Clinton Campaign Pre-Spin

The results tonight, said Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson on a conference call, will be "inconclusive."

The "proportional allocation process on our side is designed to keep the nominating process going for as long as possible. Despite the outcome day, which again, we think we will be largely inconclusive, we do expect to maintain our lead in overall delegates when we wake up tomorrow."

Wolfson said that the campaign has accepted several debate invitations, including a CNN debate on Feb. 27 in Ohio and a Fox News debate on Feb. 11 in Washington, D.C.

Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, would not say whether the campaign predicted it would have the largest number of earned delegates tomorrow -- only that it expected to retain the edge in the total number of delegates.

Comments

Sounds good, except that Clinton doesn't have a lead in delegates to maintain. Obama has the lead in delegates currently...(unless you count superdelegates, which aren't official at this point and are notoriously changeable later in the game...not to mention undemocratic, but that's another issue.)

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 5, 2008 2:27 PM

That really, really, really sounds like dialing down expectations. Axelrod said Obama would be happy coming within 100 delegates; Wolfson makes it sound like it will be much closer than that. Either the Clinton camp has very little confidence (do they know something?) or is trying to lower the bar so low that even a small jump over it is going to appear like a giant leap.

Posted by Fred App | February 5, 2008 2:40 PM

Since both campaigns are lowering expectations, the safe bet is probably that it will indeed be a muddle. But Axelrod's memo reads more like a shrewd gaming of expectations than Penn's does, so who knows?

Posted by KobayashiMaru | February 5, 2008 2:46 PM

Given the results of New Hampshire, I think any person paying attention should have learned by now to be skeptical of polls.

I believe that Obama is on a roll, building momentum, and getting his message out to more and more voters every day, bringing many of them on board.

But the national polls don't necessarily accurately reflect the numbers for each of the February 5th states, and CNN newscasters and others are speaking as if they do.

It's going to depend a lot on voter turnout... as always!

Posted by Michael | February 5, 2008 2:47 PM

Don't buy the Clinton spin guys. Lowering expectations is what you do whether you think you're going to lose OR win. In other words, they can only benefit from lowering expectations.

But it doesn't mean they think they're going to lose. Don't get hopes up.

Posted by Dan | February 5, 2008 2:48 PM

When the pollsters first missed the mark in Iowa, the social media research company I work for decided to see if the blogosphere was as wrong as the traditional media. Using a more primitive version of our current methodology, we were pleasantly surprised to see that a measurement of blog sentiment and activity would have correctly (if narrowly) predicted an Obama win. Our theory as to why this is: people so engaged in the political process that they publicly blog about their favorite candidates could fairly represent those who are engaged enough to vote in the primaries and caucuses at all. We followed 5 states for Super Tuesday and made overall and specific predictions, which can be found here, if you’re interested:

http://blog.collectiveintellect.com/2008/02/05/super-tuesday-blogosphere-predicts-mccain-obama-as-winners/

Posted by Kevin | February 5, 2008 2:52 PM

Clinton agreed to a Fox News debate!?!?

Posted by BR | February 5, 2008 2:52 PM

Both sides always lower expectations. Everyone has learned from GWB. His crew managed to lower expectations so low, we ended up with a monkey for president. I think it's a shame too. Both sides ought to call it like they see it and let the chips fall where they may.

My prediction is that Clinton ends up winning all but 3-4 states. She ends up with a delegate lead of 100-125 and that the MSM along with Obama will declare victory. As the MSM is in the bag for Obama this is the story that will be reported. The reality however is that Clinton will win today.

Posted by Pragmatic Liberal | February 5, 2008 2:57 PM

My prediction is that Clinton ends up winning all but 3-4 states. She ends up with a delegate lead of 100-125 and that the MSM along with Obama will declare victory. As the MSM is in the bag for Obama this is the story that will be reported. The reality however is that Clinton will win today.

I have similar thoughts, although I suspect Obama may win more than just three or four. My guess would be more like fifteen to seven in favor of Clinton. I don't think the MSM will be able to spin it for Obama, though, if one of those fifteen states includes California, and she eeks out at least a four or five point victory overall. By my calculations that would give her bragging rights to the effect that:

She's won nineteen contests overall to Obama's nine.

She'll have won the biggest prizes so far in the campaign: SuperTuesday as a whole AND the nation's largest and most influential state, California.

She'll have moved out to a hundred or so lead in pledged delegates, and closer to three hundred if superdelegates are counted, and even more than that if Michigan and Florida are seated.

Perhaps most importantly, the white-hot Obamomentum will be slowed. An Obama campaign with out momentum is like lasagna without red sauce.

If Obama's haul includes a win in California, the field is more muddied, unless Clinton's overall victory is fairly substantial (ie., approaching double digits). However, it's hard to envision a scenario whereby Hillary wins the overall contest on Tuesday by double digits and manages to lose California. I have a feeling whoever takes California will go on to rapidly consolidate the nomination. If Obama wins the majority of tonight's delegate haul -- even by only a slight margin -- I don't see how Hillary stops him.

Posted by Jasper | February 5, 2008 3:21 PM

"Perhaps most importantly, the white-hot Obamomentum will be slowed. An Obama campaign with out momentum is like lasagna without red sauce." - Jasper

I know you were making a figurative point, but I'm now tempted to try lasagna with alfredo sauce. I suppose you can guess who I voted for. *laughing*

Posted by Curious | February 5, 2008 3:28 PM

Guys make sure you check out the article "The Intoxication of Inspiration" on the blogzine SAVAGE POLITICS (not related to Mike Savage) at www.savagepolitics.com. It is awesome......everyone should read it before voting.

Posted by Elsylee | February 5, 2008 3:47 PM

Notice again the contrast in how Ambinder posts the Hillary spin without comment, while choosing to attack the Obama spin.

Posted by Mike | February 5, 2008 3:52 PM