Hillary's Fuzzy Math

Fuzzy math--that staple of previous presidential campaigns--is back. And this time, it has mostly to do with the Clinton campaign's methodology for counting delegates and votes.

In recent weeks, the Clintonites have argued that the race is a dead heat if you count only the states that have held primaries, rather than caucuses. Looked at this way, Obama leads not by a nearly insurmountable margin of about 140 delegates but by a razor-thin 16. That's fair, they claim, because caucuses are less democratic than primaries--and come November, there won't be any caucuses. What's more, they say, the electoral-college math favors Clinton. The states she's won account for 219 electoral votes, while the states Obama has won account for just 202. The raw vote total is equally subjective in Clintonian hands. Regardless of whether the Florida and Michigan delegations are ever seated, if you count the preferences of voters who actually went to the polls in those two states, his lead in actual votes is cut by more than half, to a mere 331,000 out of more than 26 million cast--a margin of less than 2 percent and one that might be overcome by the time all is said and done. And that's if you give the "undecided" vote to Obama. Without it, his lead shrinks to a measly 94,000.

The problem with these kinds of situational interpretations is obvious, even to my fairness-obsessed second-grader. They ask not only superdelegates but also rank-and-file Democrats to ignore both the letter and the intent of the rules set up by the Party to select a nominee. That's not to say superdelegates can't vote their consciences, even if it means contradicting the will of voters in their districts, their states, or the nation at large. I think they can and should vote for the nominee they think would make the best president. But that's different than asking Democrats more broadly to make a choice based on election-year smoke and mirrors.

Calls for Hillary Clinton to quit the race now are out of line. There are 10 contests left, and as long as she can raise the money, generate the media coverage, and turn out voters, she has every right to see the process through until all the votes have been counted. But when that time comes, in June, if she is trailing in both pledged delegates and total votes, she should immediately concede the nomination and throw her support behind Obama.

If, on the other hand, she has managed a series of stunning upsets and leads in at least one of those categories, then she has earned the right to keep her campaign alive until Florida and Michigan have been resolved and the superdelegates have had their say. That could mean the fight goes all the way to convention. But it would be because voters remain torn between two formidable candidates--not because they've been forced to accept one campaign's fuzzy math.

This post was originally published at vanityfair.com, where Myers writes regularly.

Comments

[ItsAlessandro]

Hillary has no fuzzy math, but the headline to this editorial "Hillary's Fuzzy Math" is fuzzy wrong as it incorrectly describes the content of the topic.

[lisakaz]

Dee Dee,

I agree with her continuing BUT there have been three problems with it created by herself: 1) her lies about Obama essentially harming him down the road; 2) practically endorsing McCain; and 3) her lies about herself which if you follow closely have become embarrassing. She is not ending her campaign on anything like a high note and in damaging Obama and herself she harms the party. If she can't fight clean, she should stop -- I think that's what she's being told, to no effect. I agree with telling her to make an honest case for herself or to leave. She is "fighting" like a spoiled child having a tantrum that things didn't go her way -- a hallmark we would have associated with Bu$h. I never supported her in this race BUT only through the campaign have I developed such bad feelings about her. I told my mother (a Republican, fyi) I'd rather stick my hand in a blender vs. vote for her. I will write in Obama's name if I have to do so. That's how much she has alienated me.

[AdultFilmLegend]

Anything about Hillary and "fuzzy" in the same sentence gives me the heebie jeebies.

[bauersox]

According to today's New York Times, (Fri) polls show that Obama support seemed to peak in February and is now trending downwards.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/us/politics/04campaign.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1207307543-TP/d6u+NPFsa3GJe3N+vnA

Hopefully, by the time the convention rolls around, voters will have had a chance to see Obama for the overinflated phony he really is, and his campaign management as a bunch of cynical Wall Street packagers, from places like Citicorp.

[lisakaz]

Funny coming from you in support of a far bigger phoney.

[Antisana]

DeeDee, alhough your premise to allow Hillary to continue to the bitter end to espouse her so-called superior talents to be the next President may be good for Democratic Party openness, her fuzzy math may possibly be the death knell for any chance for the Democrats to regain the White House. Do we really have to put up with the Clinton's vicious invectives and sordid past until the Convention? I hope for the benefit of the American electorate that this will not occur.

[patriotscholar]

The convention itself is a caucus. I assume that won't count?

[Disparaged]

Fabulous patriot!! You said it ALL in a nutshell!

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

"Calls for Hillary Clinton to quit the race now are out of line. "

Senator Clinton *should* quit the race.

Why? First, Senator Clinton isn't Mike Huckabee. She can't play nice and she's been out of Arkansas-- and in the White House-- already. A run-for-th­e-sake-of-­running type of campaign isn't "Clinton" spelled out in gold letters, and smearing the frontrunner tarnishes their brand name even more.

