# how could Hillary possible win (without cheating) ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2008, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338 "2008-05-23T05:10:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/41 "2008-05-24T13:23:36Z")
Clinton cooked her own goose months ago, by forgoeing smaller “inconsquencial” states like the Potomac Primaries. To be fair, Clinton has been cooked for quite a while. Had Obama not weathered his opposition as well as he did, I think things would be different. However, he did everything in the right way and came out on top for it. There is no way the dems would look at this primary season, see how Obama has ran his campaign, see how the people have responded, and then change the tide and vote against him. It won’t happen, the dems have a lot to lose this year by not getting a dem in the white house. As it looks, Obama will be that dem. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/42 "2008-05-24T16:36:21Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] Just wanted to let you know that whenever I see the phrase “Democrat party” I give zero credibility to any points being made in the post. It’s "Democrat_ic Party"_ and the other phrase is used by Republicans in an attempt to be derisive. [/QUOTE] You mean you don’t even wait for a cite from an unauthorized source? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/43 "2008-05-24T16:56:34Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Obama did not lose Texas. [/QUOTE] That’s debateable. True he got a couple more delegates than HRC, but that was due to the Caucus. In the actual Election HRC won more delegates and had 100000+ more votes- she won by 3.5%. It was pretty close, however. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/44 "2008-05-24T17:12:43Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] True he got a couple more delegates than HRC, but that was due to the Caucus. [/QUOTE] I don’t care if it was due to the alignment of Jupiter and Mars. Clintonites act like delegates are some sort of loophole in the process, and caucuses don’t count. That’s what a nominating convention is — a gathering of delegates. In the Texas delegation, there will be more Obama people than Clinton people. That means he won. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/45 "2008-05-24T17:37:01Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Would it matter if Clinton were the undisputed (or even disputed) popular-vote winner? That’s hard to say. The question is, matter to whom? The superdelegates will determine the nominee and there’s no telling what will sway them. They have no objective criteria from which to make their decisions. But if they were to deny the popular-vote champ the nomination, there is a real question of whether Democratic voters would reconcile themselves to the decision. As it is, much of the talk about Democratic defections in November has been overstated. [/QUOTE] Especially the Demo reaction to Bush/Gore. During the recount fiasco, I heard a lot of people justify a Gore victory in part because of the popular vote in the nation as a whole. After Bush won, there were a lot of Demos grumbling that the Electoral College was outdated and we should move to a popular vote (which would have made Gore president), etc. I would love to see if that comes back to haunt them if Obama leads in delegates but Clinton leads in popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/46 "2008-05-24T17:48:04Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] I don’t care if it was due to the alignment of Jupiter and Mars. Clintonites act like delegates are some sort of loophole in the process, and caucuses don’t count. That’s what a nominating convention is — a gathering of delegates. In the Texas delegation, there will be more Obama people than Clinton people. That means he won. [/QUOTE] Odd that the Obama-ites used to cite things like “ahead in \*pledged \*delegates” “ahead in popular vote” and “won more states”, when all of those in reality mean nothing compared to “having 2026 delegates”. The point is “won texas” is the debateable term. Obama clearly lost the popular vote. If you had claimed “Obama got more delegates in Texas than HRC did” then that would be not disputable. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/47 "2008-05-24T20:13:01Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Odd that the Obama-ites used to cite things like “ahead in \*pledged \*delegates” “ahead in popular vote” and “won more states”, when all of those in reality mean nothing compared to “having 2026 delegates”. The point is “won texas” is the debateable term. Obama clearly lost the popular vote. If you had claimed “Obama got more delegates in Texas than HRC did” then that would be not disputable. [/QUOTE] Do we really need to say things like “is closer to victory than Hillary is” to end this nitpicking? Hillary will not be able to catch Barrack Obama in delegates without a major shift in supers. She is behind in the popular vote and is likely to stay there unless you follow her math of counting Florida and Michigan without giving Obama the uncommitted votes _and_ discounting the causcuses that didn’t report a vote total because those states aren’t as important as Michigan and Florida. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/48 "2008-05-24T20:20:47Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] The point is “won texas” is the debateable term. Obama clearly lost the popular vote. If you had claimed “Obama got more delegates in Texas than HRC did” then that would be not disputable. [/QUOTE] Obama won more delegates from Texas than Clinton. Therefore, Obama won Texas. Not Clinton. Delegates matter, not “the popular vote.” ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2008, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/49 "2008-05-25T00:43:31Z")
If Obama keels over from a heart attack ,Hillary would be running for president as the choice of the Democratic Party. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2008, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/50 "2008-05-25T02:52:48Z")
[QUOTE=Phlosphr] Clinton cooked her own goose months ago, by forgoeing smaller “inconsquencial” states like the Potomac Primaries. To be fair, Clinton has been cooked for quite a while. Had Obama not weathered his opposition as well as he did, I think things would be different. However, he did everything in the right way and came out on top for it. There is no way the dems would look at this primary season, see how Obama has ran his campaign, see how the people have responded, and then change the tide and vote against him. It won’t happen, the dems have a lot to lose this year by not getting a dem in the white house. As it looks, Obama will be that dem. 😃 [/QUOTE] Obama will probably be that dem, and I will definitely vote for him if he does, but even putting aside my own subjective preferences for Clinton over Obama, I can point to [one pretty compelling reason](http://home.earthlink.net/~ah3files/Stuff/Electoraldems.jpg) why the convention might prefer her. For well over a month now, in polls putting her head to head against McCain, and putting him head to head against McCain, she is pulling more than the minimum 270 votes to win; he is not. [spreadsheet graph is mine from [electoralvote.com](http://electoralvote.com) data] On the other hand, just as of today Obama is finally polling ahead of McCain in Ohio and is therefore over the 270 mark for the first time since March, which is very welcome news. I think he’s going to get the nomination, which makes me nervous. I hope he can pull this off, I do not want to see McCain in the White House in January. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2008, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/51 "2008-05-25T05:17:17Z")
