UPDATED: Arbitrary Goalposting

Filed in National by on April 1, 2008

People are saying:

If Hillary Clinton does not win PA by more than 20% it is a huge disaster for her and she should drop out.

I happen to agree, but 20 points does seem to be pretty arbitary.

UPDATE: Turns out I coined a word. So when you hear Tucker Carlson use the word Goalposting to mean setting expectations for the outcome of an election so that the results can be viewed as positive – you know you heard it here first.

(h/t Duncan Black for being a great guy.)

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Von Cracker says:

    When she’s finally out, the question then goes to who is going to run against her for her NY seat?

    It’s long past time in purging the DLC out of the Left.

    That means you too Carper!

  2. Rebecca says:

    VC, let’s not get too cockey, it’s going to take more than two cycles for the country to move left again. Dean started it for us early-adopters and the fact that Obama and Clinton are the finalists this time certainly says we’re moving in the right direction. Thing is, we’ve got an awful lot of people to drag along with us and they still aren’t paying attention. This is going to take time.

  3. Pandora says:

    20 points is a bit high, but so was 11 straight losses. Frankly, I give up.

    Truth is this wouldn’t even be a talking point if the Clintons hadn’t kept setting the bar and then moving it. If they had just SHUT UP (wrapping it up by Super Tuesday, having to win Ohio and Texas, etc.) I’m not sure anyone would be calling on her to drop out.

    Now we’re onto PA. A state that the Clinton’s have been crowing over for months… but… but.. wait a minute… Now it’s all about Indiana and if that doesn’t work, well… there’s always the convention and law suits.

    So, in my opinion, if the HRC is outraged over calls for her to get out she has only herself to blame.

  4. cassandra_m says:

    HRC has been excellent at the expectations management business and is one of the reasons she is still in it. It all still looks like a real horserace. But Obama just has to maintain his lead in pledged delegates (which also maintains his lead in the popular vote), meaning he needs to keep is relatively close. Without a big win, she has a tough time holding on to her team and funders, I think.

    I’ve heard (and read) folks speculating about HRC as Majority Leader in the Senate — what do you think? I’m partial to Dodd as Majority Leader, but Hillary may be better at leading the Senate.

    (Hi Pandora!)

  5. jason330 says:

    I kind of liek the idea of HRC as Senate leader.

    I had high hopes for Reid but he still seems to cling to the idea that the President is popular in some way.

  6. Von Cracker says:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if someone did run against her in the next NY primary….

    …we’ll see how she plays this out after PA.

    Given her tactics, lies, and GOP-lite stances on some foreign policy issues, trade, and big business, a grassroots level candidate may wake her up. NYC area most likely will save her against the big business pushback that most of the non-NYC constituents (NY and out-of-state) want.

    If she shows contrition and fully supports Obama after she loses/quits, then I and I’m sure many others will be more than willing to let bygones….

    Her psycho supporters on MyDD now are comparing Obama to George Wallace! Not all, but a staunch core.

  7. Steve Newton says:

    I thought the 20% Hillary-must-win and the it’s-Indiana-that-counts-now were all Obama campaign spin, because he knows he’s going to lose PA by 10-11 points.

  8. Little Birdie.... says:

    Rebecca:

    FYI: Carper MUST GO…he is a big part of the problem.