NP: John Cage, 4'33"

In no particular order.

Andrew Sullivan flags someone named Ambers flagging the fact that Obama's margin of victory in his home state of Illinois was bigger than Clinton's margin of victory in her "home" state of New York. I would also point out that Obama got more total votes (around 1.2 million) here than she did (just under 1.1 million) there.

Time's Swampcast has the total vote numbers, and they're just as staggering as they seemed watching muted TV screens last night. The big questions here are how many Obama primary voters would support Hillary in the general -- which he has been bringing up on the campaign trail -- and if voting against Hillary will motivate more voters than voting for any of the GOP primary candidates.

Speaking of numbers, I couldn't seem to persuade the bar to switch to MSNBC, so we got stuck with Fox News. For a while, they were showing the GOP Delegate numbers for McCain, then Romney, then Huckabee and Paul, despite Huckabee having more delegates than Romney.

And finally, exit poll madness from Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall. Rather than heap scorn on pollsters, I'd love to dig into what their assumptions are about their projections of their samples to the total population. That may be the biggest part of what's going wrong here. One huge dynamic of this election has been who is showing up to vote and in what numbers, and if you get that wrong, you're pretty much sunk.

I also wonder about latency between expressed opinions and actions. Obama had caught Clinton in the polls in at least New Jersey and California, but didn't make up quite as much ground in the actual election. Could the actual intended behavior be lagging behind the intention by, say, two or three days?