Doesn’t she have to win PA by, what, 60% in order to stay viable?
Let’s say she wins PA by single digits and Obama wins NC by a HUGE margin (that’s my prediction, like 70%). How does that improve her chances? Or is it like Texas where there is no net gain and the two cancel each other out?
Or does NC not matter?

And the rules still say he’s got to get to the finish line to win.

At best she’ll hit 95mph.

But she still loses.

Clinton supporters need to realize that, if my math is right, she needs to win about 3/5 of the remaining delegagtes to secure the nomination. Securing that many in the primaries will be difficult and securing that many of the superdelagates would very likely be divisive.

Obama supporters need to realize, though, that she has won 47% of the delegates selected so far. That is less than Obama, but not inconsiderable. I think we’ve learned the lessons of taking a slim majority as a mandate. I don’t know how these numbers will change after the upcoming primaries, but if they don’t, I think she should bow out gracefully, and urge her followers to support Obama in order to give him more of a mandate heading into the convention. If she does achieve sizeable victories, but not enough to overtake Obama,then I don’t know.

Thus, we should stop the race at this point. The fact that Hillary has achieved only a slight increase in speed means that Obama will be more likely to win the next race.

Sorry. That still makes no sense.

Using your analogy, let’s say that what we currently have is
Obama at mile 25 of the marathon and Hillary passing mile 24. If she gets a slight burst of new speed from PA, she will close the gap slightly; but this won’t cause Obama to start running backwards.

Hillary beating Obama by the 20-point margin she was enjoying a few months ago would be equivalent to him stumbling and twisting his ankle while she gets a new wind. Hillary beating Obama by single digits amounts to her gaining a little speed and him keeping pace. She may be very close by the time they hit mile 26, but he’ll still be in the lead.

Yeah, but not as much if you look beyond the specific contest to the larger picture. A lot of Clinton’s argument is, as OW mentions, that she’s stronger then Obama in the swing states that will be the real battlegrounds in the general election. But if she can’t beat Obama by a large margin in PA, then she isn’t that much stronger then him in those states, and he has a support in other states. So she can win in PA, but if she doesn’t win big enough it doesn’t offset Obama’s other wins.

I think what Oliver is saying isn’t that Obama’s case to the superdelegates will be made stronger, just that Clinton’s case that she deserves the nomination despite trailing throughout the entire primary season will be weakened

Well, there’s just the two of them left in the race and the finish line is in sight. What doesn’t make the case stronger for one automatically makes the case for the other.

It still seems counterintuitive to me to argue that a loss improves a candidate’s chances.

The extra that could come would be another hole blown in her already specious argument for electability.

Eight points would be more convincing for Clinton than 4 points, to be sure, but 8 points doesn’t seem as likely to wrench people off the fence to her side (or to her side from Obama’s side) as a win in the mid-teens or higher would do.

Uh, why? By inference, aren’t you arguing that Obama’s case to the superdelegates will be made easier if he loses by, say, 8 points? How will losing a state support his case to be the nominee?