Numbers, Numbers, Numbers

So the Yankees are leading their division by 8 games in mid-September. They go on a 13-game road trip, losing 7 and winning 6. Was that good or bad?

In Pennsylvania, What Constitutes a Win?

Conversely, if Mrs. Clinton defeats Mr. Obama by a significant margin – think over 10 percent – it would give her the rationale to go on. Depending on what exit polls reveal about the nature of Mr. Obama’s loss – in particular, is he continue to struggle among white blue-collar voters? — it would reinforce questions Mrs. Clinton’s aides have been pressing about Mr. Obama’s general election appeal, giving her one more argument to use with superdelegates.

Even Mrs. Clinton’s supporters acknowledge that it would require some enormous shift in the dynamics of the campaign for Mrs. Clinton to ultimately win the nomination; but this at least would give her a few more weeks for lightning to strike.

Where things get murky is if Mrs. Clinton wins with less than 10 percent. Mrs. Clinton would almost certain try to claim victory with that kind of outcome, and explain the showing by pointing to the fact that Mr. Obama outspent her dramatically in the state, and campaigned aggressively in the final days there.

That is an argument that is easier to sustain if her victory margin is, say, 8 percent, than if it drops below 5 percent, where the Clinton campaign may find fewer people are listening.

More than that, though, while that argument might fend off a defection of superdelegates and calls for her to quit the race, a slim victory is not going to be of much help in the nuts-and-bolts struggle she faces in trying to dislodge Mr. Obama’s lead.

This morning, Obama has 1650 delegates. 158 are at stake in Pennsylvania today. Suppose he picks up 71 of them (while Clinton gets 87.) He needs 2024 to secure the nomination.

Can you say “magic number?”

Comments

  1. Pigilito wrote:

    The only outcome I’ll be happy with is when Clinton exits the race. Her very presence gives me the heebie-jeebies.

    Magic number? I don’t see Barack clinching the nomination so much as the H-beast dropping out.

    Staying true to pessemistic nature, I foresee a nine to 11 point win for the gal from Scranton. Then Indiana steps in as the next make or break for her, and we do it all over again.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 2:23 pm

  2. Redhand wrote:

    The only outcome I’ll be happy with is when Clinton exits the race. Her very presence gives me the heebie-jeebies dry heaves.

    Unhappily, I don’t think Hillary will quit until the convention. There is no purpose to her existence other than to run for Prez and dodge bullets at Tuzla.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 3:47 pm

  3. canuckistani wrote:

    I see her standing alone on the post-convention stage demanding a recount over and over in a scratchy voice with no one to hear.

    But who cares about my opinion? I’m an elitist and no fun for an ordinary guy to have a beer or bowl with.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 3:52 pm

  4. Stephen wrote:

    The post-convention stage?

    Heh. Right before New Hampshire, when it looked like she was out, Allahpundit at HotAir wrote how he was looking forward to the Clintons being forced to smile and wave and raise Obama’s arm at Denver.

    But he put it better than that. :)

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 4:14 pm

  5. libarbarian wrote:

    I’m an elitist and no fun for an ordinary guy to have a beer or bowl with.

    Not like salt-o-the-earth HRC whose grandpappy taught her to kill and skin a bear with a fork.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 5:58 pm

  6. David C. wrote:

    Unhappily, I don’t think Hillary will quit until the convention.

    I agree, but for me I change the “unhappily” to “happily.” :)

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 7:43 pm

  7. Redhand wrote:

    I agree, but for me I change the “unhappily” to “happily.”

    So, like, you really want a continuation of the Bush Administration ubder the ageis of Sen. “Over the hill, burst into flames” John McCain?

    Pleeaze, the guy is clueless.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 6:09 am

  8. David C. wrote:

    So, like, you really want a continuation of the Bush Administration ubder the ageis of Sen. “Over the hill, burst into flames” John McCain?

    Please don’t spout ridiculous DNC rhetoric at me and expect me to actually believe it. McCain is not Bush.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 8:30 am

  9. Redhand wrote:

    McCain is not Bush.

