I think the path for Obama should be to compete in Pennsylvania halfway to keep it close -- ten or less, and then try to win both Indiana and North Carolina. If he can do that, then it will be clear that Clinton has no path to the nomination other than to bang her fist on the table and demand to be nominated President of the Ohio River Valley. It would be a good time to drop out.

"So the Clinton campaign's only hope...."

I don't think so. I think her campaign's strategy, and her hope, is to convince the voters and the super-delegates that Obama simply cannot stand up to the inevitable Republican bashing he's going to get -- to damage him so badly that people start thinking he's unelectable.

At that point, under this strategy, Clinton steps up and notes that she's "tested" and "ready," the two things she claims Obama is not, and enough delegates will be swayed by this pitch and by the damage that Obama has suffered to give her the nomination.

Note that Clinton appears to be also going after Obama's pledged delegates, not just after the super-delegates, making the same argument, or variations thereof, trying to persuade them to shift their votes, as well.

It is this strategy, and I submit that this is closer to reality than Mark's comments above, that has so many people so pissed off about Clinton. It's a scorched-earth strategy that has the potential to seriously damage the party, its nominee, and its chances in November.

The media should investigate as to why Obama brought in David Wilhem into his campaign. Mr. Wilhem was deeply involved Rezko scandal and he knows what role Obama played in it. My guess is that to keep his mouth shut, Obama put him on the payroll. Come on guys dig the truth and let the people know the deceptiveness of Obama. Obama is surviving because of black vote otherwise he would be long gone into wilderness.

"Obama is surviving because of black vote otherwise he would be long gone into wilderness."

And since black votes don't count...? Geraldine Ferraro, is that you?

Anyway, I think this all has to end come June, but I would heavily bet against it ending before PA, especially with a new poll there showing Clinton up by a huge margin that Obama will very much need to narrow over the coming weeks.

Right. If you just take away the people that vote for Obama and the states that he won, Hillary is clearly the best candidate.

Isn't it obvious?

The media should investigate as to why Obama brought in David Wilhem into his campaign. Mr. Wilhem was deeply involved Rezko scandal and he knows what role Obama played in it. My guess is that to keep his mouth shut, Obama put him on the payroll.

Interesting theory.... Rather makes one wonder why Hillary Clinton is keeping Mark Penn around. Axelrod is clearly better at his job than Penn is at his. What does Penn know that keeps him from getting fired?

These projections are almost a week old. Even I know it, certainly the DNC knows it. HRC is still in it because it "looks" to voters like she's being forced out. She knows it and that's why she keeps floating this double ticket idea (with herself at the head, right?).

Plus, it's not like Obama is going to hit the required # of delegates either. She's banking on keeping things ambiguous in the minds of the public and having the superdelegates give her party seniority.

If it were up to Geraldine Ferraro...

Why not count each caucus vote as one popular vote. If the state party thinks a caucus system is fair enough to allow all Democrats to take part,than I don't see why they can say that the caucus vote is any different than the primary vote.

It is this strategy, and I submit that this is closer to reality than Mark's comments above, that has so many people so pissed off about Clinton.

It is much closer to reality, but the only people who are pissed off at Clinton are the people who don't like her to start with.

She's got a far better case for electability than Obama does.

Trudy -

The answer is simple. The nationwide popular vote isn't how we keep score. Therefore states don't devise contests to support it (Texas!?) and candidates don't build strategies around it.

At the beginning of the process each state is allocated a certain number of delegates. Then they hold a contest to allocate those delegates to the candidates.
Some states choose primaries. Some choose caucuses. Some choose a combination.

By changing the way we keep score in the middle of the contest, the integrity and fairness of the system is called into question. And because cauceses turnout fewer voters per capita you've basically disenfranchised the voters of those states by changing how we keep score.

If, as Clinton supporters now say, the "true" measurement of winning is the nationwide popular vote, then that should have been agreed to up front, so that the states and the candidates could have developed approaches that would support it. Not rationales afterwards that support the existing circumstances.

To be fair, Clinton's supporters aren't saying we should change the rules; they're saying that the rules allow the superdelegates to vote however they wish, and one factor in their decision could be the popular vote. Agree or not, this argument is likely going to carry a lot of weight in the media and with voters. It's worth looking into whether Clinton can pull it off, and it's worth it for the Obama campaign to make sure she can't.

