Categorize this among the various: "Can someone explain to me XYZ" posts.  I just had a difficult discussion with a disaffected Hillary supporter who is a friend of my wife's and for whom I have nothing but respect in general terms. 

Nevertheless, as hard as I tried to remain objective and even handed about my support for Obama vs. her support for Hillary, I found myself assailed with line after line of the victimization script at the hands of the sinister Obama campaign.  Before I knew what was happening she was discussing the blind idealism of the legions of hoodwinked youth voting for the pipe dream of "change" and spitting venom about how Hitler had also come to power via an election. 

Now, granted, this woman may be an outlier, but it was one of my first person-to-person encounters with completely over-the-top buy-in to the victimization script that probably MANY Clinton supporters have bought in to at this point.

Rather than lamenting this state of affairs, however, I am curious about what other strategies people have used "on the ground" with family and friends to have a reasonable discussion about the results of the primary and why they do not represent some kind of sinister hoodwinking of the democratic voters, but, rather, a genuine movement filled with people who are tired of a certain variety of politics (of many ages).

I'm genuinely concerned here, because this woman felt that Hillary, and by extension, _perhaps_, many women of her age and point of view, had been victimized to an extent that she would be willing to protest-vote McCain, or perhaps just write-in Hillary.  In *real terms* with *real people* what do we do to come together for November (not just to win, but to move forward).  ?

Much of the recent spin around Clinton's remaining chance at the nomination would seem to revolve around the possibility of her overtaking Obama in the popular vote -- then, as the tendentious line of Clintonian reasoning would have it, she could make a case to the super-delegates for her superior electability, or for her chances against McCain.

Ignoring for the moment the question of whether she is or is not in fact more electable, or better poised to defeat McCain, it cannot be that counting a single vote in a caucus state the same as a single vote in a primary state makes any sense.  The per-capita voter turnout in caucus states is naturally far smaller, and while I don't know the specific statistics, the rough figure of an order of magnitude (10%) has been bandied about. 

Naturally it is in Clinton's interest to have each caucus vote count for 10% of each primary vote: she has done far better in primary states than caucus states. 

How long are outlets like the Times and others going to run this line as a "stragety to win the nomination" without commenting on this disparity?

The claim that the Clinton campaign "will do anything to win" certainly seems borne out by her campaigns tactical choice to argue that measures other than delegates won should be used in deciding the nomination.

How is it even something approaching ethical for Hillary Clinton's campaign to suggest that the votes in Michigan and Florida should 'count' in the race for the nomination?  No one else's name was on the ballot.  Why is the media framing this as a 'reasonable people can differ' kind of issue?  It's fraud, plain and simple.

It is curious that the emphasis on "calling" states for a candidate is as strong as it is, given that delegates are awarded proportionally.  It's much more important what the margins are/will be in the upcoming races, particularly given how close the delegate count remains.  Alter's piece on the cold cruel calculus of delegate counting reveals how the margins of victory are really the central question for Hillary at this stage, rather than victories themselves.