It's not even close.  Landslide for Hillary Clinton.  It's not just a guess because the island is Hispanic -- there are deep connections there with the Clintons and New York state, etc, etc.

You'd just need to be following Puerto Rican culture and politics for a while to know this.  The current governor is not that helpful to anyone btw.

Boy would I feel good if this were an electoral vote !

Evan Bayh will deliver Indiana to Clinton.

Indiana and Oregon are easily lean Obama.  PR and Guam are also easily lean Clinton.

That map is really stark in terms of a Democratic victory in 2008 and beyond.

What are considered the swing areas that the Democrats need to win for election?

(1) Upper midwest (especially Ohio, but also Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc.)  -- all looking strong for Hillary

(2) Upper South/Appalachia (Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia) -- all looking strong for Hillary

(3) Southwest (Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada) -- all looking strong for Hillary

(4) Florida -- a great state for Hillary

Obama's victories largely occurred in small plains states that Democrats never win anyway, and in deep South states that Democrats never win anyway (with his pledged delegate lead due to big margins among small number of voters in caucuses in   small red states).

That victory in the Dem primary somehow equates victory in the general. There are several problems with this.

1) Obama v Clinton votes are not mutually exclusive.

2) You are assuming that the Dems who voted for the losing candidate will vote Republican. When, in all liklihood at least 90%+ will continue to vote for the Dems, who have SWAMPED the Republicans in turnout in most states.

3) The Dems second place contender got more votes than he leading Republican in many states.

4) Clinton voters are not "voting against Obama," nor are Obama voters "voting against Clinton." They are all voting for change, good judgement, and experience we think suits them to be President (I prefer Obama's experience, personally.) That benefits the Dems.

5) I think you are still viewing this through a 50%+1 lens (which doesn't seem like you), and the Dems have a real chance to put us beyond that this election. Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina (IMO) and several other states will be in play that were not in 2000 or 2004.

The superdelegates can vote however they choose. Them's the rules. Will they vote for the candidate who's losing the pledged delegate race? No. But they  legitimately could. Them's the rules, and only Republicans try to change the rules in mid-game.

Florida and Michigan delegate should not be counted without a re-vote. Them's the rules, and only Republicans try to change the rules in mid-game.

The only way Clinton can win this, barring an Obama collapse, is by convincing those superdelegates who don't support her strongly enough to already have come out for her, to vote against the pledged delegate majority. That's beyond unlikely.

I'm not sure how you might have 'no clue' about this. I'm have no certainty, but I've definitely got a clue. Math 101.

in the remaining states.

That's it, 611.

Obama will still lead Clinton by about 150 pledged delegates after everything is sorted out in Texas.

To catch up to Obama in pledged delegates, Clinton needs to pick up 380 of those 611. That's 62% of the remaining delegates. Electorally (due to apportionment) that means blowouts of 65% C to 35% O in EACH AND EVERY REMAINING CONTEST

The math won last night. The math favored Obama going into last night. The math favors Obama even more this morning than it did before a single vote was counted yesterday.

It's time for Clinton and Obama to bury the hatchet and join forces.  A Clinton/Obama ticket would be unstoppable.  (Yes, I put Obama in the Veep slot, and I'm an Obama supporter.  As long as the Republicans get pushed out of the White House, it's all good.)

Once again Jerome, a brilliant bit of analysis. Is there a link to get this delegate counter? Go Hillary!

Oregon is an Obama landslide. Other than that true.

Pennsylvania is a lock for Clinton.

Obama wins Wyoming, Mississippi, Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, wins the Michigan re-vote, ties in Pennsylvania(51-49 or thereabouts), and does better than expected in Puerto Rico and the Florida re-vote(47%).
Clinton wins Kentucky, West Virginia, Puerto Rico and Florida, and argues she won Pennsylvania.

Obama still ahead in popular vote by around 500,000 votes, and pledged delegates by around 100+, maybe even 200.  The superdelegate tally will be around 350-300 in Obama's favor, with about 200 up for grabs at the convention.

Assuming there will be around 4414 total delegates with Michigan and Florida re-included, and that about 4200 are spoken for by mid-June, that would give Obama about 2175 delegates, and Clinton 2025.  I think that's concession speech territory for her.

Oregon a toss-up? Your dreaming Jerome.

As a life long Oregon Democrat, and someone who has done precinct level targeting for several large campaigns, this state has to be seen as leaning strongly for Obama.

