Honest question Jerome: when you are talking about 'total votes', are you including MI (and not giving any Obama's uncommitted votes). Because if not, he's not going to lose 'total votes', and if so, well you've certainly lost my respect.

I think the title of this post basically fits the dictionary definition of "irony." English majors want to chime in?

Enjoy it.

Everyone's entitled to one last hurrah.  Maybe two.  Nothing wrong with going out well, and I don't begrudge you folks that.

I was a big HD-DVD supporter.  Well, my format of choice lost.  It sucked.  They still released I Am Legend in HD-DVD.  And it's glorious.

One for the road.  Nothing wrong with that.  Have fun primary day!

damn good.

I'm glad she finally realized the value of running up the score in relatively uncontested contests.  

This will let her get a nice victory in order to prompt some fundraising to work on her enormous debt (I'm still trying to figure out what happens to her general election funds when she drops out... can they be used for her debt if she's not going to run for president on the Democratic ticket?).

As for the racism issue; it seems to me to be a valid issue on an academic level. I don't agree with it being used as something to disparage the residents of West Virginia as a whole, but having a black candidate does suggest that there's certain demographics that will never ever vote for him.

On the other hand, we constantly have veiled racist attacks on Obama, especially after Clinton's recent remarks.

Anyway, I'm pleased with Clinton's progress in West Virginia and Kentucky.  Hopefully she'll be able to drive up Democratic voter enthusiasm.

"62% of Democrats and independents indicated they would vote for Clinton over 24% for McCain."

OK, let's say that Democrats and Independents occur in roughly equal proportion in WV.  Let's also say the Independents are splite 50/50 on whether to vote for Clinton.  This means that around 80% of the Democrats interviewed say they would vote for Clinton.

"Obama received 37% support compared to McCain's 35%."

Using the same assumptions above, this means that Independents and Democrats were both split 50/50 on whether to vote for Obama.  So why would 50% of Democrats in WV vote for Clinton, but not Obama?  Any guesses?

In WV, Clinton is blowing Obama away in numbers that she has not been seen since Super Tuesday

In polls J-dawg.

How did those polls work out for Hill in IN and NC?

Not so good.

It's over pal.

Really.  It's way over.

After her disgraceful 16 point loss in Wisconsin, it was over.  She fought the good fight to damage him as the nominee, but it's done.

Since I'm so desperate to keep my MyDD account, let me say up front that I'm absolutely positive that there isn't a single racist in all of West Virginia. This makes West Virginia far better than Seattle, inasmuch as I had somebody come into my store three days ago and start talking about "this crackhead ni**er up the street."

I hope that Seattle can someday be as enlightened as West Virginia.

Thank you.

That is all.

And so Sister Beezlebub battles on against Barry the Glass Jawed!

Nicely said Jerome. You are indeed worthy of your mantle 'Big Man of the Blogosphere' for the simple reason that you have not lost sight of the fact that.....

Votes matter. And Voters matter. And most of all to accuse citizens of racism for the single reason that they won't vote for your prancing clown of a candidate is a heinous thing.

A thing that will not be forgotten.

On to WV and if'n yer one o' them 'Creative Class' fools that Chris 'Most Always Wrong' Bowers is allus blovaitin' 'bout why son, or sister, yew kin....

Kiss my Ass!

Ah, the true feelings of Jerome Armstrong. Are you so hard heartened that you can't accept that Obama will be the Nominee. I thought you're a bigger person like Todd Beaton who showed strenght in defeat after the NC & IN Primaries. I accept defeat in WV & KY but it won't change the metric of the Race.
You want to seat MI & FL, so be it.
Do you REALLY think the Supers will overturn the will of the Voters. Under any circumstances NO.
By June 3rd which is the end of the Primary Season Obama will enough Delegates so he'll generously seating Michigan & Florida.

Also under ANY circumstances Hillary will not take this to the Convention Floor. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean be then have taken care of it. The Congressional Leaders have MORE POWER THAN BOTH CLINTONS TOGETHER.
Why can't you accept that Hillary Clinton won't be the Democratic Nominee.
You sounded like Lance Armstrong who never accepted DEFEAT, who wanted to win every Time Trail and Montain Stage.

Daniel

I'd humbly suggest, to all the Obama supporters that join us here on this blog, that if you can't stand the heat of the West Virginia primary, you stay out of the kitchen.

What I do have a problem with is people having a completely distorted view of what a given victory or defeat means.  

