Three weeks ago we calculated the Democratic race as if each state awarded it's pledged delegates on a winner-take-all basis, rather than proportionally, concluding that it wouldn't make all that much difference. (See "Democratic Deadlock: Don't Blame Proportional Representation . . .") At the time, Obama would've had a small lead in delegates under the winner-take-all formulation.
What about now? It would still be close, but Hillary would have a distinct advantage, mainly based on winning Texas.
If the pledged delegates from every state were awarded on a winner-take-all basis, Hillary Clinton would now be leading Barack Obama by 1417 to 1212. It wouldn't be enough to put her over the top without superdelegates, but it might be enough to be an insurmountable lead, potentially leading to a deal where Obama agreed to be the VP nominee.
If you include all the superdelegates from each state as pledged delegates, the result is about the same, with Obama actually a tad closer: Clinton 1746; Obama 1551. Of course, in this scenario, one of them--probably Hillary--would eventually win, without resort to unpledged "superdelegates."
Still, it isn't like the Republican party where McCain, despite some very slim victories, has waltzed in by a wide margin.