At this point, Candidate B appears to have a sufficient financial and organizational base to compete one on one with Candidate A.  Candidate A continues with her fundraising and nomination strategy.  

On Super Tuesday, both Candidates win state contests and after the dust settles, its down to just the two candidates.

Within three weeks of Super Tuesday, it is revealed that Candidate A has had to lend presidential campaign money (and evidence suggest that A's campaign has done very little fundraising) and at the same time has lost 11 contests.  Candidate A has shrugged off this as meaningless since the contests are either caucuses, the contest are small states and that the contests are states that cannot be one by her party.

Candidate B has raised millions of dollars during this same time period.  The financial advantage over Candidate A is substantial.  The fundraising advantage over the Other Party's Candidate is beyond comprehension.  Candidate B has built campaign organizations well in advance of each contest and has been able to take advantage of every rule subtlety and every political nuance unique to every state.

Candidate A who has made statements that it will be looking for big wins in Ohio and Texas is barely competitive during this period often arriving at the 11th hour to campaign.  During this period, the Superdelegates begin to move from Candidate A to Candidate B.  Candidate B passes Candidate A in pledged delegates.  Candidate B's financial advantage grows

After what seems to be a big night for Candidate A after the Ohio and Texas contests, the media begins to report that Candidate A cannot win.  Furthermore, the media projects that Candidate A is unlikely to lead in pledged delegates, total votes and based upon the number of Superdelegates Candidate B is getting plus the ones that have switched from Candidate A to Candidate B.  

The math here, while hotly debated, is simple.  Neither candidate will lead when all the contest are over.  The contest will be won by Superdelegates

Candidate A begins to demand that contests in MI and FL should count (although everyone agreed that they would not count)in order to argue that A's campaign is viable.  Candidate A is now making the argument that Superdelegates should look to November and electability.  

Candidate B has continued to compete strongly and just recently lost a bitterly fought contest in PA (which is the first such contest in 50 days).

Candidate A is struggling finnacially although the PA win has gotten a financial shot in the arm for campaign.  A media source reports how much organizational work Candidate A is doing to lay groundwork for IN campaign.  Similar groundwork is not being reported by media for NC where Candidate B is leading substantially in polls.

Both candidates are close in pledged delegates and SuperDs, although it is clear that Candidate B is in the lead by more than 100 overall.

Now, who do you want?

A candidate with a strategy designed to win the nomination with Superdelegates, money, political muscle and the the aura of inevitability.  A campaign that dropped the fundraising ball, a campaign that has only competed for contest that it has won and that has rationalized away every loss (caucuses should not count, the rules are arcane and unfair, its a red state, and most notably Big States that will go Democratic will get me the 270 EV it takes to win.)

Or a candidate that has eschewed political muscle for organizational strength, excellent GOTV operations, and outstanding voter registration efforts. A candidate with a fundraising machine that raises more than $1,500,000 a day every day.  A candidate that has through his efforts put more states in play than anyone and has been unfraid to lose but unwilling to walk away without fighting for it.  

I used to love this sight.  Why, it wasn't just the campaign tactics, the analysis of demographics, message, debates and commercials.  I loved it because MyDD was objective.  We attacked poorly run campaigns, lousy strategy, and short sighted tactics. We were objective about our candidates shortcomings and errors.  

HRC has made the kind of errors we would have attacked.  We'd all try to get her to do a better job or to get people in primary states to help her.  Character assassination is not what we used to do.  Hate-filled bile trotted out as analysis or an emotional invective as proof of something.

Right now we ought to be looking at which candidate Clinton or Obama get us what gains in the Senate and the House.  Instead, I'm reading what looks like a right-wing blog