Wikipedia doesn't show the popular vote total for Democrats - as Republicans would be winning!
They want the perception that Republicans are a marginalized group and few in numbers. If they showed the true numbers Trump would have a million more votes than Bernie, and Republicans 2 million+ than Democrats.
Who wants to make an account and go badger them in the chat log?
>>70879799
Wasn't there states early on where it just said Clinton won and had like <1% vote in with no vote totals? Both sides seem dirty but the democrat side seems rigged as fuck
>>70879799
Is there a huge difference in turn out between Dems and Republicans compared to 2008, 2012, and today?
>>70879799
Plus, I don't think all states have voted on both sides
>>70880019
Huge, huge difference. They are down millions of votes.
>>70879911
These primary things are run by the parties. A good third of them are pretty fucked up and the rules arent new they have been that way longer than most of us have been alive.
Isnt the iowa caucus the one where candidates actually pay people to caucus? Literally buy the votes? So everyone just ignores it when like Santorum wins it?
>>70879911
Yeah the primary process on both sides is ridiculously fucking stupid. Democrats have superdelegates as a holdover from the 70s and 80s, while Republicans have meme practices such as winner take all.
>>70879911
They are just projections. They do turn out true.
Good luck. Wikipedia mods are hyper indoctrinated marxist cunts. No one will accomplish anything.
>>70879911
Yeah, I thought it was weird as fuck. Then they started to show voter count eventually in the later states.
>>70880138
>hillary has majority of votes
>loses
the "Democratic" Party everybody.
but bush stole the election...
There is nothing that you can do.
>>70880019
Yeah, Republican turnout is up dems down. Contributing factors of 8 years of dem pres and trump surge give him a good shot at winning the general.
>>70879799
Wow, that's fucked. Sanders supporter here.
Another thing: They selected pictures of all of the candidates smiling - except for Trump. These manipulations can be very subtle, OP.
>>70880019
>>70880138
>>70880703
Better question, has primary turnout historically been a predictor of the General Election's results?
>>70880138
But 2008 Republican primaries only had 20.95 million votes
In 2012 they had 18.5 million
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_vote_count.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_vote_count.html
Though I guess it doesn't help when McCain and Romney were the choices.
Still have sixteen states left and 21 million have already voted.
Turn out is great
>>70880850
reminder that manipulation can turn against them
>see Jeb's sponsors/owners at any debate cheering for him and booing Trump
>>70880664
Delegates are the only thing that matter, same with the electoral college in the general
Trump has 2 million more votes than Cruz, yet still has a chance of not getting the nomination and why people are pissed
>>70879799
Its because popular vote means nothing to Democrats. Take note of that.
>>70880850
It's true Bernie bro. But I'm still not paying for your college.
>>70880850
t. Alberto Barbosa
>>70881819
This, pull a heist or something you lazy shit.
>>70880850
Looks like they didn't want Obama to win though
The smiling is true
>>70880313
Honestly, even though I like Trump and Winner Take Alls have helped alot, it is a really fucking stupid idea. Its just another one of the many ways to basically make entire swaths of votes not matter or count at all.
>>70880850
Trump not smiling makes him look more alpha IMO.
It's not an unflattering picture
>>70880138
I honestly don't get why it's not decided by actual number of votes. It's like saying a single California vote is worth more than say 1 Montana vote because each state is valued different
>>70881213
Your votes don't matter. It's all a farce.
>>70882226
Right. The system is flawed. They make it all fucked up so when the end rolls around they can say some shit that sounds good and somewhat reasonable but you don't really understand so just forget about it and agree.
>>70882226
>>70882569
Delegates and electoral college go by population, but not registered population.
So 1,000 Mexicans shitting out 5 kids means 5,000 more to the population. Illegals are counted as well.
At least they can't and usually don't vote
>>70881819
kek.
I'm actually a Berniebro for his anti-war and socially libertarian stances. Ironically this is also why I'm sympathetic to Trump's cause.
I don't give a shit about the likely DOA gibmedats proposals.
>>70882141
I'd tend to agree, but Americans don't believe that at large. There have been numerous studies showing that Americans are more likely to relate to a person that's smiling.
What's funny is that it's the complete opposite in Russia. That's why Putin's perpetually scowling; Smiling all the time is seen as either insanity or scheming over there.
German here.
I do not for the life of me understand the polls on real politics...
Anyone willing to explain?
>>70883454
they are not worth understanding
>>70879799
Fighting the liberals at wiki?
