If she loses Indiana, it's over, over, over. The Supers will rush to Obama, the money will dry up and we can get on with whipping McCain. If she wins, well, we can expect her to fight on to June but still lose.

I see a lot of news agencies round 54.6 and 45.4 to 55 and 45...so a 10 point DOUBLE DIGIT victory after all.  Hurrah!   The stupidity of this process is laughable.  On the bright side, none of this is going to make an iota of difference to the end result.

The "end result" is that Obama loses, if not to Hillary, then to McCain.

Actually, the margin is 9.4 according to RealClear and AP. As Josh Marshall pointed out, the Sec of State's posted numbers are not the most accurate as much as that defies common sense.

And I'm going with the conventional wisdom of Chris Matthews who put the expectations game at eight. And say what you will, there's no way anyone is going to win by 12-15 points when you're outspent 3 to 1 on the airwaves by the persumptive nominee. As much as the expectations game on election day is unfair to Obama, it was just as unfair to her during the rest of the last month.

But as noted philospher king Bill Murray said, 'It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter." Whatever will be will be whether she won by 9.2, 9.4, or 10.0. She needs a complete implosion to win and if Rev Wright, crappy debate performance, and the clinging remark aren't going to do it, that seems highly improbable.

She'll go on and give us all several more weeks of nauseating, marginally effective negative ads and McCain boosting.

But again, who cares? Nothing has changed. If we go by the numbers alone, her chances of winning diminished last night. They did not improve, except in the minds of people like Russert and Judis who treat their own *feelings* of momentum as political realities, just as they treated "bittergate" as a significant, campaign-ending gaffe.

"She needs a complete implosion to win and if Rev Wright, crappy debate performance, and the clinging remark aren't going to do it, that seems highly improbable."  Exactly.  Except that, Mr. Murray be damned, it does matter.  The longer she's in, the more battering she can do.  She's virtually giving the Repugs their talking points.  

Guys, there's two more weeks until North Carolina.  I seriously doubt anybody is going to let this go on any longer.  The New York Times is asking her to go away, for God's sake.  

I wonder what the CW this morning would have been had we all gone to bed with Clinton up 8.1% instead of 10.3%. This Dem. primary reminds me of a line from the first LOTR movie: "You will beg for death before the end!" So was it predicted, so shall it be...

Also, kudos to Proteus for the incisive analysis.

Keep wishing,  people. She could lose every state from here to Puerto Rico and she'd still be pounding on and on, because she's a fighter! And the press will be helping as much as they can, because they want the drama. In all the "he outspent her and lost!" repetitions of last night, I didn't see anyone say "of course, he cut her lead by more than half, and got about x-many delegates by doing so." Nowhere.

Wow, what is this the third or forth thread parsing Clinton's win - 9.2, 9.4, BUT IT'S LESS THAN 10! IT'S NOT DOUBLE DIGITS!!!

Getting a little persnickety in Audacity Land, are we?

About three weeks ago, I did the extremely simply exercise of applying the state-by-state polls to the delegates available in PA, IN, and NC.  I concluded that the most likely case was that Hillary would win 18 and Obama would win 18 -- zero net change.  As of this moment, RealClearPolitics has Hillary picking up 14 in PA, but her margin in IN has declined considerably.  If you do the same exercise today, using the actual PA results, the most likely case is now that Hillary will pick up a total of 17 between PA and IN and Obama will still pick up 18 in NC, a tiny IMPROVEMENT for Obama.  Given that Hillary tends to outperform the polls in the states demographically favorable to her, give her back the one extra delegate.  It is still a draw.  On May 7, the pledged delegate count will be exactly where it was before PA.

There are several things to say about this.  First, the dynamics have not changed at all.  What has happened in PA, is exactly what was expected to happen, and what was expected to happen is that Hillary would not do nearly well enough to change the dynamics of the race.  So, why all the gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair?  Only a self-deluded, wacked-out, Hillarista would consider it a victory to take you last clear shot to change the outcome and gain absolutely nothing.  Like the Obama campaign said, she is running out of track.

