TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
18.02.2008
Mystery Solved

Last week, I asked whether the Clinton campaign's touting of their Texas chances, despite convoluted state rules that would make it almost impossible for them to get much of an edge in delegates, was a "ruse" to buy themselves more time or the result of a shocking failure to do their homework. As Jason's noted, now we have our answer. Publius and Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings both take a bite.

Publius:

While they were busy “discovering” the rules, however, the Obama campaign had people on the ground in Texas explaining the system, organizing precincts, and making Powerpoints. I know because I went to one of these meetings a week ago. I should have invited Mark Penn I suppose.

Hilzoy:

I dissolved in giggles after the first sentence.... In what sense are the Texas rules a "new obstacle?" Were they only recently passed? Not as far as I can tell -- here, for instance, is a pdf about them from August 2007, which should have given the Clinton campaign ample time to get up to speed.... I was having fun thinking of possible analogies -- would I describe the existence of the Pacific Ocean as "creating a new obstacle" for my plan to walk from Baltimore to Beijing? or the fact that five is a prime number as "creating a new obstacle" to my proving that it is a multiple of two?

 --Christopher Orr

Posted: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:00 AM with 6 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

nkocz said:

Um, just what do Penn and Ickes and co. do to justify their salaries?  Figure out new ways to mis-interpret rules (duh!  Florida and Michigan don't count?) so they can cry foul?  Instead of blaming the vast right wing conspiracy, the campaign sounds like they're turning their sights onindividual Democratic state committees for stacking the deck against them.  

What surprises me is that they're already playing a game of diminished expectations in regards to Texas.  At this rate, it'll be only a few more days before they start peddling the line that Pennsylvania really isn't that important either...

February 18, 2008 10:36 AM

ralphnelle said:

Let the Clintons' complaining begin!

Chance for an Obama applause line: point out HRC's Bush-like disrespect for the rule of rules.

February 18, 2008 10:44 AM

fougasseu said:

Mystery still not solved. Al of the Great Explainers on "Meet the Press" and "This Week" are still trying to explain (reduce) Obama, but all they manage to do is trade polling data back and forth. I think Penn and Ickes are not going to stitch together a comparable or better "mystery" for Hillary in all of their numbers. She needs to come up wiith that on her own.

The old Clinton mystery, the magical partnership of Bill and Hillary that both made them loved, hated, envied and feared, completely unexplainable, was powerful. But that twosome doesn't work anymore. That old black magic is gone.

Where's the new magic?

February 18, 2008 11:16 AM

lymon1 said:

I think it's clear what they're doing -- arguing the popular vote should rule.  The problem here is that they aren't winning the popular vote yet, and unless they win big in Texas and Ohio, they won't without Florida and Michigan, which of course shouldn't count.  Another Clinton non-starter is that we should be looking at Dem total votes and discount independents, at least as far as selecting a nominee (see Taylor Marsh).  

But that said, Obama supporters keep ducking the point: if you believe every voter's vote should count the same, you don't go with the Dem delagate selection process unless it produces a clear winner. If that process produces a clear winner, fine, those were the rules.  But if they don't, the most democratic (small d) thing for superdelagates is to go with the total vote winner.  I hate the idea that if such a delagate/voter split comes to be, the superdelagates will be the ones wheeling and dealing to SELECT the nominee.

February 18, 2008 11:44 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Clinton argument, post-Iowa: Obama only wins in caucus states.

Clinton argument, post-Super Tuesday: Obama only appeals to black voters.

Clinton argument, post-Potomac Primary: Obama only wins in states that don't matter.

Clinton argument, post-Texas: Obama only wins in states that hold elections.

February 18, 2008 11:48 AM

guyminuslife said:

Apparently I'm ahead of the CW on my state. Go figure.

February 18, 2008 12:34 PM