They have a fiscal stake in this primary continuing... it is good for ratings....  they will posit any talking point that serves his purpose...

Interesting on how Hillary loses 12 straight contests and she's, "Still in it!"

But Obama loses a couple of states, and, "Why can't he close the deal?"

Some double standard.... she can lose the majority of primaries and caucuses, but he has to go undefeated for the media to be happy...

Please remind us all... your process for determining a "major" state.  Seems to me that diminishing other states, you're telling those voters that their votes are somehow less valuable than those that you deem "major".

Aside from the fact that there's only been 1 primary in the past 6 weeks, Obama officially won more delegates out of Texas' "two-step" primary and caucus.

it's not the same thing, because he's been the front runner and he was polling higher than she was, and he had far more money. He was expected to close the deal, and when that doesn't happen the candidate is viewed as not the right one, and you look to the next in line.  I think it's because he needed a mandate to sell his world view, he's always said he needs to bring congress with him and have the people behind him, in that bottom up way that is the basis of his theory. So even if he squeaked a win, he would have set himself up as unable to get his bottom up agenda underway.  Her message of change is a strong task-master leader who'll make sure things are done properly. He's made a few bad mistakes or errors in judgement. His idea of taxing capital gains like income is a non-started, not only does it bring in less revenue and tax middle and lower income people, it makes it harder to invest, and people do want to invest, it's part of the American Dream as much as home ownership. His health care plan appeals to the very people who want a flat tax on capital gains, so he's lost that advantage.  He can't take advantage of the war issue because her exit plan is more far reaching than his.  Most of his talent is in his campaign and he's not keeping up with world events and national priorities the way she is. She puts out several press releases a day on issues and where she stands, her solutions campaign is contained in her press releases. Also, we  know who her advisors are and where they stand, while his are more academics who haven't taken as many decisions, so not only do we not know much about who advises him, we don't know their advise. he's put that aside with the idea of bottom up, but he doesn't have a mandate from the bottom, what will he do?  We actually don't know, and I suspect he doesn't know either.  His problem in debates isn't that he has vetting issues, it's that he can't speak clearly about what he plans to do.  And his jokes are only understood by academics, when he quipped that she was in her element in debates he meant that she can parry better than he, but most including me heard it that she's a politician and is comfortable in the area of politics. That's good, not a deficit.  If he can't sway anyone in a debate, how does he plan to negotiate with congress and with foreign nations?  The big point is that she's now clearly more qualified, whether or not he denigrates her past experience, her experience shows in her solutions and capabilities.  So, it's a much bigger problem for him, that he hasn't closed the deal. the longer it goes on the less chance he has of recapturing those he's lost much less of gaining any new support.  I hope he gets more practical and starts thinking of the vice presidency. i can see him giving a great concession speech saying she won if, and that means to him she's the right one for the job, and that also means to him that he can learn from her and he'd be proud to run as her running mate.  That would thrill the entire world, and would show that he's a decent man who does want what's best for the nation and who's thus willing to put his ego aside and do what's right.  

we heard the meme.

Caucus states are insignificant...they do not count.

No, all these popular vote counts include the caucuses. What the Obama people are trying to argue (very unconvincingly) is that some caucuses didn't fully report participation, which may be true. But caucuses are such low number events (and they're typically in such small states) that all of them together are dwarfed by one large primary. And there's no evidence that Obama would have won by the same percentage in these states had they been primaries (He won Colorado by 20 points, but the last polls of Democratic voters before caucus day had him up within the margin of error).

is that the data that you link to shows Clinton leading in one of the five measures that they have listed. The one she leads on has two asterisks which guide you to this:

**(Senator Obama was not on the Michigan Ballot and thus received zero votes. Uncommitted was on the ballot and received 238,168 votes as compared to 328,309 for Senator Clinton.)

yeah, as an Obama voter in MI, I know what it's like not to "matter."

What concerns me is that you still think some states count more than others in the general election...  Every state matters...  

so is hillary, that is why they are called toss ups. If you look at MyDD's maps at the top, she is still losing to McCain.  

Its not like she has some magic lock on certain states that Obama doesn't. And btw, you can't say that primary performances translate into general election. Otherwise, we are looking at Dem landslides all throughout the south with....Obama. Yea, not gonna happen.

