After the latest round of wins for Obama, his campaign is now putting forth the notion that it’s almost “impossible” for Clinton to catch him.
Check this story from The Politico:
Whoâ€™s inevitable now?
With three landslide victories in Tuesdayâ€™s â€œChesapeake Primaryâ€ in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., and a widening lead by any measure of delegates, Senator Barack Obamaâ€™s supporters have begun to suggest a case that, just a few months ago, was coming from Hillary Rodham Clinton: Heâ€™s a lock.
In a conference call with reporters before polls closed Tuesday, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe cited â€œthe cold, hard reality of the math.â€
“I don’t think it’s so much about momentum as the reality of the math,” he said, citing the campaignâ€™s success in building a small but unmistakable lead among pledged delegates. â€œIf we continue to do that, mathematical reality sets in and it becomes harder and harder to overcome.”
Then another Politico report this morning from Ben Smith:
As we wrote last night, Obama has begun to make his own inevitability case, and David Plouffe made it explicit on a conference call this morning, telling reporters that it’s now “next to impossible” for Clinton to surpass what he says is a 136-person lead among pledged delegates.
“The only way she could do it is by winning most of the rest of the contests by 25 to 30 points,” he said. “Even the most creative math really does not get her, ever, back to even in terms of pledged delegates.”
“This is not about votes — it’s about delegates,” Plouffe said.
The other half of this case, of course, is that superdelegates will and/or should follow the pledged delegates.
I would temper the Obama campaign to remain steadfast, but not cocky about victories. It will put them in a different place in the campaign. Take the victories and stay on message. Still, one can’t help but pay attention to the fact that once either candidate begins to get a slight lead, they may well end up being the nominee.
Nothing can be settle until Ohio and Texas on March 4th, however, Obama is in a very good position with Clinton actually fighting for some victories.
Apparently Clinton has not been congratulating Obama on any of these victories, story from the CNN Political Ticker:
EL PASO, Texas (CNN) â€“ For the second election night in a row, Hillary Clinton failed to acknowledge or congratulate Barack Obama after he won the day in dominating fashion.
On Tuesday in El Paso, hours after Virginia had been called for Obama, she stuck to her â€œTexas campaign kickoffâ€ message and did not stray from an energetic, Lone Star-themed stump speech. She did mention Obama by name, only to chide his health care plan.
On Saturday night in Richmond, Virginia, Clinton spoke to a crowd of thousands at the stateâ€™s annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner, but she ignored Obamaâ€™s quartet of blowout primary and caucus wins that day as well (Obama also won the Maine caucuses the next day).
The courtesy of conceding a primary or caucus loss â€” and then congratulating your opponent â€” is by no means required. But it has become standard practice during campaign season.
Does this matter? I mean, congratulating your opponent shows good “sportsmanship” but does it say something about the Clinton campaign, are they a bit spiteful toward Obama?