I totally agree with the post Eve. This hypothetical (superdelegates overriding the pledged delegates) is unlikely to happen.

But remember: it's precisely the DISCUSSION of this hypothetical and the accompanying fearmongering that ensures that this hypothetical won't happen. In other words - the more commentators/Democrats debate whether a HRC nomination will lead to a an intra-party disaster, the more they reinforce the notion that her nomination will lead to an intra-party disaster. This discussion also builds more public support for the righteousness of the pledged delegate metric, which was never a given (it took tons of hard PR work by MoveOn and the online left to achieve this victory).

I encourage TNR (and the media) to continue to discuss this issue because without that discussion, the superdelegates will not continue to feel the fear of God.

I posted this on N. Schieber's thread, but will repeat it here:

I think Clinton can still win the nomination. The final appeal to superdelegates will be based on momentum, and so a strong finish will make a strong impression. Here are the remaining primaries:

Indiana

North Carolina

West Virginia

Kentucky

Oregon

Puerto Rico

Montana

South Dakota

Pennsylvania was a good win for Clinton after a long hiatus. WV and KY will be blowouts in her favor (SurveyUSA has her up in KY by over 30 points). Therefore, IN and NC are crucial for her to establish a string of wins.

If Obama takes IN and NC then it's game over for Clinton.

If Obama loses IN and pulls double digits in NC then we have stasis.

If Obama loses IN and wins NC by single digits then her case is slightly strengthened.

If Obama loses both states Clinton will have a strong case to make about her momentum since she'll have taken five contests in a row and five of the final nine primaries (and most likely six, given Puerto Rico's leanings). If this is the outcome then I would consider her the favorite for the nomination.

Right now it's all about momentum, folks. Obama '08!

Indeed, and I am beginning to wonder if HRC's embrace of a "gas tax holiday" may be having the opposite effect to what she intended--minimal influence on voters, but continued contempt from supers, who should be her main audience.  This will probably not be a major mistake on her part (though it might be), but it could be a minor, and still important, one--voters and superdelegates watching her have to, again and again, defend the indefensible (and just when she may have gotten over her Iraq vote).   This may be reinforcing their original estimate of her--a calculating pol without the charm of her husband (or her rival).

VC, we also need more critical examinations of "popular vote" claims. When you get down to plain facts, there is no such thing as a national "popular vote" in the presidential nominating contests. States have different systems, voting on different days, with vastly different lists of candidates on each ballot. Surely the NH and SC folks who voted for Edwards have some preference between Hillary and Obama, but the "popular vote" counts don't count these voters. Meanwhile, voters in, say, my state of Virginia knew that it was down to Hillary and Obama.

I might have gone for Edwards or Biden if my state voted in January; because my state voted in March, I chose between Hillary and Obama. Why should that accident of the calendar give my choice more weight than it gives to the preferences of January voters?

It's not a just a black backlash; it's also youth voters who will be up in arms.  I am a youth voter, and I might stay home if Hillary's the nominee.  I have plenty of friends less politically active than I am who voted for Obama in the primaries and/or will in the general, and they will definitely stay home if it's Clinton.

New polling suggests that North Carolina may be slipping from Obama. If Clinton wins there and in Indiana (which seems now to be almost a foregone conclusion), and she continues to outpoll Obama in head-to-head polls with McCain nationally and in key states like PA, FL, and Ohio, I don't see how anyone here could make the argument that she 1) isn't the stronger candidate and 2) doesn't have a legitimate claim to the nomination, especially if she moves ahead in the popular vote.

I voted for Obama on Tuesday, have given him money, and canvased for him in North Carolina.  But it's getting harder and harder to avoid the conclusion that Clinton is the stronger GE candidate.

seth86 said:

"I have plenty of friends less politically active than I am who voted for Obama in the primaries and/or will in the general, and they will definitely stay home if it's Clinton."

I have plenty of friends  who voted for Clinton in the primaries and/or will in the general, and they will definitely NOT stay home if it's Obama, they will vote McCain.

virginiacentrist said,

" encourage TNR (and the media) to continue to discuss this issue because without that discussion, the superdelegates will not continue to feel the fear of God."

What's the issue you want to discuss?  

Change You Can Believe In  Anything else?

When one looks at the fact that two big players in the Clinton campaign (a major fundraiser and a former DNC head) jumped ship just in the last week, it doesn't indicate strength, it indicates fundamental weakness.  I would never bet against the resiliency and ruthlessness of the Clintons, but I'm not seeing a party uniting behind her. They're deserting her.

