Her only hope is that superdelegates back her at a rate of about 3:1.

I think the next two weeks will be critical as far as superdelegates - I don't think they want to see this thing go to Pennsylvania and I think they'll start moving after Mississippi next Tuesday: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/the-math-and-how-hillary-wins.php

I have some numbers that give her a 20 delegate win Tuesday. It seems now that she has to run the board by almost 63% of the vote to catch up to Obama... that's before Mississippi and Wyoming.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/it-is-now-harder-for-hillary-t.php

How many delegates do we estimate Obama picks up in Wyoming and Mississippi?

And he better campaign like hell in those two states the rest of the week before unloading on the Clintons re tax returns (THAT is a legitimate issue to attack - otherwise , should try to stay above the fray).

As Kos has pointed out many times before, this would mean that Clinton has, for the first time, won a larger share of pledged delegates on an election day than has Barack Obama.

Color me unimpressed.

On to WY, MS, and then closed contest PA.

Texas doesn't apportion on popular vote. It looks like Obama will have a net gain of 15 or so in Texas due to the caucus and primary wins in areas that return a high number of delegates. Hillary Clinton's wins were in areas that return a smaller number.

At best Clinton will split the delegate vote from the primaries and Obama will get at worst a 5 delegate pickup in the caucuses.

So Tuesday was a wash. It just requires a little math. See www.burntorangereport.com for some real juice on how Texas really works.

I remain unconvinced that Obama needs to focus on winning by a technicality of more pledged delegates. I don't think most folks will see that as anything other than mathematical posturing.

I would recommend--not that I need to be listened to :)--that his campaign focus on winning the next races by wide margins. And I would also recommend that his campaign get more professional in their resposes.

Obama has the money and the volunteers and, I think, the main message. But some of the campaign responses in the past two weeks were weak and ineffective.

He either fixes it or, at best, is the VP nominee. The technicality of pledged delegate count won't be enough if he can't fix the campaign responses.

Greg:

For pity's sake. Her own campaign, a few weeks ago, predicted that she'd pull within 25 pledged delegates (Guy Cecil), end up roughly even (Mark Penn), or take a narrow lead (Howard Wolfson). Things deteriorated so quickly that by the time the voting actually started, many pundits were predicting that she could end up further behind than she started, as MSNBC correctly notes. In fact, it looks like she'll narrow Obama's pledged-delegate margin from about 160 to about 150; and his overall lead from around 115 to around 105 - or, if Bill Burton can't add and Obama's caucus win isn't as big as he claims, to something more like 90-95.

And that's an "impressive" or "significant" result? If she wins the remaining contests as "impressively" as she did yesterday, she will lose the nomination - by something like a 75-delegate margin.

There's an element of absurdity to this degree of media self-regard. At the end of the day, it doesn't actually matter whether or not candidates have exceeded the expectations set for them by the media or failed to meet them. All that matters is how many delegates they take to the convention. And by that measure, yesterday was indeed bitter for the Clinton campaign. On favorable demographic territory, it failed to significantly narrow the gap. There aren't enough favorable states remaining to catch Obama. And that, not the fact that she exceeded yesterday's expectations, is what matters about the March 4 results.

why the hell don't you guys take it up with MSNBC? They said it was "impressive." Go argue with them about it.

"Impressive" is quite a bit more gushing than "significant."

Whatever gains she made last night will be erased in Wyoming and Mississippi.

Democrats have two powerful candidates who each have a lock on their own portion of the electorate. Hillary won last night but she is still behind Obama in the delegate count with little hope of catching up even by August even if she declaring wins in MI and FL. Obama, following the national Democratic rules, did not campaign in those states; his name was not even on the ballot in MI. It would be perceived as an out and out theft if she took the nomination this way and as a consequence his supports would in anger not vote in November in the numbers she needs to win. The energized younger voters Obama has brought in in droves will say "whatever" and a portion of the African American population would turn their backs on Hillary in anger.

Many Independents and even many of those who just voted for Hillary will not choose her in November. Remember this week she conveniently pointed out in a self-defeating argument that John McCain has a life time of experience and compared to her he has much more experience than she can claim. So men will chose McCain as will security-concerned soccer moms who will be frightened into voting for him by Republican scare tactics. Without an energized army of motivated under- 30's, without energized African Americans, without the active support of those who believe in Obama, we will be poised for Bush 3.0. Hillary, champion of woman, will ensure that with his Supreme Court picks McCain will return woman's rights to the dark ages for a generation to come.

