The Uncertainty Strategy

Mark Schmitt explains why the Clinton campaign doesn't really want a resolution to the Florida/Michigan issue:

Contrary to the gullible media's belief that "time" is a "powerful ally" on Clinton's side, in fact, Clinton's only ally is uncertainty. The minute it becomes clear what will happen with Michigan and Florida -- re-vote them, refuse to seat them, or split them 50-50 or with half-votes, as some have proposed -- is the minute that Clinton's last "path to the nomination" closes. The only way to keep spin alive is to keep uncertainty alive -- maybe there will be a revote, maybe they'll seat the illegal Michigan/Florida delegations, maybe, maybe, maybe. In the fog of uncertainty, Penn can claim that there is a path to the nomination, but under any possible actual resolution of the uncertainty, there is not.

Yes. The strangest thing about the twilight campaign of the past several weeks is that under any other circumstances, it just wouldn't be happening. Or, rather, it would be like the last few races that Mike Huckabee ran -- covered as an amusing sideshow. But because of the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton and their close associates have been the leaders of the Democratic Party for so long at this point, they've been able to take a remarkably slender thread of hope and spin it into a full-fledged horse race. At this point, though, they're perpetrating something of a fraud on their many grassroots supporters who continue to invest money, time, and energy in an already-failed enterprise.

The bottom line, however, is that before the March primaries, Clinton looked doomed unless she could make up major ground in March. With all the March results in, Clinton hasn't made up any ground at all. That means she's doomed. The popular vote victory in the Texas primary is a nice moral victory for Clinton to console herself with, but the overall results just didn't create the kind of delegate count she needed to be viable.

Comments

Yes but the Clintons are masters at injecting uncertainty where there is none.

I'm sure they'll find ways outside of Michigan and Florida to do so.

Posted by AKBY | March 14, 2008 2:01 PM

That means she's doomed

Unbelievable.

Talk about going "off message."

Come on, Matt. You're better than that.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 14, 2008 2:04 PM

Would anyone put it past her to try and tank Barack Obama's chances against John McCain - give everyone a big "I told you so" during McCain's Inauguration, and poise herself for a run in 2012?

Posted by Trigger | March 14, 2008 2:09 PM

Still don't see how she's doomed when the race continues to look like it will come down to the superdelegates.

I mean, maybe Matthew and Mark Schmitt are mindreaders are know exactly how the superdelegates will vote, but I'm not able to read the superdelegates' minds, so I'm still unsure.

Posted by Al | March 14, 2008 2:10 PM

Trigger, if Obama loses, and it is pretty clear it is due to Clinton sabotage, she has no chance in 2012.

Texas may be viewed as a moral victory if "moral victory" is defined as blowing a 20% lead, winning by 4% and losing the delegate count.

Of course, the Hillary hating media (snark) keeps talking about her big win there.

Posted by John | March 14, 2008 2:12 PM

Al -

She's doomed because if things keep going like they are (and all indicators are that they will), Sen. Obama will finish the primaries with a lead in the popular vote, pledged delegates and states won. Superdelegates are already starting to break for him.

Sen. Clinton would have to win 70% of the remaining superdelegates in order to overtake him. Hence: doomed.

Posted by Trigger | March 14, 2008 2:14 PM

Who cares?

Matt, the Wright video is all over cable news, and it looks really bad. This is by far the biggest danger for Obama's campaign. I'm more concerned about the general election than I am about the sniping from Hillary. What do you think Obama should do? Should he throw Wright under the bus, and then back up and run him over a couple more times, or not?

Posted by Jim W | March 14, 2008 2:16 PM

John - Excellent points, both. Thanks.

Posted by Trigger | March 14, 2008 2:17 PM

This is why I wish Obama would just come out now and say "Whatever MI and FL decide to do is fine with us and we'll support their decision" as it puts the onus no Clinton to ante up. Unfortunately I think the Obama camp is holding until after the PA and NC elections as they'll feel more comfortable in their lead afterwards.

Posted by tom.a | March 14, 2008 2:18 PM

"illegal" delegations is some excellent pro-Obama spin from wine-track fanboy Schmitt. He is probably correct overall but seating the MI and FL delegations based on the elections that took place may be absurd but it would not be illegal.

Posted by skeptic | March 14, 2008 2:21 PM

if things keep going like they are

But that's a reason that Obama should be favored. Not that Hillary is "doomed".

