Popular Vote Propaganda. Math is math until you cook the books.

[TalkingDog]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Hillary-and-Her-Surrogates-by-Rob-Kall-Hillary-Clinton_Popular-Vote_Surrogates-160511-219.html

Take a close look at Washington state, which Bernie won with 72.7% of the votes. RealClearPolitics gives him zero votes, with its 7.2 million population.

The same goes for Maine, where Bernie had a 29% spread and Alaska where he won over 81% of the vote. Zero. Zilch. Nada. In Wyoming, Bernie is given 32 votes, not 32,000. He is given 32 votes.

It's ridiculous. But it's not ridiculous that Clinton claims she has a three million popular vote lead. It's an intentional, obscenely misleading, dishonest claim.

When a super delegate claims he or she is representing the will of the majority, basing it on the three million lead popular vote, it's based on a lie. Challenge that superdelegate.

[bkkyosemite]

1. Yes it's bull shit. ...rigged.

[tonyt53]

2. Uh, you are confusing actual individual votes with voting delegates

New to this stuff, aren't ya? Oh, and each state has a board of elections. Some do their jobs better than others, but most are fairly accurate in their vote tallies. A three million votes mistake is hard to miss.

[TalkingDog]

8. Clinton's claim is that she is winning the popular vote.

You obviously are new to reading and critical thinking. (or you didn't bother to do either)

I'll use small words to make it easy for you. There is no mistake in the actual vote tally. But votes aren't tallied in the same fashion in the primaries vs. the general election. Clinton is promoting the idea that the votes are counted in the same way and that means she has more of the popular vote.

TL;DR: She isn't winning the popular vote.

[LonePirate]

30. She IS winning the popular vote when you count the total votes received as officially recorded

Yes, there is a problem with caucus states like Washington where caucus attendee numbers were not counted properly or at all. However, there are not enough states with enough people to overcome the roughly 3M difference right now. Between WA and the other caucus states with incomplete voting tallies, there are not 3M more votes for Sanders than Clinton. There might be 500K but not 3M. Cutting that 3M to 2.5M does not fundamentally alter the outcome - Clinton still leads by 7 figures worth of votes.

[WhiteTara]

101. votes in the general are tallied state by state also

that's where the electoral college comes into play.

[KPN]

26. Lol!!!!

Did you even read the post??

If so, did you even understand it??

New to reading comprehension?

[COLGATE4]

3. SD's are not supposed to 'represent the will of the majority'. They are there

to make sure the party doesn't go down the drain by supporting a candidate that is not right for the party.

[BootinUp]

4. Have you taken a look at Nebraska?

Caucuses are undemocratic compared to primaries. We didn't need Nebraska to know this but it is a lovely example of the obvious.

Memo: While Bernie won the Nebraska caucus, he was beaten resoundly in the non-binding primary.

[dchill]

13. Non-binding.

You probably don't get what that means. The answer is: NOTHING.

[BootinUp]

15. I am sure the people there are miffed about that too. nt

[dchill]

19. Yep. All the people who didn't like the caucus results...

decided to make a stand in a NON BINDING primary. I definitely feel the bern!

[BootinUp]

21. They expressed their preference, sorry you don't like what they said. nt

[dchill]

22. It just doesn't matter. At all.

Maybe you can tack the difference onto her "popular vote lead."

[BootinUp]

23. Apparently a lot of folks there disagreed with the caucus result. nt

[pdsimdars]

53. Sounds like . . . .

[BootinUp]

56. Just pointing out the undemocratic nature of caucuses vs. primaries. nt

[puffy socks]

77. Actually that perfectly depicts Sanders supporters.

You've lost.
Bernie isn't flipping the 400 SDs he needs nor can he possibly get them. Yes it is math.
He can't win.
Sanders supporters are enraged that he lost and have concocted dozens of conspiracy theories throughout his campaign and assert "unfair tactics" the rest of the US recognizes as rules, rules that have been in place for decades. So now you want to change the rules. You'd be fine with the rules if he were winning.

Suck it up. Learn from your mistakes and move on.
Hilarious the continued whining and number twisting. I don't think I've ever witnessed the lengths people will go to to avoid the inevitable...reality.

