On the near horizon, Clinton can expect two more wins in the states of West Virginia (next week) and Kentucky (on March 20th). Oregon will also hold its primary on March 20th, but, although Obama is projected to win that state, it should be a fairly close race – without any significant effect on the delegate or popular vote counts.

Even Clinton supporters will acknowledge the Senator from New York will not win the pledged delegate count. If she is to make inroads with superdelegates in the coming weeks, she not only needs to string together many more victories to help define her campaign in the media as the one with the momentum, but, equally important, she also needs to close the gap in Obama’s popular vote lead amassed so far in the 2008 campaign.

Obama currently leads Clinton by approximately 415,000 votes – that total includes votes cast in Florida, but not Michigan (which did not have Obama’s name on the ballot). It also does not include vote totals in the Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington caucuses (states in which official numbers have not been released).

Clinton is hoping for big turnouts in West Virginia and Kentucky, where she is currently leading Obama in the polls by about 30 points.

Smart Politics estimates that Clinton can make a significant dent in Obama’s popular vote lead in the next two weeks - perhaps reducing it almost in half. Here is the math:

• Smart Politics calculated the 2004 general election presidential vote total of neighboring states in the West Viriginia/Kentucky region (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina). This amounted to about 21.8 million votes.

• The number of votes case in the 2008 Democratic primaries in these states totaled approximately 8.8 million.

• Thus, in the region, people are coming out to vote in the Democratic primaries at a rate of about 40 percent of the general election turnout in those states in 2004.

• Assuming this 40 percent stays true to form in West Virginia and Kentucky (though the turnout might be higher because of the high profile the states will receive in the coming days), approximately 302,000 will come out to vote for the Democrats in West Virginia, and 718,000 in Kentucky.

• Obama will likely close the gap a bit in these states, so let’s say Clinton only rolls by 20 points in each state, not 30 points. Clinton would then pick up about 144,000 votes in Kentucky and about 60,000 votes in West Virginia.

• That would reduce Obama’s lead in the popular vote by nearly half, from 415,000 to just 211,000.

Clinton is not likely to pass Obama in the popular vote total, but the more she can make the numbers looks “about even," the more she can point to momentum as the key factor in her attempt to sway superdelegates to her side.

Her other mathematical weapon is the Electoral College vote total: Clinton has now won states that have 278 Electoral College votes, compared to just 217 for Obama (Clinton’s total, again, includes Florida, but not Michigan).

6:40 p.m. New polls were released today in Kentucky, which will hold its primary in two weeks, by Rasmussen and SurveyUSA. Rasmussen's poll of 800 likely voters has Clinton up 56 to 31 percent. SurveyUSA's poll of 595 likely voters has Clinton up 62 to 28 percent.

6:42 p.m. MSNBC is calling Obama's victory in North Carolina "decisive."

7:09 p.m. (5% reporting)
Obama = 65%
Clinton = 34%

7:20 p.m. (9% reporting)
Obama = 64%
Clinton = 34%

Obama has been waiting for good news like he received tonight in North Carolina for weeks. At last the junior Senator from Illinois can bask in some positive media coverage and stand on equal footing again with Clinton, or perhaps even put her on the defensive, pending the margin of victory tonight.

7:30 p.m. (13% reporting)
Obama = 64%
Clinton = 34%

7:44 p.m. (17% reporting)
Obama = 62%
Clinton = 36%

8:05 p.m. (25% reporting)
Obama = 60%
Clinton = 38%

Obama's lead is beginning to decline, as votes come in outside of Obama country (e.g. Durham, Wake, and Guilford Counties). Will Clinton lose by less than 10 points?

8:08 p.m. (28% reporting)
Obama = 59%
Clinton = 39%

8:30 p.m. (46% reporting)
Obama = 57%
Clinton = 41%

8:51 p.m. (59% reporting)
Obama = 56%
Clinton = 42%

9:05 p.m. (69% reporting)
Obama = 56%
Clinton = 42%

9:30 p.m. (80% reporting)
Obama = 56%
Clinton = 42%

9:49 p.m. (87% reporting)
Obama = 56%
Clinton = 42%

12:10 a.m. (99% reporting)
Obama = 56%
Clinton = 42%

MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN are stating the race is "too early to call."

