« Back to story "As Clinton's Hopes Dim, Gender Issue Lives On"

Story Comments

Posted by: Dionys 1 year, 6 months ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

He may be a more eloquent speaker (though I don't really see it), but he's not better in debates. Mostly for lack of specifics as to how he will bring about his pipe-dream for America (which sounds wonderful, but is about as substantial as cotton candy).
I think Hillary's current "loss" (she holds the majority *popular* vote) is due to the media constantly saying she's losing and should drop out. From the very beginning this was the media's "line" and didn't reflect the truth when she had a majority of delegates and shouldn't hold true now when she still holds a majority.
The whole purpose of the convention is to pick the presidential nominee -- not to simply hold an already decided vote. I say let them both continue competing.

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
4 Replies

loading ...
- Neutral
  Mdiar1 year, 6 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  Including every single state that has voted, as best we can, Obama is currently leading in the popular vote by 83,000 votes. In the debates he has grown. His policies, when you look at them, are about as fleshed out as Clinton's. From the very beginning the media's line was that Hillary would be crowned the Democratic nominee. Obama was a nobody at the start. I agree, let her keep competing. Lets also include Florida... and reach a compromise in Michigan in which Obama receives the probable amount of votes he would of received had his name been on the ballot. He shouldn't be penalized for following party rules on that one.
  Oh, for popular vote totals:
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/pr...
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  0 Replies
  
  loading ...
- Neutral
  crghss1 year, 6 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  "(she holds the majority *popular* vote)"
  This is a lie.
  "From the very beginning this was the media's "line" "
  Funny, I don't remember the "media" touting this.
  When did she ever have a "a majority of delegates" This is another lie.
  Wow, Dionys you just can't help yourself.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  2 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - Neutral
    Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    In Pennsyvannia Hillary won by 200,000 votes!
    Now Hillary got 10 delegates with that 200,000 vote gain.
    While Obama got 13 delegates with the 13,000 vote gain in Idaho.
    Interesting how our delegate system works.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    1 Reply
    
    loading ...
    - Neutral
      Mdiar1 year, 6 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      Its all based around how the vote splits up in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party should go for a pure popular vote or back to what the Republican Party does, truth be told. The first one promotes a more true democracy. The second one will make them win more elections.
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      0 Replies
      
      loading ...