Top 10 Myths Keeping Hillary in the Race

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.

Comments

[bdd]

I WILL NOT RELENT!!!!!
Hillary,
For the love of the Democratic Party, our Nation and the World, BOW OUT NOW.

[eggman]

Obama got this right. Clinton can stay in the race as long as she wants. That's no myth.

[RandyRP]

Very nice article, Mr Smarty Math.

Thank you

[ItsAlessandro]

How sad to try and trick everyone by making it all sound so simple.

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 superdelegates. So it's OK to have a higher percentage of delegates than popular vote, as long as it favors Obama. Sounds like the same accusation you make towards Hillary Clinton.

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 abomination I won't forgive and forget anytime soon.

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 Obamamanics insist that Hillary staying in the race is harming the party. Sorry, it's the other way around. Quit pre-predicting and influencing the outcome of future races, in a phrase, shut up and let the voters decide. sheesh.

[jungpatawan]

Well, let me make it a little more complex so that even you'll understand.

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 disadvantage. That mistake on the ONLY number that counts makes the rest of your arguments suspect.

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) Additionally, 7 Iowa delegates for Edwards became Obama delegates, and one IA delegate for Clinton switched. That brings Obama's March net gain in pledged delegates up to 18 (1+4--4+7+1--1)

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

[naugiedoggie]

A classic example of setting up a straw man in order to knock him down. None of these supposed "arguments," if they really exist anywhere in HuffPost comments (I haven't seen them & I read quite a bit of it), have anything to do with the reality of the competition, which is on ISSUES.

Like almost all Obama-bots, and certainly all bots posting in the comments section, "Chip" is all about avoiding any discussion of issues. Yes, that is because Obama's positions on issues suck in almost every case when compared to Clinton's positions. He comes down to the right of the putative "centrist" candidate on healthcare, Iraq, finance, relations with Cuba. His issue whitepapers are full of air -- as someone once said, "hope is not a plan." A statement like "work to see that all children are vaccinated" is not a plan to get those vaccinations accomplished.

If you wanted to sort out the Clinton supporters from the Obama supporters, one way to do it would be to look at who wants to talk about issues, and who wants to talk about ... speeches. Who speaks in favor of their candidate and who talks trash about the other candidate? Pretty simple. Clinton supporter: issues. Obama supporter: air pollution.

So, here is my challenge, "Chip": rewrite this silly column and pick the top ten issue-related "myths" about Obama's positions and tell us why you think his positions are more progressive than Clinton's positions.

Thanks.

mp

[aflem]

Just a question but didn't you just disprove your argument? Clinton Supporter:Issues Obama Supporter: air polution. Then you go on to slam Obama. That doesn't make any sense.

[eggman]

His positions are to the right of Clinton's and he has no positions. Got it.

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.

[CarlyCorday]

I was going to say THANK YOU, Chip Collins! This is exactly what Clinton's supporters need to hear, in order to "listen to themselves" and realize...but I read the comments, and it looks as if you didn't reach them after all. Not even a DENT! If this doesn't, nothing will. Thanks all the same! Great summing up of where we are.

[ItsAlessandro]

nonsense.

[Cybersquirt]

The more I read trash like this, the worse my headache gets.

If this "race" is that close, it's far from over.

[gomonkeygo]

Best summation I've read. Good job!

[asplunde]

Does anyone know of another liberal blog that is a bit less bias when covering the candiates? I have been on the fence about both candidates, trying to lean towards Obama, but find that I get turned off by the Clinton bashing v. super Obama articles that appear one after another after another. . . .i know that this is a blog and Barrak himself is not writing any of this, but. . . .HELP

[alamantra]

Well, you have a choice to tune this stuff out and just go with what the candidates themselves say. For purposes of deciding who the leader of the free world is going to be, it is probably best to not overly listen to either the MSM or the blogosphere ...and hey, I'm a part of that blogosphere, myself! I look at ...not simply experience or even gaffes or bad associations... but also how the candidates stand up to the overwhelming garbage that is thrown at them ...who exhibits the most grace under pressure. Who can keep their cool the best, because these are hot times, indeed. That said, Chip does an adequate, if sardonic, job at explaining Clintonian Electoral Mythology 101.

[CarlyCorday]

Hardly anything rolls my eyes quite like comments that go, "I am trying to be for Obama, but all this negativity against Hillary is just so...so..." and "I was an Obama supporter, but I'm having trouble with the meanness and hate coming from his supporters, and the lies about Hillatry, so is there a less biased blog I could turn to for the truth, to help me decide, like, for the sake of doing what's really right, for my country? Cuz this blog is rigged, I wish I didn't have to admit it, cuz AM for Obama, but I'm getting so turned off...."

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". That's what I hear, anyway.

