Wow. That's great news! I think that if Obama wins Nevada, and then goes on to win South Carolina by double digits, he can really nullify the New Hampshire loss and go strong into Feb 5th.

"I think that if Obama wins Nevada, and then goes on to win South Carolina by double digits..."
Don't forget about the primary, which is in Michigan. If takes that, that just piles on. If he doesn't, I don't think that it would hurt him that much.

Miller,

He ain't on the ballot in Michigan. Neither is Edwards. And that's because Michigan broke the rules, so they don't get no delegates.

As for double-digit margins, I should have hoped that Obama supporters would have learned their lesson in New Hampshire. Set the expectations at the levels that matter - a win's a win, a loss is a loss, and what really matters is the delegate count.

I'd wait a day or two before deciding on any NH bounce.
-- Mark Penn

I'm not trying to knock the reporting here, but this type of talk just reinforces the media narrative of this being a 2-person race. Edwards has seen the largest national bounce of all candidates since voting began in on Jan 3rd. But, we never hear about that, do we? Edwards is gonna stay in the race thru the summer and get to play kingmaker at the convention (assuming a tight race b/w Obama and Clinton leaving both without a majority of delegates). People better take him seriously because his one vote will potentially be more powerful than half of the democratic population of the US.

Can someone explain to me what the comment above meant about Edwards? Does he actually have the ability to "give" his delegates to one candidate or another? And does this only happen if neither gets a majority?

Last I heard Obama had 69% of the African American vote, but I can only imagine that will grow, especially if they get wind of Hillary's MLK Jr. comments, that will kill her in the AA community. Luckily for her though, the "rabid anti-Hillary media" didn't really report on her MLK Jr. comments, so she might get a free pass on that.

Anyway, hopefully Obama supporters in NV and SC won't get too comfortable and forget to go vote again, if nothing else I think NH taught people that nothing can be taken for granted. I'll just be glad when winter break is over because it only helps Hillary when young people aren't around to vote.

Jenna,

All that anyone has over their delegates is moral suasion - even the formal pledges aren't legally binding. (Yes, that's right. Every voter in a given district can elect a pledged delegate for a certain candidate, and there's nothing but conscience - and regard for their political future - to prevent that delegate from voting the other way.)

If this thing isn't locked up before the convention, all bets are off. There will be incredible pressure applied to all delegates to switch their votes. Edwards will have some impact on his delegates, to be sure - they're chosen, among other things, for loyalty. But the more typical response of candidates (back when this used to happen) would be to turn their delegates loose - in part to avoid the humiliation of being ignored.

But consider this. Edwards delegates are, by definition, anti-establishment. If they bought into a Hillary candidacy, they would have endorsed her. If he stays in until the convetion - an unlikely outcome, by any measure - his delegates are overhelmingly likely to support Obama on the second ballot.

Bupalos,

Yes, that's what he's pledging. But that's what every candidatepledges, right up until they announce their withdrawal. What's he supposed to say: "I'm not certain what I'll be doing?" "I'll withdraw if I continue to get whipped?" "Donate funds, and maybe I'll be viable?"

If he breaks his pledge, donors and voters might hold it against him - but of course, that wouldn't matter, because he wouldn't be running, and he ain't gonna run a third time.

So you'll forgive me if I take his protestations with a grain of salt. If Edwards comes in a distant third in his neighboring state of South Carolina, that's all she wrote.

Let me put it to you straight. Blacks in SC will NOT vote for Barack Obama because they are like lemmings when it comes to the Clintons. All Bill CLinton has to do is come to a few black churches, sing a few spirituals and have HRC address the crowd woith a southern drawl.And as a philandering husband, re-affirm his place as the nations first "black President".

Pathetic!

Look people, I'm the comeback kid!! You thought you were rid of me in 2004 and now in this primary...well not so fast! Just be reasonable, give up your childish fairy tales about non-Clinton Bush presidents, and we'll all be fine and the terrorists will leave us alone. In return, I'll use my vast talents to hand out little presents like 30% reductions in force levels in Iraq and universal pre-k for anyone who can pay to enroll their child in pre-k. I'll even wrap them up for you with bows on top and videotape it. Because I just give and give, ah, sometimes so much so that it hurts trying so hard to help you little people. It's hard being so wonderful.

