I think the above article makes some valid points about past presidential elections but overlooks one aspect of campaigning that has changed significantly since 1992 and 1976 when the last Democrats were elected. That is, due to the advent of multiple 24 cable news, the Internet, blogs and the so-called 527 or 504 advocacy groups presidential campaigns now start much earlier and last much longer than before. While Obama and Clinton are slugging it out for the next 5 or 6 months Sen. McCain and his party and their supporters will be able to concentrate on fund raising, planning for the Fall election and healing party divisions and the advocacy groups will be creating and distributing adds attacking and defining both Obama and Hillary while the two Democrats are attaching each other. By not establishing winner take all primaries the Democrats have greatly prolonged the process of selecting a nominee, increased the prospect of party strife and disillution and--in my view--strengthened the Republican chances of victory in the Fall. It should be pointed out that---although I am no fan of Hillary and voted for Obama in my state's caucaus--- if all the Democratic primaries were winner take all Hillary would now have a significant lead in pledged delegates and would probably be the presumtive nominee for better or worse.

If they were winner take all then Obama would still be in the race. He would have 1127 to Hillary's 1443. He would have to win in Pennsylvania, Indiana and Puerto Rico (not to mention carry states he has a lead in like North Carolina and Mississippi). But you are right that the press would have called it after Super Tuesday when she won all the big states.

He would be behind but in winner take all comebacks are easier. That's Hillary's problem right now. She can win Pennsylvania and Indiana by pretty wide margins and still come up short a 100 delegates or more. Barring some sort of catastrophe, (not out of the question in politics) Obama will be the nominee.