It's not even close.  Landslide for Hillary Clinton.  It's not just a guess because the island is Hispanic -- there are deep connections there with the Clintons and New York state, etc, etc.

You'd just need to be following Puerto Rican culture and politics for a while to know this.  The current governor is not that helpful to anyone btw.

Boy would I feel good if this were an electoral vote !

Evan Bayh will deliver Indiana to Clinton.

Indiana and Oregon are easily lean Obama.  PR and Guam are also easily lean Clinton.

That map is really stark in terms of a Democratic victory in 2008 and beyond.

What are considered the swing areas that the Democrats need to win for election?

(1) Upper midwest (especially Ohio, but also Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc.)  -- all looking strong for Hillary

(2) Upper South/Appalachia (Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia) -- all looking strong for Hillary

(3) Southwest (Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada) -- all looking strong for Hillary

(4) Florida -- a great state for Hillary

Obama's victories largely occurred in small plains states that Democrats never win anyway, and in deep South states that Democrats never win anyway (with his pledged delegate lead due to big margins among small number of voters in caucuses in   small red states).

That victory in the Dem primary somehow equates victory in the general. There are several problems with this.

1) Obama v Clinton votes are not mutually exclusive.

2) You are assuming that the Dems who voted for the losing candidate will vote Republican. When, in all liklihood at least 90%+ will continue to vote for the Dems, who have SWAMPED the Republicans in turnout in most states.

3) The Dems second place contender got more votes than he leading Republican in many states.

4) Clinton voters are not "voting against Obama," nor are Obama voters "voting against Clinton." They are all voting for change, good judgement, and experience we think suits them to be President (I prefer Obama's experience, personally.) That benefits the Dems.

5) I think you are still viewing this through a 50%+1 lens (which doesn't seem like you), and the Dems have a real chance to put us beyond that this election. Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina (IMO) and several other states will be in play that were not in 2000 or 2004.

The superdelegates can vote however they choose. Them's the rules. Will they vote for the candidate who's losing the pledged delegate race? No. But they  legitimately could. Them's the rules, and only Republicans try to change the rules in mid-game.

Florida and Michigan delegate should not be counted without a re-vote. Them's the rules, and only Republicans try to change the rules in mid-game.

The only way Clinton can win this, barring an Obama collapse, is by convincing those superdelegates who don't support her strongly enough to already have come out for her, to vote against the pledged delegate majority. That's beyond unlikely.

I'm not sure how you might have 'no clue' about this. I'm have no certainty, but I've definitely got a clue. Math 101.

in the remaining states.

That's it, 611.

Obama will still lead Clinton by about 150 pledged delegates after everything is sorted out in Texas.

To catch up to Obama in pledged delegates, Clinton needs to pick up 380 of those 611. That's 62% of the remaining delegates. Electorally (due to apportionment) that means blowouts of 65% C to 35% O in EACH AND EVERY REMAINING CONTEST

The math won last night. The math favored Obama going into last night. The math favors Obama even more this morning than it did before a single vote was counted yesterday.

It's time for Clinton and Obama to bury the hatchet and join forces.  A Clinton/Obama ticket would be unstoppable.  (Yes, I put Obama in the Veep slot, and I'm an Obama supporter.  As long as the Republicans get pushed out of the White House, it's all good.)

Once again Jerome, a brilliant bit of analysis. Is there a link to get this delegate counter? Go Hillary!

Oregon is an Obama landslide. Other than that true.

Pennsylvania is a lock for Clinton.

Obama wins Wyoming, Mississippi, Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, wins the Michigan re-vote, ties in Pennsylvania(51-49 or thereabouts), and does better than expected in Puerto Rico and the Florida re-vote(47%).
Clinton wins Kentucky, West Virginia, Puerto Rico and Florida, and argues she won Pennsylvania.

Obama still ahead in popular vote by around 500,000 votes, and pledged delegates by around 100+, maybe even 200.  The superdelegate tally will be around 350-300 in Obama's favor, with about 200 up for grabs at the convention.

