Folks, seriously, the Democratic race is not over

So now the New York Times and Below the Beltway’s Doug Mataconis have joined what the latter colorfully called the “Hillary Clinton Death Watch.”  Ben Tribbett is talking about everything but the presidential race, and even more prominent Clinton supporters like Kathleen Kennedy Townsend are throwing in the towel (Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire).  It seems no onebelieves Senator Clinton has a shot at defeating Barack Obama now.

That is, no one except me.

Two days ago, I explained in what I thought was painstaking detail why the Democratic race was not over.  To summarize, I noted that Clinton was still ahead in Texas and Ohio; Obama had no more primaries or caucuses between now and then to help reverse this; Obama was finally getting serious scrutiny; the second-look effect would hurt him at just the wrong time; and finally, independents in Texas will be drawn to McCain’s effort to put the stake in Mike Huckabee once and for all.

Obviously, my analysis fell on deaf ears.  The conventional wisdom seems to be that Clinton must win a majority of delegates or she is toast at the convention.  The main reason for this assumption is the assertion that Obama will be favored by the superdelegates (eventually) because he will have won the “popular vote” in the state contests.

Now, I have a hard time seeing national Democrats abandon a candidate who has won all of the largest states besides Illinois (yes, this would mean Clinton wins Pennsylvania in addition to Texas and Ohio, but she’s still ahead in all three right now), but that aside, I have one question for the learned folks who have swallowed this malarkey.

What makes you so sure Obama will have the “popular vote” come convention time?

Based on the numbers as presented by the folks at Real Clear Politics, Obama has a popular vote lead of roughly 300,000 votes (yes, I’m including Florida and Michigan - we know Clinton will - more on them later).  Now, let us say Texas goes to Clinton by 3 points (Rasmussen), Ohio by eight points (Rasmussen again), and Pennsylvania by twelve points (the most recent - and for Clinton, the worst - poll from that state - RCP).

Guess who’d be the leader in the popular vote then?  Not Barack Obama.

“But DJ,” you tell me, “there’s no way Senator Clinton can pull that off.  Democrats want to win, and the polls show Obama beats John McCain, while Clinton loses to him.”

Are you sure about that?  Rasmussen isn’t:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that John McCain continues to hold a very modest lead against both potential Democratic challengers. In a general election match-up, McCain now leads Barack Obama 46% to 44% and Hillary Clinton 48% to 44%. McCain has led both Democrats on each night of individual tracking since the controversial New York Times article on McCain was released earlier this week . . .

In other words, the added support Obama gets over Clinton is - as of this morning - exactly zero.  Don’t think the Clinton folks won’t spread those poll numbers all over Texas and Ohio.

Now, Obama could surprise me (if no one else) and win either Texas or Ohio.  If he does, then everyone else is right, and I’m wrong.  Honestly, though, I don’t see it happening.  If Barack Obama couldn’t pass Clinton in those states now, I don’t think he ever will.  In which case, Clinton will be tw0-thirds of the way to her comeback trifecta.  Then you’ll start to hear about Florida (where no one campaigned, but everyone was on the ballot) and Michigan (where the Obama and Edwards people actively, if quietly, campaigned for Uncommitted) in an entirely different light - at least from the Clinton camp.  Even if Clinton can’t get those delegates seated, she’ll have a compelling argument for those superdelegates out there, especially if she can turn Obama’s popular-vote-is-king mantra against him.

This race may be over on March 5, but it won’t be over until March 5, and I’m suspecting it will go on for much, much longer.