    Oh, of course not, David C.

    Personally, I’d rather be caught photographed with a sheep than in such a pose. A big-time Post SC 2000 primary Stockholm Syndrome sufferer, fer sure. Pathetic.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 8:55 am

  10. Redhand wrote:

    Fixed Link to 2000 SC Primary

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 8:59 am

  11. canuckistani wrote:

    McCain is not Bush.

    No, he’s Bush without the civility but with an even stronger urge to pander to fundamentalist bigots and continue fighting a pointless war.
    But he is a heroic white manly man that you could drink a beer with, and what more do you need in a President? He can be the new Barbecue Buddy in Chief.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 9:57 am

  12. canuckistani wrote:

    But he’s not senile. Nope. No sirree. I’m sure the self-avowed policy expert getting Sunni and Shia mixed up four times running was a cunning plan.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 9:58 am

  13. David C. wrote:

    Yeah, a picture of Bush and McCain together means McCain must be just like Bush. That must be left-wing logic. Hey, maybe Obama is just like Reverend Wright. After all, they’ve been photographed together.

    McCain is a lot of things, but he’s not very similar to Bush. Trying to pretend that he is may be an effective campaign tactic, but that doesn’t make it true.

    In any event, I disagree with Obama/Clinton on 90%+ of the issues. So McCain is the only alternative. I’ll be voting for him as the lesser of two evils — which is normal for presidential elections anyway. Even a senile McCain is far more preferable than either Democratic candidate, especially with a Democratic congress. He could just veto bills at random and it would almost certainly be a positive.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 11:08 am

  14. Alon Levy wrote:

    I can already see the random bill-vetoing mechanism. He’ll decide in advance that he wants to veto fifty bills his first year and Congress is likely to pass about a thousand, so he should veto a given bill with a probability of 5%. So he’ll randomly veto a bill to rename two post offices, a bill promoting forty Navy officers, a bill establishing a $15 million/year commission to study food poisoning, and a bill condemning human rights abuses in Nigeria. However, he’ll sign a bill providing for a $7 billion bailout to Ford and GM, a bill raising taxes as Obama promised, a bill withdrawing from Iraq, and, because by then Congress will have realized his bill-vetoing mechanism, a bill declaring him a dunce.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 12:13 pm

  15. David C. wrote:

    It’s actually a postive sign that some Democrats are trying to push the “McCain is senile” line of attack. (Of course they are fine with that attack while at the same time characterizing almost any attack on Obama as having some sort of racist overtones.) After all, the “Bush is a moron” attack worked well enough that he got two terms.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 12:38 pm

  16. Alon Levy wrote:

    Yeah, a good rule of thumb in campaigning is to ask Hillary Clinton what she’d do, and then do the opposite.

    It’s not that negative campaigning is bad or doesn’t work. It’s that bad negative campaigning doesn’t work. When McCain confuses Sunnis and Shi’as on camera and Lieberman has to whisper a correction, that’s a good clip for an attack. The shocking revelation that he’s 71, not so much.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 1:03 pm

  17. Redhand wrote:

    Yeah, a picture of Bush and McCain together means McCain must be just like Bush.

    Is that really the best you could come with in response to this grotesque image of medieval-like fealty?

    Sorry, but the symbolism of the picture is spot-on: in his policies McCain is cravenly pro-Bush, even on pro-torture issues. As noted elsewhere:

    John McCain the corporate controlled Republican presidential candidate voted against a Senate bill that bans the use of water torture. The bill entitled the Intelligence Authorization Bill contained a provision that required interrogations to be in line with the standards of the Army’s field manual which would effectively ban the use of water torture on detainees. McCain’s vote is surprising considering that he has said on numerous occasions that we should not condone the use of torture. It is amazing that McCain would vote against a bill that would ban the use of water torture after he’s spoken out against the use of torture on a frequent basis during his presidential campaign. Clearly the straight talk express doesn’t have a whole lot of credibility when he does the opposite of what he says. How can anyone take McCain seriously after this vote?