Second, this is so unbelievably obvious that you wonder why it requires constant explanation and re-explanation -- to TNR posters who give every appearance of being a relatively sophisticated group and even to TNR editors such as John Judis.  I don't have actual polls with cross-tabs, samples, blah, blah to look at.  You can figure out the outcome almost perfectly just by looking at relatively simple information that is widely disseminated.  So, why all of the knitted brows and faux perplexity?  

Third, if you apply the same simple concepts to the votes cast and to be cast in PA, IN, and NC, three weeks ago it also looked like a dead draw.  Today it looks like Hillary could gain a net 30,000 popular votes from the three races.  That is only because of the outsize turnout in PA, more than the 2 million I predicted.  If there is a similar excess turnout in IN and NC, then we are back to zero.  That represents a net gain for Hillary of 30,000 against an exist balance in favor of Obama of 470,000 votes.  I include in that 470,000 the FL outcome in favor of Hillary and her net margin of 62,000 votes in MI (giving Obama the benefit of the "other" category in that state.  Therefore, in the popular vote, the most likely case is that on May 7, Hillary will still be losing by 440,000 votes, giving her the benefit of every doubt, far more than that if you exclude FL and MI.

On May 7, there will be 217 pledged delegates left to collect and about 3 million votes left to be case.  Assume that in those final contests, Hillary does as well as she did in PA where the demographics are as favorable to her as they get.  She would pick up 21 more delegates and 280,000 net votes and finish the race down by 145 pledged delegates and 160,000 popular votes.  The popular vote margin would be only about 1/2 of 1%, but, for the sake of perspective, that is the margin by which Gore beat Bush.  No one thought Gore didn't win the popular vote.  And Hillary is not going to do as well in the post May 6 contests as she did in PA.  These days, PA is a high water mark for her.

Hillary just LOST the nomination in Pennsylvania!  That's what happened yesterday  It is clear to anyone who knows a tiny bit about electoral politics because she did not do nearly well enough to put herself back in contention and that was her last chance to do so.  

Her campaign has now acknowledged, for the first time, that she cannot any longer win a majority of pledged delegates.  They say the outcome should therefore be decided based on the popular vote (what can they say?) except that anyone who knows anything can see that she cannot win the popular vote either.  When, after May 6, that reality can no longer be denied, the only thing she will be able to argue is that, for some unfathomable reason, the super delegates should overturn the results of the delegate races, overturn the result of the popular vote, and nominate her anyway.  Presumably, Hillary will argue that she can beat McCain and Obama cannot.  The only problem with that is that the national polls, and any analysis of the Electoral College, consistently show Obama doing better the Hillary and have for weeks now.  

If, for no reason than that they can, the supers overturn the will of the voters, the party's chances in November would be completely destroyed.  Millions of Democrats would stay home.  It would be a McCain blowout, with potentially huge consequences for downticket races.  Is there any reason to believe that the super delegates, mostly Democratic elected officeholders are that stupid and self-destructive?  None at all.  Is there any indication that for some reason that we cannot divine they are none-the-less moved towards Hillary?  None.  They have instead been moving steadily into Obama's columns, 80-5 in recent weeks, BECAUSE THE ARE POLITICIANS.  Maybe pundits don't know how to count votes.  Maybe TNR's editors don't know how to count votes.  Maybe bloggers don't know how to count votes.  But politicians know how to count votes.  If they didn't, they would have been history a long time ago.  The law of survival of the political fittest ensures that people who get elected understand something about winning elections even if no one else in the world does.

Now, the interesting question is not who will be nominated.  It is perfectly, absolutely, ineluctably clear that Obama will be nominated.  No.  The interesting question is why neither candidate is able to change the dynamics at this point in the race.  Consider this:  Obama has more money to spend, by Hillary has far more freedom of action.  She doesn't care much if at all if she risks alienating Obama voters whom she would need in the general election because, if she doesn't get to the general election, that is moot.  She hopes to claw her way in and pick up the pieces later as best she can.  Obama on the other hand KNOWS that he is running for president against McCain.  He must therefore tread cautiously and not alienate Hillary's voters, especially women, lest he wreck his chances in November.  Plus, he doesn't need to change the dynamic in order to win the nomination.  Sure, he would like to get this over with.  But not at the risk of jeopardizing his voter coalition for November.  Thus, Hillary can go after him in any way she thinks she can get away with while Obama has to tread lightly and carefully.