[pdsimdars]

78. Tell me, which group looks like the sad loosers?

I think you got it backwards, not paying attention to reality.

.

[puffy socks]

79. The bottom pic of the loud obnoxious Sanders supporters

who think rally attendance and yards signs =votes.

[KPN]

27. And I have a bridge to sell you.

Do you really think those results represent what would have happened in a primary vote?

Too funny!

[leftinportland]

35. Nebraska primary...

absolutely meaningless....

[BootinUp]

39. Yes, wipe it from your mind, since it doesn't fit the narrative

no prob.

[leftinportland]

63. who's narrative?

In Nebraska the primary delegates are chosen by caucus...the recent primary is meaningless in regards to delegates and counts for nothing...sorry but that's the fact...deal with it.

[BootinUp]

64. This OP is about skewing the vote in Bernie's favor, extrapolating votes from a caucus

I just presented evidence that this highly illogical. Deal with it.

[LexVegas]

5. Jesus. No wonder Bernie is getting he ass beat.

[Hiraeth]

12. don't hit your self so hard

[reddread]

25. almost owe me a mouthful of beverage

and a clean laptop.
please be more careful.

[Hiraeth]

34. lol

[dchill]

14. Um, he's not.

[JTFrog]

16. Lol. Cuz Goodman says so. n/t

[Octafish]

6. Thanks, TalkingDog.

Weird how that "works."

[pdsimdars]

67. ^^^^^^^^^^^

[Waiting For Everyman]

7. Exactly. It's from the "depends on what the definition is 'is' is" folks.

Her whole campaign has been lying psychological manipulation in various forms.

And I'm sure if elected, she'd govern the same way. One big cesspool.

[KPN]

28. Her whole political life has been what you said!

No need to wonder how she'd govern. Just look at the entirety of her past. Oh, and then add in "bad judgement" and "authoritarianism".

[pdsimdars]

55. And constantly made the WRONG 'hard choices'

[KPN]

73. Don't tell; that to a Hillarian!

[dana_b]

9. omg - I didn't realize that

so he wins WA by a huge margin and they don't count ANY of the votes in the population totals?? What a load of B.S.!! SO he is punished because he has won more caucus states and they don't include the numbers as population. Dirty crooks!!

[dchill]

17. That's right, punished by authoritarians.

With fake numbers and false memes.

[ContinentalOp]

57. He got about 167,000 votes in WA.

Go ahead and add them in twice if you want. Wouldn't make any difference.

[dana_b]

60. that's only ONE state

and I see you are telling others it "doesn't matter" and that Hillary is still up by 3M. An absolute falsehood as proven by the OP.

Goodbye

[ContinentalOp]

62. It's by far the biggest caucus state he won.

This article is a little old but it lays it out pretty clearly.

"Despite overwhelming victories in caucus states such as Washington and Maine, Sanders gains only about 130,000 votes. That means Clinton is ahead by 2.4 million votes, rather than 2.5 million votes."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/06/is-hillary-clinton-really-ahead-of-bernie-sanders-by-2-5-million-votes/

[ContinentalOp]

65. I don't know if "goodbye" means you're blocking me for stating some simple facts

but in case you're still listening, I made an OP that conveniently adds up all of his caucus wins.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511949686

[dchill]

10. K&R.

[dchill]

11. Bookmarking.

[dana_b]

24. +1

[reddread]

18. and its all they got

bluff bluff bluff bluff

you gotta really believe us THIS time!
we can even get the media to put it out there for us.
if not the big money outfits,
the ones we bought.

[apnu]

20. You are welcome to add them up for yourself and see.

I'll even help you by giving you two different sources that show the popular vote totals. That and Excel will tell you exactly what the number is.

http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/elections-results-primaries-2016/#/

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

[dana_b]

33. those do not give the correct popular vote totals

so for instance in Wyoming, it says that popular vote totals is 124/156. Really?! In the entire state of Wyoming only 280 people voted? No - those are the delgate totals and they represent a number of people who voted. What are THOSE numbers?? That would be the true popular vote totals.

