In a press conference a few minutes ago, NY Congressman Charles Rangel, one of Hillary's key supporters, brought the entire New York delegation on board for Obama:

The Harlem Democrat said the endorsement is being made ahead of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's Saturday announcement that she is withdrawing from the race and endorsing Obama "in order to accommodate those members of Congress who will be unable to return to Washington on Saturday.''

At a press conference held at outside the offices of the Democratic National Committee, Rangel acknowledged "me and some 200 others'' have called Clinton since Tuesday, urging no further delay in withdrawing from the race and endorsing Obama.

Survey USA has performed a series of surveys of how the various combinations of president-VP candidates performs relative to each other in a series of states. In all of them, the best performing pair for the Democrats is Obama/Edwards, beating McCain+anyone by huge margins. Admittedly Edwards has name recognition that the others lack, so things would certainly change over time, but the numbers are stunning. And this hard data certainly contradicts the "conventional wisdom" that John Edwards didn't help last time.

It was also a bit amazing how much the VP slot mattered in the results. In many of these states, Edwards gave a 15 point advantage to Obama, flipping losses into victories.

I'll admit that I'm a big Edwards fan, but these numbers are stunning!

I'm fairly new here so perhaps I should begin by introducing myself.

Hello.

My name is Dawn, and I am a democrat.  I have been a democrat since late 2003 when I awoke to my liberalness as a result of being deeply inspired by Howard Dean's campaign.  He was the first politician I had EVER donated money to.  He was the first person in over a dozen years to inspire me to even register to vote.  And I registered as a democrat so I would have the opportunity to vote for HIM in the primary.

I imagine that the Obama camp is trying pretty furiously right now the insist that West Virginia's results only reflect the difficulty Obama would face in West Virginia in a general election.  In fact, Obama's crushing loss tonight reflects an important disconnect with a major Democratic constituency and it tells us about what we might expect in states like PA, OH, and MI come fall (states we can't afford to lose).  

So let's take a look at the lessons of WV:

This is not over! Florida and Michigan will be seated and the number to clinch the nomination will be 2209. This is the number of pledged and superdelegates.

May 31st will be the deciding factor as to whether either candidate will be the nominee. The DNC will meet and decide whether or not to disenfranchise 2.3 million voters of Michigan and Florida. Remember it was the Republicans who voted to move the dates of the primaries.

So whether your an Obama fan or a Hillary loyalist, May 31st will be the date to see whether or not Hillary will be the nominee of the Democratic Party.

My advise, Obama better watch what he says in Oregan next Tuesday. THIS IS FAR FROM OVER.

There may still be some good news left for those of us who have taken a look at this map (Obama vs. McCain) and this map (Hillary vs. McCain) and concluded that we're in for a rough fall if Obama gets the nomination.  Jay Cost, of HorseRaceBlog, has a hugely interesting analysis of the impact that the coming races might have on the nomination, and he suggests that Hillary could still pull this out.  

I've provided some excerpts from the article below.  Click here to keep Hillary in the race.

Back in 2004, Howard Dean did not place first in the Iowa Caucus. Then it came, that famous scream of his. The media decided it was over for him. The scream was played over and over and over. He never recovered. Kerry went on to lose the election that the Dark Horse Dean himself may have won.

Now we have Rev. Wright. Everybody has heard his sermons. Everybody saw his press conference and his speeches last week. Everybody knows that Obama has a twenty year relationship with this man. But yet, the media has not decided it is not over for him. Instead of examining his record today, Tim Russert lets Obama respond to everything HRC has stated this week.

Just sit back and think about this. The media coverage for a scream that apparently not everyone heard in that hall compared to a Pastor, a Spiritual Advisor to a presidential candidate, that has stated "truths" according to him about the U.S.A.

Now, Washington Post reporter David Broder (NBC, 10/12/03) suggested that the Dean campaign was part of "a clear kind of anti-establishment rumble in the country," raising the possibility that "we're in for a kind of a wild ride where even conceivably a new party or independent candidate could muddy the picture." Now, replace the Dean with the word Obama and think about how Bloomberg was thinking about running for president.

We need to be cautious about this one. We not only have a radical spritiual advisor that has yet to be put away by Obama, but always parallels with the 2004 race.

Your thoughts?

    While each candidate's partisans are focusing on individual states, delegate math, momentum, and each's path to the nomination, I think there is a broader discussion to be had over the worst case scenario for all Democrats.  Prior to the PA primary, I remember reading through a thread (can't find which one), where a response predicted that Hillary would win by 8-10 because that was the result that, arguably, would not change the dynamic of the race.  The prediction was true on both accounts; Sen. Clinton won by 9, and maintained her argument for momentum and Sen. Obama's inability to "close the deal."  The win was not large enough, however, to change the "math" and pick up a significant net gain in delegates.

    My worry is that, what if this scenario continues.  Exact numbers aren't really pertinent (and each side would likely quibble with which states assigned to each), but a scenario likely exists where Sen. Clinton wins a majority of the states left to vote, and keeps the margins close in others (North Carolina, Oregon), which, coupled with a strong showing in the remaining superdelegates, could lead to a chaotic situation.
     This scenario would get worse if the campaigns compromise on the Florida and Michigan situation, and Sen. Clinton picks up a measurable gain in delegates.  The scenario doesn't have to be a "perfect storm" for several reasons.

        (1) Nothing can force Super Delegates to endorse before the convention.  If a significant number decide not to endorce (for fear of alienating various constituents, or just out of an inability to decide), then there is a change neither can reach the magic number (2024, or whatever it ends up being).
         (2) What happens if Sen. Obama passes the "magic number" by 1 delegate...by 5...by 10?  Sen. Clinton has said before (correctly) that theres no such thing as a pledged delegate.  Many delegates, especially super delegates, can (and have) changed their minds.  Is Sen. Clinton going to conceed if she only has to convince one person to change their vote?

    This brings my to my doomesday scenario?  If we have to go to the convention and literally do not know who is our nominee, what is the options for running an effective campaign?  Do both candidates set aside their differences and create the much discussed unity ticket (with the problem of who gets the top slot)?  Do the candidates agree to a cease fire until the convention and direct their efforts toward McCain?  Does Howard Dean have the influence to force uncommitted superdelegates to endorse?  Do we, as democrats, donate to the DNC/527s so we can focus our efforts on Nov?  Can we survive the attack of "Democrats shouldn't be allowed to run the country; they can't even run their own party?"