As I said above, it appears to me that the reasoning behind the "Hillary is doomed" statement is that we know how the superdelegates will vote. But I'm not a mindreader.

Frankly, if I were an Obama supporter, I'd take Drum's advice and start pushing the superdelegates to get off the fence ASAP.

Posted by Al | March 14, 2008 2:23 PM

tom a

He HAS said exactly that, multiple times. Almost verbatim.

Posted by Steve T | March 14, 2008 2:24 PM

skeptic, granted it would not be "illegal" as represented by the laws of the community, but it would be against the rules set up by the DNC. Interestingly enough, in terms of delegates, it would help Clinton margiunally, but not enough to really make a difference. The only assist it would give is in popular vote, which is a meaningless metric in this instance.

tom a. Obama has declared several times that whatever the DNC decides is what he will go along with. Clinton is the one who has been insisting it be the way it currently stands and allowing the pAst results to count.

Posted by john | March 14, 2008 2:26 PM

Sure Obama says one thing in public and then his team scuttles the FL revote. Not much different than Clinton's Mich. and FL should count but only as is.

Posted by says one thing, does another | March 14, 2008 2:31 PM

Al, if you're just saying "really crazy shit could happen", then it's true but very trivial. If you admit that really crazy shit needs to happen for Clinton to have a shot, then you're in with the rational people. So let's say "pretty much doomed."

You talk about superdelegates like they're in Schroedinger's black box. They're real people, we know their names, and there is zero reason to think that they are going to give the collective finger to the people that put them where they are. But you're right, the sooner the better, both for Obama supporters and for neutral Dems.

Posted by nolaboyd | March 14, 2008 2:33 PM

It's not going to come down to the superdelegates, at least in the sense that the superdelegates will override the delegate count and popular vote.

There is no way the democratic party could survive this type of decision, and they know it, no matter how much Clinton makes it seem like a plausible scenario.

Posted by AKBY | March 14, 2008 2:34 PM

From Bloomberg:

Since March 5, the day after she won primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Obama took Vermont, the Illinois senator has won backing from nine superdelegates and Clinton one, according to the campaigns and interviews.

Has Petey_UHC thrown in the towel? It was clear to me when Hillary lost the combine Texas primary caucus vote and received fewer delegates. The was the wooden stake in the heart of Penn's campaign. Now the head needs to be chopped off and the body burned so it doesn't rise again to terrorize the populace.

Posted by Peter K. | March 14, 2008 2:35 PM

I think HRC should drop out, but I don't agree that she's just hypnotized the media into covering her candidacy as viable. The big difference between her and Huckabee is that after Super Tuesday McCain was clearly on track to win an outright majority of Republican delegates, while Huckabee had no mathematical chance of achieving a majority or even a plurality. Obama, by contrast, is not on track to get to a majority through pledged delegates, although I think it's virtually certain he will end the season with a substantial lead. It is unlikely - but not unthinkable - that superdelegates will break disproportionately for HRC, so she has a much more colorable claim to viability than Huckabee had.

Posted by Kevin | March 14, 2008 2:37 PM

says one thing...: Please tell us how Obama's team scuttled a FL revote that couldn't be done the way it was set up for legal reasons?

If it is in regard to the mail-in discussion, all he did was state that there were some technical concerns he was worried about, but he would go with whatever the DNC decided. It turns out that FL can't do a mail-in after all as the state and counties cannot participate in a signature verification of the ballots.

Posted by john | March 14, 2008 2:41 PM

Re the minister flap, Obama's latest statements have struck just the right note, firmly distancing himself from the statements without totally throwing him under the bus. It's actually good that this surfaced now; by the fall it will be a non-issue.

Moreover, as Ambinder said on his blog. McCain needs to tread carefully here because of hagee. In retrospect, I bet the obama campaign was thrilled the way the Hagee thing played out - not because it hurt McCain, but because it preemptively b=neutralized Obama's own minister problem.

Posted by LarryM | March 14, 2008 2:43 PM

Re Florida, if there is a Michigan revote, which will be close, whoever wins, Obama can afford to seat the Florida delegates and still have a 100 plus lead in pledged delegates.

If there is a Michigan revote, Florida will become a non-issue.

Posted by LarryM | March 14, 2008 2:45 PM

You know who else wants this whole thing to fester? The GOP. No matter what happens, though, the whole fracas can be spun in a pro-GOP way.

