Always remember this is about delegates NOT the popular vote.  MSNBC has said that a candidate may win the popular vote of a state but get less delegates ie Nevada.

Tuesday is going to be a LONG NIGHT because the media is going to initially focus on the popular vote but than will focus on the delegate count.

The MSM also will determine the spin of who "won".  If Hillary blows out Obama with huge state wide margins (ie >10%) and high delegate counts (ie >200 difference) than she will have MAJOR momentum and will probably win the Dem nomination soon there after.

If Obama stays close to her in the popular vote in various states and he is relative close to HRC in delegate counts (<100 in difference) than the media will say that he is going head to head with HRC and this is a race.  Obama's money means that he WILL be able to go on and the media has said until Guilani, the more people get to see Obama the more they like him.  

Thus in the case of Obama it is really about the clock.  He has the money to keep going.  Will he have the clock?

CT, MN, and CA are the states to watch to see if Obama will have a good night tomorrow. I would bet an Obama win in CT.

I mean MO instead of MN. I think Obama might win NM too.

Cbs news has Hillary leading in super tuesday states

clinton 49
obama 31

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Jan08e -Dems.pdf

It is going to be a great Hillary night tomorrow!

Depending on the demographics that are undecided, I would largely expect the undecideds in GA to break against Obama.

New Numbers this AM
California: Obama 46, Clinton 40
New Jersey, Obama 43, Clinton 43
GA Dems, Obama 48, Clinton 31
Missouri: Obama 47, Clinton 42

FWIW, he finds significant movement in California and Missouri.  Not a huge Zogby fan, and the California number is startling.

I think it is impossible to say who is going to win California and several other states.  

http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmet h.dbm?ID=1272

I do not have a clue how undecideds will break, but here is the best case I have heard for Hillary. Late deciders are considering Obama, but since they have not made up their minds this late in the game they will go with the known choice.

A more detailed argument is this. Based on panel back tests few people who claim to have decided late change their mind from stated support earlier in the race. Clinton had solid support over a month ago, many of those supporters are stepping back and considering the alternative as election day approaches, but most of them will return to Clinton.

Hispanics will not vote for Obama.. CA, NM and AZ will go to HC.. despite whatever these polls are showing.

It's called exstremely early voting

Got this in my inbox:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/ a-new-poll-by-new-american-dimensions-fi nds-that-only,269156.shtml

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 4 PRNewswire- USNewswire -- New York Senator
Latino-Specific Poll Shows Huge Hillary Lead

Hillary Rodham Clinton leads Illinois Senator Barack Obama 60% to 18%
in California, 77% to 15% in New York, and 52% to 26% in Illinois,
based on the results of a new poll conducted by New American Dimensions.

The poll was conducted on Saturday and Sunday, two days before three
of the five largest Hispanic states hold primaries on Super Tuesday.
Combined, these three states account for nearly 45% of all Hispanics.

Clinton performed much better with Hispanic immigrants than Hispanics
born in the United States. She outpolled Obama 70% to 12% among
immigrants compared to 53% to 27% among U.S. born Hispanics.
Two-thirds of those interviewed were immigrants, reflective of the
U.S. Hispanic voting age population.

Several critiques of the major polls coming out show Latinos heavily
UNDER-REPRESENTED. For example the field poll only had an 8% Latino
component in California where Latinos represent 16%+ of the
population

It's just one poll, and the sample size isn't huge (500 Dems).

I conducted a pretty detailed study of primary history this summer.  This is the first time since at least 1976 (and possibly earlier) where a front runner has lost their lead after winning New Hampshire.  

These polls mean nothing because of the dramatic uptick by Obama.

A poll came out yesterday in New Mexico with Obama leading 48 to 42.The link is here: http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2008/02/ob ama-leads-clinton-in-new-nm-poll.html

I must say that this does seem to support the surge and momentum for Obama that Jerome pooh -poohed with old numbers just a couple of days ago. Now he doesn't show the surge heading into California anywhere.

