Back in the day, when Bill Clinton was the battered President over personal transgressions that made many believe he had permanently tarnished the image of the Oval Office, there was another phenomena---namely the dotcom math. One only has to recall the mantra that many dotcom youthful moguls exclaimed when their was a new age, a new way to value companies, not with profits or revenues but with eyeballs. It was funny-money math.

Now here we go again, Hillary-math reduced to the exclamation that she has somehow, someway prevailed in the popular vote. First thing, for all America stands for in its 240 year democratic experiment we elect our Presidents through a republic system---meaning through delegates and electors. Secondly her math is totally false, in fact I think some of the old Arthur Andersen accountants who used to work on the Enron account have found their station on the Hillary campaign---maybe that is why her campaign is still $20M in debt while having a very good April in fund-raising.

Anyway here is a political science 101 course offering for Hillary fans, popular vote does not count in Presidential selections. Second even if it did Hillary's math is wrong. To get where she wants to say this she discounts the votes in the caucus votes---why because she ignored or didn't understand how to run a campaign in a caucus state. But in reality they record raw votes in caucus states for it is the raw vote that determines the pledged delegate apportionment from each precinct. But Hillary doesn't like this so she uses Hillary-math. By discounting one part of the process she counts another where the rules say doesn't count, in fact she likes to count votes where only she was on the ballot and by all accounts was a beauty contest and the other where there was no campaigning.

Okay but here is the trouble with Hillary-math, it still doesn't add up, for Obama still holds a 200,000 difference when you count FL & MI (for to be fair if you count Hillary votes than you have to count uncommitted as Obama votes). But, but, but no---those go to the uncommitted.  And there is where the whole scheme crashes---uncommitted to what or whom---delegates.

The votes are for delegates and by the way these delegate contests are weighted by Congressional Districts not statewide apportionment. This is why the whole popular vote thing is immaterial except in the realm of Hillary-math where Hillary gets to make up the rules as to what to include and what to exclude, where and when.

Funny thing that is what the dotcom accountants did. They counted eyeballs as values and liabilities as values and expenditures and assets. No different than how Enron counted their own transactions as sales or then again simply made them up too. Yes, Hillary-math has a long history.