Landscape for Obama is more favorable from here on

[Silent Hunter]

Of course, not all of those delegates are going to end up in Obama's camp. All Clinton needs to do is get enough to keep him from locking up the nomination, then win Texas and Ohio big-style.

When was the last time a nomination race wasn't effectively resolved on Super Tuesday?

[Mr. Morden]

When was the last time a nomination race wasn't effectively resolved on Super Tuesday?

It was definitely resolved on Super Tuesday (for both parties) in 1996, 2000, and 2004.  1992.....I think Super Tuesday definitively established Clinton as the clear frontrunner, but it wasn't immediately clear that it was over....Super Tuesday wasn't nearly as big back then.  Tsongas was still holding out some hope in later states, but I don't think he ever won another primary, and dropped out within a couple of weeks.  Brown stayed in until the end, but he never really had a chance.

Before 1992....I don't know.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Amusingly enough the two areas that have voted so far that have most in common with working class areas in Ohio are in New York (the upstate industrial areas) and Illinois (the southern Illinois coalfield). Arguments can be made for parts of Michigan also, but that wasn't a normal primary.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Something else worth noting: With the GOP race wrapped up, there will be no more of the competition between Obama and McCain for independents. Even if they like McCain better, they have no reason to vote in the GOP primary. In fact, even Republicans don't have a reason to vote in the GOP primary now and I suspect many "Hillary is the Antichrist!" types will crossover to vote for Obama (yes some will vote for Hillary seeing her as the easier to beat candidate but most people don't bother with that type of tactical voting. Voting for the person you prefer is far more common, see Cynthia McKinney)

[Jake]

That will help in Washington (D/I), Wisconsin (Open), Nebraska (D/I), and Virginia (Open). Maine, DC, Maryland, Hawaii, and Louisiana are closed.

[Ogre Mage]

I agree with the consensus -- all of the states in February range from slightly favorable to very favorable for Obama.  But come March 4 -- Ohio and Texas look strong for Hillary.  And those two are big states with large numbers of delegates.  Barack and Hillary should split the two little states also going that day, with him taking Vermont and she Rhode Island.

[Platypus]

I can see Hillary winning all four. If she wins even a single state between now and the old Super Tuesday, it's possible. RI is Hillary almost certainly, TX looks very favourable for her, nobody really knows anything about VT, and OH is at best for Obama's camp about even.

[Verily]

I can see Hillary winning all four. If she wins even a single state between now and the old Super Tuesday, it's possible. RI is Hillary almost certainly, TX looks very favourable for her, nobody really knows anything about VT, and OH is at best for Obama's camp about even.

VT is basically the Obama areas of NH writ large. Take Rockingham and Hillsborough Counties out of NH, and you have VT--and an Obama victory. It should be pretty strong for him.

[Gabu]

nobody really knows anything about VT

If Obama can win Connecticut, he can win Vermont.

As for Texas, I do think that it's important to note that a good chunk of the delegates there are allocated in a caucus, and we all know about Obama and caucuses.

[J. J.]

nobody really knows anything about VT

If Obama can win Connecticut, he can win Vermont.

As for Texas, I do think that it's important to note that a good chunk of the delegates there are allocated in a caucus, and we all know about Obama and caucuses.

In this case, caucuses filled with Latinos.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree that February looks great for Obama, but March looks stronger for Clinton.

The thing about the money... it got me thinking, I agree that Obama's way ahead, and there probably are money problems starting in the campaign, but I have to think that perhaps it's a tactic to either increase fundraising, or to give Hillary the underdog tag now. You already see little glimpses of it

"Obama's outspending us" and I can see them trying to link his clear strength in caucuses to his "machine".

[Gabu]

I agree that February looks great for Obama, but March looks stronger for Clinton.

The thing about the money... it got me thinking, I agree that Obama's way ahead, and there probably are money problems starting in the campaign, but I have to think that perhaps it's a tactic to either increase fundraising, or to give Hillary the underdog tag now. You already see little glimpses of it

"Obama's outspending us" and I can see them trying to link his clear strength in caucuses to his "machine".

If it was all just a ploy, I don't think Hillary would be spending her own money on her campaign and having her campaign workers go a month without pay.  Nobody does that unless they're in seriously dire financial straits.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree that February looks great for Obama, but March looks stronger for Clinton.

The thing about the money... it got me thinking, I agree that Obama's way ahead, and there probably are money problems starting in the campaign, but I have to think that perhaps it's a tactic to either increase fundraising, or to give Hillary the underdog tag now. You already see little glimpses of it

"Obama's outspending us" and I can see them trying to link his clear strength in caucuses to his "machine".

If it was all just a ploy, I don't think Hillary would be spending her own money on her campaign and having her campaign workers go a month without pay.  Nobody does that unless they're in seriously dire financial straits.

I didn't say ploy, but announcing it the day after the night most expected the campaign would end 2 months ago. I think it's totally real, but the decision to make it public was the tactic.

[Aizen]

I agree that February looks great for Obama, but March looks stronger for Clinton.

The thing about the money... it got me thinking, I agree that Obama's way ahead, and there probably are money problems starting in the campaign, but I have to think that perhaps it's a tactic to either increase fundraising, or to give Hillary the underdog tag now. You already see little glimpses of it

"Obama's outspending us" and I can see them trying to link his clear strength in caucuses to his "machine".

If it was all just a ploy, I don't think Hillary would be spending her own money on her campaign and having her campaign workers go a month without pay.  Nobody does that unless they're in seriously dire financial straits.

