Polls, Polls and More March 4 Polls; And More Delegates, Too

Since we've been keeping you up to date on polls on the Texas Democratic primary and Ohio Democratic primary all week, we might as well keep it up.

Here's the latest out of Texas, which shows Obama consolidating his small lead:

Reuters/Zogby (which we think has had a spotty record this primary season) has Obama up by six points, 48%-42%.

Fox News has Obama up 48%-45%.

Of the last eight polls out of Texas (conducted Feb. 22-28), only one had Hillary up, one had a tie and the rest gave Obama a small lead.

Of course, if you go back to New Hampshire, you'll see a similar pattern, so don't get too excited yet.

Then there's the so-called "Texas two-step": Texans don't only vote in a primary next Tuesday, they also caucus. Why, we're not sure, but about a third of the Texas delegates are up for grabs in the caucus and Obama may have an advantage there. He also has an advantage in the way the primary delegates are divvied up (we won't go into the details, but essentially, Hispanic south Texas, where Hillary is favored, will have disproportionately few delegates).

Bottom line: no matter what, Obama should rack up more delegates than Hillary in Texas.

In Ohio, we have three new polls, showing the race tight, but still leaning Hillary's way:

Rasmussen has it as a two point margin for Senator Clinton, 47%-45%.

Reuters/Zogby also has it a two point ballgame for Hillary, 44%-42%.

But Fox News gives Hillary a bigger margin, 8 points, at 46%-38%. Seems like a lot of undecideds there (and in Reuters) so it could break either way.

While we're here, we noted that in the RealClearPolitics.com delegate count, Barack Obama jumped from about 1279 delegates yesterday to 1384 today (and Hillary also went up, by about 95 delegates). Since there were no nominating contests between today and yesterday, we're wondering where all those new delegates came from! We wish RCP (and other outlets with delegate counts) would footnote their tallies, or provide a brief blurb when updates are made, to let us know where the newbies came from.

Southeast Drought Breaking--Maybe Georgia Won't Have To Steal Tennessee's Water After All

Periodically we've reported on the prolonged drought that has plagued much of the Southeast, to the point that Georgia, Alabama and Florida are in a virtual water war over the federal reservoir at Lake Lanier, Georgia.

Atlanta and its burgeoning suburbs, in particular, have been hard hit because (1) they haven't bothered to invest in or plan for their growth, and (2) they aren't too interested in making sacrifices to conserve water.

The latest gambit out of Georgia has been a grab for the Tennessee River. Resurrecting a centuries old border dispute, the Georgia legislature--which is generally conservative until its constituents get thirsty over their own lack of investment in water infrastructure--declared its intent to move the border with Tennessee northward so that Georgia could share in the Tennessee River's bounty.

(One Tennessee mayor, taking the move good naturedly, recently declared a give your neighbor a drink day and sent a truckload of bottled water to the Georgia capitol.)

The good news for belligerent Georgia's neighbors is that the drought finally appears to be breaking. Although the Southeast remains unusually dry, the percentage labelled as "exceptional drought" has declined from 31.5% to only 9% in the past three months. Still, just 18% of the Southeast is normally hydrated--up from only 8.6% three months ago--so there's a long way to go.

In Virginia, things are okay right around D.C., but just a little to the west and south it starts to get dry, and right now 93% of the state is in some degree of drought, so we could use a couple good rain (or snow?) storms.

Herndon: Child Pornography Capital of Virginia

Here's a story that is both cool and scary--frankly, we'd like to know more about this technology.

It seems that police in Virginia are using a new computer technology that can track an image to any computer. In this case, they are using it to tag images containing child pornography and then tracking it to computers where the images are stored.

Using this approach, police have identified 20,000 computers in Virginia with the illegal images, including 500 in Arlington. The child pornography capital of Virginia, however, is Herndon, a small town where more than 1000 computers are housing this trash!

