What is going to happen to push him to victory in the big three remaining states?  He can outspend her and out organize her.  He has to overcome her ethnic firewall in Texas, but she has to overcome her problem with white men.

New York and New Jersey were never supposed to be competitive.  Just like Clinton was never going to be competitive in Illinois.  (Note that NY was a lot closer than IL).

So, while her base won't crumble quickly in those big states, the danger is that the media Obama lovefest will pick off just enough voters to give him the edge in delegates. The positive coverage for Obama won't be as intense as over the last period, but it may still be enough, especially since there'll be several states that he's likely to win. "Obama wins again" will be a recurrent headline.

They're dismissing CA, NY and NJ because they're always blue in the general and they're hyping CO, which Obama won, because it's a swing state. If they had an ounce of integrity, they would also say that Clinton has proved she can win in the South and that Obama has proved he has problems with Democrats. If he didn't, he would have won CA or, at the very least, MA, given all the state elected officials were for him and he cruised on 10 days of media love.

The question must be asked: with all the media love, all the talk of momentum and all the time he has had: if all Obama can win are caucus states plus a couple of open primaries, isn't it time to dial it back a little?  The last few weeks have been a perfect storm of adulation and incredibly positive press coverage and Obama still could not capitalize.  On the other hand, Clinton has been sitting in a perfect storm of crappy coverage, derision (which was manifest last night when pundits were laughing at her even while reporting the states she was winning) and great speculation as to her demise and she still won big in the large states and in the South.  Even MO is a tie; Sen. McCaskill managed  2,000 extra votes for Obama and we're calling that a huge win for him?  In what sane universe is that huge?

Last night's results are very clear.  The popular vote is clear.  The winning coalition is clear.  Clinton won the night and she is well positioned to win PA, TX and possibly OH.  Are we really going to say, with any degree of self-awareness, that the candidate who the big states last night and who is likely to win the next big pots is not the favorite for the nomination?

Clinton winning 2 out of the next 9 and not getting completely blown out in the rest is probably a best case scenario for her. Best case for Obama is winning 9 of 9 handily and going up maybe +100 pledged delegates to take the overall delegate lead.

That's got to have some effect on his momentum. Clinton's best states are probably Ohio and Pennsylvania. She'll probably take Ohio with similar margins to New Jersey. I'd say Texas is a toss-up (large black vote, Austin for O, Tenn. like characteristics for the rest).

Clinton 900 delegates
Obama 824

Yup.  It's all over certainly.  

Is that what I'm reading BTD?

How do you intepret these states demographics and how can you prove they'll vote for Clinton?

Baldwin's with 8 could go 5-3 Obama. (I'm wondering if we're the only CD in the Country with this many delegates at stake?)

I'll give Obama a slight chance of 4-2 in Obey's and Moore's.

He has had a ten day stretch that is not likely to be matched again.

I simply don't see how you can back up that statement.  It's true Obama had a fantastic period leading into the yesterday's mega-vote but I think a lot of that campaign goodness is attributable to the smarts that his campaign has shown.  I suspect he's got more big endorsements coming (there's still Richardson and possibly other hispanic endorsers who could make the difference for him) and I see no evidence that the media will be any less friendly to him relative to Clinton going forward.  At least some of the big states coming up have open primaries, which helps him.  And he seems to be adjusting his message (for instance, in the recent debate) to gin up more mainstream Democratic support as well.

Yes, if Obama peaked yesterday then he probably won't win.  But did he peak?  I don't claim to know -- but he's one hell of a campaigner and he's running one hell of a campaign and I sure wouldn't bet against him.

My man was Edwards, mostly because of health care and his acknowledgment of his mistakes, especially on Iraq, but that's not gonna happen.  Obama's refusal to really support universal coverage remains a deal breaker for me, and like you I beleive Hillary will hold her core constituencies.  (And in the general African-Americans will come home, as will many white males)

If you care to, would you comment on 2 points:
While I know that the "Bradley effect" has been pooh-poohed, I do notice that Obama won the caucus states.  Do you think that will hold going forward?  What, if anything, might it portend for the general election?

