The Magic Number

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:58:08 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Garin's answer to my question here.

During the Clinton Press Call, I asked about the magic number:

I asked about the Magic Number, if the Clinton camp accepts 2025 [the number w/out FL and MI] as the Magic Number or do they insist that it be 2209 [the number with FL and MI included]. I asked specifically if Obama garnered 2209 delegates, would they accept that he had won the nomination. At first Garin seemed to accept this argument but then other speakers [Phil Singer I believe] for Clinton seemed to NOT accept it, calling the issue "academic."

I was surprised by this reaction from the Clinton campaign. The reasoning was there was a process in place to determine WHETHER Florida and Michigan would be seated and therefore, I surmise, the Magic Number was not knowable at this time. This line of argument, it seems to me, undermines the Clinton high ground on Michigan and Florida. Will they claim victory without seating Florida and Michigan? How do they achieve such a victory? Would it be acceptable to the Clinton campaign not to resolve Florida and Michigan prior to determining the nominee? I must say that the answers on this issue were not coherent imo. Nor is it politically smart. Right now, MSNBC is discussing the Magic Number as 2025, stating that Obama will need only 38% of the remaining delegates if the delegates are split tomorrow. And the Clinton Camp seems unwilling to push back on this.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

< Clinton Media Conference Call - Setting Expectations | SUSA IN Poll: Clinton By 12 >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Magic Number | 66 comments (66 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

They haven't been reading you (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:01:02 AM EST

2209 has to be the number that the embrace, or they're going to seem to have lost sometime in June.

Sounds like it was a trick question. (none / 0) (#14)
by oculus on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:12:28 AM EST

: Now I've done my homework. (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:32:45 AM EST

Discussion here of the higher magic no. started about May 1.

Thank you, BTD (none / 0) (#68)
by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:55:23 PM EST

for bringing this up. Whether the number is 2024, 2025, 2029 or includes FL and/or MI, there are those, specifically AAs, who will object to a nomination "being stolen by Hillary". Her campaign needs to address this. Mind you, this issue does not address Hillary's supporters who more than outnumber any Barack supporters who may "protest" the nominaton with their GE vote.


: Oops (none / 0) (#69)
by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:08:11 PM EST

...in the Democratic Party..."who may "protest"...."

You are correct (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:03:47 AM EST

If they don't latch onto the 2209 number, the media is just going to stick with 2025. That's not helpful to Clinton.

Media will stick with 2025 (none / 0) (#13)
by ruffian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:12:08 AM EST

regardless as long as it is the official number from the DNC. FL and MI have to be resolved first. I think that's why the Clinton campaign is saying 'resolve FL and MI' and not throwing numbers around.


That makes no sense (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:20:59 AM EST

Including FL and MI is easily translated into a number - Magic number of 2209.

Obama will need about 100 more supers at the end of the process if the number is accepted as 2025.

Once he is declared the winner it is over. Has no one learned any lessons from Bush v. Gore?


The Indy 400 (none / 0) (#25)
by Athena on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:27:22 AM EST

No, they haven't. The first rule is the assumptions game. Once you buy their assumptions, you've conceded way too much.

I'm really surprised that the Clinton camp is so obtuse over this.

To repeat an earlier metaphor - it's like winning the Indy 400. Or 450. Or 490. But not holding out for the winner of the 500.

I think that metaphor is a good one - she argues that she's running the full race - not relying on the refs to end it early.


I don't think this is an accurate statement (none / 0) (#52)
by MaxUS on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:28:25 AM EST

Once he is declared the winner it is over.

Regardless of what you, BTD, thinks about the issue, the fact remains that endorsements do not equal votes.

I may be mistaken, but I think you have expressed distaste for the notion that the Clinton people believe that there is a difference between the delegate counts that are being reported and how those delegates actually vote at the convention.

Whereas, pledged delegates are by definition...well...pledged. Superdelegates are not constrained in any way to vote for any particular candidate regardless of who they are on record to be supporting at any given point in the Primary process.

Because neither candidate was able to reach any "magic number" with pledged delegates, I think it's smart of the Clinton campaign not to get tied down to a quote about specific numbers until it is clear that the FL/MI situation is resolved.


: OK.... (none / 0) (#55)
by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:36:59 AM EST

I'm starting to get this discussion now. Thanks.
I am reading here and trying to catch up. I'm not as savvy as a lot of you guys about this stuff.
But I see what you're saying.
I've thought all along.....pledged delegates aren't really pledged delegates except maybe the first vote.
After that...all bets are off.
They can switch sides, etc., and not feel guilty.
Particularly if they come from those close caucus states, of which there were many.

re ; (none / 0) (#2)
by az on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:03:40 AM EST

If Terry keeps claiming nominee would be known by June , how Clinton wins without MI/FL is unknown.

