If he or she relaly believed it, he or she would not need to say it.  Thus, the very verbal act of claiming Clinton cannot catch up disproves the assertion.

And how does that work with the Caucus states....do they all get to re-vote in a primary? Sounds really workable there Jaz.

1. There will be no re-votes. I think we all know that. It's a pure matter of logistics.

2. The point people miss when they say that neither candidate will get the requisite number of delegates from pledged and thus both need supers is that she will need VASTLY MORE. She will need 70-80% of the remaining superdelegates. There's no reason to think that will happen- even if you assume she finds some equally compelling rationale to Obama's victory in the primaries.

I know you HRC supporters like to post all these polls saying that only 10% of the Supers think pledged delegates are the most important deciding factor - but NO polls have said anything about Supers thinking popular vote is somehow more important than pledged delegates. You're making up facts here simply because they suit you. Popular vote is a flawed and intangible measurement in this race, and the ONLY Supers using it as an excuse are those who ALREADY support Hillary.

The mistake we've made is allowing the Clinton campaign to introduce all these other distractions. It's a delegate race.  Or I could have written a few paragraphs making that very simple point. You're welcome.

Nice rebuttal.

Do you understand that the superdelegates need not all go to the same candidate?

Do you therefore understand that the number of superdelegates each candidates needs to convince is an important factor, regardless of which metric he/she uses to convince them?

Whether Clinton depends on "electability", on "popular vote" or on "the wishes of Odin All-father", she'll have to convince more than 70% of the superdelegates to that fact -- Obama on the other hand will have to convince less than 35% of them.