The bottom line is that, while Obama did not rid himself of Hillary by getting her numbers below 5%, he did what he had to do by keeping her from gaining ground.  Hillary did not do what she had to do because she gained no ground.  My hat is off to him for staying focused on the outcome, not being goaded into an error, while everyone else is going to pieces, unable to see the reality that is unfolding.

Look for the supers to start falling off the fence on May 7 when Hillary's claim that she could still win the popular vote, if not the delegate count, goes up in smoke.

Proteus, shmoteus.  He's blowing smoke out his ass.

The only thing that could possibly count is the number of delegates she gains over Obama to catch up.  Best I see, she's possibly picking up enough to make him only 100+ in the lead.  Now if there were only five or six more wins like this for her before the convention, she'd actually be able to pull ahead.  Oh, gee, could it be that there aren't enough left?  Oh, gee, what could it be????  Why doesn't everyone start calling Obama the 'presumptive' candidate since she can't catch up.  

What will happen is she won't quit (and that's nothing to do with being a 'fighter', its to do with being thick headed) until the convention no matter what happens.  At that point, Dean and several other bigwigs are going to tell her to sit down and shut up.  She probably still won't and will become an independent, running on her own, because she really, really, really believes that she's supposed to be the next President!  Her hard-core supporters will leave the Dem. party and join her causing just enough erosion for McCain to win over Obama.  Then she'll tell everyone; "See, I told you so.  He never was electable!"  She may even try rejoining the Dem. party to 'lead it on to victory' sometime down the road when she's McCain's age.

dubya, yeah God forbid people get the actual facts straight? 9.2 equals 10 and 10 equals 20, so therefore Hillary deserves the nomination. 9.2 is 9.2. What, you have an aversion to decimal points?

The Clintons didn't fight for gays and lesbians; they didn't fight for a decent healthcare policy; they didn't fight for labor and the blue collar guys and gals who think they will (eventually); they hardly fought for the environment; they didn't fight for friends, Lani Guinier and Joycelyn Elders (two African American women).

The Clintons fight for themselves and each other.  They are loyal to same.

In Bill's administration the result was they lost both houses of Congress.  

Both the Republican religious right and Democratic blue collar folks behave like abused spouses and beaten dogs.  They return to those who treat them like dirt.

Blackton, your argument would be stronger if you had the facts right. The number is 9.4

Can someone remind me again how the superdelgates would be overturning the will of the people while no one has a problem with Obama getting more delegates in Texas even though he got a 100,000 less votes?

A refresher course:

Caucus: Undemocratic, but those are the rules.

Mi/Fla not counting: Undemocratic, but those are the rules.

Superdelegates: Undemocratic but those are the rules.

Seriously, this isn't situational ethics multiple choice.

A crazy sounding idea was suggested to me that became alarmingly less crazy the more I thought about it. Hillary Clinton's best chance of becoming president is to be selected by John McCain as his VP running mate and for the pair to run as a National Unity ticket.

This may also be John McCain's best chance of becoming president: Hillary would bring with her enough supporters to give McCain several swing states in the general (FL, NH, OH, PA). There is no other VP selection that could help McCain as much. If the economy keeps tanking and oil prices keep rising, McCain may come to see a traditional race as a no-win prospect. Why be Bob Dole '96 when you could be a ground-breaking maverick?

Hillary would have a very real prospect of becoming President, either by assuming the office should McCain fall ill (years of captivity plus melanoma can't be good for long-term health), or by running in 2012 or 2016 with years of VP experience under her belt.

Being McCain's VP may represent her best chance of ever becoming President. Even if that doesn't pan out, she would at least go down in history as the first female VP.  McCain could cement the deal by offering her real control over, say, health care policy.

At the very least, Hillary could use the threat of forming a grand coalition with McCain to wrest a VP nomination from Obama. Given the tenor of the last 6-weeks, I don't see Obama warming to a BHO-HRC ticket otherwise.