By the way BTD there are 2 polls out I would like you to comment on ( NC ) .

Insideradvantage which has a tie in NC .

http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_55_380.aspx

And ARG NC which shows her leading the white vote by 62 - 27 and still losing by 8.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

By the way ARG has Indiana numbers too .

: Crosstabs better . . . (none / 0) (#11)
by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:10:59 AM EST

in this poll that the last (bogus) one from IA: African Americans make up more than one-third of the sample. But Clinton is polling 17% among black voters here, which I think is a good deal better than her comparables. OTOH, she's only polling 58% of whites.
Still, I can't forget their last poll which inclined me away from IA as source of reasonable information.

: The appeals (none / 0) (#17)
by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:15:55 AM EST

Aren't the appeals being heard in June?

I think Clinton is focusing on other issues (none / 0) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:06:51 AM EST

today. After Tuesday I expect her push back hard on this. She's focusing on and fighting for every vote to be had today in Indiana and North Carolina.

Then they are screwing up imo (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:08:37 AM EST

The delegate math is the ultimate big issue for them.

I was pretty surprised by their response.


my guess (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:13:28 AM EST

they read you and are formulating a better response as we speak.


I think you are right about delegate problem (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Militarytracy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:33:48 AM EST

I also tend to think they will have more clout to insist upon a solution for MI and FL after they take Indiana and skinny up Obama's win in North Carolina.


: Yes (none / 0) (#44)
by Athena on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:59:12 AM EST

Good point. Momentum is a dangerous thing.

I don't know about magic delegate numbers myself (none / 0) (#5)
by Edgar08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:06:54 AM EST

I have set down conditions by which I will consider Obama a legitimate winner of the primary process:

FL and MI are factored into the process including narratives. Increasinly unlikely as every day goes by.
Wins the popular vote.

I make an exception whereby which condition no. 1 is not met.

Obama then has to win the popular vote by a margin that would exceed the inclusion of FL and MI.

As you can see, delegate counts really don't factor into my consideration here.

If people want to talk about them, that's great.

Political Reality (none / 0) (#6)
by flashman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:07:51 AM EST

The Clinton's can't control the process. Sure they would like to seat the delegates, but they have to be realists too. Even @2025, neither campaign stands to accumulate the required delegates, and SD's will weigh in. Hillary's argument is one of electability, not math.

Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:10:19 AM EST

That is delusional.

If 2025 is the number then she has no chance for the nomination.

For two reasons, first and most important, she runs out of time. Second, if fL and MI are not considered part of the process, she has no will of the people argument.

I believe the Clinton camp has bungled the FL/MI issue for quite some time now.


Especially considering (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:12:36 AM EST

this, which could easily set conventional wisdom, and argues that FL should be excluded from the popular vote.


: Well, Allow Me To Point Out (none / 0) (#36)
by flashman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:34:33 AM EST

that the NYT Opinion column isn't the "be all" of political persuasion in this country. There is plenty of reason to believe that the Clinton's will make a persuasive argument that the millions who turned out to vote need to be considered as important to the party's chances in Nov. The party leaders will have to face the fact that if Obama is the candidate, we lost Florida, period. Other important states come into play. In the final analysis, none of the popular totals are "official." It will boil down to who makes the most persuasive argument about electability.

I Don't Appreciate Your Condescending (none / 0) (#26)
by flashman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:27:40 AM EST

"delusional" remark. I do pay attention to the race and the dynamics of the election. As I clearly stated, neither candidate has much of a chance of getting to the 2025 mark in pleadged delegates. "Well of the people" is not determined by pleadged delegates, number of stated won or any other phony measure other than votes. She will make the case that millions voted in Fl and MI and their will should be counted. She'll also make the "electroal" argument that she can win the important states in Noverber. And, BTW, if she wins big on Thursday, she has the big MO that will be important going forward.

Please refain from personal, insulting remarks. I'm sure if I called your comments "delusional" I would find myself suspended. I know I have choices when it comes to what sites I go on, and I find the community here typically very cordial and respectful. I don't care that you don't agree, but I've shown you respect and I would appreciate the same.


It would be delusional of the Clinton camp (1.00 / 1) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:30:49 AM EST

I did not know you were expressing your personal view.

If it is your view, then I believe you being delusional on this.


BTW (1.00 / 1) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:31:43 AM EST

You would not be suspended by me if you called my views delusional.

Why would you?

What would you prefer? Really wrong. Uninformed? Ignorant?


