I have read Tim Noah's thoughtful and empirically balanced essay and I find it wanting nothing but a proper inference from the facts in evidence.

Hillary Clinton has more than a chance; she has time on her side in her quest to persuade the delegates, super and otherwise that she is the long distance marathon woman who can best take it to McCain in the fall. Obama is ahead on points and that would be significant if that was how this will be decided. But as Tim made clear, this is ultimately a delegates' decision and the last dog doesn't die until the August convention.

Here is why I love Tim's analysis and don't agree with the conclusion: Tim is an admitted Arithmatist. The numbers he cites are all true, but those statistics do not speak to the process which is only aritmetic in when the roll is called in Denver.

Barack Obama is fond of citing the familiar litany of his accomplihments:

"I've won more states, I am ahead in the popular vote, I've got more pledged delegates than Senator Clinton.."

None of those statistics matter at the moment except to pressure super-delegates to get on board with Obama now and create the impression that there is an impending groundswell of SD's about to announce, which will then eagerly talked to death on the 24 hour newswheel of major media outlets.

But those numbers fuel a Chiken vs. Eggs argument: In this case, a Chicken is just an egg's way of getting more eggs. One must be careful not to count eggs until they hatch at the convention. Some may be rotten.

Tim is an aritmetist, so he will appreciate that the distributive component of counting whole numbers at play in the unique indirect system of electing the President of the United States: The real game is using primary results to predict outcomes in states that matter in the Electoral College.

That is where Hillary Clinton has Obama's second claim of inevitability in check because she has won every big state that Democrats must win in the November general election and Obama has won only two that could be considered Big States: Georgia, which Democrats have a less than fighting chance to take from the GOP and Missouri which is a toss-up. Pennsylvania is a must-win for Democrats and Hillary trounced him there y 9.4% two weeks ago. It is not significant to have simply won more states because the without distribution the additive number does not speak to outcome.

Now, About Winning More Popuilar Votes:

If the popular vote was the predictive metric, President Gore would be in his last year of office right now.

And finally, and again, there are NO pledged delegates to be had by either Hillary or Barack: there is no such definition in the DNC rules. Once seated, a delegate is free to vote for the best candidate to represent the party in November.

It is true that Obama has been announcing super-delegates and trotting out a several SD's a week to create an impression of movement and lately, it seems, to change the subject from the intensely negative two week his campaign has suffered since losing in Pennsylvania.

Unless Obama regains his footing by beating Hillary in both Indiana and North Carolina and in the latter by a convincing margin, my best guess is this will go to the convention.

I say that because the polling in both KY and WV curently and massively favor Hillary Clinton. And only South Dakota looks certain for Obama

So Tim, thanks for the research. You did a very thoughtful analysis, but I believe the evidence shows Hillary is still in it to win it and until she isn't no amount of hand-wringing by media and party pooh-bahs will convince me that letting democracy prevail and allowing everyone that wants to vote to have that opportunity is anything but a good thing for the Democratic Party.

GO DEMOCRATS!

"The real game is using primary results to predict outcomes in states that matter in the Electoral College."

No, that isn't the real game. The premise that the loser of a state primary will lose the state in the general election is totally without foundation. From flawed premises you get flawed conclusions.

"But those numbers fuel a Chiken vs. Eggs argument: In this case, a Chicken is just an egg's way of getting more eggs. One must be careful not to count eggs until they hatch at the convention. Some may be rotten."

If there's some kind of an argument in this scrambled metaphor, it's as opaque as a scrambled egg. Or chicken.

"It is true that Obama has been announcing super-delegates and trotting out a several SD's a week to create an impression of movement..."

If Barack Obama can conjure up superdelegates at will to declare for him, then Hillary Clinton is wasting her time, no?

If Timothy Noah's number crunching is correct then the race for pledged delegates will end tomorrow. Unless Hillary Clinton can make a convincing argument to do otherwise, then the superdelegates would do well to ratify the results of the primaries and caucuses so that we may all move on.

Obama 08!

