Desperately seeking a metric with which to declare a lead over Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton’s backers have tried to float the notion that she leads in “electoral votes” from states where primaries and caucuses have been held, 219 to 202.

Never mind that electoral votes have absolutely nothing to do with picking the Democrats’ nominee. And never mind that 86 of Clinton’s “electoral votes” come from New York and California — where both she and Obama would be winners in the general election.

The Electoral Vote Metric is likely to last about as long as the failed Caucus State vs. Primary State Metric or the Red State vs. Blue State Metric. So the Clinton campaign will soon need new talking points. These are the metrics they should be pushing:

Clinton has a remarkable lead over Obama in all the “New” states. In addition to her home state of New York, she has won in New Jersey, New Hampshire and New Mexico — giving her a clean sweep of the states that start with “New.” Obama has failed to win a single New state. (Stump line: “She wins the states where being new really matters!”)

Clinton maintains an alphabetical advantage. Although each candidate has won two “A” states — with Obama taking Alabama and Alaska, and Clinton winning Arizona and Arkansas — Clinton has an impressive overall lead. Obama’s alphabetical standing is dragged down by his unfortunate victories in Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. A Clinton win May 3 in Guam, although worth only a few delegates, would guarantee her claim as the stronger alphabetical candidate. (Stump line: “Put an Alpha Female in the White House!”)

... contd.