Momentum does not actually exist in this race.  It just so happens that Appalachia (pro-Clinton) followed the New England states favoring Obama.  Flip that series of states around and people would be arguing that Obama had the momentum following his victory in those states.

Simple.  Obama.  If Clinton had the Big Mo', she'd've taken OR and NC.  But she didn't.

Both candidates have performed well in the states they were expected to win so I don't think either of them can claim momentum.  And that includes when Obama won 12 in a row.

As for the popular vote, that is a fake metric.  You can't tabulate the popular vote when states have different voting methods (caucuses, primaries, open, closed).  You just can't.  It's meaningless.

There is only one area where a candidate has had and continues to have momentum, as shown by the graph below.

To answer your two questions:

1) A national primary is a bad idea because it gives a disproportionate advantage to the richest candidate at the beginning of the race.  If we had a national primary, the matchup would probably be either Romney v. Clinton or Giuliani v. Clinton.  Plus, many states would likely be against it because stretching out the process allows smaller states to exert greater influence over the process.

2) Superdelegates are of course free to vote however they see fit, but if they are to interject themselves into the process and possibly overturn the results of the delegate battle in favor of one candidate, they should have an ironclad reason for doing so, in my opinion.  The question is whether these people have the ability, or are confident in their ability, to do so.

why was she pummeled in Oregon?  That doesn't seem like momentum.  More like Joe-mentum.

S.D.'s today  Obama 2 Clinton 1

1) If this were simply an exercise in who has the most pledged delegates, why is the nominating process stretched out over many months in the first place? Why not simply have all the contests on a single day and then call a winner? My understanding was that the entire point of holding the nomination over a long period of time is to test a candidate's momentum, fortitude, longevity, endurance, lasting appeal? Why isn't anyone examining and debating that? Why shouldn't the Superdelegates look at that?

Those are good questions, and I think that Obama wins that equation by the metric that seems to apply, total delegates (pledged and super).  The fact of the matter is that Obama has been consistant, while Clinton has not been consistant.  She seems to win strongly in Appalachia but very few other places.  In the past, regional candidates have not done well (just ask Stephen Colbert).  

I would argue that Clinton does NOT have momentum just because she wins some demographically favorable states that happen to be near the end of the campaign trail.  If she truly had momentum, she'd be winning North Carolina, Oregon, and even Indiana she'd have won by more than a percent or two.

Obama has had the staying power and lasting appeal that you're saying should be important.  He has proven not to be a flash-in-the-pan by his strong showings in geographically diverse states.

2) What is the purpose of having Superdelegates if they exist to simply ratify the pledged delegate count? That is not their role by any definition that I've ever seen. They are supposed to be free to vote their conscience based upon who will best represent the Democratic Party (using whatever criteria they choose). They are specifically and clearly NOT to be bound by any other measure.

They are, in fact, free to do so.  Nobody's contesting that.  The truth of the matter is that a substantial number of them resent their given responsibility and don't think they should have their own power.  Others are elected officials or seekers of elected office themselves, and they don't think it would be a good idea for them, in their personal quest for electoral success, to ignore the will of voters from sanctioned elections.  These actually come in two varieties: those that support Obama because he's the overall leader, and those who support either candidate because their district voted for one or the other.

In the end, while the superdelegates CAN vote their conscience and nominate Clinton if they wish, they have chosen no propensity for it and it's a safe bet that they won't.  They have been moving toward Obama, not away from him, and not a single one has defected since joining his camp.  

It is a path to heartbreak if you put your faith in the supers overturning this.  I know it sucks to have your candidate lose.  Every Democrat knows about that pain.  

I wish there was something I could say to ease your hardship except, perhaps, "DOWN WITH MCCAIN!"

Look at the money raised, and there's not much question who has the momentum.

Clinton is like a contestant on Jeopardy! who got into the red early on, and now can't get back out, even though she gets some questions right.

Recent superdelegate nominations have been going overwhelmingly for Obama.

this race has almost crystallized.  In fact, the only recent surprise was that Clinton couldn't get closer in NC and barely held IN.

Obama Leads McSame by 8 pts !!

► Obama, who was tied with presumptive Republican nominee John McCain last month in the same survey, now leads 48 percent to 40 percent, according to the Reuters/Zogby poll released today.

► Obama also leads McCain among some groups he has been losing to Clinton: Catholics, Jews, union households, and voters making less than $35,000 a year.

► Obama builds his lead among independents -- 47 percent to 35 percent -- and also has an edge in who voters say would be better for the economy.

► And let me preempt the hand full of Clinton "all or nothing" advocates - Zogby's polls nailed the final outcomes in Pennsylvania, NC, and even Indiana.

The hand full may now proceed to say, "obama can't win, etc., etc."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/poli
ticalintelligence/2008/05/national_poll_
s.html

► Obama also leads McSame in Penn by 17 pts!!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/vp-p a-fixed.jpg

D'oh!

You DO know that Obama had a big win in Oregon yesterday, right?

I don't think "momentum" means what you think it means.

The argument she can't make, the only one that matters, is that she has more elected delegates.

80% of the remaining SDs are not going to side with Clinton and overturn the voters. Their purpose is not to wreck the party for the benefit of the Clintons.

At this point, these fantasy arguments only serve to divide Democrats and provide fodder for the Bush/McCain spin machine.

I'm an Obama supporter and do disagree on the momentum issue, since you are taking an arbitrary date that benefits your candidate. Fine, I understand that, but again, it is arbitrary. It would be the equivalent of me saying that Obama has the big mo' since he's pounded Hillary in every state after Kentucky.

However, I appreciate any argument from the Clinton crowd on "electibility". In my opinion, this is her sole argument to the Superdelegates at this point.  Any tangible metric (yes, including the mythical "popular vote") favors Barack Obama.

