WV and KY aren't even bumps in the road to the nomination for Obama.

[cali]

He already has the SDs to put him over 2024. David Axelrod has said so, and the stream of SD endorsements over the past week are evidence of this being true. These folks know that Obama will be solidly beaten by Clinton in the two aforementioned states. It's hardly going to come as a surprise to them. And next week in Oregon, Obama will win solidly over Clinton, triggering the members of the "Pelosi club" to endorse. By the time voting is over in Oregon next week, Obama will need around 75 delegates- at most- to reach 2024. Clinton will still need around 200-225.

May 20th is the end of the road for Hillary Clinton. She'll not only lose Oregon but will have to release her latest financial information. And we all know how dire that is. She may well hang on until June 3rd when the last primary votes are cast, even if Obama is at 2025+, but she'll suspend her campaign long before Denver- she really doesn't have a choice. And the number is 2025, not 2209, until and unless the DNC RBC and Credentials Committee rule differently. And one thing we do know, is that there is no way they'll credit Obama getting 0 votes in MI.

To recap: It's over because Hillary cannot pull ahead by any metric. It's over because she doesn't have the resources to continue. It's over because Obama has the SDs he needs to get to 2024, and it's completely unrealistic to think anything that happens in WV and KY will change that. All we're doing now is marking time until the inevitable occurs, and watching the final death throes of Hillary's campaign. Sure, that's pretty interesting to watch- when will she pull out, where will she make that speech from, how will she phrase it, etc- but we're hardly in suspense about the end results.

[IsItJustMe]

1. No they are not. But desperate people seem to say anything to prove a false hood.

[Bentcorner]

2. What if she pulls ahead again in the popular vote?

[quantass]

6. When was she EVER ahead in the popular vote?

[Bentcorner]

7. She had more votes before North Carolina and Indiana.

I think she will regain the lead after Kentucky. I think that's why the urgency for her to quit.

[quantass]

10. Please explain the Math -- Recall: MI + FL dont count

[Bentcorner]

11. Not for pledged delegates. People still voted though.

[quantass]

16. Obama has ALWAYS carried the Popular Vote (every news source shows)

I even checked "The Math" threads just after PA here on DU compiled using a variety of online sources and it still showed Obama up in the popular vote significantly when you add FL and MI into the mix despite Obama not getting a single vote in MI (which is unfair).

So, please dont spread errors (i wont call it a lie because maybe you were mistaken) without backing up your claims.

And lets never forget that Popular Vote is meaningless but its nice to know Obama carries every single badge in this successful quest as our nominee.

MI and FL will be seated, that has never been in doubt, its the apportionment that wil be decided by the committee and the nominee (Obama). When all is said and done MI and FL wont do any good for Hillary.

[Bentcorner]

20. Have you looked at the numbers at RealClearPolitics.com?

She actually lead int he popular vote before 05/06. She probably will again after WV and KY.

[yodermon]

19. The assumptions under which those states voted make it unfair

to include them in any popular vote totals because the people has been *told* that their votes would not count. Many people stayed home because of this. Plus, the candidates did not campaign there. Who knows how things might have been different if Obama & Clinton could have held rallies & town-hall meetings? You know, like they did in all the other states?

Those states are anomalous, so it's apples-to-oranges to include their vote totals in the popular count.

[Bentcorner]

23. Voting always counts. Don't ever let anyone tell you that it doesn't

Four years ago when I voted in the Maryland primary, Kerry had already locked in the nomination. I still went and voted. Thousands and thousands of Americans have died over the years for the right to vote. Don't ever let anyone try to take that away. Even if somebody told somebody else that the votes would not count. Patriotic Americans still go and vote.

[Tesha]

29. An election with (virtually) only her name on the ballot? Puh-leeze!!! (NT)

[KittyWampus]

12. she never had the popular vote. and there really IS NO SUCH THING as a popular vote

when the primary season includes caucuses.

[Bentcorner]

18. When this process is complete, one candidate will have had more people vote for them then the other

It would be a real shame if the candidate that had the fewest voters got the nomination. It was depressing back in 2000 when the Supreme Court did it and it will be equally depressing if the superdelegates do it at the Democratic National convention.

[cali]

21. How hard is it to understand that there's no way to count the popular

vote in Caucus states? And why would it be anymore depressing if, assuming Clinton did win the "popular" vote, if SDs went with the clear winner of the pledged delegates? Clinton and her surrogates argued that pledged delegates were ALL that should be counted- until about 3 months ago. SDs can decide on any basis. That's the way the system, flawed as it may be, was devised. Thid has nothing, nada, zip, to do with the SC decision of 2000. It's simply ignorant to compare the two.

[Bentcorner]

24. People don't vote in a causcus. They causus.

Neither candidate can get the nomination by the way of the pledged delegate.

[cali]

26. wrong. again. In some caucuses people cast votes. And one candidate

has a lead in pledged delegates by over a hundred that won't be overtaken by the other. Why is that not just as valid a metric for SDs to use? Obviously it is.

[Bentcorner]

33. Pledged delegates aren't going to decide this.

[habitual]

22. but it was fine for Clinton while she thought she could still manipulate them

"A top Hillary Clinton adviser on Saturday boldly predicted his candidate would lock down the nomination before the August convention by definitively winning over party insiders and officials known as superdelegates, claiming the number of state elections won by rival Barack Obama would be “irrelevant” to their decision."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/02/16/top-clinton-adviser-says-superdelegates-will-decide-election-obamas-victories-irrelevant/

and yes, i know this is stating that total num of states won doesn't matter, but it also clearly stakes out the position that it is the superdelegates that will decide this.

now, of course, this doesn't seem like such a good idea to her or her supporters, and we have the new goalposts to prove it.

