The Bosnian Sniper Math of Clinton's Popular Vote Claim

Obama did the right thing by praising Clinton following the Oregon and Kentucky vote, and working to reweave the fabric of Democratic unity. And I'm delighted that Clinton said, "No matter what happens, I will work as hard as I can to elect a Democratic president this fall." But then she insisted once again, that "we are winning the popular vote." This lie undermined every word she said about coming together.

The superdelegates understand the real math, or they ought to. But given the "bitterness" of so many Clinton supporters toward reality that the woman they thought would be America's first female president will not be, the more they hear a story that suggests Obama's win is illegitimate, the more likely they are to bolt. If Clinton's voters embrace that story that "a man took it away from a woman," denied her a victory she rightly deserved, they're at risk of staying home come November, or holding back from the volunteering and the get out the vote efforts necessary for the Democrats to prevail.

Look at Clinton's math. She leads only if you give her 328,000 votes for the Soviet-style Michigan election, while giving Obama zero for not being on the ballot. And if you then ignore the caucuses of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and my own state of Washington -- where a record quarter million people turned out to participate. Our votes don't count under Clinton's math. She disappears them down the memory hole of history in an argument that invents reality as much as Bush's claims of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction or Clinton's earlier story about running the gauntlet of Bosnian sniper fire.

If the media corrected this, it would be less of a problem, but they haven't, or at least not in the same stories where they repeat her claim. The AP story in my local Seattle newspaper reported Clinton's claim without question, saying only that it included contested Florida and Michigan votes and excluded the Iowa caucuses. The otherwise excellent New York Times story included not even the slightest corrections or caveats, although the Times has done other stories on the subject. Neither mentioned that polls actually have Obama doing marginally better in Michigan than Clinton, nor have they explored the impact of roughly 60,000 Democratic voters who crossed over in Michigan to vote Republican, many of whom were participating in a mirror image of Rush Limbaugh's "operation chaos" campaign. Clinton's argument also ignores that this isn't how the rules are set up, and that if they had been, Obama would have made time, following the Iowa victory that made voters take him seriously, to have made more than three brief visits to California and one to New York State.

Clinton's been praised of late for refraining from any truly outrageous comments, like her claim, following the Indiana and North Carolina primaries two weeks ago, that only she has the support of hard working white voters. That still reminds me of a workplace sign proclaiming "14 days since a fatal accident.". But every time she claims she has a popular majority, she's shattering whatever ceasefire exists and making it that much more likely that her supporters stay home come November. If she really wants a united party, she needs to stop, and the media and the superdelegates need to hold her accountable.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, and Soul of a Citizen. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email [e-mail] with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles

Comments

[j0em0mma]

Hillary Clinton: "Everyone freeze and let me break the rules or the Party gets it!"

She is no longer a viable candidate for any party. She is now the highest-profile spoiler the nation has ever seen. Nice work, for a Neocon in Dems' clothing..­.

[RoboA2008]

You are so right. You can ignore any position she has claimed to have on any issue. She is the neocon candidate for persident.

[j0em0mma]

Yeah, When Limbaugh can't stand McCain and advocates getting Hillary elected... and NewsCorp is Hillary's 20th largest contributo­r... starts to make you wonder what is REALY going on. The war vote, the vote against banning cluster bombs, "Total Obliteration", etc, etc, etc...

[wilburbudd]

That's what she wants. She is revealling to the world,that she is willing to BE an "i don't get it, nobody gets it" politician; partisan, prejudice, 'mutual destruction,' mud-slinging, (typical), party politics. And selfish, for she is putting her ambitions before the party (politically), and before the country, for as Hilary Supporters stay home this November (or worse, actually vote for McCain) we, as a Nation, get stuck with, and threatened by, four more years of the same stupid, agressive foreign policy, and corrupt ion. This isn't a game anymore, not that it ever really was. Most of America isn't voting for who they BELIEVE is good, or best, for the job, these days. They ARE placing bets (on a possible winner), vegas-style.
We get the grace we deserve.

