Still looking for my hat tip

BrendanLoy.com, February 6:

Hillary needs to be very careful of this, methinks. If Obama starts racking up wins in the friendly landscape of the next few weeks, his momentum could become a very powerful thing indeed, not with voters but with superdelegates. If Obama does very well throughout the rest of March, the supers might be ready to jump on the bandwagon en masse, and effectively anoint Obama the winner, if Hillary doesn't really impress in her March 4 "firewall" states, Texas and Ohio.

New York Times, February 12:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers increasingly believe that, after a series of losses, she has been boxed into a must-win position in the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, and she has begun reassuring anxious donors and superdelegates that the nomination is not slipping away from her, aides said Monday. ...

“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one Democratic superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

After being repeatedly and consistently wrong about almost everything this election season, I finally got something right, and got out a few days ahead of the conventional wisdom in the process, with this superdelegate thing. Woohoo! :)

Comments

[Andrew]

I have to agree that, HRC's supposed shenanigans with the Michigan and Florida delegates aside, Obama is looking pretty inevitable these days. I have to credit Rush Limbaugh, though, for a great observation: Obama says nothing better than anybody in a long time. And I have to wonder if that kind of empty, self-referential, Messiah-like campaign can really reach across the multitude of electoral groups necessary to win the general presidential election. I have very serious, serious doubts about that.

[Andrew]

El Rushbo had another amusing observation. I don't have a link to the tallies, but apparently there's a pretty darn good chance that Obama could end up with the most delegates, but HRC could walk into the DNC having won the most Democratic primary/caucus votes. In such a case, you'd have one wing of the Dems arguing furiously that the "will of the people" should be heard, and the superdelegates and delegates pledged to other candidates should swing the final tally to HRC. On the other side, the Obama folks would be arguing that they won the delegate count fair-and-square, and since that is how the system is legitimately set up, Obama should win the nomination. Oh, but the irony would be so rich if that were to happen. I guess a Republican can dream. ;-)

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Speaking of "hat tip," this is how I saw it back in December...

McCain represents the Republicans best chance to win the general election...

Romney (Christian Right won't vote for him because he is a Mormon).

Huckabee (Christian Right will be the ONLY ones voting for him).

Giuliani (All the Republicans in the Red States who never saw the news accounts of what a frickin' scumbag Giuliani was to his former wife and kids are now waking up to the truth).

Thompson (zzzzzzz)

Tancredo (nuts)
Paul (slightly less liberal than Dennis Kucinich)

Posted by: Mad Max, Esquire | Dec 16, 2007 7:44:08 AM

[Joe Loy]

Andrew, certainly you can Have A Dream Today :). Or as Clinton One might spin sing it, "Fairy tales can come True / it can happen to You..." :>

The Big question will be: if Barack gets Elected after having Stolen the nomination ;] by ruthlessly crushing Hillary's noble & principled efforts :> (a) to re-Enfranchise Michigan & Flor-i-DUH! :> and (b) to conform the Electoral Convention balloting to the cumulative Popular Vote at what an MSNBC tallyboard yesterday officially Entitled the "National Democratic Primary" ~ ~ will All Hillaryland then follow Party Precedent by spending the next four-or-eight years bitching claiming that Hillary Clinton is the Legitimate President?

:)

Brendan: you were also ahead of the curve on the Post-coronation Huckaboom. / Oh, sure, it's been more of a microboom than your chaosfriendly Irrational Exuberance first postulated; but still, it Happened. (And, the Huckypuck Lawyercorps may Pull out Washingtonstate yet. :) Now Sheik Mike's just gotta Slide right on By tomorrow's looming Chesapeake Setback, split Ohio and Storm Texas on March 4, and then it's all Miss'ippi & Nawth Cuh'lina & Nebraska & South Dakota from there on Home :}. Well. Yeah there's Pennsylvania. But as the sage Carville hath quothed :>, "Pennsylvania is Philadelphia on the east and Pittsburgh on the west and Alabama In Between." :}

[yea]

max,

paul isn't anything close to a liberal. not even close.

[kcatnd]

Andrew, you just love yourself some conservatatin' don't you? So who do/did you back for the Republican nomination? I may have missed you mentioning earlier - I'm just curious (genuinely, I'm not trying to be a dick or anything).

That said, wasn't Republican candidate Mike Huckabee the one demanding that all the votes be counted before calling an election?

[Mad Max, Esquire]

It's interesting to note that for the past three days Hillary's supporters have been spamming Virginia-centric blogs with the "Obama went to a Madrassa" slander that she supposedly knows nothing about. These people are as immoral as she is, apparently.

