So, because of 300 votes, Obama could go +2 in delegates.  That's 150 votes per delegate.

In Ohio, Clinton won by 230,000 votes, and went +9 in delegates.  that's more than 25,000 votes per delegates.

That's pretty symbolic of how this whole campaign has gone.

Well, at least with Puerto Rico, its partically because (1) It has a lot of delagates, more than Oregon IIRC, and (2) It's effectively the last contest - Montana and South Dakota follow it, but have few delegates, and I believe are expected to vote Obama.  Therefore, PR gets a lot of press because it is likely to be the absolute end of the process; if Sen. Clinton cannot eclipse Obama in whatever metric you choose, then she is not likely to thereafter.

As Guam goes, so goes the nation

Sure. If Texas is a tie.

I thought a win was a win was a win.

The difference with Texas is that Hillary supporters always say "Hillary won Texas" when they really mean "Hillary won the primary in Texas."  

In Guam, Obama will win the primary (the only election there) and they will tie in delegates.  It's a lot more correct to say Obama won Guam than to say Hillary won Texas.

Actually I am an Obama supporter and I DO think it's a tie. If they get the same number of delegates it's a tie. Popular vote means nothing in this primary process, just as it meant nothing for Al Gore in 2000. Those are the rules.

delegates first.  If that's a tie, then popular vote metrics come after that when it comes to the technicality of who "won" the state.

In terms of the metrics that matter, Guam will be a tie, though with a distinct advantage to Obama because the Guam superdelegates are actually elected as well, and Obama's superdelegates won.

But after that, if we need to discuss who won Guam, then certainly, Obama carries it (unless something weird happens in Dededo).

The logic holds: after the Nevada caucuses, Obama was projected to win more delegates, so we in the Obama camp claimed a win.  In New Hampshire, the delegates were a tie, but Clinton won the popular vote, so Clinton won the state.  We're consistent.

I'm pretty sure American Samoa was part of tsunami Tuesday -- Clinton got 2 delegates to Obama's 1.

Clinton won American Samoa, 57% to 43%. Clinton got 6 delegates and Obama got 3. Half a vote at the convention. 3 and 1.5 respectively.

Caucuses are not even democratic? That's a little strong don't you think? There are problems with every system of voting. One of the advantages of caucuses is that they measure intensity of support better and for a primary that is good because you both want your base to be motivated for your candidate in the general so that they are sure to vote and for them to use that energy to mobilize others. Additionally, no system is purely democratic. Requiring people to go to a poll is not as democratic as mail-in balloting, and mail-in balloting might be arguably less democratic than phone-in balloting. Ultimately the only criterion which defines how "democratic" an election system is, is whether there is a formal barrier to participation. There is not in any of these systems.

Furthermore, no one in the Clinton camp expressed that concern in 1992 when Bill Clinton  benefitted from caucuses, and Hillary did not change the system in the last 10 years when she had enormous influence over the party and could have changed it. She never even voiced a problem with caucuses.

Uh, no offense, but Hillary's wins in New York state and Massachusetts also tell us nothing about November.

They tell us nothing about November

That is correct. Obama had (delegate) victories in Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, DC, the Virgin Islands, and among Democrats abroad.

Will he win any of these states in November? Some yes, some no. But a solid victory in Idaho during the nomination race most certainly does not translate into a general election victory. So yes, you are correct.

Clinton, however, has won (delegate) victories in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachussetts, and American Samoa.

Will she win any of these in November, if somehow she's the nominee? Like Obama, some yes, some no. As with Obama, a solid victory in Oklahoma does not mean Clinton puts that state in play.

The fact of the matter is, these are two different campaigns, and winning or losing states in the primaries and caucuses has nothing to do with general election viability, and that goes for both candidates. If it didn't work like that, then John Kerry would have won in a 47-state blowout!

Obama's team did a fantastic job planning for the nomination campaign, and they came up with a winning strategy. Clinton's team... did not. I have no doubt that, once nominated, Obama's campaign team will come up with an equally effective strategy for the general election.

This is all tongue in cheek, you know.

Well, the saying is...as Guam goes, so goes the general.

Wait, that isn't the saying?  ;)

See http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art icle?AID=/20080504/NEWS01/80504017

Well, it is tomorrow there today.

No thanks.

... difficult to see.  Considering when that spreadsheet was leaked and how much the dynamics of any race shifts over time, I'm amazed that spreadsheet has held up as well as it has.  It is possible IN will be the first race it gets wrong, and even that is not certain yet.  As it is, he is still likely to end the race in a better pledged delegate position than the spreadsheet predicted.

Let them spin, we will win.

Stop the presses! demand a RECOUNT!

...troll rate and run??