Well no shit.

If only these primaries had come a couple weeks ago, back when the popular message was "Hillary needs to win BIG to stay in the race." She will probably once again lose delegates (that's 10/10 days where she fails to win the delegate count for the day, I believe) but, for whatever reason, the media is still touting a huge win for her.

Funny, I thought that the press hated her?

Well, the thing is this...Superdelegates are only used when the party is severely split, and it is. The number of actual earned delegates that BO has over HRC is relatively insignificant compared to the importance of general election battle ground states, and the fact that the popular vote is at 45%/45%; equal support from democrats for both of them. It is quite conceivable, given HRC's wins of general election battleground states, coupled with the popular vote being equal, and add to that her hands on experience living in the white house and 8 very successful years in the US Senate, for the Superdelegates to determine that she is the best nominee to beat McCain, once she is formally noiminated. Whatever polls are out there right now concerning the general election are no where near reality, once the DNC is behind their candidate.

Once the dust settles a bit this day will be very much like Super Tuesday, and Obama will have, at worst, battled Clinton to a standstill. He will continue to hold a 100+ pledged delegate lead. Thats the only number that really matters. The rest of the "analysis" provided by the pundits is mere mental masturbation.

The Obama theme should be: a vote for me is a vote for McCain. His "winning" the caucus in Texas afer losing the popular vote proves how misleading his "victories" have been. He will get clocked by McCain in November. He should cede the race to Hillary now (or after Penn. would be better) and then team up with her to win in November. If he gracefully bowed out, he'd clinch the party's victory. This should be about DEMOCRATS winning in Nov. He can't win except as a democrat campaigning for Hillary.

FYI: The Texas Caucus

Perhaps understanding how the Texas Primary-Caucus works and its purpose will help alleviate concerns and erase any doubts people may have.

Texas has a 3-tier caucus system. Tonight we completed the first tier. The second-tier takes place 29 March at the Senate Convention. The third-tier will be completed in June when the State Convention takes place. So the actual number of delegates won will not be determined until then.

The Texas caucus gives ordinary voters the opportunity to become a delegate. My precinct was allowed sixteen delegates and 16 alternative delegates. Iam an alternative delegate which basically means if one of the delegates cannot attend the senate caucus one of the alternative delegates will take that person's place. If all sixteen cannot attend, then all 16 alternative delegates will attend instead.

I understand it sounds bizarre, but its importance cannot be ignored. Think of what it means for an ordinary voter to have the rare opportunity to participate as a delegate.

I think it is awesome.

Although people argue the contrary, I believe the longer this goes on, the better the chances for McCain in November. After all that's happened, I myself am going to need A LOT of time to used to idea of voting for her in November.

The thing that needs to be clear to Hillary supporters at this point is that her only path to the nomination involves overturning the pledged delegate count.

The negative campaign path that HRC has taken is tearing the party apart, and what is it gaining? Certainly not delegates for her.

McCain has a general election problem with his base. The only solution to his problem is for HRC to get the nomination. The republican base will rally, and independents will flock to him as well.

It is not Obama who is tearing the party apart, it is HRC.

Congratulations to everyone who rewarded HRC for going negative with their votes. And so much for her high-minded calls to have a presidential race based on issues. Didn't she slam Obama for playing to the Republican playbook earlier in the campaign? She certainly advanced the republican playbook muslim-smear campaign ahead a few inches...

And what about her "change you can Xerox" criticism in the debate? I think she was "Xeroxing" the 'yes we can' slogan tonight in her victory speech...what was it, 'yes we will?' with the crowd chanting 'yes she can?' That campaign can't even craft a clear message when stealing a slogan.

Going negative and stealing campaign slogans. Boy, she really is the candidate of solutions.

"Obama lost big tonight."

Rhode Island -5
Vermont +3
Ohio -7
Texas -4+8

Total -5

If that's "big" then we're in wonderful shape.

What shift in momentum? Clinton blundered nearly twenty-point leads.

Has anyone done the math with new primaries or caucuses in MI and FL, which is looking more and more likely?

The path to victory is not with pledged delegates. neither can get enough to win. Only the supers can decide this contest and the question is how will they go? Will they go with their state delegate count? State popular vote count? National delegate count or national popular vote count?

I think enough of the supers will wait to see how the contest unfolds, probably until the convention. Then they will vote to give the nomination to who ever the average American perceives "fairly" won it. If Obama wins the most Texas delegates and Clinton the popular vote it won't be perceived as "fair." Clinton will push that idea and if she gets the popular vote nationwide she'll get the nomination. If obama gets the popular vote he'll get the nomination. Especially since he will get the most pledged delegates.

