Metrics, and May 6

The Daily Kos "letter" linked below makes a good point -- popular vote is a really bad way to choose a primary candidate, given the vagaries of the different states' voting systems. PocketNines, the author, brings out the absurdity of Missouri's popular vote margin counting far more than Minnesota's, because of the caucuses. Wisconsin is another good example. Obama won Wisconsin by 17%, and netted 193k votes from it. He won Minnesota by 34%. Even if he'd won Minnesota by the Wisconsin margin, he would have netted more votes than he's netted in all the caucus states combined.

But what is the point of all these ways of judging who's on top? The issue all along has been, will there be any conceivable way that the remaining undecided superdelegates can tip the election to Clinton without provoking a civil war in the party? The answer is no. Is there a way that the undecided superdelegates can tip the election to Obama without provoking a civil war? Yes. They can do what they're doing -- trickle in for the candidates, making as little an impact as possible. We're down to 305 undecided, according to demconwatch.

But given that the superdelegates are not going to tip the election to Clinton, what is the point of her staying in? We can speculate, but the fact remains, Clinton is going to stay in until she is forced out. How can that happen? If the superdelegates tip the election to Obama. So the question will be, at what point is the decision made that the harm being done to the party (and Obama, the eventual nominee) outweighs the bad feelings of the superdelegates running Clinton out? I think that point comes on May 6. Assuming Obama performs to expectations in NC, after May 6, Clinton will once again be over 600k votes down, and more than 150 delegates down. At that point, Clinton supporters may realize the inevitable, along with the media, allowing the superdelegates to act without repercussions. The point of the popular vote analysis below, and other calculations of this kind, is not to legitimize Clinton camp arguments, but to show that, no matter what, there is no way to give the nomination to Clinton without overturning "the will of the people," any reasonable way you define it.