[Chillinout]

She is obviously setting the stage for her voters to not support Obama this fall, hoping that he fails and she can try again in 2012. With this talk, she is ensuring that her supporters are going to think this primary was "stolen" from her. The only problem with that, something I don't think she thought about, is that if Obama loses this November it is going to be perceived, rightly or wrongly, that Clinton was the one that brought about that loss.

I think her reputation during this primary season has been substantially damaged. It is going to take some work on her part to restore that reputation in the coming years.

[PhDiva]

You got this 100% right. These lies about the popular vote are how she will justify the "stealing" concept. Hillary thinks that voters are stupid. She thinks we won't remember how she sabotaged Obama once we get to 2012. This voter will remember.

[rzan]

How will she restore that reputation if her actions allow McCain to win? My feeling is that she should never be allowed to hold public office again. I do hope the good people of New York are paying attention. She certainly has done nothing for them except name some federal buildings. I will say that I will vote for Obama, even if Hillary is his vice president, although it will be very hard to do so.

[photochick]

Believe you me -- we New Yorkers are paying very close attention.

[Elmo]

no matter which candidate is nominated, the other will say it was stolen. i can't believe the democratic party has put itself in a position where it might not only lose a slamdunk election, but tear itself apart into the bargain.

[Awakenedcitizen]

Elmo, I don't agree with you. Obama will not start whining and say the nominatin was stolen. He may say so in private, but not in a whiny, "you took my bike" way. He has a future to consider, Hillary has only now.

[bgregs]

At this point in time, if Hillary DOES get the nomination, it will have been stolen. Having said that, however, even if she does pull it off, I will vote for her, because this country CANNOT stand another 4 or 8 more years of rethuglicant policies!!

[egal]

I presume that most who still support her will be able to look more clearly once the immediacy falls back, the intelligent among them moving to another candidate or another "path to victory" than name-calling, but there will always be those who are so caught up in or engaged by the emotions of such created enmity that some will still believe her even then.

Nevertheless, I don't see her getting the credulity necessary to win, even were she capable of apologizing for, let alone repairing, the damage she has done. Not unless the Republicans are anxious to have her after the fallout of her present campaign.

[lboucher]

If HRC is denied her MI and FL delegates then the Denver convention will be unfair and a contested convention!

If she is robbed of this nomination she will run as third party delegate in the general election!

[bgregs]

Whereas if she's given the delegates in two unfair and obviously invalid elections, then THAT will be unfair and a robbery. Please use the brain that god gave you and realize that you cannot count the votes in MI and FL as valid, no matter how much you want to. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI, and in FL voter turnout was VERY low compared to everywhere else in this race, PLUS Hillary had 100% name recognition whereas it was early enough in the primary season that Obama did NOT have such recognition!

[StephenDedalus82]

What's more "soviet style," Clinton getting to count her popular vote total in a state where she elected to remain on the ballot (among others) but Obama did not, or to deny that state a voice completely just because it doesn't help your preferred candidate. The calls for disenfranchisement from the Obama camp are far more scandalous than Clinton asking for their votes to count for something.

[Fleisch]

You blame Obama for disenfranchising voters when it was Clinton's supporters on the DNC who voted to unseat the FLA and MI delegations. She only wants them now that they'll help her steal the election. Just like she's only against the Iraq War now that it's not popular.

[vote4kucinich]

What will all the Obama supporters in Michigan think if Hillary is awarded all their votes? Is this the kind of person we really want to be our president? I used to like her but she is damaging our country by encouraging racism for the sole purpose of putting herself in the Whitehouse. I don't think she is a racist herself, but she could be doing the country (and herself) a favor by being a statesman rather than a mere politician.

[Dave1955]

Are you even familiar with what happened here?

All candidates, Hillary included, supported the DNC's position to not seat the MI and FL delegates as punishment for holding the primary too early. All candidates, Hillary included, elected to refrain from campaigning in either state. Obama went so far as to request his name be removed from both the MI and FL ballots; his request was not honored in FL.

