I agree, she'll win Pennsylvania.

There are 50 states, though.

"his win in NC is just another small red state we don't need in November"

NC is the 10th largest state in the country by population.  It will be the largest that Obama will have won (except IL).  It is also a state that could go Dem in Nov.  It has a large AA population and having Obama as our nominee could help us there.  Hardly insignificant by any stretch.

...Obama and Clinton are competing for the Democratic nomination.  

The coin of the realm in this battle is convention delegates.  Period, end of story.  

Obama has run a campaign for delegates to the convention, not one for the general election.  If he had been running in the general rather than the primaries, his strategy would have been different.  Perhaps it would have been similar to Clinton's campaign.  That the Clinton campaign didn't (and seemingly still doesn't) understand that the primaries aren't the same sort of beast as the general is the beginning point for analyzing the failure of her "inevitable" candidacy.

Today, Obama has the backing of more delegates than Clinton.  After Pennsylvania, he'll have the backing of more delegates than Clinton.  After North Carolina and Indiana, he'll have the backing of more delegates than Clinton.  And so on, for as long as Clinton wants to deny reality.

The superdelegates are breaking his way.  Her primary-election money is running short.  It's just a matter of time.

Ironic all things considered.

Obama doesn't want to address problems like this (below) that makes him not only deceptive, but vulnerable..

Elizabeth Edwards at Association of Health Care Journalists 2008
3/29/08

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast /uploaded_files/032908%20-%20ahcj%20edwa rds_transcript.pdf

    "We can expect a woman who is diagnosed with a brain
    tumor to a better hope that she disclosed those headaches
    that she had 15 years ago but she first got that insurance
    policy, that health insurance policy because her health
    insurance policy may now be covered by state law that allows
    rescission even for an omission that seemed inconsequential
    at the time because she didn't know about her pre-existing -
    she didn't know about the brain tumor that she - 15 years
    before because there's no limit on the look back time. That's
    true in a number of states in this country. They can go back,
    look at your applications - did you completely describe your
    condition. Even if you didn't know about the pre-existing
    condition, they can rescind or fail to cover the condition if
    they - it was pre-existing at the time.
    Now the question is how do you know? Well then you
    take them to court and then are you required to prove the
    negative? I bet there's going to be states that say you do
    and if there is, I bet that's where these policies are going
    to be written. There are real consequences to the differences between the candidates and there's no way - there is no way
    for the regular voter to work this out in their heads even -
    honestly, it's not that easy for me and this is what I do
    with - I talk about health care. I have to say I have some
    trepidation about talking always.
    I was in Colorado one time, 2004, and I got the first
    question on grazing and I thought - I looked around I thought
    shoot, everybody in this room knows everything there is to
    know about grazing and I don't know a darn thing. Now I know
    a little bit but in some events, it's almost more difficult -
    I know a little bit and you all are likely to know lots, lots
    more so I would say there's a hesitation but the truth is
    that all of this is not just the rhetoric of somebody
    speaking.
    This is not a fairytale or even a speech. This is
    real life with real life consequences for people if these
    policies are put in effect and I say that if with some -
    because obviously what they talk about, what happens, there's
    a big gulf between it that you can just bet that we're not
    going to get anything better than what they're talking about.
    They have to at least be talking about the very best things
    and maybe we can get some reasonably close to that.
    Real life that I've lived with a devastating disease
    and I've had the very best medical care. All the while I've
    had it, I've been talking to lots of Americans who don't. They had the same condition I have, faced the same hurdles I
    have but without the insurance coverage to assure them of
    that best care and often without any care at all.
    If the costs move higher, those women or the coverage
    is reduced, those women who look to us and look to leaders in
    this country in the time of their desperate need will once
    again stand alone. It's not who we are, I don't think, rather
    we like to think we are. It's who we actually are and we need
    to shine a really bright light on that. We don't need to let
    those people for whom bad luck or genetics or misfortune has
    tapped stand alone.
    Shouldn't they know the personal consequences to them
    of their vote - both the importance of their actually voting
    and the consequences of the choices that they make. You are
    the way they get that information. You are the best, the most
    reliable source for them on making those decisions and the
    oneness, I think, I can't put the - say this too strongly -
    the oneness is on you to make certain that they make that
    decision. We don't end up in - speaking in 2012, about gee if
    we just know it in 2008 what the differences were. That's
    your responsibility. My responsibility is just to urge you to
    do it. Now I'll answer any questions that I can answer in
    whatever time they tell me before they tell me to stop and I
    didn't tell too many personal anecdotes, if you want to hear
    those, you're welcome to but thank you very much. [applause]

It is impressive how one candidate outspending in Penn can have such a positive effect on the electorate, while the other candidate overspending on Penn can have such a negative impact on the electorate.

I guess which Penn you spend on makes more difference to people in this country.

I think we all know which Penn spending was worthwhile and which was not.

I actually agree with this. That wouldn't be enough for her to catch up in the number of delegates, but an upset in North Carolina would be enough to raise some eyebrows and keep her in the race. But her campaign dare not raise the notion of an NC upset because it's way to much to expect. So far, Obama's tended to outperform the polling in states that have him showing a big lead (e.g. Virginia).

IMO, If Pennsylvania roughly matches the polls we're seeing now, and Indiana is close (which seems likely), and North Carolina is a blowout for Obama (again, I'm thinking it'll basically be a rerun of Virginia), the supers are gonna drop and the show will be over before West Virginia and Kentucky.

In the unlikely event Obama gets really close (like <3-5% margin) in PA, it's over, but the supers will wait the couple weeks for NC and Indiana to happen. Their results won't matter in that case unless they're way, WAY out of line with expectations. If he wins PA outright, it's over immediately.

Your rebuttal, please?

Hint: some things are too obviously wrong to rebut.

Good for him. Since he apparently needs neither the voters nor the super delegates anymore I guess he'll be quite content if we bring them over to Hillary's camp instead. I can assure we'll use them to good effect and in the best interest of the party.

I accidentally read one of your postings before seeing that repulsive sig line.

Just an FYI, the reason that the Obama campaign tends to run short on signs is because it built an infrastructure early in primary season to ship used signs from state to state, yet another example of how a leader should act by his example-in this case, not spending a boatload of money and toppling landfills with new signs in every state. I assume from the Clinton expenditures that this idea never made a fruitful stop in her mind.

though I can see Obama would like to thinks so, he is so busy disenfranchising the ones from MI and FL.

And here it is again.  Clinton supporters start an argument, and when they get hit upside the head by logic, can only respond with the aren't you supposed to above that shtick.  Or the, aren't you meant to be better than us shtick.

I got called sexist for call Tweety a mysongonistic douchebag.  That sword cuts both ways.  People on both sides have been r-tards.  To claim that no one on the Clinton side has played the race card or no one on the Obama camp has played the penis card is either incredibly naive or just a malicious revision of fact.

Al Gore and John Kerry were not running against another candidate with all the institutional and money support that Clinton has.

you see, with Obama we get to draw an entirely new map

It's not factual, which was the trolly part.  But thanks for playing.