[Andrew]

Romney. Childhood summers spent in rural Utah with my Massachusetts-born grandma have made me especially fond of Mormon governors of the Bay State. Although I must admit, I do prefer the Summer Olympics to the Winter games.

Huckabee can kiss my conservative ass.

[Brian Foster]

Golly.

If the New York Times owes you a hat tip, then I guess you (as well as the Times) owe Ben Smith a hat tip. After all, he wrote at 6:53 am on Feb. 5th:

Still, the same rules that could allow Obama — if no polling surge bears out — to survive defeat on Super Tuesday could help Clinton stay in the fight through a rough, momentum-killing month of February.

For Clinton, the last stand would be Super Tuesday II: March 4, when the biggest cache of delegates since Feb. 5 will be at stake in four primaries, led by Texas and Ohio.

. . .

Then, in the perhaps unlikely scenario that both candidates survive that day — and that the 796 Democratic Party officials who cast independent votes as “superdelegates” don’t flood, en masse, to a perceived front-runner — campaigns come face to face with the Pennsylvania Scenario.

And I guess a hat tip goes to Dan Balz, who also wrote on Feb. 5th:

The next round of primaries and caucuses this month tends to look better for [Obama] than for Clinton. Her strategists are pessimistic about her chances in Washington, Louisiana, Wisconsin and Maryland, as well as in the District. But they see Ohio and Texas on March 4 as critical states in which she has a foundation of support and could add to her delegate strength.

. . .

Clinton's strategists are counting on the support of "superdelegates" -- those party leaders and elected officials who automatically have seats at the convention -- to build her delegate lead. In the early stages, she has such an advantage. But in the past, superdelegates tended to follow election returns. If Obama wins primaries consistently, he is likely to attract more and more superdelegates.

Or how about Noam Schreiber, who wrote on Feb. 6th:

And then we wait two weeks and throw-down in Texas and Ohio, at which point a lot of people think this competition could end. (Rhode Island and Vermont also go that day.) Between the Latinos in Texas and Hillary's establishment support in Ohio, those will almost certainly be her firewall states.

And let us not forget Reid Wilson, who wrote on Feb. 6th:

If Clinton can't score a big win by early March, calls will begin in earnest for her to leave the race. And while all signs point to leads in both Ohio and Texas now, she may not have the same support in the four long weeks Obama has to play catchup.

. . .

Obama's chances have looked increasingly promising in recent weeks. If Clinton is unable to pick up any states this weekend and underperforms next Tuesday in the greater Washington, D.C. area, Obama will once again be in a position to score a knockout. The battleground will shift to Ohio and Texas before the Democratic race is through, but it will be Obama with the momentum going in, and Clinton, as she has been at least a few times so far in this campaign, with her back once again to the wall.

I'm sure I could find more if I spent a little more time digging. In any event, we're all going to end up with some exceedingly bad hair days indeed, if we give a hat tip every time some would-be pundit with a pulpit happens to chance upon the same obvious scenario that scores of others have previously or contemporaneously divined.

[Brendan Loy]

Jeez, Brian. A little cranky? My "hat tip" comment was fairly light-hearted and insubstantial, not sure the full rebuttal is necessary. But, look, all of the quotes you've listed address one, or at most two, of the following three points: 1) Obama is likely to do well in February; 2) March 4 is Hillary's firewall; 3) superdelegates will decide the nomination. None of these points is individually extraordinary (though I did latch onto the mathematical realities of #3 a day or two before it started to be commonly discussed and became absorbed into the CW). Points #1 and #2 have been made repeatedly by numerous pundits for quite a while now, while Point #3 has only become a common talking point in the last three or four days. What I haven't seen, outside of my February 6 post, until now, is much analysis that combines those three points, synthesizes them into a single, coherent idea, and reaches the logical conclusion that #1 and #3 could combine to create problems for the continued viability of #2. None of your quotes demonstrate any such synthesis of these ideas into the newly coalescing CW, which I first tentatively proposed six days ago, which is that Hillary doesn't just need to win on March 4, she needs to win convincingly. (One of your quotes does talk about Hillary "scoring a big win" by early February, but it's not clear whether that means a convincing win or merely an important win, i.e., a win in a "big state." And it certainly doesn't state the rationale outlined above.)