[tlk221]

I haven't been able to find one - they're either anti-this or anti-that. Can't seem to find anything unbiased. Unfortunately, I've resorted to FoxNews because if they are going to bash the Democrats, they do it somewhat equally.

[princessofnowt]

if you want actual info- all KINDS of details

www.votesmart.org

how they voted
who gives them money
what industry gives them money
their positions

and lots more

that might help..

[sink]

Why is it considered Clinton bashing to point out the reality of a situation that leaves Clinton clearly behind.

[Jaradan]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for writing this article. I'm so sick of reading these Hillary supporters (and McCain supporters disguised as Hillary supporters) acting as if Hillary can still win. It's one thing to have loyalty to your preferred candidate, but it's another to ignore reality completely because it doesn't mesh with the way you want things to be. It makes Hill's supporters look just as delusional as she is. I don't pretend Obama won Rhode Island, although it would've been nice if he had. Repetition does not make something true.

[labqi]

There is a big fallacy in Hillary's primary wins - there have been republican voters tactically infiltrating into the count. The reason Obama has consistently won at the caucuses is that these moles darent appear at them! Whatever she is smoking and inhaling clearly makes her unable to see the truth. Or perhaps the devil is a lot more hidden than we thought.

[Vinkaye]

Please check the facts, it is Senator Obama who has been winning the crossover GOP votes.

[markusmarkus]

I think he was referring to rethugs who magically switched their party affiliation within days of the primary, iaw Rush Limpbaugh "operation chaos."

[Dalpine]

Rush Republicans were instructed to vote for Hillary in Texas and Ohio by Limbaugh himself. He is hoping to weaken the Dems by keeping Hillary in, or best case senario for Republicans would be a Clinton nomination.

[jcharliemiller]

Ah, eloquent to my eyes to read. The truth is so satisfying. People should just go to the delegate tracker on cnn.com, and try and make Hillary win. Facts, numbers, and reality aren"t for some people.

[ItsAlessandro]

lol, it's Ok that Obama has a 7% lead in delegates but only a 2% lead in the popular vote, that is OK, but how dare HIllary try and get more superdelegate votes. I just don't understand where all these HIllary haters have come from. The Clintons have a plus 60% satisfaction rating from their time in office in the 90's, that pretty much means every democrat liked them, and every Republican hated them, and the swing vote loved them as well.

What changed? Answer, Republicans in the midst who have fanned the cynicism of the younger people who actually benefited from the Clintons being in office even before they were old enough to vote.

[thetruthbringer]

The Clintons? Since when did this become a 2-for-1 deal? Sorry but Bill Clinton's resume doesn't count here. I loved Bill Clinton, but he's not running. I used to wonder what it was that you Hillary supporters liked about her. It can't be inspiration or charisma - Obama has her beat on that. Can't be experience, or you would've supported Joe Biden or Chris Dodd...Her claims to experience are bogus to anyone that has half a brain. Now I see it's just the wishful thinking that having Bill back in the white house will fix everything...You people are too funny.

[dawlishgal]

thanks to the writer of this piece for clarifying the "statistical error" concept. It is exactly correct (and I am grateful for the reminder) that once voting has taken place, the voters become a population (rather than a sample) and there is no more need for an estimate of possible range of statistical errors for predicting the outcome because the outcome is known.

[ItsAlessandro]

Do you even know what you wrote?

You guys are really afraid of outspending and losing to Hillary Clinton in key states. Deal with it.

[SonofLiberty1]

Apparently Obama is the PRO CHOICE candidate here"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

[SonofLiberty1]

Chip,

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 Republicans and Independents can heavily sway the decision in THEIR FAVOR.

And that is just what has happened.

So Obama really isn't as far ahead as some folks WANT TO BELIEVE.

[ClevelandTom]

Hold on a second...

You're claiming that open primaries are somehow undemocratic? That people shouldn't be able to switch parties? How does that work? You declare your affiliation at age 18 and are stuck with it ever after?

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. Not because they want to vote for her but they hope to keep the fight going on by voting for Clinton.

[jungpatawan]

Sonny boy, I've been working campaigns for 20 years, for BOTH parties, including two county board and one congressional primary so far this year. I've also held elective office (my bio-picture is my picture from that stint as an elected OFFICIAL - not a mere delegate) as well as been an elected precinct committeeman and held appointments to municipal task forces.

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, worked the phone banks and even been the voice of a robo-call, with my mellifluous tenor.

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

[kimbari]

I think I love you.

[DHubble]

So now we see the mindset of Clinton's delegates. Your argument reinforces the article... Clinton's people can't do the math, or see the mindset of the enemy. Conservatives are coming to the open primaries casting votes FOR Clinton. You seem to be ignoring the laughable Rush Limbaugh Operation Chaos that is actually giving Hillary a few winky winky votes, not Obama. Conservatives are doing this because they FEAR the prospects of running against Obama. Moderates are voting for Obama, because they actually like him. it just doesn't add up. Fortunately, there won't be enough of you pledged Hillary delegates to add up to a Hillary victory.

