Feel like the room is spinning? See if this helps:
1. "Obama's not electable" is a dumb argument. First off, he's still winning. Second, he already fares well in head-to-head polls against McCain, and he hasn't even opened 'er up yet. Obama facing McCain is going to be such a juxtaposition of new vs. old that the latter won't stand a chance. Remember, Republicans aren't crazy about McCain in the first place. One Obama convention speech and some focused campaigning, and he'll be just fine. Third, don't forget Democrats are split right now, but their voter turnout has been considerably higher than Republicans. Once the party unites behind one candidate (and I have faith that, in time, they will), Democrats have the opportunity to dominate in sheer numbers alone. (That is if they're not completely exhausted and disenfranchised by then). And fourth, as Markos smartly points out:
[I]n today's world, the ability to raise money is part of "electability". Obama has a ton of it. Tens of millions sitting in the bank and the ability to raise tens of millions more at will. The Clinton campaign, despite boasts of having raised a few million since last night, are deeply in debt.2. The popular vote is not a fair metric in a mixed primary system. I wrote about it here on Americablog more than a month ago. I think it's time to drag the post back out again. Just because the concept is a little tough to understand does not mean it's wrong. Terry McAuliffe et al can scream "popular vote" all they want, but it doesn't make them right. They would have an argument if all states used a primary. But they don't. Caucuses are harder to participate in (they demand more time and commitment) and, therefore, draw fewer voters. Causes states are then represented considerably less in the popular vote than primary states. It's why the delegate allocation exists. You can't toss out the contest because you don't like the outcome. I don't know how we've gotten to the point that the press isn't willing to cry foul at the very first suggestion of it.
Which campaign looks more electable on this front? The campaign that is flush with cash and can easily raise more, or the campaign that is scrambling to get out of debt?
3. Finally, "do or die" night kind of loses its punch the umpteeth time around. I really really really wish this would all come to a close already. Can't we smush together all the remaining primaries and just get them over with? It'll be like ripping off the band-aid. All we're doing now is postponing the inevitable, and it's just getting worse. Please don't take this as some huge anti-Clinton slam or some declaration that later voting states count less than the earlier ones. I've just had enough. I think after the past couple of weeks, it's officially okay if you have too.
Main & gay blog