It used to be the winner in a primary contest was the winner and the loser the loser. Then the media bought into the notion that certain states somehow didn’t count, or were not fair fights (because they were next to home states), or were in the bag (because of demographics). So candidates were forced to explain, spin, and exceed near-mythic expectations.

So, who has to do what in to win Indiana and North Carolina? It is fair to say that a win really is a win in Indiana. The pundits all told us it was a jump ball–close to Illinois (thus pro-Obama), but with lots of economic distress and the presence of Evan Bayh (thus pro-Clinton). And a win by a lot is . . . well, a win by a lot. If the polls are correct, this could be good news for Hillary Clinton. (The bigger the win, of course, the better the news.)

What about North Carolina? This is supposed to be the big win for Barack Obama, with 35-40% of the electorate African American and lots of upscale university town voters. Now it’s supposedly gotten closer. If it winds up really close then, again, it’s good news for Clinton. If he wins handily, he stops the bleeding and the panic in the ranks.

And if she wins Indiana and comes close in North Carolina what happens? He says “nothing”–he’s ahead in delegates. She says “game-changer.” And on we go to West Virginia next week and Kentucky and Oregon the week after that. Just in case you thought anything would be decided today, it won’t. Unless–my God!–the polls are wrong! (Could one of them win both contests ?) Nah, never happens.