At one time the combined strength of the chans could do this
Wiki is beyond our reach now young newfag
>>70880664
In Michigan and Florida the votes were thrown out because the process was THAT basely corrupt. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd were the only ones on the ballot of Michigan
>tfw Clinton already tried to steal an election once
>>70883454
Google 'electoral college' and pour yourself a drink
Show me polls where Trump beats Sanders in match ups. You can't even beat Shillary. Just quit
>>70879799
I thought I heard it on one of the election night news coverage shows that the Democrats don't release the popular vote count
>>70884362
Sanders can't beat Hillary either
I don't see the coloureds voting for an old ass Jew
>>70882003
>filename
Fuckin kek I forgot about Dean
>>70884533
You're the most retarded voting bloc in your country. Sanders will be President. Zionists? Take them. I love the right wing always crying from behind their protective nose
>>70883920
I'm literally just trying to figure out the formatting on the sidebar thing, and I'll throw in these numbers;
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/leading-2-3-million-votes-clinton-still-faces-long-primary-n554416
We'll see if it'll stay.
>>70884754
>Sanders will be President.
im gonna enjoy putting you in my before and after compilation of when sanders loses the nomination. your tears will sustain me for millennia.
>>70879799
that's not the reason they're doing it
they're doing it because Bernie Sanders is winning the popular vote but Hillary is winning with delegates
Yah gop has about 3 mill or so more popular vote with just trump cruz and kasich. So ignoring all the other bozos
>>70885360
I stand corrected
>>70885104
Hillary is actually
>>70881067
Primary performance is a good predictor. Not to mention it is a good sign of what groups you attract.
Trump has such broad support it pretty much transcends partisan politics. Hillary gets major support in the minority group but loses key white votes.
primarymodel.com
>>70882735
Problem is those shitskins are one cuck president away from voting.
>>70881819
I love how they still include Rubio in the list.
>>70884903
So I was looking on the talk page and apparently there is a bit of a flamewar concerning it.
The only reason popular vote is on the Republicans' thing is because it's locked I guess, probably from vandals fucking around with anything that has Trump's name on it.
>>70886008
One guy claims that it is being discussed all over but I can't find it except for that one section of the talk page. Seems like making any excuse to not put the numbers up, what reason is there not to?
>>70885708
The kids they shit out can't vote for 18 years, if they do vote
Can't wait for the anchor babies to be cut loose as well.
>>70886118
Ok, apparently some of the contests never released actual voting numbers for the Democrats, and all media sources so far are estimates. So people are arguing over whether or not an estimate should be included.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Inclusion_of_popular_vote
It's fucking Wikipedia.
Stop bitching about it, and edit it. Be sure to include a citation for the numbers.
It has nothing to do with wikipedia.
Democrats don't publish the raw number of votes in every state, mostly the smaller ones.
Republicans happen to publish in most of the states.
>>70880138
>half a delegate
Nigga how the fuck do only give half a vote? If you want it be like the slavery days at least make it 3/5.
>>70886485
It's a disciplinary measure by the party. States were jumping their primaries ahead further and further so the NCs stripped them of their delegates. Eventually Dems added theirs back but each only counting half.
>>70886344
The numbers have been posted for literally every other primary in recent history, god these people will do anything to justify not putting numbers up. Just put a disclaimer about projected votes and call it done, there's nothing "misleading" about it. And we both know nobody is really concerned about it being misleading. If the numbers were switched they would have no problems posting them
>>70879799
The current Democratic popular vote is only 16,297,485. While the Republican vote is 21,042,463
>>70879799
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html
l2 internet retard
>>70881680
Not the same thing.
Trump has more votes AND more delegates but might miss the nomination due to GOP party politics stating he needs 50% of all delegates for the nomination, not just more than anyone else.
In 2008 Hillary had more votes but less delegates due to the insidiously undemocratic non-pledge delegates (or super delegates) and also over-representation in key states. Some states have delegate counts so disproportionately high that a vote in that state can be considered 1000s of times more important than in another state. This is something wrong with both the General and Primaries for both sides however. Trump is doing so ridiculously well, though, that this doesn't matter in the GOP nomination.
If Trump loses the nomination it is from pure cheating and establishment loyal delegates, nothing more.
>>70886834
Unlike you, you autistic Trumplet, most people would not be surprised that Biblebelt, Rustbucket, and Redneck states voted overwhelmingly for Republicans/Trump.
>>70885459
Not really. Dem voters have always tended to have less turnout in Senate/primary races compared to Republicans. Hillary will beat Trump handily in a GE according to almost every single poll conducted.
