I think Obama has to win SC to have any chance on Super Tuesday and that a Nevada win would help in that regard.  I think it's subtle expectations raising, however, to say that Obama is the favorite to win Nevada.  

The most recent poll places Clinton in the lead, but the general take away from all the polling is that Nevada is a three-way push.  Saying otherwise strikes me as silly, especially given the polling debacle in NH.  No one knows what's going to happen Saturday.

As to the nomination generally, I agree with Jerome that it is Clinton's to lose at this point.  It saddens me to write that, but it's true.  Obama still has a viable path to the nomination, but I'd rather be in Hillary's shoes right now.  Anyway, we'll see what happens.

Okay, so you're a Michigan Democrat and it's a nasty day outside, everyone is telling you the primary is meaningless and only Clinton is on the ballot and you don't like her.  I mean, honestly, if I lived in the state, I wouldn't bother voting uncommitted, I'd stay home or join the Democrats for Romney movement Kos was touting.  But without any prompting at all from any campaign or union, 40 percent of voting Democrats did just that, they made an effort to cast a meaningless uncommitted vote.  And you think that's a good showing for Clinton?  Give me a break.  You're spinning like mad for her, cut it out.

I do not have a good feeling about NV for Edwards. He needed those labor endorsements to compete there.

It's not just conservatives online that are pushing Thompson in SC.  Rush Limbaugh is grandstanding for him as well there.  I think he's being more than a little disingenuous about it, though.  I think that the conservative establishment (for whom guys like Limbaugh and Hannity are the talking heads) fears that either McCain or Huckabee are the nominee since those two guys go against (especially their domestic agenda) far mroe than any other GOP contender.  In order to make the GOP side more than a contest between those two guys, they need to prop up the other guys.  In MI, it was Romney.  In SC, it is Thompson.  If they can get Grampa Fred over the top in SC, then everyone is still in it going into 2/5 where they can shill for whoever they like (maybe even Giuliani).  If McCain or Huckabee had won MI and SC, then 2/5 would basically have been a 2-horse race with neither choice acceptable to the GOP establishment.

If Romney just cruises through and racks up second place, wins a couple of states, and a guy like Huckabee goes boom then bust, over and over ... win today, finish 4th tomorrow sort of thing ... Mitt may win it.

Isn't it usually the nominee who chooses to seat the delagates? If the Florida or Michigan delagates would actually influence who the nominee is then I think there will be an all out battle, and they probably won't be seated. I only think they'll count if they don't matter.

I really don't see how these delagates can influence the race outside of a complete clusterfuck.

I think it is fair to say that you were dead wrong about the impact Michigan would have in the media and its impact on things like momentum. Most are saying things like," Hillary got the most votes." Rather than Hillary won. And the 40 percent uncommitted is getting some play as well--including exit polls that show African Americans moving away from the Clintons in big numbers and moving toward  Obama (this shouldn't surprise but it does).

Unless there is dramatic change over the course of today the Michigan primary is have zero to nil effect on the democratic nomination.

What may happen at the convention with Michigan delegates is a very different story and will depend on whether or not we have a clear winner by then.

Nevada Prediction:

(1)Obama
(2)Edwards
(3)Clinton

Beating out Clinton would be enough of a shocker that it would give Edwards a new lease on life with the press and would send the Clinton campaign into 3-4 days worth of media tailspin.

The local paper of record noticed too.

They highlighted her strong and consistant stance on Yucca Mtn and they noted Obama's quote regarding experience, which coming on the heels of George Bush, is going to hurt him.

The full article:

 http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan 16/clinton-clear-winner

Jerome, I believe you that you don't favor any one candidate.

But you clearly hate Obama. Or his "hopemonger". Or something!

HRC also declared a truce. If it is good enough for her...

Not too mention, this line of reasoning will not help HRC.

One of the great tragedies of both the MSM and the blogosphere is the manner in which they presumed that Senator Barack Obama, their honey through all of 2007, was somehow going to "shake things up" and, with massive crowds of crossovers and independents, somehow wrest control of the Democratic Party nomination.

They believed it so much that when the Obama forces, with all those blogger and Oprah Winfrey megamillions in hand, descended upon hapless Iowa in late December and early January--thus changing the traditional polling model, and thus making the Des Moines Register poll self-fulfilling--they could instantly corronate their favored son into the Presidency.