Now that Hillary has lost, she wants to count the votes for her that she (1) didn't campaign for (2) was unopposed for in the case of MI and (3) agreed in advance not to count. In addition, she wants to not count the votes from the caucus states which report only caucus delegates elected, not the popular vote.

And you're somehow trying to blame Obama for disenfranchising people? Do you realize how ridiculous you and Hillary sound?

[PhDiva]

Wait a minute. Get your facts straight. Obama is following rules that BOTH he and Clinton agreed to last year. Now he is being punished. He is not calling for disenfranchisement. He is calling for the rules to be heeded.

[j0em0mma]

Soviet style? You mean, like using your power to go against even the rules you, yourself, were a proponent of?

[woodchips]

Clinton, Obama and most, if not all, the Democratic candidates signed a pledge that they would not PARTICIPATE in the primaries in FL and MI.

participate

verb
1. share in something
2. become a participant; be involved in; "enter a race"

Obama, Biden, Edwards and Richardson all removed their names from the Michigan primary ballot. Per their signed pledges, they did not participate. Clinton chose to ignore her signed pledge in Michigan and stay on the ballot. Florida rules did not allow the candidates to remove their names.

Claiming any delegates from the FL or MI primaries most definitely constitutes participation, again in violation of the signed pledge.

You may think differently, but if her signed pledge (i.e. her word) means so little, I don't want her as my candidate for president.

This problem was not caused by the DNC, Howard Dean, or Senator Obama. The rules and the sanctions were clear from the beginning. When the states decided to play chicken with the DNC and violate the rules, they showed no respect for their constituents. I feel sorry for those voters, but to reward Senator Clinton for violating her pledge and the states for violating the rules is just wrong.

In reality, barring some really creative math, the delegates in play from MI and FL won't change the outcome of the nomination. If those states want to be heard, then they should stop whining and turn out in record numbers in November.

[CTariannaFan]

It's even worse than you think. Her 20th biggest campaign donor is News Corp, AKA Fox Noise. Seriously. This is just further evidence that the same power-mad corporate stooges control both parties and simply put a different flavor of frosting on each brand (via wedge issues like gay rights and such) to keep us thinking we have a voice. Now that a grassroots movement is on the verge of taking back the Democratic party from the stinking corpse of the DLC, just watch how they'll attack from every angle.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00000019

[StephenDedalus82]

Well, Obama's 15th biggest supporter is Exelon Corp. And his is not a grass roots movement, it's supported from every corner of the DLC and establishment Democrats who've never managed to put together a win for the presidency (unlike the Clintons--who were once true insurgents, not puppets, and were capable of winning).

[j0em0mma]

Yeah, well Hillary's 20th biggest supporter is NewsCorp..­. you know, the parent Company of Faux Newz... Meanwhile, Obama's avg. donation is $91 and 94% of his donors donated less than $200. The point you are insinuating is false, and, in fact, exposes your own candidate to criticism she can't defend.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/20/obama-nearing-3-million-d_n_102776.html

I'll take Obama's people power any day of the week over the maxed out insiders of Clinton's campaign..­.

[vincealy]

Math was never an important part of Hillary land.

[macracan]

Clinton breaks the cease-fire with Obama. When she claims she has the pop vote, when she fights for illegitimate FL and MI results, when she vows to support those states if they should contest decisions against them at the convention, she is hurting the party. Clinton still doesn't understand what drove people away from her, so she continues to drive them away. Dem party must purge her out. She could be a valuable member of the party, but she's not.

[quest44]

Hillary is once again stirring up her supporters and causing friction in the Democratic party .
She just couldn't stand feeling ignored and had to say something outrageous to try and make herself look relivent again. Somebody put a sock in that woman's mouth before she makes the whole Democrat party crash and burn .
What a self -centered person she is showing herself out to be in this campaign.

[okayigive]

As a woman I've become increasingly embarrased by the behavior of Sen. Clinton and the attitude women supporters. I'm all for the feminist cause (political, social and economic equality), but I do not approve of this all or nothing attitude and by any means mentality to win. The behavior that's being exhibited only fuel the fire of sexist stereotyping. Where is the honor, character, ethics, integrity, fairness, trustworthiness, poise, pride, honesty and leaership that would lift all women up. How can we as women hold our heads up with such ludicrous behavior and attitude? The very rules and laws you say you will fight for are the same rules and laws you want to re-invent. You have fought for many causes in the past and I thank you. However, many are fighters, but few are leaders. Sen. Clinton you are the fighter and not the leader.

