"which sounds like Republican talking points to most Democrats"

Hello pot?  Meet Mr. Kettle...  The 3am thing was straight out of the Republican playbook, and it worked for y'all, so don't complain when the same kind of stuff is thrown back to you!

All indications are that going into PA, Clinton will actually be further behind in pledged delegates than she was before tuesday.  With even fewer available delegates out there.  Moreover, Obama is gong to continue to win states after PA as well, so we won't see a scenerio where Clinton rolls into the convention on a huge winning streak.  Looking at all of that, I think your prediction here couldn't be more wrong.

Also, I would add that you seem to ignore the many times that Clinton has failed to knock out Obama.  She closed in Iowa and if she would have won there this thing never would have gotten started.  She was up everywhere on Super Tuesday but ended up losing the delegate count there handidly.  And then she lost everywhere for an entire month.  You can keep spinning that as signs of strength for the campaign that came into this contest as the presumptive Democratic nominee, but I don't see it at all.  

Yes, she's "inevitable" again after winning three states subsequent to losing 12 in a row, including one of those supposed "red states" that we won't win in the general election (but it's big, so I guess by the logic around here that cancels out the red state issue).  How anyone can say that she's favored when her path to the nomination rests entirely on winning a sizable majority of superdelegates is beyond me.

...and more popular votes, I really hope for the sake of the party that the superdelegates do the right thing at the convention. Because if they don't, there isn't going to be much of a Democratic Party anymore.

tweedle-dee & tweedle-dum? are these 2 for real? kos's predictions for tuesday were the worst EVER; is jerome trying to top him now?

Well, I'm in one of those states that don't count, like Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon and Connecticut.

Just seventy-two insignificant electoral votes that don't matter.

WYOMING:
Caucuses on March 8 with 12 delegates

MISSISSIPPI:
Primary is March 11 with 33 delegates

two more Obama wins and delegate pick-ups..but they don't matter..(well except it stops the Clinton momentum..and adds to Obama's lead.)

First act: Clinton says she is inevitable.
Second act: Clinton says it will be over after Super Tuesday.
Third act: Clinton so far behind in pledged delegates she needs a blowout on March 4., even by her own campaign's admission.
Fourth act: No blowout on March 4.

Yes, there is a pattern.

I really don't think that dems in GA and MS and WY should be telling me who I will have to vote for in the POTUS election...

You are making a huge assumption that a revote will occur in Florida and Michigan. I doubt anything will happen in Florida, and a fireside vote will favor Obama in Michigan.

We'll have a brokered convention at this point either way.  Then one half or the other of the Democratic Party will threaten to succeed and somebody will force the two onto the same ticket.  I think PA determines who goes first.

The DNC does a massive rethinking of the primary process, Dean walks away from political life and the combined ticket wins in November.

That last portion can happen in any particular order.  That's how I'm calling it at this point.

I wonder, though, whether they'll be swayed by all the threats by Obama supporters to sit out the election if Hillary is the nominee?

Many seem convinced that even if she has the popular vote edge, a lead in national polls, all the momentum, the seal of a approval from late-deciding states, and victories in states that make up a solid majority of electoral votes, but a 1-pledged delegate disadvantage, that nominating Hillary would be "stealing" the nomination.

Further, because he has adopted the scorched earth tactic of branding her and Bill as race-baiters, that has had a divisive effect on a small, but important segment of the base.  

I just wonder whether all that stuff can bully the Superdelegates?

If all goes well, KY will still be in play.

I think people around here are pretty quick to write off a Clinton win in Pennsylvania, since there's, what, 6 weeks left before it happens?  That's a lifetime in politics.  Take it for granted at your own peril...

[A] source at the DNC told me [Howard] Dean is in no hurry to intervene.

"He wants to let the voters have their say," the source said. "We need to take a step back. We still have 10 states [plus Guam and Puerto Rico] left to vote and 600 pledged delegates to be determined."

[...]

But some think, ultimately, there is no real choice: Florida and Michigan have to be counted.

"If two of the most important states in the country are not seated at the convention, it has incredible implications for the Democrats in November, and the Republicans will use it against us," said Tad Devine, a former member of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee who is not aligned with any campaign.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030 8/8869.html

Is how you can make the jump from "Obama can't beat Hillary in the big states" to "Obama will lose the big states to McCain?"

Most Dems are relatively satisfied with their candidates - and I would venture to guess that the number of Hillary supporters unwilling to support Obama is matched by the Obama supporters who dislike Hillary. BOTH candidates are going to have to work very hard to consolidate the "base."    