Now, it's pretty cool that police can use this to track down child pornography--the technology alone should greatly diminish activity in this illicit sphere, at least until someone figures out a technological way around it (as surely they will).

[Police can't just go in and arrest anyone who owns such a computer--they need additional evidence and prosecutorial resources.]

But it's also pretty scary from a Big Brother standpoint. If police can track down child pornography to individual computers, think what else they can do. This is just a good reminder that for most people on the internet, you're anything but anonymous--all kinds of information is being tracked on you and stored in massive databases. The implications are pretty profound.

Just to start with, what if police published a list of the locations of all the computers they discovered in their search? Some would probably be at businesses (ask the IT person at any large business how many computers have downloaded porn (not usually child porn, though) and they'll roll their eyes and tell you it's most of them), others at homes or apartments with multiple occupants.

But then what about tracking something besides child pornography? We can just imagine what the FBI might be doing with this technology if you downloaded an image of Osama Bin Laden. Or maybe the Bush administration is tracking our downloading habits of more benign images.

While we ruminate on the privacy issues, however, we'll keep our kids out of Herndon.

Texas Democratic Primary Polls: Texas Hold-em!

Whether you're a fan of Hillary or a fan of Obama, there's good news for you in today's polls of the Texas Democratic primary:

According to Rasmussen, it's Obama in the lead, 48%-44%.

According to Insider Advantage, it's Hillary in the lead, 47%-43%.

That's another way of saying it's a dead heat.

Clinton seems to have finally stabilized in Texas after giving up a double digit lead of just a couple weeks ago. She has a slight advantage because, as we noted a couple days ago, a significant portion of the state has ALREADY voted, and she held a 51-46% lead amongst those early voters (as of three days ago).

Speaking of polls, there is another Pennsylvania poll out today confirming that Hillary's once nearly 20 point lead there has evaporated. Rasmussen gives her a mere 4 point lead, in line with the six point lead she had in yesterday's Quinnipiac poll.

Whoops! Maybe Daylight Savings Time Wastes Energy!

The conventional wisdom on daylight savings time has always been that it's a way to save energy by cutting down on the amount of lighting used at night.

Like a lot of conventional wisdom, it may turn out that's not true.

A new study out of Indiana concludes that while daylight savings time reduced lighting costs, it increased air conditioning costs in the evenings during summer, and may have increased heating costs in the mornings in winter, producing a net INCREASE in energy use overall. (See "Daylight Saving Wastes Energy, Study Says" in today's Wall Street Journal.)

It's a pretty good study, but like all studies has its limitations. Researchers looked at the energy use patterns, taken straight from seven million monthly meter readings over a three year period, in 13 Indiana counties that finally switched to daylight savings time after years of opting out.

The study found that electricity use increased by 1%-4% as a result of the changeover, costing Indiana residents an additional $8.6 million a year in power costs.

The study is certainly plausible. Most of the earlier studies, upon which the conventional wisdom rests, were conducted in the 1970's, when daylight savings time was being introduced, but when air conditioning was far less ubiquitous than today (and when temperatures were slightly lower).

There are significant limitations on the research, however, particularly that rural Indiana may not be representative of the experience in other parts of the country. The study also did not examine other costs and benefits of daylight savings time, such as the increased recreational opportunities in the Spring and Fall from having an extra hour of evening daylight.

The issue certainly merits additional study--we ought to know the answer to whether daylight savings time is an energy saver or an energy waster.

That said, we wouldn't want to see the end of daylight savings time: we very much value that extra hour of daylight, especially in March and April, and in October, when we're trying to get a little more soccer playing time in for the kids.

Virginia Legislature to Colleges: Since We're Not Going To Stop Gun Sales, Be Prepared

We love our Virginia legislature. In the wake of the massacre of Commonwealth citizens at Virginia Tech by a crazed gunman, families of the young (and old) victims lobbied for a couple of fairly simple and common sense steps to close loopholes in the state's gun laws.