Assuming there will be around 4414 total delegates with Michigan and Florida re-included, and that about 4200 are spoken for by mid-June, that would give Obama about 2175 delegates, and Clinton 2025.  I think that's concession speech territory for her.

Oregon a toss-up? Your dreaming Jerome.

As a life long Oregon Democrat, and someone who has done precinct level targeting for several large campaigns, this state has to be seen as leaning strongly for Obama.

We are not an industrial state with a high percentage of blue-collar workers.  Oregon's largest industries are high tech and trade.  Portland is a mecca for young creatives.  Most of the rural areas are highly Republican and have few Democrats.  Democratic votes are heavily concentrated in the Willamette valley around university towns Eugene and Corvallis in the south and around Portland in the north.  I live in a relatively conservative (by Portland standards) older suburb with a pretty high concentration of working class voters.  In my daily conversations with hundreds of people I find very strong support for Obama.

Here is a Feb 26 poll showing Obama runs +8 against McCain while Clinton runs -8.

http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php? /archives/1226-Oregon-Poll-Barack-tops-M cCain.html

Rasmussen has Obama +9 against McCain and HRC - 3.  

I saw one head to head with Obama vs. Clinton about a month ago and Obama was ahead by about 10%.  If he is able to blow away Clinton leads of over 10% in other states, I suspect he will pull away here.  

There are relatively few institutional resources that Clinton can utilize here.  SEIU is by far the strongest union.  She has the support of our Governor, but I don't think that matters much.  Obama already has a huge self-directed grass roots organization in place with thousands of volunteers.

Unless the national narrative changes significantly, Obama will likely win Oregon by 15-20%.

superdelegates. Obama supporters can yell all they want about "whoever has the most pledged delegates," and hang on to that like a liferaft. But the reality is the superdelegates can vote their conscience, their heart, and their intellect. Anyone winning all the big states, and Ohio in a landslide, is not going to be dismissed simply because of pledged delegates. This system has been in place since 1972 and it isn't going to change suddenly because someone wishes it to be so. Whichever candidate makes the best case to the superdelegates for his or her nomination will be our nominee.

An intersting point, which I don't hear anyone talk about, is that Obama would have a very good chance of winning Michigan if there is a re-vote.  Similarly, I doubt HRC would win Florida by the same margin she won the beauty contest that already occurred.  So even if there is a re-vote, those states are unlikely to give her the kind of margin she would need to overtake him in terms of delegates.  

Stated otherwise, her only viable path to the nomination is through convincing the supers to pick her despite having fewer pledged delegates.  That could happen, but I think it's a tough sell.

Okay. This is probably the first time I see how Clinton might actually get the nomination. We will see if the scenario unfolds as you say and I'm very doubtful it will. But at least you put something forth.

The candidate that has won CA, MA, TX, OH, NY, the entire southwest, should have this thing locked up and be running a general campaign right now.  Not going toe to toe with the winner of Idaho and South Dakota.

I know one thing: barring catastrophe of Gary Hart proportions, Obama will end up with more pledged delegates.  

I know one other thing: if the supers reverse the leader of the pledged delegates, all hell will break lose, especially among young voters and African American voters, but among many others as well.

I know just one other thing: if the tenor of this campaign continues to be as negative as the last three days, the Dems will do harm to themselves in the general.

Iowa, Missouri, most of New England, the contested part of the upper midwest, the Potomac states.  Which of these are not important in the general?

This makes perfect sense actually.

Obama may end up with more pledged delegates, but he may well not have enough of them to win the nomination.

The supers job is not to rubber stamp or 'reverse' the pledged delegates. They exist basically as a body of 'elders', for lack of a better word, in order to provide leadership in choosing a nominee to offset the flaws of the state-by-state rules and methods. Or, at other times, when they feel the primary/caucus system has not produced the best candidate.