If the DNC refuses to seat the FL and MI delegates, then if the GOP does again work to deny the right to vote, there can be a whole lot of media noise about "well, the Dems. denied FL and MI a voice in their primaries, so they are hypocrites to complain" (even if the two situations are very different ... any actual explanation of DNC rules will get lost in the shuffle) while if they seat the delegates then "those Democrats can't even play by their own rules".

This whole thing is a mess -- why didn't the DNC, et al, work together to make this whole thing quietly go away?

Meanwhile, I heard HRC on the radio a few days ago complaining about the disenfranchisement of FL and MI voters. Wha? Ms. Clinton, if you felt so strongly about that, why didn't you complain before the FL and MI primaries? Speaking as an FL voter, I say your "concern" for me is a day late and a dollar short.

Posted by DAS | March 14, 2008 2:53 PM

Empower the People. You the People.

Run the Florida & Michigan Elections in full...
BUT-
This is only Fair if we get rid of the SUPERDELEGATE count... all of it... No SuperDelegates ! It's insulting... and you... the people... should be VERY ANGRY about who these people are and what they are doing ... to you !

Posted by PulSamsara | March 14, 2008 2:55 PM

I used theis analogy:

Heading into March 4th it was a basketball game, Obama was up 15 with 2 minutes left. Hillary is fouling and taking quick 3 pointers.

On March 4th she hit 3 or her 3s, But Obama made 2-2 in VT and 1-2 in Texas and Ohio. Then he made 4 more FTs in WY and MS, while she missed 2 3s. So now she is still down by more than 10 and there is a minute left.

Her only hope is Obama totally blowing it, which is about as likely as a 90% FT shooter going 0-6 down the stretch and the other team nailing 4 3s in less than a minute. I really don't see Hillary as Reggie Miller and Obama as Chris Dudley.

Or if you prefer a Tennis analogy, all Obama has to do now is hold serve in OR, MT and NC.

Posted by Eric k | March 14, 2008 3:01 PM

Should he throw Wright under the bus, and then back up and run him over a couple more times?

I suspect that “Jim W” above is the same Hillary troll as “JB” who is over at TPM pushing hard the line that Rev. Wright is about to deal a “death blow” to Obama. The fact is that Jim W uses exactly the same words as JB. Check it out. Is this a coincidence? Or, perhaps he is just a “plagiarist”? But whatever. The giveaway line from JB that makes it clear what’s driving this PR move across the internets is when he says:

As distasteful as her tactics have been, I suddenly think we may be better off in November with Hillary.

Posted by Justin X | March 14, 2008 3:03 PM

You talk about superdelegates like they're in Schroedinger's black box. They're real people, we know their names, and there is zero reason to think that they are going to give the collective finger to the people that put them where they are.

You may "know" that. And Matthew and Mark Schmitt may "know" that. But the superdelegates themselves apparently don't know it yet, because if they did with the same certainty that you do, they would have already come out and said who they are voting for.

The reason that I think they may still vote for Clinton is that... they haven't come out and said they are going to vote for Obama/the pledged delegate leader/the popular vote leader.

Posted by Al | March 14, 2008 3:04 PM

LarryM, Charlie Black got interviewed and said that the McCain campaign understands that the way things work is that when a minister endorses you, you don't necessarily endorse the minister. Especially not when your own record already proves you disagree with or without the denunciation kabuki. It's like John Kerry, the Church and abortion, or at least it should be. McCain's non compos mentis, but he's at least classier than the media!

Posted by David B. | March 14, 2008 3:09 PM

David B.,

My point exactly. Though I'm cynical enough to think that it's more necessity (given the Hagee situation) rather than any classiness on McCaon's part, that caused such an approach.

Posted by LarryM | March 14, 2008 3:12 PM

As I said above, it appears to me that the reasoning behind the "Hillary is doomed" statement is that we know how the superdelegates will vote.

It appears to me the reasoning behind the "Hillary is doomed" statement is that Schmitt/Yglesias want her to be doomed. But wanting her to be doomed does not make it so. What she is is the underdog -- maybe heavily so. But in percentage terms, both the popular and pledged delegate votes totals are close. Close enough to make a Clinton victory well within the realm of possibility if Obama gets tainted by either the Wright or Rezko messiness, or if some other momentum changer should occur. Certainly Clinton victories in Pennsylvannia, Florida, Michigan, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico -- occurring in the above scenario -- would give HRC a fighting chance with the superdelegates (at least I think they would).