Clinton barely saved herself -- once with a razor-thin win in NH, once with a Super Tuesday performance that was good, but still failed to earn as many delegates as Obama, and once with a razor-thin win in Texas, in which Limbaugh inspired Republicans had a hand (if not a decisve one.  Really, check this:  Republicans voting in the Democratic Primary in WI: 72-28 for Obama; in Texas? 52-47 for Obama).

So after all of that Clinton still trails in delegates, has had exactly ONE day since the first of the year in which she has made a net gain of delegates, and she should be the nominee for it?

Also, that bit about calling for a release of tax returns as "petty"?  Petty?  Listen to yourself.  This is about accountability, and knowing where the Clintons get their money from.  You may not want to know, but that's not being high-minded and principled.  That's called having your head in the sand.  (And don't think there wouldn't be a call for the same information after the convention, should Clinton emerge, improbably,a s the nominee.   For the good of the Democratic Party, that information must be out there now.

Sometimes I can't believe you, Jerome.  Not your Obama-hatred--we're all used to that.

But you worked on Dean's campaign, and by early 2004, the Establishment was accepting the fact that he was going to be the nominee.  Then--like that--he fell apart.

Things can change quickly, and 7 weeks is a long time.  Remember, by Pennsylvania, Obama will be back to having a winning streak (albeit 2 states).

Also, Clinton has a lousy ground game, and Obama's is exemplary.  Didn't you write a book or something about that?

Your opinions about Obama are predictable, but at least hold firm to your beliefs, or let us know that you now favor top-heavy, media-driven campaigns over "people-powered" ones like Obama has put together.

Funny, Hillary was for releasing tax returns before she was against it...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9C06EFD61E31F93AA1575BC0A9669C8B6 3&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so, raising suspicions about whether he had the kind of financial problems that have tripped up other politicians in New York in recent decades.

The campaign of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something.

''Rick Lazio can't explain why it took three months to release his taxes,'' said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton campaign spokesman. ''Now he won't come clean with New Yorkers and reveal the real cost of his reckless trillion-dollar tax plan. It's time for Mr. Lazio to stop playing games and start talking straight.''

========

Jerome - so petty's ok as long as Hillary's the one being petty?  She looks kinda foolish to me, since it was so important for her in her last race that her opponent released his returns...what's she hiding?

Has everyone forgotten about the Unpledged Add-On Delegates? It could doom HRC.

Clinton leads the overall superdelegate tally this morning, 241-198. Add in the UADs whose commitment have been determined, and that shrinks to 248-221. Even if she enjoys some success at grabbing UADs from states that Obama has won, she faces an uphill battle - almost all of Obama's likely UADs are already locked down, and almost all of Hillary's have yet to be determined. And to offset each UAD in that Obama lead, Hillary needs to win another pledged delegate or superdelegate to her cause.

So add this to the long (and lengthening) list of reasons why the numbers just don't add up for a Clinton nomination. And every time you see a tally of the 794 superdelegates, look closely to see how it treats the 76 UADs. These procedural details matter more than most people think - by mastering them, the Obama campaign has built a clear lead despite the remarkably even split between the campaigns at the polls.

Will you please not stoop to Republican tactics and refer to him as "BHO"? We know what you are trying to do with his middle initial. It makes you look lowly and pathetic.

I getting really tired of the "Obama can't win the big states argument."

First of all, everyone knows there's no way the democratic nominee is going to lose New York, New Jersey, California or Massachusetts.

Secondly, even if you argue Hillary would be stronger in Ohio and Florida, you could also argue that Obama would be stronger in Iowa, Missouri, Colorado and Virginia.

The bottom line here is that we have two excellent candidates that are splitting the base in the primaries, but regardless still have an excellent chance of winning the general.

You pretty much said everything I would have wanted to say about the election going forward.

I agree with every single point you made.  It is getting to be a bit comical to hear all this talk of "the Math" when everyone knows it won't come down to that.

This race is basically reset and is now a stalemate.  Might as well throw out the delegate count because the rest of the way will be all about narrative, electability, and momentum.

When will we know we have a nominee?  We will know the moment when we see it.  Everyone just be patient...

Jerome!  "Obamacans"??  "I guess you don't understand."  It does the party no good, and certainly not your reputation, by resorting to this condescending crap.

