Clinton cooked her own goose months ago, by forgoeing smaller “inconsquencial” states like the Potomac Primaries. To be fair, Clinton has been cooked for quite a while. Had Obama not weathered his opposition as well as he did, I think things would be different. However, he did everything in the right way and came out on top for it. There is no way the dems would look at this primary season, see how Obama has ran his campaign, see how the people have responded, and then change the tide and vote against him. It won’t happen, the dems have a lot to lose this year by not getting a dem in the white house. As it looks, Obama will be that dem. 
You mean you don’t even wait for a cite from an unauthorized source? 
That’s debateable. True he got a couple more delegates than HRC, but that was due to the Caucus. In the actual Election HRC won more delegates and had 100000+ more votes- she won by 3.5%. It was pretty close, however.
I don’t care if it was due to the alignment of Jupiter and Mars. Clintonites act like delegates are some sort of loophole in the process, and caucuses don’t count. That’s what a nominating convention is — a gathering of delegates. In the Texas delegation, there will be more Obama people than Clinton people. That means he won.
Especially the Demo reaction to Bush/Gore. During the recount fiasco, I heard a lot of people justify a Gore victory in part because of the popular vote in the nation as a whole. After Bush won, there were a lot of Demos grumbling that the Electoral College was outdated and we should move to a popular vote (which would have made Gore president), etc.
I would love to see if that comes back to haunt them if Obama leads in delegates but Clinton leads in popular vote.
Odd that the Obama-ites used to cite things like “ahead in *pledged *delegates” “ahead in popular vote” and “won more states”, when all of those in reality mean nothing compared to “having 2026 delegates”. The point is “won texas” is the debateable term. Obama clearly lost the popular vote. If you had claimed “Obama got more delegates in Texas than HRC did” then that would be not disputable.
Do we really need to say things like “is closer to victory than Hillary is” to end this nitpicking? Hillary will not be able to catch Barrack Obama in delegates without a major shift in supers. She is behind in the popular vote and is likely to stay there unless you follow her math of counting Florida and Michigan without giving Obama the uncommitted votes and discounting the causcuses that didn’t report a vote total because those states aren’t as important as Michigan and Florida.
Obama won more delegates from Texas than Clinton.
Therefore, Obama won Texas. Not Clinton.
Delegates matter, not “the popular vote.”
If Obama keels over from a heart attack ,Hillary would be running for president as the choice of the Democratic Party.
Obama will probably be that dem, and I will definitely vote for him if he does, but even putting aside my own subjective preferences for Clinton over Obama, I can point to one pretty compelling reason why the convention might prefer her. For well over a month now, in polls putting her head to head against McCain, and putting him head to head against McCain, she is pulling more than the minimum 270 votes to win; he is not.
[spreadsheet graph is mine from electoralvote.com data]
On the other hand, just as of today Obama is finally polling ahead of McCain in Ohio and is therefore over the 270 mark for the first time since March, which is very welcome news.
I think he’s going to get the nomination, which makes me nervous. I hope he can pull this off, I do not want to see McCain in the White House in January.
According to RCP, she is ahead (by a tiny %) in two ways of six in possible ways to count. In two other wasy Obama is ahead by such a tiny % it is a tie. In two other ways he has a small lead. None of these ways of counting is “the one true way” ll have some validity, all have some issues.
Popular Vote Total;16,685,941 49.1% 16,227,514, 47.7% Obama +458,427 +1.4%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,020,025 49.1% 16,451,376 47.5% Obama +568,649 +1.6%
Popular Vote (w/FL)17,262,155 48.3% 17,098,500 47.8% Obama +163,655 +0.5%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,596,239 48.3% 17,322,362 47.6% Obama +273,877 +0.7%
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)** 17,262,155 47.5% 17,426,809 47.9% Clinton +164,654 +0.45%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,596,239 47.6% 17,650,671 47.7% Clinton +54,432 +0.15%
It’s real damn close. After PR, HRC will gain quite a few votes, she could *possibly *be ahead in all counts.
What did you do, copy and paste that? What do your asterisks mean?
I think this is because Obama isn’t working his mojo against McCain yet. Once he secures the nomination and starts campaigning against McCain I feel his numbers will go up. Hillary is getting the numbers because she is very well known and the country wants to vote democrat. Obama is new and needs time to tell people what he is all about.
Once Hillary is out of the picture her supports are going to have to start thinking about Obama and that is when he will win them over.
Yes, it’s from RCP. I assumed everyone (in this thread) was familiar with their site? 
I’m familiar with lots of sites, but you didn’t attribute any. So, what do the asterisks mean? Is it Hillary-speak, where she wins if you contort the topology of the universe?
Here’s the references.
Sorry if I wasn;t more clear.
RealClearPolitics.
Dr.Deth - are you ultimately saying that you believe Clinton is still going to pull out the nomination? Really?
One more data point: As of this post, the Intrade Prediction Markets are giving Obama a 90% chance of winning the Democratic nomination, and Hillary a 7% chance. I’m inclined to trust the markets because they require people to bet actual money on whether events will happen, while polls allow anyone to say anything with no consequences.
Those of you who think that Hillary will be the nominee and our next president should consider trading. There’s a pretty good return to be made if you’re right.
ETA: I’m not claiming that polls are wildly inaccurate; that would be silly. But trading in prediction markets gives you a strong incentive to gather information on what other people are likely to think.
No, I doubt it, but it’s still possible. Barring some weird Obama self-destruct, I’d give her a 10% chance as it stands now.
eta: oddly that’s about what ultrafilter’s figures are showing.