If, for example, someone took a huge Clinton victory in WV to mean that she was on the rise or that a tide had turned, I would view that as not reality based and would point out that I think they were being delusional.

What a ridiculous thing to get banned for.   How does it prevent the results from West Virginia from being blogged?

Jerome Armstron I think Clinton can win, but I'm scared. Obama has every lead in every matric. I used to have hope for the super delegates to see light and give this victory to Clinton. I'm scared Obama is going to steal this election. What are Clinton supporters suppose to do when they know that Clinton is a winner, but she lost at everything?

You're right Obama probably won't win WV in the general. He certainly won't win the primary. Why? People in Appalachia in general are poor and undereducated. They get e-mail, but believe whole heartedly that Obama is a muslim, who was sworn into office on the Koran. I know, I've been making calls into WV for Obama's campaign. I've heard the garbage from voters. Some are willing to listen to reason, some are not. So the smears have worked rather effectively in these communities. I believe they are predisposed to embrace them. Once Hillary drops out, the campaign will have to make an effort to reintroduce the candidate and take the smears head on. This will probably improve his performance in the fall, but not likely enough to make it competitive. If the road to the Whitehouse ran through WV... Barack Obama would be in serious trouble. Fortunately for him, it doesn't... his path runs through the West.

As far as cementing his claim on the nomination, it's no different than what Bill Clinton did in 1992. When he was crowned the "presumptive nominee" as of April 7th a full two months before he could actually win enough delegates to officially become the nominee. He made the claim at the point where it became mathematically impossible for anyone else to surpass him in pledged delegates. A claim Barack Obama has been able to make since February. In fact he's showing restraint by waiting until he's actually got the majority of pledged delegates... certainly more restraint than Bill showed.

As to this freshly planted goalpost of yours... Hillary herself has been using the 2025 number for months:

It is THE number until the situation changes, and even Howard Dean himself has said that while the delegations from MI/FL will be seated they will not reflect the vote totals... and will be penalized in some form. Until the rules change (possibly on 5/31, but likely not till June) the number is still 2025.

It's time that we faced the facts. After May 20th, Barack Obama will have WON the majority of pledged delegates. He will lead in all delegates when voting ends. He is now our "Presumptive" nominee.

Just as Bill Clinto was on April 8, 1992.

to go to bed dreaming sweet thoughts.  Thanks, Jerome!  

Hillary Clinton, 2/22/08.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OsYnegoV 28

Noted without comment.  

Irony is Hillary Clinton ahead of McCain in the GE by wider margins than McCain in practically all respected polls.

Irony is Barack Obama trying to win the nomination by any means necessary including blocking a revote for MI and FL.

Irony is Barack Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton without winning a majority of the Democratic votes in a democratic primary.

Irony is castigating Hillary Clinton for saying Barack Obama cannot win the white vote after every commentator this side of the world has said it as nauseum.

Irony is Ted Kennedy insulting Hillary Clinton today while speaking about the need for a new kind of politics. (Was he the one who went all the way to the convention when he was much farther behind than Hillary is now?)

Wow.  And at what cost to the Democratic party are the Hillary people willing to allow?

You can't change the rules when they don't suit your needs.

This is just sad.

Even if the MI and FL delegates are seated, that doesn't necessarily mean that 2209 becomes the magic number.  The DNC could choose to seat MI and FL, but only give them half the original amount of delegates, for example.  I believe that's what the Republican party did to punish the states that moved up their primaries early.  

So, until it's officially changed, it's probably best to stick with the original number than conjecture about what it could be.  

I can deal with defeat... and with West Virginia, you can have it.  Take it home, carry it on your shoulder like a big bowling trophy, its yours to have..

let me quote Chris Bowers at OpenLeft

Obama will never fall behind in any overall delegate count, every again. Obama will be ahead of Clinton is delegates even if Florida is seated as is, and even if Obama gets zero delegates from Michigan, and even if Obama dails to net anymore superdelegates. Polling conducted before Indiana and North Carolina projected Clinton to net 31 pledged delegates from the remaining six contests. However, Democratic Convention Watch projects Obama ahead by 37.5 delegates even if Florida is seated based on January 29thth results, and even if Obama receives zero delegates from Michigan. In other words, there is no conceivable delegate count under which Clinton will ever be ahead, ever again.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId =5664

you want WV?  Take it :)

Thanks for the warning...I guess you are just letting us know that there are subjects which irritate you.  Since you have your finger on the button, I'll be sure not to irritate you.

