Who had a Better night Obama or Clinton?

[elcorazon]

I think Clinton won.  Obama needed New Jersey, or at least to have Mass or Calif be very close.  While Obama has an edge in the next few states, they are mostly smallish.  I am worried that he will get clobbered in Texas, and will be lucky to pull out close victories/losses in Pennsylvania/Ohio.  He wins lots of states - she wins the biggies (Ill excepted, of course)... He tends to win the states the Republicans will win in November.

Anyway, it's hard for me to see where he's going to make a big enough run at her to prove he's THE guy, which will make it unlikely that the superdelegates will jump Hillary's ship, and she should have the edge in adding additional superdelegates to her total.

I hope I'm wrong. 

[elcorazon]

The problem now is money.  People will contribute to the presumptive winner (John McCain for the GOP).  Obama is not the presumptive winner and, after yesterday, should begin to see money problems.  Hillary is married to the fund raiser in chief; money has never been a problem.  She can conduct an extended campaign better than Obama.  It won't be pretty, but she can pull it off.

I'm sorry, but this is a very hackish statement to make. Obama just outraised Clinton more than 2 to 1. Why? Because due to the sheer difference in number of donors, Hillary is starting to get hurt badly by the per-donor fundraising limit!

Not hackish, but practical.  Obama had a huge win in SC, gigantically favorable press, and mega endorsements.  He looked like he could pull off a decisive Super Tuesday victory, for a while.  He didn't.

Clinton can now say, "Look, Obama had all the newspaper endorsements, Ted Kennedy, and most of the Kennedy Clan, mega good press, more money, and I am the one in the lead."  That raises funds. 

Nothing succeeds like success.  On Super Tuesday, Obama was not a failure, but he wasn't a success either.

I'll add that, from what I've seen Obama can pick off states, and is great in person, but he falters and the larger, more unified, campaign.  He can win a victory, but he can't follow up and exploit one. 

I'm not that big of a believer in the Intrade market meaning much BUT I think you overstate the Obama hype situation.  Hillary consistently traded in the 60's thruout January.  Why would the "bettors" on intrade be solidly behind Hillary's chances, but the campaign donors be behind Obama - kinda cuts against your theory that the money follows the winner (even though I think there's generally merit to that argument).

Not to mention, after NH, Hillary looked like she was practically home free, yet she still only raised 13 mil in the entire month (not all fundraising occurred post SC).

[elcorazon]

obama's surge led to some unrealistic expectations among some of the pundits/public.  some felt he might win Mass, Cal and NJ, but most felt these were likely Clinton victories.

I don't think any of them going for Clinton was much of a surprise even to those who believed fully that Obama was surging, but I do think the margin surprised most, especially in Cal and Mass.  Obama did win CT and MO but both were thin margins, unlike Hillary's big wins. 

Just like NH, Hillary's wins were semi-comebacks that got more press base on the lowered expectations.  Not sure how much they fed into this thing intentionally, but for whatever reason, it did seem to work.