Media outlets here are not hyping up Obama's more states. The general media line is : Obama won more states, but Hilary won the ones that matter (and more deligates). Simple but different headlines to what I was expecting.

Also,

Hillary Clinton - 9:
Arkansas (35 delegates)
Massachusetts (93 delegates)
New Jersey (107 delegates)
New York (232 delegates)
Oklahoma (38 delegates)
Tennessee (68 delegates)
Arizona (56 delegates)
California (370 delegates)

Barack Obama - 13:
Alabama (52 delegates)
Colorado (55 delegates)
Connecticut (48 delegates)
Delaware (15 delegates)
Georgia (87 delegates)
Illinois (153 delegates)
Kansas (32 delegates)
North Dakota (13 delegates)
Utah (23 delegates)
Minesota (72 delegates)
Idaho (18 delegates)
Missouri
Alaska

Delving more into the numbers:

CNN currently has:

NY split 144/75 for Hillary > +69
NJ split 43/24 for Hillary > +19
Mass split 53/35 for Hillary > +18


Hillary is currently at 534 vs Obama's 425. That is without a large group counted, including Cali. It will be interesting to see how Cali shakes out with Hillary +20% in the polls, yet everything done by district.

Those splits included the superdelegates.

What about the ones that Obama won? How are they split?

Here's what to watch: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primar ... ard/#val=D

Hillary: 559
Obama: 456

And Dolce,

I was saying to filmo that I would rather Obama than Hillary if I had to pick a democrat.

Yes, but it's foolish to ignore them, as they count just as much!

I think he was saying republicans would "take" hilary as in "rather run against her than obama".

But they're not pledged and could switch at any time.

We could go strictly by the percentages to get some estimates, but the exact numbers are going to depend on the congressional districts and if certain candidates pass the threshold.

Super Delegates are retarded, and nothing more than a way for Democrats to self pick a nominee and cut the people out of it. But I digress, the numbers I gave are estimated super-delegates based on where they have thrown their support.

While they CAN switch, they very rarely do. I think it's safe to include the super delegates.

Currently:

Hillary - 591 (398 non-super)
Obama - 476 (370 non-super)

Clinton got 3 of the 4 biggest delegate states. She's gotta be happy.

Chuck Todd, NBC News’ political director, said that while Clinton was winning more of the big primary states, Obama was picking up significant delegate totals, notably in New York, where he could come away with nearly 40 percent of the total.

Obama was also doing “extremely well” in the states that were holding caucuses, Todd said, particularly Minnesota, North Dakota, Idaho and Colorado.

As a result, Todd said, Clinton could end up with the most votes at the end of the evening, but the delegate count could be nearly even, with Obama leading by just four.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23019673/

That's pretty remarkable if you think how she had a 20 point lead nationally in opinion polls just a few weeks ago. Even if he ends up with less than her, as long as he stays in striking range it's pretty impressive.

Yep, he was down by 15% in CT just two weeks ago and pulled it out. I'm especially impressed with his sweep across the caucus states. And showing that he does better in red states should also help since he will easily win all the blue states Hillary won today come general election.

As an Obama supporter, I'm not elated about the today's results, but I'm generally satisfied.

Clinton 591
Obama 476

Hillary still on top in delegates won so far.

Well, Obama did win 40% of the vote, so it makes sense he would get 40% of the delegates.

NY
- 281 total delegates
- 232 from primary
- 49 superdelegates

So far, of the 232 from the primary:
- Hillary 105
- Obama 74

Of the 49 Super:
- Hillary 39
- Obama 1

Those delegates won't be switching, and it's foolish not to count them.

The gap in CA is closing, after the early return ballots were first tabulated, so Hillary may "only" win by 10% at the end; still an impressive victory.

And CNN does have nice graphs and pictures.

I hate Wolf Blitzer, or I'd watch CNN most of the time. But their website is second to none, by far the place to go for political coverage. Is it perfect? God no, but it's the best of the majors by a mile.

Also, it's too early to say with regard to Cali. It all depends which precincts are coming in.

And Obama now pulls ahead in NM, the last state that hasn't been called.

I'm shocked at Romney's collapse. He was my guy from the get go and this loss just plain sucks.

I guess I'll have to jump on the McCain bandwagon.

Great for Obama. I didn't think it would be this close in regards to Hillary.

I don't know where I heard this, but I think historically candidates who are usually the 'front-runners' on the national level prior to Iowa never survive. So maybe his expectations were too high going in considering this was a state that ultimately voted for Huckabee. On the other hand, Giuliani was really popular and tried to avoid going there knowing it would be his downfall and it still didn't work. So maybe Iowa inevitably shakes up the field.

But I do think Romney had several marks against him from the beginning. 1. He was such a loathed governor in MA that he didn't even bother running a second term (he knew he'd lose). He was so disliked MA residents responded by voting in a democratic governor (they usually like their governors republican). 2. He's a Mormon. Might work in Utah, but ain't going to work with the far-religious right that votes for someone like Huckabee. They have such a distrust in schismatic faith that they would rather vote for a moderate protestant than a conservative mormon. He should have played down his faith instead of doing a national address to the nation about it and going to that funeral the other day. 3. Everything he said he'd do in MA he did the opposite of. Not a good sign for a governor. 4. He looks kinda sleazy.

Eagle. You never made yourself clear. Would you prefer, as a republican, to see Obama in the White House rather than Hillary, or would you prefer that the Republican candidate run against him because that candidate would have a better chance of winning? They are too different things, and I'm confused which you meant.

Current CNN counts:

Clinton - 738 (545 pledged)
Obama - 658 (552 pledged)

Look like they will finish the night roughly equal in the number of pledged delegates, and Clinton will maintain her advantage through superdelegates. I can't find any reason for Obama to not be satisified with that outcome, outside making it a little more closer in CA.

Keep in mind that the superdelegates can change their minds at any time. Take them out of the equation and Obama is ahead, if just barely. But I think most importantly, Obama has the mindshare and the momentum. I think Hillary has her staunch superdelegate supporters (like Bill, for example), but maybe enough of them can be persuaded to switch if, at the end of the day, Obama is ahead in pledged delegates and the superdelegates would end up putting Hillary over the top.

Looking at the schedules, this Saturday looks good for Obama as he has shown to do very well in caucuses, and he could potentially sweep next Tuesday's states (DC, Maryland, and Virginia). Then he would really have the momentum, with more money in the bank. Hillary will need to win Texas and Ohio.

My prediction: Pennsylvania on April 22nd will decide it, and I expect Obama to lead the delegate race going in.

OMG! Obama took the delegate lead 602 to Hillary's 588.
When i went to bed last night he was still losing to her.

That's not good for Obama, because I don't think he can win in PA. Also, don't forget, none of the CA delegates have been counted yet.