Finally, in the event that the superdelegates make a surprise break to HRC and award her the nomination, McCain could make the same offer of National Unity ticket to Obama. He would have less incentive to take it, since he will still have a viable political future without McCain, but I could see his "change politics as we know it" brand being conducive to a cross-party ticket.

Someone please talk me into seeing how crazy this all is. As it stands, I can easily HRC and JMcC as two desperate, conniving, politically ambitious people willing to make this grand Faustian bargain.

Here's the thing Pete: Obama leads on both the Delegate and Popular Vote cards, even with FL (MI is Undemocratic: Only having Clinton on the ballot's like Medvedev's "democratic" victory).  Superdelegate overturning the  rest very much would be undemocratic.  

Well Crock, thanks for skipping over the caucus undemocratic part! And the Texas anomaly! A plus on situational ethics.

Peter, you need to get some basic math, even with all of the results not in it is actually 9.33 (as of now) and your point being what? Or are my decimal points not enough? Do you want it down to the exact amount carried out to infinty? Talk about being a wanker since you didn't address my main point. Calling someone persnickety for not rounding up is fine, pointing out that not rounding up, while putting a result I found posted online (while the results are still not yet in) is now a federal crime. When the final results come in in a week or so, then you can  be a smartass as much as you want. Until then shut your face.

Beyond that, please stop being so thick. Do you honestly believe if Hillary gets the nod without the lead in pledged delegates or popular vote there will be no uproar? Let us talk about the real world while you get your head out of your ass with regard to situational ethics. "Oooh, I am so clever with my choices." Meanwhile Caucus? Jeez, did you just realize Dems have them? Or how about rules set by the DNC, you know, the people who run the party? Unaware to them too?

And you know superdelegates were created so that politicians don't have to put their name on the ballot as delegates so they could go to the convention to get their 15 minutes of additional fame when they support what has until now been the clear favorite. It is not undemocratic, but give me a break that it is some kind of deliberative body.

I hope you take this in the spirit of just some assholish venting on my part. I had food poison last night and feel like dumping on someone.

"Why isn't the reality of single digits a bigger problem for her?"

Mick, seriously, I say this as a friend - turn off the Mac, switch off the mobile, have a beer and eat too much.

Digits?.

TV needs a race, and a race it will have.

Your post sums up my own schizophrenic experience of this "race" (for gods sake do the decent thing and drop out Hillary). Most of the time I'm a cycle ahead of the TV by reading TNR, but if you saw the coverage on the Eire/UK media, you'd swear Hillary is two wins away from the White House.

I've 25 Euro's (39.75 American) on Obama with a friend, but he still refuses to pay up,; he's offering a double up, and I'm not sure if TNR is the best guide of my money.

Obama will probably still win me 25 (39.75 American) bucks, but Pennsylania...Jes*s, maybe those Regean voters are still out there?

oh, and Peter, I just doublechecked where I got the 9.2 figure, It was from Michael Crowley above, who got it from  Pa.'s own election headquarters. You know he links to it. So, essentially, screw you for being such a smartass. What I am supposed to doubt Crowley's number he posted, which is the exact same one that Pa. gave just so you can make a smartass remark? So pardon me for not pulling out my calculator fast enough.

OBAMA, BARACK (DEM)

1,030,703 45.4%

CLINTON, HILLARY (DEM)

1,238,232 54.6%

Republican Primary

peter, please explain how caucuses are "undemocratic." While doing so, please demonstrate concretely how your arguments against caucuses would not also apply to New England town hall meetings or other examples of direct or participatory democracy, which by definition cannot be considered "undemocratic."

Aside from the falsehood of the Hillarista claim that caucuses are "undemocratic," I'm troubled by the Hillarista conflation of "can" and "should" regarding superdelegate behavior. Yes, superdelegates can overturn the will of the people and nominate Hillary. No one denies that they have this power. What is at question is whether they should do so. The majority of Democrats say they should not. To which Hillary's dead-ender minority responds, "Who are you to say they can't do it? It's in the rules!"

"Peter, you need to get some basic math, even with all of the results not in it is actually 9.33 (as of now) and your point being what? Or are my decimal points not enough?"

