So many people turned out to vote for Hillary, even after they been told for weeks that their votes wouldn't matter, that's it OVER.   Well, obviously not.  I just love it when the people outsmart the media!  Anyone who has visited realclearpolitics.com  or electoral-vote.com knows that Hillary can beat McCain and Obama can't.  Perhaps that is why so many people continue to turn out to vote for her. They know more than the silly media!  

The total delegate number can't be determined until after May 31.

Hillary has a blow out win in KY but since she didn't ratchet up any accompanying jazz to go with it, her win was all but ignored. Obama lost handily in KY inspite of being the frontrunner, inspite of outspending Hillary, inspite of those religious mailers and inspite of an extremely favourable media coverage. Objective talking heads would take the same into account and wonder whether this is not a problem for Obama.
But instead Obama draws up a jazzy crowd and gives a jazzy speech and the talking heads are all but lost in the afterglow of Obama's smile.

They have minimized her considerable gains and performance, damned her with faint praise, and not stepped in and clarified her true position in the race.

I contacted the DNC and said that my future participation in the GE for President and down ticket depends on the treatment of MI and FL voters.

The Dems have put FL/MI in a ridiculous invented niche and treated the voters as their fate is up to Obama to decide -- and then written them off after he was presented with multiple options that he turned down like a child king.

I won't condone, enable or support these outrageous NOO ROOLZ that dispose of a huge segment of the party in a wild goose chase for unrecognized, untried new voters, an alleged $200m database and speculations of uncollected cash.

Not supporting this, not funding it, not enabling it. If they thug Hillary out of her rightful place, I'm sitting on my hands till Nov. and writing her in. (I'm thinking Clinton / Gore.)

I also think you are an Obamabot who is trying to backdoor your way into convincing HRC supporters to support Obama.

It should bother you not at all that she stay in.

Out of curiosity I looked at TL on the night of NC and IN.  The posts were written for an audience that supports Hillary, but they were reasonably balanced in the facts they present.  I am impressed overall with what your blog reports.

(I expect Barak to win the nomination and want him to, but am keeping my emotional balance to be ready to support the Democratic nominee this fall.  I want to keep my health insurance and not see any new wars.  Also, I believe that the historic support for Democrats this spring gives both Barak and Hillary an excellent chance to win in the fall.)

Her popular vote argument to the supers is a difficult sell. She only leads if you count Florida and Michigan, and award Obama 0 votes from Michigan. Granting him even 40% of the vote would put him in the lead. But to even except the this vote scenario, let alone the idea that noone wanted to vote for Obama in Michigan, you have to accept the vote total logic of comparing primaries, to caucauses, to caucuses with no vote totals, to a primary ruled to not count by the DNC, to a primary that was ruled not to count and only had 1 of the major candidates on the ballot.

Why is it unreasonable to compare primary vote counts to caucus vote counts, yet perfectly sensible to award delegates based on these same discrepant systems?  It is, in fact, reasonable to factor the popular vote into any nomination equation, and it is not quite as difficult as you would like us to believe.  I believe there are four caucus counts in which the votes haven't been tallied. Either factor the votes or a reasonable estimate of these votes into the calculation.  Either way it's not going to change much of anything.

So now the remaining problem is Michigan. Obama himself chose to disenfranchise voters in that state by removing his name from the ballot in bold political manuever that has come back to haunt him.

As I've said before, I'm not a numbers cruncher, but I have paid attention with new interest this season (mostly because Jeralyn and BTD's analyses, focusing on different aspects, have given me a new appreciation of this aspect of campaigning.)

I haven't seen any breakdowns focusing on these new voters / new Dems.

The suggestions about new registrants, where specific numbers have been provided (eg, PA) haven't struck me as any more swollen than the GOTV efforts in '04 and for all the hype about them, the material evidence has been vague.

I also haven't seen staggering numbers of first and second time voters flocking to register as DEMS in such great numbers to justify the arrogance of the Obama campaign and supporters towards substantial voter groups.

Do they really have enough of a Dumpling Dem army to claim this takeover of the party, discard and p!ss off voter groups they just don't like and bend allegedly neutral leaders to the will of this "new" machine?

Where are these millions of newbies reflected in the popular vote and in polls, and why haven't they put Obama substantially ahead in popular vote EVERYWHERE across the land? (HRC shouldn't even be close then.)

Wouldn't this swell also be evident weeks and months before states voted simply by tabulating newly registered Dems across the land?

Why weren't these figures publicized with (or in lieu of) the clarion calls for Clinton to fold in the face of "insurmountable" reality?

Why would gimmicks like Dems for a Day be necessary at all to put Obama ahead in all those "contests in a row" he won (unlike the stupid racist ones Clinton unimportantly won in blowouts)?

What am I missing?

Most importantly, the Dems could have ended this before engaging in a grueling and mystifying 6-week 'Surrender Hillary' push in PA but didn't.

I know the primaries were moved forward in those states and the Democratic Party said they wouldn't count their delegates because of it. Obviously, Mrs Clinton didn't agree to this and has been arguing that they should have been counted all along.

That's the entire popular vote lead for Hillary, a Michigan race where Obama is counted as having zero votes. It's ridiculous.

Florida is more debatable, but I still think that counting a state where both sides agreed not to campaign and not to count the results is pretty ridiculous. It's easy to be high and mighty and say count all the votes, but Hillary absolutely did not care about counting Florida until after she lost Iowa and realized it was important to her chances, and even then she didn't really start driving the issue until she was down by more. Members of her campaign staff had publicly agreed with punishing Florida back when it was to their advantage to say so in front of Iowa and New Hampshire voters.

3. Seat FL with 1/2 votes(supers get full vote).  No MI delegates.  Result: Obama clinched PDM.
   
4. FL 1/2 vote, MI 69-59 split.  Result: Obama clinched PDM.
   
5. Seat FL and MI based on elections that have taken place.  Result: Obama has not clinched PDM yet.

I don't think there will be an outcome where, at the end of the voting process and RBC ruling, Obama does not have the pledged delegate majority (which, if you will, is their moral counterargument to the Clinton popular vote argument).

Clinton needs around a 200,000 vote margin from Puerto Rico in order to have a fairly unambiguous claim on a "popular vote win".  I think she probably would need something like a half million vote margin in order to claim the majority(50.1 percent) of the popular vote.