Barack Obama, mountain mama?

Hillary Clinton says "West Virginia is a test" of electability. Heh, yeah, a "test" she can't possibly fail. That's a little like Michael Jordan challenging Wayne Gretzky to determine who is the greatest athlete of their generation -- by playing a basketball game.

Here's a look at just how challenging impossible West Virginia's political landscape is for Obama. A new poll released yesterday shows him down 63% to 23% (with 14% undecided, I guess). Daniel Larison has more grim poll numbers. [UPDATE: ARG says it's 66% to 23%.]

Mark Halperin wonders, "Why is the likely Democratic nominee not visiting the next state up? Is it the expectations game?" Um... yes? Duh? Look, Clinton's people have consistently made the (bogus) argument that, if Obama spends lots of time and money in a state, that means he "should" win it, even when he's clearly the demographic underdog and is obviously just trying to hold down her margin (see, e.g., Pennsylvania). He knows he can't come remotely close in West Virginia -- the best he could hope for would be to maybe reduce her margin to 20% or 25%, and will anyone really give him credit for that? -- so why give Hillary the ability to make that argument? It's like Larison says:

[W]hat he needs to do is to change the subject and act as if these primaries [in West Virginia and Kentucky] are not happening (or, to borrow a page from the Clintons, to claim that they “don’t really count”), because there is simply no way that he is going to change the powerful opposition to him in these states.  Imagine the resistance that he faced in the Monongahela Valley, and then expand it to include entire states, and you have an idea of what he’s up against.

I don't support the "claim they don't count" strategy -- when she wins, he should graciously congratulate her, reiterate that he is the choice of voters all across the country, and proceed with his general-election arguments against John McCain -- but there's nothing wrong with lowering expectations, nor with pointing out that these states shouldn't count extra just because they happen, coincidentally, to take place near the end of the calendar. Hillary's inevitable blowout wins in West Virginia and Kentucky should "count" no more, and no less, than Obama's blowouts in, for instance, Georgia and Kansas on Super Tuesday.

That said, I'm of two minds about this, because if Hillary racks up a huge popular vote margin, and wins the WV delegate count by something like 32 to 7, it'll probably rejuvenate her spirits and at least dampen the media's "it's over" meme for a while. But at the same time, if Obama campaigns heavily in West Virginia, the media will declare that he is trying to "close the deal" -- and when he "fails" to do so, losing by, say, a "whopping" 22 points (which would actually be pretty good), that'll be disastrous for him in the campaign's meta-storyline.

So, all things considered, I think Larison is right. Obama is better off basically ignoring West Virginia, and spending the next week campaigning in general-election states. Even if she wins almost all of the Mountaineer State's 39 delegates... it won't change a damn thing. His mathematical advantage is still insurmountable.

Now, if we want to talk about real "tests," this would be an interesting idea:

[T]here is one last chance for the Clinton campaign: make Oregon definitive. Everyone knows she's going to win Kentucky and West Virginia. Everyone expects her to lose in Oregon. If she throws down the gauntlet and says: "Oregon is it. Obama has home field advantage. If he wins, I'm out. If I win, we go all the way to the convention. Game on."

Who, really, could resist? Certainly not the cable networks!  And the state is home to millions of white people.

Heh.

Obama, for his part, plans to declare victory in Oregon on May 20, on the basis that he will have clinched a majority of the pledged delegates -- not 2,025, but 1,627, the number that ObamaIsWinning.com has been touting for months as "the real magic number."

Comments

[Angrier and Angrier]

Er, isn't getting the most votes and the most delegates a bigger "test?"

[Marty West]

Wouldn't it be like Gretzky challenging Jordan in ice hockey?

[Brendan]

Um, yes, that would be the same analogy in reverse.

[Intro]

12 democratic candidates

7 were contenders

2 remain

1 will be revealed

[Jim Hu]

Or like Notre Dame challenging Arizona State to a football game in Dallas? No, not at all, actually... but I was looking for an excuse to link to the story. ;)

[Marty West]

Well Gretzky is white....that was my point

[Brendan Loy]

Oh. LOL. I didn't even think of that.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. I guess if you want to get all identity-politics-y, it should be Justine Henin challenging Tiger Woods to a tennis match, to determine who's really #1 in the world.

The Clinton camp does love tennis analogies.

[Jim]

I suppose you saw that Obama now has more supers than Clinton.

[Marty West]

HAHAHA!!

[Joe Loy]

"... there's nothing wrong...with pointing out that these states shouldn't count extra just because they happen, coincidentally, to take place near the end of the calendar."

[Watch me get his Goat, now, people...hee hee...ahem... ;]

Well. Let us bridge the ubiquitous Is-Ought Gap by agreeing that (a) while there's nothing wrong with opining that they Shouldn't count extra for that (supposedly) random reason, (b) it's also no Sin to say that regarding the only "count" which Counts, per The Rules they DO count extra for Going Late. :> Scroll down to the Greenpapers section entitled "Bonus Allocation". Introductory excerpt (after which follows detailed formulae, state-by-state listings, etc):

Bonus delegates are awarded to states holding their First Determining Step (start their delegate allocation process) later in the cycle. The bonus is awarded as a percentage of the base allocation of pledged delegates and applies to the district and at-large delegates. The bonus does NOT apply to the Pledged PLEO and Unpledged delegates.

The Presidential nomination cycle is divided into 3 Stages: Stage I for January, February, or March; Stage II for April; and Stage III for May or June...

Bottom line: for being Near the End of the Calendar, West Virginia gets Two bonus delegates, and Kentucky gets Four ~ as does Puerto Rico, Chris Matthews's snide Disapproval notwithstanding :>. Indiana, for Its part, got 6.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
OKOK! So I'm Cherrypicking for to Aggravate my beloved son-&-Barackista-comrade, so can't a fella have a little Fun? ;} Yes, Brendan, also Bonused for Belatedness :> are Guam (1), Oregon (4), South Dakota (1), Montana (1), and ~ wait for it, wait for it ~ North Carolina, 24! (30% bonus, for moving from 2004 mid-Stage II to 2008 late-Stage III. See, the scheme seeks to discourage Frontloading by incentivizing, uh, Backhoeing. Or something. :)

Meanwhile Hillary's embittered battalions in Pennsylvania, for Sticking with Stage II instead of frontloadishly Vaulting to Stage I, copped a paltry 5% bonus: 7 delegates.

Thought Experiment: what if Michigan & Florida, both 2004 Stage One-ers, had taken the Bonus bait and hopskipped to '08 Stage III instead of Crashing January without DNC Authorization? / Result: instead of (supposedly) forfeiting their entire huge delegations MI would have been Awarded 33 Extras and FL 48 ~ and maybe they'd be preparing to Vote NOW! / As KV Jr (RIP) would say, "Think of that." :)