Obama has won 10 to Clinton's two

He will win CO and AK  that will give him 12

even if he loses CA, NM, AZ and MO   he will lose MO.  He will proably lose CA (early voting heavily for CLinton).  He may split the other two

He may actually win more delegates based on what I am seeing

Obama is gaining fast on Hillary in Missouri. It's a 3 percent gap now with 17 percent outstanding, or a 22,000 vote deficit.

Not a single vote has been counted in Johnson County, home of Kansas City. And if trends hold up in St. Louis and its suburbs, there's another 30,000 voters or so there.

So far, Hillary has exceeded expectations in Massachusetts, based more on the Kennedy endorsements than on the polls. But Obama already has 10 states in his pocket -- I thought nine was optimistic -- and Axelrod is now claiming that they will end the night tied in the delegate count. If that turns out to be true, it's a massive victory for Obama, as he has a friendly calendar the rest of the month and far more money to work with.

Wow.

I don't know if absentees are included in total.  Votes that are out with OBama 5K votes up are mainly in areas he will win.   But if there are a significant # of absentees out, that could flip it back to Clinton

we still don't know NM

Obama should win AK

thus he will have 12 or 12 or 14 states.   She will have more votes.   But the delegates?  Until we know how CA shakes out we may not know

are breaking 2-1 for Clinton.

Clinton lead down to 4% -- votes still out in St. Louis, Kansas City, Columbia and a few rural counties.  He's making up ground fast.

RAZOR-thin right now betweem McCain and Huckabee.

yep, I think it's safe to call that one a razor thin margin.

STL is what is out.  I'm not sure if enough outstanding votes or not.

in MO thanks to some more reporting from Kansas City.  Still a nice chunk of votes left in St. Louis.  This would be a real nice win from a PR perspective if he pulls this off.

http://politics.nytimes.com/el...

How did Jesse Jackson do in Utah, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Conn. and Kansas in '84 and '88?

Did he win them twice? No?

OK, how about once? No?  

While I don't want to bring race back into this, I was thinking the same thing- A good question to ask Bill.  Did Jesse Jackson win these states that Obama is winning?  The media need to ask him this!

and look at these margins...60%-70% in these white, rural states.

80-16 in ID, 73-27 in KS! Holy shite, that's some brilliant organizing. 6-0 in caucus states, pretty much speaks for itself.

Very crazy night. Hill cleans up in Mass, NJ, and Arizona, while Barack really cleans up in GA, AL, IL, and the caucus states.

Cali may well go Barack, but how cool is it that our voice next week gets to speak. And loudly.

Here's to it going all the way to the convention!!!

Come on, it'll be fun.

Big chunks of votes out from St. Louis (17%) and St Louis County (34%).  22,000 are separating them statewide and with the margins Obama carried both St. Louis and St. Louis County, it appears there may be enough there to make up the difference - but not sure what status of absentee ballots statewide are.  Jackson County, another Obama stronghold, still has 15% of vote outstanding as well.  Jefferson County, carried by Clinton, has 40% outstanding but much smaller than counties listed above.  

CNN has MO at 49-48 (Clinton) with 91% reporting.  Margin is about 9,000 votes.

The difference in votes right now is a 9,300 votes.

Back of the envelope calculations based on previous trends in the outstanding cities and suburbs . . .

Columbia, MO -- +1,400 Obama
St. Louis City, MO -- +2,400 Obama
St. Louis County, MO -- +5,800 Obama
Kansas City, MO -- +1,800 Obama

+11,400 Obama.

With 97% reporting, it's about 3,200 votes--49%-49%.

Why are you people arguing about a couple thousand votes in Missouri when Obama is currently 20% points behind in California? Through the laws of statistics, even if he wins a huge portion of the remaining votes he'll still probably lose.

The polls closed only an hour ago and it's just 13% of precincts reporting.

First, it's a 20 point deficit with under 15% of the precincts (primarily small ones) reporting.  I would expect California to be closer by the end of the night.  I don't think the 20 point margin will hold.  Senator Clinton will probably win California, but it won't be a landslide.

Second, Obama doesn't have to win California--just keep it close so the delegate count stays close (it's not winner-take-all).

MO matters in the overall PR spin.  At the end of the evening, it will be a pretty nice headline to see "Obama wins 12/13/14 states."

Where will those delegates go in the end?

And Obama is up in MO.

in practical terms it's a wash at this stage, but pulling out the popular vote would put one more state into Obama's column.  Wouldn't hurt from a PR perspective.

In real terms California is the much bigger fish, but symbolism matters too.

While Obama will not win in CA, he is now only 11% back with 81% reporting. If this would be a single digit gap in the end, it would still be good, especially together with the other results (several 60-70% states).  

up in MO by 4,000 votes.

Barack swept most of the caucus states, where participation in the nominating process is limited. Granted, a little organization and work goes a long way and the results show that for Obama. Kudos to his organization there. Heavier vote turnout in the primary states, where more voters have a chance to have their say, has tended to favor Hillary tonight.