Gerladine Ferraro wrote an op-ed about it that you may have seen. She was part of the group that devised what was perceived to be a 'fix' to our whacked system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinio n/25ferraro.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&am p;oref=slogin

I find it funny that practically everyone, including pro-Clinton bloggers, have bought the Obama campaign's spin on superdelegates. They're the ones who have brought up and pushed this notion that the supers are there to rubber stamp the pledged delegates. That's simply not true. They are there to guide the nominating process, and if they find it in the party's best interests, to overrule the pledges.

I'm not saying they will, necessarily, but they will be looking at the overall popular vote, they will likely look at bellweather states, and they will certainly look at winnability as they judge it for each candidate.

Much backroom politicking will doubtless ensue if they are lining up to tip the scales away from the pledged delegate leader. There will be a feverish push for a politically viable result all the way around, alienating the fewest voters at worst. This is why, barring egos, a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket seems politically possible.

But there's a long way to go. And I do not rule out a Gary Hart catastrophe or series of gaffes by either side. The Clinton team has shown how bad it can be, and the Obama team is having real difficulties dealing with the harsh realities of American politics. In including more negativity in his message and tactics, he will doubtless undermine, to some extent, the message that he isn't just another politician and that he somehow can operate outside the actual political environment. Premises I've always found pretty unbelievable, but which have clearly resonated with a lot of people. I still find that neither the candidate, nor the process as his campaign presents it, is actually what he/it is.

The superdelegates are not going to ignore the results of the primary -Obama will be VP.

The Democrat who won CA, NY, MA, NJ, FL, MI and OH will be on the top of the ticket

Clinton-Obama '08 thats the ticket, take it to the bank

But look at the Ohio map. Clinton won by winning where Republicans will win. if you apply you logic to Ohio you should be discounting it because it shows that Obama won the counties where Democrats need to win and lost the ones (to Hillary) that democrats can afford to loose.

In other words, we can't square Ohio (and Texas) with the states if you make an argument that is base on when Democrats have won in the past and need to continue winning.

I especially have no idea as to what will determine the winner of the democratic nomination.

No, Jerome, we shouldn't determine the race on pledged delegate counts. Rather, we should seek out some metric whereby Hillary is assured a win such as having more voters who own VW Bugs!

[quote]You can ignore the electoral counter part of this map, as it doesn't mean anything, but what this does show us is the states that are upcoming by region.[/quote]

Ahahaha! Damn that was clumsy.

I expect better out of you Jerome.

Look at the head-to-head matchups against McCain and then say who the best candidate is.  It's certainly no less reliable than the "big state" thesis being put forth here.

Just a footnote, these upcoming contests are closed to Democratics only

Wyoming
Pennsylvania
Kentucky
Oregon

The elected delegate race from here out will be more or less a wash. The rest of the race will be about one thing: each candidate convincing the superdelegates that they can best beat McCain.  

May the best McCain-beater win.

There is no way Obama wins a Michigan revote. Especially if, as the rumor goes, they close it to all but voters who were registered dem for the first primary.

This is so tiresome. What does who wins what state have to do with  who will win in the general election? NOTHING!!!!! Are you really trying to imply that Obama wouldn't win NY or California against McCain???  

THIS IS A FALSE ARGUMENT and one you should stop trying to make. It isn't honest.

I agree with your predictions, except for Oregon.  It's a big anti-war, progressive state (like Washington), and will go for Obama by a significant margin.

And in no sense of the word can you say that Clinton "won" Michigan, unless you mean by defeating Kucinich and Gravel.

As we saw in the Washington primary, Oregon will be close.  That Obama could only win 51% in the Washington primary at the height of his February euphoria probably means Oregon is in play.

Interesting poll results out of North Carolina.  Clinton is within 4 points in a poll released today.  Immediately after Super Tuesday, she was within 2, but then fell way back over the course of February, but it's clear the dynamic has shifted.

Obama does not have the experience to be President.  Even if he gets the nomination he will never be president.  He needs to get down off his cloud and see the reality of this.  He needs to take the VP job and learn something about this government.  That is the only way he will ever be president.

This is one democrat that can not vote for Obama at the top of the ticket.  In fact I don't know any democrat personally that would vote for him this fall.  So with that in mind, get a grip, Obama cannot win this fall.  He just cannot.

