More People Have Voted Against Hillary Clinton Than Have Voted Against Any Primary Candidate In History

It's time to move on to the general election battle -- but we can't. It's not wrong for Hillary Clinton to keep running, but it is wrong to keep using reckless, irrational, and irresponsible arguments that delegitimize the future nominee and hurt the party's chances in November.

The "popular vote" argument is the most extreme example of Clinton campaign recklessness. The notion that Clinton has won the most "popular votes" is a meaningless metric from the start. Clinton people say Florida and Michigan Democrats shouldn't be "penalized" for the errors of others, yet their argument punishes voters who stayed home in those states believing their votes wouldn't count. And it "penalizes" Democrats in every single caucus state!

Yet Clinton defenders insist on claiming they're fighting for the "principle" of "counting every vote." Gen. Wesley Clark, who I respect (and would like to see nominated for VP), made this claim last night on Dan Abrams. But this so-called "principle" disenfranchises Democrats in Iowa, Alaska, Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming ... and parts of Texas. Is that really a "value every Democrat should support," as Gen. Clark claimed?

And if we're really interested in that "popular vote" metric, here's a fact that should interest Democrats: More people have voted against Sen. Clinton than have voted against any primary candidate in American history. Take Michigan: Even though it was an "election" worthy of Joseph Stalin or Saddam Hussein, with no major opponent on the ballot (because the others honored an agreement she retroactively broke), 41% of voters chose nobody when given the opportunity to vote only for Sen. Clinton.

Here's what would have happened in Michigan if Hillary Clinton had not been the only leading candidate on the ballot : Based on exit polls taken at the time, she would have received 46% of the vote to 35% for Obama and 12% for John Edwards. That means that, with Edwards' endorsement, Obama would now be getting more Michigan delegates -- and more of its "popular votes" -- than Clinton. But because he honored the agreement and she didn't, she now wants a one-sided agreement that rewards her behavior.

Or take the Florida election: Clinton and her supporters want those votes counted because it will add numbers to this "popular vote" argument. But John Edwards got 251,562 votes in that invalidated primary. Shouldn't those votes be added to Obama's total now? That would bring Hillary's meaningless "popular vote" margin there down from 294,772 to 43,000. Throw in the votes from Dodd et al. and Hillary actually lost Florida's "popular vote" (she received 49% of the vote total).

See how meaningless this metric really is? Please, Clinton supporters: Stop using this damaged and destructive logic. I know that "counting every vote" sounds like a high-minded principle, but it's not. When the Clinton campaign dreamed it up, they knew it would mean defending a Stalin-like vote in Michigan and using M.C. Escher logic in Florida, but they guessed that these nuances would be lost on many supporters - and they have been. They knew it meant reversing a pledge that Sen. Clinton acknowledged on video (in defending the fact her name stayed on the ballot), but so what? Apparently "counting every vote" is a more compelling "principle" than "keeping your word."

Now Clinton supporters are planning to demonstrate en masse at the party meeting that will discuss the Florida and Michigan delegations on Saturday. As I discussed elsewhere, that's a "schismogenic" response to the perceived unwillingness of the Obama camp to yield - a perception that's being fueled by the "count every vote" pitch. That demonstration will look and feel like a civil rights march to Clinton supporters -- but to Obama supporters it will seem like thuggish refusal to accept a fair outcome. That will further split the party.

And we haven't even talked about sexism yet. Even a reasonable, thoughtful pro-Hillary piece like Hilary Rosen's can contain a sentence like this one: "(W)hen Hillary's supporters suggest that (gender bias is real), Obama supporters guffaw ..." I have never heard an Obama supporter "guffaw" at the notion of anti-Clinton sexism. Most of the Obama supporters I know have condemned it. But Clinton supporters who rightfully criticize the media for its sexism should also remember that the media spent a year anointing Clinton as the inevitable nominee, too. That means that press coverage was a mixed blessing for Hillary - and it also means those votes for other candidates really were a rejection of her as the nominee.

The Clintons are not likely to back down soon, and they have some rabidly partisan supporters who will carry their illogic as far (and as destructively) as imagination can take them. For an example, consider the historian who argues race hasn't been a factor in these primaries, even after 20% of Kentucky voters said it was in exit polls.

Irresponsible people like that aren't likely to change, so it's incumbent upon honorable Clinton supporters like Gen. Clark to do the right thing and step back from the Clintons' brinksmanship. Otherwise, some Clinton supporters will have been so manipulated and enraged by these false arguments that their support will be lost in November, no matter what agreement the two campaigns may reach in the next few weeks.