I do not doubt that Hillary will win in WV.  She's always been favored there.  Like I said upthread -- different strokes for different folks.

Damn it, Jerome, it's hard to respond reasonably when you write a reasonable post with a couple of incredibly dishonest tidbits thrown in at the end.

First, before I blow my top:

Clinton will win WV big.  Not surprisingly, this will play out much as the rest of this primary has -- based largely on the demographics.  With a few exceptions, each candidate has held his or her key demographics as the contests have rolled on.  This is why (again, with a few exceptions) Obama's 'leaked' projection spreadsheet was so uncannily accurate so far in advance.  Each campaign had a pretty good idea of what kind of voters they'd get after a couple of contests.

It is for this fact that I was so disgusted at the media's constant narrative regarding 'shifting momentum'.  There was never any momentum in this race on either side.  Sure, Obama racked up 12 wins in a row -- but (with the exception of my former home state of Maine) those contests were tailor-made for him: many caucuses, smaller states where he could overcome Clinton's name recognition, lots of African Americans, etc.  It just so happened that there were 11 or so contests in a row that overwhelmingly favored him demographically.  Likewise, when Clinton won PA, it didn't surprise me a bit -- again, considering the demographics and her big PA endorsements / machine support.

So yes, Clinton will definitely win WV -- and convincingly.  WV is like PA without the cities -- Obama never had a shot.

Here's my important point: Both Clinton and Obama put new states into play against John McCain in November.  But because their respective bases of support comes from different segments of the population, the new states they put into play are different.  I will concede that there's no way in hell that Obama will win WV in the fall -- and it's a state that Hillary could potentially win against McCain (though it would be an uphill battle).  I have my doubts that Hillary, however, could take Virginia come November (as an example).  So when Hillary trounces Obama next week in WV, what will it mean?  Other than that she still appeals to her key demographics, not much.

I'll call you out for your continued intellectually dishonesty in my next comment.  :)

What is it about states like Colorado and even Wisconsin that Clinton (if one believes polls) would lose in the general but Obama could win?  Each candidate has their strengths and weaknesses.  While I'll agree it's presumptuous to call Obama the presumptive nominee, can we agree at this point this is 99% politeness?  I'm looking forward to Clinton folk getting board and helping Obama figure out what he can do to reach out to voters in Appalachia and other places (and make no mistake, however much disappointment is felt by some of Clinton's supporters, the professional apparatus of the Democratic party will come together to support the winner--those who backed Obama, Clinton, Edwards, even Biden, will put their heads together and start figuring this stuff out).

One more comment, since the diarist raised the subject.  In hindsight, one of Clinton's biggest mistakes (and she made it early) was announcing that her campaign would readily accept a victory which was handed to her by superdelegates (ie. these primary elections were just one componant in the larger process, and, in some circumstances, could be overturned).  Clinton, we can readily agree, didn't invent superdelegates, and I don't think there are many Democrats today who really defend this system (which is a relic of the George McGovern/Ted Kennedy debacles, when the Democratic party turned on itself, and, uncharitably, but accurately, could be described thusly, "We have to give party folks power so if necessary we can stop the hippies, eco-freaks, women's rights activists, and so on").

But when did Clinton commit to this idea that superdelegates could be the crucial ingredient in her victory?  Just after Iowa.  Huge mistake.  I have friends who were Edwards supporters who came over to Obama for this reason alone.  And for all of the talk about rules and legalities, don't you know in your bones that this sort of victory would just be wrong?  I mean, c'mon, the race is almost over, and the leadership of the Democratic party, to their credit, both doesn't want the responsibility of choosing the candidate and knows the long-term damage this sort of outcome would cause.

Totally understand the Dems might lose in November as a result of this divisive primary, but wanted to set out why Obama supporters are both happy he won and still a bit incredulous about the tactics by which Clinton hopes to win the nomination.  At its core, this whole idea that party functionaries should have more influence than all voters living in California, New York, and California, combined, and if that flips the result we should just sit back and just be happy we were able to benefit from their wisdom, was corrupt to its core.

I'll take an honest loss over the bloodbath which was sure to follow under this other scenario (and I still don't think Clinton supporters, caught in the heat of the contest, really appreciate just how much that set some people off).

