I believe it'll be a 13-15 point loss in NC. I'm operating under the assumption that most polls are still recording last week's Wright damage, but that the damage was temporary, and that the race will shift back to the equilibrium (a huge Obama win).

Indiana will be Hillary by 6-8...

Why do people fall for the trap that you win or lose based on whether you beat some ephemeral "expectations"? You win or lose by getting more votes than the other guy. And, in the course of a national nomination contest, you win or lose by getting more delegates than the other guy.

There are only two tests for Hillary today. First, does she win or lose either IN or NC. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss. Second, does she win both IN and NC by the 38-point margins she needs to be on track to close Obama's delegate lead. Those are the only two questions that matter. Not whether Hillary loses by "only" 7 percent in one state, or whether Obama wins by "only" 2 percent in another state.

Elections, in short, are pass-fail, not graded on the curve.

rhubarbs,

You are of course correct, as is usual.  But there is one other aspect to consider beyond whether Hillary is on track to overtake Obama in pledged delegates.  Of course, she is not, and cannot be, as her campaign  admitted about 10 days ago.

The other aspect is what sort of outcome the supers will regard as decisive enough, in context, for them to start falling off the fence in big numbers.  The Hillary scenario only plays because of the apparent uncertainty created by so many publicly uncommitted supers, numerically enough to overcome Hillary's pledged delegate deficit.  If another 70 supers come off the fence so that the pool of uncommitted supers falls below 200, even the match challenged should be able to figure this out.  That's the reason of course for the renewed push on MI and FL, to keep the story alive once it is clear to all that no plausible combination of victories in the remaining races or super-delegates could possibly serve.  BUT

if Hillary can be awarded 156 delegates from MI (more than her net from NY, CA, PA and a few other states combined), she can still win.  Sure, if they call off the nominating process and simply anoint Hillary she can still win.

All I want is Obama to win in North Carolina, afterwards, it is all over for Hillary, then I can enjoy her freakshow and her rationalizations of why she should be the nominee. The game will be in hand and the look on her face when she finally has to admit the game is lost, priceless beyond words.

Of course, if she somehow wins North Carolina, then I will be thankful I don't live in the United States, and will from here on out spend far more time at the beach.

"but the demographics, well, they are what they are"

Because the demographics were not what they were in Pennsylvania, or Texas, or Ohio or Baluchistan or wherever Hillary won.

Blackie: enjoy the beaches.  There is still snow on the ground up here.  

Blackton:

That's true. The best part will be watching Hillary have a Nixon-style nervous breakdown. I fully expect the NY Post to have the following headline:

img227.imageshack.us/.../futureheadlinehm2.jpg

How come both Jason and Mark Halperin came up with the same headline for blog posts on the same subject? thepage.time.com/.../oh-the-expectations-they%e2%80%99ll-set-2

Is there any allusion other than to Dr. Seuss? I mean, was Seuss mentioned recently? Or this phrase? Or is it just one of those weird headline-writing cognitive swirls in the ether?

Rhubarbs: Ephemeral expectations matter because we are human, paramaters are set, and standards are elastic. We calibrate, we low - ball , recall Dan Quayle. If he made it through a debate without tripping and falling on his face, he was said to have held his own. After a few years as v.p., David Broder even opined that he had grown when no such evidenc existed that he had.

But you are right in an overarching way. Numbers are harsh taskmasters and there will be winners and loser today. Obama has an insurmountable lead in delegates and unless there is some kind of bizarre train wreck looming over the horizon, Hilllary will lose the nomination contest.

epicciuto, it may be a reference to an older Al Franken advice book, "Oh, the Things I Know!" where each chapter was a variation on that theme.  ("Oh, the Bosses You'll Hate!" and "Oh, About the Typeface!" if I remember correctly).  Of course, I might just have him on the brain because I'm in Minnesota.

virginia, great pic. but the caption is off, it says Hillary will throw Bill out of the house Screaming "you told me I could be President." I wasn't aware they actually lived together.

"After a few years as v.p., David Broder even opined that he had grown when no such evidenc existed that he had."

David Broder was v.p.?

;-) Sorry LR, couldn't resist a bit of pedantic joshing to relieve the tedium of the moment ... Any way, you're the first intelligent person I know who has quoted David Broder for anything other than to demonstrate what "Banal" means.  You may be right about expectations, but no amount of low-balling helped Dan Quayle in the end.  Hillary can change expectations, but at the end of the day, it is not the expectations or the momentum that will help her, but as Rhubarbs points out, the raw numbers.

This is why she is at it again, changing the rules (or trying to, at any rate):

washingtontimes.com/.../article

Typo in original post: first sentence - you mean 'role,' not 'roll.'

That's what North Carolina Democratic Sevengali Gary Pearce thinks. Contra Drudge , Pearce wrote