Is that verified? I wasn't sure if he hit that threshold of not. This would be good news because it means he really netted 5 delegates today because he will also pick up the add on superdelegate (the 1-5 superdelegates each state adds after their primary, technically able to change their votes but they are vetted before being selected so it is very unlikely that they will switch. Fun fact: the add-ons from primaries can be competive but caucuses are a sure thing for the winner).

This will likely mean that in a mathmatical sense, Wyoming has had as much effect on the races as the March 5 contests. Partly because the adds ons from that day will likely be a wash because the ones in Texas will be determined by...

....

....

.... The winner of the caucus!

It is almost like one candidate and his campaign understands the nuances of a street level campaign and one candidate and her campaign were just expecting a coronation and couldn't be bothered to actually learn the details of the system.

Your example of an overblown 11 win streak must have taken place in a parrallel universe where those contests included North and South Dakotas, Idaho, Puerto Rico, and Guam. My memory is that it included Washington, Wisconsin, Virgina, Maryland, D.C., Maine, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Hawaii. Different regions, difference demographics, and different systems. Although you might not be far off with your prognosticating that Obama will win South Dakota, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Also, if you think being a Democract excludes a candidate from winning Montana, Kansas or Nebraska, you haven't been paying attention.

Furthermore, claiming that a 100+ pledged delegate lead is insignificant because it takes 2025 to win the nomination is ignoring the reality of how the delegates are divied up. Because of proportionality it is very difficult for a candidate to get a large number of delegates from any win so every delegate is a significant gain. Yesterday, for example, the thresehold to move from a 7-5 split to an 8-4 split was getting 64% of the state delegates. Last Tuesdays "big" contests only netted HRC 4-6 delegates. When a 10 point Hillary win in 370 delegate California only nets her 36 delegates it becomes clear how significant a feat it is to get a 150+ Obama pledged delegate lead.

If the point was to show the "silliness" of the streak, why not just list what states were won in that streak?

Regardless of what one superdelegate says, a 100 pledged delegate lead is an extremely tough lead to get. Maybe the Oregon Secretary of State doesn't think so but his opinion isn't every superdelegates opinion. Anyways, let's see which way his endorsement goes after the Oregon primary.

For Hillary, just getting it down to a 100 pledged delegate lead will require her to get 55% of the remaining pledged delegates. Which means that every state from here on out has to vote more or less like Ohio. If Obama wins places like Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota then it starts to mean that places like Pennsylvania, West Virgina, and Indiana have to vote like Arkansas. Again, this is what she has to do to _only_ lose the pledged delegate count by 100.

From that 100 pledged delegate difference she needs to convince 57% of superdelegates to vote for her. If there is no net endorsers switch then she has to pull 61% of the superdelegates that have yet to pick a candidate.

If Obama supporters seem to not care about the difference between caucuses and primaries it is because caucuses are a tradition that hasn't really been questioned until a major democratic candidate with poor orgainization skills decided to paint them as unfair. I don't recall seeing Hillary say anything negative about the caucus process when she was in Iowa. The Hillary's caucus/red state complaints are just another example of her situationally based umbrage (see also: her treatment of John "Janet Reno is ugly Chelsea's father" McCain versus her treatment of David "Pimping" Schuster or Susan "Monster" Powers.)

The nominatation process is a complex system with a variety of rules that were known well before the first vote was cast. Obama is winning by those rules and it seems extremely petty for Clinton to try to minimize his success. Well, verbally minimize his success, if she wanted to actually to minimize his success she would win more contests by larger amounts.

Obama's pledged delegate lead is equivelent to more than four times what Hillary got out of California. That is not insignificant. To say it is insignificant is like trying to judge soccer scores as if it were an NFL game- "Manchester wins 7 to 3? so close, just a touchdown away".

It is also significant because that lead goes to the superdelegates which is a much smaller number. The question goes from how significant is a 100 delegates out of 3253 to how significant is a 100 delegate lead when looking at a 718 delegate pool (where 437+ have already declared a preference).

The really fatal flaw in Hillary's strategy is that every state sends superdelegates. Her line is that she should get the votes because her states matter and Obama's don't. Good luck getting to that 61% mark with that sales pitch.