The Expectations Game: Clinton needs to win PA 100-0.

Clinton's campaign continues to hammer this absurd notion that every time Barack Obama loses a primary contest to Clinton, that means McCain would probably beat Obama in that state come November.  

Why??  This makes no sense at all.  It is an intentionally misleading non sequitur.  And if it was true, wouldn't therefore the reverse of it also be true -- that every state Clinton lost to Obama would somehow magically go for McCain as well?  (Cause if that's the case, she'd lose in an electoral landslide.)  

Either way, it's historical nonsense.

For example, in the 1992 primaries, Bill Clinton lost Colorado, Vermont, and Connecticut to Jerry Brown, he lost Iowa to Harkin, he lost Maryland, New Hamsphire, Massachuttes, Delaware, and Rhode Island to Tsongas... and yet HOLY CRAP still won every one of those states in the general election.  Shocker.

But even if you go back further to more competitive contests, I find no evidence at all that losing a primary in a state provides any statistical disadvantage should you become the nominee.  Carter lost the New York Primary in 1976 (and Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, etc.) but still won all those states in the general.  On the other side, Ford lost the Indiana, Idaho, Montana, and California primaries to Reagan the same year, and still won all those states in the general.  (Yes, that's right -- Ford lost to Reagan by 30 points in California in the primary, and yet won the state over Carter in the election.)

Now, you may say I'm only choosing states that fit the idea that "it doesn't matter", but that's kind of my point -- if you go through the data looking for a couple states to support The Clinton Theory, you could... but only by overlooking the far more numerous examples of The Clinton Theory not applying.  

This new Clinton mailing (effectively debunked and ridiculed by Obama) offers nothing new, and it's gotten exceedingly transparent what they're doing.  Every time there's an upcoming contest in which Clinton is way way ahead in the polls, the Clinton team decides -- snicker -- that they'll play it in the press as a "must-win" state... for Obama.  So then, even when Obama closes the gap significantly (like turning a 20-point race into a 10-point race in Ohio, or a 15-point race into a 3-point race in Texas), somehow it's Obama who failed to meet expectations.  And the talking heads in the media continue to fall for it.

Now, certainly Pennsylvania is a must-win state for Clinton, because she's so far behind.  But it's obviously not "must-win" for the front runner.  That's just mathematically dumb.  

Do you know how much she would have to beat Obama by in Pennsylvania to regain the lead in pledged delegates?  By 100%.  That's right -- in order to overtake Obama in the pledged delegates, according to Slate's Delegate Calculator, Clinton needs every single one of the available delegates in the state.  Then she'd finally be ahead 1,607-1,606.  Huzzah!

Media, you have your new narrative.  In order to regain the lead in pledged delegates, Clinton has to win every last vote in the state of Pennsylvania.  Anything else would be a failure.