[Bentcorner]

25. Do you think all states are equal?

To believe that would be to assume that winning California is the same thing as winning Mississippi.

[habitual]

27. zoooooom, that'd be the point flying way over your head

i never said i did, in fact i pointed out that it was about winning more states (which means NOTHING in this primary, as it is not how the nominee is chosen)

nice try. but the point is that when it was useful for her, she was gung-ho to let the SD's decide this. Now that it is not beneficial for her, it is all about popular vote.

can you explain to me why it was so OK for her to continually infer that the SD were well within their rights to endorse her and for her to win the nomination in that way? I'm sure that at the time you prolly agreed and saw it as a great thing. If you didn't, we all know she surely did.

Sorry, you don't get the luxury in this campaign to make a huge issue about SD and their ability to vote for and essentially decide this and then when it isn't working out for you to then say that what really matters isn't the SD but actually the popular vote.

HAHAHAHA, do you really think you're gonna get away with it?

[Bentcorner]

30. I'm sorry that you feel the need to be so rude and insulting. I will pray for you.

[habitual]

31. i could care less, everytime you hear something you don't

like your response seems to be 'i'm gonna pray for you'

woop-dee-do, i don't believe in that, so you do whatever the heck makes you feel better about not having anyplace else to turn.

and honestly, where did i insult you, simply because i refuse to let you move the goalposts without being called on it???

jeez.... where exactly is this insult that is making you all of the sudden pray for me as if I am in the clutches of satan?

or is it just easy to say 'I'll pray for you' when you have nothing else to say and can't help but get the last word in?

[Bentcorner]

32. The "zoooooom, that'd be the point flying way over your head" comment

was more then just a little rude. I'm just sorry that you feel the need to resort to something like that.

[habitual]

36. well, it seemed to me that you either

purposely refused to see the real point of my post or it did go over your head. Why else would you ask me about if I think all states are equal when I am clearly talking about the SDs deciding the nominee and how it was fine for her then but now other things are really what matters (pop vote, states won, whatever...)

If I offended you by saying my point went over your head, then understand that i only meant it in sincerity of my not understanding why you won't tackle the issue of SD but focus instead on something that clearly was not intended to be a part of the argument other than being the particular metric that she was fighting against at the time when she was GUNG HO on using the SDs to secure the nomination.

I think you too would be wondering why the evasion of focus on the issue of SD issue. Which, by the way, you have still not addressed. Why is it OK for her to talk about how the SD should and will determine the nominee when it benefits her, and to change to ANY other metric now that it does not benefit her any longer. And why is it OK for her supporters to bash O for the very same thing that she was attempting to do?

edit: grammar as usual

[cali]

28. Of course in the primaries, all states are equal. That's simply the way

it works. The delegates in states that normally go dem are worth no more than the delegates from states that normally go repub. I thought everyone understood that.

[Joe the Revelator]

8. Then she'll lead in a metric that doesn't have anything to do with winning the nomination

Also, the only way she will be able to pull ahead in the popular vote is by giving Obama a zero vote in MI. Nobody who isn't supportive of dictatorships is going to allow that.

[KittyWampus]

13. you can't argue with teh stupid.

[Bentcorner]

15. I'm sorry that you feel the need to be so rude and insulting. I will pray for you.

[Bentcorner]

14. Even without Michigan's voters being heard, she can still very easily take back the lead in the

popular vote.

[cali]

17. Actually, she can't and it's unlikely that she will.

[Mezzo]

3. Yeah, because they don't COUNT, he doesn't have to care about them...

just like y'all were outraged when Hillary wasn't caucussing in the red states. Same shit. Different day, except NOW that's "ok" with you. Hypocrite.

[cali]

5. I'm simply speaking factually. I'm not saying that WV and KY

don't count, but simply that there aren't enough contests like KY and WV left where Hill can prevail. If Oregon, MN and SD were states where Hill could win big victories, it might be another story. They aren't, and the story won't change. I wasn't outraged at all about Hilly not organizing in caucus states, or about her or Obama not coming to my state at all. (I think we may be the only state that neither of them campaigned in, but hell, we're also the only state bushy hasn't set foot in over the past 7 1/2 years).

You are the hypocrite and the person who's making bullshit up. Shame on you.

[quantass]

9. Outraged? It was hers to lose for not campaigning in those states...and she did!

Obama's reasonings are mighty different with his primary focused on the well rested McCain...he needs to play catchup and his now sealing the deal as presumptive nominee gives him the freedom to finally focus on the important issues by attacking McCain full time...something that has been needed for the last 2-3 months...I think it is a smart move...

In hillary's case, regarding the past states where those were critical to the nomination she, with her poor campaign personnel, chose not to take those states seriously which cost her, at least partly, the nomination.

We are in the final phases of this thing and these remaining states wont change anything...so the more time Obama has to focus on McCain the better...he'd be foolish to focus his attention on these remaining states 100%.

[Apollo11]

4. Way to connect with folks in the heartland!

And while I personally disagree with dividing the continental US between "Heartland" and "Liberal elites on the coasts" - it must be OK here on DU since Obama's favorite Governor (Sebelius, Kansas) used the words "here in the heartland" as part of her response to this year's State of the Union. She was rightly mocked for this divisive language by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.

[Texas Hill Country]

34. nice, huh? WV is dumb and racist, KY doesnt matter.... how many other shitty memes are coming?

[GarbagemanLB]

35. We're just trying to catch up to Hillary's list of bullshit excuses. "Caucus state" "small state"

"red state" "black state"....