Hillary's last quarter's fund raising must have have been a problem.  Do you expect that to reverse now?

You had a post about how winning was winning, losing was losing, no whining etc.  And in that spirit, I really think last night was a tie.  Both camps have reason to be optimistic, Both have reason to be concerned. Let's not forget that three months ago everyone thought the race would be over this morning, and clearly it's almost as if we're just getting started.  

Specifically, one thing that Obama can look at very positively is NM.  While Obama lost by 10 in California, NM still looks too close to call and the Demographics their should have pointed to a Clinton victory.  It's quite possible that the little extra time before Texas will allow this momentum to play out there.

I also disagree that the dynamics of the race are set in stone.  I still believe there are world events, endorsements, and other things completely unforeseen that could affect the race.  

Lastly, and this is admittedly through the lense of an Obama supporter, I look at MA, NY, NJ and see states that the Dems are going to win no matter who is the candidate.  I truly believe part of what we see in last night is that Obama could be competitive in certain states like KS and CO.

With Clinton's win in big states, Obama winning more states, delegates split almost evenly, Clinton taking CA, Obama winning MO and extremely close in NM, I really think we had as close to a tie as we could have had last night.

He is expected to win the next seven contests over the next seven days...rumors are out there of a Gore endorsement...and another $30+ million haul in February... and the jaw dropping suggestion that the Clintons had to self-fund their campaign with millions of dollars over the last week! suggest that money and momentum may bury the Clintons sooner rather than later.

"No one told me there would be math"

Politico is reporting that Obama has the lead in delegates

Oops.

Being overtly owtwardly negative about one's hopes in the underlying hope that being outwardly negative will force others to redouble efforts and/or an attempt to corral cosmic good will through self-flagellation.

You're right about the big states being more important than the smaller states, and you're right that that the Obama spin is pretty transparent on that issue.  But it's still quite a close race, and we all know politics is a fickle business prone to wild swings in the space of a minute or a second.

A lot can change in a day, everything can change in a week.

I've heard much less coverage of his legislative history and his current policies and stands. But, the NYTimes did do an article about one of his Senate legislative attempts--to require nuclear power plant operators to inform the public of leaks, based on some leaks of radiated cooling water into the groundwater and contaminating drinking water sources.

The article said Obama began with a strong language requiring the operators to inform the public, then, to gain Republican support (R's were in charge of the Senate at that time) he lowered the requirements to finally become voluntary compiance to be decided by the NRC and the operators.  

This seemed to be BushLite--corporate voluntary standards. Great.

But--is this article fair? Anyone knowledgeable about this issue know more? The NYTimes can be good--but they can also not be so good, so how's this article?

See you in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2012 folks! See you in the federal pen on drug charges!  See you with a national id card and in a biometric database.

• First, the blue-purple-red continuum. Indisputably, Obama does better in more purplish-reddish states. Indisputably, the set {OH, PA, TX} is a heck of lot more purplish/reddish than the set {NJ, NY, CA}.

• Secondly, size and heterogeneity are gradual properties. In terms of the number of delegates they award, GA and IL (both of which Obama won) are in the same ballpark as NJ (the numbers are 103-GA, 127-NJ, 185-IL). And in terms of demographics, IL has about the same percentage of Latinos as NJ (slightly higher in 2005 in fact).

• Thirdly, you're treating this as a linear process, ignoring the potential effect of changes in the fundamental contextual conditions. If Clinton's funds dry up and Obama secures the biggest endorsements still to be had - those of Edwards and Gore - it'll be much harder for Clinton to compete in the remaining states than it was going into Super-T-Day.

HRC has advantages in name-brand recognition, inherent fear from deviating from the status quo, institutional power, Machiavellian tactics.

