......... that is being ignored? Obama's camp, and Obama, is fond of saying he won more delegates and more states. But it is not delegates or states (in the Obamanites' sense) that wins elections, it is electoral college votes. That's why the republican winner-take-all method is more rational than the democrats proportional system. Here's the "electoral map" so far in the dem contest: Clinton is clobbering Obama relative to what would be electoral votes - indeed, as Clinton has pointed out, if the dems chose delegates like the republicans do, Clinton would have effectively already won the nomination. Another thing about this map - it's interesting to see large regional areas for one candidate or another. Obama get's the old south, where the democrat party is mostly black, a couple well-known leftwing redoubts like Washington and Vermont, and the plains states. That has me puzzled - why are a lot of farming white folks in places like kansas, nebraska, and iowa voting for a total leftwinger? Usually leftwingism is associated with urban areas. What's going on? (Uh, obamabots - puh-leeeeeeese don't pop in with your cliches here, OK OK?? ) Clinton,on the other hand, gets mostly two areas: the midwest rustbelt, an area of dying once great cities and unemployed workers, and the most dynamic section of the country, the southwest.