[apnu]

37. Go ask Wyoming, its their process

People have to understand that the primary system is a patchwork thing run by the state and the registered political parties in that state. They pick whatever they want to do and they certify that. The rest of us have to take them at their word. You're welcome to petition the Board of Elections in Wyoming and find out. Nothing and nobody is stopping you from doing that.

[dana_b]

41. it just proves that the numbers that Hillary and co. are touting are false

and they are deceiving the American people.

[ContinentalOp]

59. Only 7000 people participated in the Wyoming Democratic caucus.

Bernie won by 56%, which gives him 3920 votes to Clinton's 3080. That gives him an 840 vote lead over her. Go ahead and add that into the national totals if it makes you feel better.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-wyoming-caucus-20160409-story.html

[panader0]

50. Nonsense--that shows Bernie winning only 19 thousand in Wasington.

[ContinentalOp]

61. Here are some more accurate numbers.

Sanders got 167,201 votes in WA, and Clinton got 62,330. So he had a 104,871 vote lead over her in WA. And that was by far the largest caucus state he won. All of the caucuses combined don't get anywhere close to closing the 3 million vote popular vote gap.

[Kip Humphrey]

29. Some caucus states do not report popular votes so the books aren't cooked. Because of this, use of

popular vote totals to make false "leading in the popular vote" claims are entirely specious (meaning it is grossly misleading, dishonest and plain lying).

[Tarc]

31. Once again, how are people so gullible that they fall for this sort of "news" ?

Then I took a list of the caucus states that Bernie has won, and he's won almost all of them.

I dug up 2015 census data on the populations of those states and then pulled from Real Clear Politics, the total votes and the winning spread for Sanders in the caucus states. The numbers are below. First observation-- for states totaling roughly 35 million people, some which Bernie won by 70%, he is given a total spread advantage of 160,000 votes. That's outrageous.

That's called "math", my bro.

Washington State

Despite predictions that the caucus turnout would rival that of the record-breaking 2008 election, Washington's numbers were exactly what people were expecting. Officials were expecting over 200,000 votes, and Washington Democrats communications director Jamal Raad tells Bustle that he estimates more than 230,000 Democrats turned out to caucus, "nearly matching the record of 246,000 set in 2008."

72.7% of 230,000 is 167,210.

Maine

Democrats said more than 46,000 people participated in caucuses Sunday. Republican Party officials reported that 18,650 Republicans voted Saturday at 20 locations across the state.

64.3% of 46,000 is 29,578.

and so on. At worst, Hillary is up 2,700,000.

[KPN]

36. You are equating a caucus vote with a primary vote. Huge flaw.

If you are going to dispute someone's analysis, at least do it with reasonable facts and data.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Is this "reasonable facts and data" ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/06/is-hillary-clinton-really-ahead-of-bernie-sanders-by-2-5-million-votes/

[KPN]

43. No. It does the same thing.

It assumes the voter turnout for a caucus is the same as voter turnout for a primary vote. Not so! Caucuses suppress turnout by significant amounts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. It counted/estimated the people who actually voted in the caucus

Nebraska had a caucus and a primary.

One candidate won the caucus that you argue is the type of contest where the vote is "suppressed" 57-43 and lost the primary which you implied is much higher attended 59-41.

I will let you guess which candidate won the caucus and the primary.

Bernie's wheelhouse is the lightly attended club, errrrrrrr, caucus voting


Thank you for making my point.

[KPN]

70. No shit. The specifiuc discussion was about

votes, not delegates. You Hillarians keep blabbering about him being behind by 2.7 million votes over and over again, never endingly, monotonously! She would not fucking be ahead ny 2.7 or 3 million votes if the caucuses had been primaries.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. Talk dirty to me some more.

"No shit. "

Talk dirty to me some more. You're sexy.

[Number23]

80. I don't understand ANYTHING about this thread or the subthread you were in

What are Bernie supporters screaming about now?? People have added up the TOTAL NUMBER of votes from all of the primaries and caucuses and have deduced that Clinton is ahead 3 million votes.

