Forced friendliness or seething sexual tension?

Well, that was interesting…an election that four out of the five remaining candidates could claim as a victory, though clearly not all victories are created equal. For one thing, the media focus on who won or lost particular states is somewhat misleading on the Democratic side. I’m sure many voters are unaware that these are not winner-take-all primaries and that “almost” actually counts here. So, for all the dramatics, the difference between “winning” and “losing” an extremely closely divided state might be slim to none. Hillary won the Nevada caucuses in terms of votes, but in terms of delegates — which are what actually counts in the primary system — each candidate received half of the state’s 28 delegates. Conversely, Obama famously beat her by about 8 points in Iowa, but they wound up getting exactly the same number of delegates.

Weirder still, despite beating Clinton by a fairly wide 14 percent margin in Alabama, Obama is currently estimated to be gettng two fewer delegates than Clinton there, presumably because he won fewer precincts. The Democratic primary is both horseshoes and hand grenades. (My source for all this is CNN’s handy delegate/election scorecard — though keep in mind that the delegate counts are mostly estimates and there is disagreement about the math.)

As you’re no doubt aware, Hillary Clinton got attention-getting, morale-boosting majorities in the biggest states California, Massachusetts, and New York, though the margins in California may still narrow a little in my opinion because of a number of factors (more on that in the next post). She definitely did score a somewhat lopsided victory in her adopted home states of New York and obliterated Obama in Arkansas with 70 percent of the vote there. For his part, Obama trounced here to a slightly lesser degree in his adopted home of Illinois with 65 percent. However, that one might have stung a bit as Hillary is an Illinois native who grew up in the state and still has some connections there.

On the other hand, Obama beat her handily in a healthy number of medium and smaller states, mostly caucauses. My favorite example being his midwestern shellacking of Hillary in Minnesota to the tune of 67 percent of the vote and an estimated 51 out of 88 delegates. I like to attribute the size of this one to a late endorsement by Minnesota’s public radio superstar Garrison Keillor. I call it “the Lake Woebegon Bounce.” Clearly, something gave shy Minnesotans the strength the get up and do what needed to be done.

Regionalism aside, Obama’s strength in most of the caucuses and Hillary’s corresponding weakness speaks to a significant passion gap between the two candidates, particularly among the kind of people who volunteer and donate modest sums of money. Which brings us to the Obama campaign’s post-election surge in the so-called “money primary”.

Riding a wave of smallish donations, Obama has raised $7.2 million since the election as of the last article I checked, while Hillary Clinton was apparently forced to loan her campaign $5 million of her own money amid reports that, for the time being, many of her staffers are working without paychecks. This is obviously a bad problem for her, especially as her donors tend to be wealthier while her base is less well off than Obama’s. [UPDATE: Or, maybe not. Apparently, the bad news triggered a wave of donations for the Clinton campaign putting them on more of an even footing with Obama. No one said this was going to be simple.]

Conventional wisdom in the liberal blogosphere has it that many of her likely contributors are already legally maxed out. If this is so, where will her new supporters come from? On the other hand, John McCain had a similar problem some time back, and a similar response and he’s now considered a likely lock for the Republican nomination. It’s possible she could fare as well and be a financial comeback kid — though the ongoing war of attrition could be tough.

Still, politically, the most important thing is the popular vote. Hillary currently leads in delegates, mainly because of a strong lead in getting the support of super delegates, though the large majority remain uncommitted and will likely lean towards whoever wins the most popular votes nationwide. (Currently committed super delegates also retain the ability to change their allegiances as well — they’re basically high-end voters.) Most of the supers are congressmembers and other pols, and are therefore not likely to risk the wrath of large numbers of their most involved constituents by thwarting their will. I imagine the results nationally and among their constituents will lead their choice.

So, what was Hillary’s lead with the national popular vote on Tuesday? .4 percent. A tiny lead, but still a lead. But then consider that in California as many as 40 percent or more of the votes cast were cast by mail, and it is hardly the only state where — encouraged by convenience as well as by fraud-fearing liberal activists — absentee voting is growing in popularity.

That means that an unknown but undoubtedly large number of the ballots in many states were sent in weeks ago. As of right now, Hillary’s lead is still real. However, in a very literal sense, it is also currently a thing of the past.

NEXT: I Go Local: Madness in Santa Ana, “Double Bubble Trouble” and (less locally), “Mitty, We Hardly Knew Ye”