I have noted a number of myths amongst the comments here as to why Hillary should stay in the race. Here are ten enduring, kudzu-like myths, with the debunking they sorely need.
Myth: This race is tied.
No, actually, it's not. Obama has the lead in number of states won, in pledged delegates and in overall delegates. Nothing will happen in the remaining primaries to substantially change that. As to the one thing Hillary does lead in, superdelegates, her quickly shrinking margin is among DNC personnel only. When you look at the elected superdelegates, Congressman, Senators and Governors (i.e. people who actually work with both Obama and Clinton) Obama leads there, too.
Myth: Okay, the popular vote is tied.
There are people who claim that because of the 3% separation, that Obama's lead in the popular vote is a "statistical tie." This is a myth because, when you can actually count things, there's no need of statistics and no such thing as a margin of error. The popular vote is not an estimate based on a sampling, like a poll. Like the general election, there are winners and losers and, so far, Obama is the winner.
Myth: Fine, but what if we count electoral votes? NOW Hillary is ahead!
Not so much. The proportions of electoral votes to population versus delegates to population are pretty comparable. So if you allocated electors proportionally in the same manner that you allocate delegates, Obama is still ahead. If you allocate them on a winner-take-all basis, then that would be the same as allocating the delegates on a winner-take-all basis, so why bring electors into it?
Myth: But if we did do it like the Electoral College, that proves Hillary is more electable than Obama, because of states like California.
This is perhaps the saddest little myth of all. It's ridiculous to suggest that Obama will lose New York and California to McCain because Clinton won them in the primaries. No, come November, those states will join with Obama's Illinois to provide 40% of the electors necessary for him to win.
Myth: Very well, then, Mr. Smarty-Math. But if we counted Michigan and Florida, THEN Hillary would be winning!
Nooo, she wouldn't. The margin would depend on how you allocate the delegates, but Obama would still be ahead. And he'd still be about 100,000 ahead in the popular vote, too, despite not even being on the ballot in Michigan. However, it would enhance Hillary's chances of catching up in the remaining races.
Myth: Ah HA! So Dean is keeping them out just to help Obama! And Obama is keeping them out.
That's two myths, but I'll treat it like one. The only people who can come up with a solution to this problem are the states themselves, to be presented to the Rules and Regulations Committee of the DNC for ratification. It was Rules and Regs, not Howard Dean, who ruled that Florida and Michigan were breaking the rules when they presented their original primary plans. If the two states cannot come up with a plan to reselect delegates, they can try to seat whatever delegates were chosen in the discounted primaries by appealing to the Democratic Convention's Credentialing Committee, which includes many members from Rules and Bylaws.
Myth: If they don't get seated until the convention but a nominee is selected before these poor people get counted then these states are disenfranchised.
There are two ways to debunk this myth: semantically and practically. The first is based on the word "disenfranchised:" these people have not been deprived of their right to vote. Through the actions of their states, their votes don't impact the outcome. Now, you may say that that is specious semantics (Myth: I do say that!) but practically speaking, this is the usual effect of the nominating process, anyway. All of the Republican primaries since McCain clinched the nomination have been meaningless, but those voters are not disenfranchised.
Florida and Michigan tried to become more relevant in the process by breaking the rules. They risked becoming irrelevant instead.
Myth: Well, I say they are disenfranchised, and Hillary Clinton is their champion.
Only when it suits her. Last fall, when the decision was first made to flush 100% of Michigan and Florida delegates, Clinton firmly ratified it. That was because the typical punishment of only 50% representation also kept the candidates from raising money in those states. Figuring that she would wrap up the nomination handily anyway, the clear front-runner agreed with all the other candidates - including Obama - to completely "disenfranchise" those two states.
Myth: Well, never mind 2007. She's doing more now to bring them in.
Not really. Recent stories in the St. Petersburg Times political blog said that 1) the Obama camp has reached out to the Florida Democratic party about a compromise and that 2) the Clinton camp will discuss nothing else but re-votes, which are legally, practically and politically dead.
Myth: Whatever! Hillary can still win! I know she can! She and her 37% positive rating will sweep through the remaining primaries and Michigan and Florida, winning 70% of everything and superdelegates will flock to her banner and Barack Obama will personally nominate her at the Convention and John McCain will give up and George Bush will even quit early so she can take over and... and... and... can I have a glass of water?
