Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

News

Hillary 'wins'

17 replies

mamamea · 08/06/2016 20:52

It was all a bit of anti-climax in the end, being the first major party female candidate. The media interfered in the electoral process on Monday, declaring that she had won on the basis that they re-interviewed some of the Democrat's 'superdelegates' (the party officials given the role of ensuring that in a close race the establishment candidate can still win), and she was now over the line, as if private polling somehow constituted a result.

This rendered Tuesday's election an irrelevance, given that Hillary 'won' on Monday by media dictat.

And whereas Republican 'winner' Trump managed between 67% and 80% in his contests, in the Democrat's 'dead' election (by media dictat), Hillary managed only between 26% and 63% in the various contests.

Sanders has been instructed to withdraw, an impossibility given that a criminal indictment against Hillary remains a live possibility, and the party is surely itching in that case to give the candidacy to Biden or Elizabeth Warren.

OP posts:

Report

DoinItFine · 08/06/2016 20:55

I imagine the party is quite haply to have the better candidate with the mist votes confirmed now that their opposition has decided to fiekd a populist lunatic.

mamamea · 08/06/2016 20:59

Unfortunately for the Democrats, while the Republicans have chosen the most unpopular Presidential candidate in history, they have chosen the second.

OP posts:

TheNorthRemembers · 08/06/2016 22:39

Why is she the second most popular when by any measure she has won way more votes? What happened to democracy?! Why can't politicians accept when they lose?! At the moment I am looking at Bernie, but he is not the only ungracious politician I have encountered lately.

Many candidates I really liked lost in the past, and that was it. You can't carp on forever that your candidate was the one true candidate totally misunderstood by the world.

DoinItFine · 08/06/2016 22:46

You can if you make up a load of bullshit about how the entire process is corrupt.

mamamea · 09/06/2016 03:24

Second most UNpopular candidate. In history. (Behind Trump.) According to polls where they ask people how well they rate presidential candidates.

OP posts:

Mistigri · 09/06/2016 05:51

Why "win" in scare quotes? I get that she's an unpopular candidate in many ways, but she has received many more votes in the primaries than Sanders. She won it fair and square.

As for Trump, in the most recent batch of primaries, he received 70-80% of the vote despite being the only candidate. That means that 20-30% of primary voters preferred to vote for candidates who weren't even standing, and gives you some measure of the "never Trump" tendency among Republicans.

mamamea · 09/06/2016 07:19

"As for Trump, in the most recent batch of primaries, he received 70-80% of the vote despite being the only candidate. "

He was not the only candidate, there were three candidates on the ballot paper.

OP posts:

mamamea · 09/06/2016 07:27

Oh and the 'wins' is because according to the Democrats system she hasn't actually won.

She has only 2197 pledged delegates, whereas 2384 delegates are required to win. She has the promised support of 537 more unpledged delegates, but until the vote is count at the DNC, they are perfectly free to change their mind.

She would have needed to get around 60% of the popular vote to have truly won at this point. She didn't.

OP posts:

Mistigri · 09/06/2016 09:46

He was not the only candidate, there were three candidates on the ballot paper.

There were more than three in some places, but he is nevertheless the only remaining Republican candidate for the presidential nomination, and any primary voter motivated enough to vote at this point certainly knows this. There is no possible interpretation of those votes as anything other than a protest against Trump.

As for HRC and the superdelegates, it's a non-issue: they will support the candidate with the highest number of primary votes, which is of course Hillary. She has received around 56% of the votes cast to date, and has 54% of pledged delegates.

mamamea · 09/06/2016 16:04

Except that Hillary has been certain of winning essentially since Super Tuesday, when she won by huge margins in the southern states, leaving Sanders with an impossible task under the Democrat's proportional allocation system (the Republicans, otoh, with winner-takes-all, can allow a trailing candidate to ride to victory on momentum).
And even further when she was announced as having past the post the night before the election.
The fact that with Sanders having no route to victory, votes for him are just as much a protest as those for Kasich/Cruz were against Trump. Except that they were much more numerous.

The fact is none of the voters voting on Tuesday were able to influence the outcome. They were ALL either an endorsement or rejection, respectively, of Clinton/Trump

OP posts:

Mistigri · 09/06/2016 18:05

I think a lot of Bernie voters did still think they had a chance, before California, although they were probably deluding themselves ("Bernie math").

All a candidate can do is win by the prevailing rules, I don't know what more you can expect. Sanders was a good and popular alternative, so it was a (relatively) close run election. But by any measure, Clinton carried a large majority of actual Democratic party voters, since Sanders did best in states which allowed registered independents to vote alongside registered democrats. Many of his votes did not come from party members.

mamamea · 09/06/2016 18:13

Hillary was declared winner the day before California, however.

A deliberate interference in the electoral process by AP, which resulted in a huge (28%) drop in votes case in 2016 compared to 2008.

OP posts:

claig · 09/06/2016 18:19

'A deliberate interference in the electoral process by AP,'

Yep, Bernie voters saying it was "voter suppression", some Bernie voters were texting asking if it was worth voting etc and Bernie's turnout dropped.

A loss for Hillary in California would have made disastrous publicity.

Mistigri · 09/06/2016 18:55

A deliberate interference in the electoral process by AP, which resulted in a huge (28%) drop in votes case in 2016 compared to 2008.

What does your 28% refer to? The final vote tally isn't known yet for California.

In a free country with a free press, news organisations get to write what they like - as long as its legal. And it's been clear for months that Sanders had an almost impossible task, which became more impossible with each primary (even the ones he won, since he usually didn't win by a big enough margin to eat into HRC's lead). If there's anything surprising about AP calling the result, it's that they didn't do it sooner and weren't beaten to it by another newspaper.

hollyisalovelyname · 09/06/2016 19:03

I don't like HC.
She said she wouldn't be some Tammy Wynette standing by her man.
And that's exactly what she did.
Yuck

claig · 09/06/2016 19:17

"Bernie backers cry foul at Associated Press for 'highly inappropriate' announcement that Hillary 'won' nomination as conspiracy theorists say news agency 'colluded' with Clinton camp to undercut him"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3630290/Bernie-backers-cry-foul-Associated-Press-highly-inappropriate-announcement-Hillary-won-nomination-conspiracy-theorists-say-news-agency-colluded-Clinton-camp-undercut-him.html

notamummy10 · 09/06/2016 19:23

God help America to be stuck with two most unpopular candidates...

Flip

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.