[Brian Foster]

No, not particularly cranky. I just think it's a little silly for you (even in jest) to demand, for the second time, a "hat tip" for an observation that a) is not particularly novel or elusive, b) plenty of others made contemporaneously with or previous to you, and for which c) there is no evidence that the Times or the Post obtained from you, as opposed to one of those myriad other sources -- or, indeed, one of their own.

I mean, that's the point of the "hat tip," right? To acknowledge one's source? So if you weren't their source (even if it was your idea first, which it almost certainly was not, especially if we expand the relevant universe to include not just bloggers and columnists and pundits but also analysts and strategists who do not publicly broadcast their findings), why should they give you the tip?

Okay, maybe I am a little cranky. :) I guess what it comes down to for me is, the first time it was mildly amusing. The second time, it started drifting toward obnoxious.

As for the three points -- I chose my quotes based on the portions of your quotes that you bolded. I took that addition of emphasis to be an indication of the similarity of thought between your words and the Times' that you believed justified your demand. I selected and elided my quotes accordingly. Had I better understood the basis for your claim (which, I note, has changed from the bolded portion of your original post, to the three points laid out in your comment, to a synthesis of those three points, and now, finally, to the emphasis on the need for a "convincing" win, which doesn't appear in any of your three specified points nor does it appear to be the focal point of the bolded comment from the Times), I could -- and would -- have selected and edited differently.

In any event, I fail to see how the Smith and Balz excerpts in particular do not make precisely the same synthesized and logically extended point you claim to have made.

[Derek]

Brendan, I don't think TX and OH are her last stands... necessarily. (Losing both by wide margins might be a bit much.)

It's Puerto Rico's 55, and the winner-take-all.

Think about it. No other state has WTA. Clinton's marginal victory in California was 42 delegates; in New York, 40. Obama's marginal victory in Illinois was 52 delegates; in Georgia, 23.

But the marginal victory for the winner of Puerto Rico is a stunning 55 delegates. Sure, it's June 7, but imagine the possibilities if it remains close up until then. Would the Carribbean-and-African-influenced island pick Obama? Or the Hispanic-and-Bronx-influenced voters go for Clinton? (She's got three supers right now.)

[Brendan]

Derek, what is your source that Puerto Rico is winner-take-all? That's a blatant violation of party rules, if so, isn't it? I read something about this PR scenario, but it seemed to be based on speculation that Puerto Rico's Dem bosses would twist the rules to create an artificial WTA, not that WTA is officially sanctioned. And if that's the case -- if it's a matter of PR party bosses twisting the rules, and/or arms -- then certainly I imagine that Obama would challenge such a blatant affront to what are supposed to be universal party rules about how delegates are apportioned: namely, proportionally.

Brian, the portions I boldfaced admittedly didn't deal with the synthesis, but they certainly do "emphasi[ze]...the need for a 'convincing' win." Read them again; you must have missed the words "really" and "comfortably." Those words were the whole point -- the whole reason I boldfaced those particular phrases.

Further, the two quoted Times paragraphs, as a whole, do indeed set forth the very "synthesis" I'm talking about, or so I would argue. They contain all three elements: Obama's February momentum ("series of losses"); the importance of superdelegates ("reassuring anxious...superdelegates") and the possibility of superdelegates abandoning her and effectively ending her bid (quoting a super as envisioning a March 4 scenario whereby "she's out"); and Hillary's existing "firewall" strategy being potentially inadequate due to the combination of those points (the notion that she needs to win "comfortably" in Texas and Ohio, not just win them).

In any event, I'll cop to the possibility that my second facetious demand for a "hat tip" was obnoxious, but then, so is your response. ;)

(For the record, of course you are entirely correct that, even if I was the first person in the known universe to come up with any of these ideas, I wouldn't actually be owed a "hat tip" unless the New York Times or the Washington Post stole the idea from me, as opposed to independently coming up with the same idea several days later. Hence, the "hat tip" thing being utterly facetious.)

[Brendan]

P.S. On the obnoxiousness scale, do I at least get some credit for also forthrightly (and repeatedly) pointing out how wrong I've been in other instances? Or does that make me more obnoxious? :) At least I'm not like one of those pundits who takes credit for their good predictions without ever acknowledging how off the bad ones were...

[Brendan]

P.S. re: Puerto Rico... from the Green Papers:

Saturday 7 June 2008 (tentative date): The Puerto Rico Senatorial District Caucuses convene. The caucuses choose Puerto Rico's 55 Pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention. A mandatory 15 percent threshold is required in order for a presidential contender to be allocated National Convention delegates at either the senatorial district or islandwide level.