What does that mean? That Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama? The turnout for Dems have averaged at least twice that of GOP. Even considering many GOPrs haven't voted since McCain clinched the primaries before were still twice as high for Dems.

If the criticism is he can't close the deal, then what the hell is she doing still in the race after almost all the primaries have occurred with her still  trailing after winning the "Big States." She is a spoiler at this point and cannot possibly close the deal unless SD's flip b/c they don't think a black man can win when he has been or that they have some loyalty to Clinton which is inappropriate.

cast so far were by Democrats, this is unless you're saying that those who vote for Hillary are not Democrats, and that leads to the question, why should they be allowed to determine who the nominee of the DEMOCRATIC party should be?

Why?  because you say so?

Um....

by whose standards?

Because unlike Clinton, and the others in the 50 + 1 Crowd, Obama buys into the 50 state strategy and he is going to have the money to get on the field EVERYWHERE.

I am so sick of this narrative that some states don't matter.

Virginia is going to see a Democratic wave this year thanks to Mark Warner running for Senate and will definitely be in play for either Clinton or Obama (although I think more for Obama.)

Pennsylvania will come home to the Democrats either way (but it will be a fight,) because the machine will be with either candidate, Casey will be out there fighting for our nominee, and because of the change in registration here over the last year.  

Florida is probably going to vote for McCain because a.) it is the oldest state in the country, b.) the disenfranchisement fiasco, and c.) I always expect the worst when it comes to Florida. That being said we will still fight for it.

Ohio is Ohio. I will say this- it has been trending more Democratic recently and I see no reason either candidate couldn't win there. It will take a fight though.

Colorado- both candidates can put it on the map.

Texas- A long shot for Obama but don't say he couldn't do it. Even though he is VERY likely to still lose there he can make McCain spend resources there that he shouldn't have to.

California, New York and other Blue States- Lets quit with the narrative that either candidate would lose any traditionally blue states. It won't happen. (This includes Michigan in my mind- I just don't see them voting for more war and less jobs.)

I know there are other states I could make brief points about but the overall point is this. In the General Election every state matters and many states are going to be in play. If we make this election about PA, OH, and FL again we are far more likely to lose (as the last two races have shown.)

Obama has the money, so with him having a lot more money that her, not closing the deal is bigger failing. He spent $11m in Pennsylvania. She spent just over $3m. So, he has the upper hand with that kind of money. Why isn't he clobbering her?

She's now ahead in popular vote. If you count Florida and Michigan, she's probably ahead in delegates as well.

And Florida and Michigan will be counted. The only way they won't, is if their inclusion isn't decisive. There is no way the Democratic party is going to give the nomination to a candidate who wouldn't be the candidate if all the votes are counted.

Obama has an incredible base of support. But above and beyond that base, his performance is lackluster.

Which of the states that Obama has won are pivotal?

Don't forget that Clinton stands to pick up 250-300,000 vote margin in Puerto Rico right near the end.  That will more than overcome any vote advantage for Obama from NC.  That should put her over the top with the popular vote, and within about 120-140 delegates of Obama's total.

Well here is the thing, remember at the convention the undecideds can vote for Obama if the want. His supporters ACTIVELY campaigned for him against her.

Obama has won 35 of the 36 uncommitted delegates available in MI at the county conventions, so he certainly should get the proportion of the popular vote based on that count...

...at the very least!

I'm looking at the facts...

30% of Americans don't trust her... her negatives are close to 60% and she loses IA, WI, MN, OR, WA, and maybe a few more...

Rasmussen says she even loses AR...

Those are the facts on the ground...

at facts.

The facts say Obama is a better candidate.

"Obama can't win, so let's nominate the candidate that's losing to him!"

1) Higher negatives than Obama.

2. AA vote will be sooooooooft
   
3. Support by new, younger voters brought in by Obama will be soooooooooft
   
4. She has the emnity of the anti-war/left vote

The only thing good about a Hillary nomination will be that the party's long, increasingly unhealthy relationship with the Clintons will have run its course.  With them no longer looming over everything like they own the damn party, we can move