[BigTuna]

Correct on many counts. A lot of Hillary supporters are seeing sexism where there's simply dislike of a candidate. I think a woman would make an excellent president, just not that one.

[lacewing]

I too am a female who would love to see a woman president, but would vastly prefer an Eleanor Roosevelt to a Margaret Thatcher. Who needs a "woman with balls"? We've got enough testosterone. Just give me some truth -- and maybe a little grace.

[Jaradan]

Right. The most important part of fighting is knowing your opponent, accurately assessing the situation/conflict, and choosing the right METHOD to use to fight and WIN. Hillary's version of "fighting" is playground "windmilling" - you know, that motion that girls on the playground use when they tuck their heads in and start swinging their arms around and kicking out their legs. No direction. No strategy. Not caring whether any of the punches land. Exerting a lot of energy for nothing. Only people who give points for effort will call this a good tactic.

Great article on imaginary sexism:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/21/17135/0898

[IAM4CLINTON]

Polls: Hillary Outperforms Obama Against McCain In Top Three Swing States
By Eric Kleefeld - May 22, 2008, 9:46AM

A new set of polls from Quinnipiac gives some credibility to the Clinton campaign's argument that Hillary is the more electable Democrat. She does better than Obama against McCain in the big three swing states, and he's currently running behind in two out of the three:

Florida
McCain (R) 45%, Obama (D) 41%
Clinton (D) 48%, McCain (R) 41%

Ohio
McCain (R) 44%, Obama (D) 40%
Clinton (D) 48%, McCain (R) 41%

Pennsylvania
Obama (D) 46%, McCain (R) 40%
Clinton (D) 50%, McCain (R) 37%

[NotMcCain]

Notice that they only reported on these three, 2 her strong primary states and one where Obama didn't campaign (and she's doing her best STILL to discredit and undermine him).

Even so, Obama beats McCain in Pennsylvania and is only 4pts back in Ohio and Florida (statistically tied)..

This, while Hillary is still campaigning against him!

Good news for Obama indeed (and good for Hillary that Quinnipiac didn't include other battleground states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado and Oregon where Obama would poll FAR ahead of her--and of McCain).

[SMP]

This is now...whil­e the dems are still having a primary. Lets talk in, lets say, august....­......afte­r the GE actually begins....­..........­......poll­s WILL bw in Obamas favor then......­.....no one wants 4 nore years of Bush policies.

[ColoSpringsLiberal]

So why don't we just let the pollsters annoint the candidates?

[Speakchic]

This reminds me of football stats. Prefect example take the 2007 football season. The New York Giants 13-6 vs The Perfect NE Patriots 18-0. Now if we look at the stats and the numbers then the Patriots win, but something must be said for happens on the field. And what's happening on this field is that just like the Giants, Obama's winning. You play to win, not claim to win, but actually make it happen. If HRC wanted to make a strong case for being the stronger candidate she should have added that strong candidates win no matter what. Now just the states she's expected to win, but the ones that actually make you a winner. And that case can't be disputed.

[loislane88]

Mark Penn already tried to...

[bossjimgettys]

A Poll Troll! How droll.

[bgregs]

Dr Suess, is that you????? ;-)

[Peddler]

Impressive­..........­...Can you post the primary poll results?

[Speakchic]

I love how blind HRC supporters conveniently leave out the all important math of how voters voted and now what the "polls" suggest. Voters come out and vote, polls are show their intention. So it would be safe to say for the sake of this argument that people SAY they'd vote for HRC over McCain but somehow she can't get those votes to be portrayed in the actual results, thus she's losing to Obama.

[ianrey]

It's very clear, though, that if you count the states where Hillary won, and don't count the states where she lost, she's winning.

[nestormcdade]

Funny!

