Clinton Brings in the House

This letter and PowerPoint from the Clinton campaign were circulated around the internet in the days following the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. At the time, they were covered for little more than their place in the narrative of Clinton's last gasps before an eventual departure. Now that we're perhaps a bit better adjusted to the concept of Clinton staying in the race, however, it's interesting to look at what the message actually contains.

On the surface, it's a standard reassertion of the arguments that she's made before - she performs better with older, Hispanic, and rural voters. The decision to frame the issue by way of the House victories in 2006 and the competitive seats in 2008, however, is a bit of a new twist. Looking at the midterms, and equating her successes in those districts with the victories eighteen months ago, there are a number of implicit arguments. Apart from the argument that she wins in competitive districts, and presumably by extension in competitive states, there's an attempt to construct an argument by analogy. That the victories in those difficult districts during the 2006 race were the product of special people with a special message, and now she is that special.

The other argument, and probably the most important one, is connected to the 2008 midterm elections. If it's true that Clinton outperforms Obama in the competitive districts, then it stands to reason that democratic candidates in competitive districts would benefit from having her at the top of the ticket. At this point, it's essential to remember that the letter and PowerPoint weren't written for the public. Not that they were intended to be hidden from the blogosphere or the voters, but they created for superdelegates. Now, if we're to believe that superdelegates are exclusively concerned with winning the presidency, then her argument is an important one in that it shows strength in competitive districts, but this is nothing new. But if we consider the notion that some superdelegates are concerned, perhaps not to a level of parity with the presidency but concerned nonetheless, with the congressional outcomes, then the decision calculus may be far different than is being discussed publicly. From a game theory perspective, if the payoffs of the two candidates in the presidential race are comparable, but the payoffs in the congressional elections are radically different, the optimal choice would be to pick the candidate that ensures the best congressional outcome.

Of course, none of this is to say that Clinton would perform best in the swing districts or bring the best outcome in the House and Senate, but this seems to be the argument she's making, and it's one that bears further examination than the implicit assertions she's putting forward. As the special elections in Louisiana and Mississippi progress, we're starting to get a sense of some of the congressional terrain for 2008, and most of it has more to do with the GOP failing than anyone at the top of the ticket.