Andrew Sullivan put up this map from May of 2004:

This is why electability arguments can only go so far.  Look at that map and wonder how that happened.  Ohio AND Florida should have gone to Kerry, let alone states like Nevada.  

Polls in May can be used to create a valid argument, but even if you ignore reasons why Clinton might be polling better than Obama now, Obama would have to be around 100 EVs and Clinton at 400 for them to really spook superdelegates.  Remember that they're the opposite of low information voters; they've seen this process many times before.

There's so much gloom and doom here that I thought I'd break the mood.  Look at the map in the upper left corner.  Pre-unity, Obama has the lead and this is without MI and WI.  

OK now, put yourself into McCain's camp.  What's his plan to win the election.  As I see it, his only hope is to flip NH and OH from that map and then play defense in Michigan, Wisconsin, Virgina, the Carolinas, Nevada, Nebraska's extra electoral votes, and maybe Georgia and Alaska if Barr plays a role.

The good scenario for McCain, barring some collapse, is squeaking out a 272/268 victory, and that assumes pretty much everything goes his way.  It's not over by any means, but we're in a good position now.  I won't say we should relax, but try not to freak out too much in the next few months.  Use that energy to fight some more and we could break 300.

Let's be clear.  It was reasonably honest what Clinton was trying to say.  She was just referring to races that went on until June.  Yes the analogy was flawed in two different ways - the 1968 race didn't start in January and 1968 is not exactly the year you bring up when you want to show how the party can unite after a long primary fight [1] - but the intention is pretty obvious.  I wish more of my fellow Obama supporters could see that.

On the other hand, I can see why they're blinded.  I don't know if Clinton supporters quite get the fear that's been ingrained in the Obama camp.  Both my fiancee and my mother have casually mentioned how afraid they are of Obama being shot.  It just seems like such an obvious target to have the first African American presidential  nominee killed that people have been terrified of this for a while now.  I don't think it's a rational fear - the fact that Obama is doing this well shows how far we've come since the 60s - but I understand it.  

It's not Clinton's fault that she didn't understand the fear that a lot of Obama supporters have.  It's only slightly her fault that she gave a statement that was that open ended, meaning that races didn't always end early, but leaving out the rational interpretation of the words spoken, "Well maybe Obama will get shot.  I better stick around just in case."  What is her fault is that after a day of press coverage, she still doesn't understand what about her statement freaked people out and she still hasn't apologized to Obama.

Political controversies are frequently stupid.  The Bosnia lie, "bitter-gate," "typical white people," all of these were pretty minor issues that get blown out of proportion due to the needs of a 24 hour news station to fill time.  Random comments will be blown out of proportion.  Candidates need to know how to handle that. A quick apology to Obama that understands why the phrasing was so offensive will end this 5 minutes later.  Continuing to not see the problem will dog her for the rest of her campaign, and right now her position in this race is pretty precarious.  

Ironically enough, Clinton's statement about why races continuing into June wouldn't be an issue, showed the exact opposite.  Candidates get tired and don't phrase things quite as precisely as they did back in March.  Groups of supporters are less likely to give the other camp any benefit of the doubt because we've been through a few cycles where each one has been under attack.  You want to know why this race needs to end soon?  It's because we're about 2-3 rounds of this sort of silliness away from being unable to reunite.  Beating McCain is the goal here.

Well we don't know how everyone is reacting, but at least one has weighed in, California Representative  Dennis Cardoza:

I am deeply concerned about the contentious primary campaign and controversy surrounding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan - two states Democrats need to win in November. I will not support changing the rules in the fourth quarter of this contest through some convoluted DNC rules committee process. Yet, we must find a resolution to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates so these states' voters are represented at the Convention. I believe we need to avoid this potentially divisive situation by uniting behind one nominee and bringing the party together immediately. Therefore, I have made the decision to support Senator Obama at the Democratic Convention in my role as a super delegate.

Cardoza was a Clinton superdelegate before today.  There haven't been many signs that the contention over these states is drawing supers to her and here's the first sign that it's annoying people.  Hopefully this will inspire her to ratchet down the rhetoric a level or two.

With all of the arguments here about how Obama is doomed due to polls, this new one is pretty important.   It shows that even now with a divided Democratic party, Obama is pretty close to winning.

Take the MyDD map on the front page and flip VA.  That gets Obama to 266.  Obama would then just have to flip MI or OH or NH or NV or WI to have a victory.  That seems quite feasible.  

As for the difference in Obama's polling vs. Clinton's poll numbers, there's one problem in comparing them.  The question assumes that Clinton already has the nomination, what I'm calling the magic wand theory.  What it doesn't factor in is the way that Clinton would have to achieve it; it would be something ugly involving a convention floor fight and some rule committee votes.

I think there's a double skewing in the polls in that Obama will do better when (or if I suppose) he gets the nomination because the party will unite around the eventual nominee.  Clinton, on the other hand, would actually do worse upon being selected because of the ugliness required.  Anyway, hopefully this poll will start to calm some people down.

OK, before going on, I should clarify that I'm separating add-on delegates from currently existing supers who haven't already pledged to anyone.  At any rate, I just ran the numbers, and barring some incredible collapse like Oregon or Puerto Rico going 80/20 Clinton, I believe Obama can clinch the nomination without having one more superdelegate commit.   The crunching is below.

If people are worried about Obama being swiftboated, they should hear the clips from his town hall today.  He's been impressive, showing the emotion that he sometimes seems to suppress too much.

He kept linking George Bush and John McCain over and over again.  "If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate on protecting America, that's a debate I'll be glad to have happen."  "Our Iran policy is a complete failure...  I'm running to change course, not continue George Bush's course"

Moreover, he's on top of things.  He pointed out the McCain Hammas video that's been making the rounds on blogs.  He mocked McCain's 2013 ad, pointing out that McCain pointed to goals but didn't say how any of them were happening.

It was great.  It's going to be fun to watch over the next few months.  

Like most of you, my reaction to the ending of the same sex marriage ban was mixed.  Most of me was excited than an obvious case of discrimination was struck down.  A small part of me was still worried about November.  We've already seen the God and guns; here comes the gay issue.

Of course, even if this meant President McCain, I couldn't say this ruling was wrong.  You can't keep oppressing a minority out of fear of the voters.  In that case you won't stand for anything other than winning.  Fortunately though, I think this time, it's not going to be that big of a deal.  Follow me below the fold for the reasoning.