Between that and the weird results in Missouri and New Mexico... its been one heck of a night.

I think in the big states which have bigger Democratic machinea may have worked in favor of Clinton. Perhaps she even took the smaller states for granted.

No offense, but I'm not buying the argument. When Clinton won Florida you guys said, "Who cares." I understand no delegates were up for stakes. Nonetheless, a state that big is still as important as North Dakota and Idaho. Also, please do not counter that the results there were just because nobody campaigned. If that's the case then why was Hillary so strong in Jewish areas such as Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties and Obama strong in places with large college populations like Alachua (with UF) and Duval (with UNF and the big FCCJ system)? So if you want to focus on delegates fine, or if you want to focus on states that is OK too. However, don't just change the critera whenever it suits your candidate.

kinda like when Clinton said it's all about delegates after Iowa...UNTIL she started winning, then it was all about votes...delegates be dammed.

Yeah I'm not saying what she did was right or wrong, but as intellectuals interested in politics shouldn't we at least hold ourselves to some level of rhetorical integrity?

Clinton held "fundraisers" in Florida (violating the spirit of the agreement).

It's an apples to oranges argument you're making.  Florida really was just a beauty pageant that Clinton primped and preened for while Edwards and Obama sat out.  Clinton's name recognition alone was a enough for her to do well.  Florida is also not a Super Tuesday state.  State victories on Super Tuesday help with the momentum argument.  The Clinton camp hopes to have the nomination wrapped up today.  That clearly isn't going to happen.

were sanctioned by the national party (i.e. it was OK for candidates to collect funds from the state -- they just couldn't conduct a campaign).

In real terms there was no real contest because the rules imposed by the national party didn't allow the kind of campaign activities that take place in a real contests.

allowed by the DNC but Clinton had several fundraising "events" in Florida that didn't violate the letter of the DNC rules but certainly skirted the edges.  After the SC loss, Clinton attended a number of "closed" fundraising events in the state, but got her picture in the local papers and made the local news.  Because the events were "closed" events, they were within the rules set forth by the DNC.

matters in the GE, yes.  And it should also matter in the selection of a party nominee.  

But an election where there is no campaigning is an election based entirely on name ID.  Turnout was also driven by a ballot initiative that impacted Florida homeowners (correct me if I'm wrong on this one relawson).  

I think Obama's offer to actually conduct a real campaign in the state sanctioned by the national party would provide a better measure of what the real support levels in the state really are.

Even in Michigan -- everyone EXCEPT Clinton removed their names from the ballot when the national party sanctioned the state.  That difference coupled with name ID and no real campaign also makes a difference.  Not a reliable measure for how a real competitive campaign will play out.

for Clinton.

So much for "TurnPWBlue" telling me to check my math...huh?  

I never said Obama would win CA.  I said the results would be closer than 20 points.  I would fully expect Clinton to win California.  She had great numbers there early on.

I understand that it is a weighted contest, not necessarily based on the popular vote.

He's talking about winning Florida and Michigan. Its part of the spin. They hope most people don't know these won't count so it makes it should like Hillary won more than she did. If they really felt confident they woundn't have to do that.

Missouri hasn't been called yet.

Calling MO for her is a flat out lie.

If it's too close to call later than states further West, chances are the delegates will split just about evenly.  Interesting that both campaigns thought this state would be the bellwhether, when you think about it; it splits just about down the middle, and in a lot of ways the results are a split.  Obama wins more states, but Clinton's going to walk away with more delegates when they're finally apportioned out.

No knock out blows tonight from either side.  Time to sleep.

...by the way, to reiterate something both Obama and Hillary mentioned in their speeches, please pray for the people of Arkansas and Tennessee who were affected by the horrific weather tonight.

next time they show my candidate trailing, I'm gonna start celebrating.

MSNBC says that Romney will seriously re-evaluate his campaign tomorrow. If he drops out, I think Huckabee can beat McCain one-on-one.

has won 7 states by more than 30 points

How can they call Alameda County, for example, when the county hasn't reported a single vote yet? Seriously--how does that work? And Los Angeles County has 8% reporting--I don't expect Obama to pull a win out of his ass, but how do they project from 8%?

it looks like Obama is in line to win New Mexico with roughly 52%

HILLARY'S BIG NIGHT CONTINUES
Southwest to Midwest, Clinton Picks Up Two More Toss Up States
Two more closely contested toss-up states have gone for Hillary Clinton.

MISSOURI
Barack Obama outspent Hillary by $300,000 in TV ads in Missouri. He also benefited from the endorsements of high-profile surrogates across the state such as Representatives Carnahan and Clay, and Senator McCaskill, all of whom actively campaigned for him and appeared in ads on his behalf.

Despite these challenges - and with the help of Kansas City Congressman Emanuel Cleaver and Former Majority Leader Dick Gephardt - Hillary Clinton won this important toss-up state.

The Clinton Team  . . .

What more can be said?

she's not watching the numbers is she