Why is Salon giving this talking points-clutching shill such major play?

That it's not a winner take all system? assuming this guy doesn't work for the clinton campaign then he should be ashamed because this is pure clinton spin. playing by the rules which govern the process, Obama is winning. as far as the idea that he can't win the general , what is that based on? NBC news says that the number of "safe states" for Mccain is LOWER if he runs against Obama. why do you assume that Obama cannot win Ohio or Pennsylvania in the general?

why is it that Red states aren't supposed to matter in the primary, but blue states are? do you really think that Obama won't win Ny, CALI, and NJ in the general. why is NJ considered a "big state", but not Georgia, Illinois or Missouri?

this idea that winning a primary state means you will necessarily win it in the general, and if you lose in the primary you will lose it in the general, is completely transparent Bullshit. if both parties hold contests inan given state, then there is obviously going to be a winner from each party. duh. McCain won the primary in New York and California- does that mean that he will win there in the fall?

Whaaa… Clinton would be winning if we used the Electoral College system … whaaa. Ignore that fact that the winner takes all Electoral College system sucks and should be replaced. Ignore the fact that in Michigan only Clinton, and some other minor candidates were on the ballot. Clinton beat Kucinich (at least Kucinich made an effort to be removed from the ballot) and Gravel so she won and she deserves those votes. Ignore the fact the Michigan and Florida were warned what would happen if they voted early but did so anyway. Ignore the fact that people will vote or vote differently if they know their votes count. I personally will go out of my way to cast a protest vote, but I am not the average voter. Clinton would be winning if we let rules mean nothing … whaaa.

Caucuses are unfair??? I am most puzzled by this statement. I would agree that they do take time. But are we not in the mess we are today because people do not take the time. Democracy is not free. So if we ask our citizens to god forbid, not spend the few hours that they would spend watching Lost or America Idol, but instead to give a cr*p about our country, that makes a caucuses unfair. (Drag your kids along, may be they might learn something about how THEIR government works from something other than a textbook or a classroom.) If not watching TV is too much of a cost to bear then lets make elections a holiday.

Quit your crying. Some people want Clinton to drop out because they are in favor of Obama. Some people want Clinton to drop out because instead of trying to rise above Obama she is taking pages out of the Republican play book to tear Obama down. The 3 AM commercial was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen. Hasn’t enough damage been done to this country through manipulation of fear? If your answer is that is what the Republican would have done. My answer is “exactly.” We should be better. But the terrorists would use “enhanced interrogation techniques.” We should be better. But China and India are not going to cut their green house gases. We should be better.

You know, fiction is a wonderful literary genre, but it should be clearly labeled. Otherwise, readers might think that somebody actually believes this.

While I understand that eveyone involved with the Democratic primaries are trying to find new ways of analyzing the situation, applying a new set of rules to the game mid-way through is hazardous and does not reflect the current situation.

I want to make two points about this. First, if the rules were different, i.e., if it was a winner-take-all system, then the game would have been played differently. Obama would have used his finances very differently at key points, concentrated efforts on different areas, as would have Clinton, and the results would have been different. In the revised game, Obama would probably have thrown a few million more at Nevada and would have put no resources at all into New York. Maybe he would have taken a different strategy, forcing states to be competitive that otherwise wouldn't have been and forced Hillary to fund other places, thereby running down her campaign cash. Heck, if it was a winner-take-all system, he may have had more momentum from Iowa because Hillary would have had no points for third. The campaign might already be over. The reality is, with different rules, he could still have performed well, perhaps even better.

I would like to add one addendum to that, however. If there was a single primary day where Obama would have had to split his money strategically across numerous states with a lot of opponents, Hillary would likely have won because she is the more recognizable candidate. If you recall, Iowa was important to help bolster Obama with the African-American demographic that has traditionally supported him because many were unsure whether or not a black man could be elected, a plausible concern after the candidacies of Sharpton and Jackson.

The system is also important in its present state in that it reflects the candidate who most inspires districts to turn out for elections, something that will help this fall when people show up to vote for a presidential candidate and also vote for other democrats from their district. This is part of the DNC's plan to solidify their lead in congress. In fact, with how few Democratic seats are up for reelection this year in the senate, it could hurt the parties prospect to not have districts organized and excited about voting.

Second, it really does not make sense, with the current situation, to include the votes of Michigan and Florida. With the present rules, their votes don't count. This is because of decisions the states made to defy DNC rules. Because these were not widely contested (Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan) and turnout was likely affected, and Obama would have likely faired much better than he did if it was contested. Clinton could only have her chances improved by this as she was the better known candidate and was more likely to win any state in which others did not campaign. By changing the rules midway, it seems that it is only for the purpose of accommodating Hillary. This is not how a democracy is run.

The analysis that Hillary could beat McCain because she performs better in larger states is an interesting proposition, but one that is unlikely to make a difference. I have a feeling that California and New York will both handily go to democrats, regardless of who won them in the primary, and I seriously doubt that Hillary will bring Texas into play nationally, as it has been a haven for Republicans on the national level. There are also a lot of polls that indicate Obama may bring some southern states into play, like Virginia and Georgia, because of their large African-America population and their dissatisfaction with the Republican Party. If you look at Clinton’s performance, she does not seem as likely to bring these states into play. In the end though, both the primaries and the current polls matter little for the general election and the situation can change quickly before then. I think it is this kind of talk, however, that one candidate or the other is inherently flawed based on electoral maps that could fundamentally undermine the Democratic Party in November, regardless of the nominee.

I also think it is sad that Obama’s campaign is slighted for their attempts to adhere to and uphold the rules. Obama has spoken more about ways to make our democracy healthier than any other candidate. While it is not a part of his platform, he has talked about the need to do away with the single-district, winner-take-all electoral system because it promotes gerrymandering and prevents the full range of ideas from being debated during any given election. Of course, it can’t be a part of his campaign because the states are the ones who decide these rules. But at least he is willing yo talk about this kind of substantive change that could alter the electoral process.