If the DNC won't allow Florida and Michigan to seat their delegations, they must allow a full primary revote, and work to fund it in both states.  If that is too expensive, they should seat the Florida delegation, and fund a full primary vote in Michigan.  I think that both campaigns should make a symbolic contribution (say $500,000 each) to help fund the new Michigan primary, and have no idea why the DNC isn't doing a better job leading on this issue.

I get it.  Rules are rules, and we don't like people breaking them unless those people are from Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.  Okay, but rules are rules are not rules like the electoral college rules, which are embedded in our constitution (promoting the general welfare and all that) that would require a full amendment of the constitution to change.

No, these are DNC rules that the DNC changes based on the DNC's wishes, and right now the DNC is faced with a pair of candidates whose actual votes in actual primaries to actual date differ by .05%, maybe, who are raising money like crazy from loads of dedicated supporters and volunteers, and who want to be president of these 50 48 United States of America.  Unless Michigan has seceded to join Canada (for the delicious universal health care and the power of the loony) and Raoul Castro has succeeded in taking over Florida (or maybe Spain asked for it back?) voters in Michigan and Florida should matter.  

If a revote is the way to make it stick, the DNC should work with the states to make it happen.  Srsly.  And not let the nutty idiot pundits spend 8 weeks talking about how Michigan and Florida don't matter!!!1111!!!!  Want a 50 state strategy?  Lead the way.  

I've been reading Mr. Bowers' postings over at Open Left, and I can only conclude that Mr. Bowers believes Senator Obama already has a successful claim on the nomination and that a loss in PA will only hamper Senator Obama's GE campaign. Mr. Bowers' thinking amazes me because it seems that he has taken a total emotional investment in Senator Obama's winning the nomination; at one point he even claimed to quit the Democratic Party if Senator Obama does not receive the nomination. I don't know what to say but to hope that when Senator Clinton starts to fight for superdelegates, that Mr. Bowers does not find that surprising or that he does not abandon his activism for the Party altogether.

Yeah, all those counties in Pennslytucky that Clinton win 900-100 aren't going to add up to squat.  This is going to play out in the Philly suburbs.  If Obama wins the suburbs, he wins. If Hillary wins the suburbs, she wins.  This is the swing area where they both have appeal.

Sheesh, this argument gets more Orwellian every day.

Jerome, you're arguing, essentially, that if a football team scores 3 touchdowns in the last 5 minutes of a game, they should win the game even if they were down 28 points.

But keep telling yourself that the Super Delegates will buck the popular will, and that somehow that won't destroy our chances in November as we watch half of the disillusioned young, as well as black vote, sit out November, and as independents desert "election-stealer" Clinton in droves for McCain.

This is a contest for delegates, pure and simple.  The only argument Clinton could POSSIBLY make at the end is if she wins the popular vote, but it's unlikely she'll have that either.

"The hardest part for BHO, as you mention, Jerome, is that it is a MUST-win for Obama. He is getting routed in crucial large states and is systematically losing any argument to present to SD's that he should be the nominee."
WRONG!!! He lost New York, California, Massachusetts and New Jersey, all gimmes for ANY Democratic candidate. He won the crucial swing states of Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Virginia, all by huge margins. The only swing state that Billary has won so far is Ohio.

"Tuesday was the beginning of the end for Obama 2008."
WRONG again. Tuesday was the end of the end for Billary. They picked up a handful of delegates and the flood of super-delegates to Obama continues unabated. 5 more in the last two days.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

This is a great article on the delegate math.  Even under the rosiest of pro-Clinton scenarios, it will be nearly impossible for her to keep Obama from reaching 2025 in pledged + supers and getting the nomination.  

If the supers revolt en masse and reject the leader at the end of the primaries, the Dems will not only have successfully fallen on their sword once again for this election, they will have successfully alienated another whole generation that is starting to believe in and get invovled in the political process.  Nice going, there...

You allow way too many people to take a crap all over you on your own blog Jerome.  Just my opinion.  There should be some level of respect at your own place.

Fight back!

Even if Clinton wins PA, Obama can win IN and NC. Obama might have to win PA to stop this from going until May or June (or the convention), but it wouldn't be a deathblow to his campaign. And like it or not, a delegate in WY or MS is just as good as a delegate in TX or OH. Stop acting like this is a winner take all contest. Winning by 4% in a large state is just not the same as winning by 17-20% in three medium states.

