It isn't difficult, you make an false statement and it gets repeated, the repetition lends credibility.
Statement: When Clinton left Office we had a surplus of X, and now the federal debt is y.
Truth: The statement is true, but misleading. First off there was a "Budgetary Surplus" not an actual surplus of money at the end of the fiscal year, as such this "surplus" was projected, not real. Secondly the national debt has nothing to do with a budgetary surplus, but for the record; the national debt increased under b
Bill Clinton as it has increased under every president since the Eisenhower administration, as they were the last to decrease the debt.
The truth doesn't matter as long as the misleading statement is swallowed and repeated ad nauseam.
Today's news is that Hillary is actually ahead in the "popular vote"
Going into the Pennsylvania primary Barack Obama was up by well over 700,000 votes. Hillary Clinton is claiming that it's the popular vote that matters. Ok let's look at it.
After Clinton's "Landslide" [snicker] victory by 9.6% of registered Democrats. Obama is STILL up in the popular vote totals by 500,300 vote totals. That's not including (IA, ME, NV, WA, MI & FL)
Mrs. Clinton is claiming that she has a lead in the Popular vote. That's adding in Iowa, Maine, Nevada, Washington, Florida & Michigan.
First off let's explain something about those first four states IA, NV, WA & MI, these are caucus states! They don't vote per se, it's basically a straw poll. In Iowa people stand at local caucus locations and group together by candidate. they can then stand in "caucus" and try to persuade other caucus members to join their caucus. Only the two largest groups in the room are awarded delegates, and they are awarded those delegates proportionally by percentage of group size. There is no "popular vote total" because there was never a vote, there is merely the sum total of percentages by delegate district.
Ok if you add in the ESTIMATES (arrived at via polling data) for those four states we still have Obama ahead in the supposed popular vote +610,600. If you add to that the Florida vote….
First let's say something about Florida, The primary was voided early on in the process by the DNC as a reprisal for moving the state moving it's primary too early. They were warned, yet they moved in regardless. Both candidates' names were on the ballot in Florida. HOWEVER… Neither candidate campaigned in Florida (by agreement), BOTH candidates agreed to Florida's being not counted, and furthermore much of Florida's voters stayed home because they felt it didn't matter.
Ok, so what the hell, let's add in Florida, that decreases Obama's lead to +315,800
But what's this? We're forgetting about Michigan….
Here's the problem with The Great Lakes State. It's not the number of votes… It's the ballots stupid! Neither candidate campaigned there, Both candidates agreed to remove their names from the ballot, only Barack Obama did so. Hillary Clinton left her name on the ballot and gained 328,000 votes, Obama netted ZERO, Zero votes in a state with dismal economic prospects, rampant unemployment and a 14% black population?
Now I ask you this: How many people do you think stayed at home in Michigan? How many of them do you think were black? analysts claim that it was black people and poor people who didn't turn out to vote, because they felt it would be a waste of time.
Now Hillary Clinton wants Michigan's 328,000 votes to count in her favor
Advantage Clinton +12,000
Of course Michigan added an "undetermined" candidate to the ballot and that candidate received 238,000 votes. Are those votes for Obama? No, those are votes AGAINST Clinton, those could have been for Edwards, Obama or any other Democrat that was still in the picture at the time. Now there is talk of assigning those delegates to Obama? which would swing things back in Obama's favor by 220,000+. But this of course will spawn lawsuits and cast doubt on yet another president, whether it is Obama or Clinton (if eventually elected).
This is convoluted. The Democratic party is seeing it's chickens coming home to roost. This is what happens when you don't trust the opinion of the American people to make a decision, when your party is overrun by elitism and academicians, people who feel their opinion counts more than a "commoner." In 1968 a Democrat without a single vote in the primaries won the nomination because the vote counts from the people were merely advice only, the "real electorate" were party officials and elites i.e.: super-delegates. After the debacle that was 1968 the Democrats fixed things by counting the votes of the people, but that wasn't good enough they felt the need to control to process further by insisting on super delegates, whose votes, counted equally to the pledged delegates but were free to choose a nominee outside of the Democratic process.
Now in the Republican party we don't have this nonsense, what the people want, they get.
How is it that people believe that Democrats are good in anyway at all? How is it that people believe that a Democrat can work with another party when, due to their own inane practices, they cannot reach caucus amongst themselves? The republican response to FL & MI might not have been perfect by any stretch but at least it was agreed upon and adhered to by all parties. To have had a reactionary policy in place at the time of the primaries that in effect, disenfranchises millions of Americans is irresponsible at best and downright criminal at worst. All the band-aids in the world won't close this wound it's a severed artery that will only heal through major surgery. Unfortunately for the Dems that surgery it's going to involve losing this election from within their own party and starting over with more a more DEMOCRATIC process. And yes, the loss of this election is inevitable for the Dems, when all is said and done there will be entirely too much discord within the party to mount any sort of effective campaign against McCain, they will remain busy focusing their efforts on shoring up democratic support within their own constituency rather than fomenting distrust of McCain amongst the undecided.