And for what it's worth, I suspect responsibility for this very early travesty (which, remember, predates everything which happened in Michigan and Florida, this was not in response to some outrageous behavior by one of the other campaigns) probably belongs to people like Mark Penn--the permanent class of consultants who are working the system are a bit detached from the idealism which is necessary in order for a democratic system to work (though Clinton, of course, must claim ultimate responsibility).

So West Virginia?  Yeah, one state in sixty contests.  Clinton will blow Obama out of the water.  And she still won't arrive at the convention with the most pledged delegates (and wouldn't with any fair resolution of FL and MI).  And so she deserves to lose.

I want to respond to one other remark in your blog,

"And that's not even including the Republicans. If I could submit a question to Ted Kennedy, it'd be: "Why can't Barack Obama connect with the voters of West Virginia like JFK did?"

You do realize that West Virginia was at the beginning of the primary season in 1960?  And do you accept that the Kennedy team brought down dozens of suitcases full of cash to distribute to local churches.. as "donations"  ?  

West Virginia 1960 is not the same place as WV 2008..

But if you want to be ignorant to those facts, go ahead.. and delete my account if you want.

Jerome, are the endless comments about the results from Caucus states being the result of voter intimidation a bannable offense?  How about a warnable offense?  If not, why not?  I have a long list of examples.

If this were a user submitted diary, I would recommend it.

Here's what I see going on.

I think Clinton is well on her way to winning the popular vote but will have a deficit in pledged delegates.  I think superdelegates are afraid of doing something "unfashionable" so they will back Obama.  

They are pressuring Clinton to get out of the race mainly to deter people from voting for her in WV, KY, PR, and the remaining states.

At the end of the day, Michigan and Florida will be seated and Obama will still have a narrow lead in pledged delegates.  Their seating should end all arguments that we exclude them from the popular vote (it's much easier to argue they get counted in PV even if they weren't seated).

So we end up with a split decision.

Obama gets more pledged delegates.

Clinton wins the popular vote.

Backroom deals, and voila, suddenly Obama is the nominee.

Florida 2000 all over again.

In 2000, voters had to wait four years to vent their frustration with the result, and instead were distracted by windsurfing commercials and "voted for the war before I voted against it" nonsense.  

But to the delight of the GOP, disaffected Hillary Democrats have an election a mere few months away in which to voice their displeasure with the Democratic insider elite, media, and blogosphere.  I'm not advocating we do that and I'll vote for Obama if he wins.

But the GOP has a fantastic GE issue now, fairly or not: the Democratic party's backroom deal glass ceiling for Hillary Clinton.  

This isn't an argument that Hillary should be the nominee.  If she wins, AA's take their ball and go home and we lose regardless.

The post-racial candidate has made 2008 a referendum on race.  There's no escaping it.  

I think the best case scenario for Hillary is that she becomes conciliatory in the summer and we get a lot of Dems in the House & Senate to offset McCain shenanigans.  We get rid of caucuses for 2012 and use the likely 2008 defeat as yet another reminder of what happens when you play roulette with McGovern Coalition Part IV.  

The party elite may think that discontent with the GOP is some sort of cultural validation for the far left.  It's not.  Even 2006 was a battle of attrition where only the most moderate Dems made it to the Senate.  

One day, Donna Brazile and Co. will understand the difference between winning a general election and winning an election in Sweden.  Until then, we sigh and halfheartedly tell our friends to vote for Obama cause McCain is a maniac.  

Thanks Jerome.  It's not over until all the voters have had their say.  Celebrating a win, and bullying a candidate with half the voters behind her - before all the voting has taken place, is un-Democratic at the least, regardless of what the delegate wish-wash situation is at the time.

Let it play out, in order to get a true result.

I strongly predict that after November, Jerome Armstrong & Taylor Marsh will be one of just 10% of so called "leaders of the netroots community" who will look like political geniuses.

After the GE on November 4th,

90% of the movers & shakers of the progressive netroots communtiy such as Markos, Bowers, Stoller,etc. will be the "Online" counterparts of offline Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, & Nancy Pelosi.

They will be lumped together as the so called "left wing democratic leadership" that led us to a resounding defeat in the 2008 white house race.

For those who were old enough to witness the pain & hurt of Mondale & Dukakis, this will bring back painful memories. Only this time, it will be even worse because our party was heavily favored to carry the white house.

If a democrat could not win the white house with a incumbent Republican president who is damaged goods, I don't know what to say.

The good news is after a resounding defeat, the entire party will move to the center. just like it did after Mondale & Dukakis.