What I find hilarious is that you're using the fact that Obama won 12 contests in a row as a negative against him. He won 12 in a row and only closed 10 or 16 of a 20 point gap in two states in two weeks. He's surely a goner!

Uh, why would he have to win Pennsylvania? He has to win the majority of delegates, period.

The only people playing the stupid expectation game still is Hillary Clinton. I think the reason why is obvious.

No one is buying this but Clinton supporters engaged in wishful thinking.

So if Obama wins 11 of the next 12 and loses Pennsylvania by 2 or 3 points, he's out? If he wins the majority of the popular vote, states won and pledged delegates he'll be disqualified if he loses Pennsylvania?

When did winning California, New York, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania become the only measure of who wins the nomination? Oh ya, when those became the only states Hillary Clinton could win.

That's how ridiculous, and desperate, the Clinton position has become.

Contrary to Clintonian spin, every state counts.

Who ever has more delegates wins, plain and simple. Let the best man win.

(In stuffy British accent while smoking pipe).

You are exactly right, sir/madam.  Sen. Obama cannot close the sale, and his last chance to do so was Tuesday...

And like it or not, a delegate in WY or MS is just as good as a delegate in TX or OH.

No, ultimately it is NOT. You did either not read the post, or you are so busy clinging to your "delegate math" lifeboat that you fail to see what is happening before your eyes.

She is poised to win from here on out. Those are her demographics, her people. They are not leaving her. MI and FL are hers as well.  

Obama supporters: eventually you are going to have to leave your "delegate math" lifeboat and deal with the fact that it looks very likely that Clinton will be the nominee.  

Clinton does, and she must win with 70% or more of the vote.

Obama could lose by 20 points and it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on his lead.

Will Obama get to 2024 delegates by the convention? If not he isn't the nominee. Fight on Hillary! And Obama going after Clinton on experience opens him up to some SERIOUS scrutiny.

Ummm Senator Obama if Hillary is to inexperienced to be President what does that make you???

Also Obama better be careful not to pull a "Rick Lazio" on Hillary, women voters are watching

Who ever has more delegates wins, plain and simple. Let the best man win.

Those are YOUR rules. They are not reality, and I guarantee you they will not carry the day. The delegate gains that Obama received from his arguably undemocratic caucuses in red states are going to be a very hard sell at the convention.

Delegate Math Lifeboat. Getting a little damp in there?

As for your petty little sexist shot at the end "let the best man win" I'll let it pass because I am really starting to feel sorry for you. Your house of cards is about to collapse.

Obama should move fast and agree to seat the MI and FL delegations as they are now.  He would be taking a big chance to go into a re-vote in these states - he would probably spend a lot of money, lose and end up right about where he is today in the delegate score with two devastating last-minute big state losses too.  Better to give her a modest boost and get on with it.  Since it has been reported that he has the a majority on the Credentials Committee, he could make this happen and in so doing probably even cut a deal with the superdelegates in these states to keep his losses from such a deal to a minimum.  

This entry is just ... sad.

Another fact worth considering when figuring who's the stronger candidate: Hillary won on Tuesday despite being outspent 3 or 4:1. In fact that's been the case in every state since Super Tuesday and almost all states period. Neither will have a significant money advantage in the Fall, so what does that tell us about who is the better vote getter, money being equal?

No offense, but your analysis has been consistently wrong during this primary cycle.  It is the height of hubris to claim that either candidate will be "obliterated" in an election 6 weeks away.

Wrong wrong wrong.  Including Florida and Michigan the race is virtually tied.  Obama leads by about 10,000 votes, or maybe trails by 3,000.  I've seen difference counts.  Obama leads by 300,000 including Florida but excluding Michigan.  That's less than the popular vote difference yesterday.

A great example of the kind of thing Jerome was talking about is the latest Rasmussen tracking poll... It shows Hillary Clinton riding some kind of tsunami wave surge that now has her up 15 points over Obama...

52% Clinton
37% Obama

If those are the kind of numbers the superdelegates are looking at after a potential Clinton win in Pennsylvania (for example) or later on after Florida and Michigan are resolved... they just aren't going to put Obama at the top of the ticket.  100 delegate lead is not going to make people ignore that kind of strength.

You forgot to add that Maine, Nevada, Washington, and Iowa have not even released vote totals.

Tax return thing? C'mon.

Why hasn't she released them? What is she hiding? Is she hiding anything? These things will come out just in time for the GOP to use them against her if there's something there--and if there's nothing there why hide it?

If Clinton wins, prepare to be marginalized again!

