Word on the street is if Obama gets 70% or 75% (I can't remember which) in DC he will get ALL of their delegates. I haven't confirmed that, but it definitely a possibility for him to get that much of the vote, given he has nearly done that in all white states. Anyway, that would be a nice little delegate bump for him.

Barring an upset/polling foul-up like the one we saw in New Hampshire

Or the significant underestimate of Obama's win in South Carolina, or the totally off the wall predictions about California and Mass. in the Feb. 5 primary...these polls have been not great predictors of actual results...

And why do we care about national polls, anyway? MOre than half the country has voted, so what do those numbers tell us? Do polling firms only poll in states that haven't voted?

Greg:

The AP-Ipsos poll numbers (in the poll tracker) are incorrect. Obama leads Clinton 46-41 (you have it reversed).

If these poll numbers hold up, what's her argument going forward? She will have been beaten by landslides in EVERY contest since Super Tuesday. How do you spin that without losing complete credibility?

when the polls look too good, be prepare and must go out and vote tomorrow. MD, DC and VA, WE WANT CHANGE NOT JUST SWITCH!

Bulletin from the desk of:

Mark Poison Penn.

This recent string of victories by Senator Obama over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proves that Senator Obama is becoming more and more likely to be the object of attacks by the Republicans in the General Election Campaign. Please let Hillary handles those attacks instead of Senator Obama. Hillary loves being attacked, and promises to keep the country in a constant state of internal division and strife. Vote against hope, and reconciliiation. Vote for Hillary the Great Divider.

what Liam said

Virginia, in particular, has to count as an important state to win. It has always been the most sophisticated in the South, by every measure of culture. And it's winnable by the Democrats in the general election. The states that matter most aren't the ones Democrats are sure to win (e.g. New York), but the ones with tighter odds. And the states most representative of the rest of the country, among those, aren't the outliers like Florida (there's no other state resembling Florida!), or Ohio (whose situation vis-a-vis factories shut down is second only to Michigans). Most states are neither retirement havens nor totally on the skids. And its hard to sell hope to those who are close to passing from this world, or those who've already lost nearly everything. Virginia, on the other hand, far more resembles the greater part of America.

My new Dream Ticket (thanks to another TPM poster for suggesting it:

Barack Obama/Jim Webb. Would that be good or what?

Virginia, in particular, has to count as an important state to win. It has always been the most sophisticated in the South, by every measure of culture.

I suppose I really ought to contest that statement and get all huffy, but, unfortunately, even after twenty-odd years, I'm not sufficiently assimilated into the local culture to give a damn about NC's long-term thing about Virginia.

Now Duke, that's a whole other thing.

hrebendorf said:
My new Dream Ticket (thanks to another TPM poster for suggesting it:
Barack Obama/Jim Webb. Would that be good or what?

Perfect. Unbeatable. 16 Years of good governance.

I saw Hillery on the evening news being so dismissive about the Caucus results. She must have a tin political ear. Even the people who came to the caucuses to support her must feel abused by her statements. Hillary went into those states, starting in Iowa, and yesterday in Maine, and fought like hell to try and win them, and then she turns around and claims that they are meaningless. If she said that about my state, I would never vote for her again.

She is so caught up in her own spin machine that she has lost all contact with the big picture. That is why she keeps trying to win the caucuses and then claiming after she loses, that they are not worth anything. It also shows up in how she double dealt the Florida and Michigan events. She agreed to not compete in them, and then start demanding that she be allowed to have the delegates.

I always wondered why she stayed with such a truth shifter as Bill, but now I realize they are well matched, because when it comes to distortions and truth pretzeling, Hillary is the equal of Bill.

I dunno. Hillary went to D.C. today and offered them delicious pie in the sky, in the form of letting them vote. Maybe they'll fall for it. Or maybe not...

My first comment...

I hate getting ahead of myself and thinking about a VP, but I suppose that is why I roam all these blogs. I love the idea of Webb, but for the same reason he is an attractive candidate - I think running 2 senators isn't the best idea, especially when there is no guarantee that we will retain his seat. I want him on the stage speaking in Denver though.

I think Richardson matches very well - keeps NM in play - brings in the Latino vote, and balances Obama on all aspects of experience. He is the only candidate I know to have served in all parts of government. I also think that Sebelius from Kansas makes a strong choice. Puts Kansas as a reachable get, as the daughter of popular Ohio governor John J Gilligan, she can only help there, brings in a woman with "executive experience" who is the same age as Hillary and should not only help with the woman vote, but would be also not too old to run in 8 years.

I heard on the radio this morning that this was an unusual opportunity for DC voters to have a voice in the electoral process, since the DC/MD/VA primaries actually mean something. It's a bummer to see us missing from the discussion above (adds insult to the injury of not having congressional representation).

Anyway, DC has 38 delegates; 23 of these are superdelegates. For the allocation of the remaining 15, the city is split in two halves for the presidential primary; the winner in wards 1-5 gets 5 delegates; the winner in wards 6-8 gets 5, and the winner overall gets the remaining 5.