1992 – Dem. Party Primary Vote Totals

Bill Clinton - 10,482,411 (52.01%)
Jerry Brown - 4,071,232 (20.20%)
Paul Tsongas - 3,656,010 (18.14%)
Unpledged - 750,873 (3.73%)
Bob Kerrey - 318,457 (1.58%)
Tom Harkin - 280,304 (1.39%)
Lyndon LaRouche - 154,599 (0.77%)
Eugene McCarthy - 108,678 (0.54%)
Charles Woods - 88,948 (0.44%)
Larry Agran - 58,611 (0.29%)
Ross Perot - 54,755 (0.27%)
Ralph Nader - 35,935 (0.18%)
Louis Stokes - 29,983 (0.15%)
Angus Wheeler McDonald - 9,900 (0.05%)
J. Louis McAlpine - 7,911 (0.04%)
George W. Benns - 7,887 (0.04%)
Rufus T. Higginbotham - 7,705 (0.04%)
Tom Howard Hawks - 7,434 (0.04%)
Stephen Bruke - 5,261 (0.03%)
Tom Laughin - 5,202 (0.03%)
Tom Shiekman - 4,965 (0.03%)
Jeffrey F. Marsh - 2,445 (0.01%)
George Ballard - 2,067 (0.01%)
Ray Rollinson - 1,206 (0.01%)
Leonora Fulani - 402 (0.00%)
Douglas Wilder - 240 (0.00%)


1992 – Presidential General Election Vote Totals

Bill Clinton/Al Gore (D) - 44,909,806 (43.0%) and 370 electoral votes (32 states and D.C. carried)
George H. W. Bush/Dan Quayle (R) (inc.) - 39,104,550 (37.4%) and 168 electoral votes (18 states carried)
Ross Perot/James Stockdale (I) - 19,743,821 (18.9%)
Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord (Libertarian) - 290,087 (0.3%)
Bo Gritz/Cy Minett (Populist) - 106,152 (0.1%)
Lenora Fulani/Maria Munoz (New Alliance) - 73,622 (0.07%)
Howard Phillips/Albion Knight, Jr. (Taxpayers) - 43,369 (0.04%)
Others - 152,516 (0.13%)

1996 – Dem. Party Primaries Vote Totals
Bill Clinton (inc.) - 9,706,802 (88.98%)
Lyndon LaRouche - 596,422 (5.47%)
Unpledged - 411,270 (3.77%)

1996- Presidential General Election Vote Totals
Bill Clinton/Al Gore (D) (inc.) - 47,400,125 (49.2%) and 379 electoral votes (31 states and D.C. carried)
Bob Dole/Jack Kemp (R) - 39,198,755 (40.7%) and 159 electoral votes (19 states carried)
Ross Perot/Pat Choate (Reform) - 8,085,402 (8.4%)
Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke (Green) - 685,297 (0.7%)
Harry Browne/Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) - 485,798 (0.5%)
Howard Phillips/Herbert Titus (Taxpayers) - 184,820 (0.2%)
John Hagelin/Michael Tompkins (Natural Law) - 113,670 (0.1%)
Others - 121,534 (0.1%)

2000 – Dem. Party Primary Vote Totals

Al Gore - 10,626,568 (75.80%)
Bill Bradley - 2,798,281 (19.96%)
Lyndon LaRouche - 323,014 (2.30%)
Unpledged delegates - 238,870 (1.70%)
Angus Wheeler McDonald - 19,374 (0.14%)
Randy Crow - 5,126 (0.04%)

2000 – Presidential General Election Vote Totals

George W. Bush/Dick Cheney (R) - 50,460,110 (47.9%) and 271 electoral votes (30 states carried)
Al Gore/Joe Lieberman (D) - 51,003,926 (48.4%) and 266 electoral votes (20 states and D.C. carried)
Abstaining - 1 electoral vote (D.C. faithless elector)
Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke (Green) - 2,883,105 (2.7%)
Pat Buchanan/Ezola B. Foster (Reform) - 449,225 (0.4%)
Harry Browne/Art Olivier (Libertarian) - 384,516 (0.4%)
Howard Phillips/Curtis Frazier (Taxpayers) - 98,022 (0.1%)
John Hagelin/Nat Goldhaber (Natural Law) - 83,702 (0.1%)


This is a post just to point out to a few doubters here, that the primary popular vote total doesn't necessarily illustrate any certain outcome in General Election vote totals. To say otherwise is absolutely preposterous. So save all the "Where is he going to pick up the rest that he'll need to win?"

He's going to do what every other candidate before him has done, CAMPAIGN, and earn the votes. I do not want to hear how "he's no Bill Clinton" ever again. He's already won more votes than even Bill Clinton did in a primary by quite a few million. Finally, this should make any Democrat feel awesome for the record turn out if nothing else. We're in a great position, so shhh all you doubters. Deafeatism is just silly at this point.

Obama ties to militia?
MAYHEM REPORT | March 31, 2008



In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama’s life as a “secret smoker” and how he “went to great lengths to conceal the habit.” But what about Obama’s secret political life? It turns out that Obama’s childhood and adult life have been strongly influenced by a group of rag-tag militia men, that took up arms and staged an all out revolt on the rule of law in order to further their “questionable” political agenda.

In his books, Obama admits studying “the Declaration of Independence” and “ the Constitution ” which both have been well established as the maxims of this group of unlawful citizens that chose to further this agenda of “hope” and rebelled against their government. This is the very group of whose members he speaks, when in his many speeches and writings he references “Jefferson” and “Washington,” who is none other than Thomas Jefferson, and one George Washington, a prominent member, thought to lead the militia in the actual fighting that occurred at the behest of other shady characters such as Sam Adams, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, all of whom played a very large role in establishing the militia!

He has publicly stated on more than one occasion that this set of political ideology constitutes a large part of his belief system, and yet, the media has been largely silent on the issue. Witnesses who attended various schools with Obama have stated, on the record, they observed him removing literature about the group from several libraries, another admitted to being present when he entered a Barnes & Noble somewhere in Illinois and purchased a pocket-sized version of “the constitution” because he’d inadvertently left his own copy back at his condo, though others suspect that it’s so ingrained in him, “he could probably quote it by heart.”
He has spent a large part of his adult life studying every aspect of the so-called “constitution” and with much evidence to suggest that he still holds these very beliefs, blatantly attempting to promote the agenda further, publicly stating that he has every intention of reversing many attempts by our current president to reverse the damage “the constitution” has caused our safety, he is allowed to go unchecked on the facts surrounding this connection!

Other candidates in the race have somewhat lesser ties to this group as well, but I think that Obama’s professional career establishes that even the opportunity of big money wasn’t enough to lure him away from this set of ideals. The fact that he pursued a career in teaching “constitutional law” and attempting to protect "civil rights" of numerous clients, rather than lucrative careers with big money firms, illustrates just how dedicated to this ideology the young Senator is and do we really want that in our President?