Gun control!!! You gotta be kidding. The rural GOP members who still dominate the Va. House of Delegates would rather shoot it out in the Capitol building with their concealed weapons than let ANY piece of gun legislation get through (other than to loosen the gun laws and give a liability shield to gun dealers).

So, those proposals by the families, including one to require background checks for sales made at gun shows, have been killed by the General Assembly.

But have no fear, Virginia's legislators are not wholly unsympathetic to the Virginia Tech victims' fate. In their infinite wisdom, they do recognize that, having failed to do anything to prevent this from happening again, there likely will be more massacres of a similar type. So the General Assembly has passed a bill, just waiting for Governor Kaine's signature, that would require all colleges in the Commonwealth to have an emergency plan in place, updated every four years, for the inevitable repeat massacre. (See "Bill Requires Colleges To Have Emergency Plan" in today's Washington Post.)

The bill "will help parents and students feel more comfortable about returning to campuses," said Del. Anne B. Crockett-Stark (R-Wythe), one of those who opposes any type of gun sale restrictions.

Now, doesn't that make you feel better!

(FYI: the emergency planning measure is one of the recommendations of a panel that investigated the Virginia Tech shootings, and we support it; but we don't support the cynicism of legislators who turn a blind eye to other issues related to the massacre.)

Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Tightens Up, Too

Not only has Obama passed Clinton in Texas and nearly caught her in Ohio, but Clinton's one nearly double-digit lead in Pennsylvania (an April primary) has nearly evaporated as well.

According to a Quinnipiac poll, Obama has cut Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania from 16 points not too long ago to just 6 points--49%-43%.

We're ready to begin the general election campaign, but out of respect for Senator Clinton, we'll wait until next Wednesday.

Update on NBC's "Lucky Case" Rip-off

A couple times awhile back we wrote about a scam NBC was perpetrating on its popular "Deal or No Deal" game show. We thought we'd bring you an update.

We at the Curmudgeon actually like "Deal," notwithstanding that there's no skill whatsoever involved in the "game." Chalk it up to host Howie Mandel's endearing personality, an engaging cast of contestants and, of course, those 26 beautiful models holding briefcases.

But one thing we didn't like about the show was it's "Lucky Case" promotion during commercial breaks. In the "Lucky Case" game, a home viewer could win $10,000 (or sometimes more on a special night, as above) by picking the right case, out of six, and then winning a drawing of the viewers who picked that case. You were encouraged to text message your choice, and you could enter multiple times--meaning you could assure yourself of having picked the right case by texting in six different choices.

That would all be a lot of fun, but for one thing: in very small print at the bottom of the screen, NBC disclosed a 99 cents "premium" text message charge for every one of those texted choices.

In other words, for a buck a shot, you got to participate in a lottery with hundreds of thousands of other people for a shot at a measly $10,000. Where did the rest of the money go? Of course, it went to NBC and a couple of companies that came up with the scam--as of a year ago, NBC had raked in about $57 million on the game, but paid out only $1 million. (See "NBC's 'Lucky Case' Rip-off Scheme Spreads Like A Cancer Through Television.")

When we last visited the issue, some lawsuits were popping up from disgruntled contestants who, having gotten their phone bills, realized that NBC's promotion was "lucky" only for NBC.

Since then, NBC has quietly discontinued the promotion. Why? Because the courts have made clear that the issue is serious enough that it could go to trial and expose the network to significant damages.

Nothing has been decided on the merits yet, but as this news article indicates, the Georgia Supreme Court recently heard argument on whether Georgia law allows a participant in an illegal lottery to collect damages, and if so are the damages due from the lottery's organizer.

Now Georgia is a conservative state with a pro-business Supreme Court, but they still don't like Yankee carpetbaggers down there, so there's a good chance NBC could end up on the wrong end of that ruling.

