1. Here's the really amazing number from Wisconsin: The loser of the Wisconsin Democratic primary got twice as many votes as the winner of the Republican primary. (440,000 for Clinton to 220,000 for McCain). I know we've seen numbers like this in other states. But Wisconsin is a state that just a few years ago had Tommy Thompson as its governor and in the last two presidential elections, was decided by 10,000 votes in '04 and 5,000 in '00. 2. Can we just stop talking about the superdelegates? This is not complicated. If Senator Clinton comes into Denver without a majority of pledged and seated (i.e., not Michigan and Florida) delegates, she is not going to be the nominee. Period. That would be true in almost any case, but in this case it's doubly certain, because the African-American superdelegates would switch to Obama first. That would create a dynamic in which, for Clinton to win, the white superdelegates would have to override the preference of the elected delegates, the Democratic primary and caucus voters, and the African-American superdelegates. I know some serious Clinton loyalists, but I don't know anyone who would be willing to be responsible for that racialized and ugly outcome. It isn't going to happen. I've made this point to various hyper-knowledgeable people, who want to turn it into a game of margins: How big does Obama's lead need to be for the superdelegates to not matter? The answer, I'm pretty sure, is one. If he has a lead in pledged delegates, he will be the nominee. Which is not to say that Clinton can't sharpen her message, change her tone, and win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania by sizable margins. If she did that, she would win the nomination. But she is not going to win it by somehow convincing the press that she's going to win it by superdelegates or some other means. And everyone on her campaign who is wasting time spinning reporters about how they could win with superdelegates is someone who is not doing the task at hand. -- Mark Schmitt