Hey, PWOXBY

I have a suggestion. Let's chat on Wednesday. Perhaps the results of the Tuesday contests will make my point, Logic seems to fail you. You grasp at straws, parse statements of fact to glean what you want to see and draw conclusions you want regardless of the premise. I understand your nervousness, but there is no fierce urgency for Hillary Clinton to drop out just because you would like for her to do so. She will win at least one contest tomorrow and it will be the big one. Gotta Go, Obama is on MSNBC--Hillary is Next.

The Big-State Fallacy: That a Hillary win in a big state translates somehow into an Obama LOSS in said state in November. I've never understood this one, since the vote is only among Dems in those states (apart from a few Limbaugh-influenced Rightie manipulators here and there), and not necessarily representative of whether EITHER candidate would win the state when facing McCain. Unpersuasive.

The Popular Vote: Only persuasive when it comes to moving delegates into one or the other candidates' columns. Really says nothing about the race in November.

In it to win it: Only in the sense that the race could go into the convention and Hillary could somehow wangle a nomination by arm-twisting or otherwise jiving the superdelegates into voting her way. I don't see that happening any more than did Noah...and if it WERE to happen, it would doom Hillary in November, anyway. African-Americans would stay away in droves, as would many other Obama supporters. Many moderates might even be angry enough to go and vote for McCain. Add that to HIllary's negatives, and she loses big-time.

Thanks for posting that. The "big state" issue is key. As it stands right now, even ignoring the latest polls that show Hillary besting Obama on the " versus McCain" subject, Hillary would better run against McCain because she clearly trumped Obama in the must win states. Also do not forget important Florida. Obama has no chance whatsoever to take Florida but Hillary does.

The African-American voters you say would "stay away in droves" would not do so. First they would have been Hillary supporters if Obama were not in the race. Second they are smarter than you think and will vote the candidate they think most concerned about their issues. Third point, the African-American registrations have been huge and that just adds to the numbers Hillary can pick up in the genersl for reasons one and two. You need to quit watching tv so much.

A mere Hillary WIN might not cause black Americans to stay away, but the perception that they'd been screwed over by the Clintonistas would do a lot of damage. They're not voting Repub...but that doesn't mean they'd have to therefore vote Dem. Or they might vote Dem locally and ignore the Presidential race.

It's a lot more complicated than either/or...and it's got nothing to do with what TV says. I actually watch very little political stuff on TV.

"The Big State Fallacy" as you call it is based on experience and there is no reason to believe that the patterns will significantly change in this cycle.

I agree with you about the significance of the popular vote as I so indicated in the first post. However, the distribution of that vote is a major predictive factor of Electoral College success. To get to the 270 required eletors, we must win certain states and Hillary has won an overwhelming majority of Must-Win states including the big enchiladas Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Oh Please, only a fool would stay away with so much of the shared agenda on the line including Supreme Court appointments, the economy and the War policy going forward. I will support either Democrat over McCain and do so happily and with great "vigah!" But in the end, our responsibility is to put a Democrat in the White House regardless of gender, race, or the preferences of the media elites. Just now Hillary Clinton is looking like the strongest candidate, but we have a month of primaries to go and then we will have a better idea.

In any case this will all be worked out in Denver. I would not want to be the Delegate, Speaker or Party Chairman if we lose because some cabal at the top foolishly urged compromise on the electability issue to mollify hurt feelings.

But then, if Obama would get over it and run with Hillary that would be ideal.

Oh Please, only a fool would stay away with so much of the shared agenda on the line including Supreme Court appointments, the economy and the War policy going forward. I will support either Democrat over McCain and do so happily and with great "vigah!" But in the end, our responsibility is to put a Democrat in the White House regardless of gender, race, or the preferences of the media elites. Just now Hillary Clinton is looking like the strongest candidate, but we have a month of primaries to go and then we will have a better idea. In any case this will all be worked out in Denver. I would not want to be the Super Delegates, Speaker or Party Chairman if we lose because some cabal at the top foolishly urged compromise on the electability issue to mollify hurt feelings. But then, if Obama or Hillary would get over it and run together that would be ideal.

@ OpusMagnus:

""The Big State Fallacy" as you call it is based on experience and there is no reason to believe that the patterns will significantly change in this cycle."

Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it less fallacious. The Big State fallacy is debunked here: <link>

Obama 08!