If the Democratic primary campaign were run as a presidential election, where states were winner-take-all and delegates were selected the same way electors are, with West Virginia's 5 electoral votes Hillary Clinton now leads Barack Obama 300 to 218.

Since it takes 270 to win the presidency, that's not just a victory, it's an effing landslide.

Who's the more electable?

Next question.

What brainiacs like yourself fail to take into account, again and again, is that if the rules were different, the game would have been played differently, resulting in a different outcome.

Hillary relied on a big state strategy, and closing out the nomination by Super Tuesday. Obama chose a 50-state strategy. The rules are what they are and the game is over. Deal with it.

The facts, as stated in my hypothetical case, speak for themselves. Make of them what you will, but they are irrefutable.

Deal with it, or is reality too bitter a pill to swallow?

Obama is a loser, even though he is the Messiah. (In my opinion, the original Messiah was a loser, too, but that's another matter.)

is reality too bitter a pill to swallow?

That you should use the words "reality" and "bitter" in the same sentence -- oh, and let's not forget "deal with it," is more than a little ironic.

Obama is a loser

Hmm. Interesting use of words here. Does that make Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Dodd et al., loserers?

"Reality" will await November. See you then!

You're asking Obama supporters if "reality" is "too bitter a pill to swallow"...now that is hysterically funny! Poor thing, you don't even realize that you have been duped by your own candidate. Not only doesn't she mind making herself look stupid, she doesn't have a bit of trouble with her supporters looking stupid.

Oh good lord, there's absolutely NOTHING redeeming about the woman. The sooner there's less of her pedantic hollering on a campaign podium with her AFSCME and AFT trucked-in supporters on TV, the better.

The facts as stated in your post speak of absoltely nothing other than your simplemindedness.

And the only person in need of dealing with reality is the Hillary supporter who calls Obama the loser. Even if your prick is too small for you to use a normal font for your post.

If Hillary finally announced her concession and you had a feather up your ass, then we'd both be tickled.

Hillary Clinton has already won, been elected President, and is sitting in the White House right now. This "election" is just the matrix -- you think it's there, but it isn't, really.

I'd always thought Obama's base comprised rich white guys and inner-city blacks. These responses reveal that he's cornered the high-school dropout cohort as well.

Ha ha ha!

"If you can't stand the heat..."

;-)

BTW: That's actually Hillary's demographic. At least, the white ones are.

So, Julian... you're predicting that California and New York are going to go for John McCain this November? And you're predicting that Alaska and Utah will go for Obama?

Excuse me while I fall out of my chair laughing.

Here's what you're doing: You're looking at states which are 80% Republican and 20% Democrat, and you're saying "Because the majority of the Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton, all those Republicans will abandon McCain and vote Democratic in November."

And you're looking at other states which are 20% Republican and 80% Democrat, and saying "Because the majority of the Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton, they'll all abandon Obama and vote Republican in November."

It doesn't work that way. Most Clintonistas will still support Obama against McCain, and most Republicans don't give a good goddamn what the Democrats in their state believe. Hillary Clinton may or may not be more electable than Obama--personally, I doubt it, but I'm willing to listen to rational argument on the subject. But what you've got here is on the same level as Clinton's chief strategist talking about how they were going to win California and get all 441 of its delegates... because he didn't understand the system. Neither do you.