>>70887709
>Polls show she will beat him in the GE
Oh fuck this meme again
>>70887137
>saying undemocratic like its a bad thing
baka
Hillary would have lost a general election
>>70887137
I just want to see the GOP be destroyed if they pick anyone other than Trump
They'll lose all his supporters. I sure as fuck won't vote for Cruz let alone Kasich or Ryan
>>70887137
You know what the Constitution says if you don't get a majority of electoral college votes in the general?
The House of Representatives decide and it doesn't matter who was ahead in electoral or popular vote.
Do you hate the Constitution?
>>70885459
>Trump has such broad support
Can I please get a source for this statement? I'm not seeing anything that suggests that he appeals to anybody outside the Republican Party's already existing demographics.
>>70887860
>to mccain
No she wouldn't anyone could have beaten that old fuck. He would have died in office and left fucking SARAH PALIN in power.
ANYBODY could have beaten Mccain.
>>70887890
You don't get it though, they'd rather 20 years of democratic establishment presidency go unchallenged than 8 years of non-establishment GOP.
>>70879799
what's stopping you from editing the page to show popular vote and percentage? if you provide citations the worst they'll do is revert it, and if they do that, you'll know they're trying to protect the democrats.
>>70888128
>Elected officials choosing when there is no majority
>Backroom deals by non-elected officials allowed to choose the candidate with literally no laws or legislation to stop corruption because they are a private organisation
>In a 2 party system
If you think that's comparable you have a brain tumor go see a doctor.
>>70887851
Yeah, like I'll take the word of a bunch of racist conspiracy theorist Trump supporters losers over polls and surveys done over and over again indicating that Trump has little support outside of lower class uneducated white males and would get btfo against either Hillary or Bernie in a general election.
>inb4 "the jews!"
Deluded faggots.
>>70888128
If they are representatives they should vote for their voters. In theory they would pick who their voters picked.
Party cucks only pick who the guy that pays more. They are not in the House of Reps and don't have to care about voters.
>>70888163
Is he dead yet? How could you know he'd die in office? Nigel, back to the cuckshed.
>>70888163
>they'd rather 20 years of democratic establishment presidency
Seriously, I don't get it. But now the claim that both parties are the same makes sense.
>>70888388
>non-elected officals
All 2742 republican delegates are elected. They're elected at state party conventions were you can put up candidate from your campaign and lobby directly.
The only reason that Trump is behind with delegates is because he's an idiot like you who doesn't understand the system. Don't blame others for your ignorance.
>>70888611
Have you seen what a Presidency does to a man. I don't know if he would die in office but the fact is it was a strong possibility. Even forgetting his age and likelihood of becoming unfit for Presidency within 8 years, 50% of all Presidents have had to at one time or another give power over to their VP. 50%. Even if people don't consider the elevated risk of the fact Mccain would be the OLDEST inaugurated President in history they HAVE to consider that the absolutely moron that is Sarah Palin could run the country and I can assure you people did consider that. That's why Mccain would have lost to anyone.
>>70888442
1/10 made me reply
>>70888835
Delegates may have the chance to be elected but none of your yanks actually take part in the delegate election process, allowing the establishment to just put their pawns in place. Yes it is technically democracy, but it is FAR from the will of the people. It's also extremely corrupted if you've ever read the stories of normal people going to delegate elections, it's serious John Boehner 'The Ayes Have It' style bullshit .
>https://youtu.be/nFjczLKM4JY
>>70888795
>Nobody on this board understands how much damage Trump would do to the Republican party.
>Nobody on this board understands how little support he gets outside of demographics already inside of the GOP's core.
>Nobody on this board understands how much independents and Democrats hate him
>Nobody on this board understands how much the media would tear him the apart every second of his Presidency
>Nobody understands that he'd leave office after one term with disapproval ratings rivaling Dubya's worst due to said media lynching
>>70888914
Nigel, the presidency is 4 years.
>>70887137
If Trump loses the nomination, it's because he lacked a majority of delegates. The rules are clear; a plurality is not good enough.
>>70879799
HOLD UP SENPAI
I'm going to make a suggestion on the talk page
t. Wikipedian
>>70889309
>Nobody on this board understands how much damage Trump would do to the Republican party.
That is damage that needs to be dealt.
As for the other points, I think this would all change if he had one good debate with Clinton.
>>70889309
What is it with toolboxes being fucking psychic today? I can say those things about every candidate, it doesn't make it true.
