Clinton does not have the popular vote

Yeah, and she wants to fix our economy using that method.

Thought she wanted us to look at this like a job interview, would you hire someone you knew had this much trouble with math and rules?

uroborus8 Fails (like many folks today) his Civics courses and History courses:(

Let me be very clear about this:

The DNC or RNC does NOT have the Constitutional authority of Governors and State Legislatures!!!!

The Governors & State Legislatures of Michigan & Florida have the right and the authority to decide when
Primary Elections should be held in their respective states!

Each American citizen of voting age, has the right to register and cast their vote and have it counted.
These rights are listed in our Constitution...look it up please!

Sorry, but as a student of American History with a BA in
Political Science, many years as a political activist and
as an Elected Delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 1984, I get really irritated when folks don't even attempt at doing even a small bit of research!

Mr. Murray,

I apologize for insulting your "BA in Political Science", but good sir, the information I am providing you here is accurate indeed. The rules that Michigan and Florida agreed to prior to the election said that their votes would not be counted if they held their primaries before a certain date. By holding their primaries earlier, they agreed their votes would be null. While the constitution may preclude the DNC from demanding Michigan and Florida from following through with their contract, as a matter of fairness and good ethical practice, Clinton should not encourage those states from changing their role. Obama's name was not even on the ballot in both states. It would be shameful to say the least.

***
Edit: See link below to the US constitution and a discussion of the absence of rules for primary votes.

"These rights are listed in our Constitution...look it up please!"

Please provide article and paragraph or link.

The constitution does not mention political parties. Primaries are elections to choose candidates and the parties are free to set the rules.

At the end of the day, all the "news" channels care about are ratings and ad revenue. And, at the moment, the best way to get both is to perpetuate the notion that this race ISN'T over.

Bottom line is if Obama is the nominee, the Democrats lose in November. So do the math anyway you want Hill!

JohnA,
The only guaranteed loser in Nov. is Sen. Clinton. She can't win without the Black vote, and she's long since lost it. The independents will favor Sen. McCain over her in the the end. There won't be any reconciliation for the sake or the party after the campaign she's run. The actual bottom line, there's NO WAY for her to win anything at this point.

what is the logic behind that statement?

Despite the main stream media's attempts to paint "The First Black President" as a racist to combat Rev. Wright. damage, Bill Clinton has done more for minorities than anyone in America. Hillary will have no problems with the black vote in November.

"The constitution does not deal with political primaries either. "

Exactly my point.

"Each American citizen of voting age, has the right to register and cast their vote and have it counted. "

This is also incorrect or at best misleading. This holds true for the general election but NOT for primaries.

Some states, like Pennsylvania, have closed primaries where only those who have chosen to join the republican or democratic primary may vote. Independent or non-affiliated voters are EXCLUDED!

Other states, like Texas, allow all registered voters to vote. They can choose which party's primary they wish to vote in on the day of the election.

Come on guys, this is just misspeaking. Lighten up, guys.

GOOD JOB HILL ! Way to go , you'll show em ! What the hell is wrong with a political party that wants to control the most powerful country in the world and they can't even make decision on a candidate for Presidential race. Democrat or Republican, do they really have our best interest in mind ? As soon as the election is over it will be, (status quo) Your friends out my fiends in and lets take what we can.

Apology accepted uroborus8, but I'm sure if you had some relevant experience, not only the degree, but the practical political experience you might have a much different idea.

Especially if it had been your state where you live.
I'm quite sure you wouldn't be so sure of your conclusion.

Not only that, but most Americans differ with your judgement too.

And I might add that those who view that their right to vote has been infringed, will more than likely not vote or will vote for the opposing Republican candidate.

Personally, I would advise you to so some more serious study.

JohnA,
Check Pres. Clinton approval ratings among African Americans now. His numbers have taken a serious down turn. Sen. Clinton has created a rift with her campaign tactics and it will be reflected by significant numbers of Blacks staying home rather than voting for her. Independent/Moderates will gravitate to Sen. McCain and we will have at least four more years of the Bush administration. This isn't conjecture or spin but simple logic using the criteria at hand. There is no prudent road to victory for Sen. Clinton at this point.

Mr. Murray,

With all do respect I apologize for nothing. I too participate intimately in politics. When I lived in Iowa I was twice an elected delegate. I was hired as a campaign manager for a State Representative when I was still in high school. He won. I also have a college degree. Now that we have our autobiographies out of the way, perhaps we can debate the facts.