Posted by Jasper | March 14, 2008 3:13 PM

@Al

Okay. The reason I think they haven't come out and said who they are going to vote for is that it's smart practice not to get committed in intra-party politics before you have to.

Posted by guyminuslife | March 14, 2008 3:14 PM

Nearly every superdelegate knows who they are going to vote for, already. And most of them will vote eventually for Obama.

Simple self-preservation explains their silence. Even if Clinton loses, she has a lot of allies in the party, and if they announce support for Obama while she still has a theoretical chance of winning (however remote), she will be pissed at them for siding with her opponent.

The safe, cautious thing to do is simply wait until Clinton is clearly done, and then announce support for Obama after she's given up.

Is this cowardly? Yes.

Posted by Greg Abbott | March 14, 2008 3:16 PM

"the Wright video is all over cable news, and it looks really bad. This is by far the biggest danger for Obama's campaign. I'm more concerned about the general election than I am about the sniping from Hillary."

With Pennsylvania 6 weeks away, the last thing Obama needs to do is rush around, frantically trying to stomp on this story. I think he's clearly gonna have to make a big speech on this subject and might even have to use Wright as an example of the sort of anger and resentment that the country needs to get beyond. But I do not think it will benefit Obama to just throw Wright under the bus. NOTHING he does will stop the right wing from using Wright against him, and desperately trying to avoid that will just make Obama look weak.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 14, 2008 3:16 PM

What I just discovered (but will I'm sure become more apparent) is that Wright is no longer pastor at Trinity. He's retiring or retired, and being replaced by a younger, apparently more low key pastor. As a result, I think that while Obama may be called upon to denounce and reject Wright at some point, the fact that he's no longer the current pastor at the church means it will be easier to move on from this whole brou haha so that it's no worse than some of the weirdos now embracing McCain.

Posted by JMS | March 14, 2008 3:19 PM

Charlie Black got interviewed and said that the McCain campaign understands that the way things work is that when a minister endorses you, you don't necessarily endorse the minister.

OTOH, when you go to the minister's church for 20 years, you bring your kids to hear him preach every week, he marries you and your wife, he has an unofficial position in your campaign, and you describe him as a close spiritual advisor, that makes things a little different.

Wright is clearly not just a minister who happened to endorse Obama.

Posted by Al | March 14, 2008 3:19 PM

Sen. Obama will very likely win North Carolina, Indiana, Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana. Sen. Clinton will win Pennsylvania, and then Kentucky and West Virginia. She'll get a nice chunk of delegates out of those three states and she'll get some more popular votes. But as we've seen, even with Ohio -- it's just not enough. Ohio was her big, super comeback victory. It got her insignificant net results because as we all know, in a proportional system you need big wins to put away an opponent. Obama's huge wins in Wisconsin and Virginia did that; Clinton's 10 point win in Ohio did not.

At this point she'd need to capture such an overwhelming margin of the remaining pledged delegates (which we can tell just by looking at the history of this campaign won't happen; it's proving remarkably easy in most cases to predict voting patterns) AND the remaining superdelegates (also not very likely given the trending in their endorsements) that she does have virtually no chance to win this.

Even Florida and Michigan revotes won't win this for her. If she wins Florida by as wide a margin as she did the first time (exceedingly implausible), that's still not going to cut Obama's pledged delegate lead below 100. And Michigan is at best a toss-up state that could be won by either of the two candidates. At this point, I agree, Obama would be well served to just get all the cards on the table, clear away the uncertainty on these two states. Heck, I think he should even publicly volunteer to help with funding. Make the first move there. He's got lots and lots more cash than Sen. Clinton does, can raise it back more easily, and it'd likely earn him some voter goodwill (and some superdelegate goodwill for him to demonstrate he wants to help fix this mess for the party's benefit).

At least it'd get them out of the way. The more states that have voted and are off the table, the more superdelegates endorse, the fewer the remaining delegates there are and the clearer and sharper it becomes just how vanishingly likely it is that Clinton can take enough of them to win.

Posted by jbryan | March 14, 2008 3:23 PM

Well, I only said McCain's classier than the media. Anyway, I tend to think that he'd be wary of the race-baiting after South Carolina in 2000. Regardless, the only story with Wright, in my opinion, is the eagerness of a lot of people to deprive Obama of the benefit of the doubt. Obama said it right -- judge him by his own record, not statements with which he profoundly disagrees.