Hey Tracy..."Obama is surviving because of black vote otherwise he would be long gone into wilderness." Really? I guess all those black people in Iowa really got the ball rolling. And the blowout in Wisconsin? Oh yeah, Eau Claire is like a little Atlanta, huh?

The man has more delegates, more popular vote, more states won, more individual donors, and more money raised. The black population in the US is about 13% of the country. Get a grip.

This is tedious. What HRC and her supporters don't understand is that she is not going to be President in 2008. At all. It is not happening no matter how she and her people try to pretend otherwise.

The only way she gets the nomination is to have the Super Del. overrule the pledged delegates. If that happens, HRC won't win in Nov. and the Dems won't win the WH for a generation or more. That's the reality as painful as it is for the Clinton camp to accept.

Her getting the nomination in 2008 would ruin the Dem. Party.

What a bunch of carp. Mark essentially admits that Hillary could win the popular vote. Then he says that as a runner-up (?? even before the contest has ended!) she should gracefully "hold her fire." Thus guaranteeing that she won't win the popular vote.

Voila! Such logic astounds. Great if you're an Obama fan.

Nice try about caucus votes being even MORE valuable than primary. But that is just sophistry....in both English and math.

A vote is a vote...Count the votes. Well at least you're not not Markos who deicded to count voters twice in Texas...he counted the primary votes and the caucus votes...which is just ridiculous since in order to vote in the caucus one had to vote in the primary first.

So let's say that I think the vote and her vote margin in Pennsylvania will be higher than Ohio...more than 200,000 votes.

I don't know how you got the unofficial numbers for the unreported caucuses or how you inferred the votes for each candidate but I will let that stand for the moment.

But her margin in Florida will be larger...one Edwards won't be in the mix...2. he has alienated lots of Florida voters by dissing the state and fighting the revote....it's her kind of state...so more than 300,000 I think ....lots more.

Third I see you included the Washington state caucus instead of th eWashington state primary....since the caucus had about 680 some odd thousand voter and th ecaucus had 166,000 I think the primary is the legitimate number since it represnts more people so doing that reduces his vote margin by 59000 votes.

Fourth you forget that Puerto Rico is now a primary...in a populous state she will gain hundreds of thousands of votes there.

I think she could have the popular vote lead....it's not only not impossible it's more than possible.

I have a warning for all the super delegates and the Democratic Party. If Obama wins the most number of votes AND the most number of states AND the most number of pledged delegates, be VERY careful if you plan on having the super delegates anoint Hillary Clinton the queen of the United States ignoring the will of the constituents. If this happens, there will be a civil war within the Democratic party. A large number of people who voted for Obama (more than 50% of the Democrats) will NOT vote for Hillary under these circumstances and some of them may even vote for McCain.

I am a Maryland Democrat but I believe in Democracy and fairness. If Hillary Clinton wins the most number of pledged delegates fair and square I will vote for her in the general election.

If the party insiders make her the candidate ignoring the will of the people (what is this, Russia?), I may just vote for McCain out of utter disgust. This wold essentially mean the end of the Democratic party and she will become the Ralph Nader of 2008.

Play fair or it will be the end of the Democratic party.

Remember the outcome of this is not meant to be a CORONATION for a queen but a presidential candidate for an INAUGURATION as chosen by the CITIZENS, not all the corrupt self serving chronies of the Clintons.

Mark my words...If Hillary wins, so many people will come out of the wood work that loathe her, just to vote against her, that McCain may as well be ushered in by Bill himself! Why do you think she is losing the Idahos and NORTH DAKOTA - COME ON!! They barely even know who Obama is let alone vote for him.

Besides, not two seconds after a Clinton victory and you can bet your bank account the AP wires will be chalk full of anonymous tips about what 'ol Bill has been up to these past 8 years.

I AM SUPRISED that any democrats think Hillary has a chance.

The Democratic party has a serious challenge in dealing with Florida and Michigan, considering how close the two candidates are in the pledged delegate count. However, if the purpose of the party was to penalise the two states, it would hardly make sense to now conduct another expensive election. One way out would be to seat the delegates from both states, in a ratio of the total delegate count from the other states. This would clearly mean that they have their representation, but do not have a chance to bring out any differences that they would have had, if they had followed party norms.