9.33, damn, does that make it a TRIPLE digit win? He's COOKED!

As for Hillary running on a ticket with McCain, I'd like to see 'em try. McCain would lose every Republican vote except for the least conservative, which are already in play for Obama. Never happen - THEY'D have to run on a third party ticket to try it. He'll go for Condi waaaay before that would ever happen.

Blackton, no worries i have the flu which is why i have so much time to waste on this crap. Your numbers are  about 25,000 less than what has been counted. The NYT is no longer breaking it down by the hundreth of percent, but it's clearly now in the 9.40 or 9.41 range. So go have so more Pepto Bismol.

Of course I know they have caucuses, I'm not discounting them but superdelegates are just as legitimate a part of the process. And in regards to New England democracy, there's a reason why most places in America no longer have town hall democracy! It's because actual voting is more democratic! You know the whole thing with a secret ballot and all. Caucuses are less democratic because many voters don't have the time, the means, or the inclination to spend two to four hours at a specific time casting a vote that should take five minutes. It doesn't mean they're illegitimate, just like superdelgates are less democratic but not illegitimate.

I'm just calling bullshit on the complaining about the rules only when they hurt your individual candidate. I mean seriously, if you weren't emotionally involved could anyone really make a logical argument that MI and FL shouldn't be counted or re-voted? Doesn't the whole concept of 'Tough shit, they shouldn't have moved up their primaries' run completely opposite to Obama's message of hope and inclusion?  

Yeah, if superdelegates overturned Obama's slight delegate lead there would be a hue and cry. That's why it's unlikely to happen even if that means McCain gets elected. The hyperactive intellectual left wing of the party has a history of pissing and moaning their way to general elections losses. No reason this year should be any different.

Enjoy!

Once again we seem to have the resurfacing of the idea that the Democrats in the modern era typically lose presidential elections to Republicans.  It simply is not so.  Generally, there is a strict alternation between 8 years of Dems and 8 years of Repugs.  The one exception has been that the Dems starting with Carter got one term followed by 3 for the Repugs.  After Bush I's "extra" term, the Dems broke back even though Bush had just won a popular war.  Why?  "It was the economy, stupid."  Plus, the Repugs had been in office too long.

The Repugs have now been in office too long for almost everyone; it is a Dem cycle; the economy will be in a recession, Obama is a great campaigner, McCain is just this side of Alzheimer's, not enough of the electorate remembers Vietnam.  (Bush I was a war hero running against a draft dodger.  Look how much good it did him.  Of course, 1992 was already 37 years after WWII ended  It is nearly that long since the Vietnam war ended.)

peter, I absolutely agree that Fl. and Mi should be revoted, but not counted as is. I think it was a serious blunder for Hillary after Supertuesday not to demand the revote, had she done so then she might have changed the dynamic during Obama's 11-0 run. I just wish the Dems did the same as the Republicans and do the punish by half route. Hillary would have won Florida, but Obama probably would have won Michigan (Jesse Jackson won there after all) I never said superdelegates are illegitimate, ever. I am not sure you can say superdelegates are as legitimate as caucuses though. Republicans don't have them but have caucuses so they seem to have survived without them. I am not sure legitimate is the right word, perhaps smart. Are caucuses smart? Well, that is up to each state to decide. The party has decided that each state shall determine their own rules as to how (not when, generally) so it really is not up to me to interfere in other states affairs. I mean that sincerely. Are superdelegates smart, hard to say they are since if it weren't for them we wouldn't be in this mess now. Frankly it is retarded that in some future election an Obama supporter will take it out on a Clinton supporter in Congress and vote for the Repub out of spite, the same vice versa. So honestly, you have to admit the downsides far outweigh the upsides.

Anyway, what are the upsides for superdelegates? If a nominee got truly toxic quickly, they could not survive, the delegates would abandon them (which they can), and beyond that the DNC would pull funding. Mechanisms are in place.

