If the Delegate Numbers were reversed, Obama would still be Claiming Victory.

If the Delegate Numbers were reversed, Obama would still be Claiming Victory.

Something about Barrack Obama's lead against Hillary Clinton is not adding up. After a bit of research, I think I found the rather weak foundation on which Obama's numbers are based on, and it surprises me that virtually no one other than myself has brought it up.

Based on the amount of electoral college votes that a win in each state brings, Hillary Clinton has 219 Electoral College Votes, Barack Obama has 202. But wait, this isn't counting Florida and Michigan. Some believe Barrack had a marginal chance in Michigan, but nobody thinks Barack would have won Florida.

Add in Florida's Electoral College votes and the numbers read Hillary 246, Barrack 202. Pennsylvania is right around the corner and Hillary is favored there as well. Hillary 267, Barrack 202. How can Hillary Clinton be "on the ropes" when she is dominating in the head to head electoral college vote against Barrack Obama?

I understand that a head to head electoral college competition isn't a perfect system since some of Hillary's wins probably won't happen again against a Republican candidate in the Presidential contest. Nonetheless, a 267 to 202 lead (and Hillary was favored in Michigan as well), is really a big, big difference.

If Barrack had Hillary's position his argument would be he has a huge lead in the electoral college between the two candidates and has also proven he can win in the big states, the decision maker states. Can't you see Barrack Obama using the phrase, "decision maker states", to drive home his point! But somehow, if Hillary makes the same claim, Hillary Clinton would get labeled as Hillary trying to change the voting landscape to give herself an unfair advantage.

That seems like media bias to me.

Among the top ten electoral college states, Hillary Clinton won CA, TX, NY, OH, NJ, and most likely would have won Florida, Michigan and probably will win Pennsylvania. Barrack Obama's two wins in the top ten states would be Illinois, the state he was a senator in and spent a good portion of his life in, and Georgia. That's it!

Barrack Obama wins two of the ten largest electoral college states in the country and he's the democratic favorite? Has there ever been a democratic candidate who only won two of the top ten electoral college states yet was nominated to run for the presidency?

And lets talk about these "Caucuses". I'm sorry, but after listening to the pundits go on and on that the super delegates should not decide the democratic race, what about all of these caucuses in which a very small percentage of the voting population, votes! Barrack Obama has won something like 10 caucuses, Hillary has won 1. I want a candidate who wins in the big states AND who wins when all the voters come out to vote. Caucuses are wonderful for showing the passion of the people who care the most, but at the end of the day, everybodys vote counts equally and caucuses clearly do not reflect the will of all the voters in that state.

Subtract the "caucus states" and add in Florida and Michigan and Barrack Obama has won 17 states, Hillary 15. Factor in that Hillary has those 8 wins in 10 of the largest states and it points to Hillary being well ahead, especially if Hillary wins in Pennsylvania. Hillary has truly been victimized by the "no votes will be counted plan" for the states of Michigan and Florida to such a huge extent yet nobody in the media will come out and just say it. If Michigan and Florida's votes would count, combined with a win in Pennsylvania, it's Hillary by a very wide margin in the electoral college vote and the ten largest states.

That is a news story I have yet to see anywhere.