Obama camp downplaying expectations (what happened to the surge)?

[KennedyGuy]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/04/636846.aspx

"With polls showing Obama making up a considerable amount of ground in key February 5 contests, there is a growing sense that he could pull off what was unthinkable just two or three weeks ago: grab more Feb. 5 delegates than Clinton. Heck, even win California.

Well, the Obama campaign just released a memo to rein in such expectations. "Senator Clinton is certainly the favorite on February 5, given the huge leads she has held in many of these contests throughout the course of the campaign and the political, historical and geographic advantages she enjoys in many of these states," Obama manager David Plouffe said in the memo. "Based on her huge head start, Hillary Clinton should still win California, but is unlikely to achieve her goal of getting a sizeable share of the delegates."

Plouffe continues, "Our path to the nomination never factored in a big day for us on February 5. Rather, we always planned to stay close enough in the delegate count so that we could proceed to individually focus on the states in the next set of contests. We fully expect Senator Clinton to earn more delegates on February 5th and also to win more states. If we were to be within 100 delegates on that day and win a number of states, we will have met our threshold for success and will be best positioned to win the nomination in the coming months."

That 100-delegate margin is an interesting mention. It's rare that campaigns establish benchmarks that journalists can hold them to later on, and Plouffe is vague on "a number of states'" which could mean seven or it could mean fifteen. But in providing a measure of success in terms of delegates, that's a good way to see if Obama can meet his own expectations game tomorrow night. That said, after playing with the delegate math a bit, a 100-delegate difference might be setting the bar a little too low".

[propol]

1. smart move

no matter what happens, expectations are under control..

[KennedyGuy]

3. probably got some more accurate internals than these unrealistic surge polls

[NJSecularist]

5. Is that why Hillary was crying today?

[Dogmudgeon]

12. Outstanding retort! Well-played!

:no_icon_can_express_it:

--p!

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

13. Or they're trying to control the media narrative

By downplaying expectations, like any smart campaign would. And I think you probably know this, too.

[NJSecularist]

2. Good move by the Obama campaign

Playing the underdog card and lowering expectations is the correct thing to do.

[sunonmars]

4. Trust me, if they thought they were going to win, they'd be crowing

something is amiss here. I think the internal polls are showing different stuff.

[KennedyGuy]

6. really..something took a bit of strutting out of their stride...

[scheming daemons]

8. Then you don't understand good politics....

.... you always want to downplay your expectations... whether it be a debate or an actual vote.

That way... all you have to do is exceed expectations to claim a "resounding victory".


It's how Obama won the debate on Thursday... by letting the "spin" be out there that he is not a strong debater, all that Obama had to do was stay relatively equal to Hillary in the debate to be declared a "winner".



I hope Hillary's people are more savvy than you.... she should be downplaying expectations as well...

[Drunken Irishman]

10. Really? The internals problably show what every poll has shown..

It's too close to call. It would be suicide to go out and talk as if you've got this thing in the bag, knowing how close it actually is. I can tell you right now, Clinton's campaign is probably doing the exact same thing. Play down the expectations, just in case you lose in a tight race.

[loveangelc]

7. very smart thing to do! I think if they beat expectations

it will be seen as huge. if not, and they lose by a few more delegates and she wins but not by a large margin, imo it will be still be seen as a good thing for obama.

[KennedyGuy]

11. I agree..

you are one of the few who are capable of being factual and reasoned in opposition.
It is much more refreshing than some of the shrieking "loser..phony...crybaby..Hillshill" responses from some others here..
Thanks

[loveangelc]

16. welcome :)

[Big Blue Marble]

9. It is to their benefit to remain the underdog going in to this Tuesday.

They either beat expectations or they stay on track.

The worst possible effect on Obama's momentum would be to build expectations that would not be meant.

Even their internal polling did not predict Obama's margins in SC.

I saw Axelrod on MSNBC this morning. He was definitely dampening expectations so this does not surprise me.

They are a careful team and they have done a miraculous job.

[Politicub]

14. Good move on Obama's part - Set expectations low and

then exceed them.

[sunonmars]

15. and if he doesnt?

[loveangelc]

17. the expectations are already pretty low...

[Politicub]

18. He wins either way - better to say you're coming in low and then

come in low, then having to save face by saying you're going to win and then losing.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. The surge is real. That it isn't enough to win more delegates on Tues than Hill doesn't mean

Obama hasn't made up a tremedous amount of ground.

The next round of primaries after Tues offer some very good opportunities for Obama to do very well.

I think this is one of the most exciting primary seasons I've seen in many years. It's going down to the wire.

[my3boyz]

19. FINALLY they have learned to lower expectations

The Clintons have done that all along. Regardless if you are winning or losing it is always better to lower expectations.

[book_worm]

20. don't worry Kennedy he will do ok tomorrow.

[Gloria]

21. Wise to do it about everything he says, too...

[VolcanoJen]

23. ROFL! It's called "Political Artistry."

This is what campaign managers do. Is this your first trip to the rodeo, or something?