No, you are wrong, officially she did not win Florida as no delegates were up for grabs there due to the primary being ahead of February 5.
She did *officially* win Florida, she just didn't "officially" get any delegates. They still voted, the delegates (who were still elected by Florida law) just are not expected to be seated at the DNC's convention. You're trying to play around with words to make Hillary look like a dishonest bad-guy. I think it's stupid the DNC won't sit the delegates just because they moved their voting date up. That's pretty lame.
There were a lot of voters who stayed home and did not vote as they were told their vote would not count, and as such, the primary there which was for show was also non-representational.
Did you see the amazingly high numbers that DID turn out?
Give Hillary a revote and I
PROMISE you that she will win again.
More votes were cast for cakefarts, but I will admit that she won the primary, but that is not all that matters as he ends up with more representation.
A caucus isn't that important to me, because all it means is that they were able to organize themselves better. Americans like the idea of a more directly democratic means (although I'm not so sure I do)... the media (as a whole) reports what people want to hear (which is why I truly believe they've been so tough on Hillary and so not on cakefarts).
Clinton has also had years to explain herself as where cakefarts had no such time. This does not prove that he cannot fight back,
What really hurt him were the negative news-stories, though. I don't think anyone cares what Hillary Clinton says about his character (
"look at her husband"), but they do pay attention to what the local news says.
in fact, Hillary has not had to "fight back". People are just so sick of hearing about the Clinton years in the White House that they just tune out.
This assertion is based on...? I've heard her fight back on a heckava lot of things. Lots of times candidates will purposely not respond to attacks, because they don't want that to be the focuse of their campaign. This might be why cakefarts hasn't properly explained himself.
Although if you've been a long time viewer of his web site, I think it's hilarious. He's almost as bad as Mitt Romney. He'll attack a candidate by responding to their attacks, "What? Don't question my legitimacy, my integrity. That's DIRTY campaigning! See, you people?! She's a DIRTY polititian. She ATTACKS people. Ooo.. she's MEAN. Do you want a commander in chief that's said something MEAN?"
The truth of the matter is that her strategy is very dismissive of small states. I feel sorry for the small states that she has won because she could not care any less about them. To call a state irrelevant is politically the same as saying that they do not matter at all. While larger states are more influential, the reason cakefarts has been able to prevent Clinton from a clear onslaught is that he has won the smaller states as well as some of the larger ones.
That's not because he cares about them, it's because he's had an organizational advantage. Something that I will grant, he has done very well.
Hillary also performed a heck of a lot better in Utah than she should have. Especially considering Utah was the center of about 5 states cakefarts took. (He set up campaign headquarters here that expand to several other states in the region.)
Not to mention, Utah (Sean Hannity's biggest listening audience) is one of the largest hate-Hillary capitals in the world. She also performed better here than her voting percentage would lead you to believe in comparison to cakefarts's. (Meaning delagate-wise.)
It is also dismissive to say that "Republican" states do not matter as there are record turnouts of Democrats and nothing is ever certain.
Record turnouts of Democrats in these Republican states?
There are swing states that go either way and youth can be swayed. I doubt that Republican turnout is going to be that high in the general election as Democrats are going to be in overwhelming numbers. While in some states there is a clear Republican majority, it is not a golden rule that Republicans always win.
True... it happens every once in a while, when the Republicans try to run a Jimmy Carter of their own. John McCain might not be that bright, but remember: Bill Clinton won third in Utah. The last candidate Utah voted for who was a democrat was Lyndon Johnson (and look who the Republicans ran).
I'm only using Utah as an example because I live here and know most about it. There are VERY similar situations in many other 'conservative' (or rather 'Republican') states.
By her own efforts, I mean the spin she puts on things to make it look when she loses like she didn't, and when she wins slightly like it was big.
I still don't see how this is bad.
The superdelegates did heavily favor Clinton from the start, it is funny that they had to rethink when cakefarts started winning. It was sad to see that prior to some primaries and caucuses that Clinton had a "lead" that was based on having predetermined support. Calling the three-years pathetic is biased on your part as this is opinionated. It limits experience to just Washington and he has done more. Hillary's "experience" as First Lady should be excused.
Why? Just because Democrats want to forget about her miserable failings on health care (which was not her fault: it was the GOP's... it was an ingenius Republican campaign strategy that worked and nearly ruined Hillary-- nationalized health care going from "inevitable" to "no way" in less than six months is AMAZING).
About Nevada, that does not matter. I know what you will say, that Al Gore had the popular vote and he did not win and that was unfair or something, who knows. It is still a technical win for cakefarts since he won more representation. The popular vote is all show. The media also shouldn't jump up for joy when Hillary finally wins something and be so quick as to call it a comeback. They only purport it for ratings. As for the media "massaging" cakefarts, Clinton whined and then she finally was let off a little. That was pathetic.
I actually have to concede this point to you. You're right. Despite who wins the popular vote, it's the delegates that really matter. That's how it was set up, and that's how I believe is best too. So you're certainly right here.
Bill Clinton is one of the reasons that she is getting voted for as there are a lot of people who want a co-presidency,
That's just a media talking point. Fox News coined it. "You're electing Bill again!" Nope. She'll have her own staff, Bill will just be another advisor... and honestly, while she didn't divorce him, every time they see each other it's like two old high school friends meeting each other for the first time in years. Not very married-like.
Of course she should be scared, the impossible is happening and she is didn't win right away like she said she would. He cuts into her base and this makes her uncertain. A newcomer is beating the old !@#$%.
But she really shouldn't have been at the beginning. So she underestimated cakefarts. I would have too. You would have too. I think any sane person would have underestimated cakefarts.
And nobody says his middle name to be nice or to be polite. His supporters do not go overboard with it. Those who do not support him tend to and they know the implication whether they will admit to it or not. It is just petty to think that you think you aren't hitting a nerve for the sake of just hitting it. In fact, every time you say it, I bet you get off to it because it is a way to absolve your own guilts about it. While his middle name should not be taken so negatively, it just does not need to be said and emphasized no matter how little it is said.
I really think it's funny. I mean: admit it. Democrats are being stupid by running someone with the middle name "Hussein" for the reasons you just mentioned.
The world exists outside of the New York Times, don't be so limited.
Just an example. ^_^