6:05 p.m. (5% reporting)
Clinton = 59%
Obama = 41%

6:12 p.m. (8% reporting)
Clinton = 56%
Obama = 44%

6:19 p.m. A Clinton win in Indiana, and a strong showing in North Carolina, will certainly keep her in the race for the nomination. North Carolina is one of the last states that Obama is favored to win. Clinton will win big in West Virginia next Tuesday and will win by a very large margin in Kentucky on May 20th. The next opportunity for the Clinton train to lose momentum will be in Oregon on May 20th.

6:22 p.m. (12% reporting)
Clinton = 58%
Obama = 42%

6:27 p.m. (16% reporting)
Clinton = 57%
Obama = 43%

6:33 p.m. (18% reporting)
Clinton = 57%
Obama = 43%

6:38 p.m. (21% reporting)
Clinton = 57%
Obama = 43%

6:43 p.m. (25% reporting)
Clinton = 57%
Obama = 43%

With a quarter of the vote counted in Indiana, Clinton is maintaining a double-digit lead. Only one pollster, SurveyUSA had Clinton winning the Hoosier State by double digits.

6:54 p.m. (32% reporting)
Clinton = 57%
Obama = 43%

7:00 p.m. (35% reporting)
Clinton = 57%
Obama = 43%

7:10 p.m. (39% reporting)
Clinton = 56%
Obama = 44%

7:18 p.m. (42% reporting)
Clinton = 56%
Obama = 44%

7:23 p.m. CBS News has just called Indiana for Hillary Clinton. If that holds, Indiana will be the 16th state carried by Clinton, plus Florida, Michigan (where Obama's name was not on the ballot), and American Samoa.

7:28 p.m. (50% reporting)
Clinton = 55%
Obama = 45%

7:33 p.m. Britt Hume of Fox News just stated that although they cannot call Indiana yet, Clinton "probably has won."

7:35 p.m. (52% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

7:43 p.m. (56% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

8:00 p.m. (65% reporting)
Clinton = 53%
Obama = 47%

8:12 p.m. MSNBC now classifies Indiana as "too close to call." None of the cable networks have followed CBS and called the state for Clinton.

8:14 p.m. In Obama's victory speech in North Carolina, he states it "appears" Clinton has won Indiana.

8:31 p.m. (73% reporting)
Clinton = 52%
Obama = 48%

8:52 p.m. (78% reporting)
Clinton = 52%
Obama = 48%

9:03 p.m. (81% reporting)
Clinton = 52%
Obama = 48%

As the percentage point advantage of counted votes declines for Obama in North Carolina and Clinton in Indiana, only the Hoosier State is in doubt. Should Obama win North Carolina by less than double digits, that will be lost in the media focus (and rightfully so) on what appears to be a very close race in Indiana.

9:43 p.m. During the first ten minutes of her speech, Clinton referred to the price of gas three times - a not so subtle reference to the difference between her and Obama; Clinton and John McCain support 'gas tax relief,' while Obama sees it as political pandering.

9:50 p.m. Clinton has peppered her speech with several references equating herself with Obama - that they are both fighting for change, that they are each winning states. Clinton is clearly trying to paint a picture that the race for the nominee is also 'equal' - thus legitimating her staying in the race through June 3rd.

12:10 a.m. (99% reporting)
Clinton = 51%
Obama = 49%

Clinton is declared the 'apparent winner' of the Indiana primary by NBC News.

Zogby: Obama 51, Clinton 37
American Research Group: Obama 50, Clinton 42
Insider Advantage: Obama 47, Clinton 43

Zogby is the only pollster to have shown the race to be in the double-digits for Obama during the past week. ARG has gradually shown a slight deterioration in Obama’s lead from 13 points in late March, to 11 points in mid-April, to 10 points ten days ago, to 9 points last Thursday, to 8 points through this past weekend. If Obama continues to receive 90 percent of the projected black vote in North Carolina, he should carry the state.

In Indiana, Clinton has been leading in all polls in recent days, with the exception of the final Zogby tracking poll:

Zogby: Obama 45, Clinton 43
American Research Group: 53, Obama 45

Smart Politics will blog live Tuesday night as the primary results from both states come in. In addition to real-time reporting of results and media watchdog commentary, Smart Politics will examine the impact of the results on the upcoming primary contests. Live blogging will commence at 6 p.m. CST when polls close in Indiana.

The poll, conducted April 30 – May 1, gives Coleman a 52 to 42 percent advantage, well outside the survey’s margin of error. Coleman also led Franken by 10 points in SurveyUSA’s March poll, 51 to 41 percent. Coleman has never trailed Franken in the six polls SurveyUSA has released dating back 15 months to February 2007.