Our favorite part of NBC's argument to the Georgia supremes: NBC is not the "winner" of the game, and thus should not be held liable if damages can be pursued. Hmm. Let's see: you set up a game in which you rake in $57 million and give out $1 million; we think that makes you the winner.

Obamania Spreads Through Texas, Threatens Ohio

It looks increasingly like March 4 will be the end of the road for Hillary Clinton. As soon as Obama wrapped up Wisconsin a week ago, he turned his attention--and that of his enormously enthusiastic campaign--on Texas and Ohio.

As has been the case in state after state, give Obama a few days to get his massive and inspiring rallies going, and he soon has voters converting to his candidacy.

It appears that's exactly what's happening in Texas and Ohio. New polls in both states today continue to show Obama surging, with an outright lead in Texas and rapidly narrowing the gap in Ohio.

Here's the latest: Survey USA has Obama up 4 points in Texas, leading Hillary by 49%-45%. This is the same lead Obama had in a CNN poll released yesterday. One interesting stat in the Survey USA poll: about 25% of the respondents in that poll who indicated they were likely to vote in the Democratic primary have ALREADY voted--among those voters, Clinton leads 51%-46%. Given how large Clinton's lead was just a couple weeks ago, those are NOT encouraging numbers for Camp Hillary, as they likely indicate the best she could possibly hope to achieve in a "must win" state. (This poll also shows that while Obama still trails amongst Hispanic voters, the gap is closing fast.)

[For more on the massive turnout in early voting in Texas, particularly amongst Democrats, see "Early Voters Swarm In Texas," from the Dallas Morning News.]

There is also a new American Research Group poll out for Texas, which has Obama up by 8 points, 50%-42%.

Today is also the first time that Obama has led Texas in the RealClearPolitics.com moving average of polls.

In short, barring a game-changer, Obama is now quite likely to take Texas.

In Ohio, Clinton still leads, but her lead is shrinking. With a week to go, we wouldn't put it out of Obama's reach to carry Ohio, especially given that polls in Wisconsin showed a close race, but in the end Obama walloped Hillary there. A new Rasmussen poll in Ohio has Hillary up by 5 points, 48%-43%. That's down from 17% two weeks ago and 8% a week ago. Imagine what it's like watching these poll numbers if you're in the Clinton campaign--it's really unbelievable.

We think it will all be over for the Democrats on March 4, and thank goodness--the deadlocked convention scenarios we were pondering were quite ugly. That said, we truly feel bad for Hillary, and while we like Obama a lot, we still think there's a significant element of risk in his nomination.

Gerry Ferraro's Not Too Persuasive Op-ed In The NYT

Today's New York Times carries an op-ed piece by former Democratic VP nominee Geraldine Ferraro, arguing Hillary's cause in the guise of advocating for the role of "superdelegates" in the Democratic nomination process. (See: "Got A Problem? Ask The Super")

On the one hand, we agree with Gerry that the role of the superdelegates is to lead, not to follow. They are the Democratic party's leaders and should exercise their leadership skills. Furthermore, if the will of Democrats is sufficiently clear, those leaders--many of whom are elected officials dependent on that same Democratic electorate--will follow that will. In short, if Obama keeps winning, the superdelegates will fall in line.

Unfortunately, Ferraro--who herself is a superdelegate--has declared for Senator Clinton and her argument soon loses its cohesiveness as she seeks to boost Hillary's prospects rather than make a principled point about the Democratic delegate selection process.

For example, Gerry fails to address the fact that Republicans--who have been very successful in presidential campaigns over the past 25 years--don't have superdelegates, yet seem to getting on just fine. She also contends that the Democratic nominating contests don't really represent the will of Democrats because many of them are not closed--many states allow independents, and even Republicans, to vote in such contests.

Again, so does the GOP. Significantly, if the Republicans didn't have a significant number of "open" primaries, they probably would have nominated an unelectable candidate this go-round.