I've got my new new campaign slogan folks:

"35 More Years of Change You can Believe In and Be Ready For."

What do you think? Should I add something about MLK being a do-nothing talker?

Michael A.

Once again, as usual, you're talking out of your orifice when you say Clinton is in defiance of the Democratic Party by remaining on the ballot in Michigan (along with Dennis Kucinich). This was never asked for by the party, only that candidates not campaign there.

But facts are a sticky thing with some of you and other Obama supporters here. Why don't you just ignore this one like you choose to ignore Clinton's superior record of acoomplishment and work ethic in the Senate.

I agree that McCain possibly winning SC is a problem. I never expected him to take that state. I though McCain would take MI, knocking Romney out, and then Huck would take SC, knocking Thompson out. Even if Rudy win FL, which I doubt now, it won't be a landslide. Then, I figured that McCain and Huck would divvy up super Tuesday, knocking Rudy out (McCain taking the SW and moderate states, Huck taking the south). But it McCain wins MI and SC, and possibly FL, he might be unstoppable. This is bad news because he is the only Repug who polls well against the Dems, beating Hillary in most purple state matchups. Grudgingly, I have to admit that Obama appears to have abetter chance against McCain—now. Not sure how he'll hold up on the experience issue in the real contest, though. Unlike Hillary, there is no question that McCain has been around the block. But if McCain does win those three states, I might have to vote for Obama on Super Tuesday because I have serious doubts that Hillary can beat McCain. OMG, did I just write that? Ya, my position is always a pragmatic one. I couldn't care less about ideology or any other purist notion. I don't think Obama is the best choice, but if he is the one who can win, I'll bite the bullet.

Colonpowwow, yep I agree facts are nasty things, like your repeating the glorious conclusion about your fearless leader's senate record and "experience" ad nauseum. I don't buy into the propaganda tactic of repeating the same lie over and over again so that people ultimately believe it, that's why I want facts, not rosy conclusions.

Facts: Clinton appearance on NPR, when in a half hearted way a reporter pushed her to talk about some of her crowning achievements in the senate, and the "change" for america that she brought about. Clinton's answer was that she marshalled schip through the senate as a senator. Wrong answer, schip was marshalled through the senate in the nineties, before she was a senator. Also, she credited herself with the passage of a national guard healthcare program, which obviously is a good thing. That's it!!!!! Nothing, but she has 35 years of bringing change. She is a change-agent. Give me a break. She was too busy preparing to run for president and voting to invade a country and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent americans and iraqis for political purposes and based on lies.

On another note, I find it extraordinarily interesting that the clinton people are pushing the michigan primary now. Hmmmm, I bet she tries to make a big splash if she can defeat that "uncommitted" candidate. Too funny.

We seem to have flattened off here. Clinton isn't falling, Obama isn't climbing and no one appears to have picked up any of Biden, Dodd or Richardson's support yet. That's probably another 8-10% back in the undecided column.

colonpowwow spins about Mrs. Bill "Clinton's superior record of acoomplishment and work ethic in the Senate."

I thought Hillary had found her voice. I thought all the spinning and exageration and claiming experience and accomplishments that don't exist was over. I thought after her epiphany in NH and cleansing tears Hillary was going authentic.

But here we go with colopowwow taking up the attack dog role, making claims any observant, honest person knows are false, and trying to bully people into accepting that opinion.

Well, so much for Hillary's own voice. Still sounds like shrill, cackling lies to me.

Oops. I forgot about the Hollywood coached welling of tears, sincerity, give me sympathy initative. So the Hillary brigade says "I feel sooooo sorry for her. Poor thing. C'mon girls lets get the Hagen Daaz, have a good cry and vote for poor badgered, abused Hillary to be president of the United States and leader of the world."

What a joke.

Shouldn't you guys learn your lesson and start including the "Undecided" number in these poll listings? It's so deceptive and really contributes to false media storylines and internet gossip.

That's 13% undecided! Come on! How about some responsible poll reporting, TPM?!!