The new poll also has Coleman up by a 55 to 36 percent margin over DFL hopeful Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer and 53 to 35 percent over DFL-er Darryl Stanton.

Whether or not Clinton is actually ahead in North Carolina is unclear; what is clear is the upward trajectory of her campaign in the Tar Heel State (and the downward trajectory of Obama’s). Two weeks prior, an Insider Advantage Poll found Obama up 51 to 36 percent over the junior Senator from New York. The last three public surveys of North Carolinians have found Clinton within single digits of Obama or, in Insider Advantage’s poll, in the lead.

Clinton had not been atop the polls in North Carolina since December 2007, when John Edwards was still in the race splitting the “anti-Clinton vote” with Obama. Since then, Obama had led in 17 consecutive surveys by non-partisan organizations. Another poll released today of 400 likely voters, by Mason-Dixon, still shows Obama up by 7 points.

Insider Advantage’s track record has been pretty good of late this primary season. In its final Texas poll, Insider Advantage had Clinton winning by 5 points; Clinton won by 4 points. Its final poll in Pennsylvania showed Clinton winning by 7 points; Clinton won by 9.3 points.

Despite her recent primary victories, Clinton's momentum is being dampened, however, as undecided superdelegates appear to be peeling off in equal or greater number to Obama in recent days.

The pace and scope of this desertion is not yet clear, and even one on a fairly large scale would almost certainly not be enough for Clinton to emerge with the most pledged delegates after the last primaries in early June.

In a brand new poll conducted by SurveyUSA from April 26-29 of likely voters in North Carolina, Obama finds his once double-digit lead over Clinton reduced to 5 points – 49 to 44 percent. The headline from that poll was stated thusly:

“White voters are key. Since January, Clinton had led among Carolina whites by 14, 19, 17, 22 and 23 points. But today, suddenly: 31.”

If Clinton manages to perform above expectations and make North Carolina a nail-biter, expect the left-leaning media and pundits to level the race charge against white America, perhaps tempered with the qualifier that whites “do not understand black (churches)” or that there was a “racial component” to the vote.

And perhaps that’s true.

But let’s look at the numbers: Obama has regularly been receiving 40 (Ohio) to 45 (Texas) percent of the white vote in states that he has lost. Clinton, meanwhile, has struggled to receive 15 percent of the black vote in states that she has won. The question for the pundits: where was the outcry when blacks abandoned Clinton in favor of Obama? Remember, Clinton received 88 percent of the black vote in her 2006 re-election victory for Senator of New York.

In short, even on his worst day in the midst of this controversy, Obama is going to receive two to three times the proportion of Democratic white voters as Clinton will receive from blacks. So if and when Obama supporters play the race card during the coming weeks, know that this card could just have easily been played by the Clinton campaign – and with more justification – many months ago.

The survey of 600 likely voters gave Harkin leads of between 29 and 39 points against three potential GOP nominees – none of which are particularly well known statewide:

• Harkin 57 percent, former State Representative George Eichorn 28 percent
• Harkin 58 percent, businessman Steve Rathje 23 percent
• Harkin 59 percent, businessman Christopher Reed 20 percent

Harkin was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984, winning by 11.8 points over Roger W. Jespen. Unlike his colleague, Iowa Senior Senator Republican Charles Grassley, Harkin has not enjoyed particularly comfortable re-election campaigns to date: winning by 9.1 points in 1990 (over Thomas J. Tauke), by 5.1 points in 1996 (over Jim Lightfoot), and 10.4 points in 2002 (over Greg Ganske). Grassley, by contrast has won his four re-election campaigns by 32.4 points, 42.4 points, 37.9 points, and 42.3 points in 2004.

Grassley also enjoys favorability ratings in the mid-60s, making him one of the most popular Senators across the country, while Harkin’s rating usually lingers in the mid-50s. The new KCCI-TV poll finds Harkin with a 53 percent favorability rating.

The Iowa Senate race should tighten to within at least 15 to 20 points after the GOP selects their nominee.

Obviously, and by no means, did that entry imply that such a method was a predictor of a general election matchup between John McCain and Clinton or McCain and Obama. Nor did it even mean to suggest that Clinton would perform better than Obama in the key battleground states she has won in the battle for the nomination.

However, Smart Politics does stand by its stance that it would behoove the Clinton campaign to utilize this scoring method as a way to further the general point it is trying to make in the media that the New York Senator is, in fact, winning the big battleground states that Democrats will have to win in November to take back the White House.

But it must first be established that the general argument being made by the Clinton campaign is specious – and it is. There are several reasons why it could very well be the case that Obama is better suited to win some of the battleground states that Clinton has carried throughout the Democratic primary contests.

For one, Obama has largely outperformed Clinton among both independents and Republicans. In matchup polls with McCain, Obama is generally drawing about 5 percentage points more than Clinton among both Republican and non-affiliated voters (though there are several exceptions, especially in GOP-leaning border states).

Secondly, the reason Clinton has been winning some of these battleground and Republican-leaning primary states is because these contests were closed to only registered Democratic voters. Such states include Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, and Arizona. Clinton was also helped to rack up victories in solid Democratic states like Connecticut, New York, California, and Rhode Island because they were closed or semi-closed primaries – preventing a chunk of Obama supporters from participating in the process.

That said, the Clinton campaign could easily blur these points by pointing to the larger argument that she is nonetheless winning the battleground states with bigger Electoral College votes.

Clinton has won 10 true battleground or Republican-leaning states that are crucial puzzle pieces to a Democratic victory in November: Florida (27 Electoral College votes), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), New Jersey (15), Tennessee (11), Arizona (10), Arkansas (5), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), and New Hampshire (4). These states total 124 Electoral College votes.

Obama has won 8 battleground or Republican-leaning states, but with much smaller prizes – totaling just 80 Electoral College votes: Virginia (13), Washington (11), Missouri (11), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Louisiana (9), and Iowa (7).

Whether or not Clinton is actually performing better than Obama in these battleground states in head-to-head matchups with McCain is not the issue for the Clinton media campaign, but this query will be analyzed in an upcoming entry here at Smart Politics.

Though Coleman’s lead is very fragile for an incumbent, he continues to show promise in retaining his seat with his relatively high favorability numbers – currently at 55 percent. Coleman’s favorability rating has ranged between 51 and 56 percent in six Rasmussen surveys conducted during the past 13 months.

Franken’s unfavorability numbers have also remained relatively static during that span, holding between 45 and 48 percent in five of these six surveys. These are Hillary Clinton-esque unfavorability numbers – there appear to be roughly half of Minnesotans who just do not like Franken. Minnesotans who are recently forming their opinion of Franken, however, seem to be viewing him favorably. In March 2007, 15 percent of Minnesotans had no opinion of Franken, with just 39 percent holding a favorable view. Now, in April 2008, only 5 percent of Gopher State residents have yet to form an opinion of the satirist, and his favorability rating has climbed to 48 percent (holding steady from a month ago).

First, she cut into Barack Obama’s lead in the pledged delegate count. Not by much (estimates are between 10 and 20 delegates), but her double-digit victory insured the delegate count would not remain static.

Secondly, winning by a double-digit margin will have the effect of decreasing the qualifiers the media uses to describe her victory, such as: “She was originally ahead by 30 points, but only won by 4 points.” Or, “She was expected to win by more because Pennsylvania is one of her home states.” Instead, by winning decisively, Clinton can point to not only her victory, but also Obama’s loss – Obama is estimated to have outspent Clinton by a 3:1 margin in the race for Pennsylvania.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, Clinton’s large victory significantly decreased Obama’s lead in the “total vote count” during the 2008 primaries and caucuses.

Now, there are several ways to calculate this vote total. The one employed most frequently by the media showed Obama with an approximately 715,000-vote lead heading into Pennsylvania. Clinton won the Keystone State by nearly 216,000 votes, decreasing Obama’s lead by 30 percent to about 500,000 votes. This vote counting method employed by the media does not, however, include six contests: Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, and Washington.

• It would be unfair to use Michigan’s vote total in the calculation, as Obama’s name was not on the ballot in that primary.
• Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and Washington have not released popular vote totals for their caucus contests, but estimates by Real Clear Politics give Obama a net 110,000 more votes in those states.
• While Florida was penalized by the DNC for holding its primary too early in terms of seated delegates at the upcoming convention, all candidate names were on the ballot, and 1.7 million Floridians cast their votes just the same (with Clinton beating Obama by nearly 300,000 votes).

When Florida’s vote total is added into the mix with that of Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and Washington, Obama’s popular vote lead decreases to approximately 315,000 votes.