There is a small possibility of a back room deal where Obama wins both the popular vote and the pledged delegates but Clinton gets the nomination. Only way I see that is if he accepts the vp slot as part of that deal and is sufficiently committed to it to sell it to the American public. It would be a tough sell even for him and take all of his rhetorical skills to make it fly.

I'm confused. If primaries are about delegates, and all things considered there is no way Mrs. Clinton can surpass Mr. Obama in delegates and go on to win the nomination, then why is she still running?

We're now faced with two possibilities:

1. Clinton successfully mud slings her way to the nomination, loses general in a way that would make Mondale feel better about himself. Epic fail.

2. Clinton doesn't slime her way to the nomination, but pre-smears Obama enough that McCain can keep pouring it on. By the end, Obama's in Guantanamo for his lack of patriotism, McCain is in White House. Epic fail.

Thanks a lot, guys. Democrats: stealing defeat from the jaws of victory since 1968.

Matthew, I'm a fence-sitter here but you are without doubt an idiot. Obama was behind some 20-25 points in these states before. He won Vermont handily. Also looks like he's won in Texas-- just about a tie in the primaries and a clear, big win in the caucuses.

In fact, not only did Hillary fail to even remotely dent Obama's delegate lead tonight, she'll at best tie and may even fall further behind by a delegate or two.

I'm a Democrat above all who just wants to see this damn idiocy come to a close and a nominee declared.

It's clear that Hillary will never catch Obama now-- Obama has a big lead in delegates, in popular vote, and in states.

IT'S OVER!! The Democratic Party needs to unite behind a candidate, and if Hillary actually cared about the Party and the country's direction, she would step aside.

He's right, it looks good for her for people who don't know any better, but she is out of comeback states. The math doesn't add up.

And I seem to remember someone telling us it was a delegate contest, and states don't matter :P

the next few days will be all about SPIN SPIN SPIN...The media will be glowing about HRC today, and come thursday the media will come down of its high and look at the delegate race and see that she didnt really gain much.

I am predicting that by the weekend, the calls for her to quit will be returning. NO one will say anything now, they will let her bask in her wins, but by the weekend and early next week, the calls will be back on for her to suspend her campaign...

I am a firm believer in the "focus on the delegates" mantra coming from the Obama camp - not just because I'm an Obama supporter, but also because I think it's the only way to read the outcome of an election (2004 springs to mind). But there's something that's bugged me all along about the delegate allocation process, and it bugs me even more tonight. In many states, delegate tallies are being made based on county vote counts, but the delegates aren't actually awarded until state conventions in late spring or so. I remember hearing that in WA, at least, there was additional confusion because Obama supporters showed up and then left, so when it came time to choose the actual PEOPLE to send to the convention, Hillary supporters were the only ones left. With all the talk of Hillary's strategy relying on superdelegates, MI and FL, I wonder if we're missing something? Is Hillary fighting the spin war so hard in order to convince not just superdelegates, but also state delegates, to support her at their conventions? For example, the Clinton camp is threatening "challenges" to the TX caucus system, but obviously they would need to think long and hard about the damage filing a lawsuit would do to their image and to the party. Would a concerted effort to win over TX caucus delegates before the state convention in June be a more palatable, and ultimately successful, strategy? The argument seems straightforward enough: "we won the state vote count, we should win the delegates." Is it possible that this is what they're trying to do?

Can they claim the upper hand in places like VA, MO, MD, and WI?

Obama is winning both. Please don't spin this like the MSM. The fact that Obama supporters are organized 1,000x better than her supporters is a GOOD thing.

Lot of denial going on here at TPM. This site is better when confronting the obvious: such as that Albert G. is a dishonest AG. The democrats have rigged up an election where it is difficult to come out of it with the strongest candidate possible. This makes it hard to see but yesterday clarified things for those with eyes unafraid to see. Hillary attracts the base democratic voters--the lunchbucket, the Reagan dems in winnable states, whatever you want to call them. Obama gets AA votes (his only dem base vote, who will vote for the dem cand. b/c they understand elections are not just games), the so-called wine trackers with their high degrees, and crossover republicans, distinct from Reagan dems (not all of whom are committed to him). Obama is in many ways an attractive candidate. But he cannot win in a GE. That's what yesterday and Super Tuesday proved. I wish that were different but it is not. You think those Southeastern Ohio voters will vote for him in the GE? No way. Kerry didnt get them either. Clinton did and does. McCain will crush Obama in the GE. He needs to back out gracefully by the end of April or he is going to destroy the party.

TPMers need to put this election in the context of past dem. GE elections since '68 (some noble candidates) and then take a hard look at Obama. Do you want to beat McCain or do you want to pat yourself on the back for voting for another losing candidate?

If it is the latter, I hear Nader is running this year too.

Wake up before it is too late.