Many of us would love to stop having these negative intramural fights and start building a positive case for the general election. We'd like to step out of this darkness and into the light by congratulating Sen. Clinton for the 17 million votes she has earned, and by joining with her supporters in building toward a November victory. It's time to make peace and start healing, but that can't happen while good people keep using bad logic to make destructive arguments.

Related/recent posts:

Schismogenesis and the Democratic Doomsday Machine
Monster Mash
Watchin' Scotty Grow
For Their Sake and Ours
McCainb4Obama

Blogs:

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog

Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow

Comments

[BobSymmes]

Can we GET REAL, people?

Ask Al Gore how important the popular vote is!

Whether either side likes it or not, the ONLY measuring device that matters is number of delegates...& (again, like it or not) this is now out of either campaign's control.

[noneIn2008]

Hillary can win as a 3rd party candidate. With Hillary, McCain, Obama, Barr, Nader, + others. Hillary could readily win with just 30% of the voters. 42million votes could take President. 72 million female voters.

[StillAmused]

"More People Have Voted Against Hillary Clinton Than Have Voted Against Any Primary Candidate In History"... but not by much. You overlooked Obama.

So much for clever math. Do you do balloon sculpture?

[sheikwil]

your response is why Hillary has lost this race, you are as delusional as Hillary and Bill. The Clinton and her derranged supporters think the American people will just forget about all those people in the caucus states don't count. Get over it. Hillary thought she had this nomination locked down because the same media that she says is against her, is the one that was kissing her butt for an entire year because they too thought she would be the nominee for the Democratic party. She has lost due to her own bad campaigning and managing her camp. Get over it.

[mredder4]

I continue to try and point out (in my third comment attempt now, I'm eliminating anything that anyone overly sensitive might get offended by) that Edwards endorsing Obama doesn't transfer his popular votes to him, or even his delegates. And 17 million people voted against Obama, by Mr. Eskow's logic, so what does that say about him?

Even that is disingenuous, because people in primaries vote for their candidate, not against others. There used to be a very crowded Democratic field, but all of those votes for Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, etc, they're all votes against Clinton? Is Mr Eskow saying that this whole contest has been everyone against Hillary Clinton the whole time? Hmm, those misogyny theories being floated around don't sound so crackpot with articles like this stressing that it's by Clinton versus all these guys from the start and that all the votes for the guys (Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd...) have really just been anti-Clinton votes.

[mom2sons]

Put her on bedrest NOW!

[Oldchef]

Tried to reply to "TrueBlueinOH" about saying democrats need the 48% who are for HRC. First, I question his 48% number, second, does he (or she) really think that 48% of democrats would not vote or vote for the republican? that's ludicrous.

[era996]

wait till november

[BubbaC33]

Obama and his supporters have demeaned and insulted older voters, voters with no college degree, white voters, Hispanic voters, bluecollar voters, Jewish voters, women voters, and blacks who are supporting Ms. Clinton. Don't be surprised in NOv if these groups do abandon Obama. I have never voted for a Republican, but I am not sure I can vote for Obama after he has acted in the manner he has against Ms. Clinton.

[bish66]

That's what exit polls in both West Virginia and Kentucky said. To quote the LA Times:

"Those figures found that only a third of Clinton supporters would vote for Obama in November, while about 40% would cast their ballot for Republican John McCain and the rest -- roughly a quarter -- would stay home." (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/exit-polls-spel.html).

Obama is and remains the candidate of the liberal and black voters and he will lose the GE in the Rust Belt and in rural areas, in states such as Ohio, Indiana, Missouri and the whole South.

[northeast73]

What about the fact that, technically speaking....now pay attention.

OBAMA WILLNOT HAVE WON ON DELEGATES.

He CANNOT hit the magic number onpledged delegates. The race ends with NEITHER crossign the finish line....but he will be ahead in delegates. Big whoop.

What if more people voted for HRC without including Michigan? then what? what twisted logic will you use to keep shoving oblahma down our throats?

I actually heard one obambot say that the one with "bigger crowds at rallies" was a good metric!

[Speakchic]

Blah blah blah HRC surrogates say THIS is not a race for just one type of delegate. So you can't have it both ways. Total amount of delegates (just to refresh your political knowledge are: pledged, super, & at large) so ANY combination of those DELEGATES wins the nomination...

[AshevilleVoice]

The system is designed to include superdelegates, Obama is only 47 away. He CAN cross the finish line, and will shortly.

