Does it mean North Carolina?  Because he'll almost certainly win that.  And probably Oregon, as well.

yeah, I know the avalanche has been remarkable so far.

I am not going to waste logic on a person who thinks the frontrunner should take the VP spot.

I was replying to an accusation of making shit up.

Also, how can I make it fun for Hilary supporters to hear that their McCain surrogate of a candidate has lost?

What you consider "sham," many consider necessary to a November electoral win.  It is more than reckless to toss off Florida and Michigan so easily now.  We Democrats need them in November.  One maxim I've always abided by: Be careful how you treat someone when on the way up because you will meet them on the way down.  While that might not be entirely apropos of the presenet delegate-seating dispute, what is clear is that to treat those 2 states with disregard now will be more than repaid to our detriment in November.  (And, no, later nice-nice won't cut it.) It isn't a matter of we "should" work out a solution acceptable to those states; but--like it or not--the real electoral reality is that we have no choice but to do so.

Great Point!!  If they're not going to seat Florida and/or Michigan, they need to lower the required delegate count.  

Except that these contests are zero sum, whereas your baseball analogy is not.  Basically, any reasonable conception of the delegate count as it goes from here, assuming we exclude Michigan and Florida, looks approximately the following.  Here's a fairly pro-Clinton prospectus
7
Current pledged delegate count, per Chuck Todd: Obama +157

Pennsylvania: Clinton +20
Indiana: Clinton +5
North Carolina: Obama +4
Oregon: Obama +2
West Virginia: Clinton +10
Kentucky: Clinton +11
Puerto Rico: Clinton +11
South Dakota: Obama +1
Montana: Obama +2

I think this is unrealistically Clinton friendly, but the upshot is that Clinton gains +48 in the rest of the contests, for a final pledged delegate score of +111 Obama

Per Todd, again, this would result in aproximate pledged delegate totals of the following (I think I made an adding mistake somewhere here, though:

Clinton: 1557
Obama: 1668

Now, add in the current superdelegate numbers from MSNBC - 253 to 217 (this may be pre-Murtha)

Clinton: 1810
Obama: 1885

Now, let's add in the unpledged add-on delegates chosen by state conventions, assuming that those posts will go based on who won the state, as is likely.  23 to 7 Obama, for new totals of...

Clinton: 1817
Obama: 1908

This means that out of the 295 remaining superdelegates and unpledged add-ons chosen by state executive committees, Obama only needs to win 116 (39.3%) to get the nomination. Clinton would need 207 (70.1%).  (This might not be quite right, but it gives the basic lay of the land).  That's a pretty tall order, although obviously not completely impossible.  Of course we also know that several of the undeclared superdelegates, like Pelosi or Donna Brazile, are pretty clearly going to support Obama if he has a pledged delegate lead, so that means that Clinton actually has to win an even higher percentage of the even smaller pie of truly uncommitted superdelegates.

And that's more or less a best case scenario for Clinton, in terms of how the late primaries go.  It's quite likely that Clinton will not get 20 delegates out of Pennsylvania, that she will lose Indiana, that Obama will get considerably more than five delegates out of North Carolina, and more than the very small number I gave him in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota.  One could just as easily envision a scenario where Obama, for instance, wins 1700 pledged delegates instead of 1668.

In that case, the numbers are as follows:

Pledged Delegates -
Obama: 1700
Clinton: 1525

Pledged delegates + already endorsed superdelegates -

Obama: 1917
Clinton: 1778

+unpledged add-ons selected at state conventions -

Obama: 1939
Clinton: 1785

Now Obama is only 85 delegates away from the nomination, while Clinton is 239 delegates away.  That's gonna be really hard to swing.

Those are probably close to the outside range of reasonable possibilities for how the rest of the primary contests go.  But basically, we go from at worst, a situation where it's virtually impossible to see how Clinton could win; to, at best, a situation where it is very difficult to see how Clinton could win.

She could win, but I have a hard time seeing exactly how it would happen.

Certainly, it's really close, historically, and I don't really begrudge her staying in - campaigns always convince themselves they still have a shot.   But that's no reason for those of us not actually in the campaign to convince ourselves of falsehoods.  The basic fact is that the math says this is an extremely tough row to hoe for Clinton, and it doesn't seem like there's anything that's likely to change that.

If we must use sports analogies, i suggest the following: we're kind of at that point in the basketball game when there's not really enough time left on the clock for the team that's behind to catch up in the normal way, so they have to keep fouling and hoping their opponent misses their free throws to have any chance to win.  It's still technically possible to win, but the chances are getting less and less with each free throw the winning team makes.

Will be to the tune of "God Bless America"

psst....

don't look now, but he's winning.

Innumerate too evidently.

You live in Kingsport, TN, not PA? How do you know what's playing on local TV in PA?

I think you're absolutely right.  While it was a good speech/address, whatever you want to call it, it's not the most important issues that everyday Americans, like me, have to deal with.

Some day, very soon, will be the time, but NOT TODAY.

I want lower healthcare, higher wages, less property taxes.  Yes, I'm being selfish for my family and myself.  I want regulation in the credit card industry and mortgage industry.  AND I want to know that I won't be spied on, unless there's probably cause and the warrant is approved by a judge.  Not to mention that I want the 160,000 plus soldiers home with their families RIGHT NOW, and after a rest, I want them to go get Osama.

Her campaign signs say Hillary!

Hillary is used in this campaign to distinguish which Clinton is being referred to. Since there are two of them, it would make for a confusing campaign.  I would ordinary object to it, too, but in this case, I think it is necessary and people generally can figure out why it is her first name that is being used.

Touche.

Name 1 category that HRC is ahead in... besides not being ahead.

CO(9), IA(7), NV(5), and OR(7) are all states that, according to consistent polling, Obama will win but Clinton will not. At 28 votes, that's a larger block than FL(27) -- which neither candidate is likely to take away from McCain.

Clinton may be able to win WV(5) as well as AR(6). Obama won't win either of those states. That's a WA(11)-sized block.

But Clinton is also at serious risk of losing MI(17) and WI(10), both of which Kerry won by some of the narrowest margins of 2004, and both of which Obama is not at a risk of losing. Thats another FL-sized block.