Yes, and you should lie down, too.
Loading comments… 
Hillary,
For the love of the Democratic Party, our Nation and the World, BOW OUT NOW.
Thank you
Obama leads in delegates by 7%, but leads in the popular vote by 2%, yet Obamaniacs scream that Hillary will try to win via the superdeleg
The smear campaign that has gone on since Hillary stomped Obama last month will not be forgotten by many Hillary Clinton fans. The treachery of using caucus states that used only 12% of the amount of voters the primary states used to select their mini-me delegates and then claiming this as a "mandate" to demand Hillary get out of the race for the good of the party is such an abominatio
Back off, shut up, and let the states voters decide whom they want. Almost a quarter of all states haven't voted yet yet the Obamamanic
First, Obama leads in pledged delegates by 6% 1414 out of 2666 cast.
And he leads in the popular vote 13,689,293 to 12,861,985 = 3%
So your facts are wrong right off the bat, even though your delegate error put you at more of a disadvanta
Hillary "STOMPED" Obama in March? How do you figure that? Her victories in RI & OH versus his in MS, WY, TX and VT? Granted, Obama only netted 1 more delegate through those contests than she did. But consider that when the CA count was finalized last month, 4 delegates that were previously Clintons became Baracks, making the March net difference 9 delegates. (1+ 4--4) Additional
I hope he gets twice as "STOMPED" in April!
"Almost a quarter of the states haven't voted yet?!?" Weeell, actually 42 states have voted. So actually 16% of the states haven't voted yet, which is only 64% of the quarter, or 25%, that you claim. Less than 2/3 of a quarter is hardly "almost a quarter."
To be continued
Like almost all Obama-bots
If you wanted to sort out the Clinton supporters from the Obama supporters
So, here is my challenge, "Chip": rewrite this silly column and pick the top ten issue-rela
Thanks.
mp
I'll say what I've said before about issues: don't listen to what anyone here or in the media says about any of them. Clinton's Obama's and McCain's positions are there for everyone to see, details or not details, on their campaign websites. You'll be surprised at what the candidates say compared to what the pundits and posters would have you believe.
If this "race" is that close, it's far from over.
Yes, Virginia, there is a much less biased blog you can go to, so don't read the Huffington Post anymore, go to a place called "Hillary44
What changed? Answer, Republican
You guys are really afraid of outspendin
http://www
I think you are just another blogger who thinks he is a political journalist
Well, as someone who has been elected as a delegate and who does have a degree
in Political Science, I say that if you want to be a political journalist and be taken seriously
you have to do your homework.
You haven't as yet:)
Go take a few courses and work on a few campaigns then I will listen to you.
Your biggest problem here is that you don't realize that a party primary needs to be just for
those voters who are registered as MEMBERS OF THAT PARTY. Otherwise, folks who are really Republican
And that is just what has happened.
So Obama really isn't as far ahead as some folks WANT TO BELIEVE.
You're claiming that open primaries are somehow undemocrat
You are claiming that Obama has benefitted from peple crossing over to vote for him and that is bad. Isn't it the job of the head of a party's ticket to do just that? Isn't that the mission of any political party, to win over new voters? Besides, it appears that Clinton is getting her own boost from crossovers
I've worked on races as small as alderman in a town of 20,000 and as large as Governor of the Great State of Illinois. I've held every position on a campaign from sign crew through manager up to and including candidate. I've written the literature
In Illinois we have open primaries, so I'm well aware, silly rabbit, that tricks aren't just for kids. I've played them all, or had them played on me.
You could have gleaned not a lot, but a goodly portion of this if you'd just done YOUR homework - a simple Google reveals much.
So I have just one question for you: CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW, Son?
Thanks for reading, and consider yourself chastened.
Chip
"Hillary..
And that's the bottom line: to merely get CLOSE ENOUGH to Obama to have a legitimate case to plead with the superdeleg
clinton supporters have a firm grasp of reason.
Myth number 12, Obama voters are patient and respect the idea that all states votes counts and they can't bear the thought of all the states votes counting.
Your "myth number 11" is aimed at Hillary's women supporters