As far as Hagee goes, Hagee has lunatic warmongering views on the middle east and said that he's endorsing McCain because of those views. That's a story -- not necessarily Hagee's views on the Catholic Church, which McCain obviously does not share, but because of McCain's views on perpetual war.

Posted by David B. | March 14, 2008 3:26 PM

Al - I don't think the point is whether Black's statement has merit, so much as that it suggests McCain's not going to pursue the issue.

Posted by John | March 14, 2008 3:29 PM

Meanwhile, I heard HRC on the radio a few days ago complaining about the disenfranchisement of FL and MI voters. Wha? Ms. Clinton, if you felt so strongly about that, why didn't you complain before the FL and MI primaries?

And you just KNOW what her opinion would be if her position was swapped with Obama. "Sen. Obama signed an agreement not to participate. Rules are rules. It's not right to change rules in the middles of the game. The elections weren't fair! Wah! Wah! Wah!" Her opinion on any subject is easy to determine. If it benefits her, she's for it.

I may have heard the same radio address. Hillary had the gall to say that it was Obama's choice to take his name of the MI ballot. Her SIGNED PLEDGE to not participate is now online. Only in Hillaryland is leaving your name on the ballot not participating. The real world can see her lies and desperation.

Posted by LFC | March 14, 2008 3:33 PM

But the real question is: does the Hillary campaign have an interest in pursuing this issue?

Posted by Justin X | March 14, 2008 3:33 PM

How does one denounce their spiritual mentor?

The Obama team canceled Wright's prayer before his presidential announcement but didn't go any further because they did not want to upset their support in the African American community. This isn't a new issue, Obama has just gotten a pass on it until now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html

Posted by Obama is proud of his pastor | March 14, 2008 3:41 PM

Al:

Superdelegates are holding out because of their political cowardness in choosing a side while the appearance of a close race persists.

Clinton will only get their support if she wins the popular vote.

The superdelegates are not going to commit political suicide (like I said they're cowards) by overturning the delegate count + popular vote. No way.

Posted by AKBY | March 14, 2008 3:42 PM

Your position makes sense, AKBY. I just think there is room between your position and "Hillary is doomed."

Posted by Al | March 14, 2008 3:49 PM

I just saw over at Wikipedia that apparently the supers who have already stated their intent break down as DNC un-elected officials for Clinton, but elected officials for Obama. Basically that means that old party hands want Clinton, while people who have to answer to voters want coattails.

Posted by Reality Man | March 14, 2008 3:58 PM

I agree with Glen Beck on this issue. While we are here now, why does the Democratic Party choose to subvert the will of the people with Super Delegates?

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2008/03/talking-about-redo-im-with-glen-beck-on.html#links

Posted by KYJurisDoctor | March 14, 2008 4:02 PM

I agree with Glen Beck on this issue. While we are here now, why does the Democratic Party choose to subvert the will of the people with Super Delegates?

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2008/03/talking-about-redo-im-with-glen-beck-on.html#links

Posted by KYJurisDoctor | March 14, 2008 4:05 PM

I don't understand, "bigmouth" Bill said that if Hilary didn't win Texas it was all over. Well, she lost Texas. Obama got the most delegates and IT IS ALL OVER. "Do anything, say anything, kiss any bodys ass who can maybe help me" Hilary agreed with the DNC that Florida and Michigan would not be seated if they held their primaries early but now that she's losing is complaining about the "disenfranchisement of Flordia and Michigan voters". GOODBY HILARY YOU LYING BAG OF SHIT, YOU WILL NEVER BE BE PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES.

Posted by Boo-Hoo | March 14, 2008 4:24 PM

I don't understand, "bigmouth" Bill said that if Hilary didn't win Texas it was all over. Well, she lost Texas. Obama got the most delegates and IT IS ALL OVER. "Do anything, say anything, kiss any bodys ass who can maybe help me" Hilary agreed with the DNC that Florida and Michigan would not be seated if they held their primaries early but now that she's losing is complaining about the "disenfranchisement of Flordia and Michigan voters". GOODBY HILARY YOU LYING BAG OF SHIT, YOU WILL NEVER BE BE PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES.