[Speakchic]

LOL! I love that! Because THAT is exactly what her camp is trying to convince SD's and the DNC to see. So sad and pathetic..­.

[JeffWasHere]

By my math, Hillary has 100% of the vote, because she has the Bosnia-math popular vote majority, and she certainly has the unpopular vote locked up, so if you add the popular vote and unpopular vote, that is 100%. Let's make her emperor. Emperor of Crazytown.

[obamanation31]

LOL

[Jaradan]

LOL! She will NOT accept that position. She only wants to be PRESIDENT of Crazytown. Maybe she'll let Obama be VP since he won the majority of pledged delegates.

[Viper]

On Hillary's victory in Kentucky..­. Upon analysis she got the racist vote, that never votes for the DEM Presidential canidate anyway... not in 2000, not in 2004. Knock out that 33% and her victory is not so big there. Their voting in a primary for a DEM eventhough they are A DEM does not say they will vote for that DEM in the fall... They are known as Dixie Crats...


Regards

[MSaldana]

Viper,

Good point! But you should have added: Knock out UT, ID, VA, NC,SC, GA, AL, MS et. al. that NEVER vote for Dems... not in 2000, not in 2004, and his delegate lead is, uhh, NON-EXISTENT!

Please be honest!

-MS

[Krikkit]

Yes, let's be honest. The Republicans will take those states in the fall (except VA may go to Obama this season). Democratic primaries are about democrats electing the nominee. They are NOT about Democrats and Republicans fighting to their respective candidate in November.

Apples and Oranges.

Knocking out your Democratic opponent is NOT the same as knocking out your Republican opponent. Hillary can't do math, and she can't do logic either.

[Jaradan]

Not good to knock out whole states, but we should consider just who is voting for Hillary. In West Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana, exit polls have shown that at least 20% of the voters who voted for her said they don't share her values, she's negative, and they didn't vote Democratic in 2000 or 2004 elections. What does that spell for you? Crossover voters! Those people are not gonna vote for Hillary in Nov. So how is she more electable in Nov.? If she can't win when it's just people from her own party voting, then how the hell is she gonna win in a general election?

[kfdan]

"But every time she claims she has a popular majority, she's shattering whatever ceasefire exists and making it that much more likely that her supporters stay home come November. "

I don't see it that way! Hillary's supporters will come around. They certainly will have to consider 4 more years of Bush policies as a consequence and I assure you many Americans will denounce Hillary if she thinks she can split the party, down Obama and run in 4 years time! Not going to happen!

[bgregs]

One can hope, but it's not just the base that you've got to mobilize. You've also GOT to get the independents. The ones who are going to be looking for strong leadership, and the only place that they're going to see it is from John McBush!

[Krikkit]

Obama still has a good lead among independents, who are more likely to vote for him in the fall than for John McCain.

[SimonOne]

Can I make a suggestion as an advertising professional? A little off topic perhaps... but bgregs's use of the epithet "John McBush" made me realize think that we could come up with something much more effective. For one thing, John McBush doesn't trip off the tongue. For another, John is a very generic name. Adding "Mc" to the front of Bush does little to identify McCain (since the "Cain" part is missing and it is that part that is unique about the name).

I would suggest that we adopt the name "George W McCain" as it would more immediately Identify both men in the amalgamated name.

[mheister]

NARAL has endorsed Obama, because there are two doddering old pro-choice judges on the Supreme Court that doddering old McCain has promised replaced with pro-coatha­ngar-in-th­e-bathtub judges.

Feminists who care one whit about holding their hard-fought gains of the past five decades will vote for Obama.

[Jaradan]

I take people at their word. Many of her supporters say they'd rather a.) stay at home or b.) vote for McCain rather than vote for the candidate that most closely shares Hillary's stances on issues. Yes, that makes perfect sense. Not sour grapes at all. Perfectly rational, reasonable and not emotionally-based logic at all. And it's shattering the stereotypes of whiny, spoiled, tantrum-throwing women all in one fell swoop.

[viewfromiowa]

Thank You Mr. Loeb!!!