That's just a snapshot of a VERY fluid situation. I predict HRC will win only 6-10 states, and the states she wins like NY will be too close for comfort, i.e. the story will be how close it was. Obama will win more than a thousand delegates and after tomorrow be the the clear front runner. After tomorrow Obama's path to the nomination is more favorable and almost inevitable.

Jim Webb for Vice-President!!

and Hillary winning 8 states, with several (e.g., California) "too close to call"

The idea of super-delegates was created specifically so the "establishment" could swing a primary contest close primary contest.  There are 798 super delegates that aren't officially committed until votes are actually cast at the convention.  I expect they're going to be the bloc that ultimately swings the nomination process.

Which is kind of sad when you think about it, but he's picking up more and more super delegates lately, so if the primary electorate in each state keeps Obama close and propels him forward, he's got a pretty decent shot.

If Obama is the preference coming out of the primaries, and assuming that sentiment doesn't change in the interim, I think it would be tough for the S-Ds to deny him, absent some compelling reason.

Whoever wins most the most delegates in the primaries will win the nomination.  The super delegates are going against the will of the majority.  They know it would cause a civil war.

of the whole Super Delegate problem...

http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

Otherwise a relative handful of delegates in either direction isn't going to make or break anyone's commitments.  Like I said, they specifically came up with the idea of implementing super-delegates in case they don't like the decision that emerges out of the popular vote.

And it's super easy to justify not going with the delegate count if it's close.  You can say the caucus rules some states use are ridiculous, or that you're not going to ignore Florida and Michigan in your decision making process (if you want to justify in Hillary's favor) or, alternatively, that you're basing your decision more on the opinions of voters in smaller battleground states like Colorado or Iowa or Virginia if you want to justify in favor of Obama.  If it's close, the Super Delegates are going to make up their own minds based on their own criteria.

But I think a 20 delegate spread either way isn't bad--probably as safe as you can be.  I suppose I'm not going out on too big a limb to say it all comes down to California, and I couldn't guess what turnout's going to look like there--mainly because of Latino voters, because:

1. Latino voters tend to support Hillary over Obama.
2. I don't know what the breakdown is among Republicans, but I would venture to guess that Latino voters tend to support McCain over Romney.  McCain is more-moderate about immigration issues.
3. Latino voters are a bit more dynamic in their partisan affiliation than some other demographics.
4. Unaffiliated voters can request a partisan ballot on election day.

And Latino voter turnout isn't even always reliable.  But if Latino unaffiliated voters turn out, I wonder whether in their eyes McCain>Hillary>Obama?  Or Hillary>McCain>Obama?  Or Hillary=McCain>Obama?

Flip the names, and then you're closer.  No way Obama wins more delegates tomorrow.  

???

Obama is closing fast and has the momentum, but Hillary has a lead in most states or is at least in the MOE.  In addition, early voting will break for her.  I know that's supposed to be indicated in the polls already, but there's a big difference between a likely vote and a vote already cast. In addition, I think the latest polls breaking for Obama are, to some extent, unreliable because they (1) aren't used to polling primaries that matter and (2) were over the weekend when polling is suspect.  So, Clinton should outperform them, I'd think.

I don't think Obama is going to win most of her key states, but come close enough to forge the near-delegate split I predict.  And that by itself will be a huge victory for him.  A few more days and I'd agree with your prediction, but not enough time to surpass all the things working in Clinton's favor (institutional support, early voting, name ID, etc. etc.)

Early voting is taken into account in these polls, Rob and Flip.  They also ask voters if they have already voted, and if so, for whom.  Early voters get polled too, and they ask if these people have already voted.

They did this Florida, too.  The average poll had Hillary winning by 20 points.  She won by 17.  The polls were RIGHT.  Why?  They included early voters.  The first question they ask is "have you voted early in this years primary season?"  If yes, it's "in which primary did you vote, and who did you vote for?"  If not, they ask "do you plan on voting in either the Democratic or Republican primary?"  Then, "Which candidate do you plan on voting for?", "How solid is your support", etc.  But they COUNTED early voters.  

Yes, Obama is surging amongst newly decided voters.  But if early voters were counted in Florida polls, I bet ya they're being counted in California polls too.

My point is that an early vote is one that's already cast.  You never know if those likely votes will actually happen.  So that's an advantage to Hillary out of the gate.  

My understanding is that an "early vote" (aka, "mail-in") could be dropped off as late as tomorrow at the polls.  