Too bad people have a very short memory.

2008 will look very similar to the 80's.

We controlled the House, the Senate went swinging back & forth, while we lose the White House.

I also agree with many Missouri observers on freshman Sen. Clair McCaskill. Her very high profile embrace of Barack Obama in this campaign will comeback to haunt her in Missouri when se runs for re-election.

The thousands of "bitter" voters in her state are ready to vote against her when she runs for re-election.

She somehow forgot that she is representing Missouri and not San Francisco''s Bay area.

So why does McCain hold Hillary under 50% in CA while Obama is strong?

...I would like to extend an apology from this one Clinton supporter...who doesn't know why she said what she did to USA Today re: white blue collar workers...I can assure you that as mush as I love Hillary, I will do everything in my power to elect the Dem nominee this fall-- which means Obama!

Please don't stereotype all Hillary supporters as being anti-Obama.

I wish the people of WV nothing but the best.  

It was a shame that they voted for Bush in 2000 (+7), instead of Bill Clinton's Vice President.

That said, Hillary spent Friday in 3,000 miles away, in Oregon.

Shouldn't she showing WV due deference by spending the week in WV?

West Virginia and Kentucky will be pyrrhic victories for Clinton.
Who will pay the price?  Clinton to an extent.
But the greater concern is that the Dem Party will pay.

I was a strong Clinton supporter until last Tuesday.
She lost - badly given that she needed to run the table.
She needed a big win in Indiana and a close call in NC.
Instead, Obama got a big win in NC and a close call in Indiana.
Game. Set. Match.

When somebody wins three out of four sets - you don't play the fifth.
Mathematically it is impossible for the other person to win.

If Clinton gets 75% of the Delegates from WV, KY, and PR -
Plus half the delegates from OR, MT, and SD -
Plus a favorable seating of Michigan and Florida -
(Favorable, not ridiculous)
Then she still loses.

For Clinton to win she would need all of the above
Plus a radical swing in delegates -
Plus many Obama delegates switching to her.
It simply isn't going to happen.

It's over.

Ok, Jerome, now for your dishonesty.

#1:

Like it or not, the working number of delegates is 2209.

This is not true.  The Rules and Bylaws committee could potentially reinstate FL and MI, which would make the new number 2209, but it seems unlikely that they will be reinstated as-is.

What angers me so much about this Clinton talking point is that is it so transparently a new metric that has been designed to extend the field of play.  The Clinton campaign and Hillary herself have said on numerous occasions that the number to reach is 2025.  Only now are they  claiming this new number has relevance.  Want proof?

You've talked about the Obama campaign moving the goal posts, but here there it is -- in black and white.  Well, actually in color.

Moreover, how could Hillary possibly accept any delegates from MI, let alone rely on those delegates in a claim to victory where she said before the election, "It's clear, this election they're having [in MI] is not going to count for anything."?  (NHPR, 10/11/2007)  I'd honestly like an answer on this one.

Now on to #2:

The Obama campaign will declare that there's never been a candidate denied the election who had the most pledged delegates. True. But has there been a candidate denied the nomination whose had the most votes?

The legitimacy that Clinton campaign (and you as a willing accomplice) has given the notion of the 'popular vote' is a devious scam.  I know I don't have to tell you that if either candidate had been shooting for the 'popular vote' at the outset of this nomination process, instead of trying to win delegates, they would have simply ignored IA, NV, AK, CO, ID, KS, MN, NM, ND, NE, WA, ME, and HI because these states held caucuses where the turnout is not nearly as high as primaries.  Some have argued (and perhaps fairly) that caucuses aren't as democratic as primaries, but as part of the nomination process, that's what some states do.  To come up with any 'popular vote' number that includes both caucuses and primaries in states that have wildly differing rules regarding the participation in these events is simply impossible.  It's not just apples and oranges -- it's apples, oranges, bananas, kiwis, jackfruit, and mangosteens!  You just can't add them all up and come up with a meaningful number without, at the least, dramatically discounting the votes of those who caucused in the caucus states.  Talk about disenfranchisement!

Sadly, passing off the notion of the 'cumulative popular vote' as some sort of meaningful metric in this process is particularly egregious because it preys on the average American's sense of fairness.  'One person, one vote' sounds right to most people, and frankly most people aren't too well-versed in the abstruse and complicated machinations of the Democratic Party's nomination process -- in which the cumulative popular vote total is not only objectively meaningless, but meaningless to the actual process.