    After all, the “Bush is a moron” attack worked well enough that he got two terms.

    But it’s not going to do much for his “leg-ah-see.” See “The Most Disappointing President”

    Keep posting away, David. you keep the Politburo most interesting with your Repub. orthodoxy.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 1:39 pm

  18. David C. wrote:

    Is that really the best you could come with in response to this grotesque image of medieval-like fealty?

    I don’t need to come up with much since the amount of things you are reading into a typical political photo op is pretty silly.

    the symbolism of the picture is spot-on

    Yes, to BDS-sufferers. To normal people it’s a Republican nominee having a photo op with the current Republican president — nothing unusual, and nothing particularly significant.

    McCain is cravenly pro-Bush

    McCain has never been much of a political ally of Bush. If anything he’s been a rival within the Republican party, which is one reason many Republicans despise him. Most people are aware of this.

    But it’s not going to do much for his “leg-ah-see.”

    You missed my point.

    Keep posting away, David. you keep the Politburo most interesting with your Repub. orthodoxy.

    That’s pretty funny. I don’t think I’ve been called an “orthodox” Republican before. Most Republicans think I’m more or less a RINO.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 2:43 pm

  19. Redhand wrote:

    That’s pretty funny. I don’t think I’ve been called an “orthodox” Republican before. Most Republicans think I’m more or less a RINO.

    I well remember when I was more like you, eliciting “Troll” and “RINO” accusations over at Ace’s place for having the temerity to object to the Bush Administration’s torture policies, all the while protesting that I really was “conservative” at heart.

    Sadly, those Halcyon days were short-lived, after I became radicalized by the across-the-board illegality, unconstitutional conduct and abuse of power of the Bush Administration. Now I spend most of my blogger comment time at the poisoned well of John Cole’s Balloon-Juice, with occasional, “kinder, gentler” excursions here.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 5:10 pm

  20. David C. wrote:

    I well remember when I was more like you, eliciting “Troll” and “RINO” accusations over at Ace’s place for having the temerity to object to the Bush Administration’s torture policies, all the while protesting that I really was “conservative” at heart.

    You don’t even need to do that much. Just calling Bush incompetent, saying he’s been a bad president, or suggesting that the war has been horribly screwed up, are more than enough to get you called not only a RINO, but a liberal posing as a conservative, on many right-wing blogs. Even arguing that waterboarding is torture (which I accept), makes me some sort of “liberal.”

    And if you look on those same blogs, where the hardcore conservatives hang out, you will also see that most of the same people who still defend Bush utterly despise John McCain. A significant number of them say they won’t vote for him. The “McSame” campaign theme — although I think it is an effective tactic — lacks any real substance except at the most superficial levels, ie. that McCain and Bush are both Republicans and agree on some issues that many Republicans agree on. Also, keep in mind that McCain basically won the nomination primarily with the votes of independents and Democrats. He wasn’t exactly sweeping Republicans in the primaries.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 6:17 pm

  21. Redhand wrote:

    Even arguing that waterboarding is torture (which I accept), makes me some sort of “liberal.”

    So we do have points of agreement. And, no wonder you hand out here. ;-)

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 9:03 pm

  22. Redhand wrote:

    Oops, shoulda bin “hang out.”

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 9:04 pm

  23. Alon Levy wrote:

    Well, remember how in 2004, all the Democratic bloggers were complaining that Kerry was a conservative who had voted for the war… the Republicans still managed to convince a good portion of the electorate that he was some scary liberal. Or how in this election cycle, the liberal blogosphere was most excited about Edwards.

    Bloggers are rarely a good gauge of public opinion.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 11:25 pm

  24. David C. wrote:

    Bloggers are rarely a good gauge of public opinion.

    That’s definitely true. Political bloggers tend to represent the hardcore, committed activist bases of the parties, and political junkies. The general public isn’t out there arguing about every nuance of the campaign.

    Posted 24 Apr 2008 at 8:36 am

« Must be getting close to a primary day
The Clintons hold the low road »