1.  I agree with Karl Rove, Hillary has too big of negatives.  Why?  Greatly because the media hates her with their every breath. It's pathetic, but it's also the truth, as we've said right here. (On TV the other night, Arianna literally HISSED when talked about Hillary.  I've decided she's a crude jackass to be that way about someone in "her own" (LOL) party.  She obviously has no loyalty to the D's).  

2. I want the Obamatown supporters to see what REAL  unfair treatment is.  I also want Obama and Mrs. Cookie Baking loyal-only-to-herself Obama to see what it is.  As soon as we have a candidate, the treatment will come. I keep looking at McCain and thinking, no way will this guy be elected.  I also thought that about Bush's first and second terms.  Obama isn't good under pressure -- he's never actually had relatively any pressure as a candidate -- and he's going to get pressure like he's never had it before.

3. One of the best things for the D's in the longterm is to stop trashing the brand of a successful presidency (Clinton).  The long primary means the continual trashing and is only good for Republicans.  If it takes an Obama win in the primary to do that, then so be it.

4. I want people like Kos, Aravosis, Marshall to see what their partisan divisiveness has done to their own readership, because once Obama wins, I think the Obamatown Supporters will find another hobby -- I really have the feeling that politics is team sports to them.

5. And I've said elsewhere, given that Obama has already thrown my issue under the bus (healthcare) I don't personally think it would be horrible if we had McCain with a huge majority in Congress -- a majority of REAL D's, not Kos-Bluedog D's.  McCain's more rabid Supreme Court judges wouldn't get through.  And he could wallow in the Republican war, rather than pinning the blame for it on the D.

small snippet from diary:

So, it's interesting to note that one of the senior analysts with Zogby Polling -- the pollster who is predicting big Obama wins for today -- is also a major Obama superdelegate.

There is no proof, ofcourse, of any bias resulting from this apparent juxtaposition, but this is nevertheless an interesting part of today's picture.

1.  Survey USA has the CA race going 52-42 for Clinton.

2. Gallup's national tracking poll today has Clinton at +5 with Obama stalling at 42.

3. Ramussen's national tracking poll has Clinton at +7.

4. Both Gallup and Rasmussen's national tracking polls are seeing sizeable movement toward Clinton.

"Survey USA has Obama winning women by 62-33"

I will say it again: one of the main reasons I want Hillary to do well is to knock that arrogant Zogby on his butt.

And here's my schematic: if Alabama breaks for Obama along with Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota and California, but Hillary sweeps Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware and Georgia, and if they split Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts and Minnesota, giving voters in Missouri, New Jersey and New York the latitude they need to play a real part in this race, and turnout in New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah and American Samoa doesn't reach the unprecedented highs we've seen in previous contests, then Democrats Abroad could decide this thing>

A victory in California will only decide the contest  if it's a bellwether for the rest of the primary.  If a double digit blowout by either candidate means a substantial victory in other states then yes, it may be (close to) over.

The ambiguity comes heavily into play if the clinton advantage is between 50 and 150.  Based on the expectations game, perceived momentum, respective fundraising prowess/cash on hand, and scheduling, I'd say that a Clinton win by close to 150 delegates is a fairly solid win for her campaign, and that keeping the margin under 100 is a fairly solid win for the Obama campaign.

This is simply an evaluation based on the respective strategies and imperatives of the two campaigns.  

Net:  Clinton by 200+: near-knockout win for her
Clinton by 150+: very solid win
Clinton by close to 150: tactical victory
Clinton by 100: no net longterm advantage to either
Clinton by 50-100: tactical victory for Obama, due to financial advantage and favorable primary schedule rest of month
Clinton by less than 50: solid "win" for Obama, due to blah blah blah--plus he gets good media
Obama by 50 or more: near-knockout win for the Obama campaign

He's  the one who   predicted  a huge win  for  Obama  in  New  Hampshire.

He's  also  the one  who predicted   John  Kerry  in  a   landslide.  

700,000 newly registered voters in CA.  Turnout expected to rival the 1980 Presidential primaries.  Republican primary:  have to be registered Republican by cut-off date in Jan.  Dem.:  open primary.