Big Tent Democrat puts it in the context of the argument about the popular vote:
[T]he problem with the Clinton campaign's refusal to fight for revotes in Florida and Michigan [is that] to be perceived as the popular vote winner, Clinton needs revote wins in Florida and Michigan. I do not understand the Clinton campaign strategy at all on Florida and Michigan.
But it's actually easy to understand. What would happen if an agreement were announced today that there would be re-votes in Florida and Michigan? Immediately, the previous primaries in those states would become dead letters. Instead of being 200,000 votes down in the popular vote (by her campaign's count), or 500,000 down (by my count, which gives Clinton her Florida votes), Clinton would be down in the popular vote by almost 1 million. And 193 delegates that they are currently counting would suddenly disappear.
The problem with Mark's argument is that while he may be counting the Florida popular vote (and he is not counting the Michigan vote, rightly in my view) in his calculus, the Media is not. And certainly no one is counting the Florida and Michigan delegates. Thus, Mark ignores these realities when he writes:
Contrary to the gullible media's belief that "time" is a "powerful ally" on Clinton's side, in fact, Clinton's only ally is uncertainty. The minute it becomes clear what will happen with Michigan and Florida -- re-vote them, refuse to seat them, or split them 50-50 or with half-votes, as some have proposed -- is the minute that Clinton's last "path to the nomination" closes. The only way to keep spin alive is to keep uncertainty alive -- maybe there will be a revote, maybe they'll seat the illegal Michigan/Florida delegations, maybe, maybe, maybe. In the fog of uncertainty, Penn can claim that there is a path to the nomination, but under any possible actual resolution of the uncertainty, there is not.
But for the Media (certainly for example for NBC and most Left Blogs) there is no uncertainty regarding the "fair" outcome, the only uncertainty in their minds is whether Clinton will "steal the election." That is a bad uncertainty for Clinton. She can replace that bad uncertainty with a more positive uncertainty - to wit, Clinton could come close in the pledged delegate count, could WIN the popular vote, could win convincingly with Democrats (as opposed to Independents and Republicans in Open Dem primaries), could win the key big contested states, and could have the big momentum as the contest comes to close.
What is obvious to Mark about Obama's inevitability is not obvious to me. Nor is it obvious to a more committed Obama supporter, Chris Bowers:
Without a single more superdelegate making an endorsement, it is still possible for Clinton to move pretty close in the delegate count. . . . If that winning streak also results in her winning the national popular vote, then she would have an overwhelming argument to bring to superdelegates based on both momentum and the popular will.
Without revotes in Florida and Michigan, Clinton's claims of a legitimate popular vote win, a closing of the pledged delegate race, a pattern of big contested state wins and of closing momentum becomes impossible
In my view, Schmitt has the uncertainty argument exactly backwards. Clinton has negative uncertainty now, reinforcing every false stereotype of her and her campaign ("She'll do anything to win"). Revotes in Floirda and Michigan allow her to build a new positive uncertainty narrative in this race - one where she is fighting to count every vote and win the contest for the will of the people.
