The Note: Pennsylvania We Never Found

April 22, 2008 -- A win can be a win, surely. Yet a win can also be a loss. There will be a "winner" and a "loser" in Pennsylvania's primary on Tuesday -- or maybe two winners and two losers (or even three losers, if you count Bill Clinton).

Here's an easier way: As voters matter again -- this six-week pause in voting (if not spinning) finally comes to an end with Tuesday's primary -- all you need to know about the race you can learn by watching the delegates, in all their various forms.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., may claim to be a hunter -- and she's after an elusive target. Pennsylvania is the biggest prize left on the Democratic calendar: 158 pledged delegates will be allocated in a state with 4.2 million Democrats -- including some 300,000 who have switched party affiliation or registered for the first time.

And another audience is more important: the undecided superdelegates. They'll be watching Tuesday's results on several levels -- for winners and losers (whatever that means), demographic breakdowns that speak to electability (whatever THAT means), and expressions of voter sentiment (politicians generally like keeping their jobs).

"The future of Mrs. Clinton's campaign [is] most likely resting on the outcome," Jeff Zeleny and John M. Broder write in The New York Times.

"Even a wide victory by her would not overcome her deficit in pledged delegates or in the popular vote of states that have held nominating contests, but it would ensure that the race moved on to contests in Indiana and North Carolina in two weeks, on May 6."

Clinton is favored to win her must-win state, but that outcome by itself will be a quick-hit energy boost when what she needs is a healthier long-term campaign lifestyle to overtake the clear frontrunner, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

"The margin in the popular vote ultimately will be secondary to how Pennsylvania affects the battle for pledged delegates," Dan Balz writes in The Washington Post. "Clinton badly needs to make up ground in the delegate fight and, given the way they're distributed, that could be difficult."

Obama comes into the voting with an edge of 145 delegates, per ABC's delegate scorecard, and proportional allocation means that the lead is unlikely to shrink substantially on Tuesday.

And how will voters and delegates view this final flash of the two edges that are Bill Clinton's sword? Asked about his infamous Jesse Jackson comments in South Carolina, the former president tells WHY, "I think that they played the race card on me. And we now know, from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along."

"I was stating a fact, and it's still a fact," he adds, referring to Obama's support among black voters. (And beware the open mic -- and open-ended questions like this one, Mr. President: As the phone interview ends, Bill Clinton says, "I don't think I should take any sh-t from anybody on that, do you?")

Obama did what he could (and then some) to downplay expectations. Said Obama: "I'm not predicting a win. . . . I'm predicting that it's going to be close and that we are going to do a lot better than people expect." Said chief strategist David Axelrod: "I am not standing here telling you we expect to win. . . . I don't think anybody expects us to win."

Obama had gone 10 days without a press conference, and he wasn't about to answer questions over breakfast Monday morning: "Why can't I just eat my waffle?" Obama said, in one of the less-advisable election-eve utterances. (Get the feeling the RNC is ready to let him eat as many "waffles" -- or French toast -- as he wants in the general election?)

Clinton set expectations Tuesday morning on "Good Morning America": "I have to win. I believe that's my task," she told ABC's Chris Cuomo. "I don't see how a Democrat wins the White House without winning Pennsylvania."

Clinton is the prohibitive favorite, despite Obama's lapping of the field in ad spending -- but her problem is that everybody knows this already. Clinton is the victim of the expectations game -- not to mention the fact that she's trailing in the race.

"In what may seem like a paradox, the Clinton victory predicted by nearly all public opinion polls might actually turn out to be a loss if she doesn't win by a significant margin," Peter Wallstein writes in the Los Angeles Times.

"And if Obama keeps the results closer than some surveys suggest, he could be considered victorious -- unless it appears that Clinton's campaign has succeeded in casting doubt on his credentials to be commander in chief or his ability to win support in the fall from white, working-class voters."

"Even if Obama is thumped by 10 to 20 percentage points in Pennsylvania, Clinton would not pick up enough delegates there to cut substantially into Obama's lead," Wallsten adds. "Obama strategists said Monday that they expected to announce a series of additional endorsements by uncommitted superdelegates shortly after Pennsylvania votes. A strong showing by Obama in Pennsylvania would give superdelegates more comfort in coming forward, but a bad loss might send them back to the assessment stage."

Writes Christina Bellantoni, of the Washington Times: "If Mrs. Clinton fails to get the big win, many Democrats believe the superdelegates will surge for Mr. Obama to end the divisive battle and unite to square off with presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain."

Clinton's other nightmare: Pennsylvania could be another Nevada or Texas: "In Democratic strongholds, such as the 1st and 2nd districts, both in Philadelphia, participation rates are high, and those districts allocate seven and nine delegates, respectively," Anne Kornblut and Paul Kane write in The Washington Post. "Obama could win seven of the nine delegate at stake in the 2nd District, and four of seven in the 1st, his campaign estimates."

"Rep. Chaka Fattah, an Obama supporter who represents the 2nd District, predicted in an interview this month that his candidate would win as much as 80 percent of the vote there, an outcome that would yield a 7-2 delegate split for his candidate," James O'Toole writes in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

"Under that scenario, that one district would make up for the one-delegate advantages Mrs. Clinton might reasonably expect in five five-delegate districts scattered through the parts of the state where she is seen as stronger."

That's why a win isn't necessarily a "win." It's not a fair fight -- but neither is the race at this moment an even match between candidates who have equal claim on the nomination.

"The Clinton-Obama primary, which begins the final phase of the prolonged nomination fight, will be judged not just on the basis of who wins but also by how much," Larry Eichel writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

"An Obama victory by any margin in Pennsylvania would be a devastating, perhaps fatal, blow to Clinton's prospects," Eichel writes.

"And a narrow Obama loss would do little to change the overall dynamic of the race, although the Clinton camp would try to make as much of the result as possible. On the other hand, a substantial Clinton victory would prolong the nomination process through the next set of primaries, in Indiana and North Carolina next up on May 6, and perhaps beyond."