What is there to be confused about here?? And what in the sweet Hell does this "point" made

She would not fucking be ahead ny 2.7 or 3 million votes if the caucuses had been primaries.

by the person you're conversing with even SUPPOSED to mean??!

[KPN]

82. Pathetic

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. That's not dirty enough. This was getting me there.

"No shit."

-KPN

[KPN]

85. Really?

I can play your moronic game all day long if that's what you want.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. You seem upset, almost apoplectic.

[KPN]

88. Haha.

That's your goal, sure. Seems to me that you're the oner who is enraged (or maybe that's deranged).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. Now you are really upset, calling me names and all. Things are gonna get easier.

[KPN]

90. Good movie -- and song.

This must be how you racked up all those posts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. I don't believe so.

[KPN]

92. So out of curiosity, what is the Obama Coalition?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. People of color, young people, and women.

[KPN]

96. Hmmm. Thanks.

Most young people are supporting Bernie this time around, no?

So, can I ask you: is it that you don't like Bernie or you prefer Hillary?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. I was ambivalent about Bernie...

I am not saying this to be be mean spirited or argumentative. I was ambivalent about Bernie until I became acquainted with his online supporters... I realize the feeling is mutual and many of you feel the same way about Hillary. As to Hillary I have always admired her for her intelligence, her persistence, and her tenacity.

I will stipulate that Sanders is beating Clinton handily among millennials. However in the general election the research indicates millennials will have no problem supporting Clinton over Trump:

In a hypothetical Clinton v. Trump contest in November, voters under 35 would choose Clinton by a crushing 52%-19%, a preference that crosses demographic lines. Among whites, she'd be backed by nearly 2-1, 45%-26%. Among Hispanics, by more than 4-1, 61%-14%. Among Asian Americans, by 5-1, 60%-11%. Among African Americans, by 13-1, 67%-5%.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/14/poll-millennials-clinton-sanders-trump-president/81612520/

[KPN]

99. Hillary has those three traits no question.

But I don't think she has my interests at heart. I don't mean me personally, but my chief interests as far as the country goes. I've been a democrat my entire life as well, and a registered Dem since 1972 when I first was eligible to vote. Over my voting life, the D Party has consistently given ground to the GOP when it comes to the economic playing field. I just don't expect Hillary to do much to meaningfully change that. Maybe she'll surprise me.

Best of luck going forward. If Hillary is nominated (which looks pretty certain) and wins the GE, I hope she meets what you expect from her.

[JTFrog]

95. .

Thank you for giving me a chuckle today. I needed that.

[mythology]

107. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride

Sanders does poorly in primaries, whether closed or open. Clinton has won more open primaries than Sanders has won primaries. I wouldn't be so sure that Sanders would be doing as well if all of the elections were primaries instead of caucuses.

But there's also the fact that she is also significantly ahead in delegates, both pledged and otherwise. There is no plausible path for Sanders to win the nomination.

[Tarc]

42. I'm showing you the actual numbers there, sport

The OP is making a fantastic conspiracy out of not counting the caucus-goers. At most it'd give him another 300,000 or so. Still trails Hillary by a mile.

Try again?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Precisely, Tarc

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/06/is-hillary-clinton-really-ahead-of-bernie-sanders-by-2-5-million-votes/

What I find interesting is that Nebraska had a primary and a caucus. The Vermont independent won the sparsely attended caucus 58-42 but lost the much higher attended primary 59-41.

[KPN]

46. OK scooter, here you go.

The assumption that voter turnout is the same whether it's a caucus or a primary vote is erroneous. Caucuses suppress voter turnout and always have, regardless of who the candidate is.

[Tarc]

54. I understand that, but that wasn't the OP's point

They are attacking the "Clinton leads by 3 million" assertion by claiming that caucuses are under-counted, or not counted at all.

The reality is that, by counting the caucus-goers, it only marginally cuts into Hillary's 3 million lead.

[KPN]

72. Lol.

You folks are pretty funny. Getting all in a tizzy over someone making observations about the flaw in vote count as an indicator when you have two different processes. Vote count is a flawed metric. Delegates is the only correct one.

