As you may have heard--despite the media's, like, near-total silence on the subject--tomorrow's primaries and Texas and Ohio could very well decide the Democratic race. What's clear is that there are three possible results: an Obama sweep, a Clinton sweep or a split decision. What's not particularly clear is how the Clinton camp would react to each of those outcomes. Curious to find out more, I just masochistically subjected myself to two hours of dueling conference calls. First up was Team Clinton, with chief strategist Mark Penn and communications Howard Wolfson at 11:00 a.m., followed shortly thereafter by Obama campaign manager David Plouffe at 1:00. Fun!

Here's what I found out. If Obama wins both Texas and Ohio--on average, he leads by .5 percent in the former and lags by seven in the latter--Clinton is toast. Or at least that was the implication. Neither campaign addressed the "Obama sweeps" scenario, which means it's a) obvious to Team Obama (thus not worth mentioning) that Clinton would be unable to avoid withdrawing and b) too painful (thus not worth mentioning) for Clintonites to contemplate. I think we can all agree that a pair of L's would be devastating.

On the other hand, both campaigns had plenty to say about a potential Clinton sweep. "Let’s say we do win in Texas and Ohio," Wolfson speculated, after admitting that Clinton would still trail in the delegate count. "Then we will be able to say that we’ve won Texas, Ohio, New York, California, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona--a diverse set of states from coast to coast. North, south, east, and west, red and blue. Senator Obama came into Ohio and Texas with every possible strategic advantage. He outspent us massively. His allies outspent us massively. He and his allies have declared the race over so many times now I can’t even count... And despite that we will have been successful... If he can't compete with us on who can be commander-in-chief and who can be a steward of this economy, he's not ready to compete with John McCain on these issues." In other words, if Clinton wins the popular vote in Texas and Ohio, she's going all the way to the convention. Wolfson called it "buyer's remorse"; Penn mentioned Florida and Michigan. The Comeback Kid returns.

The Obama camp's response? Hogwash. The race, they say, is not about narratives or momentum--it's about delegates. "It is clear that narrow popular vote wins in Texas and Ohio will do very little to improve their nearly impossible path to the nomination," said Plouffe, reminding reporters of the proportional allocation rules that will make it extremely difficult for Clinton to cut into Obama's current lead of 162 pledged delegates. "If they do not win Texas and Ohio by healthy double digit margins-- and they led by healthy double digit margins as recently as two weeks ago--they will be facing almost impossible odds to reverse the delegate math." That's undeniably true. But will it work on Wednesday? I suspect not. If Clinton sweeps tomorrow, expect Team Obama to push the delegate story. And expect Clinton--and the headline writers--to largely ignore it. Her day of "reckoning" as Plouffe put it, will have to wait.

The final scenario--Obama takes Texas, Clinton captures Ohio--is probably Tuesday's safest bet. It's also the murkiest outcome. Asked to comment, the Obama campaign reverted to the delegate argument. "They were sitting on enormous leads as recently as two weeks ago," said Plouffe. "They keep moving the goal posts, but at some point you run out of field... No amount of spin can change the math. We look forward to their tortured answers on Wednesday morning." Which is about what you'd expect. Wolfson's answer was more interesting. "I believe that it will be very clear Wednesday morning which campaign has had the better of the day and which campaign has had the worst of it," he said. "I believe that there will be no ambiguity about that. We are very optimistic about our chances of success. If the outcome is otherwise, we can discuss it then." The question for Clinton going forward is whether she's willing to admit that a split decision amounts to "ambiguity"--or whether Wolfson and Co. will have to gall to spin a loss in the Lone Star State as getting "the better of the day." 

Dizzy yet? 

UPDATE, 5:20 p.m.: Reader SteveBrant brings up a great point: "You've missed a hugely important possible scenario... that after they view tomorrow's results, the Superdelegates--such as people like Gov. Bill Richardson--step in and say "It's time for this to end."

This is definitely plausible. In fact, I wrote a post immediately after the Potomac Primary titled "Why the Dems May Decide by the Ides of March." Here's what I said at the time:

Depending how March 4 shakes out, last night's results--and the likely Obama wins in Wisconsin and Hawaii--may help determine the Democratic nominee by the ides of March. If Obama takes Ohio and Texas, I'm guessing that the decisive superdelegates will soon break his way and pressure will mount on Clinton to withdraw. If Clinton wins both, the race will continue through Pennsylvania on April 22. But if the result is muddled with a win apiece and/or a delegate draw--by far the likeliest result--Obama will have the upper hand. He'll probably lead in the popular vote (current margin: 700,000). He'll almost certainly lead in pledged-delegate count. (Now trailing by more than 130, Clinton needs to win 345 of the 573 delegates up for grabs between March 4 and April 22 to catch up). He'll have shown some serious crossover appeal (read: electability). And with 40 days between Mississippi on March 11 and the Keystone State on April 22, the superdelegates will have plenty of time to decide whether they want to prolong the contest or crown a presumptive nominee for the good of the party. 

Of course, this wasn't mentioned during today's dueling conference calls. But it's worth keeping in mind.