Interesting read http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/04/04/the-popular-vote-fallacy.aspx What I find more interesting is that when Gore lost to Bush the Dems (Clintons leading the charge) cried foul as Gore won the popular vote but lost the election (Florida issues not withstanding) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html Now it seams as though the Clintons want to set aside the popular vote and win this nomination based on delegates won, hoping the super delegates will see her as the more viable candidate, in essence ignoring the popular vote. I'm confused, was the popular vote more important in the 2000 presidential election than it is in the 2008 primary or is this another case of the Clintons wanting to rewrite the rule book to suit their needs du jour?
+1 But in their (dems) defense, I think they shifted from the popular vote argument to voter fraud or something in the 2004 election didnt they?
Ohio was the bone of contention in the '04 elections. There was some weirdness with how the votes were tallied. I will have to Google it.
