Although it seems completely unlikely by the delegate "count" numbers that Hillary could win the nomination, please consider the fact that politics has little to do with numbers that haven't been counted and more to do with interests that can change the numbers that haven't been counted yet. And there are enough unpledged superdelegates to swing the election in Hillary's favor.

My argument as to why Hillary will win with that reasonable assumption in mind is this:

1. whether or not the delegates from Mich. and FL are counted doesn't matter, the popular vote will be considered from those two states for these reasons: FL is too important to discount and the REAL reason no one else put their name on the ballot in Mich was because the other main candidates knew they would not win... most political "insiders" realize this. I know because I heard this from a democratic candidate's wife (off the record of course, so i wont mention who). So Hillary deserves every vote from Michigan and FL, but not necessarily their delegates because the states did break the rules and consequences need to be followed through with. So what good is carrying the state without the delegates? Well, it gives Clinton the edge to say she is the legitimate popular vote winner. So Clinton gets the plurality of 15,116,613 to Obama's 14,994,998 (statistic from realclearpolitics.com on 5/4/08) add the other states that haven't voted and Clinton is still projected to come out ahead in the plurality of the popular vote.

2. The argument that not counting caucus states misrepresents Obama's electability in the general is a fallacy.

Swing States that are also Caucus states won by Obama: Iowa 25-14 (swings toward Republican). Nevada (by only one delegate and swings toward republican)) 13-12, Colorado 35-20 (and swings toward republican)

The rest of the caucus states are statistically irrelevant (except Texas because they also had a popular vote) because they will most likey go to a republican or democratic candidate no matter who is nominated

Other Obama Swing States: Missouri (swings Rep), Wisconsin (swings Dem)

Swing states won by Hillary by popular vote: New Hampshire (even delegate split with Hillary ahead in the popular vote, swings Dem), Pennsylvania (swings Dem) Arkansas (swings Rep) Florida (swings Rep) Ohio, New Mexico (swings Rep), Michigan (swings Dem)

Now lets count the electoral votes for each candidate for those swing states.

Obama- 42 swing state electoral votes from the general election

Clinton- 100 swing state electoral votes from the general election

As you can see by the data (swing states determained by this list: <link> Clinton is represented by 100 swing state electoral votes- this means she is more electable in the general election than Obama because her supporter base is found in those states that are statistically relevant to winning the election.

3. Clinton carried the "Blue states"

Would be Non-swing democratic states (states that have been voting for the democratic party the last 4 election cycles) electoral votes won by obama -80 (excluding OR)

Would be non swing blue state electoral votes won by Hillary - 155

4. The Media Narrative on the press of Obama is changing for the negative. please read: When press coverage changes for a candidate, their poll numbers change in accordance to the amount of press coverage given to the candidate and whether or not the coverage was overall positive or negative by the mainstream media. For this reason, with the recent change in scrutiny against Obama in the media, we can expect to see a drop in his polls over the next several very important weeks.

It is clear that Hillary Clinton deserves the democratic nomination if she wins the popular vote by her more secure electability alone- not to mention that the economic interests are pointing in her direction.

My prediction is that almost all undecided superdelagates will switch to Hillary after the complete popular vote is won by her in at least a plurality. In fact, I will go as far to say that she will receive a MAJOR endorsement by Gore and/or Jimmy Carter and that will convince enough of the "decided" superdelegates to switch to Hillary.

A vote for Obama in the primaries is probably a vote for McCain. But what do I care? I'm still rooting for Ron Paul.

-jmark

This is more fairy princess thinking. These are all arguments that Clinton surrogates make, and they could be compelling, except - as the author of the original piece alludes to - a route to this actually happening is never laid out. What is the process by which ALL of these supers collectively decide to subvert the popular vote and hand the nomination to Clinton? How would that work?

Possibly by the same fairy dust that would make Ron Paul the GOP nominee.

