Back to Politics...

I also want to point out the narratives that are starting to come out from the campaigns about the role of the superdelegates. These quotes have appeared in a couple of places:

Obama: "My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters. I think it is also important for superdelegates to think about who will be in the strongest position to defeat John McCain in November and who will be in the strongest position to ensure that we are broadening the base, bringing people who historically have not gotten involved in politics into the fold."

Clinton: "Superdelegates are, by design, supposed to exercise independent judgment. But, of course, if Senator Obama and his campaign continue to push this position, which is really contrary to what the definition of a superdelegate has historically been, I will look forward to receiving the support of Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry."

Hilariously, each of them is making two arguments that, in both cases, have incompatible premises, but we're just dipping a pinky toe into this swamp for now. I'm sure they'll each develop a strong, consistent message that emphasizes the first point each makes before they wade in much above the knees. Which really shouldn't be too much longer, since Hillary might be able to pick up Wisconsin and nothing else before Texas and Ohio, and it is starting to feel like she's going to have a tough time ending up with more pledged delegates than him.

For those who haven't seen it before, check out the Iowa Electronic Market. These are real securities that trade on, among other things, the nominations. See the Dems here. Studies show that these kinds of things reflect actual probablities at a given time, so that's pretty interesting...