Older woman will argue that they in turn will not support Obama because of his youth and inexperience. Many in their devotion to Hillary remain blind to his power to move players to a new game board just as FDR did, just as Reagan did. Government went for being the solution under FDR to being the problem under Reagan. We need someone who, through his power to define and inspire, can reinstate the power of government to act as a referee once again ensuring economic justice.

We need a combined ticket and it may come down to a coin toss at the convention whose name is at the top. The vice presidency has been redefined by this administration. These two historic figures could redefine it further. Our problems are bigger than one person can tackle efficiently, let's show the world what can be done with a powerful team of two. McCain would seem insignificant competing against this powerful duo.

Democrats should demand that Hillary and Obama be on the ticket together. The two of them should outline the role of the VP before the voting at the convention takes place. FL and MI can be seated. Delegates can cheer not jeer, Democrats will win big in November, and this watershed moment in American history will let us revive our greatness at last.

Always good to hear your assessment of the delegates, FlyOnTheWall. Always straightforward and simply explained.

>>ad homs from the gregger are EXCELLENT NEWS!!!

That's hilarious. Zod laughed at that one.

More pro-Hillary spin from HRC Election Central.

So in other words, she made slightly more gains than zero, which was what was expected, and this is a huge victory for her? My goodness, have we lost the ability to do math in this country?

Yes the numbers matter, but not as much as the Obama camp would like us to believe. I think Hillary's created some real concerns about Obama in the minds of a lot of party regulars. If he just focuses on the math and tries to run out the clock, he risks allowing her to make a bunch of claims, from her mix of states to his inability to take a punch and hit back, that are perfectly tailored to a party sick of having its ass handed to it every four years. He still probably wins the nomination, but unless he finds a way to turn the tables on her, he won't emerge with the kind of strength needed to beat McCain. Obama's appeal isn't some Gandhi-esque purity and civil disobedience. It's the hope he represents. No one said hope can't kick a little ass now and then.

You know, I'm kind of astonished at the media's lack of understanding about the delegate math, considering it's importance. I don't know where this stems from. Maybe it's the mainstream media's arrogance that the only states that really matter are the Big 5, and the rest of the states are just participating in quaint, insignificant, exercises in democracy (aww ... isn't that cute, the little South Carolinians think their delegates matter). Or maybe it's just that these elections are winner take all, because the narrative is so much more compelling, like Clinton barely winning Texas 51-48% is as significant and decisive as the Yankees beating the Red Sox 2-1.

Frankly, maybe it's understandable, since Hillary's campaign doesn't even seem to understand it). Size matters, but only in margins. BLOW-OUTS MATTER. You get delegates by beating your opponent by 25% or more. The Obama landslide wins in Virginia and Washington were absolutely crushing blows. There is a better than zero chance that Barak nets more delegates from the District of Colombia (+9) than Hillary got in Texas and Ohio combined. Winning even large states 51-48% is relatively meaningless.

That's why it was so mind boggling that Hillary's campaign seemingly just conceded states, even by huge margins of defeat to Obama, if they didn't like the math. For someone who was supposedly the more qualified and substantiative candidate, she was completely outsmarted and outmaneuvered.

I suggest not "writing" up articles that just repeat talking points.

If that's the goal, just link us to the appropriate source.

If you want to actually comment on something, then comment on it.

That's what most of us seem to have an issue with.

Her gain is significant, but it is not sufficient. Credit where credit is due, but it doesn't quite make up for all the significant gains Obama made before she managed to win these three states.

After two weeks of rallies, and tens of millions spent on campaigning, it's official.

The minor Super Tuesday is a DUD.

Felix

MSNBC: "It's impressive nonetheless since so many folks predicted her not even netting 10 delegates last night."

This is like saying the Titanic put in an impressive performance because it managed to stay afloat for almost 5 hours after hitting the iceberg. Both craft and candidate were originally held to be unsinkable.

The expectations game can be awfully fickle.

BREAKING NEWS : OBAMA FIRES TIM RUSSERT AND JOE SCARBOUROUGH

HE KEEPS CHRIS MATTHEWS AND KEITH OBERMAN(hints they may be gone after pennsylvania)

jack cafferty may be in the running to replace them

Hillary needs to keep winning primaries but she doesn't need to catch all the way up.

If she rolls in Denver on a winning streak, she will be able to make a reasonable argument that once voters got to know Obama, they preferred her. His success was all early in the process.

Then it will be up to the superdelegates to sort out.

Texas is a combined primary/caucus.