Ask yourself, (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by flashman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:37:28 AM EST

which do you perfer? Would you rater have a mature, reasoned discussion, or be called stupid, childish names? I though that's why we don't do KOS anymore.

My views are NOT delusional. I've paid as much attention to the process as anyone. It's just disgraceful that we cannot have a reasoned discussion without firing insults.


You were called nothing (none / 0) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:40:46 AM EST

your comment was called delusional.

If you believe mine is, then call it as you see it.

Your comment is not YOU.

If I called you a liar, then you would have a lot to be upset about.


I Don't Hurl Insults (5.00 / 0) (#40)
by flashman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:48:52 AM EST

I disagree respectfully, not with insulting, condescing personal remarks. Once again, my opinion is reasoned, informed, well though out, well stated and shared by many other intelligent, informed people. If you have something to disagree with, then by all means, please state your opinions. If you only want to hurl insults, then we are through here.

Delusion:

a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs


Dude it wasn't personal (1.00 / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:50:40 AM EST

I make idiotic comments all the time but I do not think I am an idiot.

But forget that, here's the plan.

I will not engage you anymore.

Have a nice day.


I'll make a point (none / 0) (#46)
by flashman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:01:36 AM EST

to not engage you in the future. I have pleanty of opportunities to discuss issues without being labled. There are still many here with whom I can discuss my informed and non-delusional opinions.


: Great idea (none / 0) (#49)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:11:44 AM EST

Enjoy.

The problem is that (none / 0) (#29)
by ruffian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:30:01 AM EST

Obama could easily get past the 2025 soon with enough SDs announcing. So that number has to be ignored.


yes. (none / 0) (#57)
by AgreeToDisagree on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:44:00 PM EST

we must ignore any thing that has Obama as the winner. per the Clinton campaign.


: B. Fair (none / 0) (#60)
by flashman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:53:11 PM EST

Don't confuse the campaign with her somewhat overly-enthusiastic supporters.

Academic? (none / 0) (#8)
by KevinMc on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:10:02 AM EST

I agree, not a good answer.

2209 is the magic number in my opinion. As long as Fl/MI are unresolved, the delegate math is all hypothetical. Thanks for asking that question.

the rules were (none / 0) (#58)
by AgreeToDisagree on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:50:03 PM EST

that the DNC would not count MI & FL. I certainly understand the desire to count them but it seems that the actual results carry little merit. Split them and sit them if need be but rules are rules.

Rules set forth by our own party should count, imo.


: AtoD, here's a link to the rules (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by lookoverthere on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:06:30 PM EST

The Rules
The Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee have jurisdiction over delegate selection. Those committees can seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida at their discretion.
Basically, the Rules say those committees can change previous decisions about this. The reason for the elasticity isn't to give us something to argue about but because this is a selection, not an election. We're trying to find the best candidate to win the White House and advance the policies of the Dem Party.
We may disagree on who that person may be, but that doesn't change that the Rules can be changed to accomplish the goal of nominating the best candidate to win the general election.
So what is the point of sticking to the Rules---rules that can be changed at any time---if it means losing two states in the general election? Especially if the Dem nominee is going to need those states to win?
Ignoring the voters of FL and MI is short-sighted because this presidential race is not the only election either this year or in the future.
My opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.

Salo (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:11:14 AM EST

There is a thread where that comment fits. The post A Serious Charge.

: The Michigan thing? (none / 0) (#31)
by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:30:51 AM EST

or the pandering?

Isn't it valid (none / 0) (#18)
by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:16:29 AM EST

to accept the current 2025/2024 (I've seen both numbers) as what's valid today with FL and MI legitimately removed from the delegate count while awaiting determination?

Dean has said resolution will take place by mid-June and that he believes there will be some resolution that seats delegates from both states. It probably won't be the full delegation, which makes the actual number an unknown until then.

: I Think Dean (none / 0) (#62)
by flashman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:18:42 PM EST

means that the SD's will decide in June, and the race will be decided by them. If that's the case, then 2025/4 will be the answer, as there is no conceivable way to resolve FL and MI without going to the credentials commettee. These are ostensibly the parameters Hillary will need to deal with. Still, I think she has a shot.

If Obama wins NC by 10+ and keeps IN close... (none / 0) (#20)
by mike in dc on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:20:51 AM EST

...while winning OR, MT and SD, I think she'll lose the electability argument with superdelegates, because it's an argument largely predicated on a continuing collapse of his poll numbers, which would be contraindicated by him continuing to post wins and hold states he's expected to win.