Electibility, however, is a metric on which you can make a coherent, logical debate point.

Personally, I think either Clinton or Obama will take McCain to the woodshed in the fall. I do also feel, however, that an Obama candidacy (based partly on his clearly superior campaign staff) is going to have much stronger coattails for downticket Democrats.

Thanks again for your diary.

This has been an extremely close race and I don't think either candidate has momentum in terms of voters, but I think Obama has the clear momentum in terms of superdelegates because (a) he has won the majority of pledged delegates; (b) there is no reason to believe he is less electable than Hillary Clinton and so it would be foolhardy for the superdelegates to overturn the voter's choice (my personal opinion is that either one of them would win against John McCain).

I think Clinton has slightly won since March 4th  due to 2 factors: (1) There have been a lot of votes in Appalachia and this is clearly Obama's weakest region of the country; (2) The media turned against Obama in this period, with the constant playing of Reverend Wright in a loop and out of context, the so-called NAFTA scandal (my belief is it was bogus), and the ganging up on him by ABC moderators. I think Obama has recouped since then because of how masterfully he handled it, but I also think he was lucky in the timing of it. If the Reverend Wright story got blown up earlier in the campaign it might have derailed his candidacy. I was actually convinced that it would derail him anyway and was amazed by how Obama successfully navigated his way through it. Also if the timing were purely up to the Republicans it would have come as a nasty October surprise.

Now I am not denying that the media treated Clinton in a very sexist fashion. I think she definitely got the worst of media coverage for much of the campaign, and some of it has been quite disgusting. There is one respect in which media coverage was a big advantage for her though. If Obama had lost 12 straight contests I think the media would have ridiculed him mercilessly. I think Clinton got considered a viable candidate still only because her husband used to be president.

One factor in momentum clearly is in favor of Obama. The national polls of Democratic voters of him vs Clinton now show him dramatically widening his lead.

---

I think the media in this country is a major problem. It completely trivializes the race and almost totally ignores serious issues. Clinton is hardly the only one who has gotten treated outrageously. John Edwards was covered only for his $400 haircut, not for his programs to end poverty. He was also portrayed in sexist fashion ("Breck girl", "faggot"). The swiftboating of John Kerry could not have happened without major cooperation of the media. Howard Dean's candidacy was destroyed by the media manufacturing "the scream". Al Gore was continuously tormented by lies and ridicule from the media. Much of the treatment of Democratic men is very sexist as well. They are always portrayed as "girly-men", not "tough" like the Republicans. Even a war-hero like John Kerry had his war status dragged through the mud.

The media now is extremely biased against Democrats and for Republicans. I believe this is a combination of 2 factors: (1) the right-wing has infiltrated a lot of Republican propagandists into the media, even at fairly liberal outlets like the New York Times, which it used to feed fake stories  to help sell the Iraq war. The latest scandal (unreported on TV) that the Pentagon trained hundreds of military analysts to appear as pundits on TV to sell the Iraq war is the most egregious example; (2) The media is almost wholly owned now by major corporations, who depend on government favors to do mergers and for other favors, and who do not want to upset the powers-that-be, especially when those powers are as ruthless as the Bush administration. The case of how nicely CBS cooperated in drumming Dan Rathers off today (one of the few journalists to challenge the Bush administration) is a good example.

Fortunately the growth of the internet is starting to counterbalance all of that. But we still have to fight against stacked odds to win elections against Republicans.

Who Has the HILLMENTUM or RODHAMTUM

Hillary has had the momentum since the March 4th primaries.  She has a popular vote lead of 370,342 votes before last nights primaries in KY and OR sinc March 4th.

Since March 4th her total popular vote is approximately 6,505,747 including Ky and OR.

Obama`s total popular vote since Mar 4th is apporximately 5,989,447 vots including KY and OR.

This gives Hillary a popular lead since Mar 4th of 516,300 votes.  She is the winner of the second half of the primary for over 2 months now with the popular vote, and therefor has the big mo going into Denver.  If she does well in PR as expected, this lead in the popular vote will grow even further.  She is the fighter to win the GE as she has proved by coming on strong in the last 2 plus months!

Source: I used this site to obtain the popular votes since Mar 4th.  I can break these down if proof is requested.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-gui de/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/in dex.html

Looking at those February Primaries which Hillary Clinton lost.
Virginia,Maryland,Washington State,Wisconsin and Lousiana had the most delegates.

Hillary could have improved her standing in Rural Southwest Virginia- Win very big in VA-1CD,VA-2CD,VA-4CD,VA-5CD,VA-6CD,VA-7C D,and VA-9. These Congressional Districts are overwhelmingly White and Rural. She would have picked up a net gain of 14 Delegates in VA.

Hillary could have improved her standing in Western Maryland and Eastern Shore Maryland and Southerm MD. MD-1,MD-5,and MD-6. plus in the Baltimore Suburbs- MD-2,and MD-3. Hillary would have picked up 10 Delegates in MD.

Hillary could have improved her standing in Eastern Washington. WA-2,WA-3,WA-4,WA-5,WA-6,and WA-8CD. Hillary would have picked up 12 Delegates in Washington State.

Hillary could have improved her standing in WI-1CD, WI-5CD,WI-6CD,and WI-8CD. Hillary would have picked up 8 Delegates in Wisconsin.

Hillary could have improved her standing in Northern Lousiana. LA-1CD,LA-4CD,LA-5CD. Hillary would have picked up 6 Delegates in Louisiana.

Hillary would have picked up 50 Delegates had she competed in those states.

Hillary would then be 100 delegates behind

it is obvious to all except Obama supporters and insane supers