Clinton says she's got more votes

According to the Hillary Clinton campaign: "After last night's decisive victory in Pennsylvania, more people have voted for Hillary than any other candidate, including Sen. Obama. Estimates vary slightly, but according to Real Clear Politics, Hillary has received 15,095,663 votes to Sen. Obama's 14,973,720, a margin of more than 120,000 votes. ABC News reported this morning that 'Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama' in the popular vote."

Here's the response from Barack Obama's camp: "In today's edition of The Note, ABC News' Rick Klein wrote that 'By one (rightly disputed) metric -- the popular vote, including Florida and Michigan -- Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama. But without the rogue states, Obama is still up by 500,000 -- and if you can find another objective measurement by which she’s in the lead, let us know.'

"Including the popular votes from Florida and Michigan -- which were not sanctioned Democratic National Committee primaries, where the candidates did not compete, where Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois was not even on the ballot in Michigan -- is a sketchy notion, and Rick was conveying that with the proper air of skepticism. Somehow, the Clinton campaign took his report and twisted it into this: 'ABC News reported this morning that Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama' in the popular vote. That is a false reflection of what ABC News reported."

Dear voter, how do you do the math?

Comments

The scoreboard reflects the delegate totals -- not popular vote totals. So far, under the rules established at the beginning of this game, Obama leads on the delegate scoreboard.

If the popular vote ruled, we'd be celebrating the end of the Gore presidency and if victory totals counted, the New England Patriots would have been football's world champions last season. But, the rules say the electoral college chooses the president and the Super Bowl winner is the football world champion.

To say Hillary is leading is pure fantasy. If we start counting votes that were held outside the rules, we might as well open this up to an American Idol style call-in.

The votes that you say were held "outside of the rules" were always open to the credentials committee to vote to include at the end of the primary process. And to exclude 1.5 million (a record number) of legal democratic votes in FL is insane! I do not want anyone that does not want to include to votes of "innocent democrtic voters" in my state, to be my President. We the voters had nothing to do with the date of our primary being changed. But yet Obama wants to not include our voices. I say "SHAME ON YOU SEN. OBAMA"!

COUNT FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN!

Obama has not won a single large state.... and some of the smaller states were caucus states where only the activists get to vote.

He will not be elected POTUS. And we will end up with McSame.

[Nixon]

Obama is not counting Florida's voters again. He wants to steal the election with his band of corrupt advisors and trial attorneys. Yeah right!

Go Hillary!!!

Hey 1:21:

Saying that only the big states matter is a very ELITIST argument.

I bet Gore wishes he would have won just one of these states you call small. Let's say, like, the state of Missouri or the state of Virginia. Yeah, those "small" states.

Look at the total with MI and FL included. She is kicking his butt!

FL and MI were legitimate primary elections. Obama choose to take his name off of the MI ballot because he was polling so poorly there. But he kept his name on the FL ballot hoping he could possibly pull off a win here. Well too bad Sen. Obama... You lost, get over it! DNC count our votes!

If the Democratic Primary was a winner take all state delegates Primary like the Republican Primary and the General Election. This would be over and Hillary would win the nomination, by a huge margin!

That is why her winning the large states that are split states matter. Obama won some small states that actually are winner take all.

How does the DNC explain the fairness of this system?