Such an assumption was, of course, without precedent.  At no time in the history of modern American politics was it ever assumed that unrepresentative Iowa, when giving a candidate 8% more than another, destroyed all other candidacies, instantly.

But both the MSM and much of the blogosphere, hating the Clintons for so very long, with regard to the Democrats in Iowa, did just that.

When the New Hampshire results utterly shattered that "presumptive winner" imagery, the Obama minions went into over-drive, capitalizing on the Culinary Workers Union in Nevada (whose workers were never polled--and for whom the Clintons are very much still in their hearts), and race-baiting in South Carolina to keep their prospects alive.

And sadly for them, whatever the results and whatever the anti-Clinton spin, that is where the Obama glory days come to an end.

The Michigan Democratic Primary was real, not an optical illusion.  

Hundreds of thousands of real men and women voted, through snow storms.  

Not a Democrat voting did not know that "uncommitted" meant either Obama or Edwards.

And there were many Obama/Edwards operatives throughout the state making certain that their candidates were thus represented.

So it is utterly absurd to presume that Senator Clinton's 56% victory to 39% "undecided" is meaningless, or is, in the tired and twisted logic of Obama forces, somehow a "loss."

She won handily--and exit polls revealed she would have won handily even if the Obama and Edwards name were on the ballot.

And she did so without ever glancing over her shoulder, while performing brilliantly in the Nevada debate.  

Even her most vociferous MSM attacker--Chris Matthews--said as much.  Simply because, as any neutral observer would have to admit, she "clearly had it all together."

If the Nevadans are allowed to vote their consciences on Saturday--particularly with the #1 local issue of Yucca Mountain looming large--of course they will cast their ballots for Clinton.  

Of course that presumes Obama's and Edward's strong-armed legions don't muscle in to whip their minions into lock-step, as they did in Iowa.

And perhaps all the race-baiting will work among enough African-Americans in South Carolina.

But afterwards--whatever the MSM and blogosphere spin, Obama will at last get his come-uppance.  

We traditional Democrats, who adore the Clintons, and believe indeed that the Clinton Era was a genuine golden age, are not going to abandon them.

We didn't abandon them in New Hampshire, we did not in Michigan, and from Florida onward, we never shall again.

Then at last the Clinton tandem (and Bill and Hillary were ever and always a tandem) can receive their long overdue appreciation from the core Democratic Party.

That appreciation they will never have from the MSM and blogosphere.

But all those Obama interlopers--laying seige to the Democratic Party--have only a small window left to them.

For come February 5, we Clinton Democrats--the true core Democrats--are taking back our party.

And the Obama forces can find a party of their own.

It seems to me if you are going to include Michigan delegates in your counter based on your belief they will be seated, then you need to include them all, not just Clinton's.  According to exit polls, 79% of the Undecided would have voted for Obama and 17% would have gone to Edwards.  If you're going to speculate, why do you stop halfway?

Shows dead-heat!

Reuters story here.

Big Mo, baby!

MI would have been close had there been a campaign.  But, I don't see how you can count it.

"a scenario in which Florida delegates matter is a lot less likely than I'd thought. The credentials committee, which would decide whether or not to seat them, is controlled by a combination of appointees of Howard Dean and of delegates won elsewhere. So the scenario in which Florida delegates get seated is much more likely to be the meaningless one, in which the nominee lets them back in." Ben Smith

"...how he could have went..."

Really, Jerome? Could have went? Would not 'could have gone' be the better (and grammatical) way to say this? I know you are a better writer than that.

You should count by the rules till they change. Anything else is bias. The campaigns probably did not discuss Michagan becuase saying anything about the state (and with FL) could have been construed as campaigning there and would have been against the rules. If you want to project something then put that in parens, don't put the actual results in parens.

The delegates for Florida and Michigan will probably be seated, you're right because they probably will not effect the outcome.  They will not be counted in the on going media narrative and hence they're meaningless unless they will actually put some candidate over the top.  

If they will put some candidate over the top -- as is very unlikely -- I doubt they would be seated; it certainly would be unfair if they were given the rules of the game put down by the dnc.  It is perfectly legitimate to question the dnc's choice, but the argument that somehow michigan will have any effect on the outcome for the democratic nomination is really weak.

