It's hardly speculation to point out that in the suite of states I showed, and some I did not show (like MS), the challenger's "high mark" is very predictive come election day. I made my case with both Obama and Clinton wins in states they were favored to win. All you did was respond with "but polls are meaningless!" drivel.
If that's your contribution, fine, but don't pretend it's especially intellectual or meaningful.
A 10 point win is not enough to make any dent in delegates or votes. She needs at least a 25 point win or she might have to concede. She is primed for a huge loss in North Carolina that will more than offset a 10 point win in PA.
I made no claim that polls two weeks out would predict the final outcome.
I said to pay attention to the RCP poll of poll average for Obama going into the last two weeks. As the "challenger" in the state, that number is rather predictive, as you could see from the poll of poll results from a variety of states.
Not sure why you felt inclined to be snarky and read into things where there are none. I am not a strong supporter of either candidate, just interested in the primary more generally.
Obama is still at ~41% in the RCP poll of polls. If he does not get to at least 44% in that metric, he will lose by 10+
See OH, VA, MA, CA, WI, and NY, among others, to illustrate why the "challengers" highest average polling number is significant. Notice how in each of the examples, the challenger (losing candidate) finished right around the final RCP average. If you have a reason to think this will change in PA, I am open to hearing it.
Obama is at ~41% in the RCP poll of polls for PA. This number is generally relevant when you are the "challenger" in a race. Look at the Ohio RCP poll of poll average before the election. It was 44% for Obama, +6 Clinton. He finished at 44.1%, but lost by 10%.
I would venture that he loses by 15 or so if his RCP average does not move above 42%