Stalling tactics
Sometimes I get caught up in my own biases and emotions and lose a bit of analysis. I want to float this as a theory. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Maybe, just maybe, the whole electability, Ferraro, threshold, "big state" dustups coming from the Clinton side aren't so much about winning in August as simply vamping to try and keep the balls in the air right now.
It is inarguable that Obama leads delegates, states, and popular vote, and looks prohibitively likely to finish well ahead in pledged delegates and states. (The Clinton camp has a shot at popular vote, but even that is a pretty be a tight pull.)
In the face of these mathematical realities, the Clinton camp must be freaking out. The two game ending scenarios they face are either a narrative of inevitability or a sudden flow of superdelegates to Obama. (I would argue that if he were to even the superdelegate count before Pa, that might end it.)
So, maybe all this noise, all this campaign chaff, is not intended to win in August, but simply to keep the waters muddied enough to keep the topic off the math and to keep the superdelegates somewhat frozen in place.
I've been treating these arguments and controversies as literal when in fact they might just be stalling tactics to try and keep the campaign going for another day, to wait and hope that Obama makes some huge mistake.
Without "controversy," all that TV time might be filled with the mathematical analysis of inevitability.
Just a thought. Feedback?
(PS. Sorry for so many analysis pieces lately, I'm just not seeing as much stuff that's factual and feels "linkworthy.")
Maybe, just maybe, the whole electability, Ferraro, threshold, "big state" dustups coming from the Clinton side aren't so much about winning in August as simply vamping to try and keep the balls in the air right now.
It is inarguable that Obama leads delegates, states, and popular vote, and looks prohibitively likely to finish well ahead in pledged delegates and states. (The Clinton camp has a shot at popular vote, but even that is a pretty be a tight pull.)
In the face of these mathematical realities, the Clinton camp must be freaking out. The two game ending scenarios they face are either a narrative of inevitability or a sudden flow of superdelegates to Obama. (I would argue that if he were to even the superdelegate count before Pa, that might end it.)
So, maybe all this noise, all this campaign chaff, is not intended to win in August, but simply to keep the waters muddied enough to keep the topic off the math and to keep the superdelegates somewhat frozen in place.
I've been treating these arguments and controversies as literal when in fact they might just be stalling tactics to try and keep the campaign going for another day, to wait and hope that Obama makes some huge mistake.
Without "controversy," all that TV time might be filled with the mathematical analysis of inevitability.
Just a thought. Feedback?
(PS. Sorry for so many analysis pieces lately, I'm just not seeing as much stuff that's factual and feels "linkworthy.")
posted by mikevotes at
8:25 AM
4 Comments:
I think there's something to that theory. They're striving to maintain (or create) the idea of a close race, and all these bits and pieces work toward that goal. But really, it would seem that only a popular vote win or a huge Obama mistake can turn the tide. It's doubtful they can nibble him to death.
At the same time, they probably figure that even if they DO turn the tide, it won't be by much. And thus the one or two or three superdelegates that they win over with this or that trivial argument
could turn out to be significant.
By
Anonymous, at 2:47 PM
That's exactly why I came to this as a theory. None of these attacks or whatever you want to call them is enough to force the superdelegates to go against the pledged delegate lead so I'm thinking they must be playing for time and to freeze the supers.
...
And, just as a question, how do you think the popular vote will factor in if they come to some sort of managed solution on either Fla or Mich. For instance, if they agree to split the delegates 60/40, is the popular vote from the earlier votes still as powerful as part of the argument?
It would allow the Clinton camp to claim that earlier significant advantage, likely better than would come out of a revote, but at the same time they would also be tacitly admitting that that previous vote wasn't fully clear.
I figure that since the popular vote is her main mechanism through right now, that perception will really matter.
By
mikevotes, at 3:35 PM
I would assign most of their tactics as throwing anything and everything at OB. Maybe something sticks and the msm goes ape-shit and her campaign looks more attractive. I also think they are throwing every bomb they can in attempts to get OB or a major surrogate to make a huge mistake. I am sure they keep thinking tomorrow is a new day and full of potential but the msmis starting to lose interest in helping her (ala the Tex and Oh big contest)...maybe the clintons have seen the msm and citizenry accept every lie for the last 7 years without a peep and think they can just step in and do the same.
Spitzer gets the msm not talking about OB then GF decides to talk and most the msm and blogs go hard against her. I think the clinton machine is hoping msm will latch onto something crazy and turn the tide. Her campaign refuses to accept the blogs can make a difference and help to counter the msm-spin...just another sign of refusing to accept reality...I know a lot of people who, like myself, completely stopped watching MSM news and instead read blogs and watch cspan. It has helped me keep my enthusiasm for this election cycle. Not having to listen to the msm idiots...
Whatever HRC strategy is, I just hope she concedes soon and we can get busy starting putting this democracy experiement back together again.
By
Anonymous, at 4:42 PM
I definitely see the effort to bait a mistake. Frankly, an Obama implosion is one of their last best hopes.
(My recommendation is to get a TIVO or DVR, record the news shows, and then just skip through to the bits you like. That's what I do. )
By
mikevotes, at 5:19 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home