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.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

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.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot