Moments ago, Chris Matthews called Hillary Clinton's win in Massachusetts "very impressive." He said "once again Ted Kennedy sails against the wind and loses." The reason this is important is that this win is, for the moment anyway, stemming an "Obama blow-out" narrative. This is crucial for Clinton.

Update [2008-2-5 21:27:26 by Todd Beeton]:Howard Fineman just said he suspects the story out of tonight will be the Kennedys don't have as much pull either in Massachusetts or in the Democratic establishment. Keith is pushing back, so now Fineman is saying "it's also a repudiation of the Deval Patrick machine." Interesting that Fineman is pushing a pro-Clinton narrative so strongly.

Update [2008-2-5 21:33:56 by Todd Beeton]:Matthews is now calling it "an upset." I find this fascinating. Are the other cable news channels doing the same?

There's more...

Please Support the MyDD Fundraiser. Contribute Today.

Much has been written about Clinton's so-called built in February 5th advantage, but few talk about the advantage Barack Obama has, a phenomenon Leftist Addiction explores in a great post about how delegates are divied up in the Democratic primaries. This graf sums up the basic system of apportionment:

In short, every congressional district attributes a number of delegates -- between three and eight. It is very difficult to get an extra delegate in an even-numbered district. For example, in a 4 delegate district, the candidate split the delegates 2-2 unless one of them breaks 62.5%, in which case the allocation is 3-1. In a 6 delegate district, the allocation is 3-3 unless a candidate breaks 58%, in which case it's 4-2. In odd delegate district, a one vote margin in that district gives the victor an extra delegate. So if a candidate gets 50.01% of the vote in a 5 delegate district, that already creates a delegate gap.

So what does this mean for Clinton and Obama today? As Leftist Addiction points out, it's looking like advantage: Obama as far as exploiting the quirks of the system to maximize delegate wins even in states he loses. Why is this? In a nutshell, because of the concentration of the African-American vote in certain congressional districts married with the enormous level of support Obama enjoys in that community. This will especially be a problem for Clinton in Tennessee, as Leftist Addiction explores in depth, but it is also likely to play an important role in the delegates the candidates are able to take away from their opponents' home states.

The delegate rules means that Illinois and New York will be big stories tonight: How will each candidate fare in the other's home state? They are both likely to cross 15% of the vote everywhere (though there is a chance that Clinton fails to cross that in the 3 African-American districts of Chicago, which are some rare 8 delegate districts, and that could give some massive leads to Obama), but will they cross the 32% or 27% thresholds that will enable them to force a split of delegates in even-numbered districts?

Obama could be stronger at this game, as he looks strong enough in New York that he is likely to cross 30% in a lot of districts that Clinton will win handily. In other words, Clinton could get 65% of the vote in a district... but only 50% of its delegates! [...]

In short, Clinton has more to lose in this strange delegate game. And this for a very simple reason: The constituency that is breaking the most heavily for a candidate is the African-American community. This means that in predominantly black districts -- and there are many throughout the country -- Obama is likely to come out with more delegates, even if the district has even number of delegates since Obama is getting more than 70% of the black vote. On the other hand, even if Clinton wins more consistently across other districts, she is far less likely to break 60% and get that extra delegate. She could win the state overall but lose the district-level delegate count.

Great post, definitely recommend reading the whole thing.

There's more...

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

According to CNN/Research Corp, Barack Obama is leading Clinton for the first time in a National Poll. This news is groundbreaking for the Obama campaign because it illustrates that his intense polling up-shifts in states such as California, Connecticut, Missouri, Tennessee, and etc. are indeed substantial and will possibly carry him through to the Democratic nomination.

There's more...

We are in an election cycle where I hope the wonders never cease. Susan Eisenhower, Caroline Kennedy and Tom Hayden agree on the same thing. All three want Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States. Who does this scare? It severely frightens the establishment of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The recent purpose of our two party system has been to ferment screams of ear popping loudest and conjure the best scare tactics to cause panic among the American people.

There's more...