Clinton has to be within sniffing distance of 2025 on June 3rd, or there's no way FL and MI will ever matter for her. If Obama adds 200 pledged delegates, plus another 50 add on and elected superdelegate endorsements, before June 4th, he'll be within 30, with maybe 200 supers left, of 2025, and within 180 or so of 2208. Clinton, under that scenario, would add another 200 pledged plus maybe another 30 supers, putting her around 180 away from 2025. Bottom line, she'd have to not only get FL and MI seated, but nearly sweep the remaining SDs. Extremely unlikely to happen.

Her best case scenario is a double win tomorrow, followed by a sweep of the remaining contests, leading to her getting about 3/4 of the remaining supers to jump to her, and maybe a few nervous Obama supporters to jump ship. 2nd best case, 8-12 point win in IN, plus a narrow loss in NC, followed by a near-sweep of the remaining contests. A narrow win in IN(by less than 7 or 8), plus a double digit loss in NC, probably precludes almost any "Clinton gets the nomination" scenario. The media narrative will be "Obama beats back Clinton surge, gets back on track with big win and narrow loss", and then "the math" will make a comeback, too.

She either has to win big in IN and lose small in NC, or win both outright. If Obama wins both tomorrow, this nomination fight is over, and hopefully Clinton will realize that and concede.

: RE : (none / 0) (#22)
by az on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM EST

She either has to win big in IN and lose small in NC, or win both outright
- She is poised to do that.
However I still don't see her getting the nomination.

: If (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:29:37 AM EST

: Oh, wow, You are *so* five minutes ago (none / 0) (#54)
by goldberry on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:31:34 AM EST

The scenario you just cited isn't in the realm of possibility anymore.

Open ended (none / 0) (#23)
by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:24:50 AM EST

I have been reading your view, but I still think politicians prefer open ended options, give you wiggle room and escape routes. A number would be drawing a line on the sand now without the NC and IN outcomes. Maybe tomorrow would be easier.

: I think that's a big part of it too (none / 0) (#27)
by ruffian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:28:35 AM EST

If they are saying 'ignore the delegate count for now', best to stick to that line no matter what numer is tossed around.

Please link properly (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:32:44 AM EST

I take it that the Clinton signals a compromise (none / 0) (#39)
by Prabhata on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:42:36 AM EST

on FL and MI, therefore the number needed is not knowable.

You know, just a minor point (none / 0) (#42)
by ghost2 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:52:53 AM EST

If you could pick turnout model AND estimate of vote breakdown in each sub-group, you don't need any polls.

Just saying.

Clinton (none / 0) (#43)
by cawaltz on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:58:52 AM EST

is treading carefully. I think that she is focusing her energy on keeping the margins low in the remaining primaries. I would not be surprised if after the contests are over that THEN she will push a little more vigorously on MI and FL. She wants to make sure that each of the states feel like they have her attention is my bet.

Most likely FL result (none / 0) (#45)
by ruffian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:59:42 AM EST

IMHO is that the 'death sentence' for FL will be lifted upon appeal, and FL will get half the delegates as allocated by the vote results in January.

I'm not as familiar with the situation in MI.

I agree with the Clinton camp that the magic number is unknowable at this point, and throwing one out there that is highly unlikely to ever be official would lack credibility.

BTD my 2 cents (none / 0) (#47)
by karen for Clinton on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:04:49 AM EST

The Lord and the Clinton camp work in mysterious ways. They aren't tipping their hand yet, but they must have an ace up a sleeve.

They act like the cat that swallowed the canary sometimes. Wonder why they smile alot?

Florida and Michigan HAVE to be resolved and that sure has nothing to do with what arbitrary number MSNBC-in-the-tank promotes.

The DNC has to come to that decision on their own. The more they're pushed the more they push back off. They appear to side with Obama, but maybe not... it has to be the DNC's own idea to do what is right for the party, after screwing up.

maybe i'm wrong. I keep hearing Bill saying "Chill, it will all work out."

Clinton has a horrible campaign... (none / 0) (#48)
by Exeter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:10:39 AM EST

...not the worst ever, but pretty bad from top to bottom. Obama, on the other hand, has arguably the best staff ever from top to bottom. Good/bad campaigns do not translate to good/bad presidents, but it does speak volumes that despite her inept staff and the perjorative / sexist coverage, she is still in it.

