Ahh, the good ol' days when the Clintons insisted that this election would be decided by the delegate count.

January 9, 2008:

WOLFSON: I guess one other thing I'd add is that, as you know, this is a race for delegates. And we currently enjoy a lead in delegates, thanks to the great -- some of the great super delegates that we have on this call and around the country.

See, it mattered because Clinton then led in delegates. Same day:

MCAULIFFE: [...] I've said from day one, and this is the point I tried to make yesterday on television when everybody was asking me questions about after Iowa and New Hampshire what happens, I've always viewed it sort of as a 27-state contest.

But, listen, I always said we're going to win some, we're going to lose some. And at the end of the day it's getting a basket of delegates.

January 25, 2008:

WOLFSON: Well, you know, as you know, all of the polls have Senator Obama ahead. I think he has run a strong campaign in South Carolina. He began there ahead; he remains ahead.

And we have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates. It's a race that we are ahead in. We have more delegates than Senator Obama.

February 6, 2008:

CECIL: Well, our goal at the end of last night was to be ahead in super delegates and overall delegates. And, in fact, this morning, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama in delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

...[WOLFSON] We think that we are in the poll position because we have a lead, overall, in delegates. We think it is going to be very difficult for Senator Obama to make up that lead because of the way in which the party allocates its delegates proportionately.

So we feel very good about that. But this is going to be a neck-and-neck contest for the foreseeable future.

Senator Obama does enjoy some advantages in the contests in the rest of February, but not in a way that should permit him to overcome our lead in delegates.

WOLFSON: And overall, we have a significant lead among delegates, overall, which, obviously, at the end of the day is what is going to positively determine which Democrat is our party's nominee.

Ha ha, Wolfson said it was "obvious" that the delegate race would determine the nominee. But that was when the Clinton campaign still had the lead. Then the lead disappeared, and it became about the "popular vote", and about "electability", and about IF, IF, and IF.

Mark Nickolas, who compiled these quotes, says:

Maybe it's hard to blame Wolfson, McAuliffe and Cecil for pushing these story lines, as they know too well the media isn't going to spend a minute holding them accountable for anything they say.

Maybe. Sure, they get away with what the media lets them get away with. But regardless, note how the Obama campaign never disparaged the system or the role of the delegates while they trailed in those metrics. They knew the rules of the game, and decided to operate within their confines. They have never attempted to rewrite them for their own benefit. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, appears to have as much respect for the rules (and reality, for that matter) as the Bush administration they are seeking to replace.

So the pro-Clinton camp is circulating these Electoral-Vote maps to "prove" that Clinton is more "electable" in the fall:

I can quibble with the methodology, but I won't. There's a larger point to be made using those maps. The author has helpfully divided the states into Strong, Weak, and Barely Dem/GOP. Let's see how our two candidates fare:

What's this tell us?

• It tells us that Obama's base is stronger: "strong" and "weak" Dem add up to 172 for Clinton, and 211 for Obama. We have to play less defense.
• With Obama, McCain's base is weaker: 226 EVs versus Clinton, and 178 versus Obama.

These two data points alone are worth the price of admission for Obama. With him as our nominee, Democrats have a larger safe base, and Republicans have a smaller one. But what about the contested states?

• More Democratic states are at risk with Clinton. In the "barely Dem" category, Clinton has double the EVs -- 117 to 58. What's more, the "tied" state -- Wisconsin, is a Blue state. So with Clinton, we have 127 EVs that are in weak hands.

  With Obama, however, we have only 58 "barely Dem" EVs, and the tied states, North Carolina, is a Red state.

• Obama puts more pressure on McCain states: With Obama, McCain has 76 "barely GOP" EVs compared to 13 against Clinton. Put another way, best case scenario where our candidates take all the states in their column and "barely GOP" columns, Obama ends up with 360 EVs, while Clinton would get 312. Obama has far higher ceiling.
• Obama Holds the Kerry states better: This is related to the "base states" stuff above. The only Kerry state Obama currently loses is New Hampshire. On the other hand, Clinton loses Michigan, New Hampshire, and ties in Wisconsin. Furthermore, Obama has three Kerry states in the "barely" category -- Michigan, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Clinton has six -- Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Hawaii. That means that Clinton is losing or barely holding on to 9 Kerry states (out of 19), compared to four for Obama.

