And don't count any of those pesky caucus states...

What electoral map gives Hillary 311 votes now? And Obama just 217?

From the post you linked to, I found this:

She has won 311 electoral votes to Obama's 217. While a few of her's like Texas and Oklahoma will be a challenge in November, many of his states will be: Alaska, Idaho, Utah, to name a few.

Texas and Oklahoma are apparently counted in Hillary's column, and Idaho, Utah, and Alaska are allegedly already in Obama's 217 total? That makes no sense.

Votemaster Andrew Tanenbaum currently shows Hillary with 279 and Obama with 237 in a matchup with Obama. I find those numbers far more believable (especially since he explicitly makes all his data available, identifying the source and date of each poll he uses in making his map).

I would agree that current polling has Clinton doing better against McCain than Obama, but the 311-217 margin is exaggerated.

Sigh.

I've gone through so many stages this primary season--well, really disbelief to anger to disgust--but now I just think it's all really sad.

From the democratic states won in terms of popular vote, probably, not in terms of delegates won, because the former lets her count Texas. As if Hillary would win Texas in the general. And it counts New York in her column, because she won the primary, as if Obama wouldn't win New York against McCain. And so on.

In other words, it's yet another attempt to recycle the same bogus argument that hasn't fooled the superdelegates so far. She can't seriously expect that the superdelegates will suddenly start thinking, hmmm, Hillary got more votes than Obama in Texas ... so Hillary will win Texas against McCain!! Insulting the intelligence of the superdelegates doesn't seem like such a good plan, does it?