Obama's strategy is to roll up huge wins in solidly Republican states to offset smaller Hillary wins in the states that Democrats do carry.  The math works but will this states even potentially shift to the Democratic column in November?  No way.  It's the strategy notably used by party regulars to shut down insurgents.  In 1912, for example, William Howard Taft was nominated instead of the vastly more popular Theodore Roosevelt because of a soliod bloc of southern delegates.  The states all went predictably to Wilson in the fall. Well, Obama is no Taft (and I suspect Hillary is no TR) but the strategy points out a weakness in the structure.  It also says that David Axelrod ran rings around Mark Penn or whoever decided to leave the "little" states uncontested.

Way back, states got a lot of extra delegates for electing Democratic governors, senators, and winning the state in the last Presidential election.  It was called "Democratic potential" in the allocation process.  Does it exist and does it play as large a role as it did in the late 60s?

One huge plus.  For the first time since maybe 1976, evrybody gets a say.  Thank God that NH did not agree with Iowa in either party.  I strongly suggest (as always) that the odds of that double vote be limited by holding Iowa and New Hampshire on the same day (preferrably changing Iowa from a caucus to a primary at the same time).  The republicans had an interesting convention fight with Gerald Ford edging Ronald Reagan.  Great theater.  One other plus about that year that may (or may not) be related: fully 30 states were in play during the campaign including both New York and California.  I'd argue that there was some relation between the two tight nomination contests and the wide scale number of states up for grabs in the fall.

Nobody much is talking about the internal county by county results from Texas.  Just fascinating.  Obama won Dallas County by 70,000 votes but barely won the less sophisticated and neighboring Tarrant (Fort Worth).  Hillary racked up her win by getting a big vote from the Hispanic community.  The win was by only 30,000 in Bexar (San Antonio) by 40,000 in El Paso County (more than 2-1 and by enormous margins in the Valley counties along the Mexican border.  One of them was by 33,000 to 8,000 and the others had some similar percentages (fewer votes).  I wish my knowledge of Texas geography was better but there are so many counties that to a non Texan only the big ones and the stand outs get attention.

Here's the argument.

1. Neither Obama nor Clinton get reach the magic number of delegates.
   
2. therefore counting delegates is a silly waste of time
   
3. Superdelegates will vote for Hillary overwhelmingly because they think she better.

First problem: Just because no one can reach the magic number of delegates doesn't mean that the millions of votes cast are a waste of time or silly. It's means something for one candidate to have more delegates than the other. getting from 31 to #2 would require you assume pledged delegates is completely useless. Well, I think THAT's silly.

second problem: Not surprisingly, Clinton supporters seem to think that left to their own devises, superdelegates will flock to Clinton.  Problem is that the overwhelming recent trend has been superdelegates flocking to Obama instead.

Oh well...

Jerome and Chris are not the only ones who think it is Obama's back against the wall at this point. Wapo has a very interesting areticle today and it should be a MUST READ for every Obama supporter who is so hung up on 'the math'.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2008/03/tough_math_on_the_democratic_s .html

Just a taste:

There is no papering over the depth of the problem Obama faced there. He won only five of the state's 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign. Clinton trounced him among Catholic voters, 63 percent-36 percent, according to exit polls. She beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually.

This is why Pennsylvania, which is demographically similar to Ohio -- and a must-win state for Democrats in November -- is considered such fertile ground for Clinton on April 22.

The Democratic Party is indeed developing a general election problem, and it's only partly because Obama and Clinton will be sniping at one another for the next seven weeks. Obama, the leading candidate, still hasn't shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall.

Clinton HAD to win Ohio and Texas.  Obama doesn't HAVE to win PA.  

No matter what happens, Obama will be in the lead in pledged delegates by the time the convention rolls around.

More democratic voters getting a chance to vote is a good thing, so I don't care if he's not picked until the convention.

But they sure as hell better not GIVE the nomination to Clinton when Obama has, and will have, no matter what, more pledged delegates than Clinton.

Clinton shouldn't have lost 11 in a row before March 4th, and then she wouldn't have been in this losing situation.

Clinton won NH by 2-3%, that is convincingly? She had led there by a significant margin before Iowa.

Obama can win PA, he might have at least gotten to within a few points in OH (the polls that proved to be most accurate in the end showed him about even a few days before)if he had responded quicker and more effectively to the last-minute Clinton smears.