LOL! You've got ot be kidding (none / 0) (#51)
by goldberry on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:27:33 AM EST

They're fricking brilliant to get this far on a shoestring budget. They are being massively outspent and the odds are against them and still they're doing pretty good.
Anyway, we'll see how good they are. They seem to have recovered pretty well from February.


how times of changed (none / 0) (#59)
by AgreeToDisagree on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:52:14 PM EST

the inevitable candidate just three 5 months ago is anything but. She ran a terrible campaign up until the last two months (at which she turned negative at the expense of her party, herself and certainly obama)


: Winning NH, FL, MI, NY, MA, NJ, CA, AZ... (none / 0) (#64)
by goldberry on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:01:19 PM EST

TN, OK, NM by SuperTuesday is hardly running a bad campaign. Think of it this way: Obma didn't win ANY of these significant states. e won his home state and Georgia (R). THAT is the definition of failure. He went for the low hanging fruit.
Clinton, OTOH, has a rather deep bench apparently. It changed its team and managed to win OH, TX and PA on a shoestring budget. That is success, being able to adapt to your environment.
To me, Obama's campaign looks like the failure. All that money and can't close the deal even with all the media help.

: She's destroying the (none / 0) (#67)
by waldenpond on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:15:02 PM EST

party.
Obama camp talking point 37.

That's not how I heard it (none / 0) (#50)
by goldberry on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:25:21 AM EST

As I heard it, they don't believe in a 48 state strategy- period. They believe that the magic number only counts if it includes MI and FL. That is why they will pursue the issue with the Rules and Bylaws committee and at the convention floor. In other words, if Obama gets to the magic number without MI and FL, which seems increasingly unlikely at this point, Clinton will take the DNC on.
Sounds reasonable for me.
BTW, you have a very nice voice.

Nuclear option (none / 0) (#53)
by Foxx on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:28:40 AM EST

Edsall on Huffington calls it the "nuclear option" that Clinton will ask the Rules & ByLaws committee to seat Fl and MI.

What vile framing!!! Using the procedures in place to enfranchise voters is "nuclear"?

It's Obama and the DNC who have been "nuclear." using backroom maneuvering to take two big states out of the race and deny revotes.

Of course she would have it (none / 0) (#56)
by daryl herbert on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:57:26 AM EST

This line of argument, it seems to me, undermines the Clinton high ground on Michigan and Florida. Will they claim victory without seating Florida and Michigan?

She won both of those states. Including them would only help her.

So yes, Sen. Clinton can have the moral high ground if she wins without seating them, because seating them would not change the outcome.

Once it's obvious she would win without them, the DNC will want to seat them in order to increase their/her legitimacy. And Sen. Obama won't have any basis to object, so it would go through.

This seems troubling (none / 0) (#61)
by Makarov on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:01:02 PM EST

but in the end it may not be. If Clinton intends to go all the way to the convention, regardless of whether or not MI/FL are seated, whatever the final tallies of any metrics (delegate count, popular vote count, etc.) then how would they have answered BTD's question?

Should they come out now and flatly state there will be a convention floor fight, bucking everyone in the party that hopes one of the candidates will drop out in June? That would be more dangerous, I think, than leaving BTD's question essentially unanswered. There's a lot that could happen when the RBC meets on May 31. They could fully reinstate the delegations, they could do it for one and not the other, they could reduce the penalty, or they could leave things as they are for the Credentials Committee to deal with.

I think BTD's question was excellent, because it's obvious to me, too, that Clinton doesn't win a race to 2025. Yet, I think their lack of a clear response is because they want to see the result of the RBC meeting, and make their play based on that - not to mention the results of the remaining primaries, which could still contain a couple surprises.

I hope Clinton has a plan for all contingencies. That said, they didn't have much of one when they woke up on Feb 6 and hadn't won the nomination. Whatever those plans may be now, it's probably wiser not to disclose them while there's still millions of voters yet to weigh in.

Perhaps this explains the lack of clarity (none / 0) (#63)
by sander60tx on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:42:12 PM EST

No Hillary Clinton endgame

... her campaign seems to have entered a new, almost mystical phase, in which the number of votes received or delegates pledged no longer matters. "We don't think this is just going to be about some numerical metric," Geoff Garin, one of her chief strategists, recently told the Washington Post. After her back-from-the-dead victory in Ohio, Clinton committed herself to soldiering on not despite but because of the fact that the situation seemed hopeless. For everyone "across America who's ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out, and for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up," she said, "this one is for you."

Deadly reasoning, IMHO (none / 0) (#65)
by desert dawg on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:09:18 PM EST

I agree with BTD, the Clinton campaign is always a day late (and many dollars short). By not picking 2209, they lose the high ground. That's why David Wilhelm's oped piece in the NYT was so important, just as everyone was trying to grasp the correct metric--he formulated it for the us: the supers shouldn't count. That held sway for 3 months and was constantly reinforced (e.g., kos' "coup").

Just wait till the "Puerto Rico doesn't count" meme starts in the MSM in the next few weeks. Never formulating your own storylines means you're always held hostage to those of others.

The Magic Number

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment