Who "needs" to win what?
Maybe this is an obvious point, but I wanted to add a thought I had about who "needs" to win what states and by how much tonight. I hear lots of controversy whenever someone (in particular, Greg and Eric in their TPM EC posts) says something like "Obama needs to win NC by double digits!" and then someone responds saying "He's winning, he could lose NC by 40% and still be winning." Then someone else says "Clinton needs to win both states!" and someone responds with "Clinton needs to win EVERY state with 70%!" etc, etc...
In my opinion, everyone is basically correct. The problem is that everyone leaves unspoken the GOAL they are referring to when they state a "need".
So for example, I could say "Clinton needs to win 70% of the remaining contests." What I really should say is, "In order to win more overall pledged delegates than
Obama, Clinton needs to win 70% of the remaining contests."
I could also say "Obama needs to win NC by double digits and barely win Indiana." What I really should say is, "In order to keep the media narrative in his favor, Obama needs to win NC by double digits and barely win Indiana."
So what ARE the candidates' goals? Barack Obama is already winning, so he doesn't "need" anything in a strict sense. Hillary Clinton is losing, so in one sense she "needs" everything from here on out.
Clearly, however, Hillary can't catch Barack in the pledged delegate count so in my opinion her current goal is to keep the media narrative positive for her to prevent the superdelegates from coming out overwhelmingly for Barack. Barack's goal is to push Hillary out of the race, and to do that he needs to maintain a favorable media narrative so as to give the superdelegates cover to come out and overwhelmingly endorse him.
Obama has won this thing, barring some improbable and questionable tactics from Clinton such as forcing the MI and FL delegates to count, engaging in character assassination to "prove" that Obama is unelectable, etc... The longer the race goes on, the more of a chance Clinton will succeed with this. It's still very unlikely, but in order to have ANY chance at all, she must extend the race. Thus, Obama's goal is to end the race ASAP.
Clinton's goal is to keep the race going and to keep the media covering her favorably.
What's my point? Well, I see that Greg and Eric get a lot of criticism on this board for how they are covering this election and for various statements they make regarding who "needs" what. In my opinion, they aren't really being biased and they aren't really trying to make it seem as if Barack has a higher standard of "need" than Hillary does.
However, I do think that they often leave the "goals" unspoken and if you look at it in terms of "extending the race" versus "ending the race" it becomes much clearer why Obama might "need" a double digit NC win and a small Indiana win whereas Clinton only "needs" to force a split and keep NC relatively close.
If you're simply talking about winning the most pledged delegates, then Obama hardly needs anything. But I think we've moved past that. The "goals" at this point in the game aren't about winning the most delegates, they are about extending versus ending this contest. If we all phrased our statements of "need" in terms of a goal, all of a sudden we ALL start making a lot more sense.
In my opinion, everyone is basically correct. The problem is that everyone leaves unspoken the GOAL they are referring to when they state a "need".
So for example, I could say "Clinton needs to win 70% of the remaining contests." What I really should say is, "In order to win more overall pledged delegates than
Obama, Clinton needs to win 70% of the remaining contests."
I could also say "Obama needs to win NC by double digits and barely win Indiana." What I really should say is, "In order to keep the media narrative in his favor, Obama needs to win NC by double digits and barely win Indiana."
So what ARE the candidates' goals? Barack Obama is already winning, so he doesn't "need" anything in a strict sense. Hillary Clinton is losing, so in one sense she "needs" everything from here on out.
Clearly, however, Hillary can't catch Barack in the pledged delegate count so in my opinion her current goal is to keep the media narrative positive for her to prevent the superdelegates from coming out overwhelmingly for Barack. Barack's goal is to push Hillary out of the race, and to do that he needs to maintain a favorable media narrative so as to give the superdelegates cover to come out and overwhelmingly endorse him.
Obama has won this thing, barring some improbable and questionable tactics from Clinton such as forcing the MI and FL delegates to count, engaging in character assassination to "prove" that Obama is unelectable, etc... The longer the race goes on, the more of a chance Clinton will succeed with this. It's still very unlikely, but in order to have ANY chance at all, she must extend the race. Thus, Obama's goal is to end the race ASAP.
Clinton's goal is to keep the race going and to keep the media covering her favorably.
What's my point? Well, I see that Greg and Eric get a lot of criticism on this board for how they are covering this election and for various statements they make regarding who "needs" what. In my opinion, they aren't really being biased and they aren't really trying to make it seem as if Barack has a higher standard of "need" than Hillary does.
However, I do think that they often leave the "goals" unspoken and if you look at it in terms of "extending the race" versus "ending the race" it becomes much clearer why Obama might "need" a double digit NC win and a small Indiana win whereas Clinton only "needs" to force a split and keep NC relatively close.
If you're simply talking about winning the most pledged delegates, then Obama hardly needs anything. But I think we've moved past that. The "goals" at this point in the game aren't about winning the most delegates, they are about extending versus ending this contest. If we all phrased our statements of "need" in terms of a goal, all of a sudden we ALL start making a lot more sense.
Advertisement
Good point. Her goal to keep the BO superdelegate momentum is a stay alive strategy, but not a winning one. What does she need to do to win in these primaries besides spin? I say cut it down the middle, if she can win 60% of the rest, she has a 25% chance to win the nom. You know, show some clear preference in the "millions" of voters left. 60% wont happen, not even 55%. Can we call this over yet?
May 6, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to maintain a favorable media narrative? I might say his goal is to regain a favorable media narrative and to end the favorable media narrative that has kept Clinton around.
May 6, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
My use of "maintain" was misleading. I didn't mean to imply that he's already got a favorable media narrative (which he doesn't). I meant to imply that in order to push Hillary out of the race he's got to (at some point) maintain a positive media narrative for a period of time to give superdelegates cover to endorse him. You're right, though, in order to maintain a positive media narrative he's got to get one first. :)
May 6, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with the favorable media narrative is that there current narrative is defined by there desire to see this go all the way to the convention so they can pocket loads of advertising cash.
So Obama needs to make it impossible for them to narrate against him. It sucks but it's true.
May 6, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, and I think that's why it always seems that the "bar" is set higher for Obama. It's also why I kinda understand why people sometimes state very high "needs" for him because, given what his goal is, he really DOES need victories big enough that the media has no choice but to report them positively.
May 6, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink