Admit it. The nomination struggle is all but over.

Turn the election inside out, look at it back to front, hold it upside down and I keep coming back to the same conclusion.

It is brilliantly summarised in this article on Politico.com:

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Here, inspired by that article, are five reasons why no one is prepared to admit that it is all but over:

1. The New Hampshire surprise introduced a fear of making predictions.

And, indeed, it should make anyone pause before turning polls into a hard forecast. But the mathematical problem faced by Senator Clinton is a problem with votes already cast, not with ones still to be cast. The problem for her is not a forecast that she will lose, but a recognition that she has already almost certainly lost.

2. Why end a good story?

It is certainly true that for journalists the Clinton-Obama battle is the gift that keeps on giving. But this public fascination merely increases the responsibility to call it right.

3. The Clintons' ability to wriggle out of a tight spot has made everyone wary of writing them off.

Perfectly reasonable. But this doesn't mean that their claims to be able to see a way clear to the nomination should escape proper scrutiny.

This spot is tighter than the others they have wiggled out of. The superdelegates coming to their rescue in big enough numbers to overhaul Obama's lead is really extremely unlikely.

4. Anything could happen.

Yes, it could. Another Jeremiah Wright style episode could erupt. Yes it could. But this doesn't significantly increase the very small chance of a Hillary victory. Thinking it does is a common error in prediction. When assessing whether a second placed football team can overhaul the league leaders, pundits comment that it only takes one dropped match by the top side and their rivals will pull level.

They ignore the fact that it is just as likely that the second placed team will drop points. So unanticipated, unexpected events cut both ways.

5. A small chance is different from no chance.

A very important point this. Before Euro 2004 I described one country as having a 13 per cent chance of being the eventual winner "which is 13 per cent more chance than Greece have". Greece won. So it is wrong to argue that there is no chance for Hillary.

However, most articles talk of a race still wide open or, at best, of one in which Obama has a small advantage. This misrepresents the position. The truth is that it is overwhelmingly likely that Obama will be the nominee. And that Hillary won't be.

The coverage should reflect that, and it doesn't.

Comments

[grammarbore]

Clintons' not Clinton's. Isn't it time blogs got subbies too?

[Jo]

Is the race hereafter just an expense, or does it create other value?

[Peter From TExas]

A few months ago and even a year ago, the British newspapers were crowning Queen Hillary who would just stroll casually into the White House. They don't seem to realize what a long, harsh, even vicious contest this is. Also, Mr. Finklestein has apparently never been to an American convention. It has happened that two strong candidates would go to a convention, and a third almost unknown would emerge as the candidate.

[Texas Democrat]

It is far from over! Obama is dropping, and if many of these "journalist" read the blogs, many voters that voted for Obama want their votes back! Senator Clinton will steam roll in yet another large state, Pennsylvania, as well as win many more states yet to vote! The answer is VERY CLEAR! She will be the nominee. The Super Delegates must go with the ELECTABLE candidate and the candidate that can also CARRY the swing states! The answer to both is Hillary Clinton.

[M Losada]

Best article on the inexorable reality of the situation: Hillary cannot win the nomination. This being so, why does she keep on ticking? It's a waste of energy, time, and precious resources that will be needed in November. Where is the wisdom of those superdelegates? They should exercise it now, before it's too late. The fierce urgency of the now.

[Ralph Dreifus]

We can only hope that the people of the United Staes have finally recognized the fact that both Bill and Hillary Clinton are two of the most corrupt politicians to step on the poltical stage in the past fifty years.

There are still people who have a rock star mentality about politicians. This leads me to think that a critical thinking test should be administered before anyone is allowed to register to vote for any elected official at any level of government.

[Alistair]

Texas Democrat, USING CAPS! does not make things true. Short of self-destructing the party, she cannot win. It looks more and more like she is setting herself up for a run in 2012. Destroy Obama now, run against an ageing McCain.

[marke]

Hillary's knows she cannot win the nomination .. and so she will do whatever it takes to stop Obama winning the Presidency. (Her claim that Obama is not experienced enough for the presidency is a deliberate boost for MCCain). When Obam looses in 2008 she gets another bit at the nomination in 2012. Its her only shot at the White House.

[Peter Bolt]

Like many professional politicans what else can Mrs Clinton do ?
She, and not just just her,are incapable of any other work. To give up the attempt would be to give up life itself. A no less consideration is the fact that she is on a "nice little earner"
In all, tha fact she is probably without much chance of winning the nomination is the least important.

[Karl Rover]

All but over? Hardly!

Neither one have enough delegates and Barrack Obama has been significantly weakened by his America hating wife's comments, his pastors racist sermons, and his refusal to salute the flag or put his hand over his heart during the pledge. He blew it really. He Lost whatever chance he had of gaining white-working class support during the last 4 weeks-And this articles is saying that its over?? Laughable.

This is only geeting started-There is going to be a dustup in Denver-who knows who will come out of it on top. All I know is that if the Dems actully run Obama in the general election McCain is going to win fairly easily.

[Ian]

I voted for B.H. Obama, in Calif.
I extremely repentant. I am deeply sorry for that vote.

If there is a way I like to take my vote back.

[Texas Democrat]

I stand by my comment. When all is said and done, Hillary will be the nominee. Obama is dropping and he will continue to drop. If you are a true Democrat, and surely the Super delegates are, as they are the party loyalist, they will have no choice but, if still lacking in delegates, vote for Hillary. Obama cannot win Ohio, Florida or Pennsylvania. And you cannot WIN a General Election without them.. And also take a look at the Electoral College! All favors Clinton. If Obama becomes the nominee we will lose, and the Super Delegates know it and will be responsible. And so much for their reelection odds! Obama has NOONE but himself to blame for his choices. NOONE! Not the voters, not the media, not the Super delegates and anyone else. He chose his path 20 years ago and never waivered from that path. Even when he was chanting unity!A chant that the majority of Americans no longer believe when they hear Obama. His choice. His loss. And Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate, as well as the one that as early as December, was the one backed by almost ALL of the Super delegates and the favorite to actually win the Presidency. So we are back to what all of us thought at the end of the year. Not much of a leap!

[tim]

if she loses the nomination, McCain wins the General Election. Place your bets now!

[Katya, Chicago, Ill]

I voted for Obama, I which I could take my vote back.

Like me there are a lot others that extremely regret it.

I deeply recommend DO NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA, because you will regret it.

[paul canning]

The Politico article is good, but others have been saying this for weeks and the odds have been against her since Super Tuesday. What's really p*****g me off is the BBC's reporting - all they're doing is recyling the same US MSM line which you sum up as 'Why end a good story?' And their coverage of the Rev. Wright issue / Obama's race speech was blatantly ignorant of Black America. Be interested in your take on the BBC's reporting on the Election, Danny.

[peter ellis]

I sincerely hope that daniel finkelstein is right in his blog of 25th march. Unfortunately I do not believe that hillary clinton will give up, she will fight to the bitter end because she feels that she is entitled to the nomination as of right and that obama is an upstart who got lucky. A new spirit of godwill will come if obama gets the nomination and those who did not want him will give him a try once the decision is made.It will indeed be a new start and it is up to him then to make it work.

P. Ellis

[John W Meadows]

It is all rather irrelevant as I do not see how either of them can survive through the summer.
Will Hillary go down in flames as more of her spurious claims as to her "experience" get blown away.
As we learn more about Obama as to the company he keeps his credibility will continue to drop.
I am looking forward to the McCain inauguration.

[Steve Mink]

A good analysis and entirely correct. To be read alongside David Brooks' brilliant piece in today's "New York Times" on Hillary's "audacity of hopelessness".

[Steve from Texas]

I hope Hilary slinks back into the woodwork. With Obama,many of the Religious Right will stay home giving Democrats a chance to win at least one or two Southern states and a few out west. With Hilary, those so-called "Christian-values" voters will come out in droves to vote for Mccain. At least with Obama, a loss in Florida would be no big deal. Hilary is not a bad candidate it's just that with her as the nominee we will have at least another 4 years of Republicans in the white house.That should terrify us.

[Steve]

Is not the real race the one that is being ignored by the major media? This is the race for the republican nomination. Senator Mcain has not won this contest, at least not yet. Ron Paul is the candidate remaining in the contest for the republican niomination. Why do we never hear about this challenge to Mcain. Could it be because of Ron Pauls popularity and grass roots support, and of course his policies? Ah, policies what are they besides all these 'personalities'? Why is this?

[nett60]

And you're saying put a racist in the white house? WRight, Farrakhan, Obama?

[jim]

She was a republican in college. She campaigns like a republican. She voted for the war. Her best chance is that McCain will die before November and she can run for the republicans against Obama.

[Larkin G. Mead]

I believe this would be a good time for Hillary Clinton to throw in the towel. I also believe that she will eventually lose her Senatorial seat from New York and she and Bill can retire to Arkansas from whence this "fairy-tale" began and they can become the official curators of the Bill Clinton library. I have driven through Little Rock, Arkansas many times and the fact is, I have absolutely no desire to ever visit the Clinton Library.

Now it is time to concentrate on defeating the other left-wing radical, Barack Obama in November. He can return to Chicago and perhaps receive a deaconship in the Reverend Wright's church and return to community organizing which he loves to brag about anyway. Bye-Bye Clinton and Obama!

[Jerry l]

I agree entirely but answer me this do you want someone for our President who openly defies the wrong that was spoken by the wright man and yet cast down any "whiteman' who speaks out of turn remember "DON" he did do wrong how bout that guy dog chapmen? where is his show at/ the judgment should always be equal "AL" and Obama Hussein see I accept mine:)!!!

[Bob Evans]

The most telling aspect of this is how historically uninformed is The Times' Mr. Finkelstein, as well as Politico.com's Vandehei and Allen. As a British citizen, Mr. Finkelstein is surely to be excused. Messrs Vandehei and Allen have no such excuse!

Anyone, even a Brit in America, can easily be aware of American presidential campaign history. Throughout American history, presidential nominations have not been gained before the party conventions. At best, the campaigns have simply served to winnow out the weakest of contenders, not to gain a majority of the delegates to a convention. The period has served the Americans well, for it has forced candidates air their beliefs and policies, solidifying some, rejecting others.

It is IN the convention where nominations have historically been determined. It is in those "smoke filled rooms" that strengths and weakness are debated and thrashed out. In American history, the norm has been to see a lengthy number of ballots taken before the party mantle is conferred. Remarkably, there have been those occasions when a "darkhorse" is selected; someone who came to the convention not as a candidate.

Only in recent years have both parties sought to eliminate competition in the primary process. It makes the party "appear" so unified and strong. The party bosses do not like to see the internecine warfare among candidates, for it gives the party a bad name.

No, the campaign is far from over, and neither Clinton nor Obama is a sure bed. Indeed, there is always the possibility that the party will in the end nominate someone not now a candidate.

[h.sewad]

There are 2 kinds of exeriences:GOOD and BAD.
Hillary only has BaD experiences: impeachment of Bill, filegate, travelgate, whitewater, her misrepresentations (or lies?) about Bosnia, etc., etc., .

The first co-presidency did not Work--it ended in impeachment, disbarment and an unending litany of lawsuits and investigations. To recycle this kind of dirt, the Clintons would earn the right to Shout their long held belief: "we are the two smartest people in America. See, we can fool them any time we want".

There is no contest. The American people need, and should be presented with, a clean environment. OBAMA is the distinct choice.

[kip]

Clintons why should you lie to public so confidently!!!!! shame on you Hillary Clinton!

[SKH]

If HRC wins the nominee Then I won't vote. Nor have I donated any money to the dems because if she does win then all money left from Obama will go to her. She is as low and dis-honest as a person can be. She will say or do anything to get what she wants. Shes proved that, including lieing. We don't need another 4 or more years of scandels like the last time the Clintons were in the white house.

[slyfas]

The problem with the Clintons has been aptly summed up by Bill Richardson: "They think they are naturally entitled to the presidency" (not verbatim). Thus they are prepared to do anything to achieve their aim.

Everyone knows that if Obama has had to face another Democrat, he would have had a hard time winning the nomination. The point is simply that voters disdain (or do not like) Hillary Clinton for her "fudgy and dodgy" manners bothering on Lady Macbeth character at best and a chisseling little crook at worst.

Even if contrary to all expectations she won the nomination, she will be giving the presidency to John McCain on a platter of gold. This is for the simple reason that the arch conservative wing of the GOP will troop out in their millions to bar her path to the presidency even if McCain were to veer to the extreme left of the political spectrum.

There is something in Hillary that radiates apathy and annoyance. Events have proved, time and again, that she can't break with the past. If she learns to speak straight and truly with humility, I think she will endear many ordinary folk to her side. But as long as she keeps playing games with people's intelligence she will not help her cause.

Whenever she is asked about an embarrassing question, she looks for Obama (or 'right wing conspirators') to blame for her misjudgement. Asked whether she regretted voting for the Iraq war, she responded that Senator Obama did not oppose it from the beginning. Asked about the Bosnia 'misspeak' (where she was fired at by snipers), she switch to how she would have left obama's church. Can't she just say something like: I'm sorry to have made such a lapse of judgement? These two examples said it all about HRC as someone who seems incapable of admitting errors like any other human being. In essence she is infallible and omniscient.

This sickening and repugnant tactics of always trying to dodge issues can be very annoying to liberals and also some men who can't stand foxy women.

I don't think it is too late for HRC to change. However, she must consider presenting herself in a different image of a caring mother, devoted wife and simple woman rather than her current image of a 'wolf in a sheepskin'.

[Chris Kelly]

Mrs Clinton is an increasingly hapless figure. I think it is reasonable to assume she and her advisors are well aware of the futility of her campaign. Her arrogance and sense of entitlement have finally caught up with her. Doesn't she realize that honesty and integrity always win in the end. With Barak Obama the country has an opportunity to elect a leader with the moral and ethical values so lacking in the Clintons. She will not go quietly, but hopefully she will not allow her ego and self-serving ambition to destroy the Democratic party.

[leighg1]

Hillary OUT! Please get out now before you jeopardize Obama's chance. Obama 08!

