Question: why include vote totals from a state where your opponent wasn't on the ballot?

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

Doesn't this just remind people that the only way Clinton could get more people to vote for her was when Obama wasn't running against her? Isn't this the sort of Clinton Campaign mindset--"Look, it's just me, inevitable me, the only choice"--that led to her losing to an unknown? And doesn't the fact that when you look at vote totals, even with Michigan, and consider how far short she came on DELEGATES--doesn't that ACTUALLY indicate what a mis-focused strategic disaster her campaign was?

Yes, for some strange reason she did manage to "win" the delegate count in a state where her opponent wasn't on the ballot...but didn't they in fact run their entire campaign as if hers was the only name on the ballot? And how could such a bunch of mismanaging buffoons EVER hope to compete against the Right Wing attack that would have rolled out every old scandal and eighty or ninety new ones against her? Did the expect McCain's name not to appear on a state or two's ballots, too?

[MercutioATC]

1. Answer: because it's the only way you can win.

The telling part is that she's using questionable tactics to "win" a contest that doesn't even have any bearing on the race.