Partially. Yes, it is important to have those contests and see who wins, but that is not the only concern left in the race. I mean, it's not the case that if one candidate wins all three then he or she should be the nominee.

No, that's not all that "matters." What "matters" is continuing to turn out every single vote and delegate in this close race.

The simplistic term "winning a state" should be abolished from the politcal lexicon. What matters is the net gain of delegates relative to the opponent's. Which is a simple fact that the pundits should take note of, considering a 5th grader can comprehend the mathematics of it.

***

The Super Delegate debate is very important for two reasons. 1) For the delegate count in 2008 which may be close. 2) Because of the principles SDs represent, and the overall question of whether they're simply a mechanism for the status quo to throw conventions to insiders, and what that says about rank and file Democratic ownership of their own party.

***

Regarding the upcoming large states, Hillary needs to lead in them not just by narrow margins, but by big margins, to offset Obama's current 119 pledged delegate lead, likely to increase further on the 19th.

Wisconsin has 92 delegates, with Obama polling ahead by about 4 points, for a gain of about 11 points since December 07. If Obama wins there by 5 points that's about a 5 delegate gain, which would bring him to +124 in elected delegates.

TX is the largest upcoming state with 228 delegates, and a hybrid primary/caucus on March 4th. Hillary was polling a 10 point lead prior to the Potomac primaries, though it's been declining as Obama gains. However, only 126 of TX delegates are pledged in the primary vote, the remaining 102 are decided by the caucus and later at the convention. Meaning that even if Hillary can hold a 10 point lead, that translates into perhaps a +12 gain in the primary part, with Obama's more politcal and motivated supporters typically doing better in the caucus part. Even if she gains a 10 point lead in delegates, that's still only about +23.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8UPL8G80.html

Ohio has 161 delegates, where Hillary is currently ahead by about 17 points. If that holds, it could translate into a +27 delegate gain for her, which is probably a best case scenario. However, the 17 point spread is down from a 25 point spread in Early January, and a 20 point lead in early February.

Pennsylvania has 188 delegates, and Hillary has about a ~16 point lead in her best case, which would translate into a 30 delegate gain. But again, her lead has been falling rapidly, 10 points since early January.

***

So, if you take Hillary's best case scenario within a range of likely outcomes, she picks up about +73 delegates, which would still put her behind Obama in elected delegates by about -50. Which would keep the Super Delegates rather relevant.

Going forward from there, Obama probably does better with the remaining states. But again, it;s goign to be close. And the Super Delegates do matter quite a bit, especially those who have yet to pledge, and whether they follow the lead of the elected delegeates or not.

Which is why every vote and every delegate matters in every state, and why discussion of the Super Delegate issue matters tremendously for the public to be aware of these issues and to communicate to leaders and SDs what party machinery they are willing to accept. If the SDs throw the election, which they could, it'll be an outrage.

So, the superdelegates are good if they vote for Obama? I thought they were bad, bad elitists? Gee, your guy IS a Chicago politician after all.