I think some of you are missing the point. Winning Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania narrowly doesn't help Hillary in the slightest.
Obama leads Hillary by 160 committed delegates.
Narrow wins in the three big states nets her 35 delegates and that's being generous especially with the Texas delegate apportionment system.
Obama will come close to recapturing that many with wins where he's favored in Oregon, NC, Mississippi, Vermont, SD, Montana
Wins by Hillary in Kentucky, W. Virginia, RI, and even Indiana maybe nets her another 35
Anyway you slice it, Obama goes into the convention with over a 100 pledged delegate lead.
No way in hell the super delegates overturn that lead. They won't do that. Narrow wins in the big three states won't even allow her to overtake him in the total popular vote.
Obama wins. It's over.
I don't think Clinton's strategy is to overtake Obama in pledged delegates, but to rather overtake Obama in the "primary popular vote." That way, she can claim the delegate apportionment system is undemocratic or whatever and persuade the super delegates not to "overturn the will of the people."
Which is basically impossible to calculate because of caucuses, how some are tallied, and systems like Washington and Texas. It's meaningless. Also Hillary's superdelegate lead is mostly because of bandwagon jumpers who endorsed her back when she was "inevitable". Will that last now?