CNN says  "National Super Tuesday poll shows dramatic Democratic shift" to Obama. Rueters story headline is  "Obama expands lead on Clinton in California."

So there has been a dramatic surge just as Chiris Bowers said, and the only thing we are talking about is, is it enough for Obama to actually take California and end HRC's campaign?

Please note: Obama doesn't have to beat HRC in Calfornia to win the nomination. She needs the extra California delegates to stop Obama in the post SuperTuesday races where he is doing much much better.

Polls have not been very accurate (or something else is going on) so I am not predicting, but this is getting very very tight at the least.

OT!! from here on---

MYdd has gone down a lot over the last few days, whats happening? And two, can't someone set the spell checker so that Obama isn't flagged as a misspelling?

I think Obama will take Delaware. He's visited several times and his wife was here last week. Our two candidates for governor this year back Obama (Our current Lt Gov and Treasurer). Our current (unpopular) Democratic governor is backing Clinton, and that is going to hurt her. Clinton doesn't even have an office here; she deserves to lose my home state and I hope she does. She has an office in Alaska, but not Delaware? That is stupid. I haven't seen one Hillary sticker on a car here, but to be fair, only 2-3 Obama ones. I like Hillary more, but this does worry me about a Kerry-like strategy for the GE if she wins (though I feel she'd still win more states than Obama).

The press is trying to convince us that Obama has the big MO-Let's not let them do that to us-we know better.   Clinton has the goods-we have the base -we have the people who need healthcare, education reform, mortgage problems, a smart plan for withdrawal from Iraq etc. etc.   Let's just go into this believing that right is might- Hillary will win and it won't be so close-

Uh, I doubt it. But that would make it an interesting race-- especially seeing all the Obama supporters screaming "ITS OVER" while still trailing in the delegate count.

CNN- Has Obama up by three Nationally.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/04/n ational.poll/index.html

All these national polls showing a surge can't be wrong. I agree HRC has to come away with a 200+ delegate count and 18 states to secure her front runner status. Otherwise, it's a complete wash and with Obama's surge, it will difficult for her going forward. Next firewall becomes Ohio or maybe Texas.

Game on.  Lets vote already.  

...wait millions have already voted in early voting.

It's all John Edwards fault!

Kidding...

But seriously, if Edwards was still in the race, I believe Clinton would still be ahead, by at least 10% in some of these states.

Of course, this is the narrative the MSM has wanted all year--the destruction of the Clintons.

It was the whole purpose of anti-Clinton forces all year.  Nothing more mattered than that.  Obama was merely a tool.

If indeed the MSM after a long fifteen years of hating the Clintons has finally succeeded in turning Democrats away from their only twice successfully elected president since FDR, that will indeed have been a coup.

I am now 54 years old, and I have never before witnessed a race so obviously steered by the media toward two candidates: John McCain and Barack Obama.

Both were media honeys from the beginning.  In 2000, even the "village idiot" GWB soundly destroyed John McCain; still, the media never stopped loving McCain.  Now he is resurrected, in his seventy-second year, so they can love him once more.

Obama was promulgated by many forces: the GOP knew he would be enormous trouble for Democrats in a fall campaign.  The GOP have been winning elections briliantly based on race for a very long time.

With the exception of Carter, to whom Ford lost by a single percentage in 1980--when Carter, a Southern Democrat, ought to have won decidedly (after Watergate), the GOP have all but owned the White House since 1969.

Except, of course, for Bill Clinton.  He was the one that got away.  The one who taught the Democrats how to win and govern successfully.  He left the White House after a Golden Age of peace and prosperity.

Had he been a Republican, Clinton (and not Reagan) would already have been a candidate for Mount Rushmore.

But, alas, Democrats have always been their own worst enemies.

They destroy their own heroes--and discard them.  Obama represents the Howard Dean/Teddy Kennedy/John Kerry contingent--losers all--as shall be Obama, if the MSM corronates him the nominee tomorrow.

