[UPDATED] How Mar 4 is shaping up

Based on neighboring states, both in terms of election results, delegate counts, and superdelegate endorsements ... I think I have the base odds for the four big states 10 days from now.  This predicts what will happen if Obama and Clinton do nothing in terms of a ground game or TV ads or organizing call banks, unions, and regional efforts.

It is the base odds if the regional supporters are left to their own chaotic devices.

And they look horrible for Obama.  If the Oba-Maniacs don't fight like they are thirty points down (and they are thirty points down), then Clinton is going to parlay Mar 4 into the nomination.

I don't think this will make the rec list, because the facts favor Clinton, but that would be a massive mistake on the Oba-Maniacs part.  This diary is meant as a warning that they ignore at their peril.

Therefore, I have activated the "Keith Olbermann" tag, in the hopes that his staff will print this out and give him an alternative to Chuck Todd's crystal ball and Tweety's divinations.

[Update] People are asking how the base odds are calculated ... VT is bordered by some Obama states, and some Clinton states, and looks more like the New England regions that went for Obama ... RI is bordered by one barely Obama state and one Clinton state, and has more local politicians supporting Clinton ... OH is also a Clinton win in terms of local polticians and is bordered by a Clinton state (although Barack Obama was not on the ballot there) ... TX is surrounded by Clinton states, except LA, and also has more pro-Clinton politicians.  I added up the pro-Clinton and pro-Obama states bordering a state, and then added the state itself based on superdelegate count, dividing by the number of states able to be assessed. [Update ends]

1. VT - This is the best chance for Obama if no one does anything, about 51% odds.  Although bordered by three "Clinton" states, the real electoral map tells a different story.  One, despite Clinton winning NH on election night, Obama actually has one more delegate from there than she does (due to a virtual tie on election night and superdelegate momentum).  Moreover, Maine's results are showing a trend in northern New England towards Obama.  Thirdly, VT looks more like the collegiate northern Berkshires or Greater Boston in terms of its politics, areas where Obama did well in MA, than the areas of MA where Obama did poorly.  Unless Clinton starts significantly outspending Obama in the state, or puts thousands of footsoldiers on the ground, or Ben and Jerry serve spoiled ice cream from the Obamamobiles, this is Obama's.  The caveat is that Obama is doing minimal phonebanking there, the MA Obama supporters are focusing on RI, and the local Obamaniacs are being left to their own devices.  SO, if you see a major shift of Clinton resources to VT, the whole story changes.  An easy counter for Obama would to be to point out that Howard Dean will likely be fired by the Clintons if she wins the nomination.  Or for Jim Dean to go around the state and remind people that DFA all but endorsed Obama over Clinton.  It's Obama's to lose.

2. RI - Advantage is Clinton's.  If no one does anything organized, there are about 66% odds that she will take the state.  This state is more like CT (where there was a real fight) or the parts of MA where Obama did poorly.  Despite Chafee's endorsement of Obama as an independent, people here have not flocked to Obama.  So why only 66% odds?  Because the local anti-war groups may yet start banding behind Obama, and they may do so this week, swaying their friends.  Here, Bush's approval rating, mainly due to the war, is WAY below 19% and there is almost no one that likes Cheney.  Really.  Not even the people who still call themselves Republicans.  Anti-war activists can convince their neighbors, and they are the real wild card this week.  In the real world, Clinton hasn't yet ramped up a real effort there either, and Obama's campaign has begun to organize phonebanking there through its website.  In addition, I have inside knowledge (I sound like Chuck Todd) of two important developments.  One, the anti-war groups in and around Bristol (who have started to do some local Obama campaigning) started an email chain in which they reminded their Independent members to change their registration.  Depending on how many did that before the deadline, there may be a growing potential voter pool for Obama.  Two, Boston's Obama campaign is blitzing the state in the next ten days, and if they aren't considered too alien by the locals, then it changes the base odds.  Even so, Clinton will probably take the state, and the real question is how strongly she will do so.  If she can't blow out Obama here, it's not going to help her too much, but a win is a win.

3. OH - Advantage Clinton again.  If Clinton ran out of cash, and Obama focuses on TX (which he is doing to some extent), Obama only has 25% odds to take the state.  And, here, unlike RI, Clinton has a real chance to blow out Obama and keep her campaign alive in terms of delegates, about 60%.  Clinton has more local politicos, she's got the union battle in a draw there, and OH is more like MI than it is like any other state.  Now, even if Clinton runs out of cash, which is unlikely, the 527 is going to blitz the state.  If people in OH are receptive to the argument from Obama that Clinton is unfairly using her donors through the 527 and thereby flouting the spirit of the law, then this won't change the base odds, and a real aggressive ground game by Obama might make it a squeaker.  However, this is an arcane argument, and a difficult one for even Obama to frame, despite his illustrative gesture of shutting down a 527 that was going to attack Clinton (with the help of Edwards; this was back when JE was still in the race).  The fact is that Clinton is pretty assured of a win here, and has a fair chance of a campaign saving win.

4. TX - Even better odds for a Clinton victory, about 80%, although probably not as good odds for a blow out as in OH.  Yes, the polls are tied.  Yes, the delegate math favors Obama.  Yes, the early voting looks good.  BUT we have no idea what the early voting IS in terms of results.  AND the cities, despite polling very well for Obama, have TONS of politicos running around them stumping for Clinton.  Even if her national organizing in the state collapses tomorrow, the local efforts could swing the race back to her court indisputably in a heartbeat.  Case in point?  Harlem.  Every object bigger than a breadbox had an Obama sticker, but the results went to Clinton in quite a few districts on election night.  Of course, when the recounts were done, it was closer to a slight win for Obama, but it is likely that the news on that night will show "upsets" for Clinton in several cities, and some of those will not be erased when the final tally is in.  Texans would shudder at the idea that inner Houston, Dallas and Austin have anything in common with NYC, but they do in terms of the way local politics functions.  Unless the national Obamaniacs start calling this state like gangbusters in the next ten days AND the campaign pours cash into getting every voter to remember the primary AND the caucus (a daunting task) AND the 527 goes over like a lead balloon (which I already said is unlikely), Clinton will certainly rack the state into her column on Mar 4.  Even if Obama takes more delegates, which I am not sure he will, this will keep her campaign alive when coupled with Ohio.

Long story short?  I think Mar 4 will turn things around for Clinton.  The media is ready for her to make a comeback.  Don't believe me?  CNN still lists two links next to their "web ticker" at the campaign 2008 site, John McCain and Hillary Clinton.  Fox never really stopped attacking her as if she was the front-runner.  The NYT is just waiting to put the banner headline on the Mar 5th issue, declaring their endorsee the comeback chick.  So is the NY Post.  So is the NY Daily News.  Only MSNBC acts as if Obama is the frontrunner, and maybe Newsweek.

As it stands now, despite impressions here, Barack Obama only has 1 in 3 odds of putting a nail in Clinton's coffin on election night, and only marginally better odds of a draw by winning both VT and TX while preventing a blowout in OH.  Clinton, on the other hand, has 2 in 3 odds of winning enough delegates that night to seriously derail Obama, and certainly that chance of giving the media enough of a win to declare her the comeback frontrunner.

Unless the Obamaniacs get off their buns and work hard again, they are going to lose to the inevitability of Clinton that never really went away.  It's stealth cloaked, but it isn't dead.