All OH & TX dems have done is help John McCain.  Hillary Clinton will never be president. It going to either be President Obama or President McCain.  All OH & TX did is make it more likely to be the latter.  dummies

Speaking of dummies: simply reiterating Senator Obama's middle name (even in CAPITAL LETTERS), like a freakin' retard, isn't going to defeat him, and isn't even relevant to this debate. Get over it.

Most recent polls in North Carolina had shown Obama with a double digit lead. But his standing in the national polls has declined over the last week and it looks like the same trend is occurring in North Carolina."

I know this has been said a hundred times but since it never seems to get through to some people, I'll repeat it all again.

1) Just because a certain candidate is preferred over another when people are given the choice, doesn't mean that they would switch parties or not vote if the other candidate (the one they didn't prefer) gets the nomination. Therefore, saying that only Hillary can win Ohio is not necessarily the case. They prefer her certainly but that says little to nothing about how they feel in a matchup with McCain. However, it is probably true that she has the higher probability of winning but if both of their probabilities are high, it's a moot point.
2) Just because Dems show up more for the primary says nothing about the turnout or the result one can expect in the general election. Have you ever looked at the number of voters in a primary relative to the total voting public? It's a drop in the bucket and usually includes the really hardcore voters. In fact, one should keep in mind that the Dems allow non-partisans to vote, so you would expect a higher turnout all other things being equal.

This last point brings we to the one bone I do want to throw out that may, in fact, lend some validity to the initial thesis that Hillary's win is an important predictor of possible electibility. That is the fact that there are a lot of non-partisan voters. While I wouldn't expect a Dem to reject Obama in Ohio, I might very well expect it from a non-partisan. It's possible that a voter's preference may be 1) Clinton 2) McCain 3) Obama. They have no party loyalty to drive them. The problem is that the results tell us nothing about it. We can only guess. Even national polls are bound to be off. We can only wait and see as scary as that is. And, as the Bush elections taught us, the popular vote may not matter. What matters is how those matchup polls translate into electoral college votes. What if Hillary doesn't do as well against McCain in the popular vote (he could win tons of small states) but is better where it matters for electoral votes (CA, OH, TX, NY)?

But one could also make the argument that if a non-partisan showed up to vote in a Dem primary, that they probably lean left and would still favor Obama over McCain, but again that is just conjecture.

The most recent poll in NC...that was posted today...shows Obama with only a 4 pt lead.

North Carolina support might me open to swinging toward Hillary due to large military  presence. She is up to 31 flag officers in her camp now, that might help.

Oregon needs to be looked at. It has some similarities to Wa. which went heavily to Obama in caucus but was about 50-50 in the primary which didn't count. But it was interesting.

If she can accomplish that then she deserves to be the nominee. She will have proven her ability to negotiate and stand tough

Neither Hillary nor Barack can win on Pledged delegates. The Math doesn't work for either of them. If this goes to the convention then all of Baracks poisitives in terms of winning red states is weakened. Why? The Convention is in August, Obama will have to start setting up his bases in "red state" America now in order to prepare a forceful get out the vote apparatus (as democratic GOTV is not all that powerful all over the map). He can't do that now because those resources need to be spent defending himself from HIllary and setting up shop in the remaining battle grounds for the Primary. So longer the Primary takes to wrap up the less time Barack has to build a machine in all 50 states (as that would be his claim to the nomination).
Conversly, Clinton's claim is that she has the base, the apparatus is firmly behind her and winning big democratic states only helps to solidify that claim. This becomes very important as you approach November because the argument because, we're alreadyy setup and ready to go but Barack has a lot of machine building to do.
Contrary to what most would say I propose that the longer this goes the weaker General Candidate Barack becomes and the easier it will be for Hillary to argue that her machine is already in place (To follow her path to victory in theh General)

oregon isn't a toss up, it is strictly obama country, lots of progressives, lot's of latte and wine drinkers and huge college communities.
 i'm in oregon, and lived here all my life, and will be shocked if he doesn't win by more then ten points.

seriously