BTD, if HC wins these upcoming states by anywhere near these margins, do you really think she should drop out rather than let the SD's decide it at the convention? I have really mixed feelings about that because I think a floor fight would be bad for our party, but I don't want to nominate someone who may no longer have much of a chance to win in November. Though, I'm starting to have my doubts that we'll win in Nov. with either of them.

Today, MSNBC brought on former White House political director Sara Taylor to talk about how right-wing groups plan to attack Sen. Barak Obama (D-IL) over his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Taylor was a top aide to Karl Rove and intimately involved in both the U.S. Attorney scandal and the politicization of federal agencies. The White House had originally blocked her from testifying to Congress, which had issued a subpoena for her appearance.

And democrats just don't hate McCain the way they do many Republicans. I don't think he's scary enough to unite the party all by his lonesome.

Now, big wins in PA, followed by a big win in IN and tight race/maybe victory in NC, then another big win in WV, could start the following narrative that Obama wants to avoid: The Wright controversy has mortally wounded him with all voting blocs except AA's, which gave him a win/kept him close/couldn't pull him over the finish line in NC, but led to big losses in PA, IN, WV.    Though I'm sure he'll do quite well in the Guam caucus, I don't think that will be enough to pull him through.

Clinton supporters have been saying that she should go the distance, giving every state a chance to vote, regardless of whether she was statistically likely to win or not.

I suspect Obama was expected to take out Clinton early in the primaries, and given an edge in momentum with a string of small wins, and strong MSM support, to take him through OH & TX, so he could be unofficially crowned alongside McCain.

It didn't go according to the plan. Clinton's wins in OH & TX were also politically impressive campaigning, a quality slam-dunk regardless of the delegate count. She earned the right to stay in.

Quantitative counts are one measure, but in my view, qualitative measures of electability should be as important, and arguably, even more important, measures of GE electability. It does matter which states, which demographics, which campaign tactics appeal etc.

The Dem primary system of allocating delegates is heavily skewed, weighted heavily towards small states, red states and caucuses. That doesn't mean they should, (or inevitably will), count equally in the weighing up of a decision.

If they received a fair-share of delegates relative to other big states, they probably would be lucky to have one or two lonely figures at the back of the hall.

For all I know, that biased weighting is partly designed to reward the efforts of those small cadres of loyal, hard-working, Democrat partisans living in unwinnable states and regions. Crappy job, but they do it, they man the hustings in solid red territory every election, got to give em something back for that :)  

Rewarding them with more than a fair-share of tickets to Denver for their delegates,  and 'butts-on-seats' for the Convention, is one way of doing it.