"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)........is launching a second run for the White House in 2020." breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/19/bernie-sanders-2020-bid
"Reaction to the news was split......with some supporting the 77-year-old and others upset with the move." foxnews.com/politics/trump-campaign-pokes-fun-at-bernie-sanders-2020-announcement-as-reaction-splits-on-candidacy
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:54PM (5 children)
HRC also did not get the popular vote if by that term you mean more than 50% of the votes. Had she become president, it would have been on a plurality of the votes just as with Trump. You are correct though on HRC being the dumbest possible choice -- she was hated by all Republicans and significant portion of those left of center. Anyone who didn't know that was self-deluded.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @09:01PM (1 child)
But the DNC's gambit was to position HRC, because of her power in the organization, as candidate, and then dare their "audience" on the left to not vote for her. A la "Here's the candidate we're giving you. Vote for her, or you're voting for Trump. And needless to say a vote for Bernie or Stein is a vote for Trump."
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:46PM
As a Green voter in the last two presidential elections, one of my favorite memes from the last cycle was a picture of Jill Stein with the caption: Trumpers say a vote for Stein is a vote for Hillary; Democrats say a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump; Apparently voting Green counts three times.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:32PM (2 children)
Trump didn't get a plurality of the popular vote at all. His was one of the rare cases where the president wins in the EC but loses by popular vote.
That is, as bad as HRC was, slightly more people held their noses and voted for her than voted for Trump.
It's like a 50 yard dash where nobody finished so they hung the gold on the runner who collapsed closest to the finish line as seen from one viewpoint in the stands..
(Score: 3, Disagree) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:51PM (1 child)
Let us remember that HRC did her level best to get a huge turnout in places like NY and CA (irrelevant b/c she would win those even if she ignored them) while ignoring the battleground states. In the end though, even HRC couldn't cross the 50% threshold and garnered only 48.2% of the vote. Is absolutely true to say that more people voted against HRC than for her (the same is true for Trump of course). This is why I'm ever annoyed about people claiming Clinton got the popular vote. She didn't. She didn't even get half the vote, let alone more than half.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday February 21 2019, @03:06AM
However, most voting systems award the win to whoever individually gets the most votes even where there are more than 2 candidates and nobody captures more than 50%. More people voted for HRC than Trump no matter how you want to spin it.
That they made it through the primaries is a poor reflection on their respective parties. Sadly, I can't say HRC in the White House would be much of a win either. The election felt a bit like being asked what brand of bullet would I like to be shot with.
If you're hinting that you'd like to see a method better than first past the post, I'm with you.