I think Missouri might be the most interesting 2/5 state.  Swing state, reasonable demographics, and it's going to be very important to see who can turn out the most new voters there in preparation for the GE.

Hillary has the TX and PA Democratic establishment firmly behind her.

In Ohio she has Strickland among others.

She wants to wrap on Feb 5 so she can move to the general ahead of the Republicans.  But given the states that loom after Feb 5 it is a fairy tale to think Obama can win it.

I don't understand why Obama is fighting the fight the way he is.  There are lot of Democrats - like me - who said he'd be great for President a little ways down the road.   Now with his attacks and his race baiting there are some Democrats - like me - that don't care if we ever see or hear from him again.

He can't win.

Yeah, I saw the Obama KC office open (I drive by it on the way from the office to the Plaza) and was absolutely shocked by its presence when it opened.  Some of this was envy:  all these resources before NH (and during Dean, we couldn't get much b/c Dean conceded MO to a favorite-son Gephardt -- the assumption at the time).

Cleaver makes a difference in KC, but his influence will be muted by some of the support Obama receives in the African-American community.  McCaskill's the closest we have to a state-wide candidate.  Carnahan probably comes in 2nd.  Both endorsed Obama, I think.

St. Louis:  I think -- and I might be wrong -- that the Establishment elected officials went to Obama.

Springfield and Columbia:  I don't know, honestly.  One presumes Columbia to be a strong Obama area, while Springfield would not be.  I might be wrong.

Also, remember the narrative that Obama's trying to set up:  Colorado, Missouri, SD, the South.  Red States, Purple States.  He's trying to build up an "electability" argument after 2/5 in addition to picking up delegates.  It might be wrong (okay, strictly speaking, it is wrong), but it is a good spin.

Hillary has to win in California. If she loses in CA, her campaign is pretty much over.

It wasn't a post about 'putting in his pocket' those states you mention; more like what would he need to win to go on strong.

I completely disagree with your frame of analysis here Jerome.   What is this, Barack Obama is supposed to be dependent on the number of black people in a caucus to win that state? If there are too many women/white people, he is screwed? Conversely, we are to presume that Hillary will have a rough ride if their are "too many" black people or too few women?  

This reminds me of the CNN article which said that black women had a very difficult choice between their race and their gender.  I think we should have a more sophisticated discussion than that.  

The one monkey wrench in California is that the Republicans closed their primary while Democrats didn't.  This hurts McCain and really helps Obama since his strength is with independants.  Also, keep in mind that Democrats assign delegates proportanilly.  If he does well in the black community in New York City and Newark, it would really hurt the delegate count coming out of New York and New Jersey for Clinton.  Also, Obama is focucing more on the midwest and Rocky Mountain West whereas Clinton seems to be pouring everything into New York, New Jersey, Arkansas, and California.  The CW is that the 2/5 battleground favors Clinton, but given how many times CW has been wrong over the last month, this could be interesting.

I just don't understand the electability argument with GA, SD, etc.  These states went red by 15%.  Just because Obama might win them in the primary/caucus, doesn't mean they will turn blue.

I would agree, CO and MO are a true swing states in 2008.  However, so are NV, NM, and AZ (assuming McCain is not the nominee), IMO.  His struggles with Hispanic voters will cause him problems there.

MO should be the most interesting state to watch on 2/5.  HRC has already been there since Nevada, so she sees its importance.

I think you meant ND rather than SD. ND has only 13 delegates. As for MO, I don't think that McCaskill's support will do it, because the Dems there are moderate to conservative with a penchant for the military.

CO is a strong Hispanic state, but the caucus thing is unpredictable; as for UT, not many blacks there in addition to ID.

GA will most likely either tie or be close with Obama with a small edge, but no blowout. Same thing might happen in AL. TN will be a battleground.

OK for Clinton along with DE, NJ, CT, MA, NY.

Listen, I know we haven't voted for a Democrat since LBJ, but we are holding a caucus on 2/9, as well.

Using exit polls for primaries is silly ... a lot of those states weren't very competitive. In most states African-Americans will turn out in roughly double the percent of the state that they are, unless the DP is very strong in that state (like NY or CA). And even then it will be at least 133% of their representation in the state.

In addition to the seven you mentioned, DE is a possibility. He's going to play in UT where he's polled well in the past, maybe KS since it's a caucus. MN is a quasi-caucus too. Alaska has very few Dems and they're all hippies. Probably ID as well. DE is plausible.

So, I think his zone of competition is IL, GA, AL, DE, SD, CO, MO, KS, MN, UT, ND, ID. Plus as many delegates as he can in CA, NY, and NJ.

With 23 states up for grabs, he can't win more than a third of them unless something flukey happens.

many people are TIRED of it.

If Obama wants to extend past Feb fifth he's going to need some big wins.  Since the Clinton win is so easy to see, let's look at the Obama scenario, figuring Edwards is still in the race.  This could change based on SC (especially if Obama wins the white vote, or Edwards win/gets second place) but this is how I see it.  All of these states tighten up as the election draws closer because people finally start paying attention.  Obama does well in rural areas, while Hillary does well in the cities, however, up until now; none of the states with large cities (not counting Michigan because there was no campaigning) has had a sizable African American presence that will change come stupid Tuesday.  if Obama wins in the rural parts of states, and in rural states (Oklahoma, Kansas, not saying he'll win, but Iowa was the most rural of the state's who have voted so far, and he did win it) and the he doesn't lose the big cities by much due to the sizable AA presence there are several states he could win.  GA, AL, IL look good, TN is tossup to lean Obama, much of Missouri borders IL (Arkansas too) so it'll be a tossup.  North Dakota and Idaho are rural states he's been paying attention too that (correct me if I'm wrong, without ripping my head off) Hillary hasn't paid much attention to.  Not many delegates, but a wins a win.  Utah, who knows?  Arizona's in her column, CO is lean to Hillary favored.  DE might be a tossup or lean Hillary, and she'll win the northeast, no question.  However, the AA population votes for him by large margins, and he wins in rural parts.  I'd say her wins in those areas would have to be what, at least double digits?  Then there's Minnesota, which could go either way, or Alaska, who cares.  I'd say Obama can't win out right on Feb 5th, only Clinton can.  If however, he were to win AL GA TN CA and maybe ND ID UT OK he'd keep it going.  The

One overlooked aspect is the favorite son factor.  Six states have favorite sons who, while not all running, or still on the ballot. Alaska, (Gravel) New Mexico (Richardson) Delaware (Biden) Connecticut (Dodd) Illinois (Obama) ad New York (Hillary).  In 2004 Vermont voted overwhelmingly for dean despite him dropping out of the race.  Kerry was the defacto nominee then, so the voting didn't matter at all, I doubt it will be the case this time, unless Hillary wins SC.  However, I can imagine a sizable number of voters in states where their favorite son has left (except Alaska, seriously, does anyone take gravel seriously) that could, in theory determine the winner.  Look to New Mexico specifically, as it has 2 rural districts, a sizable Hispanic population, and a Hispanic candidate on the ballot, though not running.  As Richardson failed to endorse anyone, many of his followers, especially from the Hispanic community, could vote for him out of affection, or just to give the first credible Hispanic candidate a win.  For the other two (Dodd Biden) I'd say rank and file democrats would be the most likely to vote for them even though they're not on the ballot.  That would certainly help Obama who does not do as well among the rank and file as he does with the independents.  Then of course there's the Edwards factor which could be anything from splitting the anti-clinton vote, to absorbing the rather stupid "I won't vote for a black guy" vote.  All in all, Feb fifth is going to be one for the books.  

Excellent analysis, Doug.

