Quote of the day

"They keep moving the goal posts, but at some point you run out of field." --Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, on the latest Clinton spin.

If Hillary wins narrow, meaningless popular-vote victories in Ohio and Texas tomorrow ("meaningless" because she'll gain very little, if any, ground in the delegate race), and if Team Billary manages to successfully hoodwink the media into painting it as another Clinton "comeback" (as happened on Super Tuesday), I may just jump out the window.

Relatedly, the Clinton camp is now -- incredibly -- touting Hillary's home states of New York and Arkansas on its list of "states that matter." What's particularly telling is that between five and seven of the nine listed states would be expected to be utterly uncompetitive (in one direction or the other) in November, so it's difficult to understand why anyone would premise an electability argument on them. (My full rebuttal to this nonsense is here.)

Comments

[Alec]

I wouldn't call Ohio meaningless. Although you may well be right about the impact on Obama's pledged delegate lead, a crucial battle is being fought over super delegates - as you yourself have highlighted over the last month or so. What factors influence the super delegates' choices? Well, all sorts of things I guess. But primary results in huge swing states like Ohio surely aren't irrelevant, are they?

NB: I'm politically neutral - just commenting on the mathematics here! :-)

[Brendan Loy]

Well, two things. First, I wasn't calling "Ohio meaningless," I was calling a narrow popular-vote victory in Ohio "meaningless." That said, second, you're right, "meaningless" is overstating it -- or is imprecise, anyway. A narrow Ohio victory would be meaningless in pledged-delegate-world, which is what I was really intending to talk about, but it would certainly be potentially meaningful in the grand scheme of things.

However, the fact remains that a skin-of-her-teeth victory in Ohio accomplishes very little in concrete terms for Hillary; it is really only a "spin" accomplishment (in the sense that she can potentially use it later to "spin" the superdelegates her way), and that's all the more reason why it's crucial that the media not buy into the more risible aspects of her campaign's spin, particularly the idea that a victory would be some sort of gallant comeback (as her wins in California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts were absurdly portrayed). Who ever heard of "coming back" from a 20-point lead in two weeks to win by, say, 3 points? It's utter nonsense. Yet I can see the MSM eating right out of Wolfson's and Penn's hands on this one, as a consequence of: 1) the media's incredibly short attention span (who can remember two weeks ago?) and constant overestimation of Obamamania (which makes it seem like a miracle that Hillary's still polling in double digits, let alone winning states); 2) a subconscious desire to feed a storyline that will keep the race going (these people are political junkies, after all), and 3) an unconscious sense of overcompensation for their relentless pro-Obama bias (the equivalent of a "makeup call" after the Clinton team's recent Krzyzewski-esque "working the refs").

[Jim]

Ha. What's better than all that spin is the new spin they have on the Canada/NAFTA thing. When it was pointed out that Canadian sources were also saying the Clinton campaign contacted them to say the *very same thing* that Obama did, they basically said the Canadians were liars.

Then, in the same conference calls, I listened to them say that while Goolsbee has said the words in the memo were not the words he spoke, we shouldn't believe him because other member's of Obama's campaign staff originally denied the meeting took place.

So what they are saying is, it's okay to not believe Obama's campaign staff because one is saying the opposite of another, but we should believe the Canadians on only one claim of a politician saying the NAFTA issue was all politics.

[Alec]

I think if Hilary wins both Ohio and Texas (and Rhode Island too, what the hell) then no spinning will be required on her part. The story will be: "Firewall holds firm despite Obama offensive, Hilary in it to the finish" or whatever, and that would no doubt inflence the super Ds and (perhaps) the voters of PA. Whether that characterisation is right or reasonable in the grand scheme of things is, of course, open to question. But I suppose what I'm saying is that a de minimis 'pledged delegate victory' in OH could potentially become significant in a way that is not in fact predicated on some sort of intellectually dishonest spin operation.

Again, I'm not spinning for Hilary here - just pondering the dynamics of the race.

[Jim Hu]

Don't you have to move the goalposts while you are leveling the playing field?

[Alec]

Mixed metaphor alert! ;)

Cricket fields aren't necessarily level either. But that's a whole different story.

[Jim Hu]

In hockey, they move the nets while the Zamboni is on the ice. But with the recent Canada-bashing, I doubt that's what either Dem has in mind.

...or is it?

[Mindsurfer]

I resent the comparison of Team Hillary with Mike Krzyzewski. "Working the refs" is legitimate.

[texasyank]

The only suspense left--let's face it--is, How far will the Clintons go?

Come the day after Pennsylvania, will the Clintons lead in pledged delegates? No.

Will they lead in pledged-plus-super? No.

Will they (absent Michigan and Florida, a phrase that nearly puts me to sleep to type) be within 150 delegates of Obama, total? Not so much.

So: What will they do?

Two options. Cut losses, retrench, position as, say, Majority Leader as soon as pipsqueak Reid can be disposed of.

Call for cloture the next 20 years.

Or else? Napalm.

You gotta believe the press is craving the latter. Absent the Clinton slash-and-burn strategy, the Washington press is stuck waiting around until after the second convention, when the general election polls will stabilize and begin to mean a damn.

And that's six months away.

Orwell used to say that understanding the Soviet Union required imagination more than intellect.

Not that the Clintons are the Politburo.

But am I the only one wondering, What will they do?

[Angrier and Angrier]

Hillary is pulling ahead of Obama in Texas. F-ck.

[Joe Mama]

The quote of the day from David Plouffe isn't whether Hillary is moving goal posts, but his categorical denial, “It is simply a conversation that did not happen,” about whether Obama senior advisor Austan Goolsbee spoke with the Canadian consulate in Chicago about privately hedging Obama's public anti-NAFTA rhetoric.

[Joe Mama]

For my part, I think this "NAFTAGate" business ain't no thang (but I also thought the "McCain-blatantly-lying-about-stuff subscandal" was much ado about nothign as well).

[Alasdair]

texasyank and Joe mama - combine your two trains of thought ...

For Senator Clinton, what's next might be NaphthaGate ...