Spot on, Mr. Chait.

come on chait, why are you out to destroy the false hopes of the Clinton supporters? don't you know that they have to continue supporting her with money because this false hope is better than a full stomach, because we all know how much Hillary deserves this money. My God, she only has 50 million in the bank, she can't be expected to actually donate any of her money to it.

Hillary, false hope monger me.

While margin of victory in terms of percentage points will be important in the perceptions game, what will really matter is Clinton's absolute margin of victory in terms of votes.  If she fails to make a dent in Obama's 700,000 vote lead, she'll lose one of her (albeit already tenuous) rationales for continuing the nomination process.

That said, I really can't believe the popular vote is being seriously considered at all.  

(1) The rules said that delegates would determine the nominee, and the campaigns adjusted accordingly.  David Plouffe said himself that if the popular vote was going to be weighed heavily, they would have allocated their resources differently.

(2) It can't be compared to a general election, because each state has different rules.  Open vs. closed primaries, primaries vs. caucuses vs. primary/caucus hybrid systems, some caucus states don't count turnout... How could anyone call these popular vote totals legitimate?

Has the whole world gone CRAZY?! Am I the only one here who gives a SH*T about the rules??! (Mark it zero!)

Are these arguments really circular?  As I understand Hillary, her point is that "big state" Democrats most closely resemble independents and swing voters.  And if big-state Democrats have doubts about Obama, it's a sign that swing voters will have even greater doubts.  So even when Democrats unite behind Obama in November, his support will stop there and the swing voters will swing to McCain.

This logic has several weak points, but circular-ness isn't one of them.

Chait:

"The conventions and structural biases of journalism dictate that importance must be read into whatever outcome occurs, but the fact is, it really doesn't matter."

Just like "Hillary=toast" and then after NH "Hillary != toast"?.... When will you stop?

cnalls above just torpedoed Chait's faulty logic about what he perceives to be a contradiction is Hillary's statements. The Democrats WILL unite after they have a nominee but that does not guarantee an Obama win, for the very reason that cnalls' simple argument provides; McCain appeals to those same folks in big states, probably more so than Obama does!

Once we have a nominee and the losing candidate (and that would be Hillary because Chait has decreed it) endorses the winner, the rest is up to the winner's overall appeal to the electorate.

The justification that the extended primary isn't hurting the parties chances is presumably based on an empirical claim that the votes that Obama gets in November won't be lower because of the extended primary. This doesn't seem to bar Hillary from also claiming that were she the nominee, she would perform better than Obama overall or in certain key states.

Clinton, Obama, pshaw...what I want to know Jon is this: Has Kirchick gotten off the mat yet?  No posts from that germ since you kayoed him in the first...

dschungu - huh?

Chait, you're a monster - I heard about you from a few of my fellow volunteers yesterday in PA, you are appreciated.

dcshungu,

Neither Hillary nor anyone else to my knowledge has argued that "big state Democrats" most closely resemble independents.  I know of zero empirical evidence for such a claim.  However, even if it were true, it is completely irrelevant.  The way to gage independent sentiment is to ask them, not to speculate that another, rather different group most closely resembles them and is therefore a reliable proxy.  No need for that proxy.  When you ask them, the answer is quite clear that they prefer Obama.  That's why he leads Hillary v McCain in national polls.  Furthermore, as has been pointed out many times, the balance of preference in a given state in a primary between two Dems has virtually no correlation (actually a negative correlation for what that is worth) with winning the state in the general.

Now, since Hillaristas are so fond of calling attention to one thing or another the "proves" that Hillary is a stronger candidate than Obama, even though he is kicking her ass, how about the fact that in PA, which is Hillary's dream demographic in terms of age, gender, education, and employment history she can only win by a measly 4% while Obama clobbers her in states where the demographics favor him.  If anything proves what a weak candidate Hillary is, it is her poor showing in PA, a state that should have been a blockbuster for her.

No matter, as Chait says.  After NC, Hillary will be further behind in delegates and popular votes than she was yesterday pre-PA and she will have "run out of track."  Unlike Hillary's lead in PA that all but vanished, his in NC is increasing, as is his lead in the national polls, as is his lead in polls about the Dem nomination.  Hillary's strategy of winning by losing does not work.  I think that something has changed.  What?  It is about to be obvious to most everyone but Hillary that she is over.

Hillary drove a stake in the heart of her reason for running in the debate the other day when she said "Yes, yes, yes," Obama could beat McCain.

Reasons?  She needs reasons?

"a monster"? That's a good thing?

dc,

For example, in the CBS exit poll in PA, a poll of Democrats as it is a closed primary, 53% of those who think of themselves as independents preferred Obama.  That's why Obama is a stronger general election candidate than Hillary.  The general election is fought out chiefly amongst independents.

Also Roi: for someone with 15 to 20 YEARS lead time on name recognition and positive association alone (not to mention the gift from God that is the Rendell machine. He is the only reason she is where she is - he is organized in a way her campaign can only dream of) she should be winning by 20 points.

Especially against a Harvard black man with a kooky name who won't wear a lapel pin (!) who most voters had not heard of until recently.  Unbelievable!

I know PA.  It is an insular place - but not mean.  I've found the people to be uncommonly nice, but it is not exactly open to outsiders (this part of the culture has had zero exposure in this election, but it is common knowledge and it is definative), to put it mildly.  

That she's not winning by those margins with those factors thrown in says more than anything else.  She should be clobbering him.  

Yo Tep - a monster is a good thing!

ven as I sit here wasting time watching the votes get tallied, as Senator Clinton's moribund campaign limps along a bit further, I know Jon Chait is right: In general, I think the coverage of Pennsylvania is wildly overblown. What...