Plus, if Trump is not supported outside of the party, why is he getting a few million more votes than the dems when you compare primaries?
>>70889552
And that would be fine, but people are tired of the establishment. It really is going to splinter the republican party.
The same is going to happen to the dems.
>>70889436
Not an argument
>cultleader.png
Also
>implying he won't be the nomination while incumbent
>>70889187
>none of your yanks actually take part in the delegate election process
That's just not true. The Colorado Trump campaign manger was on the floor telling them to vote for the pro-Trump candidates. The problem was that Trump campaign was idiotic and ill-informed, first telling them to vote for people not on the ballot then voting for Cruz delegate by mistake.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/11/trump_campaign_leaves_colorado_empty_handed_embarrassed.html
>>70889552
The thing is, the frontrunners usually don't get a majority of delegates. Instead, everyone else just drops out in order to avoid a brokered convention.
>>70879911
Well if Hillary is polling at 75% in SC and exit poll results show she's at 75%, they'll fucking call it you moron.
They took forever to call Michigan for Bernie, because the results weren't lining up with what the polls said, which was supposed to be a Hillary victory.
>>70889813
>HE GETS MOAR VOTES
>HE A CULT LEADER
>HE CANT JUST BE RIGHT OR ANYTHING
Thats why youre exiled to the shed, Nigel.
>>70879799
this is laughable. california, the most populous state, has yet to vote. new york hasnt voted either. all the southern states with their religious fundies already have though
>>70889999
>being this autistic
>not understanding my reference
NOT AN ARGUMENT
>>70881942
Blacks don't smile in photos.
>>70889552
>The rules are clear
They really aren't considering they can change them before the convention.
Even if he gets 50% they can just change the rules and make the requirement 1 more than he has.
>>70887137
Wait, are you complaining the same system that was against Hilldawg in 2008 is working against Trump now? That's almost, like, counter-intuitive
>>70879799
This. Shaping consensus and other leftist tactics. If Wikipedia is to maintain neutrality, it has to disenfranchise leftists trying to paint Wikipedia with a leftist slant.
>>70880138
>2008
>hillary wins the popular vote
>still loses
>2016
>even if bernie catches up in pledged delegates by some miracle, hillary could still win the nomination if the superdelegates stay with her
>DEMOCRATIC PARTY
wew lad
>>70890192
No I'm saying that the system against Hillary in 2008 has and probably always will be unavoidable in a democracy. It's an issue in the UK too. That system however is not against Trump, he's FAR ahead in votes AND delegates.
I'm saying that the insidious inside politics of the GOP, using rules that change literally every year before the convention in order to jew non-establishment candidates out of a chance (like Ron Paul and now Trump) is what I was 'complaining' about.
Okay so I just voted on this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Inclusion_of_popular_vote
Don't forget to sign your message using ~~~~ /pol/ users with Wikipedia accounts are more credible and the more edits you have the better, there is a lot of NO's which isn't surprising but eventually there will be an administrative decision.
WRITE THIS BEFORE YOUR DECISIONS
BASIC FORMAT IS THIS:
*'''YES''' YOUR COMMENT ~~~~
>>70888795
>Seriously, I don't get it.
They've always been two sides of the same coin.
These people want to maintain the status quo because that's how they make their bread and butter, they don't give a single shit about electing someone based on the will of the people, it's always been a puppet show.
>>70889309
>Nobody on this board understands how much damage Trump would do to the Republican party.
Because McCain and Romney helped so much
Again, Trump is bringing record turnout this election, mainly the Republicans. Also bringing back conservative values.
Don't know how cuckservatives can praise pro-amnesty and Brady Bill signing Reagan
>>70879911
They're called projections you stupid nigger.
If you have a box with 1000 red and blue balls, and you randomly pick out 30 balls, you'll get a perfect representation of the proportion of blue and red balls in total that are in the box.
You can predict the winner before you've finished counting the votes.
>>70879799
Popular votes in a primary mean shit in a general election.
>>70880850
All of them are official public office portraits...
Trump doesn't have that, they have to use any random fairly neutral picture from a conference or whatever.
>>70887860
>>70888611
>>70889436
There was no way a Republican was going to win in 2008 after the economy crashed under Bush mere months before the voting. No way.
>>70891136
Would take too long to go through all the years, but in 2000 Republicans had more voters in the primaries. 2004 was incumbent Republican and fewer Democrats turnout
Here as well
>>70881213
In 2008 Dems had 34 million in the primary
>>70891799
Well they sure as hell weren't going to win with cuckservative McCain
