Pledged delegates, super delegates, popular votes - all well and good, and for all the nay sayers with an agenda, still a we have seen in recent history. The primary is still too close to call and why should one quit to give the other an advantage? An appearance of having the momentum because most in the media refuse to cover the enthusisam of Clinton supporters, orchestrated victory walks through the halls of Washinton, and making premature claims of victory, still won't get Obama the election? Why?

As of this weekend, despite all the predictions of this race being over, Hillary still beats him 2 to 1 in electoral votes, and this, as any voter or student of recent American electoral history knows, is actually where the winner is determined, or not, in Sen. Obama's case.

In the general election, where all the contender's leads narrow, Sen. Clinton still is at the head of the pack.

So, while the media has confused the electoral process for a horse race, and many openly hoped the death of the filly was a predictive omen for the end of Hillary's race as the first viable woman contender for president of the United States, real, on-the-ground elections come down to the electoral college, and not the reading of entrails.

We're supposed to believe that someone who can't win the nomination can win the general election? It doesn't work that way. Hillary isn't winning in electoral votes. That voting hasn't happened yet. Hillary trails in convention delegates and Obama's lead gets bigger as the superdelegates commit.

Hillary has recently done much better against McCain on the national scale. On a state by state electoral analysis, she's does almost as good against McCain as Obama. Almost....

As for all of the metrics you've discarded, they've all been metrics that the Clintons have embraced.. until they stopped working in their favor.

to be even more hypertechnical, count only the electors from states the dems might win. what difference does it make which dem wins texas?

We'll just have to wait for November to learn that, won't we?

The primary is still too close to call

Not if you do the math. Even if she does extremely well in the remaining contests, she's going to need something like 70% of the remaining superdelegates, which is over a 2:1 break (closer to 3:1). Possible, but highly unlikely.

Hillary still beats him 2 to 1 in electoral votes, and this, as any voter or student of recent American electoral history knows, is actually where the winner is determined, or not, in Sen. Obama's case.

But any serious student of politics should know that primary results don't predict general election results. The fact is that in head-to-head polls against McCain, Obama is up in NY, up in CA, up in NJ--all states that Clinton "won" against Obama. When November comes around, most Clinton primary voters will vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

The Clinton campaign has consistently put forward the specious claim that how A does against B tells us something about how A or B will do against C. But it doesn't. If the argument is that Clinton will do better than Obama against McCain in various states, then the place to start looking is head-to-head polling data against McCain in those states, not the results of Clinton against Obama. The Clinton campaign doesn't point us towards those numbers--possibly because they don't show much if any advantage for Clinton over Obama.

So instead they use "electoral vote" numbers for primaries which have no validity in transferring them to the general election against a completely different opponent. I understand the Clinton camp is running out of arguments, but it doesn't excuse them from using ones that are purposely misleading.

And here we go with the phony metric of the week...

This metric means even less than most of the previous ones. Sure, Clinton won in Texas, California, and New York. And sure, those states have a metric ass-ton of electoral votes. But Texas is also the reddest of the red, and California and New York are the bluest of the blue.

New York and California will vote for the Democrat in November, no matter who it is, and Texas will go for the Republican. Clinton's primary wins in those states mean nothing.

I'm glad you've learned about the electoral college, Vic from Oregon. How did you miss the part that it pertains to the November presidential election, not to the primaries? Or are you a Hillbot moving the goalposts again? Except this move was made weeks ago.

It is not about race at all to me...it is about connections...PROVEN connections...PROVEN facts...and I have found myself wondering who all these people are that I live among. It just blows me away...the total acceptance...the "worship-like" atmosphere I find myself living in now...God bless us all!

HE can do no wrong....SHE can do no right...my my my. Watch some of the older videos of speeches, etc. Never mind...it would never change your minds...you're too deep into the hope...YES WE CAN...oh my goodness...I am in total shock!

And no...I'm not a Hillary supporter...I am not a McCain supporter...and I most definitely am not an Obama supporter...I think our choices this election year are slim to nothing.

Perhaps you should...take your meds...all you're doing is speaking in fragments...and it's weirding me out.