Americans may differ from my "judgement" as you say, but popular opinion does not decide fact. The fact is that we live in a representative republic, not a democracy. Our political parties have rules, separate from the constitutional electoral process. Those rules determine the political party candidate. Once the candidates are chosen, then the popular vote is supposed to instruct the electoral college how to vote for president. The electoral college is not constitutionally bound to the popular vote. There are several examples of popular votes not translating into elected presidents. Most notably, Gore Vs. Bush. Fact is fact Mr. Murray.

So many folks never paid attention in Civics class
(if they were ever taught it)

Political Primaries are REAL ELECTIONS, just as much as the general election in November of each year.

Candidates must be members of their respective parties, pay a small fee to run, and must have a x percentage of registered party members who sign their petition of candidacy.

Here in Pennsylvania this year it was 250 registered democratic voters.

And on the specified date, so many weeks before the primary election, you have to file for the office you seek which means that the candidates fee is paid along with the number of valid signatures on your petition, and it goes to the Secretary of States office.

Then there is a ballot drawing that puts you and all the other candidates on the ballot.

And the board of elections, in your county, makes up the ballot.

And if you don't have the required amount of signatures or you are found to have cheated etc.
there are legal ramifications just as if it was a general election.

Elections are elections are elections.

Just because it is a primary doesn't mean it's not one.

Oh yes, and then there are ballot questions...
For instance, should x or y be on the ballot in November so that the public can decide?

Gee, if that wasn't an election, then why are these ballot questions on here?

I think there is some confusion here between what a political party is, what it does and what constitutes an election and the right of each citizen to vote.

Mr. Murray,

You are right, it was technically an election. Each citizen was given their right to vote in that election. What I am trying to explain is that even though people went to a voting booth and cast a vote, that does not always translate into a vote for a given candidate. What our votes do is inform our chosen representatives. Inform is different from demand. In the democratic party we elect representatives to vote for us at the primary. Your state does not get those representatives because of democratic party rules that your representatives agreed to. Nevertheless the representatives at the primary do not have to side with popular vote. They are encouraged to, but not required to. The Super Delegates confuse matters even more because they are not bound by any traditional response to popular opinion.

This is the kind of government our founding fathers wanted. They were weary of what they called "mob rule." They understood the dangers of popular opinion being misguided. They set up safe guards to protect the government from this. That is why we live under a representative republic, rather than a democracy. A true democracy would mean everyone had an equal chance of being elected; everyone would vote on every law, issue, etc.

With that said, the founding fathers were also mostly opposed to political parties. As we watch this primary season unfold, I think it is obvious why.

At any rate, Governor Dean did say they would be seated so it's really a moot point.

On "Meet the Press" on April 27 Howard Dean was asked about what would happen to Michigan and Florida's delegates. He said "I don't know about the -- what the Rules Committee's going to do."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24338217/page/3/

Here's the relevant text:

DR. DEAN: Which is one reason, I might add, that I'd like all the unpledged folks to say who they're for by the end of this next month, so that we have the time that's necessary to heal the party. We need change. Women need change, Africa-Americans need change, Americans need a change. And this party can deliver change, but only if we're together.

MR. RUSSERT: So play out the primaries through June, and then have the superdelegates, undecided, commit themselves?

DR. DEAN: Well, no. I think they should continue to commit themselves, you know, from now, as they have been over the past few weeks -- about 50 or 60 more have committed themselves. Just keep dribbling it in. We've got -- I, I, I don't know, almost three -- two-thirds of them committed, and just keep going right on down and commit as you have been...

MR. RUSSERT: You'd like them all announced by when?

DR. DEAN: I would like everybody to say who they're for by the end of June.

MR. RUSSERT: End of June.

Michigan and Florida. There is a report--reports that the Democratic National Committee is having a meeting on May 31st...

DR. DEAN: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...which may in fact say to Michigan and Florida, "Well, you broke the rules, you moved your primary dates up without permission, but we're going to give you half delegates, half your elected count, half your superdelegate count come, come convention time." Is that true?