Super delegates were not put in place to necessarily reflect the "will of the people". If that were the case why have them? Super delegates are there to try and help make sure the best candidate (the one most likely to win in November) is nominated. Obama has won the most states but he hasn't won most of the large important states that are needed in November. Caucus votes, primary votes, the popular vote, super delegate votes...all come to play in choosing a nominee. There are no caucus votes in November, the popular vote doesn't necessarily choose the winner in November, and there are no super delegate votes in November. The rules don't say that the candidate that wins the most states or the popular vote wins the nomination. Just like the rules don't say that a winner in a state takes all the delegate votes (if that were the case Clinton would be winning). So whether anyone likes it or not, Clinton still has a chance of winning the nomination. No matter who wins the nomination, if people really care about this country they will put their differences aside and vote against the Republican in November.

I'm sorry, but in this case adding all of the votes as if to project some national popular vote isn't possible because the primary system was never intended to be used like this. Not only do four caucus states not even announce their popular vote but in a count of nationwide popular vote the 15 caucus states are totally under-represented.

Think of it this way. Let's say instead of elections each state held sporting events to decide their delegates. 35 states decide to play basketball games (Primaries) and about 15 states decided to play baseball games (caucuses). Now each of these contests have their advantages and disadvantages but each sport in and of itself is fair. However, the average score of a basketball game is about 10x higher than that of the average baseball game. So, at the end of the day, you couldn't really add-up baseball runs and basketball points to reflect a total nationwide score.

However, if you're trying to find a way to inflate the impact of primary states and deflate caucus states this is a great way to do it. By adding together the scores from two totally different types of sports.

Don't confuse rules with principles.

You're correct on the rules. There are no rules for how a Super Delegate votes. So what the campaigns and their supporters are arguing is over principal.

The pro-Hillary principles are this:
- SDs can overturn the will of the people
- SDs should vote on who wins the "large" "important" states.
- SDs shouldn't consider "small" "unimportant" states.
- SDs shouldn't base their vote on the pledged delegate count
- SDs should vote on who they think can win in November.

The pro-Obama principles are this:
- SDs should support the will of the people
- SDs should consider the pledged delegates
- SDs should consider all of the states not just a few

The issue I have with your math is that Obama's numbers come not from democrats but from Independents and Republicans.

For example, in Virginia, 20%+ of the voters in the democratic primary were independents, another 7% were republicans.

In caucus states like Washington; unregistered voters could sign up at the caucus, independents could register as democrats at the caucus (republicans had to do so earlier) and even those too young to register but who would be of age in November could sign up.

Just doing caucuses disenfranchises working people who, if they aren't working, are usually busy doing 'maintenance' (food shopping, laundry, etc.) to participate.

These numbers are a sham - they are not totals of democratic voters - and they show a nomination being hijacked by outside influances

Eric -

If this is all true, then what should we do?

I think they are arguing over who can win in November. It really isn't fair to say that only Obama supporters are are principled. Eric is right...caucuses do disenfranchise working people, elderly shut-ins, parents that have no one to look after their kids.... These caucuses take hours..who has the time to spend sitting around arguing over who will get the vote. Caucuses also depend on which side can get the most activists out for their side..that is hardly the "will of the people". Like I said...it has never been about who has won the most states...it never is. Not even in November. Also, it is not that the smaller states are not important..but most of these states have always voted Republican and I doubt if that will change. The Democratic nominee will have to win all the large blue states that Hillary won to beat the Republicans..I don't think Obama can win them. There are a lot of rules in the Democratic Party that I don't like...I personally think that if a candidate wins a state he/she should get all the delegate votes. Rules are rules...if we don't like them we should try to change them...but not in the middle of an election.

I am a Washington Democrat. I voted in the WA caucus because it counted. I did NOT vote in the WA democratic primary because it DID NOT count. Do not discount the voters in Michigan and Florida who DID NOT VOTE because they were told their votes did not count. It is neither fair nor just to count the votes in FL and MI as they are.

Anonymous -

I didn't make an argument about the democratic-ness of caucuses vs. primaries. What I said was you can't simply combine the two and get to some mythical "national popular vote." You're adding apples and oranges. As an example, here's the difference between the primary results in Rhode Island and the caucus results in Colorado, relative to each state's population.

Rhode Island Primary
Clinton - 108,750
Obama - 75,115
Population: 1 million

Colorado Caucus
Clinton - 38,839
Obama - 80,113
Population: 4.6 million

Again, I'm not arguing whether one contest is more inclusive than another (this is objectively true of primaries). Rather I'm arguing that to move the goal posts from delegates to "national popular vote" is to frame your argument around a highly dubious accounting practice. One that has the effect of diminishing the importance of the caucuses. Something that Hillary has been trying to do for the better part of this campaign. I want to make sure that people who might base their decisions on this metric are aware of the pitfalls in trying to calculate the "national popular vote."

