abound, but you get marks for righteous indignation — and two parts whining and a dash of pissing and moaning…perfect.

I’ve said time and time again that the Democratic party lets the superdelegates “overturn” the pledged delegate count at their own peril. You will have a revolt within the party. I’m not saying that the superdelegates CAN’T do this, I’m just saying that if they do it, the party will implode.

Furthermore, Obama’s name wasn’t even on the Michigan ballot. And didn’t Hillary agree before the primaries that neither of those contests would count? Oh yes, that’s right, she did. So for her to now claim those vote totals as evidence she’s in the lead is enormously dishonest and contradicts what she said previously.

But hey, I’m getting close to the point where I want her to win so I can just sit it all out and watch McCain crush her. It’ll teach the Dems yet another lesson about allowing an intellectually dishonest, highly partisan candidate secure their nomination by any means necessary.

Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, this is pot. Ironically, you’re both black. Imagine that!

This is more abut the way Hillary comes across as a whiny brat. She starts off talking about how the voters should decide and thats fine and dandy until she’s behind. Every few days its another excuse, another reason about how the system is flawed. It comes across as extremely childish. But she knew the rules of the game when she started playing, and they don’t change in the middle of the game because you don’t like them.

Sorry Justin, but 15,095,663 of your fellow Democrats disagree with you (so far). More than agree with you. Thats the problem with Democracy.