DR. DEAN: Well, I don't know about the -- what the Rules Committee's going to do. I have no idea what they're going to do. But here's the deal. First, you got to respect the voters. The voters of Michigan and Florida were not the people that screwed this all up, it was politicians. Secondly, you have to respect the candidates. They went in on a set of rules that everybody voted for, including Michigan and Florida, before they changed their mind, but -- and so you can't really change the rules and alter the course of the race. And thirdly, you got to respect the 48 states that did respect the rules.

Dang! You can remember all the way back to civics class Murray.

Oh please, in fact yes I can...it was 9th grade.
I just went a little further that's all.

Point is that when you start playing with people's votes they get just a bit irritated and for good reason, it's what makes us different than other countries who are not democratic republics..

eldamon: McCain was rejected by the DEmocrats so he went with the republican party. I doubt he will be anything like the bushites . He (sorry to say) is quite liberal . Like we need more " don't punish ,forgive" people making policy in Washington. Like we need another " lets modify the Constitution right out of existence " liberal in power.

I really hope that in the Obama/Hillary strugle, the losing party's supporters will actually come back to vote for a candidate.

Great post. Here’s a scenario that I think avoids the gray area of the long ago civics class.

The primaries continue, and over the course of the next two months one of the two candidates gets the requisite number of delegates (a combination of pledged and super) to become the presumptive nominee. Having then lost the race, the other candidate drops out for the good of the party. Once that has happened, but before the convention, the presumptive nominee (who will control the rules committee) then concedes to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida. The votes still count, and the delegation is still a part of the convention. But the states who violated the rules are not rewarded with a lucrative end of primary re-vote, thus confirming the party's right to control it's own nominating process, but without disenfranchising voters.

To me this seems reasonable. But there are two possible places where this course of action could fail.

One is if enough super delegates fail to commit to give one of the two candidates the requisite number to win the nomination.

>>DR. DEAN: I would like everybody to say who they're for by the end of June.

Two is if the losing candidate does not drop out and pushes the battle all the way to the convention. However, this would reveal a suicidal belief that their own personal ambition is more important than the party and would put all the candidates running down the ticket (many of whom are super delegates) at risk of losing their own elections.

So that leaves us with three questions.

One, does anyone have a the power to convince the super delegates to defy the DNC and refrain from declaring before the convention?

Two, is either candidate willing to play a massive game of brinksmanship, not only with the presidency but with all the elections down the ticket, by taking this all the way to the convention regardless of the delegate count?

Three, would the fact that either is willing to risk not only their political future, but the those of many of the super delegates not be enough to affect the answer to question number one?

uroborus8, Yes, some of the founding fathers did not like the idea of political parties.

But because men are the way they are, seeing things differently from different viewpoints parties just grew out of basic differences among them.

Federalists and Anti Federalists....

But this is the way our democracy grew up and that is how we have elected our governments for more than 200 years.

It's not the system but those who choose to run and voters who vote them in or out of office.

Summary:
she has thus far lost the popular vote, lost the delegate count, lost the number of states count, but won the super delegate count.
So, her argument would have more substance if she made it based on number of Supers she has won.
Eventually she'd lose come june3, because she'd have lost the supers too.

We just got shafted on good candidates this year. That simple!

Hillary is manipulating the facts just like right out of Roves playbook. Remember Carl Rove - the guy who was pressuring states to use the death penalty - despite the flaws in our judicial system.

Sorry, got off on another subject there didn't I?

Bottom line: Democracy Inc. =(DNC and RNC) have us all backed into a corner. The “Rule Committees” of Democracy Inc. could give a crap what the state officials have to say. Clearly, the DNC has shut down both Florida and Michigan from participating in THEIR primary.

If you want to run for public office, you’d better follow the rules set forth by Democracy Inc, or else……or else you become Ralph Nader.

ohplease,
Please forgive me but I'm not exactly smelling what you cooking there? McCain is more liberal than most in his party which is why he got the nomination but he obviously panders to the majority which is not necessarily a good leadership quality. He was for a lot things before it became politically expedient to be against them.

McCain was first endorsed by Barry Goldwater, as a favor to McCain’s dad, to take Goldwater’s senate seat.

He was never a “liberal”.

Uroborus8,

You have my sincere apology, but , didn't you ever lose and election?:)

I was a campaign manager too..twice...and I should have not done it either.

And yes, the popular vote doesn't alway elect either..but..

When a candidate running for president, continues NOT to get a sizeable amount of the electorate...say Blue Collar Americans...that's a real bad signal...especially when the polls show that the other party could win in the general!