I'm looking at the most recent ones I can find, not the average for the last week or whatever.  In those, it's looking great for Obama.  Also, my understanding is that polling DOES take account of "early voting."  Another point: I don't believe the "likely voter" models are capturing young voters well, or the surge in voters generally.  Finally, in California, keep in mind that the Republican primary is closed to "undeclared voters," so independents will all vote in the Democratic primary which should help Obama...

Yes, these polls take into account early voters.  They do not, however, take into account new voters and Independents.  New voters could go to either, with young voters helping Obama and new Latino voters helping Clinton, while Independents should definitely aid Obama.

are young voters, they will go for Obama. It's generational.

... but I think Clinton has her own built-in advantages that I mentioned above (plus others) that will keep her with a 5-10 point win in California and Mass and 10-12 points in her other "firewall" states (big win in NY).  And that's a big victory for Obama, if that happens, because he gets a decent share of the delegates to get close to a split.

That's just my prediction -- we'll see what happens.  I hope you're right, of course, I just don't think so.

Recommended diary on DKos:

Current 'Super Tuesday' Projection**: Obama 783, Clinton 777, Edwards 7

Note that he doesn't allocate delegates from states with no recent poll: 111 (AR, KS, ID, AK, ND).  I do. But still, we're very clsoe in terms of the spread -- I've got Obama up 20 delegates, he's got Obama up 6 delegates out of 1,688 up for grabs.

here: "Obama Can Win California" by Todd Beeton.

Obama's obstacles with winning CA

http://www.prospect.org/cs/art...

Remember how you said you weren't going to trust polls again after NH?  ;)  And now SUSA has new one out showing big Clinton leads.  Obama isn't doing a good job of managing expectations, that's for sure.

Obama hasn't been able to keep expectations down.

Haven't seen it up on RCP yet.  What poll, what state, etc.

I'm not a big fan of SUSA, but it is certainly possible.  It would go against what other polls are showing, but it is certainly possible that this poll is right, and the others are wrong.

Who knows...

Silence DoGood, declined to state voters in CA can only vote in the democratic primary.  The republican primary is closed to declined to state voters, per the rules set by the republican party of CA.  If declined to state voters want to vote in the democratic primary, they have to request a democratic ballot, otherwise they would receive a ballot that contains state and local propositions only.

On another note,  California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, D-CA, has announced that 244,000 voters were added to the voting rolls in CA during the 45 days prior to the CA primary.  Of that total, 150,000 voters registered as Democrats, 40,000 as Republicans and the remaiming registerd as declined to state or for other minor political party's.  Newly registered voter in the last four democratic primaries and caucuses have favored Obama overwhelmingly and I suspect these new voters in California will as well.  

I read the SecState's rules and the Democrats' but not the GOP state party's.  Huh.  Interesting.

And kind of stupid, but who am I to tell them how to pick their loser. :)

It's fascinating to try and guess -- and that's the best anyone can do -- the partisan bias of voters who would vote early in a very fluid Democratic primary race like this.

The accepted wisdom is that early absentee voters contain a large chunk of seniors.  But a case can be made for type-A busy business people.  Or for people who may work and/or live during the week some distance from their principal residences where they are registered to vote.

One reasonable hypothesis -- based on no evidence whatsoever -- is that anyone close-minded enough to have voted early in this dynamic race would likely not have been the kind of voter with a mindset receptive to Senator Obama's message of hope and change.  In other words, the loss of potential Obama votes among absentee voters may not have that large an impact on the final results if -- and this if is key -- the turnout tomorrow is huge.

Conversely, from the amount of noise they're making, it would appear -- and one can only hope -- that the 18 to 30ish voters are going to do the walk, as opposed to the talk, in numbers larger than 2004.  And almost none of them vote absentee.  So, in California, Obama enthusiasts among younger voters may wash or even outweigh what one assumes is probably a bias against the upstart contender among early absentee voters.

One other comment:  speaking of mindsets, it's likely that Maria Shriver's remarks yesterday about Senator Obama embodying how Californians see themselves is an appeal to the heart that few on-the-fence California voters will be able to deny.  

"And almost none of them vote absentee."

What about students? I voted absentee in Virginia today because I'll be in Charlottesville next Tuesday. The coveted youth were likely on break for Iowa and NH, and the SC vote took place on a Saturday, so students at regional schools (Clemson, USC, Duke, UNC, etc.) could easily go home to vote. But doesn't it stand to reason that a lot of California-resident students would vote absentee on a Tuesday?