[KPN]

32. Been saying this for a month or so now.

But the MSM hasn't once made a peep about this fact . In fact, quite the opposite, especially the self-proclaimed liberal/progressive journalists like Rachel and the two Chris' (Matthews and Hayes). They've been bugling about Hillary's insurmountable vote lead for two months now.

The establishment machine at work deceiving the people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. Populous states have primaries.

Out of the ten most populous states in the nation, nine have already voted, and the Vermont independent was obliterated in seven of them, and lost one in a squeaker and won one in a squeaker.

[KPN]

71. You are right, but he wouldn't be behind by 2.7 million votes as Hillarians keep trumpeting

unendingly. Get over it man.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. He would likely be behind by more.

NE had a primary and caucus. Secretary Clinton won the former with more votes than the total of voters in the caucus.

No way does she lose a state like Hawaii or Minnesota in a primary 70-30 .That strains credulity when you compare them with states with similar demographics.

In that vein:

Benchmark Politics ?@benchmarkpol May 10
If the midwest ran primaries, Clinton very well could have won many of them it seems.

"Get over it man."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. What challenge?

When a super delegate claims he or she is representing the will of the majority, basing it on the three million lead popular vote, it's based on a lie. Challenge that superdelegate

Statisticians have estimated how many people voted in the Democratic caucus , allocated the votes won by each, and have concluded that the effect on the popular vote lead is negligble:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/06/is-hillary-clinton-really-ahead-of-bernie-sanders-by-2-5-million-votes/

[ContinentalOp]

44. WA is by far the biggest caucus state that Bernie won.

Last edited Thu May 12, 2016, 02:00 PM - Edit history (1)

And only 230,000 people participated. So Sanders got about 167,000 votes there. And Clinton is ahead by 3 million. But nice try.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. What I find interesting is HRC won the NE primary 59-41 and lost the NE caucus 57-42.

That suggests when people vote HRC wins!!!

Same thing happened in WA in 08 except HRC lost the WA primary narrowly while losing the WA caucus by a substantial margin.

Caucuses suck. They are more like like Elks or Rotary Club meetings. What a joke of a way to nominate a presidential candidate.

[Ferd Berfel]

47. THe whole Super Delegate thing is a lie

If the SD actually follow the will of the people, why are they there? What's their function?

IT's a lie. They are not there to follow the will of the voters, they are there to undermine and pervert the will of the people.
The Fascist Oligarchy has to win, one way or the other.

[pdsimdars]

52. Great post, finally something to explain the disconnect . . between his support and those votes

Something didn't add up. When you see those crowds.



And then he has the most individual donators in history. It didn't make sense.

Just like the Republicans, they think they can create the reality they want instead of adjusting to the real reality.



.

[ContinentalOp]

58. Things add up just fine. You're just not understanding the real numbers and proportions involved.

Bernie's biggest caucus win was WA where he got 167,000 votes. Clinton is ahead by 3 million votes.

Bernie's Seattle rally had something like 30,000 people tops. That's a nice big crowd that looks impressive, but it's still only 18% of the people who actually caucused for him in WA, and it's less than 1% of the total number of WA voters. Not only do big crowds at rallies not necessarily correspond with more votes, but when you put the actual numbers in perspective they're relatively insignificant to the big picture.

[onenote]

66. Adjusting caucus totals to reflect popular vote

You are correct that the RCP popular vote totals don't record any popular votes for several states where caucuses were held or reports a number (as in Wyoming) that reflects the number of statewide (not national) delegates elected, not the number of voters participating in the caucus.

Turnout and vote total numbers for caucus states are hard to come by, but with a little effort it is possible to find official or reported turnout numbers for virtually all the caucus states. And if one allocates that turnout number according to reported percentage in the caucus outcome, you can figure out how to adjust the RCP popular vote total to reflect those states popular vote.

And you are right that doing so will boost Sanders popular vote totals. But not by nearly as much as I suspect you think it would.