Remember, if she had lost Ohio she would have dropped out-- thereby disenfranchising the voters of Pennsylvania, and not giving a hoot about Florida and Michigan. So it's not about the "voices of the voters being heard." Otherwise John Edwards-- and Joe Biden-- shouldn't have dropped out before Puerto Rico either. If she wins Pennsylvania by less than 25 points, Obama will have actually won because he only needs slightly more than 1/3 of the pledged delegates the rest of the way.

The Clintons are making a joke out of themselves. They can't tell the truth. Senator Clinton said this week that Obama wants her to drop out-- while he is saying she has every right to stay in. At least her dishonesty about Bosnia was about something that happened a decade ago-- as opposed to this week.

Please, Clintons, I'm doing my best to keep on liking you. Absence makes the heart grow fonder:

Go.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Mr. Obama's voodoo like powers are aparrently more formidible than I realized.........
Now we have Oregonians calling for Sen. Clinton to drop out before our primary...­.amazing..­.........t­m

[Xander]

It's not fuzzy math, it's ignorant math. She uses the "state general election delegate" argument because she picked up states like New York and California which have a huge number of delegates--those states will go blue either way.

She mentions the votes in Florida and Michigan--­overlookin­g that she still got a 40% vote of NO CONFIDENCE in spite of being the only real name on the ballot. How sad is it that people are so disenfranchised with Hillary that 40% of the voters will go out to vote just to say they won't vote for HIllary? If Obama had been on that ticket, she'd have lost Michigan. Seriously, who thinks Obama would lose a mostly black state by 20 points? She goes and mentions Florida--c­onvenientl­y overlooking that there was a huge civic tax proposal on the ballot and Obama supporters were told their votes weren't going to count. Who made up the majority of Florida voters that day as a result of that tax proposal? Older white people--a Clinton staple. WOuld Obama have carried Florida over Clinton? No, but the race would have been very close had young activist Obama supporters felt their votes would have mattered.

You can twist and contort any number to make it look more appealing to anyone for any argument. That's why papers involving numbers have to be peer reviewed. Clinton's fails--on all fronts.

[ShaggyMel]

I agree with your first paragraph. Clinton supporters argue "Obama cannot win in the biggest states", when the truth is he didn't win against Clinton in those states. He would still beat McCain in them. In addition, he could win other states, including a few southern states, which Clinton has no chance of winning (except Arkansas, of course).

[MPeter]

And it is not just because she is bad with numbers or her memory is bad. It is a way of life for the Clintons. Take a listen:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/28/134518/720/978/486159

[nazgul]

I was a huge fan of Howard Dean. I never understood what the big deal was with "the scream". I was glad to see him take over the party chairmanship.

Dear Howard,

You has completely abdicated any all leadership in this, the most important party activity: the Presidential primary.

Why bother establishing a rule and declaring a penalty if you have no intention of enforcing it?

Is it truly possible you did not foresee and consider that the states would actually challenge you?

How dare you punt the resolution to the candidates, as if they are likely to agree to solution.

How dare you punt the resolution of your ruling to the credential committee after correctly acknowledging that a delay until the August convention would be disastrous for the party.

If you want to seat delegates without looking like a fool and encouraging other states to ignore your rules in the future: seat half of them 50/50. You have to penalize them and you can't count the votes of primaries that were disqualified in advance. Even Hillary acknowledged those votes would not count. Absent a valid campaign and vote, on what rational basis could an apportionment of anything other than 50/50 be applied?

I had no idea that you would disappoint us in such a manner on such a monumental occasion. If you truly have nothing of value to offer at this of all times, please step down and let a leader take over.

[Disparaged]

My husband had also drafted and sent an email to Dean reference this matter, and like you, stated the obvious "leadership" qualities that he is lacking in this vital matter. My husband is still awaiting a reply. Please keep us posted if you are fortunate to receive a reply from Dean. All our respect for him went out the window when he could not stand by the DNC Rules after telling FL and MI "prior" to the change of primary dates they elected to put forth and is now trying to accommodate seating them despite their failure to obey the DNC Charter. What kind of leadership abilities does he have? None in our eyes.

[CubanPete]

Hey anyone know how the "math" is coming along for Obama in....Kentucky?!!! Heh, heh......

[stepintothelight]

Shillary alert ... Check the profile!!!

[richcpl]

You write: "If, on the other hand, she has managed a series of stunning upsets and leads in at least one of those categories [pledged delegates or total votes] then she has earned the right to keep her campaign alive until Florida and Michigan have been resolved and the superdelegates have had their say."

But that contradicts your earlier point about the letter and spirit of the party rules, in which "total votes" is not a criterion. That's part of the clintons' "fuzzy math."