I won't bore everyone silly with my own laundry list, but I did much the same thing that you did in Excel last Friday and came up with Clinton and Obama only 9 delegates apart.

It's tough, because a lot of these states have been hardly if at all polled.

What I think it all comes down to is that if Obama keeps it pretty close to a tie in California and beats Clinton with over 60% in Illinois, odds are that the night will be his.  She's counting so much on really big wins in those big states of CA, NJ and NY.

But those leads she's had in NJ and NY become less meaningful if Obama blows her away in Illinois by the kind of stunning margin that some polls are showing. He was polling at 60% in this delegate-rich state even before Edwards dropped out. If Obama pulls better than 60% in Illinois then that basically erases Hillary's advantages in NJ and NY, which aren't nearly so dramatic.

Most of the other states work out to a tie overall. I really think that Clinton has to thump Obama in California and stay over 40% in her original home state of Illinois in order to claim a win on Tuesday night.

If Tuesday ends up with a tie (most likely, I think), the advantage goes to Obama. Because the rest of the February calender favors Obama heavily. And what happens if they are tied on Wednesday morning but then Obama wins primary after primary for the rest of the month? A consensus will emerge that Obama is the nominee and that we really need this thing over already so that we can start focusing on returning fire against McCain, who will probably have the GOP nomination wrapped up at that point.

Sure, Hillary Clinton can start winning again in March when favorable states start coming up. But she has to do better than a tie on Super Tuesday to stay alive that long.

than she will by March, it won't even be funny.  Take January, for instance:  Obama $32+ million vs. Clinton $10 million.  That's a losing formula for Clinton, the longer this goes...

Of course, the pace gets easier from this point on for someone with less money. The difference between having $32M and $10M is huge when you need to compete in Super Tuesday with those resources. A campaign might have to skip entire states.

So what's the difference between the relative scales of $32M and $10M going into MD, DC & VA? I don't know. But I figure that when there are only a few states up at a time, there are only but so many cities where you want to put field offices and only so many ads that people are even going to notice. There are a finite number of yards to put signs in and edging them in gold leaf won't do us much good.

If Hillary Clinton can keep raising $10M a month and Obama keeps raising $32M, I think that the meaning of all that extra money of Obama's doesn't mean as much with the post-Tuesday calender. It's still a very good position for Obama to be in, but it will be less of an advantage than it is tomorrow.

It will be close tomorrow, but far from over. Hillary's donors will step up big time and she will certainly have the money to compete, no matter how long it goes.  In the VA-MD-DC market she doesn't need to spend on air time.  She is a fixture on the local news.  Meanwhile, I've seen many commercials for Obama which have to be costly.

in January?  Can you post the article?

Means can be anywhere from 10 to 19.99 million.  If she had raised 20, she would've said so.

If she raised $11m, she'd say $11m.

but I don't choose my candidates based on $$$.

We know.  But it is a factor.  Part of the reason your boy couldn't compete on the same level as the other two was due to money.

This one of Hispanic voters, taken Saturday and Sunday

http://www.earthtimes.org/arti...

People are making too big a deal about the early voting; it's the Latino vote that will swing CA.

The divide between the AA community and the Latino community is measurable (and unfortunate), but they're also not as likely to participate in primaries as some other groups.  It might be noteworthy that she polled better over Obama than McCain did over Romney, so they may actually like her to a greater extent than they have qualms about an African American President.

But will they actually turn out and vote?  Are they over-represented or under-represented in the California/NY polling samples?  The degree to which Latinos participate in California could result in an unexpected higher-margin win, and even if it's not a blow-out, the number of delegates in the California delegation could make that decisive.

I pains me to imagine Clinton as the nominee.

all the way to August with neither candidate getting a clear majority of delegates.  Come-on, it will be fun, and it will keep the GOP attack machine unfocused for that many more months...

Clinton will emerge with a delegate lead of about 100 delegates after tomorrow in my opinion.

I think she'll pull narrow wins in CA, MA, CT, AZ, NM, MO, TN & hefty wins in NY, NJ, OK and AR.  Obama will win handily in IL, CO, AL, GA, DE, KS, ID, and UT.  Toss-ups I see are ND and MN, I think.

...But I'm estimating on the conservative side because i think the polls are just too stacked for an outright Obama win...BUT there is no question that a 100 delegate lead is surmountable for Obama, particularly with MD, DC, and VA--all Obama territory--coming up next week.

A newly released Rasmussen shows Obama within 6 points of Clinton in New Jersey.