The reason I ignored the caucuses, Petey, is that whatever biases you may have in them get absorbed by the fact that Popular Vote Elections swamp their numbers.  The "anti-democratic" biases that result from a more select # of voters there is corrected in the big picture by the fact that the voting primaries overwhelm their numbers:  Take Kansas and Arkansas for example, two states of similar population size: In the national Popular vote, Obama's 74.1%-25.8% victory gives him 27,172 votes to her 9,462.  Hillary, who won Arkasnas 70,1% to Obama's 26.3%, netted 220,135 votes to his 82,476.  As such, looking at the national popular vote, direct primaries are represented on a scale far larger than any caucuses.  As Obama leads both the national popular vote and the Delegate Count, I have no reason to apply situational ethics:  Either way, he won.

HRC was the only candidate on the ballot in MI, besides Kucinich - you speak of democracy, Peter 1943, then tell how it is democratic for HRC to be able to count that. It smacks very much of a Robert Mugabe, Stalin, Hitler, and such [and NO I'm not comparing HRC to any of them!!]. The rules are the rules and they are intended to favor no one candidate; when you change rules in the middle of the game they can only favor one candidate. I think that is the logical argument and her being allowed to count it is the emotional argument.

Further, if you are calling bullshit on complaining about the rules because they don't favor your candidate then I don't see how the logical argument favors HRC here either. Each state gets to choose how it chooses its delegates to nominate the candidate. Some chose primaries, some chose caucuses, some bizaarly chose both. The states decided how they wanted to apportion their delegates, and did so based on percentages, not winner take all. The DNC decided that the nominating system use pledged delegates and not popular vote to determine who will be the nominee. All of the states knew that there would be consequences for trying to change the timing of their elections; two decided to actually do it. And there were consequences for their behavior.

Every single candidate knew the rules of the game going in. Indeed, they haven't really changed much in many cycles. One candidate decided to spend his money organizing each state, whether caucus or primary. The other candidate decided to spend her money on TV and expensive consultants. Now that one candidate is winning having used what turns out to be a successful strategy based on the rules going in, the losing candidate is trying to change the rules. Now caucuses are not as important as primaries. Only big state count, not little states. Only Blue states, not red states. The spin is indeed dizzying, difficult for any fair-minded person to keep up.

Just as a squib single looks like a line drive in the books, Obama's "small" delegate lead looks like a mountain, not a molehill to HRC. Indeed, as Roid pointed out in his excellent post above, even in winning PA she lost because she cannot catch him in pledged delegates. So now she is trying to argue that it's not pledged delegates that matter, but the popular vote. That is changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game.

Again, as Roid points out, she cannot win the popular vote either. So if she lost the pledged delegates and the popular vote, wouldn't it be undemocratic for the Supers to over turn "the will of the people" and side with her anyway?

I hate to say it because I know you have the flu, but logic - and the math - are not with your argument.

McGumbleton, you had me at Mugabe and Hitler.

Re: It smacks very much of a Robert Mugabe, Stalin, Hitler, and such [and NO I'm not comparing HRC to any of them!!]

Except you just did. Nice one!

And I'm saying follow the rules.

I didn't say they should count Michigan as is.They should have a revote. If they don't and they won't, it's undemocratic but the rules are the rules.  But if the process is all about the delegates and the rules, than you gotta let the superdelegates, who are sanctioned by the same rules, You can't selectively apply the rules.

Blackton, I will concede this point. It is baffling that Matthews kept repeating the ten point margin line.. He's obviously in the tank for Obama so I guess it's laziness and drama setting.

Wow - amazing. And you're not the emotional one. Too much. I didn't elaborate because I assumed reasonable people would understand; I didn't need to explain an elementary notion. I clearly gave you too much credit. You went there I did not. So here we go, let's just switch candidates for the sake of argument:

If it is Obama - s strong candidate - who is on a ballot and the other candidate on the ballot is someone everyone knows can't compete against him - He is guaranteed to win the election because the strongest candidates are not on the ballot and voters do not have a choice to vote for them. So Obama wins by incomplete competition. That is not fair. That is not democratic. Those are the tactics dictators use to try to lend legitimacy to their crowning. Did Hillary engineer this scenario? Of course not. Hillary is a Democrat and a democrat. Unlike others in this dialog I neither wish to demonize her nor the people I am dialoging with. I am simply pointing out the wholly undemocratic nature of trying to count the MI primary as is, which Hillary's camp is trying to do. But whether Hillary or Barack or Kucinich were to make the argument I would still say it's unfair - it has nothing to do with the candidate who "won" it and everything about the nature of the situation.

