...thirty hours before Super Tuesday begins.
There's always a lot of talk about "momentum" with the early primaries (IA/NH/NV/SC), but there were two possible courses that these primaries could have gone, and I suspect neither one of them would have been good for her:
a) She wins all four (or 3 of 4 -- I don't think she ever had a chance in SC). Because she then becomes the "super juggernaut" of the Democratic election, I think other people would have become more sympathetic towards Obama and would have thought "well, she's going to win anyways." Also we would have had "Clinton burnout" by the time we got to this point.
b) She wins one of four or two of four (which she did... actually, she's won four of six, but Michigan and Florida were stripped of their delegates due to moving their primaries up without permission... the GOP in both states did the same thing, but they were only penalized with half of their delegates). Clearly, this is the situation we are facing now. And she's slipped a bit in the polls. But let's point out the Super Tuesday states that she is probably gonna win: New York, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Arkansas, and Tennessee (no really, I'm not joking).
And the ones Obama is almost guaranteed to win in: Georgia, Illinois.
That leaves a couple open, including California, which we were all sure would be definitively Clinton. But, Cali, with ALL of its delegates (370) is going to be an interesting call. Because since it now will be a close race, regardless, each candidate will likely get the SAME number of delegates, within 10 at least, so can we really call either side a "win?"
On that note, should we really be "calling" states in the primaries? With the grand majority of states splitting the delegate count... excepting a landslide, is it fair to say that "so-and-so won the state" when, most of the time, they are only getting a portion of the delegates. In reality, if you have a third person who gets no more than 4% of the vote in each state, and one person "wins" every state by less than 2%, the whole freaking system goes out the window.
What's really funny, btw, is the Kennedy situation. So, the Kennedy's endorsed Obama because he's got that whole "young, pretty" thing going for him -- they did it, I think, so that they could still hold some influence should he be the nominee. Schwarzenegger then endorsed McCain... his wife, Maria Shriver, is a Kennedy. I told TY last night that, I though, it was likely that he did this so that the Kennedy's would have some sort of influence either direction.
That is, until Maria Shriver endorsed Obama.
Regardless of what happens, I'll be at work tomorrow for Super Tuesday, so I'll have access to a computer and I can tell you what happens.
But I'll post my predictions tonight, after the final polls are run tomorrow (Kansas, btw, hasn't had a Dem poll done since May 2007, but Zogby -- I think -- has one coming out tomorrow). But I will make one prediction for today (Monday): there will be a surprise endorsement today from someone. I can't guess on the Republican side, but John Edwards (whose part of the electorate could sway the entire thing) has not endorsed anyone, nor has Bill Richardson (who is Latino, is popular amongst that population, and... guess whom he watched the Super Bowl with today? Bill Clinton... and Hillary is behind in the polls in New Mexico)