Winning based on delegates awarded as a result of actual people voting in primaries and caucuses would be winning "on a technicality"

Are you F'N kidding me?

I was playing basketball the other night against some really crappy player.  We were playing to 21 and right when I was beating him 17 - 6, he says "next basket wins".  I laughed at him and ended up beating him 21 - 7.

Jerome,

I admire your optimism, but it just isn't going to happen.  No doubt you've already seen this, but just in case-

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010/output /print

There is no imaginable scenario where Hillary can go into the convention with a lead in earned delegates. None, zero.  So your only hope is that the superdelegates are so impressed with her likely win in PA that they overlook Obama's lead in delegates and are willing to risk blowing the Democratic Party apart in order to hand Hillary the nomination.

Are you prepared to explain to the millions of newly-inspired African American voters and youth that have come to Obama's campaign that a bunch of party insiders have trumped their enthusiasm and have deemed it proper to give the nomination to Clinton?  I cannot believe that you still haven't grasped the ramifications of that-- it would be catastrophic for the Party, and it would take decades to recover.  Why do you insist on driving us into the ditch?  Are you so passionate about Hillary as a candidate that you're willing to take a grave risk with the future of the Party?

The state of denial Jerome is living in these days is simply stunning. This comment is particularly amazing:

Obama's had three swings and missed each time.

Hmmmm. Let's see. He's had far more victories with 20+ percentage points. He took on someone who seemed "inevitable" just a few short months ago and has overtaken her as the front-runner of the race. He has the most pledged delegates, leads in the popular vote ...

What exactly has he missed?

As an Obama supporter I will openly admit that there are legitimate reasons to prefer either candidate.  That means that one can make solid logical arguments for why Hilary would be a better choice for the democratic nominee.  (I thought we Obamabots were glassy eyed fools who couldn't possibly say what I just said.  Holy crap!)  Please, continue to make such arguments.  Let this thing drag on until convention.  I don't think that's a good idea, but at least it's building the local resources in every state and it's democrtic even if not smart to let her keep fighting.  But to claim Obama needs to win Pennsylvania?!  Come on.  

All Obama needs is to not take a whole bunch of collosal loses in the few remaining states that Hilary can actually win.  Demographics don't favor her in half of the remaining states anyway.  He has 50 more superdlegates to drop on her this week and even without them he is comfortably in the lead.  

The only thing that Pennsylvania will decide is whether he goes into Denver with a really big lead in delegates or a really really big lead in delegates. Winning in the primary season is measured in delegates.  She is extremely unlikely to catch him.  Even if he lost Pennsylvania by a fairly large margin she would still be unlikely to catch him.

You are an invaluable asset to the progressive cause.  Please don't sacrifice the credibility that you need in order to continue to be an asset by writing this kind of silliness.  The nomination is a done deal and it has been since Hilary settled for a field goal when she needed a touchdown in Texas.  Let's keep it all reality based, shall we?  

The wildcard is how Obama looks going negative.

And you think it looks good on Hillary??? What were the exit poll figures on March 4th on "Who campaigns dirtier?" with Hillary getting about 52% to Obama's 38% (very close but can't recall the exact figures)

Riding into the OH and TX contests, he only needed a victory, and with the help of outside forces, outspent Clinton by a 3 or 4:1 margin in OH & TX. Nevertheless, Clinton won, in Texas by 4 percent, and in Ohio by 10 percent.

Oops, sorry to upset the apple-cart but it seems that he did win in TX as after the caucus votes are tallied he will most likely end up with more delegates than HRC from TX. Sorry to deflate some of the hype - but then again, who cares about delegates?

It's pretty rare that an upstart candidate gets a shot at beating an establishment candidate even once, and yet, Obama's had three swings and missed each time. He's not going to have another shot at putting away Clinton with everything going from him, as he did his first three chances.

Why is it so important that he deliver a death-blow? Obviously, that will never happen for either based on broad support for both. Why not be happy with ending up with more pledge delegates? Oops, there's that delegate thing again.

I love how HRC supporters present arguments like...if this, this and this and this happen, Hillary's got a great chance! Yeah, and if Barack is run over by a bus, she'll win too!

The way things are going it will be hard to envision a convincing argument for Hillary at the convention. Let's see how it sounds...she lost countless states, was bludgeoned in many... BUT...she won the "important" states like CA and OH and PA!!! (BTW, VA doesn't count). And by hypermagical theoresis, that means she would do better in the GE!