In any event, it's the Democrats in each state who determine whether to have an open or closed primary (or caucus). In Virginia, where we have no party registration, our primaries are open. That's a good thing, because it let's us get a feel for how independents--the ones who generally decide elections--feel about a candidate, weeding out anyone too extreme to have a shot. It's what Democrats here want, and so it does represent the will of Democrats, at least here.

Where Ferraro's argument really falls to the ground, however, is when she says that if Obama's people really want the nomination decided by the voters, they shouldn't object to the seating of Michigan and Florida's delegates.

Here at the Curmudgeon, we can see a decent argument with respect to Florida: both candidates' names were on the ballot and both kept to their pledge not to campaign in the Sunshine state. (We also see compelling arguments for not seating Florida's delegates; ironically, had Florida stuck with it's original March 11 primary date, it could have had a huge impact on the nomination this year.)

But Michigan is an altogether different story. There, Obama had his name taken off the ballot--as did every other candidate except Hillary. So the fact that Hillary, as the only candidate, "won" Michigan is hardly a surprise. And it certainly doesn't fairly represent the wishes of Michigan voters--no telling how many Obama voters simply stayed home since he wasn't on the ballot. Indeed, the fact that even as the only candidate on the ballot, Hillary barely broke above 50% in Michigan is pretty telling.

If Ferraro at least acknowledged this disparity in Michigan and then came up with a decent rationale (if there is one) for nonetheless seating Michigan's delegates, then we might be inclined to listen to her. But to ignore it entirely shows that she's just cheerleading for Hillary.

Gerry's prescription--that the superdelegates should band together to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, and then put Hillary over the top--is a recipe for a Democratic disaster of epic proportions. If that were to happen, Hillary would never be able to unite the party and John McCain would cruise to a landslide victory in November.

March 4 Poll Roundup: Obama UP in Texas, Vermont; Trailing in Ohio, Rhode Island

Are we seeing the beginning of the end for Hillary Clinton's campaign? A slew of new polls are out today and yesterday for the "must win" Democratic primaries on March 4.

The most significant is in Texas, where a new CNN poll has put Barack Obama in the lead for the first time, 50% to Hillary's 46% (a week ago, Hillary was up by 2 points in this poll). A Rasmussen poll has Hillary up by one point (47-46), but confirms Obama momentum in Texas--two weeks ago, Hillary was up 16 points in this poll, and a week ago she was up 3 points.

At this point, it looks like Obama will either win Texas or make it so close that Hillary will get no delegate advantage.

The news for Senator Clinton is better in Ohio, where two new polls show her maintaining a comfortable lead, at least for now: The Ohio Poll has Hillary up 47%-39%, while Quinnipiac has Clinton leading 51%-40%. In the latter poll, however, Obama had trailed by 19 points a week and half ago.

The other two, less visible, primaries on March 4 look to be a split: in Vermont, the Rasmussen poll has Obama way out in front (as expected there), leading 57%-33%. In Rhode Island, however, Hillary is up by almost as lopsided a margin, 53%-38% according to Rasmussen.

Perhaps the Clinton team should've included Rhode Island, instead of Texas, in it's "firewall."

So what happens if Hillary at least breaks Obama's long winning streak by taking Ohio and RI, but losing Texas and Vermont? In our view, the loss of Texas should mean it's all over--and many "superdelegates" may join in that assessment. But we think the Clinton campaign will hang on for the Pennsylvania primary, which seems like an eon away--not until late April.

New Texas, Ohio Polls Show Very Tight Race Between Clinton and Obama

Some more new polls out of Texas and Ohio show Obama continuing to gain ground, especially in the Lone Star state:

Texas: ABC/Wash. Post--Clinton 48% v Obama 47%

Texas: Rasmussen--Clinton 47% v Obama 44%

Ohio: ABC/Wash. Post--Clinton 50% v Obama 43% (this is Clinton's narrowest lead so far in Ohio)

By the way, even if Hillary were to win by these margins, she'd barely cut into Obama's delegate lead (indeed, he could lose Texas by a point or two but score MORE delegates due to some quirks in the Texas system).

