# 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:** 4
**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 26, 2008, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/61 "2008-05-26T02:36:02Z")
I think ultrafilter’s figures are inclusive of the weird self-destruct. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2008, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/62 "2008-05-26T07:04:33Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] 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. [/QUOTE] His site also gives Al Gore a [2.2% chance](http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/trading/t_index.jsp?selConID=177448) of winning. Edwards has .2% chance. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2008, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/63 "2008-05-27T15:51:52Z")
[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] It was not an attempt to be derisive by me. I don’t see how the word “Democrat” is derisive when that is what individual members call themselves. I was incorrect in my usage though and will use “Democratic Party” from now on. The party of Democrats is the Democratic Party. It is “Democrat” when used as a noun and “Democratic” when used as an adjective; I’ve got it now. Seems like a very silly and pointless thing to get worked up about, but I apologize for using it incorrectly. For what it is worth, I am a member of neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party. I have voted in three Presidential Elections and never cast a vote for either the Republican or Democrat in any of the elections. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/64 "2008-05-28T02:33:04Z")
[QUOTE=LonghornDave] It was not an attempt to be derisive by me. I don’t see how the word “Democrat” is derisive when that is what individual members call themselves. I was incorrect in my usage though and will use “Democratic Party” from now on. The party of Democrats is the Democratic Party. It is “Democrat” when used as a noun and “Democratic” when used as an adjective; I’ve got it now. Seems like a very silly and pointless thing to get worked up about, but I apologize for using it incorrectly. For what it is worth, I am a member of neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party. I have voted in three Presidential Elections and never cast a vote for either the Republican or Democrat in any of the elections. [/QUOTE] This crap was started by Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s in a feeble attempt to claim that the Democratic Party isn’t really democratic. It died out and then was brought back to life by the current dickheads in the White House. The party has called itself the Democratic Party since it was founded in the 1830s. Calling it the Democrat Party is not remotely an acceptable substitute. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/65 "2008-05-28T16:01:14Z")
[QUOTE=Frostillicus] This crap was started by Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s in a feeble attempt to claim that the Democratic Party isn’t really democratic. It died out and then was brought back to life by the current dickheads in the White House. The party has called itself the Democratic Party since it was founded in the 1830s. Calling it the Democrat Party is not remotely an acceptable substitute. [/QUOTE] It’s also: a) sometimes an innocent mistake; and b) something that easy to offend people get offended about. Like I said, I’ll not use the word “Democrat” as an adjective again. It’s usage is certainly one of the most despicable acts employed by Republicans today. Perhaps if this important issue had received the attention it deserves I never would have used it in the first place. By the way, don’t sell yourself short, apparently it’s usage by the Republicans started widespread in the '30s by Herbert Hoover and not in the '50s. Feel free to tack on a couple more decades of victimhood. Not remotely acceptable indeed. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/66 "2008-05-28T16:04:24Z")
[QUOTE=Lakai] His site also gives Al Gore a [2.2% chance](http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/trading/t_index.jsp?selConID=177448) of winning. Edwards has .2% chance. [/QUOTE] Not all markets are completely efficient. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/67 "2008-05-28T16:12:10Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] 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. [/QUOTE] The presidential campaigning’s already begun. McCain was in Denver yesterday and Obama is here right now. The candidates are campaigning in swing states while Clinton is trying to shake every hand in Montana and South Dakota. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/68 "2008-05-29T21:26:48Z")
[Here](http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/29/21457/9858)’s a blistering analysis of how, if you take the Clintons at their literal word and count “every vote”–meaning _every_ vote cast, even in electoral contests that currently don’t “count”–, then Obama is still way ahead of Hillary in the popular vote. Essentially, only the things she wants to count, actually “count” in her eyes. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/69 "2008-05-30T01:48:38Z")
[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy] [Here](http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/29/21457/9858)’s a blistering analysis of how, if you take the Clintons at their literal word and count “every vote”–meaning _every_ vote cast, even in electoral contests that currently don’t “count”–, then Obama is still way ahead of Hillary in the popular vote. Essentially, only the things she wants to count, actually “count” in her eyes. [/QUOTE] Nice, but if you count _everything_, then Clinton _could_ be ahead. By a tiny amount. From [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic\_vote\_count.html](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html) 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% And once PR gets done on Sunday, then HRC will be ahead by most counts. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/70 "2008-05-30T02:01:36Z")
This popular vote crap is unbelievably stupid. It’s not a national election, and you cannot deduce _anything_ of value by arbitrarily adding together the selected totals of states which voted on different days and are a mix of primaries and caucuses. Not to mention the stupidity of including the “popular” votes from states which did not even have all the candidates on the ballot, since those states were stripped of their delegates for violating the rules agreed to by _all_ of the leading Democratic contenders. The nomination does not go to whomever won the “popular vote”: it’s apportioned according to delegates. Period. Whomever wins sufficient delegates, wins the nomination. Period. That person is going to be Barack Obama. Thankfully. The fact that H. R. Clinton was unable to correctly put into place a national strategy–following the rules _she agreed to herself_–that would allow her to win a majority of delegates is more than sufficient evidence that she does not deserve the nomination. Unethical machinations after the fact by her campaign will not avail her. I begin to find that no only have I lost all respect for H. R. Clinton herself, I can also no longer respect anyone who supports her candidacy, as long as they shrilly keep insisting on dubious “popular vote” totals. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/71 "2008-05-30T02:21:49Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] And once PR gets done on Sunday, then HRC will be ahead by most counts. [/QUOTE] And we all know how much impact PR will have on the general election . . . ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/72 "2008-05-30T04:25:55Z")
