How do they count that?

How do the states break down?

Do they include all the states that have voted?

Were you paying attention in 2000? I'm genuinely curious, here.

The issue in 2000 was over Florida's electoral votes. No one arguing for the Gore campaign made a serious case that because he won 500,000 more votes than Bush nationwide, he should be President. They were arguing about the 500 votes in Florida instead.

Gore knew he had to play by the rules and couldn't change them mid-game. The benchmark for becoming President was and still is 270 electoral votes.

Okay, so we caught you in a dishonest moment. There was no time in our modern primary system that the scenario that you outlined took place.

You might want to edit your original post.

First of all, you should give us Pelosi's actual quote instead of someone else's possibly biased interpretation. Don't you trust your readers enough to make up their own minds? Where are your primary sources?

Secondly, since it is the most important measure in your opinion, can you show us a popular vote total that accurately reflects the will of the people down to the individual voter? The best I've seen are estimates (that put Obama about 800,000 ahead) because of the nature of the caucus system. How do you control for caucuses vs. primaries? How do you control for open vs. closed systems? Which one is the super-special measurement that the Super Delegates should use?

Please, show us your work. Show us where this "popular vote" total is going to come from. Since Clinton can't win based on elected delegates, I see you are trying to move the goalposts for her and say that this new measurement that was never discussed before Clinton started to lose is the most important deciding factor in this race.

I hate to say this, but you grow more bitter each day. Where has the real Jerome Armstrong gone? Why was he replaced with this bitter, Markos-hating man?

I'd like to see that, too. You see, every Democratic nominee since the McGovern Reforms has won a plurality of the pledged delegates. Maybe he's talking about the little-known mid-term Democratic conventions? ;)

Why did Jaydub troll-rate my legitimate question?

My comment did not come anywhere close to the site's definition of trollish behavior.

But...but...Rezko! Smoking gun! It was supposed to end his campaign! Where there's dirt, there's fire, right?!

Why are you trying to hurt Markos and his site?

Ben Smith absurdly likens the comments and stepping down by Geraldine Ferraro over saying being clumsy blunt with those of the disgustingly anti-American and racist rantings and dismissal of Jeremiah Wright.

Do you proofread your posts? 'Cause I don't know what you're saying here.

Do you consider Obama to be a Democrat?

Wow. Jerome doesn't consider Huffington Post a progressive blog. He thinks Obama giving interviews on every cable news channel is Obama staying silent.  Does he have a warped sense of things, or what?

Where has the real Jerome Armstrong gone?

The votes keep coming in elsewhere, but Houston is still at 14%. Obama's up 40,000 in that 14%, so the other 86% could swing the state.

Clinton blows a 20 point lead in Texas after losing 12 in a row, and suddenly she's the front-runner again? I don't get it.

Loser? Texas hasn't been called yet.

The headlines tomorrow will probably either be "Split Decision", "Clinton loses Texas Firewall", or "Clinton wins TX, OH, lives another day".

Burnt Orange is projecting that Obama is going to gain 12 delegates over Clinton from Texas.

So his perfect winning streak continues. Not one day in this campaign has Obama been behind in pledged delegates.