This year was, however, very different from any other.  Never before has the United States more needed competence--and experience--in addressing the huge problems going forward.

After more than seven years of incompetence, America is now in shambles, fiscally and on the global stage.

No longer does rhetoric work, and Obama's naive "change!" will mean nothing in the end.  This three-year, conceited spoiled brat novice hasn't got a clue.

But he was the Trifecta for the GOP: Their method to destroy the Democratic base, and thus the Clintons; to inject a pro-Reagan and anti-Clinton "Democrat" at the helm of the Democratic Party, and to if not guarantee the White House to John McCain, then at very least to have a "Democrat" govern as a pro-Reagan and anti-Clinton President.

This is why they are so joyful.  The media, the pundits, the MSM--talking heads like Matthews, Williams, Russert, Huffington--who screamed for Bill Clinton's impeachment not so very long ago, pray on high they can at last proclaim the end of the Clintons.

This the ultimate coup d'etat.  The first coup d'etat was placing George W. Bush in the White House, against both legal voting and the popular vote will.  It was unprecendented, as even the 1876 election, similarly contested--when only men were voting--was not so hugely blatant, and did not involve the Supreme Court choosing their own successors.

That was the beginning of the end of America, and much of the world knows that now.

The rest of the world was waiting: would the United States return to the Clintons?  They alone got the running of the country right, and they alone now could fix it.

Hillary Clinton's line "It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it may well take another Clinton to clean up after the second!" was met with thunderous applause by the Democratic audience, because it represented for them their own history, brilliantly recollecting just how fine the country once was, before that coup d'etat brought the nation to the brink of implosion.

But the GOP is extraordinarily crafty.  Together not merely with the long Clinton-hating MSM, but with mogul Oprah Winfrey, the Kennedy bastion, the John Kerry/Howard Dean contingent forming an alliance, the forces began to batter the Clintons ceaselessly, beginning in late October last year.

Obama was to be corronated after Iowa--wherein tens of thousands of outsiders tried to shove him down the throats of the Democratic base.

Then came the good voters of New Hampshire, who defied ALL the polls and ALL the pundits.  And they chose, to the chagrin of the MSM, Hillary Clinton instead.  Someday, these men and women will be regarded as true heroes.

Senator Clinton went on to a decisive win in Nevada, where the punditocracy had believed that the Culinary Workers Union endorsement would prove definitive.  But rank-and-file union members broke ranks: why should they support a "Democrat" who loves a union-buster like Ronald Reagan?  And they chose Hillary.

Michigan was, of course, "discarded" by the MSM-it wasn't in the Obama playbook, although Clinton carried it handily.

Then came South Carolina and its race-baiting cards.  When Obama took the lion's share of the African-American vote while loosing the lion's share of the non-African-American vote, the media praised the Obama win to the high heavens.

And castigated Bill Clinton for noting the obvious: That in 1988, Jesse Jackson received a bigger share of that same vote, when the media itself disregarded his win as "racial."

Last Tuesday, the fourth most populous and heretofore most diverse state voting, Florida, cast its ballots.

These were real men and women voting, for real people.  Not polls or pundits or samples.

And 1.7 million Democrats voted--and Hillary soundly defeated her opponents by 50-33-12--and among all groups across the boards, save African-Americans and the very young.

More than anything else, this should serve as the model for Super Tuesday.

Alas, that too, does not fit the Obama narrative.

After last week's televised--and most watched ever--Democratic debate in Los Angeles--clearly Hillary demonstrated not only her command of all issues, but that she was supremely likeable.

It ought to have clearly boosted her, and apparently it gave her a bump of eight points for one day.

Tonight will be her national town meeting, televised via the Hallmark channel.

And tomorrow we shall learn as to whether the anti-Clinton forces have succeeded at last, or whether bedrock Democrats tune out the media noise still shouting the Obama "momentum."

It will prove, historically, the dramatic turning point of the United States.