We are not an industrial state with a high percentage of blue-collar workers.  Oregon's largest industries are high tech and trade.  Portland is a mecca for young creatives.  Most of the rural areas are highly Republican and have few Democrats.  Democratic votes are heavily concentrated in the Willamette valley around university towns Eugene and Corvallis in the south and around Portland in the north.  I live in a relatively conservative (by Portland standards) older suburb with a pretty high concentration of working class voters.  In my daily conversations with hundreds of people I find very strong support for Obama.

Here is a Feb 26 poll showing Obama runs +8 against McCain while Clinton runs -8.

http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php? /archives/1226-Oregon-Poll-Barack-tops-M cCain.html

Rasmussen has Obama +9 against McCain and HRC - 3.  

I saw one head to head with Obama vs. Clinton about a month ago and Obama was ahead by about 10%.  If he is able to blow away Clinton leads of over 10% in other states, I suspect he will pull away here.  

There are relatively few institutional resources that Clinton can utilize here.  SEIU is by far the strongest union.  She has the support of our Governor, but I don't think that matters much.  Obama already has a huge self-directed grass roots organization in place with thousands of volunteers.

Unless the national narrative changes significantly, Obama will likely win Oregon by 15-20%.

superdelegates. Obama supporters can yell all they want about "whoever has the most pledged delegates," and hang on to that like a liferaft. But the reality is the superdelegates can vote their conscience, their heart, and their intellect. Anyone winning all the big states, and Ohio in a landslide, is not going to be dismissed simply because of pledged delegates. This system has been in place since 1972 and it isn't going to change suddenly because someone wishes it to be so. Whichever candidate makes the best case to the superdelegates for his or her nomination will be our nominee.

An intersting point, which I don't hear anyone talk about, is that Obama would have a very good chance of winning Michigan if there is a re-vote.  Similarly, I doubt HRC would win Florida by the same margin she won the beauty contest that already occurred.  So even if there is a re-vote, those states are unlikely to give her the kind of margin she would need to overtake him in terms of delegates.  

Stated otherwise, her only viable path to the nomination is through convincing the supers to pick her despite having fewer pledged delegates.  That could happen, but I think it's a tough sell.

Okay. This is probably the first time I see how Clinton might actually get the nomination. We will see if the scenario unfolds as you say and I'm very doubtful it will. But at least you put something forth.

The candidate that has won CA, MA, TX, OH, NY, the entire southwest, should have this thing locked up and be running a general campaign right now.  Not going toe to toe with the winner of Idaho and South Dakota.

I know one thing: barring catastrophe of Gary Hart proportions, Obama will end up with more pledged delegates.  

I know one other thing: if the supers reverse the leader of the pledged delegates, all hell will break lose, especially among young voters and African American voters, but among many others as well.

I know just one other thing: if the tenor of this campaign continues to be as negative as the last three days, the Dems will do harm to themselves in the general.

Iowa, Missouri, most of New England, the contested part of the upper midwest, the Potomac states.  Which of these are not important in the general?

This makes perfect sense actually.

Obama may end up with more pledged delegates, but he may well not have enough of them to win the nomination.

The supers job is not to rubber stamp or 'reverse' the pledged delegates. They exist basically as a body of 'elders', for lack of a better word, in order to provide leadership in choosing a nominee to offset the flaws of the state-by-state rules and methods. Or, at other times, when they feel the primary/caucus system has not produced the best candidate.

Gerladine Ferraro wrote an op-ed about it that you may have seen. She was part of the group that devised what was perceived to be a 'fix' to our whacked system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinio n/25ferraro.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&am p;oref=slogin

I find it funny that practically everyone, including pro-Clinton bloggers, have bought the Obama campaign's spin on superdelegates. They're the ones who have brought up and pushed this notion that the supers are there to rubber stamp the pledged delegates. That's simply not true. They are there to guide the nominating process, and if they find it in the party's best interests, to overrule the pledges.

I'm not saying they will, necessarily, but they will be looking at the overall popular vote, they will likely look at bellweather states, and they will certainly look at winnability as they judge it for each candidate.

Much backroom politicking will doubtless ensue if they are lining up to tip the scales away from the pledged delegate leader. There will be a feverish push for a politically viable result all the way around, alienating the fewest voters at worst. This is why, barring egos, a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket seems politically possible.

But there's a long way to go. And I do not rule out a Gary Hart catastrophe or series of gaffes by either side. The Clinton team has shown how bad it can be, and the Obama team is having real difficulties dealing with the harsh realities of American politics. In including more negativity in his message and tactics, he will doubtless undermine, to some extent, the message that he isn't just another politician and that he somehow can operate outside the actual political environment. Premises I've always found pretty unbelievable, but which have clearly resonated with a lot of people. I still find that neither the candidate, nor the process as his campaign presents it, is actually what he/it is.