Democratic numbers versus McCain are currently artificially depressed because of our long-running primary. But despite that disadvantage, Obama still runs a far broader, map-changing campaign than Clinton.

If Democrats want to run the same campaign that has served us so poorly the last decade -- hold the Kerry states and win Ohio and Florida, then Clinton is the person. It's clear in her rhetoric that she can't fathom any other path to the White House. That's why she has insulted so many "Red" states and small states and whatnot. Because in her mind, 50%+1 is the only thing that matters.

Beside having a more solid base than Clinton, Obama's campaign would have a tough time competing in Florida, no doubt about that. But he opens up the Mountain West -- Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, possibly Montana, North Dakota, and even one or two of Nebraska's EVs (they are apportioned by congressional district). Obama would be competitive in Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia -- with their large youth, African American, Latino, and creative class voters.

And I'm getting this all from the map currently cited by Clinton supporters as evidence of her supposed better electability. The map, sad to say (for them), says the exact opposite.

John Cole:

If Barack is such a bad candidate, and he is so unelectable, and it is such a bad idea to have him as the Democratic nominee, why can’t Hillary beat him?

Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don’t insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months. Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday?

Why to those questions and a hundred more like them. If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why?

Because IF Obama wasn't black, and IF millions of people weren't supporting him, and IF he didn't raise all that money, and IF his campaign hadn't been run better than hers, and IF Red states hadn't had the gall to vote, and IF those damn activists didn't disagree with her on war in Iraq and nuking Iran, and IF MoveOn wasn't so effective, and IF latte sippers didn't vote, and IF we had the same system as Republicans, and IF the news networks weren't more like Fox News, and IF small states that don't matter didn't count, and IF Keith Olbermann didn't have it out for her, and IF Pennsylvania was the only state that mattered -- then Clinton would be the nominee.

You know, simple answers to simple questions.

Barack Obama can't win, because he couldn't beat Hillary Clinton among older voters, and we can't win in November if we don't win older voters.

Barack Obama can't win, because he couldn't beat Hillary Clinton among white working class voters, and we can't win in November if we don't win white working class voters.

Barack Obama can't win, because he didn't win the primaries in California and New York and Pennsylvania, and Democrats can't win if they can't win those big states in a general election.

Barack Obama can't win, because any state or demographic group that went with Hillary Clinton didn't really prefer Clinton, they opposed Barack Obama.  Therefore, all Democratic primary voters who didn't vote for Obama, like single women and members of AFSCME, are possible or maybe even likely McCain voters in November.

Hillary Clinton can't win, because she couldn't beat Barack Obama among younger voters.

Hillary Clinton can't win, because she couldn't beat Barack Obama among black voters.

Hillary Clinton can't win, because she didn't win the primaries in Illinois and Maryland and Connecticut, and Democrats can't win if they can't win those solidly Democratic states in a general election.

Hillary Clinton can't win, because any state or demographic group that went with Barack Obama didn't simply prefer Obama, they opposed Clinton.  Therefore, all Democratic primary voters who didn't vote for Clinton, like people for whom the Iraq war is the most important issue or members of SEIU, are possible or maybe even likely McCain voters in November.

And while we're at it, we should point out that John McCain can't win, because he couldn't beat Mike Huckabee among conservative evangelical Christian voters, and they can't win in November if they don't win conservative evangelical Christian voters.

John McCain can't win, because he couldn't beat Mitt Romney among Mormon voters, and they can't win in November if they don't win Mormon voters.

John McCain can't win, because he didn't win the primaries in Georgia and Kansas and Utah, and Republicans can't win if they can't win those heavily Republican states in a general election.

John McCain can't win, because any state or demographic group that went with Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney didn't really prefer Huckabee or Romney, they opposed John McCain.  Therefore, all Republican primary voters who didn't vote for McCain, are possible or maybe even likely...

Wait, who the heck would they vote for?  

Gee, if you follow through on the logic of the Clinton campaign, nobody will win in November.

Gosh, I guess that means that if Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to be president, Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd will be our next president!