Posted by Boo-Hoo | March 14, 2008 4:25 PM

I don't understand, "bigmouth" Bill said that if Hilary didn't win Texas it was all over. Well, she lost Texas. Obama got the most delegates and IT IS ALL OVER. "Do anything, say anything, kiss any bodys ass who can maybe help me" Hilary agreed with the DNC that Florida and Michigan would not be seated if they held their primaries early but now that she's losing is complaining about the "disenfranchisement of Flordia and Michigan voters". GOODBY HILARY YOU LYING BAG OF SHIT, YOU WILL NEVER BE BE PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES.

Posted by Boo-Hoo | March 14, 2008 4:26 PM

I don't understand, "bigmouth" Bill said that if Hilary didn't win Texas it was all over. Well, she lost Texas. Obama got the most delegates and IT IS ALL OVER. "Do anything, say anything, kiss any bodys ass who can maybe help me" Hilary agreed with the DNC that Florida and Michigan would not be seated if they held their primaries early but now that she's losing is complaining about the "disenfranchisement of Flordia and Michigan voters". GOODBY HILARY YOU LYING BAG OF SHIT, YOU WILL NEVER BE BE PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES.

Posted by Boo-Hoo | March 14, 2008 4:26 PM

For the sake of the Democratic Party, Senator Clinton needs to bow out now.

Most candidates live in a self-sustaining bubble (how else could you get a human being to run so hard for so long), but those nearest her now (Bill Richardson?) need to step in and gently make the case.

I would say Bill Clinton, but that is a truly unique situation and perhaps he's too close to really help.

Someone needs to do something quickly. John McCain is gaining money and strength!

Posted by Gene | March 14, 2008 5:22 PM

I hope the infamous Yglesias jinx is off now, otherwise Obama is really toast (well, doomed, to put it nicely).

It's also premature. The Michigan primary has been rescheduled. The Florida one may well be. 3 substantial wins in large states will be enough to alter perceptions of the race considerably, even if the delegate count doesn't flip.

The reality is that this superdelegate system stinks, and in conjunction with the Michigan/Florida fiasco, it's mucked everything up. Limit the superdelegates to 5% of the total delegates and you wouldn't have this sort of nonsense.

Posted by faux facsimile | March 14, 2008 6:50 PM

Also, I realize it's not that big a deal, but it'd be nice if somebody cleaned up the multiply-posted comments, particularly when they're ungrammatical rants of no actual substance.

Posted by faux facsimile | March 14, 2008 6:54 PM

My parents-in-law, who have voted Democratic all their lives since before WWII, swear that they'll never vote for Obama. They're actually afraid.

That racist stink just permeated everything in the old days, and stained the brains of many, many good people.

Posted by ferd | March 14, 2008 10:50 PM

Building off this post, here's a scenario in which Clinton drops out before Pennsylvania.

http://gerrycanavan.blogspot.com/2008/03/friday-night-ill-advised-primary.html

Posted by G C | March 14, 2008 11:22 PM

I find the idea that Mrs. Clinton doesn't want a re-vote in Florida preposterous but only slightly less preposterous than the idea that Obama's campaign and supporters can continue to carry on about "the Clintons'" ruthlessless with a straight face now that it is clear that Obama has had a hand in preventing a re-vote in a state where his opponent was ahead by double digits.

Posted by Linus | March 15, 2008 2:57 PM

This is all fascinating from a politico-wonk perspective. (A hat I sometimes wear.)

But the fact is, it doesn't matter.

Hillary needs either 58% of the remaining pledgeable delegates (if MI and FL revote) or 64% (if they don't).

Numbers here:

http://trueconservative.typepad.com/trueconservative/2008/03/the-real-delega.html

http://trueconservative.typepad.com/trueconservative/2008/03/hillary-its-ove.html

It simply isn't going to happen. Obama with less than 42%/36%? Get real.

Unless there's an Obama meltdown. Hillary's best "game" strategy is to keep attempting to cause one.

That his hardly her best strategy, though, if she actually wants to promote what's best for the Democratic party, the country, and the world.

Obama's best strategy? Ignore her. Throw everything he's got at McCain. Oddly, given the small likelihood of a true meltdown, that may also be Hillary's best strategy.

Debates: each should try to demonstrate one thing and one thing only: their ability to counter, undercut, overwhelm, out-think, and generally exceed everything McCain.

Whoever does the best job of that, wins the debate.

Posted by Steve Roth | March 15, 2008 4:02 PM