Some Things About "Change" Never Change

We borrowed this old Hubert H. Humphrey campaign poster from Ron Gunbarger's Politics1.com website.

It is of course, Humphrey's answer in 1968 to the surging candidacy of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. Make your own analogy.

Why Obama's Winning

Why is Barack Obama beating Hillary Clinton pretty handily in contest after contest? The Curmudgeon's brother has a simple theory: because he's simply more appealing--more pleasing to look at and more pleasing to listen to.

"The fact is that Barack Obama is more pleasing to look at than Hillary Clinton, and he also is more pleasing to listen to. For a great number of voters who otherwise have trouble making up their minds (two terrific candidates, right?), this has and will continue to carry the day in his favor. Nobody articulates their decision this way, but the impact is very real, and now magnified when only these 2 candidates are left. CNN reported one exit poll from Wisconsin that 62% of voters making up their minds in the last 30 days went for Obama. Hillary looks and sounds and smirks like an old-school politician. She says all the right things but there’s an element of sincerity and likeability that’s missing. Barack oozes confidence and inspiration, yet doesn’t seem condescending or pandering."

We have to agree. The distinction becomes important especially when you have two candidates whose substantive views on the issues are virtually indistinguishable. It's the "all things being equal" scenario: if two candidates are the same on the issues, then appearance and likeability will carry the day.

Brother Curmudgeon also points to a book by motivational speaker/author Tony Robbins, who compared Kennedy v. Nixon, Carter v. Ford, Reagan v. Carter and Reagan v. Mondale to explain that the winner of each of those races had it over the loser in terms of appealability.

Of course, if that's the standard, both Obama and Clinton should be able to defeat McCain this fall. But Obama would have the bigger advantage.

Deporting Sex Offenders Is Not "Immigrant Bashing"

Here at the Curmudgeon, we're not too happy with Virginia's immigrant bashers, particularly those in Prince William County, whose objection appears more to Latinos in general than to whether someone is in the country legally.

But we can't agree with the assessment in today's Washington Post that a program to deport more than 170 immigrants convicted of sex crimes in the Commonwealth somehow "marks another step in Virginia's escalating crackdown on undocumented immigrants, part of the broader debate over immigration that has roiled the nation and the presidential campaign." (See "Convicted Va. Sex Offenders Deported.")

Instead, what this program evidences is Virginia's crackdown on sex offenders, which we're all in favor of. We note that not all the deportees are undocumented aliens--some are legal immigrants. In any event, there is nothing wrong with deporting immigrants who are convicted of a sex crime. Indeed, we'd think other immigrants would just as soon see these criminals out of their communities (and we'd bet that many of their victims were other immigrants).

In short, don't label deportation of sex offenders "immigrant bashing."

Trent Lott Connection To Scruggs Bribery Probe?

We have occasionally chronicled the ongoing probe into whether legendary Mississippi "superlawyer" Dickie Scruggs was involved in a bribe of one Mississippi jurist and illegally sought to influence another state judge by promising him consideration for a federal judgeship.

When the story broke concerning an alleged scheme to obtain favorable rulings from Hinds County (Mississippi) judge Robert Delaughter by dangling a federal judgeship in front of his eyes (see "Deeper Doo-Doo For Dickie Scruggs") we had to wonder whether former Mississippi Senator Trent Lott's name would also surface in connection with the investigation. (Lott is seen here describing a fish that evidently got away.)

As we said in our post a few weeks ago: "Lott is Scruggs' brother-in-law and it's hard to see how anyone could credibly have suggested that Delaughter would be considered for a federal judgeship without at least invoking Lott's name, although it could've been done without Lott's knowledge."

Today's Wall Street Journal reports, as we had suspected, that the feds are looking into Lott's role in the scheme. According to the WSJ, a Lott associate confirmed that Lott spoke to Judge Delaughter, but claimed "the call wasn't made specifically at the behest of Mr. Scruggs."

