HRC: OH and TX Matter If We Win

One day, to sustain a dynasty... or end it. Or not.

Once, Big Dog said she had to win them both, now, the campaign has moved the goalposts just a trifle, daring to argue that even if Barack Obama lost one of the four states on March 4, well, Democrats were reconsidering his candidacy.

It is an article of faith among blue-team members that the failure to adequately vet their candidates (John Kerry, 2004; Michael Dukakis, 1988) has cost them dearly in the general election. Obviously, we do not want this to happen again, so reports of the Rezko trial getting underway in Chicago can fray our nerves.

Sans question, no other presidential candidate could survive a loss in either Ohio and Texas after eleven consecutive losses, yet, as we well know, no other presidential candidate is Hillary Clinton.

The math remains deeply troubling for her nomination prospects. In at least a small sense, she is suffering from the same problem that destroyed Mitt Romney's candidacy: the apportionment of delegates. Governor Romney, you may recall, lost everything in Florida, New York, and New Jersey--all of it to Mad Mac. If the Democrats had chosen to make Texas and Ohio winner-take-all battlegrounds, her position would appear stronger. John McCain is poised to capture the Republican nomination, owing in part to an estimated thirty-point lead in Ohio, yet another winner-take-all.

"Under the complex mathematical formula the Ohio Democratic Party will use to divvy up the 141 delegates at stake in the Ohio primary, a candidate has to win big –really big – to win the lion’s share of the delegates."

Simply put, that ain't happening. Of course, if you think the Buckeye State Dems have some "complex" rules, did you take a peek at the Texas primary/caucus extravaganza? In any case, Mrs. Clinton simply isn't going to make up the growing delegate deficit without double-digit victories or perhaps even then. Her only chance left is to win three of four on Tuesday, add Pennsylvania seven weeks later, clamor that Michigan and Florida delegations deserve representation in Denver, and contest every superdelegate that she can persuade to abandon the Democrat who beat her in the primary tallies.

The question is not whether she could choose this route, but whether she should.

Obviously, the Clintons deserve the right to remain in the race up to the convention. After all, Mr. Obama could suffer a campaign calamity and make an enormous political blunder... yeah, right. Of course, the Kennedy '80 precedent, where a Massachusetts senator endeavored to manipulate the gathering to dump a sitting president, is not one to ignore. Arguably, the Democratic Party owes the Clintons much more than they owed Teddy twenty-eight years ago, but how far does this loyalty extend?

Barack Obama, fairly or otherwise, is still seen by millions of Democrats and independents as the last, best hope for American political discourse. His campaign of hope, provided one doesn't read the fine print, presently excites "the masses," as another UA blogger offered a few days prior. How would it look if the crafty Clinton forces conspired to undermine his nomination with much of the free world watching? More importantly, how would the Obama forces react?

The Clinton argument is that neither candidate can amass the requisite number of delegates without the input of the superdelegates, and we all know by now that these special Dems can change their mind at will. Personally, I don't think the Clintons have anything to worry about if they sweep March 4 and romp in Pennsylvania, as whatever momentum the Illinois senator enjoys will have long dissipated in the wind. Then, I presume, we would see a reenactment of 1984 when the superdelegates closed ranks behind the more experienced candidate at the expense of the "movement" one. Ergo, Mr. Obama's "lead" in the delegate race could well prove ephermal, if the Clinton campaign begins to win states again.

Scenarios:

1) HRC pulls out Texas and wins decisively in Ohio
2) Obama loses Ohio, yet wins Texas
3) Obama wins both

One would think the MSM would write off the Clintons after twin defeats in two of the nation's most delegate-rich states and all but coronate Senator Obama and begin to focus on the general election. Based on close tea leaf reading, it now seems as though the Clintons believe a win in Ohio alone is enough to warrant a seven-week extension to Pennsylvania. Hmmm... You may notice that I did not list an improbable lose Ohio/win Texas proposition for Senator Clinton; succinctly, that development would end the Democratic race.

Scenario #2 would add more uncertainty as each candidate would vainly try to win the next media cycle by playing up their big victory and ignoring their loss. Perhaps the Clintons, in the spirit of their prior dismissals of Obama wins, would argue that Texas went for the Illinois senator because of the caucus factor at the end. The press wouldn't go for that... or would they?