Had no idea the popular vote was shaping up like this.

After last night, Hillary has the makings of a very strong case.

I also believe she has to dive into places like MS and Wy head first and really pull out the stops to win those states. Who cares about the expectations game, she needs to stop taking them for granted and letting BO run up the score.

The popular vote is Hill's best argument going forward.

Seriously, even if one of them takes a small lead in the popular vote, is that going to be seen as decisive in terms of selecting a nominee?  I just think this is going to come down to party leadership, superdelegates, and backroom deals to try to get a compromise position that can bring people together in a way that makes the results of the process seem credible.  Right now, the lack of credibility in the process is what I think it's bothering lots of people.

I think this is significant for it debunks the notion Obama was not known in FL or that he had no opportunity to "bring his messaage to voters".

He did with TV Ads and he was the only one to do so. The influence of TV Ads cannot be underestimated : exit polls show that people who were influenced by TV Ads. For Ex. in the Potomac primaries exit polls indicate these were close to 60% of the voters and they voted overwhelmingly for Obama (source CNN).

Could BTD or Jeralyn please comment on this ?

Then I'd say the popular vote is close enough to let the super delegates decide based on their own rational. I say that instead of let the popular vote decide because those numbers still include lots of republicans and independents (that are republicans) as well as legitimate independents.

Obama's caucus attendees who had as much as a 10-to-1 power in delegate allocation over voters in primary states.

It was as if each of these Red State Behemoths were given 10 ballots, where primary voters were only given one.

I think this fact needs to be a greater part of the conversation.

If you project ahead to results in delegates giving HRC a series of wins (particularly in contests that are closed to Dems only), then she has an opportunity by the end of the primary season to draw even in total delegates (including both pledged delegates and S-Ds).

Both candidates would be about 200 delegates short with about 352 uncommitted S-Ds.

Meaning one of them will have to come up with about 57% of the remaining S-Ds.

Certainly achievable by either candidate, but what if it came down to Edwards' 26 delegates?

Makes for what I think will be a fascinating convention because I don't think either candidate will back down nor do I think either candidate is required to step down.

Of course, my projections are rosy for HRC, but not wildly so.

Obama will try to stop the momentum in Wyoming and Missippi then both will have over a month to focus on Pennsylvania and two other substantial states in NC and Indiana.

The bottom line is it is really close. The will of the people is undetermined as of yet.

I did some quick calculations, based on my own numbers, and Obama is still up by 206,000 votes.

I assign all uncommitted in Michigan to Obama, use the Washington state primary results rather than the caucuses, split the Iowa and Nevada caucuses based on estimated participation and exit polling, and with the other caucus states I use participation numbers/estimates and divide them up by the delegate count when delegates, rather than than participants, were reported.

These people that keep saying the race should stop because it will hurt the dems are silly. If the dems can't handle a bit of mud slinging then they need to go home and tend to their booboos.

I want it to continue as long as neither has won the magic number. Period. Then let it be hashed out in the convention the way it should be. Smoke and all.

We had about 200.  REading  our paper this AM apparently we were not the only precinct targeting with a specific ObAMA strategy --which of course may have NOT been an official stratety  from "on high" --The strategy was : get the packet from the election Judge (either candidates precenct captain is elligible)-- be the first to get it-- get yourself elected to the chair position use person authority aka "pushy personality attributes" to get control of the process and the interpretation of the rules from the TX Dem HQ.  Have people sign in  write in their candidate of choice....and then tell them they can then go home.  BECAUSE once the math and all the verifying is done -- the delegates  chosen are up to the few folks that stay -- and the rules allow for changing from one candidate to another at the end if they want to !!!!!!!!!  Holy cow -- this is truly back room politics  !  Because the hillary's well out numbered the Obamas (I was really surprised !!) -- I was able to insure that they (the pushy peole) couldn't take it... the hillarys had too many well spoken and determined folks.  My initial announcement was about the process (to the group) while the Obama lady was grabbing the packet.. That the initial process would be... BUT that the rest of us only have to follow Roberts Rules and object to any of the process that does not appear to be fair!!  Whew -- The one tall Hispanic, loud lawyer was for Obama and thought he and the pushy lady were going to ram this down our throats -- but the numbers prevailed and we barely had enough determined people to mill through the crowd and empower them with the rules...

• Obama has won the most states and territories   (27-15)
  
• Obama will likely increase his state-by-state lead to 34-20
  
• Obama has the most pledged delegates
  
• Obama will have the most pledged delegates even if the race goes all the way through Puerto Rico, and Michigan and Florida revote
  
• Obama has the lead in overall delegates when including currently committed superdelegates
  
• Obama leads in the national popular vote
  
• Obama's lead in the national popular vote is unlikely to be washed away, even if Michigan and Florida revote--and perhaps even if their unsanctioned contests are counted
  
• Obama does better than Clinton against McCain in general election polls
  
• Obama has raised more money, and has greater potential to raise more as the race goes on

What's going on?

Unless you buy into the Clinton claim that caucuses are meaningless, the margins have meaning: margins in caucuses reflect popular support.  Not in terms of raw numbers, but in terms of enthusiasm.  Intensity of support matters, because turnout, not registration, is what determines the outcome on election day. That is a metric that super-delegates will value. While winning a caucus may not add much to your total in the popular vote, caucus wins by large margins show mobilization and organizational strength as well as voter enthusiasm.

Moreover, some states are of larger population than others.  But just as we have a Senate that has Senators allocated on an equal basis to offset the proportional reward of Representatives in the House, we have delegate allocation systems that grant more delegates to large states, but not one delegate per voter who arrives at the polls, because then large states would render the votes of smaller states irrelevant, and the nomination process would not take into consideration the voices of party members across the nation. The goal is to assemble a coalition around the nation by garnering a simple majority of delegates, not simply to win the biggest states and claim larger populations should outweigh smaller populations. That defeats the point of having a delegate system that calibrates the vote weights, much as making the Senate proportional would skew Congress toward the power of big states, rendering small states powerless and defeating the point of having two houses. So arguing pure population is absolutely absurd and circular.  Again, the way to fairly evaluate this is the ratio of the popular vote in each state on a state by state basis. So Clinton's 10-point margin is impressive and deserves credit. But it shouldn't outweigh Obama's 17-point margin in Wisconsin simply because Ohio has a larger population. The balance for that is the fact that Ohio has more delegates because of its larger population. Counting Ohio's population separate from the delegates awarded distorts the balance already made and is a self-serving attempt to erase the value of Obama's margins in smaller states. To claim this isn't simply cooking the books is a lie.

To see why, let's pretend that Ohio was unusually large and that Clinton won 17 million voters there and 10 net delegates. Then let's pretend that Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Guam, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico all were primaries with 2 million voters in them sum total and Obama won them all 52%-48%, netting 12 delegates. Your argument is that Clinton's 17 million voters beat Obama's 11 victories in a row that put him in the delegate lead simply because Clinton happened to win in one larger state. You can say "Caucuses are undemocratic," but my point is that your argument works in principle against primaries in states with lower populations. It's simply a disenfranchising argument designed to rewrite the balance set by the DNC in having primaries and caucuses that award delegates to show a variety of metrics.