By Brendan Loy
Here's a plausible-sounding explanation of Hillary Clinton's bizarre-seeming lawsuit strategy in Texas:
There is method to the Clinton campaign's mad preemptive sword rattling over the Texas primary/caucus. They want to delay and disrupt the reporting of the delegate count. They hope that if they win the popular vote, they can avoid, at least for one news cycle, news reports that even if they do so they will very likely lose the delegate fight in Texas and fall further behind Obama in the national delegate contest. ...
The Clinton campaign strategy is to justify taking the fight beyond Texas even if they fall further behind Obama in the national delegate count. To do that, they must cast doubt over the fate of the 67 delegates that will be chosen at the caucus level. ... [For Clinton to] remain viable, the results of the caucus in Texas must be thrown into doubt. Almost any legal challenge will do. The Clinton narrative can be maintained-- but only if their falling further behind in delegates is not reported or is at the least cast into doubt for a news cycle, or two or three news cycles.
This strikes me as an interesting, but ultimately quixotic, strategy. It took the media several news cycles to realize that Obama had emerged from Super Tuesday as the clear front-runner, but realize it they eventually did. Hillary might be able to obfuscate the electoral "facts on the ground" for a while, but ultimately, she can't maintain her campaign's viability purely through smoke and mirrors. If she falls further behind in the delegate count on Tuesday, that'll become clear soon enough, and it will become increasingly ridiculous to pretend she can rally. Unless she, like Huckabee, intends on "majoring in miracles," the mathematical reality has to become a factor at some point, doesn't it? Without large delegate margins in the big states on Tuesday, there is simply no realistic way she can get anywhere near Obama's pledged-delegate total by the end of this thing, barring a total sea change in the dynamics of the race (e.g., Mississippi and North Carolina suddenly becoming Clinton country). That's going to become the storyline eventually, whether on Wednesday or Thursday or Friday.
Also, let's not forget that the two races immediately after Tuesday are the Wyoming caucuses (March 8) and the Mississippi primary (March 11). Neither of those are Clinton-friendly at all. So even if she manages to successfully delay the media's recognition of a March 4 failure, the most likely result is simply a slow bleed -- much like what happened after Super Tuesday, actually, when the media slowly woke up to Hillary's dire straights, helped along by one loss after another in the week that followed. Anyway, I could see the post-Teaxs/Ohio news cycles going something like this:
TUESDAY NIGHT - Inconclusive results, but clearly not a Hillary sweep on her "firewall" day.
WEDNESDAY - Texas caucuses still in doubt, but it looks likely Obama will maintain or increase his delegate lead overall. Rumblings of possible mass superdelegate movement to Obama begin.
THURSDAY - It's now increasingly clear that Obama's Tuesday performance boosted his delegate lead. A bunch of superdelegates join his side.
FRIDAY - More superdelegates and other endorsements for Obama. Pressure mounts on Hillary to bow out. She vows to fight on. MSM analysts increasingly roll their eyes at this.
SATURDAY, MARCH 8 - Obama wins by a landslide in the Wyoming cacuses.
SUNDAY, MARCH 9 - Updated delegate count shows nomination increasingly out of reach for Hillary; primary in Obama-friendly Mississippi looms. Media tone now unabashedly that of a coronation.
MONDAY, MARCH 10 - Last-ditch flailing by Clinton camp, amid more defections and a sense of impending doom.
TUESDAY, MARCH 11 - Obama rolls in Mississippi, gives what looks for all the world like the nominee-presumptive's "I just clinched victory" speech. MSM on-air analysts now openly saying Hillary cannot win, treating her basically like Huckabee.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12 - Hillary finally drops out.
My other sites