Election Central: Moving the goal posts to Denver

We've all done it. In the middle of an important rock-paper-scissors battle, a one-time match can become best two out of three. A pick-up basketball game needs to be won by two points. Down to their last dollars, poker players can bet double or nothing. Everybody wants to win, and "moving the goal posts" is a tempting option.

In the Democratic presidential primary, the goal posts seem to be moving every day. The only total that matters is number of delegates (elected delegates plus superdelegates).

But since neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama is within striking distance of the magic number of combined delegates needed to win (2,024), each campaign is trying to make other metrics of success seem important and claim momentum.

Each "goal post" changes according to a campaign's needs. Since Barack Obama's 11-state winning streak following Feb. 5, the Obama campaign has consistently argued that the leader in elected delegates should be the nominee. Superdelegates would be foolish to overturn the will of the people (2000 election anyone?), and so should honor the winner in elected delegates.

Whatever logical merits it might have, this argument serves the Obama campaign's purposes perfectly. Thanks to strong performances in smaller state caucuses and a 30-14 advantage in states won, Obama's delegate lead is almost insurmountable. With only 10 voting contests left, Clinton would need to win them all by 20 points to overtake him.

Considering Obama's perceived strength in North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, a Clinton win (much less a 20-point blowout) in every remaining state is near impossible. Obama should ride a comfortable lead in pledged delegates to the convention, and if the superdelegates accept his campaign's argument, he will be the nominee.

Team Clinton begs to disagree with that logic. They have moved the goal posts several times, since they are fully aware that Clinton won't win the elected delegate count. Their major argument is that the winner of the popular vote total will have a better claim on the nomination. Clinton argues that this number more accurately reflects the Democratic electorate - an argument sure to tug at the heartstrings of Democrats still sore from 2000, when Al Gore beat George W. Bush in the nationwide popular vote but lost in the Electoral College.

The Clinton campaign tends to include Michigan and Florida in these arguments, however, which strikes many Democrats as unfair. Michigan and Florida broke the rules by moving their primaries up before Feb. 5, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) punished them by stripping them of their delegates. Since neither state will contribute delegates, including them in the popular vote totals ensures that "their voices are heard."

The major problem, however, is that Barack Obama did not receive one vote in Michigan. He wasn't even on the ballot. Florida was uncontested - neither candidate campaigned there - and Hillary Clinton won handily. Since neither contest was entirely legitimate, many Democrats reject any popular vote totals that include these states. While it's still possible (but highly unlikely) that Clinton could eclipse Obama in a final popular vote count that doesn't include Florida and Michigan, she will make the case that they should be included.

Another metric favoring Clinton is the "big states argument." Clinton has won fewer states, but her victories are in larger, more populous states. Her campaign argues that she is winning the states that Democrats will need in November, while Obama's victories are in traditionally Republican states.

The Obama campaign counters that Obama can carry many of these states, and that Democrats should focus on expanding the electoral map. Primary victories do not necessarily translate into general election strength, so it remains to be seen if superdelegates find these arguments persuasive.

The Clinton campaign has become infamous for moving the goal posts, spurring some hilarious parodies. A recent diarist on DailyKos proposed some other possible goals for Clinton: Total number of "yellow" states on Wikipedia's map of the United States? Total number of commonwealths? Average highest elevation?

Such criticism is not necessarily deserved.

Each campaign is setting its own standard for success, and doing so in a way that will help its chances. Clinton's more creative shifting reflects a real desperation and a need to buy time in the race for the nomination.

Her popular vote argument requires that everyone votes, but conveniently ignores Obama-friendly caucus results, which are not reported by total participants. Obama's argument seems to be more persuasive, but leaves the door open for a Gore-Bush scenario with the popular vote.

Whenever a candidate talks about the "need for all the people to have their voices heard," be suspicious. Both Clinton and Obama are accepting the system that gives them the biggest advantage. Since Clinton is behind, it is understandable that she is grasping at straws.

The fight will endure until at least June 7, when all the voting will be finished. From there, it is up to the superdelegates whether or not the race goes to the convention. At that point, the most persuasive argument wins.