You in fact said "could anyone really make a logical argument that MI and FL shouldn't be counted or re-voted". I just made a logical argument for why it shouldn't be counted. I do not think there is a logical argument to be made for counting MI. FL I could logically argue either way, but would still come down on the side of FL not counting as is because nobody really campaigned there, and I do believe campaigns make a difference in helping voters decide. Otherwise, it's just who has better name recognition, essentially.I think that is a logical argument.

A re-vote is a different story. I think it's a travesty that these two very important general election states did not have an active primary. The voters should have seen all our candidates and their election arguments. The campaigns should have stood up and organized. I believe this has the potential to harm our nominee in the general and that bothers me immensely. Obama and Clinton both agreed to a re-vote; the states could not get their act together to do that. In end, Hillary wanted to be able to claim them without the danger of a re-vote and possibly losing one or both; and Obama wanted to be able to say neither is fair and shouldn't be counted without having to extend the primary season. Expediency for both. But rules are rules and neither should count at this point. Not emotion but logic.

Superdelegates can do whatever the hell they want, you are right about that. But as the person who was arguing logic and democracy, surely you can see that for supers to vote against both the pledged delegate count and popular vote count and essentially overturn the will of the people, is not very democratic. Not to mention it would destroy our party and our coalition for generations.

What a bunch of jokers you guys are.

By anyone's rules, 54.6 rounds to 55, and 45.4 rounds to 45.

In normal reporting language, Clinton won 55% to 45%.

Live with it, and try to stop all the whining.

What a bunch of silly jokers you guys are.

By anyone's rules, 54.6 rounds to 55. 45.4 rounds to 45.

In normal reporting language, as opposed to that weird distortion of journalism known as obamalism, Clinton won 55% to 45%.

Live with it, and try to stop all the whining.

In the land of moving Metrics and HRC's claim that the popular vote not only be the ultimate measure but that it include Michigan, I take my hat off to Hillary and Bill. They too must have peered into the souls of not only Putin.....but Saddam and others.....all of whom think that running (and winning) uncontested elections is evidence of their right to rule.

Well done, Billary.

What a bunch of jokers you costellos are.

By anyone's rules, 54.6-45.4 = 9.2 which rounds to 9.

In normal reporting language, Clinton won by 9 points.

In other news, Elementary School teachers have a fun new example about the difficulty of rounding!

PS: I love how apparently you had to go back and add even more whiny snarkness, because brevity is the soul of wit.

Boy, McGumby you don't seem to read very carefully. I asked if it was fair to neither count Mi and Fla OR have a re-vote. What i find undemocratic is doing neither. And I also said it's undemocratic but those are the rules. Sorta like superdelegates.

But seriously, this really is the early leader in the clubhouse for my favorite example of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

"It smacks very much of a Robert Mugabe, Stalin, Hitler, and such [and NO I'm not comparing HRC to any of them!!"

How Rovian of you. You compare HRC to the great despots of our time and then say 'no, no i'm not comparing her to them.'

Oh wait, Puppins is comparing her to Saddam and Putin! Silver medal. What, were Pol Pot and Mussolini otherwise engaged?

My response? Your guy was a STATE senator 40 months ago.

C'mon guys. This isn't the Huffington Post or Daily Kos.  Bring your A game.

How does Hillary contest the Anointed One? Doesn't she know he's coming on a white horse to save the world? Doesn't she understand that millions of serfs wait to prostrate at His feet?

She can't contend with him.  She's finished.  We just have to get her to go away now.

54.6 is rounded to 55. perhaps Crock should learn a bit more about rounding.

In any case, thinking there is much a difference between 9.2 and 10 is evidence of the stupidity that makes people talk of double digits. What the fuck does it matter? All it matters is who wins. The rest is bullshit.