You try to present cogent points on the campaign going forward but your overriding support for Hillary completely ruins your objectivity and makes your diary sound like just another cheerleading piece.

And please! Enough of the electability polls! Just yesterday, an ABC poll had Obama up over HRC by 6 points.

Take a step back and let someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome read your stuff before you post it.

I've never seen this the level of sheer animosity amongst Dems that I have in this campaign. Personally, I find this bitter divide between HRC and BHO supporters to be utterly unhealthy and disturbing. I'm fine with either of our superb candidates but it seems to me that for some, the bitterness of the "loss" will be overwhelming.

I just have to say that it is very sad to see one of the main proponents of the 50-state strategy to hang the hopes of his candidate on the over-emphasis of FL, OH and PA.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why these states are easier for Clinton and harder for Obama in a Primary... But for these three states to become the only three that matter, you would have to put forward some evidence that what Clinton gains against Obama in these states, she doesn't give away to McCain in the fall.

The reason he's down in these states is almost entirely based on demographics.  But those demographics are just as likely to turn against her and pick McCain as they are to pick her over Obama in the primary.

What tripe. It's not Obama who has to lose as so many have pointed out. Clinton HAS to win by 65-35. She currently leads by 15%. She's got a lot of ground to make up.

Otherwise think of what will happen if Clinton games the nomination -- The supers pass over a black man who comes in with the most delegates and the poular vote and doesn't give it to him!
Kiss the African-American vote away for a generation and this middle aged white woman will be walking away with the.

your Clinton bias is still showing badly.  Obama does not "have" to win PA.  That is Clinton spin of the highest order.  It is highly unlikely that the candidate with the most pledged delegates will not be the nominee come convention time.  The Clinton campaign themsleves stated that this was a race about delegates, but, in classic Clinton fashion, when the game isn't going your way, you just change the rules.  

Clinton states won so far: ~260 electoral votes
Obama states won so far: ~170 electoral votes

There's a 50 state strategy we can use!  'Nuff said.

Mike,

Remember your cvics class -- this is a primary and caucus race = not the GE!

A new poll, before the campaigning begins, has Hillary up by 15 points, a much smaller lead than she held in either Texas or Ohio before the people in those states got a chance to see them up close.

My best guess is that Hillary wins Pennsylvania by 7-10 points, picking up a handful of delegates along the way, far fewer than she needs to do more than dent Obama's big lead.

BTW, current Michigan poll for the GE has McCain four points ahead of Clinton, four behind Obama. The notion that McCain will do better than Obama in California, Massachusetts et. al. is a myth.

Which is Clinton's?  I've seen no policy papers on this.

This article elaborates on what you are saying Jerome.  Great post.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2008/03/tough_math_on_the_democratic_s .html

Ok, so to have a chance it would seem Hillary Clinton needs to accomplish the following (assuming Florida and Michigan hold new primaries):

1) Win PA, MI, and FLA, probably by Ohio-like margins of 10 points.  Convincing victories and a clean sweep of the 5 big post-Super Tuesday states gives her the momentum.  

2) Pass Obama in total votes while holding a good-size total vote lead among Democratic primary voters.

3) Lead Obama in all the polls by convention time.

My question is, if she actually pulls all that off how close would the pledged delegate margin have to be to make her nomination a realistic possibility?

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1 20476351914515053.html?mod=blog

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe predicted Sen. Clinton would net between four and 10 delegates, fewer "than we netted out of the state of Idaho."

Yessiree, that's one heck of a comeback on Tuesday...

"the petty tax return stuff"
Ya know maybe to some Clinton not releasing returns since she was is the Senate might seem petty.
If it is petty why not release?
Her saying they will be released on 4/15 is fine for this year but c'mon the previous years?
Do she and Bill file a individuals or joint?

Clinton is neck and neck as our nominee.
Does what income, write-offs, tax shelters..etc
none of our business?

No need to go over her demands that Lazlo release his tax information when she was running for Senate the first time.

Should Clinton income be transparent?

from her website
"Government contracts should be transparent, subject to public disclosure, open to intense competition and accessible on-line."

full link
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/re alplan/

This is NOT Hillery bashing. This is just that the Obama campaign has the same right to make income transparency an issue as much as the issues the Clinton campaign brings up against Obama

Even though most of us have picked a dog in the hunt, I think it's still possible to be objective about this.