Moreover, the Clinton campaign (and you) only turned to using the incomprehensible popular vote metric after months of claiming to be in the lead in delegates -- when Barack Obama has held the pledged delegate lead for the entirety of the campaign since the Iowa caucuses -- and after months of talking about how this was a race about delegates.

I beg of you -- let's have some honesty here.  To be sure, this popular vote business is a fairly complicated topic, but sadly, there seems to be a real unwillingness among Clinton supporters to fairly recognize that the cumulative popular vote is a deeply flawed metric that cannot, for example, possibly be compared to the nationwide popular vote in the general election.

How many states are there? Does Obama know?

http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2 008/05/09/whoa-
obama-knows-nada-about-the-us-states-eit her-and-im-not-talking-about-the-great-l akes/

When I saw the title of this blog I thought Jerome might finally have seen the light and decided to call on his fellow ostriches to take their heads out of the sand. Oh, well. He'll have to deal with defeat in June, somehow. Be interesting to see how he spins it then.

This diary crystalized a lot of things for me...Obama's camp saying they will declare themselves the winners on 5/20...Ted Kennedy's disgraceful statements...the bloviating by Obama's media enablers...

They are trying to get HRC to drop out before these primaries. They are trying to suppress the vote in these primaries. Because big Clinton victories undermine Obama's inevitability argument.

The chorus howling for Clinton to drop out is not a display of strength. It's a display of weakness.

why didn't Al Gore (Bill Clinton's sitting Vice President) connect with W.V. the way Mike Dukakis did?

Yeah, Gore lost by 7 points, but Dukakis beat Bush (sitting Vice President) by 4 points in 1988?

an 11 pt difference, and Gore was an incumbent.  

Why didn't Bill Clinton have coat tails and drag Gore across the finish line in W.V.?

Jerome, you write

Howard Dean has said many times, MI and FL are going to be resolved and seated. Obama has now agreed with that position. Like it or not, the working number of delegates is 2209.

Your first two sentences are correct.  Your third is not, because you don't know what formula will be agreed to to seat MI and FL.  One of the proposals on the table would assess the same penalty as the Republicans imposed, and give the MI and FL delegations half-votes.  There are other possibilities as well.

If Hillary wants to fight it out all the way to the convention, the final decision-making body, once she exhausts her appeals, will be the delegates from the states excluding FL and MI.  Do you really think that, if Obama has a majority of seats before MI and FL are seated, that he would agree to a formula that reverses the outcome?  He won't.  Could you imagine Hillary Clinton giving up her shot at the nomination if the situation were reversed?

So when you hear from Dean that MI and FL will be seated, that's a fact, but you have no grounds to hope that this gives Hillary a way of winning the nomination.

And yes, Hillary will win big in WV.  Everyone knows this and has already discounted it.

If Hillary hopes to win, she has to stop Obama from getting 2045 delegates.  If Obama reaches that number, he will ultimately control the process for seating FL and MI.  If the Clintons don't like it, their options are limited.

Dealing with defeat is what Hillary and some others need to do since it is upon them and has been for a long time.

"Why can't Barack Obama connect with the voters of West Virginia like JFK did?"

That's a question best left until the votes in WV are actually counted. You might find today's polls exaggerate that result a bit. Until then, ponder this one: Why didn't Clinton connect with the voters in the 32 states Obama has won like he did?

Like it or not, the working number of delegates is 2209.

Like it or not, the working number of delegates is what the party says it is, not what Hillary says it is.

But has there been a candidate denied the nomination whose had the most votes?

You keep forgetting that the LOSER, Hillary, doesn't get to count the votes. (And everyone knows that her only formula to achieve that longshot magical majority is to deny Obama ANY votes from MI, which everyone knows he got via "uncommitted.")

I also suggest that you refrain from accusations against West Virginians as being racist

There are really bad apples on both sides, and it's to be hoped that they are being culled even handedly without personal animosity.

if you can't stand the heat of the West Virginia primary, you stay out of the kitchen.

The heat is not on Obama nor his supporters who, it is agreed by all except Hillary and her fans, is the certain winner of the Democratic nomination.

And finally, it seems strange to me to bait and put down the people who contribute to this website and keep it from being a one sided echo chamber -- who help give it it's vitality. It's going to be a pretty quiet and lonely place after they all leave in a few weeks when there's no need to defend the Democratic nominee from incessant attack by a handful in his own party.