[QUOTE=Knorf] This popular vote crap is unbelievably stupid. … I begin to find that no only have I lost all respect for H. R. Clinton herself, I can also no longer respect anyone who supports her candidacy, as long as they shrilly keep insisting on dubious “popular vote” totals. [/QUOTE] The Obama campaign were the ones that started talking about “Popular vote” as a way to get the voters to ignore SuperDelegates or get the Superdelegates to vote for _him._ It _is_ important if it sways SuperDelegates. Otherwise it’s a moral victory- like being ahead in “Pledged Delegates”- another Obama campaign meme. You are correct, it’s only total delegates that count in the end- but so far Obama does not have 2,026. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/73 "2008-05-30T05:38:46Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] The Obama campaign were the ones that started talking about “Popular vote” as a way to get the voters to ignore SuperDelegates or get the Superdelegates to vote for _him._ It _is_ important if it sways SuperDelegates. Otherwise it’s a moral victory- like being ahead in “Pledged Delegates”- another Obama campaign meme. You are correct, it’s only total delegates that count in the end- but so far Obama does not have 2,026. [/QUOTE] The Obama campaign was talking about popular vote when Clinton had a lead in total delegates due to her name getting her a couple hundred delegate lead in the very beginning of the race before anybody even voted. Of course there was going to be confusion about the superdelegates, and it didn’t make sense _at that point_ for the total delegate count to be so lopsided, when Obama was winning by every other measurable unit, just like he is now. Things have changed (and not realizing that things have changed is part of the reason the HRC campaign has failed so miserably), however, and now with the superdelegate count essentially tied. Now, near the end of the race, this “campaign meme” (wtf, seriously?) has become the overriding factor in total delegates (as it should have always been in the first place). I honestly can’t believe you’re referring to pledged delegates (in quotes, no less) as a campaign meme… _it’s what the constests are about_. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/74 "2008-05-30T05:45:52Z")
FWIW, I just ran the numbers really quick to determine the percentage of pledged delegates compared to the percentage of superdelegates, as of DCW’s current tally. They were both 53 percent in Obama’s favor. Having identical ratios really takes the heat of any argument about the superdelegates influencing the election away from how delegates were awarded, which is, IMHO, a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/75 "2008-05-30T10:11:04Z")
Maybe we should count only working, hard working, you know, white Americans. ---
**Author:** ![Jurph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jurph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jurph)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/76 "2008-05-30T12:57:29Z")
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger] I honestly can’t believe you’re referring to pledged delegates (in quotes, no less) as a campaign meme… _it’s what the constests are about_. [/QUOTE] …but while each individual contest awards pledged delegates, the only number that counts is the delegate total. Barack Obama needs [forty-one more delegates of any flavor](http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ultimate-delegate-tracker.html) in order to clinch the nomination. You could, if you were willing to sacrifice your dignity and integrity, point out that only pledged delegates go on the scoreboard before the convention and that superdelegates are free to change their mind right up until the first vote on the convention floor. The only superdelegate who appears to be vacillating is Kevin Rodriguez, of the Virgin Islands, who backed Clinton, then Obama, and now is back to backing Clinton. Clinton has had a few other defections; I can’t find any examples of the reverse happening. If she continues to argue that superdelegates are free to switch sides after Obama has the race bagged up, I suspect that her superdelegates will take her up on it and jump ship to the winning team. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/77 "2008-05-30T13:26:18Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Maybe we should count only working, hard working, you know, white Americans. [/QUOTE] Plenty of precedent, my man. The Clintons takin’ it old school–_real_ old school. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/78 "2008-05-30T15:42:51Z")
[QUOTE=Jurph] You could, if you were willing to sacrifice your dignity and integrity, point out that only pledged delegates go on the scoreboard before the convention and that superdelegates are free to change their mind right up until the first vote on the convention floor. [/QUOTE] Pledged delegates are free to vote according to their conscience. See [Rule number 12J](http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf). (PDF) ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/79 "2008-05-30T17:30:17Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Nice, but if you count _everything_, then Clinton _could_ be ahead. By a tiny amount. [/QUOTE] Congratulations on not even reading my cite and just vomiting out the same tedious summations you consistently do. Note that my cite lists _every_ vote–including the NE/ID/WA/TX caucus totals that are typically omitted from the official counts–whereas none of yours do. And PR will not come close to helping her pass Obama’s popular vote “count” if every vote is “counted” as her campaign consistently endorses. Which is all just to highlight the fact that her argument is specious from the outset, and when she wants all the votes counted, she just means the ones that most benefit her (like your cherry-picked assortment). ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338/80 "2008-05-30T17:45:49Z")
In addition to what **Archive Guy** said - because she get’s main stream media attention, she can put out there on the TV and Radio anything she wishes to say. It doesn’t mean it’s true. The numbers for her “count” are flawed. She knows it, and people who pay attention know it. The people who do not get it are those who take what she says at face value, Clinton-Fundies if you will. I’m sorry, but she fought a good fight. But in the end - Obama needs to produce an illigitimate North Korean born son or daughter to prevent him from cinching this nomination in 4 days. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-hillary-possible-win-without-cheating/450338.md?page=5)