Hmm... I agree but it still COULD be a possibility I  suppose. She raised all that money, did she really spend it all? If this is a ploy, it wouldn't surprise me. It's funny, yet pathetic how the Clinton campaign has been trying every single tactic in the book.

[Aizen]

I agree that February looks great for Obama, but March looks stronger for Clinton.

The thing about the money... it got me thinking, I agree that Obama's way ahead, and there probably are money problems starting in the campaign, but I have to think that perhaps it's a tactic to either increase fundraising, or to give Hillary the underdog tag now. You already see little glimpses of it

"Obama's outspending us" and I can see them trying to link his clear strength in caucuses to his "machine".

If it was all just a ploy, I don't think Hillary would be spending her own money on her campaign and having her campaign workers go a month without pay.  Nobody does that unless they're in seriously dire financial straits.

I didn't say ploy, but announcing it the day after the night most expected the campaign would end 2 months ago. I think it's totally real, but the decision to make it public was the tactic.

She raised a lot of money last quarter, didn't she? She wasn't running all over the country like Obama, she seemed pretty concetrated in California. Where the HELL did all that money go? Is that fat bastard Mark Penn really charging millions for his services?

[Gabu]

I agree that February looks great for Obama, but March looks stronger for Clinton.

The thing about the money... it got me thinking, I agree that Obama's way ahead, and there probably are money problems starting in the campaign, but I have to think that perhaps it's a tactic to either increase fundraising, or to give Hillary the underdog tag now. You already see little glimpses of it

"Obama's outspending us" and I can see them trying to link his clear strength in caucuses to his "machine".

If it was all just a ploy, I don't think Hillary would be spending her own money on her campaign and having her campaign workers go a month without pay.  Nobody does that unless they're in seriously dire financial straits.

I didn't say ploy, but announcing it the day after the night most expected the campaign would end 2 months ago. I think it's totally real, but the decision to make it public was the tactic.

Ah, well, that I could agree with.  I could see that.

[Ogre Mage]

The breakdown I see on Vermont v. Rhode Island is this -- Vermont is a state with large numbers of independent liberals with upscale incomes, which plays straight to Obama's best demographics.  Senator Patrick Leahy has endorsed him.

Rhode Island is a Democratic Machine state with large numbers of older voters -- key elements for Clinton to do well.  It also is mostly Catholic which I think has favored Hillary in the past.  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has endorsed her.

[Aizen]

Vermont voted Jesse Jackson didn't it? Yeah, Obama is a lock to win it. RI could be tougher.

[Gabu]

Vermont voted Jesse Jackson didn't it?

Not that I'm aware of... I don't think Jackson ever won a state outside the South aside from Michigan and Alaska.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Something to keep in mind with Wisconsin, don't "interesting" things often happen in elections in Madison and Milwaukee? That should be another boost for Obama.

[Democratic Hawk]

Indeed. Furthermore, if Obama takes the spoils through February, he has a) the momentum, b) the time and c) the resources to put into Ohio and Texas; the latter of course being essentially Hillary's firewall. It's a state she should win handidly given how Hispanics, at large, have broken heavily in her favor

Question is will he, ultimately, run her close like he did in NM (it's close but likely she'll win it) or will it more on par with AZ?

Of course, unlike NM, Texas is not a caucus state and is delegate-rich

Dave

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Of course, unlike NM, Texas is not a caucus state and is delegate-rich

Actually it kind of is: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=69943.0

And from what I understand, NM wasn't really a caucus, it was basically an primary with shorter voting hours and less precincts.

[Bacon King]

Louisiana: I could very well be wrong, but I see it as a Clinton-leaner. I don't know.
Nebraska: Obama win.
Washington: Obama win.

Sunday:
Maine: Tossup, I think, at this point. Maybe leaning Hillary.

Feb 12th:
DC: Obama.
MD: Obama
Virginia: More of a tossup, I think, though if upstate goes strongly for Obama it's his.

Feb 19th:
Hawaii: Obama, I'd assume
Wisconsin: lean Hillary

March 4th:
Ohio: lean Hillary
Rhode Island: lean Hillary
Texas: lean Hillary for the primary, but Obama could probably do well in the caucus
Vermont: Obama, probably.


Obama won't do as well as people are really assuming him to, but with enough campaigning he could do it.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Louisiana: I could very well be wrong, but I see it as a Clinton-leaner. I don't know.

How is this any more friendly to Clinton than your state?

Maine: Tossup, I think, at this point. Maybe leaning Hillary.

It's a caucus in a state that's much like NH minus the parts that gave Hillary her margin of victory...

Wisconsin: lean Hillary

Based on what? Obama's won every similar state so far. And are you taking into account it has same day registration (great for college kids) and is an open primary?

[Josh/Devilman88]

Lets see I'll go down the list...

LA- Lean Obama(Could be toss-up)
NE- Strong Obama
WA- Lean Obama

ME- Toss-up to lean Clinton

DC- Strong Obama
MD- Lean to Strong Obama
VA- Toss-up

HI- Strong Obama
WI- Toss-up to lean Obama

OH- Lean Clinton to toss-up
RI- Lean Clinton to toss-up
TX- Lean Clinton could be a Toss-up
VT- Lean Clinton

WY- Strong Obama

MS- Strong Obama

PA- Toss-up to lean Clinton

IN- Lean Clinton but may become toss-up
NC- Lean Obama

WV- Strong Clinton

KY- Lean Clinton
OR- Lean Obama

MT- Strong Obama
SD- Strong Obama.

*So it looks like a long hard race.