Real numbers are in Obama's favor

The Clinton camp and media seem to be colluding in a way that only Abbott and Costello could follow.

It looks to them like the Democratic race is essentially a tie and that Hillary stopped the Obama momentum back on March 4.

For example, I have seen several graphics on CNN and elsewhere that show the popular vote at a dead heat. However, these graphics have included Hillary's 325,000 vote total in Michigan. Nobody else, including Obama, was even on the ballot in Michigan! His total was therefore zero and unless we have turned Michigan into a Soviet state, this tally should not even count. The voiceovers might mention that the graph includes Michigan, but what do people remember more, a visual cue or a verbal one? If the DNC doesn't count Michigan and Florida, why should the media?

It does not take much brainpower at this point to realize that even if Clinton would win a "do-over" in Michigan and Florida, she will not beat Obama by 325,000 total votes.

The bottom line is that Barack is up by over 400,000 votes, INCLUDING Florida but excluding Michigan, according to RealClearPolitics.com.

And what about the capper to Hillary's "big win" on March 4? Obama won more delegates in Texas when the caucuses are counted. In fact, her "big week" in the Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont primaries gave her a net loss of at least 15 delegates, in terms of pledged and superdelegate commitments (per dailkos.com and CNN). Yet the media keeps hammering away that Obama's "mo" was stopped.

Why can't these people count, or are they afraid of being unfair to Hillary?

Nick Sloane

Bloomingdale