This is a completely nonsensical article. This would be like judging the winner of tennis match retroactively based on adjusting the result to reflect what would have happened if second serves didn't count. The contest was held by a set of rules. Competitors develop their strategies based on the rules. To say that somebody would have won under a different set of rules ignores the fact that if the rules had been different the contestants would also have adjusted their strategies. The bottom line is that there were a set of rules all the candidates knew and agreed to them. Who knows if Michigan was going to count Edwards might have spent all his time there instead of New Hampshire?

The author, as many others have also failed, does not understand a simple logical fact:

Winning a big state in a Primary Election has little to do with winning that same state in a General Election. Why? The electorate is a totally different sample.

Let's think this through: In the imaginary big state of Calivania, there are 5 million Democrats and 5 million Republicans and 2 million Independents. In the Primary, 3 million Democrats vote for Clinton and 2 million for Obama. Clinton and Obama split the independent vote. So Clinton wins the Primary. In the General Election those same 3 million Democrats vote for her again, and she picks up 1 million more of the Obama voters. But she gets 0 Republican cross over votes in this general election, and 1 million Independents, for a total of 5 million. Her opponent gets 5 million Republicans, 1 million Independents, and 1 million of Obama's voters, and beats Clinton 7 million to 5 million.

Now, had Obama run, he would have his 2 million loyalists, and say 2 million from Clinton's Primary supporters, 1 million Independents, 1 million Republican cross over voters, for a total of 6 million, and a much closer race with the Republican, who has 4 million Republicans, 1 million of Clinton's 'sore losers' and 1 million Independents, for 6 million, and a virtual tie.

Of course my numbers aren't accurate, but they represent how the math for the General Election engenders totally different considerations from the math of the Primary. Because different groups are voting against different groups.

Moreover, to put forth that 'Winner take all" is more "populist" than Popular Vote, is to indulge in so much of the same Bush-like Reality-Bending that the Clinton campaign has and continues to resort to, that I feel it necessary to question the author's integrity over his partisanship.

I mean, it's not April Fools Day, is it?

This all sounds like the twisted dumb logic coming from the once credible Gov. Rendell. Poor Gov. Rendell has gotten a bad case of Clinton lack of reality disease, which symptoms include a belief that the rules don't matter and spin to win no matter what you take down in the mean time. Rendell has contracted a disease that one contracts when climbing into the diseased, self-deluding, and truth repelling mind of the Clintons. The reason why Obama is winning is he looked at the rules, developed an intensely disciplined, focused and financed campaign, based on the rules. The reason Clinton has lost is her campaign judgement mirrors the Bush Adminstration's Military strategy. Clinton has fired staff member after staff member as she has changed failed strategy after failed strategy all the while being left with only a hail Mary that depends on doing a most Clinton thing; playing victim and changing the rules. Clinton continues to change her message at one moment finding her voice at another moment loosing her recollection of reality. IF the Strategy were different Obama would still be winning because of his organization, discipline, judgment and the fact that droves of common folks keep throwing money at him. Most of all if the rules were different Obama would change his strategy. Rendell types who can only think in twisted logic, here is some; think about if the campaign was about winning geographic area, Obama would be well ahead with Alaska, if the rules were to win in places where there is high population densities, he would be way ahead with all his inner-city victories, if it were just the total number of states that begin with a consonant or a vowel..Well you get it. Gov Rendell I just laugh when I see you, you remind me of Sean Hannity with you passionate spin.

So? If it rained oranges, we'd all make orange juice! The system is what it is--too late to protest against a system because it doesn't favor one candidate.

And what does "make sense" mean? Why does winer-take-all "make sense"? It certainly isn't more democratic than a proportional system. I'd say that we need more proportional and "instant run-off" elections and fewer "winner take all" elections. The suppression of a large minority viewpoint is certainly a feature of the last 7 plus years of W's regime, and I don't think that's a recommendation.

Dan Carmell

First of all Clinton has lost. It's over Mr Wilentz. And she lost because of her stupid war mongering votes in the Senate. And because most of the people in this country do not want Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush presidents. It's over for Senator Clinton...get a grip. Candidate Obama will defeat the senile angry rodent and perhaps the world will begin to see Amercia not as a big stupid bully..but something smarter and more humane.

I've heard this argument before, and what I find disturbing about it is that it assumes both Democratic candidates should have been campaigning under a non-existent, imaginary primary system. The Obama campaign's strategy was designed precisely for the system as it is configured in reality. If the system resembled the Republican one (or even the national election) where winner takes all and a big-state strategy is vital to victory, I'm sure the Obama campaign would have designed a formula more suitable to such a system. So to suggest Clinton really is winning (that is, as long as we refashion the entire primary system to conform to something that simply does not exist) is silly, because it suggests the Obama campaign would use their same system under another set of rules. I'm sure if Obama is the Democratic nominee, he will adopt a very different approach to capture those large states necessary for victory.