I completely agree with Eve that the wild speculation about what effect a Hillary nomination might have, blatantly ignores the reality that it is very unlikely to happen. Many in the media like to keep the idea alive that we  have no idea what the uncommitted superdelegates will do, or on what basis they will make their decision. This is just silly. If you listen to Politico and others, they report that there is a lot of private support for Obama, and frankly that isn't surprising. One of the most telling numbers in almost all the polling on the subject is the candidates's unfavorables, and even more important, the percentage of poeple who see them as trustworthy. Hillary has higher unfavorables than either Obama or McCain and she is seen as  far less trustworthy.  That is where her "ceiling" is and that makes superdelegates very nervous. It is virtually impossible for her to improve her trustworthiness number much at this point because that is a core character issue. It is why Hillary ONLY had about 200 committed supers early on despite her "inevitable" image. As the wife of the former president, you might have expected her to have more like double that number. Except a lot of people were kind of crossing their fingers and HOPING for an alternative. And in Obama, they got what they were looking for.

Barring some kind of game-changing scandal, and Wrightmare doesn't appear to be it, this is what is likely to happen. Obama is going to continue to roll out supers little by little as the final primaries play out. The elected delegates over the remaining states are likely to spilt about even, so that spread will be within about 10 delegates one way or the other of where it is right now (about 150-160ish). But by the end of the primaries, Obama's committed supers will have him within about 40-50 delegates of what he needs (perhaps even closer). And that will create the sense for the remaining uncommitteds that this is basically over. Once he gets enough commitments to reach 2025 (sometime shortly after June 3) there will be a movement among supers (even some of Hillary's committed's) to consolidate (remember comments of people like Cantwell and Corzine that, while they were supporting Hillary, they'd look at pledged delegates, etc -- those type of comments tell me that they were anticipating just such a scenario  as I'm laying out.

So while many in the media have fantasies of about a brokered convention, it ain't never gonna  happen. and for all the Clinton spin, about momentum//electiability, etc, what ultimately counts is the math.

Just a couple more thoughts on Hillary's chances in response to Eve's smart post and the dozens

"New polling suggests that North Carolina may be slipping from Obama"

Sounds like a great media narrative to me! Hopefully we'll hear that on Tuesday when he wins by 14.

Yes, virginia, the whole thing is really a Hillarista fantasy.

What do you want to discuss jacob?  Would you like to make book on the odds that Hillary is the nominee?

Here are the things that would have to happen:

1.  She wins NC.

2.  She wins IN

3.  She wins 14% of the 4.5 million votes remaining to be cast.

4.  The professional pols decide that, contrary to their entire experience in politics, someone who has an unfavorablity rating in excess of 50% CAN win an election

5.  The supers decide that it is so important to win the White House AND that Hillary is so much better positioned to do that (despite number 4) that they are willing to risk blowing up the party to do it (remembering that they can NEVER be faulted for picking the nominee who won the most delegates in the designated process).

I am going to peg those probabilities at 15%, 98%, 20%, and 25% for 4 and 5 jointly.  That's a compound probability of 0.74%.  Double, no triple it in case of some lack of independence of the variables.  That puts her odds at 2.2%.  If it makes you feel better, add 50% to that just for the hell of it and you get to 3.3%.

Hillary is about a 1 in 30 shot to win the nomination at this point.  Seems about right to me.

That was explained very well tjlinko.  Thank you.

virginiacentrist, Insider Advantage has Clinton up by 2 in NC, Survey USA has her behind by 5, and that came before the Easley endorsement and most of the fallout from this week's Wrightmare.  A 14 point win for Obama in NC is looking increasingly unlikely. If he's lucky, he wins by 5-10, but it seems that with the momentum strongly favoring Clinton, it could be under 5, which by any measure will be a Clinton victory. If she wins the remaining contests save Oregon by an average of 10 points, she will likely have closed the popular vote enough to make a strong argument.

I still think Obama is going to be the nominee, but there's an increasingly strong argument to be made that he shouldn't be.

"I have plenty of friends  who voted for Clinton in the primaries and/or will in the general, and they will definitely NOT stay home if it's Obama, they will vote McCain."

Well, of course, jacob. That is logical. I imagine Hillary herself will vote McCain if Obama gets the nomination.

I agree with Mike that a North Carolina loss would be a disaster for Obama. But we're also starting