Here are reported Democratic turnout numbers for the states that RCP doesn't report or (as in Wyoming) underreports:

Washington 230,000
Nevada 80,000
Iowa 171,109
Maine 47000
Wyoming 7000
Guam 4000
Alaska 10,500
Nebraska 78510

Allocating those votes as described above (or based on official totals where available), Sanders picks up an addition 363,000 popular votes and Clinton picks up an additional 233,000 popular votes. Thus, Clinton's margin drops from 3.1 million to 2.97 million. Not that much of a difference at all.

[silvershadow]

68. K&R

[ContinentalOp]

69. debunked

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511949686

[Codeine]

74. Most caucus states had the numeric equivalent of a mediocre college football game crowd.

Seriously, add them up -- they don't amount to much.

[AzDar]

81. Not surprising since the claim comes from an intentionally misleading, dishonest candidate...

[FourScore]

84. It's just Hillary once again mis-representing the facts. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

102. No it isn't. I was going to put an epithet after isn't but I don't want my post hidden.

The Pinocchio Test

Despite the suspicions of the Sanders supporter, the fact that caucus results are not included in the popular vote tally does not appear to make much of a difference in the final result. Despite overwhelming victories in caucus states such as Washington and Maine, Sanders gains only about 130,000 votes. That means Clinton is ahead by 2.4 million votes, rather than 2.5 million votes. Given rounding — and the fact that caucus numbers are only estimates — the difference is slight enough that Clinton’s claim, made before the Wisconsin vote, earns a rare Geppetto Checkmark.





ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/06/is-hillary-clinton-really-ahead-of-bernie-sanders-by-2-5-million-votes/

[FourScore]

104. You just keep repeating the myth, DSB! And the WaPo check doesn't impress me.

They are not impartial. They print a negative Sanders article every chance they get.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

106. Washington Post>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bernie Myths!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Drunken Irishman]

86. Really bad logic and I'm embarrassed this is getting so many recs...

This is as bad as math as that pollster from 2012 who made up his own polling formula that showed Romney would trounce Obama.

7 million people didn't vote in Washington. Bernie didn't even hit 500,000 overall votes there. Even if you count all the caucus states, and the total people who actually caucused for both Hillary and Bernie, he's nowhere near the level of support as Hillary. Not. Even. Close.

The biggest flaw in this logic is assuming that caucuses have the same amount of participation as primary voting. It's not true. In the Utah Caucus, less overall came out to caucus than voted in the 2008 Democratic primary.

[Attorney in Texas]

93. A candidate whose greatest weakness is a widely held perception that she is dishonest should avoid

arguments like this which are so obviously misleading than anyone with a middle-school education can see that they are being misled.

Yet Hillary cannot stop herself fro going there. Repeatedly.

Is there any wonder that as recently as May 10, 2016, more than three times as may people found Hillary dishonest and untruthful as found her to be honest?

Do you agree or disagree that Hillary Clinton is honest and truthful?

Disagree 62.1%
Agree 20.3%

[Vote2016]

98. Dishonest candidates push dishonest numbers. Not surprising, just disappointing.

[wildeyed]

100. Oh wow!

And you and some random guy on the internet are the only ones who noticed that Bernie Sanders is really winning, once you know how to add correctly? Did you call Nate Silver? Alert the press!!!!!

[annavictorious]

103. Lies, damned lies, and statistics

According to the Seattle Times "...only 5.8 percent of the state’s registered voters showed up [for the Democratic caucus]. That means 94 percent of voters didn’t. Even the most moribund municipal election for, say, water commissioner, gets turnout rates five times that amount.

This also means that Bernie Sanders’ landslide win was earned with the backing of just 4?percent of our 4 million registered voters."

Similarly, in Alaska Sanders won 81% of the 1.4% of all registered voters who showed up to caucus.

Clinton does have a 3,000,000 popular vote lead. Popular vote is the only type of votes that you can actually count.

The "intentional, obscenely misleading, dishonest claim" is that 73% of Washington's 7.2 million people support Sanders. You all need to get better at math.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/democrats-caucuses-arent-very-democratic/
http://www.bustle.com/articles/150373-how-many-people-voted-in-alaska-the-last-frontier-state-was-overwhelmed-with-participants

[demwing]

105. She tried similar nonsense against Obama in 2008

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/