I'm glad we're finally talking about Feb 5. As for speculation - I'll just speak about Massachusetts. Obama has Kerry's nod, but more importantly he has Deval Patrick. Not only did Patrick coast to glorious victory using what is now Obama's campaign theme - his supporters are many, and the kind that show up to primaries. Patrick's working hard for Obama.

And it should be noted that Massachusetts definitely seems to favor its "good old boys" culture. Until Niki Tsongas barely eked out a victory over a weak, no-name, penniless Republican challenger in MA-05 last year, we had 10 male Congressmen since 1983. We've never had a female Senator, and we rejected the gubernatorial bids of Kerry Healey (R) in 2006 and Shannon O'Brien (D) in 2002 (winner was Mitt).

I'm not saying Hillary can't win here, but I certainly wouldn't yet put it in her column.

Obama has a lot of big name endorsements in Georgia including two congressmen and Mayor Shirley Franklin...

Maybe this is a silly question, but in demographic divisions like this one, where does a black woman or  a Latina fit?

Is she a woman or is she black? And what if she's a black woman who is 70 years old? Is she a woman or is she black or is she 65+?

I'm seriously wondering how these things work. Does anyone know?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Jerome is way way to overconfident about Clinton taking 15+ states on the super Tuesday

California is a huge assumption -- everyone seems to be assuming that Hillary wins in a blow out there -- but Obama is going to make it a lot closer than people think, and quite possibly even pull off a win there -- however it turns out, the delegate mouth out of Cal will be rather close

And there are a bunch of other states that there is reason to think are going to be much more competitive:

Massachusetts -- don't you think Kerry, Patrick and the youthful electorate give Obama a fighting chance of taking it?

Minnesota is a caucus state with lots of political dynamics well-suited to an Obama candidacy -- either one of them could win there

It isn't SD that day, it is ND (SD has a primary at the end of the season)-- but Obama has the support of Kent Conrad and the Clintons have never been very popular there -- I suspect Obama will win that

So Hillary definitely wins NY, NJ, CT and Ark... although in each state Obama picks up 1/3rd+ of the delegates -- maybe more depending on how the votes are spread out by congressional districts. CT and NJ will be closer than people expect, although Clinton should definitely win then

NM should be a Clinton win --- but not overwhelmingly -- the hispanic vote there is very different than the immigrant vote in Nev, Cal etc (I grew up there, I'm Latino, for the record) -- and the place is also full of lots of green voters, white collar, high tech newcomers who play a big role in the state Democratic electorate

I understand that Obama has very active campaigns in Alaska, Idaho, Utah and Kansas. (And the rumor is that Sebilius is about to endorse Obama, which should help a lot in Kansas -- where the state Democratic party has been filling up with moderate Republican refugees/converts from the rightwing take-over of the Kansas Republican party)

Not sure about Arizona -- but the Governor endorsing Obama certainly should help make it a competitive race.

So what if your assumed 15 or more states for Clinton to 7 or less more Obama results turns into something much more muddled? Suppose Obama actually wins 11-14 states and Hillary is down to 8-11 states? Suppose the math of delegates actually comes out with a much more even split that you project.

Certainly that would give Obama great deal of momentum -- Feb 12 is very favorable to him (DC, VA, MD) and then would could see a state by state fight for wins and delegates through the end of the primary season.

But hey, I'm happy if the Clinton supporters keep building high expectations for her on the 5th and get overconfident about their chances... it will make Obama's wins so much more enjoyable.

Here is something I noticed over the past year. I saw it first in the Imus incident. The press completely did the race angle however when the Rutgers women were interviewed the first thing they said was that the word 'ho's hurt them After being asked about the nappy part they agreed that hurt too but the first thing was the part relating to being a woman.

Another anecdote is that when I first heard the comment it literally shocked me. The 'ho's' is what I reacted to then the press got into it and it became race.

Oddly enough that interview with the women was after the press had been playing up the race part and they still reacted to the part relating to women.

Don't know what this means except that maybe the sisterhood of women is stronger that people think it is.