(At least it's to be hoped that they'll stop attacking him and switch to McCain.)

i really don't understand the point of this post.  it's almost as if jerome amstrong is trying to goad a good portion of this blog's readership into ridiculing him.

point 1: it doesn't seem like there's too too much that matters at this point in the contest.

point 2: some democrats in west virginia like hillary clinton, so what?

seriously dude, get to the more interesting stuff, like how mccain is spinning his tires and so forth.  i think the majority of folks here have pretty much moved on,

"Until then, we don't have a nominee."

amen.

What do you guys think the score will be in WV?

While Obama supporters have claimed that the her voters will move over to support Obama in the GE, this poll doesn't quite show that happening in WV: [...] [When Democrats and Independent voters were polled] in a head to head matchup between Obama and McCain in WV, Obama received 37% support compared to McCain's 35%

I don't agree that the poll is conclusive that Hillary supporters wouldn't move to Obama.

First, I looked for but couldn't find the full poll results so my read is that 28% of Dems and Ind were undecided between Obama and McCain. How do we know how that 28% break will break Obama?  

Second, I did find that a lot of Republicans have re-registering as Dem or Ind to vote in the primary.  Hence, that likely would inflate the McCain numbers in that poll.  

Third, I suspect the underlying allegation is that since Clinton will win WV's primary, Obama's chances are slim for the GE.  But I never understand why there's a tendency to use a primary voting population to make predictions about a general election voting population--the populations and circumstances are so different between the elections.

In this year when the GOP has such terrible electoral problems, it would astound me that any Democratic nominee would lose WV when...

There are about twice as many Democrats in West Virginia than Republicans, according to the West Virginia Secretary of State's Office. link

So whats the score gonna be?

Thanks for posting this. As much as the Obama echo chamber would have you believe this contest is over, that's how much it isn't. Electability is the name of the game and nothing else matters. Politicians are in it to win it. Period. As Pat Caddel once said, the superdelegates aren't about to commit political suicide. Nominate Obama and that's what it amounts to.

Never in history has any Democratic candidate for president been nominated who couldn't win the states Hillary has won. Never.

With MI and FL, the number of delegates separating Hillary from Obama stands at 42.5. Hillary will close this gap somewhat in the contests ahead.

The popular vote with MI and FL is about tied. Hillary will surpass Obama in the future contests.

By June 3, Hillary will be very close to Obama in total delegates and will surpass him in popular votes. She will have won all the important swing states key to victory in the fall.

Caucuses bear no relevance to a GE victory and should be discounted when considering a candidate's viability in the GE.

The reason for having superdelegates is to provide a safety valve for the primary process. It isn't difficult for a candidate to be chosen who may be unsuitable as a GE candidate. If there are two strong candidates with very close primary numbers, the one deemed most electable must be considered for the nomination, not necessarily the one with the most pledged delegates.

Hillary is our strongest candidate for the fall election. Obama has gamed the primary system. Gaining more delegates from caucuses in red states has no bearing on electability in the fall.

Where's the part about pop vote? I'm sure, since this is a political junkie website, someone can point that part out.

"And think about it, if your knee-jerk answer is that they are racist-- are you really saying something that you think Obama and his campaign can't say, or are you saying it because of anger and frustration?  Racism is ignorance, but unfounded accusations of racism are just as low on the scum-radar"

Well, I have gone away and thought about it.

But I did not come to any grand conclusion. I see the subject as being too complex to be reduced to an "either... or" analysis.

I think racism is more varied than "ignorance".

I think "anger and frustration" is an emotion felt by both the victims and perpetrators of racism.

I think unfounded accusations of racism are often an indicator that a person has previously been a victim of racism rather than something to do with the scum radar.

And while an Obama supporter claiming racism is not proof of racism, a Clinton supporter denying the charges is not proof that the allegations are unfounded.

And i'm being serious because, "disconnected" or not your rhetoric and discussion and polls are favor Clinton over Obama and you shift from partisan to "above the fray" as it needs.

I would, personally, as somebody who respects your writing and all you've done... like to hear you say that you will support the nominee, even if it isn't HRC.

To be honest, I don't remember this level of teeth gnashing even over Kerry, which... god bless him, he's a great Senator, but 2004 was an uphill battle in the snow, both ways...

Staying on subject, I don't see how West Virginia can save Hills at this point, even with Kentucky.