Caucuses rely upon campaign and voter particpation. Actually having the PEOPLE be actively involved in the nominating process Vs. primaries where someone simply pulls a lever-a passive activity. I surely wonder if Clinton did better in the caucuses would her supporters still complain. In terms of this big state theory. 1. Gov Rendall himself, a Hillary supporter stated he thought BO could win those big states in a general. 2. I do rememeber when the dems won country wide, not simply the northeast, excluding Maine, the great lake region and the west coast. That was before the democratic party imploded and became so fractured ruining it's once strong utity. BO is making a country-wide appeal. Something different and frankly refreshing-I am really tired of the agsnt and probs. connected with FL and Ohio.

In terms of PA. Yes it's demographics are simlar to Ohio. 2 differences though. 1 it is a closed primary (although many are still registering and changing party)I believe that Ohio was skewed just as Texas by repubs. (prompted by Rush)to vote for HRC as they see her more beatable next to McCain. Yes people can claim that BO will be ripped apart by the repub. propaganda machine. I don't know I agree with that as that could turn voters toward him-just like I believe it has with HRC to an extent. 2.There is a 6 week gap between the primaries and that gives him some time to close the gap, and get up close and personal in the manner he so eloquently can.

Obama is divisive. And thoughtless. Instead of bringing Democrats together, he is destroying the party. He is young and could have ran for President in the future. Instead, he chose to be thoughtless and ruin Clinton's only chance at being Presdident. Now we are all paying the price.

What is the matter. Why have you rejected two of my comments? Am I not leaning the right way for your publication? Are you angry because I am not "picking" on Hillary as you in the media are having a ball with?

LOL - you Clinton supporters are truly becoming pathetic.

The "MATH" exercises seem to all be from Obama supporters desperate to end the race NOW, unstead of waiting for the outcome from the voting process.

The negotiations between the Credentials and Rules Committees and FL-MI need to be resolved.

Obama is totally against any resolution, and will be happy to not allow millions of voices to be heard because it could be bad for his chances.

Same thing with the superdelegates. Obama wants them to forget they are superdelegates and instead make them into rubberstamps.

Let's be fair, thoughtful, and thorough, and let's try to be be impartial.

ONE principle should be that we should recognize the primaries for the motley, confusing SNAFUS that they were. (Anyone even KNOW how many delegates each candidate received in Nevada after the aborted State Dem Convention yet? Anybody know how they finished the counting in the TX caucuses yet?

The other principle should be that we do everything we can to allow as many Dem voices to be heard as possible.

Lastly, we recognize that the whole point of this is to elect the "best candidate" against McCain. And except for conflicting poll results I've not heard meaningful dialogue and debate on this central issue.

At a donor call the day before yesterday, the HRC campaign laid out its Victory Strategy: Swinging the SuperDelegates. Rendell confirmed this on a Campaign Conference Call today.

The HRC campaign reassured their donors by presenting a three prong approach for swinging the Superdelegates. According to the internets, the three prongs are spinning:

* The pledged delegate count,
* The popular vote totals, and
* The specific states won by each candidate.

So it is more clear what the tactics will be.

Hillary will spin the Big State Narrative, i.e., she won the important ones.

Hillary will insist that Popular vote totals from MI and FL be considered if not the superdelegates too.

And she will try to continue to chip away at Obama's lead.

Then to Convention she goes.

JLTTravis:
Thank you for your comments. You make a really important point that I haven't come across elsewhere, though I wish the general public could be made aware of it. I started reading the discussion thinking that the popular votes should be given the most weight when superdelegates are taking various facts into consideration in choosing our nominee. I now agree with the article, that the pledged delegate totals should be the primary consideration (out of the ones listed in the article).

to Tracy Doug: Exactly what does that mean, the black vote doesn't matter? Is Hillary surviving only because of the white vote?

You are an ignorant SOB. I don't know why people like you don't just get on your magic carpet and fly to Iraq.

The only reason I see as being valid for Obama not wining the states Clinton has is only because of her roots in many of the cities and those people that owe them from the white house days, working to make it happen for them.

If her name were Hillary Blackeye, would not have won then and Obama would have.

Also, if Obama is the nominee he will win those states, it is not like Hillary won by 50 points or something. Her argument on this is absolutely fantasy, just like her Bosnia trip, a dream.