The Way I See Things

First...
A story:
One company is in business and that business is worth...
$20.

A new company starts in the same industry and it's only worth...
$0.

The first owner takes $1 of their shareholders' money, invests it, and...
Loses...
$5.

The new owner takes $2 from his shareholders, also invests it, and...
RETURNS...
$5.

The difference in value between the companies is now...
$10.
The first company's competitive lead has been cut by...
1/2.

However...
Because the first company still has $15, and the new company only has $5, the first owner declares...
"I am the superior investor!"

They ridicule the new company. They disparage their results and, by extension, their shareholders. They say the new company has made poor investment decisions. They say their returns in value aren't a result of talent, they're a result of luck.

They say the new company and--again, by association--its shareholders aren't doing anything meaningful or worthwhile.

So, someone comes up to the first owner and asks...
"How do you make your money?"

The first owner answers with...
"I walk around and tell people, 'I am a skilled and superior investor.'"

The same person goes to the new owner and asks the same question.
They reply...
"I go out and talk with my shareholders, I ask them what's important to them, they tell me, I listen, and then I act on their recommendations. They've been right. So, what I do is easy....
I just work for them."

One of the things that many folk underreport/fail to recognize is that the Obama campaign is one of ACTION not Reaction.

The campaign values action and actually penalizes reactionary (ill-conceived) thinking and tactics.

Let's contrast this with the Clintons' campaign...

When Senator Clinton won Ohio, her campaign chairperson, Terry McAuliffe--a former Democratic National Committee chairperson (meaning: he should be a knowledgeable guy; at least knowledgeable enough to know, and Do, better regarding such statements)--decided to tout her victory using some interesting metrics. One of his central statements was, while Senator Obama outspent Senator Clinton...
'2-to-1'...
He still 'lost'.

This struck me as curious. So I sat a moment and thought about it.

I came up with the following and, perhaps, some other readers can help me determine whether my logic is flawed...
Or if there's a problem with the...
Clinton Logic.
(Or lack of logic?)

The first observation I make is...
Every dollar Senator Obama spent resulted in a reduction of Senator Clinton's lead; ultimately, reducing that margin by half: 20% to 10%.
Every. Dollar. EVERY DOLLAR. Senator Obama. Spent. Resulted. In. An. Increase. Of. Support. AN INCREASE OF SUPPORT. Versus. Senator Clinton.

And for Senator Clinton, it logically follows:
Every dollar Senator Clinton spent...
Contributed to reducing her lead...
By half.
BY. HALF.

In a way, all of the money she spent was...
An investment in Senator Obama!

She wasn't spending money so that she could 'win'...
She was spending money to reduce/minimize her losses.
And if we look at support of the electorate, she has been losing...
This Entire Campaign.

This doesn't strike me as an approach that translates well to...
Sound. Economic. Policy.

For campaign strategy, there are many questions here:
If Senator Obama had spent no money in Ohio, and the Clintons had continued their spending, would the gap in support have changed?
Would it have closed?
Would it have widened?
What level of spending would've altered the margin?
Outspending the Clintons clearly resulted in a halving of their lead; so, if the Obama campaign expenditure had been greater--3 times? 4 times?--than the Clinton outlay, would that have resulted in half the distance each time? More? Less?
What would've constituted an acceptable distribution of campaign funds to secure such a victory?

I doubt there was any way to project/predict how much money would've done 'what'.
And I'm not sure it mattered either.
The money the Obama campaign spent had a decisive impact.

We know, with absolute certainty, the Clintons spending did NOTHING to minimize Senator Obama's progress.

At the end...
For every dollar Senator Obama spent he saw POSITIVE GAIN.
THAT seems to be a good investment.

For every dollar Senator Clinton spent...
She saw...
And continues to see...
LOSS.

There's been a lot of discussion about how to evaluate the performance of these candidates, mainly in reference to Superdelegate voting--Popular vote, Number of states won, 'Big States' won, etc.
Yet something strikes me as very clear.
Senator Clinton started this process as the frontrunner...
And has only shown herself capable of losing.

I don't know any state where she's extended her initial margins of victory.
This seems to mean that...
She's...
LOST...
In every contest...
The support of the electorate as evidenced by results.

Other than her campaign and surrogates...
Is anyone advocating a losing strategy as a path to victory?

Let me know if I missed anything...