The difference between 10 and 11 is the same as between 9 and 10. Yet fucked up contemporary pundits (a synonym for imbecile) declare the difference between 9 and 10 to be significant, coz it's double digits and single digits.

No wonder this country is going to the drain. How about you guys stop reading the celebrity gossip and read some math? Elementary school math would be good start. You're not yet there.

Uh, roid, 1992 was 47 years after WWII ended, not 37.  

Here's my "A" game Peter - you're an ASS

Sleepyawl, where do you get off with this 'Anointed One' shit?   If you can provide me with a single statement by Barack Obama that so much as hints that he believes people should somehow worship him, I'll eat my hat.  He says he believes he's the best person for the job of president.  As to they all.  As so they should.  This "Anointed One,' Obama-supporters-as-cultists line is something that you project upon him, a complete fantasy.

Like most Obama supporters, I voted twice - and enthusiastically - for Bill Clinton. I have been a Democrat all my life. I am a mid-40s (white) guy originally from the rural South and my family has voted Democrat since before the Depression. My 71-year-old mother is a small-town Democratic activist in Virginia. So I didn't come into the Democratic party yesterday or as part of some kind of cult movement, OK? As this campaign goes on and on and on and ON, I have sometimes ruminated on the idea that Obama should cut a deal with Hillary and agree to run for president if he is on the ticket as VP. But then, people like Sleepyawl on forums like this who insult Obama supporters  remind me: No. The Clintons are simply too divisive. Their hubris is too great, their egos too huge, their sense of entitlement shocking to the conscience. They will even run a "gebrannte Erde" campaign against a fellow Democrat, even an African American. At least some of their supporters clearly identify with that. Result: I can't imagine voting for her even if she is the candidate. She would risk 4 more years of Republican rule for the sake of her own exquisitely personal sense of entitlement. That's wrong. That's not what the Democratic party is supposed to be about.  (Sleepyawl - if you can, let us have a reasoned and polite, respectful response to these points, please). That's why good Democrats should not vote for her and should stay home on election day if she steals the nomination (barring any deals with Obama, of course).

PS: The sentence abot the ticket was garbled - I meant to say "I have sometimes ruminated on the idea that Obama should cut a deal with Hillary and agree to have her run for president if he is on the ticket as VP."

Thanks aeromonas.  I think, to be precise, the difference between the 1992 election and the end of WWII would actually be 47.22 years, but that rounds down to 47, certainly not to 48 or to 37.

According to CNN (www.cnn.com/.../state), the number is now 9.314%, with about 1% of Philly precints yet to report.   The vote tallies there are higher than at the PA Sec'y of State, so they may be more accurate... my guess is by the time the counting is done, the number will stand at around 9.1-9.2%.

Of course, it will still read as 55-45.  This is all stupid, of course, but I really think things might have been significantly different if the margin had stuck at 8.8% all night, leaving the official count at 54-46.  Then it would have been an "eight point victory" for Hillary, she would only have matched, and not exceeded, Chris Matthews's projection, and the coverage may well have been markedly less enthusiastic about her "big win."  Then, of course, if the last 1-2% of precints bumped Hillary up to 9.2%, she would have had her phantom double digits, but the words on everybody's lips would be "eight points"...

Then again, it's hard for me to see how the post-10 pm election night coverage on MSNBC really shapes voter behavior, in NC, IN, or anywhere, so none of this matters.  But for political junkies, it does seem ridiculously arbitrary and unfair.

Per Costello: To carry the rounding thing further, 55% rounds to 60%, and 45% rounds to 50%, so the participation in Penn. was actually 110%! That's got to be a good sign for the Dems in the fall...

Yesterday, Mike pointed out that conventional wisdom set the bar for Hillary Clinton at about ten points

I believe the Clinton campaign got a lot of contributions before the 10% number was reduced to 9.2 or 9.4 or whatever. That's what matters.  Leaking (made up) unfavorable exits sounds like a great strategy.  You also want your counties/precincts to report around prime time, not right at poll closing and not after 10 or 11 PM (when everyone goes to bed).  You want a 9:30 to 9:45 PM dump of all your best precincts to have the maximum impact.