7.0 percent: Clinton’s average lead in the seven Pennsylvania polls conducted before Obama’s comments first surfaced–a stat that suggests that, despite frenzied speculation, the Illinois senator’s standing has not slipped in the Keystone State as a result of his San Francisco remarks. According to Gallup, “among Democratic voters who make $24,000 or less, Obama’s support has dropped three points, from 47%-44%; among Democratic voters with no college education, his support has dropped one point, from 41%-40%; among Democratic voters who say they are worried about money, his support has dropped two points, from 55%-53%; and among Democratic voters who say religion is an important part of their lives, his support dropped one point, from 49%-48%.” Their conclusion: “It certainly appears that, as of April 14 interviewing, Obama’s remarks have not hurt him – either among the Democratic electorate as a whole or among the Democratic constituencies Obama was referring to.”

One: Number of reasons why “Bittergate” may actually benefit Obama in Pennsylvania. After trailing by nearly 20 points for months, Obama surged at the start of April. While a positive development for the senator, this had the undesirable side effect of accustoming the commentariat to the possibility of a strong Obama finish–in other words, raising expectations. “Bittergate” has effectively lowered them again… without actually lowering Obama’s poll numbers. He’s still unlikely to win, but chances are the punditocracy is back where it began: primed to perceive a close second (which the polls still predict) as a triumph over Clinton on what amounts to her home turf (and perhaps even a comeback of sorts). For Obama, that could very well amount to a victory–at least in the expectations game.

More than $3 million: Amount Obama is spending on the Pennsylvania airwaves in the final week before the primary; 60 percent of that sum is allocated for the Philadelphia market.

$1.4 million: Amount Clinton is spending on Keystone State ads. Which is one reason she hasn’t managed to capitalize on Obama’s gaffe–even though 100 percent of her advertising in most of the state is negative.

14.5 percent: Obama’s average lead in North Carolina, which votes on May 6.

4.6 percent: Clinton’s average lead in Indiana, which also votes on May 6. That said, the latest Hoosier State poll (Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg) shows Obama up by five. So it’s still anybody’s race.

Two: Number of superdelegates–the only voters who really matter at this point, considering that they’re the only ones who can crown a nomine–to endorse Clinton in the past week.

Six: Number of superdelegates to endorse Obama in the same period of time. Obama now trails Clinton by fewer than 25 in the supers sweepstakes, down from about 80 on Feb. 5.

75 percent: Share of the remaining, uncommitted superdelegates that Clinton has to a win over in order to have a reasonable shot at securing the nomination, assuming that she captures at least half of the primary delegates still up for grabs. Her campaign is hoping that the Rev. Wright and “bitter” flaps will convince these party poo-bahs that Obama is unelectable.

10 percent: Obama’s lead (up three over last month) in the latest ABC/Washington Post national survey of Democrats–his largest to date. According to the Post poll, only 39 percent of Americans believe Clinton is honest and trustworthy, with 58 percent saying the opposite; her personal ratings stand at 44 percent favorable to 54 percent unfavorable (up from 40 percent after New Hampshire). On the electability question, Obama now leads by 31 points.

55 percent: Share of Post respondents who said Clinton should stay in the race even if she loses Pennsylvania. So at least there’s that.