OF COURSE it wasn't. That's not how these things go. Still, it's possible Scruggs asked Lott to make a call without Lott knowing the more sinister purposes of it--indeed, it would be much smarter on Scruggs' part to orchestrate an apparently innocuous call (from Lott's standpoint) than to let the Senator know it was part of a scheme to get a favorable ruling from the judge.

In any event, it appears that Scruggs' day of reckoning draws nie.

Old Dominion Polls: Obama over McCain; Warner In A Walk

A couple polls of Virginians' sentiments in the November elections have been released recently:

In the race for John Warner's open senate seat, Mark Warner is way ahead, leading former Governor Jim Gilmore by 20 points in a Rasmussen poll, 57% to 37%. (Still, we think it would be more fun if the GOP nominates Bob "Taliban" Marshall, a right wing religious bigot, as it's nominee.)

In the presidential race, a Survey USA poll demonstrates the potential for Virginia to go blue in November: in a match-up between Obama and McCain, Obama leads 51%-45%; but if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, voters flip, favoring McCain by 48%-45% (which is still within the margin of error).

Hey, folks--it's only February, so don't put too much stock in these polls. Two years ago, George Allen had a 20+ percent lead over any Democratic contender, and look how that ended up!

March 4 Is Do or Deadlock For Democrats

With Barack Obama's surprisingly lopsided victory in Wisconsin last night, coupled with his expected runaway in Hawaii, the die is cast for a decisive showdown on March 4.

That day will be a bit like the Florida primary was for the Republicans: had anyone but McCain won Florida--whether it had been Romney, Giuliani or Huckabee--the GOP race would have been up in the air for at least another month, maybe longer.

On March 4, Democrats will go to the polls in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont. Barring some major gaffe between now and then, Obama should take Vermont with ease. Hillary has declared Texas and Ohio to be her "firewall," and Rhode Island--looking a lot like Massachusetts--should lean her way as well.

If Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, she will have stopped Obama's increasing momentum--10 straight victories--cold, and she'd probably earn enough delegates from those two large states to close the gap Obama has opened up.

The problem for Democrats is this: if Hillary wins both Texas and Ohio, it doesn't mean she's got the nomination wrapped up. Far from it. Instead, it would be more like what would've happened if Giuliani had won in Florida: it sets up a virtual guarantee of a deadlocked convention.

You see, after March 4, apart from Pennsylvania, many of the remaining contests favor Obama. Neither Hillary nor Obama could come anywhere close to the nomination on pledged delegates alone, and with Hillary's prospects still alive, there'd be no stampede of superdelegates to either candidate. Indeed, the most likely scenario would be a waiting game as approximately 200 undecided superdelegates courted both sides while furious back-room maneuvering occurred all summer.

In contrast, if Obama wins both Texas and Ohio, he's got the nomination. No, he won't be over the top in delegates, anymore-so than McCain was after Florida. But at that point Obama is unstoppable: superdelegates can't afford to pledge to Hillary; her money dries up; and party elders begin the game of trying to get her to gracefully bow out.

What if Obama and Clinton split Ohio and Texas? At that point, Hillary is pretty badly wounded (especially if she also loses Rhode Island), but she probably presses on, at least for awhile, until Pennsylvania. (In the meantime, Obama would likely win the Wyoming caucuses on March 8 and the Mississippi primary on March 11, but after that there's nothing at all until Pennsylvania on April 22). [Note: we would've had Florida and Michigan in this period if they hadn't unwisely moved their contests up; they could've been the decisive contests.]

In short, the only way Obama really becomes the "presumptive" nominee is if he wins both Texas and Ohio. Otherwise, this race is bound to go on into late April, perhaps much longer.