[dawlishgal]

The REALLY ridiculous argument of the Clinton dupes is that those who attend caucuses are interfering with democracy because working people CAN'T attend them. Caucuses take place ONCE EVERY FOUR years, and require a commitment of 2-4 hours in which supporters of the various candidates make a case for their candidate and the undecided decide who to support. NOBODY is turned away. There are FAR more old people who are for Hillary than there are people who can't get off from work on that one-evening or Saturday morning every four years, and if the elderly disencranchise themselves by not attending caucuses, whose fault is THAT?

What better way to attain a democracy than to have people in face-to-face debates about the merits of the candidates. Hillary is in sour-grapes mode because it looks as though her supporters aren't as good at convincing others to support her. It takes 5 or 10 minutes to vote in a primary, and Hillary would have you believe that this is the only proper way to select a nominee. Of course, she is also making a case that those who know the least and are the least willing to commit time and energy to supporting a candidate somehow know the best who ought to be the party's nominee. If anybody actually believes that kind of crap, there is a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell.

[CAMBEL]

Wow, you were awefully condescending in your comment, thats fine, it saves me from having to be polite to you. So instead I will treat you as either the liar or the idiot you are. Considering that all of the conservative radio hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, have been telling their listeners to go and vote in open primaries for Hillary, your contention that open primaries have only helped Obama is as ridiculous as Hillary claiming she took sniper fire in Bosnia. So next time, you should probably check your facts before you become quite so smarmy.

[Sioen]

Why on earth would you say "it saves me from having to be polite to you"?

We should all be polite to each other, even if we think the other person is condescending. Otherwise, we all turn into ruthless, mean, ugly excuses for human beings.

Let's not do that, please.

[ItsAlessandro]

Cambel, Do you really think Rush is going to say who he really fears more?

Of course he is lying, and of course Republicans are voting for both democrats and in essence canceling their votes.

[uncleT]

What about in states, such as my home state of Missouri, where we don't register by party? We show up to the primary and the election worker asks us which party's ballot we want.

See even if you throw out Republicans, Obama would still be safely ahead. Or are you forgetting all the Republicans in Ohio and Texas who registered as Democrats in order to vote for Hillary? Personally I'd rather have the votes of Republicans who are fed up with their party, than Republicans who are voting for me because I'm seen as the weaker candidate.

And just so you don't dismiss me like the blogger, I have "taken a few courses," got a BA in Polysci, and have worked on half a dozen campaigns.

[dawlishgal]

Nicely said!

[Jaradan]

Very nice! Funny how arrogant certain people sound when they're not right. :-) I don't believe you have a major in poli-sci, Son of Liberty. If you did, you'd understand that this blogger is correct on all accounts.

[tlk221]

I've been curious how anyone can know of Repubicans that voted for Obama were true converts, while the same that did for Clinton were trying to rig the system? I've seen this unprovable discrepancy time and again.

[yoadrie]

Collis writes: "...(I)f we counted Michigan and Florida...the margin would depend on how you allocate the delegates...(B)ut Obama would still be...about 100,000 ahead in the popular vote...despite not even being on the ballot in Michigan. However, it would enhance Hillary's chances of CATCHING UP in the remaining races.

"Hillary...will sweep through the remaining primaries and Michigan and Florida, WINNING 70% OF EVERYTHING and superdelegates will flock to her banner..."

And that's the bottom line: to merely get CLOSE ENOUGH to Obama to have a legitimate case to plead with the superdelegates, Hillary will have to get AT LEAST 66% of the vote in ALL TEN of the remaining contests. "Blowout victories" in PA and KY alone won't do it---don't believe the hype.

[ClevelandTom]

And don't forget that Clinton's chief opponent in the MI primary got something like 35% of the vote. That opponent was "No Preference". I'd say that, given the circumstances, Clinton's so-called win in MI was very weak.

[uncleT]

It was actually 40%. Hillary beat Undecided by only 15%.

[shotgunjohnny]

myth number 11:

clinton supporters have a firm grasp of reason.

[ItsAlessandro]

yes, that is a myth.

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.

[Boomerang]

And people who support a candidate because of his "charisma" have a firm grasp of reason??? As recently as the 2004 election, college students didn't even bother to vote because they said voting had no effect on their lives (forgetting, or perhaps never having learned, that a president's Supreme Court appointees could very definitely affect their reproductive freedom, civil rights, and freedom of speech). I don't think I want to trust a group like that to choose a president.

Your "myth number 11" is aimed at Hillary's women supporters, as is Collis' post, particularly the last part, which tries to make them sound emotional. I think men are upset that Hillary is still in the race because it deprives them of the satisfaction of saying a woman is too weak to stay the course.