Supers and spin

Josh Marshall:

The Clinton camp's super delegate gambit is not only audacious. Far more than that it is simply unrealistic. The super delegates who are gettable for Clinton by loyalty, conviction or coercion are already got. And enough's been seen of both candidates for everyone to be more than acquainted with them. The ones who remain -- who make up roughly half the total -- are waiting to see who the winner is.

The truth is that there are over 1000 elected delegates remain to be won. We really don't know what's going to happen yet. But if the trend continues and Obama ends the primary season with a clear majority of elected delegates, the idea that those remaining super delegates will break for the candidate who won fewer delegates, raised less money and is polling worse against the Republican nominee simply makes no sense.

He goes on to cite this as another example of Hillary's people, particularly chief strategist Mark Penn, putting out "spin" that's downright laughable. Good spin, Marshall says, involves "clever and forward-leaning pitches of actual realities, facts." What's been coming out of Team Hillary, by contrast, are "not sharp 'spins' on favorable realities, but aggressive pitches of complete nonsense."

Comments

[Brian Foster]

For all the hysteria here and elsewhere over whether and how the media and/or the campaigns are grossly misrepresenting, or absurdly and nonsensically portraying, delegate counts and whatnot, there is another specious argument being made -- in both parties -- that could use some addressing.

I refer to the notion that Obama for the Dems, and McCain for the GOP, are not winning the "important states," the "states that matter," the states that the Dems/GOP "have to win in November."

An obvious truth of the 50-state nomination process: both a Republican and a Democrat are going to win in every single state. The fact that Obama wins in Utah, Nebraska, or Alaska -- states that might reasonably be expected to be solid GOP in November -- means nothing. Ditto for McCain winning typically Dem states like CT, NJ, or MD. There's no doubt that if Hillary had won those "GOP" states Obama had won, or if Romney/Huckabee had won those "Dem" states McCain had won, they'd gladly accept those delegates and trumpet their broad support.

Conversely, it means practically nothing -- to the extent it's even true -- that Hillary won the primaries in traditional Dem states while Huckabee (and to a lesser extent, Romney) won the contests in GOP strongholds. Precisely because these states form the electoral base for their respective parties in November, the identity of the states' winners during the primaries has almost no predictive value, because those states can be relied upon to vote for the eventual nominee regardless. There's little doubt that Obama would be able to run just as strongly in CA or NY as Hillary would.

Admittedly, McCain may have a slight bit of trouble in states like AL, GA, and TN, but that's an entirely separate substantive issue from the horse-race aspect of whether he's winning states that are friendly to the GOP in November. More to the point, if McCain does struggle somewhat in traditional GOP states, it certainly will not be because the highly conservative base of his party will be voting for the other guy/girl, which is the criticism implicit in the notion that whichever's party frontrunner is winning the "wrong" states.

So Clinton's lambasting of Obama on this score of not winning the big/important/"right" states, as well as conservative gruff that McCain is only carrying "liberal" states while failing to succeed in conservative ones (never mind VA, SC, and FL), is nothing more than a transparent attempt to manufacture liability where none exists.

[yea]

totally on point and correct. nice comment brian.

[Brendan Loy]

Yes, I totally agree as well, Brian.

[Brian Foster]

Harumph.

You people are entirely too agreeable.

:)

[Aaron]

Penn, for those who don't know, is the guy who coined the phrase "soccer moms." For some insight into the mind of the man, read this entertainingly brutal review of his book Microtrends. Clinton ought to read it herself, and fire the guy.

[Joe Loy]

I suspect Mister Microtrend might be the Next to Go, Aaron. :>

Brilliant, Brian. / Harumph no More. Your characteristic Expository clarity is just entirely too trenchant to foster Disagreebleness, Foster. :}