"So one should never point out a fact if it somehow minimizes someone's achievement? It seems extremely petty for Obama supporters to simply claim a certain size achievement when the facts would argue otherwise. If he wanted to "maximize his success" perhaps he should win more states where more people vote by the same margins he wins those states where few people vote"

What facts? The achievements we're claiming are pretty macro achievements. Most votes, most states, most delegates. Maybe I've missed the posts by Obama supporters saying that any of Hillary's wins are less than significant for any other reason than: they don't get her the lead.

Clinton supporters, meanwhile, need to parse, exclude, and ignore a large chunk of results before their candidate starts to look competative. How can you seriously claim that Hillary only has to win a select few contests (that don't even give her the lead) while apparently Obama has to win them all? Never mind that he won by big margins in large population states like Wisconsin, Illinois, and Virginia.

"I also find it odd that Obama supporters have no problem, zero problem, with the discrepancy in caucus versus primary and the way it has skewed his lead. Do you deny caucuses involve fewer people in the process?"

Again, I have zero problem with this because it was the playing field that was agreeded to long before any candidate set foot in the game. Caucuses may involve fewer people than primaries, but it is how some states choose to do it. Fire house primaries produce lower turn out than closed primaries. Closed primaries produce lower turn out than open primaries. Primaries have a lower turn out than regular elections. Do we throw them all out? Who foots the bill for the more expensive primaries?

The other thing to note: if caucuses have a lower turn out that makes his popular vote lead even more impressive.

I have no problem with his wins in the caucuses because both candidates had an equal opportunity to get their supporters to them. Am I supposed to view the fact that Obama has an advantage because his voters are educated, energetic, motivated, and well orgainized?

Basically, don't cry about how unfair a having game of baseball is, because it doesn't require as much athleticism as basketball, when you are in the middle of the eigth inning.

Just ask Hillary...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=racTAiemEQU

Thanks Slate!

What funny is that caucusing after Edwards dropped out got even easier. In most, if not all cases you just had to write your preference and you could leave.

Obama will win more states, not just contests, even with a Florida and Michigan redo. If a person's concern is with the size of the state won, that is reflected in the pledged delegate count where big states are rewarded with more delegates.

Obama has a good chance to win the popular vote. With Terry (pay no attention to how many seats we lost under my watch) McCauliff estimating 5 million votes left to cast, Hillary needs to win 56% of the popular vote to get the popular vote. This assumes you don't try to estimate the votes in Washington, Maine, Iowa, and Nevada based on turnout/delegate results.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: in order for Hillary to win the popular vote every remaining state and territory has to vote like Ohio. To make it extremely clear: she needs the same level of support as she got from New York, the state that she represents.

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.