[Garth Strong]

The scandals of the first Clinton presidency doomed Hillary's chances from the start. The specters of those scandals would have been resurrected later on in the campaign...either by Obama or by McCain.

Her "Sniper Fire" lie has shot down any remaining chance that she may have had. She has, as they say "shot herself in the foot". That mind-boggling lie reveals an unhealthy mind that should NOT be in the Oval Office! What was she not thinking? Can you imagine Hillary...with her finger on the nuclear trigger????

It just goes to show that... imaginary sniper fire can be just as deadly as the real thing!

[Peter Hughes]

Hillary Clinton is a no-brainer, married to another no-brainer, who gained entry to The White House by dubious means and when ensconsed,belittled the position with sleeze. His wife, on attempting to follow him, tried similiar antics with false claims and downright lies. Thank goodness, the Democratic voters appear to have called her bluff, if not, GOD HELP THEM !

[Jacq]

It seems that Hillary Clinton has zero chance of winning over undecided voters in a general election - people who like her will continue to support her, but a lot of people seem to dislike her very much indeed. Obama has demonstrated that he can win the hearts and minds of voters who did not support him in the earlier stages of the nomination race. To nominate her will be to gift the election to the Republicans. As somebody who isn't American and has no say in the decision, but who will - like the rest of the world - have to live with the consequences of it, I really hope that Obama gets the nomination.

[STUGOK]

Democratic Party and the Super delegates should wake up right now and end this continued damage to their party. The choice is clear. A vote for Obama as the Democratic Nominie is a complete lost for the party come November. Sen. Clinton is the clear and unequivocal choice. The only thing that bothers me is the envy of the Clinton's that is clouding the party elite from supporting the clear choice. They will take the party down with them trying to take the Clinton's down.

[Shreyas]

"Clintons'" is right, Grammarbore, DF is referring to both Clintons' slipperiness.

[Quijote]

The truth is that, whomever receives the Democratic nomination, Obama's pastor made him black - and that gives McCain the White House.

[Sesan Bella]

If Hillary is doomed, why don't the superdelegates make a decisive shift and support Obama, thereby saving their party from a drawn-out implosion? If they don't, and the Democratic party becomes so damaged that - irrespective of who gets their nomination - McCain wins in November, then surely never has it been truer that a people deserve the leader they get.

[susan george]

For all those who say it's over for Obama... I say 'sorry, the reverse is the case. Its over for Hillary,the world is tired of the same old same old..... its time for a NEW BEGINING.
For all the Obama believers THANK YOU... KEEP THE IDEA ALIVE!!!!

[Galahad]

In Britain, over the years, we have endured poor Prime Ministers and, in the USA, citizens have had more than their fair share of poor Presidents. Time for change and, it seems to me from across the pond, that Obama presents as an honest broker with a high level of integrity and diplomatic common sense (which is more than can be said for his Democratic opponent!) I'd vote for him if I could!

[James]

I agree: Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is almost over. I tell folk that US citizens would never vote that woman in as their next President.

Hillary has fought this very much as a woman in her position might be expected to: with perhaps more vaunt and guile than is ... well ... socially accepted, currently. It can work in the general workforce, where the sexes do contest many tasks differently. But, not in any US Presidential Election - where the stakes are of far greater significance to all. At the finish line, it will be one male candidate versus another.

I suspect her baldfaced lie about Bosnia etc has been the final 'puff' for this woman.

We fight differently, males and females: no male candidate would have uttered something so pudden-headed on such a topic.

That woman is not fit for (presidential) purpose - this was predictable years ago from her evident character and contest strategy through time. The media knows it. It is just not great copy (yet).

Mr Obama will be the nominee.

best,

James

[rene]

burn the witch... perhaps or send her back to bosnia... snipers and all that!!!she dead beat woman!!! no classe, no value... just want the presidency AT ANY PRICE!!!!!wicked woman!

[jim]

Reason Number Six: "Hell Hath No Greater Fury Than a Woman Scorned". The Clintonistas feel that their canidate was next in line, and that Obama "Jumped the Line", and should have waited his turn. Add to that, all the powerful Democratic Politicos who the Clintons feel have "Jumped Ship" for Obama, never mind the flow of Blacks to Obama, and you have the makings of a real split in Democratic ranks. Remember: There are more White Women in the U.S., than the total of Blacks, and all other minority folks put togeather. I know, looking at football teams, and basketball teams give foreign folks the appearance of equal numbers of Whites and others, but it is not so. And if you don't believe me, you could check it out.

[David Cunard]

Perhaps the pro-Obama contributors should wait until after the Pennsylvania primary before writing Mrs Clinton's political obituary. As she herself has said (on a Fox programme no less) "let the voters decide" - a sweeping majority in Pennsylvania would mean a complete re-think about Obama's electability - and that is the bottom line: which candidate can beat John McCain? Who knows, perhaps it will be Al Gore!