Over the weekend, Senator Evan Bayh (D - Indiana), a staunch Clinton ally and supporter made the most desperate and nonsensical effort yet to convince the world that Hillary Clinton is winning this campaign. 

Bayh implied that Hillary Clinton is leading in electoral votes (EVs). 

Wow.

Senator Clinton, this seems like the time to step down. 

When you have reached the point where you are claiming that you are currently winning an election that is taking place in the future, you have lost both your mind and the election at hand.

I'm sure there are many people within the Bush Administration, the masters of stretching the truth, who are watching with a great deal of newfound respect for your campaign.  "Why didn't we think of that?  We could have ended that whole John Kerry scare back in 2004 before it ever started!"

What makes this worse is that even if we are to accept this science fiction fantasy as reality, the logic used to claim a lead in that future election is terribly flawed.

In Bayh's statement he said that Clinton has won in states which contain 219 electoral votes, while Obama has won in states that have 202.

The 219 number is interesting.  The only way to come up with 219 is to count all of the states Clinton has won, and then add Texas. 

The Lone Star State had two parts to its delegate selection, a primary and a caucus.  Yes, that is nutty way to do it, but it is how they do it in Texas and the fact is Clinton lost the caucus piece of Texas.  She also lost the total number of delegates pledged there.  To claim these delegates, even while traveling in a time machine to this future election, is a bit presumptuous. 

What is more curious to me though, is why they chose not to include Michigan and Florida.  Why stop at 219?  Why not claim a 263 - 202 lead?  If they're making this stretch anyway, they might as well do it right and count the disputed results of these peninsular states, which up until this point, they have gone out of their way to do.

I am genuinely confused by this.  For now though, I'll simply accept that my imaginary electoral vote tally is not as accurate as the experts' in the Clinton Campaign.  We'll stick with 219 - 202.

Of Hillary's supposed 219 EVs California, New York and Massachusetts provide 98 them.  No one, in their wildest dreams, believes that McCain is capable of winning those states.  So those are 98 EVs that don't fit into this argument at all.  Clinton is down to 121.

Similarly, Oklahoma and Tennessee are not going to be won by a Democrat, regardless of who wins.  So we can eliminate the 18 EVs Clinton is claiming from those two states and now we're down to 103.

To be fair, Obama's 202 EVs have some gimmies as well.  As I mentioned in a previous post, "If hell froze over on Nov. 3^rd, the Democrats would still win Illinois by a half a point on the 4^th.  And the same goes for D.C..." 

I agree with myself.  So the 24 EVs Obama gets from Illinois and D.C. are off the table.  Obama drops to 178.

Just like Clinton, Obama won a few states with no hope of ever going Democratic.  In The West, Idaho, Wyoming and Utah are going to be red, period.  The same can be said in The South of Alabama and Georgia.  Ordinarily I'd put Mississippi in that category, but miraculously, Obama isn't too far behind there right now.  These five states' EVs can be dropped as well.  Obama is left with 142.

So Obama 142, Clinton 103 would a much more accurate imaginary score.

Before I go any further, here is a quote from Team Clinton communications guru, Howard Wolfson: "In the fall, the president is chosen through the electoral college. If you want to know who would make the best nominee, look at the electoral vote math."

Ok, Howard.  After you read my recent post here, you'll have a better understanding of how the Electoral College math is shaping up.  Then you can re-read this article and by the end you'll have a better understanding of how Obama is actually looking like a much stronger candidate against John McCain this fall.

What really bothers me deep down about all of this is that these tactics work.  As Gov. Schweitzer (D - Montana) put it, "The least informed decide...elections." 

When the Clinton Campaign does something like this, they are ripping a play out of the Bush Administration's playbook.  They identify an issue that is confusing to the public and then they launch a small media offensive to confuse the public even more.

There is no way that someone who doesn't pay attention to politics is going to know the difference between an electoral vote and a delegate, let alone a super delegate.  It is a confusing system, which can even trip up a political junkie like me once in a while.

In the end, what it comes down to, despite my sarcasm and occasional exaggerated shock, is that I know Evan Bayh isn't actually stupid enough to believe what he said this weekend.  I also know that by making statements like this, Bayh and the Clinton Campaign are insulting the intelligence of the American People. 

They're betting against us.  They're betting against those of us who they view as the unwashed masses; the dumb, the ignorant, the poor, the preoccupied. 

Six years ago they may have been right, but in 2008 there is too much working against them.  The internet has improved our democracy, seven years of George W. Bush have left us sick and tired of the politics of cynicism, and most important we also have a-once-in-a-lifetime candidate. 

So Hillary, when you say we can't have hope, we can't have change and we can never be smart enough to challenge your campaign's cynicism we can say "Yes We Can."

We have Barack Obama.

Support Eyes On Obama!

Back to Blogs