"I'm not a big believer in sanctioning away states because they happened to move their primary or caucus date, and I believe all the delegates, in both parties, will be counted toward the nomination"

Well I am. The Democratic Parties in Michigan and Florida unilaterally decided they were more important than the Democratic Party in Washington State. As of course did every other state that jumped ahead of us in a bid to get some attention from the candidates that they thought their otherwise later primaries and caucuses would deny them. Which is not only pretty damn selfish but a recipe for pushing this whole process back to Thanksgiving. Its bad enough that Christmas starts the day after Halloween, if I start getting campaign mailers along with the incessant ads you will have to keep me away from sharp objects. (And that goes double for my mail carrier).

Ultimately this was a self-defeating strategy, when everyone tries to go first nobody gets any special attention, ironically Washington State might be important in selecting the candidate for the first time ever just because we waited. After all we are the biggest and the bluest of the three Feb 9 states.

If Feb 5th doesn't settle this then a handful of states that held back are going to get all kinds of special attention the early birders won't.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-gui de/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/in dex.html
Four states go to the polls on March 4th, including Ohio and Texas three full weeks of campaign time after the last significant group. Who is going to get more face time this go around? New York and California or Ohio and Texas? And if March 4th doesn't clear the field you have seven weeks to Pennsylvania on April 22nd. Man if I was the advertising guy in Philly or Pittsburg I would be praying for a lock up on Feb 5th. On the other hand if I owned a radio or planned to eat at a diner I would be trembling in fear. Because even if the candidates put some effort into Mississippi on March 11th, the people of Pennsylvania potentially would be looking at six weeks of uninterrupted campaigning. Even junkies, or more accurately especially junkies, have to worry about overdose. The famously flourishing Philly political blogosphere may get more Drinking Liberally  then they can handle.

It's unlikely to go that far but if it does it will be a political media circus like nothing we have seen forever. We will flip from having tedious discussion of why we allow two lead states to have an outsized role to why it makes since for trailing states to do so. And for those of us who like our irony really bracing we can only pray it goes the full distance. On June 7th the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico chose 56 delegates in a caucus. It is theoretically possible that the Democratic candidate for President is determined by people who don't get to vote for President. I would laugh and laugh, not least because I support statehood for both Puerto Rico and DC (I have a lot of problem with the concept of second class citizens not having full 14th amendment rights).

Hopefully we can restore some rationality to the process. But the answer is not just to let State Parties do whatever the hell they want to. I understand that 'I don't belong to any organized political party, I am a Democrat'. But Wil was speaking ironically, it wouldn't be a good thing to make that a literal reality.

Your delegate counter is a joke. Where did those extra Clinton delegates come from? Was there a primary (with actual delegates) that I hadn't heard of? You're fudging the numbers.

If this blog hadn't already lost all credibility thanks to you, this would be the "jump the shark" moment. Why haven't you resigned your post yet?

Yeah, if Jerome insists on including Hillary's Michigan delegates, he should also include the uncommitted delegates in the tally.

Again, I find it highly unlikely that the Michigan delegates are going to decide the nomination. I'm starting to come around to the idea that this race will be decided March 4th in Texas and Ohio.

"I certainly didn't read any spin from partisans of other candidates previous to the contest that Clinton getting 56% would be a loss." - Jerome Armstrong.

Here are just a few:

*Detroit News: "Pollsters say N.Y. senator may face embarrassment if she falls below 60% against 'uncommitted' on Dems' ballot."
http://detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art icle?AID=/20080114/POLITICS/801140354/10 22

*Huffington Post: "[Political Science Professor Stewart] French, who specializes in political parties and elections, considers 60 percent to be the threshold for declaring a Clinton victory. But such a win will be hollow."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/hillar y-clinton-michigan-campaign

*NPR: "Election experts have said that if Clinton doesn't get at least 60 percent of the votes cast, it would be a black eye for her campaign."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/01/mi chigan_democrats_want_uncomm.html

*The Jackson Citizen Patriot: "The impact of this vote is limited, but...[w]hat if she wins Michigan with only 60 percent of the vote?
How will the pundits -- and more, important, donors to her and Obama's campaign -- react?"
http://www.mlive.com/elections/index.ssf /2008/01/democratic_primary_still_worth_ 1.html

Misleading and pathetic. Please come out and endorse Clinton already. What a joke.

56 percent is good when you have no opposition? Nearly half are willing to vote for nobody before you?

Wow.  That's taking the glass half full.  Well, just over half.