If Clinton is going to attract more unpledged superdelegates to her side in the coming weeks, she needs to continue to chip away at Obama’s total vote lead, as it is viewed by the public as the “most Democratic” measure by which to determine which candidate should get the party’s nomination. Perhaps because they were pushing for a revote in Florida for so many weeks, Clinton’s campaign has not done a good job to date of releasing total popular vote numbers with Florida’s votes included.

Fourthly, Clinton’s victory in Pennsylvania actually increased her lead over Obama by a measure rarely employed directly by her campaign, or the pundits: using the Electoral College math. Even though this is still the nomination phase of the race to the White House, and even though its detractors do not see the Electoral College as the most democratic process, adding each state’s Electoral College vote total to a candidate’s column is perhaps as democratic as the superdelegate process that will determine the party’s nominee later this year.

To date, Clinton has won states with 267 Electoral College votes, compared to just 202 for Obama. Clinton’s total includes Florida, but does not include Michigan. Having lost the popular vote in the Texas primary to Clinton, Obama’s total does not include any Electoral College votes from his Texas caucus victory.

During the past month and a half, Clinton’s campaign has stumbled in its efforts to give extra weight to her victories in “battleground states” or “states the Democrats will have to win in November.” Therefore, to give an objective ‘weight’ to these states (e.g. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida), the Clinton campaign would be best served by putting out numbers using the Electoral College math.

All in all, Clinton did everything she needed to do Tuesday night. As all eyes turn to North Carolina and Indiana during the next two weeks, the big question will be which campaign does a better job at spinning the media to its advantage in discussing the current state of the race for the nomination, utilizing the math that best helps its candidate.

7:10 p.m. It was an interesting, though not surprising, turn by the media during the past few days. The need to make Pennsylvania appear to be as competitive as possible to spur interest in the race (and thus drive ratings) first was characterized as a "Barack Obama surge." But when Hillary Clinton began to pull ahead in some polls by double digits over the weekend, the media moved the yardmarker -- and now the battle was defined by the media as to whether or not Obama could prevent Clinton from winning by 8, 9, or 10-points. You see, without the conflict, without a change in the expectations game, the media fears people will find little reason to stay tuned to their broadcast in what has been a campaign season of unprecedented length.

7:34 p.m. The race is now being characterized as "too early to call" by MSNBC.

8:04 p.m. All three networks have now called Hillary Clinton the winner of the Pennsylvania primary. Clinton has now won 15 states plus American Samoa, plus Michigan and Florida. Obama has won 27 states plus the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The call by the networks puts, in Smart Politics' eyes, an undramatic bookend to more than a month of this blog calling the state a sure-win for the Clinton campaign.

8:08 p.m. (7% reporting)
Clinton = 52%
Obama = 48%

8:30 p.m. (18% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

8:37 p.m. (22% reporting)
Clinton = 53%
Obama = 47%

8.40 p.m. Clinton has now won 15 state primaries, including Florida and Michigan; Obama has also won 15, including the District of Columbia. Clinton has won only two caucuses (Nevada and New Mexico) while Obama has won 13 caucuses. There are no caucus contests remaining.

8:47 p.m. (35% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

8:51 p.m. (42% reporting)
Clinton = 55%
Obama = 45%

9:00 p.m. (47% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

9:12 p.m. (57% reporting)
Clinton = 55%
Obama = 45%

Clinton's current lead - subject to change as more votes are counted - basically reflects the poll trends captured within the last few days (Zogby +10, InsiderAdvantage +7). Everyone lines up pollsters with a firing squad when they 'get it wrong', but survey organizations rarely get the credit when they 'get it right.'

9:17 p.m. A new poll of likely North Carolina voters was just released tonight by SurveyUSA with Obama leading Clinton 50 to 41 percent. North Carolina and Indiana will hold their primaries in two weeks. Indiana should be Clinton territory, though recent polls by Downs Center and the Los Angeles Times each show Obama with a 5-point advantage. Expect that to change in Clinton's favor after the Pennsylvania victory makes tomorrow's headlines.

9:22 p.m. (66% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

9:30 p.m. (70% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

Clinton's victory speech is serviceable, but delivered in her customary cue card / teleprompter robotic style; a style which is unlikely to lure over new (i.e. young) voters from Obama's side to hers.

9:39 p.m. (76% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

11:02 p.m. (96% reporting)
Clinton = 55%
Obama = 45%