This is impressing no one. Least of all the superdelegates. They went with the "safe" Hillary Clinton choice twice before, Gore and Kerry. We lost both times.

The last time they won was when they went with the young, inexperienced, male candidate with a ton of baggage going into the election that no one thought could win.

If we're just getting down to cold, hard electability facts that's what they should do again.

Hillary Clinton doesn't even want to START on who's unelectable because of scandals. And she knows it. She's (wisely) steered clear of this, because she knows as well as I do she's toxic in the general election, and she's hoping she'll skate by long enough for everyone to forget it. 60% of the country doesn't think she's honest. 55% of them have an unfavorable view of her ALREADY. Hillary Clinton's unelectable. I know it. You know it. The superdelegates know it. It's why they're moving more and more towards Obama everyday. Any Clinton supporters really want to examine how many superdelegates have moved towards Obama v.s. Clinton since Super Tuesday? Since Ohio (which she claims is one of her great triumphs)? Since Texas (which she actually lost)? How about since Pennsylvania?

If all we have to do is say we're disappointed in the superdelegates who aren't voting for our candidate, than fine: I'm disappointed in all of the superdelegates who aren't voting for Obama.

As others have noted the Clinton campaign needs to be worrying about the superdelegates they keep losing to Obama every day: including Joe Andrew, the former head of the DNC and Indiana superdelegate today.

As others have stated you're looking at a different electoral map vis-a-vis Clinton and Obama.

Clinton needs Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania to win the general.

Obama would only need one of the three.

Yes Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia, Missouri and Maryland aren't huge states, but they ain't small either. You throw these in (none of which Clinton would win) and you begin to see the electoral math.

One scenario (that we went round and round about a while ago) that is highly plausible and would do it for Obama:

All Obama needs to take is: Oregon, Washington, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and Hawaii. That's it. 278-260 right there.

Now no electoral scenario is perfect but this just isn't as hard as it seems. Check McCain's record in Michigan. They HATE him there. Google his speech up there when he was running against McCain. Plus it's a Midwestern state. So he's not losing it, Iowa, Wisconsin or any state bordering Illinois in a general. Frankly I'd add Missouri (which has a sizeable black population in St. Louis, Kansas City, and Jacksonville) but we can leave it out.

So we're basically down to having a problem with one state for Obama either Pennsylvania or Ohio. Again, I hate to say this, but he ain't the first candidate to have one difficult state. Oddly enough he's the first candidate I've heard is suddenly "unelectable" because he has a difficult state. News alert: No one's going to waltz into the White House. We're going to have to run an election either way.

Anyway we can debate it till the cows come home, but that's how he wins it. Now if we're ever allowed to actually address the other side of the coin (which at least half of us think is true) which is that Hillary Clinton is electable I'd love to hear it. Because I have yet to hear any of her supporters tell me how she's going to overcome the fact 60% of the electorate think she's dishonest, she's got a higher unlikability rating than any candidate we've seen in modern American history, and she mobilizes the opposition like no one we've ever seen before. And that's without throwing in the fact you lose your entire African-American vote, lose an entire generation of new young voters (which you need to overcome an electorate that up until George W. Bush has been leaning to the right since 1980) and one of the most amazing fund-raising apparatus (the Obama organization) any party has ever seen. Oh yeah, and the fact you'd be overthrowing the candidate who WON according to the rules you set forth.

I'll go with you on some of those. To me either Nevada or Virginia will be largely mitigated because, at this point given Obama's weaknesses (which aren't as large IMHO as others think) and what he'd need, either Jim Webb (D-VA), Tim Kaine, Mark Warner or Bill Richardson would probably be his V.P.

One of the reasons I think Webb would be such a good VP candidate is because I think he pretty much inoculates you against any military/guns/working class white voter attack. With him on the ticket, pretty much anyone becomes much more viable in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Nevada I think you could take. And Kansas, to me given his family's history there and his strong support from Sebelius, probably falls Democrat if he's the nominee even though it wasn't on that list.

The point is it's not as undoable as many are trying to make it out to be. He's simply not unelectable. Anyone who thinks any election is going to be a cakewalk is wrong. I also agree with you it's important to do this kind of analysis.

Also I stand corrected. Looked at the map and the site you had. You are right Hillary only needs 2 of the 3 (PA, FL, OH). I still don't think she can take Florida from McCain and I think she'd be hard-pressed in Ohio but you make some good points.