Obama has advantages, as well, in cash, enthusiasm. Moreover, wherever he has campaigned hard and voters have got to know him, his numbers have skyrocketed. This could easily happen in Ohio and Penn.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3679

I never expected Obama to take CA.  1/3 of the ballots were already cast over 2 weeks ago.  The only real disappointment for him was Massachusetts.  I've always said that all he needed to do was tie on Super Tuesday, and then he'd be in great shape.  He has more money, and much more committed organization and activist base.  He'll likely sweep through the primaries to March 4, and has an even shot at Texas and Ohio.  Given that Obama has sent his South Carolina team to Texas, to count him out there is ridiculous.

That, and Obama won more delegates last night.  I thought an Obama victory would be coming within 100 delegates.  He seems to have won the night:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

 No one who pushes Obama wants to confront the serious problems an Obama candidate would pose. This is a  serious candidate who has not been  raked over the coals by the MSM, which is holding its fire until the general.  There has been NO negative coverage of Obama...no exploration of his lack of experience and failure to demonstrate leadership.  Isn't that strange? He is an unknown now and it is likely a negative campaign will lower his positives and raise his negatives substantially.  His drivers licenses to illegals is toxic in a general.  They had to take it off the table in New York it was so unpopular. The REpublicans will be attacking him relentlessly.  The Democrats are constrained to attack him but have no problem attacking her.  Why do they want to maintain their fantasy to everyone's detriment?

Obama has no experience on economy...the number one concern. No experience in foreign policy. No one wants someone else, to learn on the job.  We've already done that.  It's too risky now.  Again, I repeat, why aren't the Obama supporters interested in being realistic?  Do they want Dems to lose the general?
The numbers in the big states prove he will have trouble against McCain. The small states he won will never turn Dem.  Tennessee and Arkansas we can win with Clinton.  And Arizona.  Where has Obama demonstrated he can win in a swing state?  It took him Claire McCaskill and other surrogates who  endorsed him there to edge Clinton in Missouri and he only won in the cities with huge African American populations. Clinton won all of Missouri and lost in the cities because of the black vote, which is voting purely on race.

Obama scores a blowout (AL,DE,GA) when more than 20% AA    

Hillary scores solid (AZ,MA,OK) when Primary having < 10 AA
Exception goes to Obama with UT;  NM virtually tied

Hillary scores solid (AR,NJ,NY,TN) when Primary and 10 - 20% AA
Exceptions go to Obama with IL and CT; MO virtually tied.

So what about OH, PA, and TX? They all fall into the 10 - 20% AA, which is solidly Hillary's with exceptions.

PA is a closed Primary; Gov Rendall endoresed Hillary. So it will go to Hillary (but Obama will win the Philly area).

President Carter had warned us all those years ago what our addiction to foreign oil would mean for this country and the Dem Party that abandoned him and his demand for moderation and change to alternative sources of energy.

Obama has raised a very large sum of money so far in '08.  Money isn't the key.  Look at how poorly Romney and even Ron Paul have done despite having access to barrels full of dough.

The next few contests should favor Obama, but Clinton should continue to do better in the larger contests such as Ohio and Texas.

Voters with economic worries seem to be favoring Clinton over Obama, and there are a lot more people with economic worries these days.  There may be more in the coming weeks.

I think it would be a mistake for Clinton to pull a Giuliani and focus on the later bigger contests and avoid fighting hard in the interim contests.  I have no indication that she would, but both candidates need to keep their momentum going.

I don't see an extended nomination process as hurting the eventual winner unless the in-fighting gets really negative.  The negative stuff so far seems pretty tame to me.

Isn't it nice that all the states will get a chance to have their votes matter?  Our party is made up of more people than just those in Iowa and New Hampshire.

I will enthusiastically support the eventual nominee.  I think we've got two exceptional candidates.  It is vital to retake the White House.  The country can ill-afford to have McCain or any other Republican select the next few Supreme Court Justices.

Elections do matter and we need to stay united in our efforts to undo the damage caused by Bush and the Republicans regardless of whether Clinton or Obama is the standard bearer.