If the anti-Clinton forces prevail, it will be two Reagan-loving candidates, Obama and McCain in the mix.

Both will govern as pro-Reagan Presidents.

And it will be the end of America.  It will indeed implode.

As historians will one day note, Reagan began the decline--and it was Bill Clinton who brought America back to peace and prosperity.

Ultimately, then, it will not be the Clintons who die, but the Democratic Party, and the United States itself.

I thought that CA would be pivotal and the state to watch for a while.  I don't think so any more for three reasons:

1) If Clinton wins CA, Obama can claim it's a delegate race and talk about how she was expected to win by 20 points, etc.  And if Obama wins, Clinton can point to all the endorsements, the Kennedys, etc and say the fix was in.  There is enough to spin it either way.

2) It will probably be close, and even though a lot of delegates are at stake, the net for either candidate will probably not be huge.  See my analysis from yesterday on the NYT poll thread for mroe info.

3) Most important: The time zone issue.  Because California will report last, a lot of the reporting and themes from the night will be shaped and talked about long before we know from CA.

Any thoughts on east coast states to watch?

Last week MoveOn had a poll to support Clinton or Obama. You had to be a member prior to the announcement. They made it clear a candidate had to have 3/4 support. Obama came in with 70%
http://www.moveon.org/

I do not have Obama fever, however I do see why some have a yearning for something new.
and...I also see progressives moving towrd Obama in this 2 person race.
There will be record turn out everywhere as there have been.

We will not follow anyone down the DLC rabbit hole.

I think Hillary's national town hall tonight plus the fact she's going to be all over television tonight including Letterman is going to help her with undecideds. Yes in case you haven't heard the Clinton's are doing a town hall which will be reaching 22 states at the same time tonight and broadcast live on the Hallmark channel. That station has a huge female audience. Also Chelsea Clinton is in Delaware today, and Bill Clinton has five events in California today. I saw Bill in Georgia on Friday and Hillary last Wednesday. I will not be surprised if Hillary wins my state

Hillary is maintaining, while Obama has been steadily ticking upward.

CLINTON 52
Obama 41

this is a good sign for hillary!

One thing I have not seen many people address is Clinton's financial situation (Al Giordano had an awesome post on his blog about this). She supposedly took in 10 million dollars in January, which combined with the 13.3 million she had on hand for the primary at the end of December, means that she may not have much left after tomorrow. Her burn rate, given expensive pollsters like Mark Penn on her staff, is pretty high (as is Obama's). Also, a good chunk of her donor base is pretty tapped out, while Obama, who certainly has more cash on hand, has smaller donors who have plenty more to give.

If Clinton doesn't meet expectations tomorrow, her financial situation could cause huge problems for her going forward.

FWIW, ARG has polled Delaware:
Clinton 44%
Obama   42%

Comes with the usual caveats about ARG.

The polls keep coming out and keep showing Clinton in a harder position to take this thing each and every day. It may feel like NH, but it is not NH.

I have a bad feeling about this...

yes, polls today are different from just 2 days ago, so I think it will be around 100 delegates advantage for Hillary:

State / Hiilary Advanatage
Alabama 2
Alaska -1
American Samoa 0
Arizona 4
Arkansas 18
California 22
Colorado -1
Connecticut 1
Delaware 3
Georgia -13
Idaho 0
Illinois -47
Kansas 2
Massachusetts 21
Minnesota 5
Missouri 3
New Jersey 10
New Mexico 3
New York 50
North Dakota -1
Oklahoma 15
Tennessee 9
Utah -5

Total 100 more delegates for Hillary after 2/5/08.
However, a few things can change that. For example, in California certain portion of
370 "pledged" delegates (may be around 80?) can be awarded
to the winner of the popular vote. Another factor (certainly
in California and may be in other places too) is
amount of early voters (in California 20%). In addition percentage of partipating of female,
hispanic, black voters is important and it can be very different from state to state.