Hillary's "I won the popular vote" is based on NOT counting caucus states, in which popular vote is not tallied, and in which Obama beat her soundly.

The disinformation coming out of the Clinton campaign is appalling. I know y'all want to believe your candidate but c'mon, try a bit of fact on for size occasionally.

[northeast73]

And it "penalizes" Democrats in every single caucus state!
==============

WOW...only one paragraph in and there is already a FALSE claim.

ONLY FOUR CAUCUS STATES DONT HAVE POPULAR VOTE TOTALS...ONLY FOUR. FOUR. ONLY FOUR.

Real Clear Politics and others have estimated the totals from these FOUR, count em FOUR, states and even with those estimates.­....Hillar­y is still ahead.

Hillary (or McCain) 08!

[AshevilleVoice]

What the heck are you saying here? It doesn't make any sense to me.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/popular%20vote

"the Clinton campaign has now embraced a position that is not only hard to defend, but is so ridiculous on its face that it has made the entire popular vote meta-narrative unwinnable."

Here is how Hillary is ahead:

1)COUNT ALL of Michigan for herself

2)exclude Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington.

Just look at the facts, Hillary supporters! This 'popular vote' meme is spin, spin, spin

[bish66]

If people are so concerned about the fact that the results of the caucus states do not show the exact number of participants, they should use primaries with ballots or voting machines like all the other states. Turnout is much higher, everyone can participate, you can vote early and absentee and you do not have to stand around in a hall for hours, listening to abuse and threats.

BTW: Why is it not possible to have the exact number of people who participated in caucuses? Surely, they have some kind of registration list, haven't they? I mean, just to make sure that people only participate once...

[jericho4119]

Those are the estimates that Real Clear Politics makes: is that the same calculation that the Clinton campaign uses?

And what about MI? The Clinton campaign does not allocate a single vote from MI to Obama. Does he really not have a single supporter across the entire state?

My in-laws might disagree with that notion.

Is McCain really your fall-back for Clinton? You know that he wants to stay in this ceaseless war in Iraq; Clinton professes to want to end it. McCain says that national healthcare is a boondoggle, while Clinton says that she insists on full coverage for all. McCain says that bailouts for bankers are good, while bailouts for families are bad.

Are you sure you thought that "Hillary (or McCain) 08!" line?

[ThatSharkeyGeezer]

We all know that Clinton is drunk on her own self-importance, but is she also drowning her sorrows and gulping down Dutch courage?

The NYT seems to invite us to read between the lines:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/us/politics/30clinton.html

[likeicare]

No way the Clintons will give in -- they're in it for the attention.

Hillary really believes she's Lady Macbeth and that she and Bill can regain the throne. They're playing out the final scenes, and loving every minute of it.

[AshevilleVoice]

Finally!

A reasoned approach to the "popular vote" meme.

Hillary's math also depends on leaving out caucus states entirely, since there is no 'popular vote' to be tallied against her.

[paganmist]

Exactly.

People keep saying caucuses are "undemocratic". Complain about that crap BEFORE the competition. Everyone knew there would be caucuses. HILLARY knew there would be caucuses. And since caucuses are imprecise, the rules have never been "popular vote count". It's been, and always been, about delegate count.

This is seriously crap. Trying to steal an election from a guy who played by the rules he was given and is winning. At this point, I really think I've begun to hate Hillary Clinton. Like, serious, true hate.

[4real]

I agree with you Obama played by the rules an won. If he took a different route to win the delegates he needed to win so be it. He still won. She should acknowledge that and let it go.

She keeps saying she will support the nominee whole heartedly. But how is protesting and making false statement going to help anyone? You think when Obama finally gets the nod her supporters are going to say okay I am not upset anymore lets support Obama.

What exactly is there to protest anyway? Nobody was wronged and I can almost guarantee that if Hillary was in the lead she would not be out there worrying about the voters in MI and FL.

[yhgtup]

WOW!!! I'm glad someone had guts enough to say this!!!!!

[CommittedDem]

A historic level of people have voted against Obama.

[paganmist]

Meanwhile, the guy writing this article has data, links, facts, figures.

You've got a personal opinion stated as fact.

Eskow: 1, You: -1 Kazillion.

[BubbaC33]

This guy has not adressed the number of votes against Obama.

[Fudgefase]

I love the irony that had Michigan and Florida just held their original dates, without moving them at all, that they'd have been arguably MORE crucial than now, when they're just embroilled in a mess!