>>You'd never be able to blame not debating on an Indiana loss.
I think his refusal to debate will make for a pretty compelling Clinton talking point. You can blame his loss in Indiana on whatever you want, but I think as it stands right now, he loses. And the longer this nomination race goes on, the worse it is for Obama - he is going to close out getting beat badly in several primaries. The only way he can avoid that or marginalize the impact of it is by closing this out in Indiana.
It's OK if he loses Indiana. He doesn't need to close it out in Indiana. You're looking at it the exact opposite way of how it needs to be looked at. She needs to win the rest of the contests with about 70%. That's the only thing that needs to happen. If that doesn't happen she's not going to be the nominee. And we know that's not going to happen.
Clinton does not need to win out at 70% - that is ludicrous. She needs to win over the vast majoriity of the superdelegates. But I would suspect if Obama emerges in June as a flawed GE candidate that the party will nominate Clinton - whether by superdelegate defection to Clinton or otherwise.
If he enters the GE flawed it will be her doing.
Have you actually looked at the numbers she needs to win by? It seems like you haven't.
