Why Clinton’s Claim Of Having 3 Million More Votes Than Sanders Is A Total Lie

Recently there has been several ATS members pointing out that the HRC machine has 3 million more votes than Sen Sanders. As so often with thing that are said by Clintons, it has some truth but leaves out important facts to mislead readers or listeners.

The states that caucus do not count individual votes, so the 3 million is only in states that vote in their primary!

King revealed in his groundbreaking article is that the 3 million vote advantage Clinton holds is a lie.

This is due to the fact that primary races don’t just feature voters going out and casting a ballot. Instead, several states opt to hold caucuses where a group of representatives vouch for their candidate. The candidate with the most representatives in the room wins in that district, and the candidate which wins the most districts is the winner of the state.

One interesting feature of this alternate method of primary choosing is that actual individual votes are not gathered, thus, no votes go to the winning candidate. Bernie Sanders has tended to win most caucusing states. Though Sanders may sweep a state, sometimes taking more than 70 percent of the caucus vote, these numbers do not translate to individual popular votes, thus adding nothing to the overall tally. These are states with millions of Sanders supporters, who, due to the system in their state, are not counted among the millions in competition with Clinton’s big number advantage.

source

Hilley does not understand, the difference between the truth and her version of the facts!

Just another case of Hilley omitting facts to hide the truth.

Love these armchair journalists that think Hillary lacks understanding of the process. That's not true. She been in four elections now.
Caucuses primaries the tally is still in her favor.
I'm not finding a vote total anywhere.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

What truth is she hiding?. That Bernie is losing?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: AlaskanDad

What truth is she hiding?. That Bernie is losing?

Her entire platform

a reply to: amicktd

Oh deep.

a reply to: amicktd

Have anything else? Her platform is not a truth she's hiding btw. That doesn't even make sense.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

I'm actually planning on voting for Bernie in the primary and I do feel that he is the better general election candidate.

That said, I find the premise of this thread to be utter bulls#. In the original NY Daily News article which is the source of your source's "total lie" claim, what does Shaun King say?

In response to this line of thinking, Clinton loyalists like to say that she's ahead of Sanders by 3 million votes, but upon closer inspection, that's actually not true at all. In 12 states where Bernie won, they held caucuses in which individual votes are not tallied in the same way as they are in closed primaries.

For instance, in Washington state, which has nearly 7.1 million people, Bernie won 72.7% of the vote there, but not one single vote is counted toward the numbers where Clinton claims a 3 million vote lead over him.

Let's look at one of these states and examine his own misleading wording. Washington state may very well have a population of 7.1 million people but stating that along side 72.7% gives the impression that a significant number of votes aren't being counted.

How many people participated in the caucuses? Here's a source for that.

The number as it turns out was a meager 26,314. Of those, 19,135 of the votes were for Sanders. I haven't checked the other states but if we assume similar results for the sake of argument (or we can get actual details if this is a serious point of contention), that's a net plus in the Bernie column of 12,000 x 12 = 144,000 or less than 5% of 3,000,000 votes.

So no, not a total lie at all. In fact, if she's leading by more than 3,144,001 votes in the primary counts, it could therefore be a 100% true statement, even taking into consideration the caucus votes that are supposedly being ignored.

The Democratic Party does not want a man that was elected as an independent to lead their party.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: amicktd

Have anything else? Her platform is not a truth she's hiding btw. That doesn't even make sense.

Yea sure, she is hiding behind the DNC's corrupt ways of not allowing the people to elect a president. Look at the states that allow the independent voters to participate in the primaries. She never wins those.

Also, she is hiding behind her "Correct the Record" Superpac that now pushes out propaganda on the internet. Hell, you may be one so how can we take anything you say seriously. Oh and don't blame me blame Hillary for that one.

Your candidate of choice has zero integrity as far as I see and that's a terrible trait.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Let's look at one of these states and examine his own misleading wording. Washington state may very well have a population of 7.1 million people but stating that along side 72.7% gives the impression that a significant number of votes aren't being counted.

How many people participated in the caucuses? Here's a source for that.

Looking at your source there is one slight problem:

Washington Democrats Caucus Results (Delegates) : County Summary

The results are in delegates as is stated in the parentheses:



While you are correct there were not 7 million participants in the caucus, but the 26,314 figure you have used is not the number of voters either.

As stated by Shaun King no votes in caucus states are in the 3 million votes Clinton claims as her lead!

One interesting feature of this alternate method of primary choosing is that actual individual votes are not gathered, thus, no votes go to the winning candidate.

From the OP

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Oh snap. My apologies, I was not paying enough attention and went right for the totals! That's what I get for posting while working lol. I was wrong about the numbers, thank you for the correction.

Stars and flag for you!

a reply to: theantediluvian

States that caucus avoid showing the actual vote, as the candidate with the most votes might not have been the winner of the most delegates.

AK is a caucus state and I myself find the delegate tally system quite confusing.

Cheers!

AD

a reply to: AlaskanDad

She won the popular vote against Obama, in 2008, and lost the primary. So, I am not sure how meaningful your point is in the overall scheme of things.

ETA: The caucus system & popular vote tally in the primary is not a new thing. I don't think this is some sudden benefit Hillary is exploiting.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: AlaskanDad

She won the popular vote against Obama, in 2008, and lost the primary. So, I am not sure how meaningful your point is in the overall scheme of things.

ETA: The caucus system & popular vote tally in the primary is not a new thing. I don't think this is some sudden benefit Hillary is exploiting.

As I stated in the OP, many ATS members have been pointing out that HRC has a 3 million vote lead, that is simply not the truth.

This is just another example of, Hilley Clinton's half truths, for which she is so well known for telling.

Thanks for having me clarify that.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Believe me, I'm no Hillary fan. But Hillary's not using unreasonable or unordinary calculations here. Every candidate uses the same primary w/o caucus method.

She's not being any more a half-truther than anyone else (and I don't think any ATSers using the primary vote total are either). Bernie uses the same method to compare their votes, I'm sure.

All of this said, if the DNC intends to win in November, they better nominate Bernie.

I think you are missing some perspective on this one.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
The Democratic Party does not want a man that was elected as an independent to lead their party.

Why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't the republicans love Bernie, too?

He's got a very large spending plan from which both parties can profit greatly and expand their power.