It's the electoral vote, stupid.
No, for me right now, it's the hypocrisy stupid.
In an incredible case of political chutzpah, a key Clinton backer points to a new measure of Hillary Clinton's strength.
She's won states with more electoral votes than Barack Obama has.
Indiana Senator Evan Bayh explaining over the weekend that Senator Clinton has won states with a total of 219 Electoral College votes, while Senator Obama has won states with a total of 202 electoral votes.
And that's not even counting Michigan and Florida.
So, let me cut to the electoral chase: Even though Senator Clinton trails Barack Obama in the popular vote, she's the most convincing candidate because she leads in the electoral vote.
Weren't they arguing just the opposite back in 2000 when George Bush was arguing pretty much the same.
Back then he was "stealing" the election?
What then are the Clinton forces doing this time?
Of course, the difference is electoral votes don't count until a general election. And there's no automatic guarantees that states won in a party contest are the same states won in a general contest.
But the argument is fascinating.
Suddenly electoral votes matter before they're even tallied.
Even before the popular votes, which already have.
Watch Neil Cavuto weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on "Your World with Cavuto" and send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org