The complete results aren't in - all we have so far are the results from the first part. How can we say that Clinton has "won" Texas if all of the results aren't through yet? Or are the delegates won in the caucus part not worth as much...?

I guess everyone loves the quick and easy story rather than waiting for things to pan out.

A couple of weeks ago, Todd and Russert said that to all intents and purposes, Hillary is toast unless she wins the delegate count in TX and OH (and PA) big time. (ie 20% or so.) We get caught up in the day to day swings that we forget that when the dust settles Clinton is still no closer to becoming the nominee than she was after the Potomac primaries.

greg you are the best blogger on TPM.....obamamaniacs are sore losers and excuse makers

>>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

That is quite an argument, Greg.

Greg:

I guess instead of reproducing what MSNBC concluded, it would be more interesting if you analyzed the results yourself. My guess is that we can all of this information over at First Read. Instead, how looking at the results and running them through the statements of the Clinton campaign. Here was the Clinton spin going into last night:

Clinton Chief Strategist Mark Penn: “After March 4th, over 3000 delegates will be committed, and we project that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be virtually tied with 611 delegates still to be chosen in Pennsylvania and other remaining states. Again and again, this race has shown that it is voters and delegates who matter, not the pundits or perceived ‘momentum.’” [Mark Penn memo, 2/13/08]

Clinton aide Guy Cecil: "We think that at the end of the day on March 4 we will be within 25 delegates.” [Politico, 2/13/08]

Howard Wolfson: “I Think We Will Be Ahead In The Delegate Race After Texas And Ohio.” [Clinton campaign conference call, 2/11/08]

New York Times: “Clinton advisers have said Mrs. Clinton must win the Texas and Ohio primaries by at least 10 percentage points if she has any hope of catching up with Mr. Obama in the delegate count, particularly because he has shown momentum recently at picking up support from elected officials who count as superdelegates.” [NYT, 2/22/08]

Based on the Clinton's own spin (let's call it what it is), she failed MISERABLY last night. Not Obama's spin, but CLINTON'S SPIN. Personally, I think MSNBC is suffering from CBS Syndrome and being overly nice to Senator Clinton after her working of the refs. But that's my opinion.

And just to be clear, I don't think you are biased or a shill. I just want some objective analysis of the state of the race. And (IMHO) the Clinton spin coming into March 4th is extremely relevant to how the results should be viewed and how they are spinning them now.

Wow. Greg is feelin' fiesty!

Anyone who visits this site knows perfectly well how to read between the lines. I'm more concerned with the specifics of what's happening on the ground, and I don't see how Greg's choice of words makes even the slightest bit of difference in that regard: no one in any of the three campaigns is giving even the slightest thought to what Greg Sargent thinks about any of this, and I don't think any of us should, either. Read the article, decide for yourself, and if you have additional information that would benefit the rest of us, share it. That approach seems to be working just fine.

I have no feelings about Greg's reporting one way or the other, but I'd wager that not too many posters here could withstand the level of nitpicking scrutiny that his work on this site has. That's not a defense of him (and the name-calling on his part is both surprising and a bit sad), but if you want a site that provides top-notch media criticism, to go cjrdaily. If you want to debate the issues with others who are just as over-involved as you are, come here.

Yesterday there was a comment about who has the Popular Vote so far.

I’ve based these numbers off of today’s CNN count.

Michigan undeclared Dem voters are counted as other; essentially then: No MI votes for BO.

Clinton Popular = 13240303
Obama Popular = 13192401
Dem Other Popuplar = 917059
McCain Popular = 7097332
Rep Other Popular = 9439421

HRC Ahead = 47902

If State Wins were Electoral College

HC = 258
BO = 165

total voted = 43886516

The Texas caucus is more likely to be a better representation of the Obama/Clinton support. Is is clear that many many Republicans voted for Clinton because they see her as either a weaker candidate or unable to win and therefor destructive of the eventual nominee: Obama. As such, it actually makes sense that they have this two-step method. While it is clear that many Republicans were willing to cast their votes for Clinton, it is unlikely that they would be willing to actually attend a caucus that is filled with a bunch of screaming Democrats.

A political scientist points out that proportional representation accounts for much of Obama's lead in elected delegates and that if the Dems had used "winner take all" Clinton could be ahead with her wins in the "big" states. And if the Reps had used PR, McCain may not be the nominee at this stage.

He also pointed out that the MSM prefer winner take all since it makes for simple, but misleading headlines, about just what it is that the "winner" won. Reporting the delegates won or the turnout would be more significant but less dramatic.