[QUOTE=Harborwolf] She is behind in the popular vote and is likely to stay there unless you follow her math of counting Florida and Michigan without giving Obama the uncommitted votes _and_ discounting the causcuses that didn’t report a vote total because those states aren’t as important as Michigan and Florida. [/QUOTE] According to RCP, she is ahead (by a tiny %) in two ways of six in possible ways to count. In two other wasy Obama is ahead by such a tiny % it is a tie. In two other ways he has a small lead. None of these ways of counting is “the one true way” ll have some validity, all have some issues. Popular Vote Total;16,685,941 49.1% 16,227,514, 47.7% Obama +458,427 +1.4% Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA\* 17,020,025 49.1% 16,451,376 47.5% Obama +568,649 +1.6% Popular Vote (w/FL)17,262,155 48.3% 17,098,500 47.8% Obama +163,655 +0.5% Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA\* 17,596,239 48.3% 17,322,362 47.6% Obama +273,877 +0.7% Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)\*\* 17,262,155 47.5% 17,426,809 47.9% Clinton +164,654 +0.45% Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA\* 17,596,239 47.6% 17,650,671 47.7% Clinton +54,432 +0.15% It’s real damn close. After PR, HRC will gain quite a few votes, she could \*possibly \*be ahead in all counts. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2008, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/52 "2008-05-25T05:35:03Z")
What did you do, copy and paste that? What do your asterisks mean? ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2008, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/53 "2008-05-25T05:45:22Z")
[QUOTE=AHunter3] Obama will probably be that dem, and I will definitely vote for him if he does, but even putting aside my own subjective preferences for Clinton over Obama, I can point to [one pretty compelling reason](http://home.earthlink.net/~ah3files/Stuff/Electoraldems.jpg) why the convention might prefer her. For well over a month now, in polls putting her head to head against McCain, and putting him head to head against McCain, she is pulling more than the minimum 270 votes to win; he is not. [spreadsheet graph is mine from [electoralvote.com](http://electoralvote.com) data] On the other hand, just as of today Obama is finally polling ahead of McCain in Ohio and is therefore over the 270 mark for the first time since March, which is very welcome news. I think he’s going to get the nomination, which makes me nervous. I hope he can pull this off, I do not want to see McCain in the White House in January. [/QUOTE] I think this is because Obama isn’t working his mojo against McCain yet. Once he secures the nomination and starts campaigning against McCain I feel his numbers will go up. Hillary is getting the numbers because she is very well known and the country wants to vote democrat. Obama is new and needs time to tell people what he is all about. Once Hillary is out of the picture her supports are going to have to start thinking about Obama and that is when he will win them over. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2008, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/54 "2008-05-25T06:33:35Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] What did you do, copy and paste that? What do your asterisks mean? [/QUOTE] Yes, it’s from RCP. I assumed everyone (in this thread) was familiar with their site? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2008, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/55 "2008-05-25T06:59:05Z")
I’m familiar with lots of sites, but you didn’t attribute any. So, what do the asterisks mean? Is it Hillary-speak, where she wins if you contort the topology of the universe? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2008, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/56 "2008-05-25T14:36:50Z")
Here’s the references. > [@realclearpolitics](#): > > \*(Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals. RealClearPolitics has estimated the popular vote totals for Senator Obama and Clinton in these four states. RCP uses the WA Caucus results from February 9 in this estimate because the Caucuses on February 9 were the “official” contest recognized by the DNC to determine delegates to the Democratic convention. The estimate from these four Caucus states where there are not official popular vote numbers increases Senator Obama’s popular vote margin by 110,224. This number would be about 50,000 less if the Washington primary results from February 19th were used instead of the Washington Caucus results.) > > \*\*(Senator Obama was not on the Michigan Ballot and thus received zero votes. Uncommitted was on the ballot and received 238,168 votes as compared to 328,309 for Senator Clinton.) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2008, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/57 "2008-05-25T18:05:01Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] I’m familiar with lots of sites, but you didn’t attribute any. So, what do the asterisks mean? [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DrDeth] According to **RCP** ,… [/QUOTE] Sorry if I wasn;t more clear. RealClearPolitics. ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2008, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/58 "2008-05-25T18:09:42Z")
**Dr.Deth** - are you ultimately saying that you believe Clinton is still going to pull out the nomination? Really? ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2008, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/59 "2008-05-25T22:19:17Z")
One more data point: As of this post, the [Intrade Prediction Markets](http://www.intrade.com/) are giving Obama a 90% chance of winning the Democratic nomination, and Hillary a 7% chance. I’m inclined to trust the markets because they require people to bet actual money on whether events will happen, while polls allow anyone to say anything with no consequences. Those of you who think that Hillary will be the nominee and our next president should consider trading. There’s a pretty good return to be made if you’re right. ETA: I’m not claiming that polls are wildly inaccurate; that would be silly. But trading in prediction markets gives you a strong incentive to gather information on what other people are likely to think. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2008, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/60 "2008-05-25T23:23:04Z")
[QUOTE=Phlosphr] **Dr.Deth** - are you ultimately saying that you believe Clinton is still going to pull out the nomination? Really? [/QUOTE] No, I doubt it, but it’s still _possible._ Barring some weird Obama self-destruct, I’d give her a 10% chance as it stands now. eta: oddly that’s about what **ultrafilter** ’s figures are showing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338.md?page=4)