The good news, for Obama fans, is this: polls show both Texas and Ohio tightening considerably, even before Obama's route in Wisconsin. Perhaps more importantly, Obama has two weeks--a luxurious amount of time in the crowded, hectic campaign calendar of this year--to personally stump through both states. So far, the enthusiasm of his rallies has been infectious wherever he's gone. We think he has an excellent chance of winning Texas and a decent chance in Ohio, so Democrats' worst nightmare--a deadlocked convention--may yet be avoided.

Ohio Democratic Primary Tightening Up

It looks like, as expected, the Ohio Democratic primary is tightening up. A new Survey USA poll, released today, shows Obama gaining 8 points since a similar poll by the same firm just a week ago.

Last week, Hillary had a huge lead over Obama, 56-39%. This week it is down to 52-43%, or nine points. This parallels a tightening of the race in Texas as well, with still two weeks to go.

Of course, a Clinton upset in Wisconsin tonight would be quite helpful to her campaign, while a loss will probably lead to further tightening of the March 4 contests.

By the way, looking down the road, the primary/caucus calendar remains busy through March 11, with six contests (Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Rhode Island, Mississippi, and Wyoming) in the stretch from March 4-11. But then it gets very quiet and very slow: Pennsylvania on April 22 (the only April contest--maybe Michigan and Florida should have "do-overs" that month), and then a handful in May (Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Guam, and Oregon) and closing out in early June with Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico.

Could be a time for a lot of contemplation by Democrats.

Democratic Deadlock: Don't Blame Proportional Delegate Allocation Or Superdelegates

As Democrats increasingly face the prospect of a deadlocked convention and a long summer with no nominee, many party members are turning to their party's system for allocating delegates proportionally, and the reservation of nearly 20% of the delegates as uncommitted "superdelegates" as possible problems that need to be "fixed."

We were wondering whether the proportional delegate system and superdelegates are really part of the problem, or whether it's simply that this is such a tight race.

Our conclusion: don't blame proportional delegate allocation, and maybe don't blame superdelegates either.

We went back through all the Democratic nominating contests held so far and reallocated the delegates on a "winner-take-all" basis, a system the Republicans use in some, but not all, states, which many believe is why the GOP nomination process appears to come up with a winner sooner.

The Democrats have finished 36 contests to date (including Samoa and the Virgin Islands, but excluding Florida and Michigan, which awarded no delegates). According to the website RealClearPolitics.com, Obama has earned 1134 pledged delegates out of that process so far and Clinton has earned 996, for a difference of 138.

What if we re-allocate the pledged delegates on a winner-take-all basis? Well, it's closer, with Obama still leading with 1096 delegates to Clinton's 1075, a difference of only 21 delegates. In other words, winner-take-all just makes it a closer contest, not a run-away for either candidate. It would still come down to the 796 "superdelegates" to decide the nomination.

So, you say, let's get rid of, or at least pare back, the superdelegates so that someone can win without going all the way to the convention. It's certainly true that without superdelegates, either Obama or Hillary would eventually win. But neither would be anywhere close at this point, and it would again be very close.

Again, let's allocate each state's superdelegates on a winner-take-all basis to the candidate who carried the state. Now we have Obama leading Hillary by 1396 to 1325, a margin of only 71 votes. (By the way, that's almost identical to RealClearPolitics.com's margin for Obama when superdelegates are included now: 1302-1235, for a difference of 67!) That's certainly close enough for both candidates to continue competing at least through April, and probably all the way to June.

It's also close enough that Florida and Michigan would make a big difference, especially on a winner-take-all basis, and so it might still all come down to a convention challenge over seating those state's delegates.

The bottom line is that this is simply a very close race between Senators Obama and Clinton, with each taking a number of states. In such a tight race, no delegate allocation system is likely to give one a significant enough advantage over the other to force him or her out of the race early. And while the superdelegates virtually assure that neither candidate can win this BEFORE the convention, it is not clear that elimination of the superdelegates would avoid a convention fight the way things have gone this year.