Obama wins Vermont, squeaks out RI in a surprise, gets beat in TX by less than 5% of the vote but wins more delegates thanks to the Texas two-step, and gets beat by more than 5% in Ohio.

Oh, and "judgment" is spelled with one "e." (

Damn you Jeff. You stole my guess.

Suppose I have to differentiate myself ...

Clinton wins OH by 4% Obama wins Texas by 1% but wins the two step. Obama wins VT and loses RI.

And judgment allows alternative spellings.

Wish you hadn't Paul. In differentiating yourself from Jeff, you pretty much nailed my prediction.

Clinton by 4% in OH. Obama by 6% in TX. Obama by 30% in VT. Clinton by 8% in RI.

I hope I'm wrong about OH. I'd love to see this thing come to a close.

I'm with Nate. Another issue that deserves our thought -- how long will Hillary stay in? How long SHOULD she stay in?

popular vote shouldn't be how we judge. The question is, after today does Hillary eat into Obama's lead or fall further behind?

I choose B. Even if he loses TX, he will finish with more delegates. Her only chance is a blowout in OH, which ain't happening.

Hillary wins Ohio by less than 5%. Obama wins Texas by more than 5%.

Vermont - Obama.

Rhode Island - Clinton.

F&B-- I recall from BOR that the Latino-heavy districts are 5-delegates, but the heavy AA districts in Dallas and Houston are 7-delegates. Which to me suggests there is more opp for Obama to hold even or take the most.

And judgment allows alternative spellings.

And you take full advantage of the leeway, spelling it differently above and below (consistency, little minds, etc.). I believe the Brits keep the e, you sometime anglophile, you.

As to our picks, since we're all sort of leaning the same direction, does this mean a) something really bizarre is about to transpire, or b) things are becoming more predictable?

Time will tell.

Clinton will take OH by less than 5%. Obama will take TX by less than 5%. It will be a blowout for Obama in VT, and Clinton will win RI by 6%. Chances of me watching Dancing with the Stars? 0%

Chances of me watching Dancing with the Stars? 0%

ROFL - ditto!

Charlie Cook with an ouchie for Hillary...

NBC political analyst Charlie Cook writes in his CongressDaily column, "[W]inning by slight percentages in Texas and Ohio aren’t real wins for Clinton. A ‘win’ would be anything that significantly closes the gap in delegates. Symbolic victories mean nothing at this point, other than encouraging her to plow ahead in this campaign, amassing a greater campaign debt than already exists and delaying her ability to get on with the next phase of her life."...

OK, so I like it because it says what I said. :)

A follow up on TJ from Jon Chait:

For Clinton to pull ahead, she will need to win 57% of the remaining pledged delegates. To keep that number from rising even higher, they of course need to win 57% of the delegates on Tuesday, which would mean getting at least 213 delegates to Obama's 161 -- a 52 delegate advantage. If they net anything below 52 delegates, they fall even further behind. And, of course, even netting 52 delegates is hardly a big win. The Clinton campaign picked Texas and Ohio as its battleground because those states are particularly Clinton-friendly. The remaining primary states include several -- like Mississippi, Oregon, and North Carolina -- where Obama is likely to rack up major wins. That means that Clinton needs to gain well over 57% of the delegates in the states that are better for her.

A majority of Democrats want Hillary to continue to seek the White House as long as she wins at least one of the big states today, according to a Washington Post / ABC News poll.

I'm one of those Democrats. I think Hillary's an amazing woman and a great leader in the party. Her experience and competence should not be brushed aside by one campaign's impatience for power, nor should we as a party allow a media halo or blogospheric misanthropy (including its tailored-to-Hillary shape, misogyny) to dictate our choice of candidate.

Of the three serious contenders (Clinton, Obama, McCain) I still see the best possible President in 2009 in Hillary Clinton. It's heartening to know how many Democrats out there feel the same.

I'm an Obama supporter, but there will be some good in a Hillary win tonight, particularly for Oregon. If Hillary stays in the race until Oregon, that means that there will be HUGE numbers of voters going to the polls. In turn, that means that the many public service levies on the ballot across the state that require passage by a double majority have a much better chance. So, my heart says Go Obama, but my pro-public service sector head says Keep it Up, Hillary (just so Obama wins in the end).

Jeff, it means great minds think alike!

Miles

I think you are confusing general election viability the nomination viability.

CA and NY are Democratic locks, no matter if Clinton or Obama is on the ticket. TX is a GOP lock.

In fact, if you really want to know how the general will play out, you need to look at 6-10 states (FL, NM, CO, OH, WV, AR, TN are at least seven).

The reason he can't put Clinton away is the same reason that Jackson hung in in 1988, the same reason Hart hung in in 1984: the proportional nature of the Democratic nomination system. And Clinton was always a much stronger challenger than any of the not-presumptive-nominees for the past 20 years.

The most comparable contest, seems to me, is Ford/Reagan

As long as the not-presumptive-nominee doesn't run out of money, he or she will hang in there and win delegates.

CNN reporting Obama ahead 438k to 305k in Texas ... with 1% reporting.

That's quite a turnout.

And to add to Paul's analysis, Obama's still substantially ahead in the popular vote, less so if you include FL and MI (and you can't since Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI), but he still has a lead. Unless the bizarre happens (and it may, given our unanimity here!), he should still hold a lead in total votes cast.

RE: Texas...

One thing to remember is that in Texas, African Americans turn out in much higher numbers than Hispanics. This trend seemed to be continuing since areas with high Hispanic numbers weren't seeing as high of turnout as areas with large African American populations. In some of these areas, turnout was 10 times higher - compared to about 4 times higher for areas with a large number of Hispanics. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues.

Yeah, I got optimistic at the last second. ON my own blog I didn't. But everything else is coming to pass...

But if Obama loses Ohio or Texas, what does that say about his overall strength? Put another way, after a dozen straight victories, tons of momentum, and two straight weeks of uninterrupted focused campaigning, why is he not able to put Clinton away?

Because it required popular vote math he was uphill against all the way. And yet that's not what they're organizing for; they're organizing for delegates. Which it looks like they will win handily in Texas. In a week or so, when Obama's won another couple of "meaningless" states and people starting checking the math again, they'll discover that--remember back when?--for Clinton to have a chance she'd need to skunk Obama in both states where she already had solid leads. She failed to do it in either. Todd predicted a single digit delegate win in Ohio, with Obama in single digits in TX primary, with an expected win in the caucus to bring him even on the night at worst, up in delegates at best.

There is not enough pie left, no matter how long she goes. Obama did what he needed to do to win, although Clinton did what she needed to justify to herself and her supporters that she should continue. And it's great for Dem party building in every state they go to, so why not? As long as Clinton shapes up and cleans herself of the slime, it's best on balance for the party--and may well be even with the slime.