36 district delegates are proportionally allocated by senatorial district (Puerto Rico has no congressional districts).

* District 1 San Juan: 4
* District 2 Bayamón: 5
* District 3 Arecibo: 4
* District 4 Mayagüez: 4
* District 5 Ponce: 4
* District 6 Guayama: 4
* District 7 Humacao: 4
* District 8 Carolina: 4

In addition, 12 at-large and 7 Pledged PLEOs are proportionally allocated by the islandwide vote.

[Derek]

Brendan, it's the latter--PR party bosses and arm-twisting. I read it here.

But it makes for a contrarian view of the TX-OH[-WI?] firewall.

[Brendan]

Yeah, I read that Michael Barone article too:

Democratic delegates are supposed to be allocated by proportional representation. But that notion is alien to highly competitive Puerto Rican politics. In practice, the dominant figure in Puerto Rico identifying with the Democratic Party has seen to it that his faction gets all the territory’s delegates.

That may be, but "in practice," Puerto Rico's delegates haven't mattered, as we haven't had a contested race like this for a long time. No one had any reason to object to the PR bosses' arm-twisting, rule-breaking schemes in past years.

I cannot imagine Obama's people standing idly by while Puerto Rico blatantly violates its own, and the national party's, rules, by awarding all 55 delegates to Clinton ... unless of course Obama doesn't get 15% anywhere on the island ...

[Brendan]

P.S. And if Hillary does earn a slim pledged-delegate victory on the basis of Puerto Rican party bosses' rule-breaking, and then uses that edge to take a majority of the Credentials Committee, which would then seat the Florida and Michigan delegations to solidify Hillary's victory, she will have earned her nomination entirely via rule-breaking. She'll be the most illegitimate major-party nominee in modern times, and will lose in November due to extreme anger and disillusionment among Obama supporters (and principled Democrats generally), causing a mass exodus of Obama indies to McCain and Obama lefties to Nader. (Say what you will about Democrats' fervent desire to take back the White House, but at some level they're still a bunch of idealistic hippies, and McCain isn't Bush.)

Well, unless perhaps Obama publicly embraces her by taking the VP spot. But it's hard to believe he would, under those circumstances. And if he did, that might just cause further disillusionment.

[Brian Foster]

Just to pick some nits, close the loop, and keep obnoxiousness levels appropriately balanced :) --

1. I would say that acknowledging the earlier errors is a net wash. OOH it reduces obnoxiousness because, as you rightly point out, you fess up to your miscues unlike so many talking heads. OTOH it underscores that the current apparently-correct prediction (I say apparently because, after all, it ain't March yet so we don't know that it's right, only that others are saying the same thing) may be just randomly correct.

2. I took note of both the "really" and the "comfortably" references. I also saw that "really" was italicized in the original, which is why I did not try to argue that it wasn't a "focal point" of that particular quote. But I think you read too much into the "comfortably" reference by the Dem super in the Times. I don't see that quote, in context, as being anything near the boldly synthesized statement of new Conventional Wisdom that you're taking it as. But admittedly I'm just quibbling over someone else's word choice at this point. :)

3. I did not (and do not) deny that the three points are present in the Times quote. I took issue only with the extent to which the bolded portion is really focused on the "convincing" win theme (again, the semantic quibble -- is "comfortably" "really" "convincing"? :) ) And more generally, my objection was that many others made the same general call for a novel addition to the earlier CW -- that HRC needed "really" "big" "convincing" "comfortabl[e]" wins on March 4 -- as you. In that sense, whether all three of the "building blocks" of the "new CW" were present in every rebuttal quote is beside the point.

I believe this horse may now be well and truly dead. :)

[Andrew]

Hat tips are for when you consciously steal someone else's idea. If I happen to post something on Brendan's blog even though Instapundit said the exact same thing a few days before, I am under no obligation to hat tip unless that is where I was getting my information (whole or in part). So this whole Brian vs. Brendan argument is pointless unless one of you can conclusively prove that the NYT reporter was using this blog as a source for the report.

[David K.]

Andrew, Brian just likes to hear himself talk (or read his typing in this case).

[Brian Foster]

Andrew,

One of two things must be true. Either

A) You didn't notice that Brendan and I already made, acknowledged, and agreed upon precisely the point you've brought up, or

B) You owe one or both of us a hat tip.

David,

I love how you think that saying I "like[] to hear [myself] talk" a) is true, and b) somehow differentiates me from any other person who comments on, or writes posts for, this blog, or any other.