It would work because it is the superdelegates duty to prevent a populist candidate who doesn't deserve the nomination. They have that power to overturn the election for just this reason. It is the party's bottom line to get a democrat in office, it will probably become more clear over the coming weeks in the mainstreme media that Obama is not a good candidate for the party. That Hillary is electable and Obama isn't. The Republicans will ruin Obama as it becomes closer to the general election. Think of this... Obama keeps saying "Change" his whole campaign is based on change and charisma. But McCain can EASILY point out that he is change too! He isn't Bush either! And that experience is more important than charisma. Obama won't be able to carry the correct swing states. It is for these political reasons, democrats will want to attach themselves to the winner, and the "superdelagate surprise" will take place. It's not "fairy princess thinking" whatever that implies, its how politics actually work. She's more connected to the superdelegates than Obama is, she knows them better and can grant them better favors because she knows what she is doing, actually. And if you read my original post carefully and between the lines maybe, you'll see that Clinton holds the political capital despite prior media portrayal (which is changing in her favor now according to media analysis company Media Tenor), not Obama. Its this capitol that will lead to her nomination and I would place a bet on her presidency.

Some interesting arguments for Ms. Clinton's viability - but in the second-last paragraph it goes south:

"I will go as far to say that she will receive a MAJOR endorsement by Gore and/or Jimmy Carter and that will convince enough of the "decided" superdelegates to switch to Hillary." [bolding added]

???? Jimmy Carter? Are you kidding? Is this the Jimmy Carter who praised Obama, and whose praise the Obama campaign should never, ever, mention?

Superdelegates, here's a sign: if you find yourselves thinking of switching allegiance based on Jimmy Carter's say-so, switch your meds instead.

you're right. I probably shouldn't have mentioned Carter, He's a bit before my time, I'm only 28, so i have no idea what it was like to be under his administration, i made the blunder of assuming that since he was president that maybe he had clout, and i read he was undecided, so i chose him in addition to Gore. Replace his name with any prominent Democrat then... I dont know... Dean? Point made?

-jmark

So...what IS your favorite flavor of Kool Aid, anyhow?

Since you have this all SO INTRICATELY MAPPED OUT, what will happen to your mind when the most likely and obvious thing happens--Obama wins the nomination?

Hillary Clinton has demonstarted over and over again her absolute disdain for reason, arithmatic, common decency, good sense, or respect for the intelligence of the American voter.

In this she is EXACTLY like GWB. Which is to say, a ruthless and manipulative politician to the core. She cares about the American people only as votes tallied in her column.

She does have much more "political" experience than Obama.Please understand this VERY CLEARLY..Obama supporters do not see this as a positive. And she has almost no experience at all as a normal, thinking, feeling, trying to make this country work human being.

She has proven over and over again her absolute disregard for what is actually best for this country and it's citizens. And all too high a regard for her own political victory.

She simply has absolutely no problem lying to anyone in order to score a personal win.

This is the kind of politics we've endured for sooo long. It has to be stopped. She must be stopped.

@ jmark:

The bottom line is that you think Hillary Clinton must and will win because you support Hillary Clinton. Nothing wrong with that, per se. But it does ignore the reality of the situation as laid out by Timothy Noah.

Obama 08!

If the Obama voters are the type of Democrats who will take their ball and stay home in November, better to know now and not count on you ever again. I will support the nominee of the party because our mission is to elect DEMOCRATS.

If you were an objective voter rather than intensely partisan and polarizing identity voter, you would see that staying home would only hurt you and the causes you care about. It could help McCain. What if Hillary's voters felt that way about Obama?

And regardless of what Kos and MoveOn say, they will not dare irresponsibly suppress the vote: Besides, where are they going to go? Ralph Nader?

Come on Democrats. Think with your heads and not your hearts. Love your guy/gal through the primaries and convention. I would think less of you if you were not loyal. But being a Democrat often involves disappointment to reach common goals. Be a loyal Democrat or log on to www.ralphfreakingnader.com and join up with the Harold Stassen of his era.