"In summary she's LOST"

Sounded right to me.

Except that Todd and the rest of the talking heads continue to spout the notion that there is a way for Clinton to win with the "popular" vote metric and on occasion the "electoral"vote metric. What no one is willing to say out loud (save for Nancy Pelosi) is that in a race for delegates, it is the delegates that count. Not the big blue states that rhyme with Balifornia, Lew Mork, Hennsylvania, Morida or Few Lersey.

Sen clinton would need for 2/3 of the supers to decide that they were going to give her the election she lost. she does not need the two or three you discussed she needs more than she can posibly get.

In the words of Jed

Here's the boxscore:

CHW: 5 runs, 8 hits, 0 errors, 6 LOB
NYY: 4 runs, 9 hits, 1 error, 7 LOB

The Clinton campaign is arguing that the Yankees won because they got more hits.

It just aint so.

"It's not going to be decided on delegates. Neither candidate will have enough."

1. It will be decided on delegates. Period. That is all that matters.

2. Delegates = pledged delegates + superdelegates.

"The super-delegates will decide it, and several have already indicated that it isn't just numbers they will be considering."

Correct. And those other considerations are not necessarily in Hillary's favor.

Super-delegates are not obligated to follow ANY criteria.

Correct!

They could choose to follow popular vote, and when all votes are counted, by registered voters in certified primaries, Hillary leads.

So far the only vote count I've seen that leads to that conclusion is a supreme example of intellectual dishonesty, requiring Hillary to selectively disenfranchise Michigan, effectively claiming that Clinton voters in Michigan should be counted, but Obama counters in Michigan don't need to be, since accordingly they number zero. Is there any Hillary supporter here who would like to come out and support that contention?

No superdelegate that hasn't already decided to vote for Hillary in the first place is going to fall for that kind of imbecilic logic. It is not a persuasive argument for an experienced, intelligent politician, which is what the superdelegates are supposed to be.

At least two super-delegates have stated publicly that they will get behind the candidate that looks most likely to carry the Democrats to the White House.....regardless of math.

And as far as that goes, they could both do it, albeit by different routes. What is certain is that the prospects of either Clinton or Obama are damaged the longer this process drags on.

(And incidentally - of course it takes math to carry the Democrats to the White House.)

So, stop getting all giddy over delegates, even if the DNC seats Florida and Michigan, and Hillary won every state coming up, it's still going to be up to the super-delegates.

Get a grip.

1. Superdelegates don't have an unlimited power to "decide" - they don't start with a clean slate. They have to supplement the position as it stands, i.e. if Hillary is 150 points behind in pledged delegates, she needs an extra 150 superdelegates just to reach a draw.

2. Keep in mind the political pressure on superdelegates once Obama has reached an absolute majority of available pledged delegates (as well as the relief felt by others once they have "political cover"). I reckon that point will be reached on May 20th.

At that point it will become a lot more difficult for superdelegates to defend coming out in support of Clinton and a lot easier to come out in support of Obama. It will also become a lot more difficult to argue in favor of bending the rules to favor Clinton (i.e. by casting aside existing rules to include the FL and MI primaries).

There's no reason to get giddy about pledged delegates any more, but not for the reason you think. Pledged delegates are important, but there's no reason to get giddy when the pledged delegate race is essentially over and it's just a matter of finding out when Obama's lead will be an absolute majority (May 20th) instead of just an insurmountable plurality.

I agree. I've stopped watching for a few weeks now, except for a few episodes of Hardball. Anyways, I feel much better for having left that behind me.

I don't think it is crap. It seems to me like HRC has a shot at getting more popular votes, (a small one) under some scenarios of counting. It takes some creativity on her part, which comes across to Obama supporters as being disingenuous.

I think HRC must believe that there are a lot of superdelegates out there that would like to give their vote to her, but can't justify it now that she is behind in so many metrics. If she can keep them from supporting Obama, until the end of the voting, she might be able to give them one metric to justify their vote. The popular vote is really the only potential selling point she might have, and even that requires a large amount of rationalizing. So far the SDs seem willing to go along with it, as they are holding their votes.

So the guy in the lead should quit, so the loser wins . . . yeah that sure is a recipe for success!

How dembicilic are you?

There's no such thing as the popular vote.

This is the primary. It's not en election qua election.

Clinton's only ahead if you INCLUDE CLINTON'S MICHIGAN VOTERS but at the same time pretend there is not a single Obama voter in the whole state. This from the same campaign who pretends they are the ones standing up for the Michigan voter.

Are you really willing to defend that position?

Really?

Not quite. If Florida and Michigan get seated, the number needed to win also increases.

I suspect Michigan and Florida will be seated only if they don't change the result. That can be accomplished easily if there's a rush of superdelegates to Obama when he gets close to 2025.

I don't know...irony fits pretty well. The incongruity of the propagandist's rediculous statements juxtaposed with the rational discussion of the rest of us certainly contains irony.