This isn't about Pennsylvania...this about money. What Clinton is hoping to do is convince her donor base that they can last longer than Obama's fun-bus of young stary eyed volunteeers, novelty Republicans, MoveOn types, recovering Deaniacs, blacks, and the rest of the party that isn't a single issue voter on race, abortion, Israel, and the like.

Jerome's characterization of 3 Acts is misleading. What this campaign has been from the beginning is Obama finding a weakness in Clinton's strategy and her changing the rules to eliminate that. This isn't the product of some conspiracy...it's the system at work. Politicians always try to extend their viable lifespan beyond the movement on which they are borne.

For that reason, realize, this is just getting started. Even if Obama ran out of money and Hillary won every single delegate from here on out, there's a spot for him in the Green Party with Nader running independent. And speaking of Nader, I don't think Bill Maher and Michael Moore and going to beg him not to run if Clinton is the nominee. Meanwhile, John McCain is salivating at the thought of a disaffected black base should Clinton be the nominee. Remember, McCain does very well with veterans groups and could provide the GOP with a huge linkage there because too many whites in the US underestimate the role of African-Americans in the armed forces.

Nothing against the Keystone State, but I have a feeling it's going to get undue hype solely because it's between the major media centres of New York and Washington on Amtrak....nothing more.

Since Tuesday, Obama has gained the endorsements of 9 Super-Delegates, Billary has added 1. What little gain she made on Tuesday in the primaries has been over-ridden.

It's over. Let's get behind the nominee and send John McCain packing.

First act: Obama won a maverick-like victory in Iowa, upsetting both Clinton and Edwards. He went on the national covers, and lept to the lead in NH polls. Nevertheless, Clinton came back and won convincingly in NH.

How is a virtual tie when they break even on delegates a convincing win for Clinton?

Don't know how HRC will do in PA, but it is a lot like Ohio and NY and it will probably go big for her.  Sorry, Obamaroids!

The superdelegates are not going to give Obama the nomination based on a small delegate difference AND his penchant for running out of press conferences re Rezko, which is going to keep on developing in interesting ways...His "judgment" will look poor, his not calling subcommittee hearings will loom large, his adviser Rice saying he's not ready for a 3 am call....and with a lot of his delegates gained from inviting Republicans to vote for him and his poor record in the must-win big states...if the party goes with this inexperienced phony, they're insane.  But many Democrats won't buy into it, which is another problem if they ignore all of this...Ed Rendell on BBC World last night was hinting at this sort of thing....

So explain to us why Obama is losing the big states to her when he has such a better organization, so much more money, and no Mark Penn.

He wins little red states where there are caucuses that disenfranchise many of Clinton's supporters. Caucuses where intimidation is used. Where much of his support comes from Republicans and Independents, who will likely vote for McCain in the general. And my God, he's also ahead because of not seating the delegates in Michigan and Florida.

Why would you want to go against the will of the majority of Democrats? Why would anyone want to hand the nomination to somebody who is obviously going to lose in November? You say red state delegates are as good as blue state delegates, which strikes me as bizarre. Those states will be LOST in November. If you don't think there will be Democratic crossover for McCain in the swing states and blue states if Obama is the nominee, then you have poor reality testing.

I mean, can you imagine, if we're forced to have Obama as the nominee, despite the will of the people? And then he loses badly? Disaster to the party.

Are you guys kidding? There will come a time very soon when you will wake up and realize that you sold all your progressive values away in order to become soldiers in Clinton's army. You will wake up and find out that you are supporting a corporatist, triangulating, republican-lite who likes to look tough by fighting wars and voting against gay marriage and free speech and the environment.  And you will ask yourself, why did I support Hillary Clinton and her lies? And there won't be any good answer.  

You are abandoning the progressive movement in favor of a woman who couldn't care less about your values, only about her own power.

Why?

In counting the Obama wins. The General Election will NOT be a series of caucus' where he can intimidate voters, especially the older ones who were not able to participate to the degree that the trained forces of Obama could. Also, many people who are Clinton supporters, you've heard of them, they are the lower income, blue collars that maybe have to work two jobs, will vote in the General, when they couldn't participate in the caucus states (because of the strict scheduling involved)like their children who have plenty of time and internet savvy. But I would like to ask them to stay energized while we all try and bring about a huge Democratic majority in Congress. We'll need that besides whoever gets elected to the Presidency. I'm just afraid that they will not hang in for the long haul.

the spread in CA is 8.7%, and it's readily available at the SoS website.  Have the decency to get your facts straight.  Aren't we supposed to be better than the traditional media?