[davg]

Fuzzy math indeed. I'm curious... if she says the caucus states shouldn't count, then why isn't she pushing Howard Dean to have redos in those states as well? Hmmmm....

She has every right to stay in the race. Mike Huckabee had every right to stay in to the end too. But there's s huge difference in the campaign Mike Huckabee waged in terms of how he addressed John McCain and the way Hillary and Bill are dealing with Obama.

Early on, and perhaps especially now, many see Hillary as being willing to do anything to get into the WHite House. I'd add that she'd do anything to get in ASAP. As a practical matter, the ASAP part doesn't point to winning anything this year but in 2012. And by far her best shot at that is to get McCain elected this fall.

If this is indeed her tactic, she's walking a very fine line. If she ever gets labeled for having done something like this, her political career (in the democratic party at least) is finished. But she hasn't got a lot to lose. A 2016 bid would make her a 69-73-77 year old president. 61-65-69 is old enough.

Would you put this past her? I don't know. How did Shakespeare put it... "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". I think there's an aweful lot of anger boiling under the hood and I wouldn;t put it past ehr.

[Ken08lobby]

The launch of www.LobbyDelegates.com for the first time empowers grassroots Democrats with the only 1-stop portal for influencing Super Delegates, the nearly 800 top party officials allowed to vote for any Presidential candidate they choose at the Nominating Convention.



With such high stakes, many Democrats want greater Super Delegate accountability--by endorsing either the candidate who won their state primary, or the one winning the most delegates from all primaries nationwide. LobbyDelegates.com enables rank-and-file Democrats to communicate such grassroots views directly to these Super Delegates--who include party leaders, governors, mayors, state and Congressional lawmakers.

Users of LobbyDelegates.com can communicate with some or all of their state’s Super Delegates, who are categorized by whether they’re currently supporting Clinton or Obama, or have stayed Uncommitted. Users can thus tailor messages urging Super Delegates to switch candidates, or switch from being uncommitted to one candidate or the other. Users can even lobby Super Delegates to stay uncommitted until the Convention.

The LobbyDelegates.com website is strictly impartial and is not affiliated with any political party, candidate, campaign or advocacy group. LobbyDelegates.com was created as a public service under the auspices of the StateDemocracy Foundation. This tax-exempt nonprofit was established in 1999 to run www.StateDemocracy.org -- a civic engagement portal dedicated to delivering democracy to your desktop!

Ken

http://www.lobbydelegates.com

[Purple Girl]

Clinton can NOT count the MI Primary Vote- It was Rigged from start to finish For HER.
First Date Change, then She Kucinich & Gravel are the Only dems naemd on th eBallot still running (Dod had dropped out), Media continues mantra "Clinton the Only Dem on the Ballot" More often then Not - failing to add "leading Dem"(so who d you think weathered the elements to support their candidate- Hillary's, some Kucinich & Gravel who knew Better and some who wanted to show their Descent (Uncommitted = Obama & Edwards). Add to that the mysterious need to Scramble the Names on The Dem ballot (mine had Kucinich list first, the rest in Alphabetical Order- Repubs were Alphebetical), then add the Pre Programmed SCAMtrons....Also note who our Gov, Lt Gov , Sen Levin support. Then decide if MI Prim was Not a Fraud

[Schnitzel]

You make the point that "There are 10 contests left, and as long as she can raise the money, " I agree with you here but therein lies the problem.

Hillary might win PA but, if the latest polls are to be believed, not by much, if at all. In her situation if it's not a total blowout she may as well lose. She might also manage to win in Indiana; in her "big state" math that shouldn't matter; Indiana hasn't voted for a Democrat in a general election in decades. The other 8 states aren't looking too promising at all for her.
Most importantly; the Clinton campaign ISN'T raising the money they need to operate an effective campaign and that's perhaps the fuzziest math of all. Currently they have no cash reserves and they owe thousands of dollars to small businesses whose services used in various states around the country. What's going to happen to these small businesses when the Clinton campaign inevitably folds up their tents? Are the Clintons going to make sure these people get paid? They've made absolutely no effort to do that so far and I don't see any reason to believe they're goiing to suddenly turn into Daddy Warbucks after they lose. The campaign will simply declare bankruptcy and leave these people holding the bag for thousands of dollars. That might seem small potatoes to a carreer politician but getting stiffed for $25 grand is enough to wipe out a small staging company.

[HypocrisyAlarm]

I find the "big states" argument the worst. That Mrs. Clinton wins California over Obama does NOT mean that Obama WILL NOT win it when pitted against McCain. Further, a win by Mrs. Clinton in Pennsylvania, for example, does NOT necessarily mean she will win it against McCain. Her argument about the "big states" is a sort of apples-to-oranges comparison and completely bogus.