Your assignment of winners in direct contradiction to the facts is curious.

As most comments have pointed out, notwithstanding your pronouncement to the contrary, Obama won Texas.

Others are pointing out that California is not yet counted, and I've read that a lot of New York isn't accurately counted yet.

What, exactly, is the point of this game?

Chris,

Prediction You Can Take It To The Bank:

Texas: Clinton 51%; Obama 47%
Ohio: Clinton 54%; Obama 44%
RI: Clinton 53%; Obama 45%
VT: Clinton 39%; Obama 59%
Posted by: YesWeCanForFREE | March 4, 2008 11:21 AM

Thank you for annoucing Fix T-Shirt Winners today.

I was off on RI prediction. Senator Clinton did much better than expectation.
This is probably one state where BRADLEY effect played some role.

Do not forget to read my prediction (which I will also post on THE FIX) on why California will switch from likely to toss-up column if the Senator Obama is the nominee.

Of course, it's long way from March to November but McCain is one Republican candidate who can win California.

I concur,

No journalistic media outlet has YET to give proper credit to the weight and consistency of delegate wins for Senator Obama. This started in Nevada, went on into Super Tuesday, and is continuing with Texas. It's outrageous!

One has to wonder why this is happening?

I think the press has given an unprecedented "benefit of the doubt" to the Clinton Campaign. Todays example of this is this Florida and Michigan ridiculousness which I think everyone should be opposed to. The Bush administration re-negs on prior agreements (like the constitution), not the Democratic party's answer to number 43. The people's response to eight years of childish and violent should not be in any way similar, let alone more of the same.

The press is fueling the indecision of this campaign, not the voters. And the Clinton campaign doesn't seem to care.

MEMO TO OBAMA CAMPAIGN: Rerun the "red phone ad as exactly as possible. Only at the end when the woman answers the phone, she looks up, turns back and says: "It's for you Bill."

Joining the other posters here to note that in fact Obama rather than Clinton won in Texas. He gained more delegates when the results of the caucus and primary are combined. And of course, after the results of Wyoming and Mississippi from this week are factored in, Obama more than made up the slender gains Clinton registered on March 4.
The idea that Clinton has any momentum going forward is factually dead in the water.
I hope that The Fix (and other political journalists) correct this misapprehension about Texas soon.

Conrad, If HRC cannot have the nomination, Bill would rather have McCain win so he could remain the titular head of the party until the next democratic president. Its all about the Clintons, they do not give one whit about the democratic party or anybody else. You libs created this two headed monster, now live with it.

I'm sure the media is well aware that mathematically, Hillary's campaign is over. In fact, many should have known for quite a while. I suspect the dragging of the contest in favor of Hillary is to keep their business interest, by so doing the Republicans can increase the opportunity of ripping the Democratic Party apart. Certainly, the media is successful so far in exposing how despicable and desperate Hillary campaign has been. Hillary with multi-personality antics offers a controversy, a drama and a soap for them.

I join the other readers who have been pointing out that the actual winner in Texas was Obama, not Clinton. The Democrats will be counting delegates at their convention, not popular votes. Yet, the media continues to perpetuate the myth that Clinton was the "victor" in Texas and Nevada where she received fewer pledged delegates in each state than Obama, and New Hampshire where he in fact tied her with 9 delegates apiece! The media is doing the public a disservice by focusing on the popular vote count instead of accurately defining what constitutes a primary or caucus victor under the DNC rules.

It will hopefully be moot at this point, but stop trying to make "Ohio-Texas Two-Step" a phrase. It won't happen. Sorry, but big media bloggers are not allowed to be creative by their very nature.
Current Google Results for "Ohio-Texas Two-Step": 4910.
Current Google Results for "Undead Ninja", chosen on a whim: 14100

Glad to see we're catching on to the endless variations in primary voting and that the latest (not necessarily final) counts from TX are in. As an aside, Calif has also updated their counts: Clinton loses 4, Obama gains 4 (and, that's not over). Just as an aside, here in CA we have a mail-in ballot option and it's a mess! Last I heard, tens of thousands of mail-in ballots were either uncounted or disqualified for a long list of reasons. I don't recommend the process for MI or FL.

I disagree with your assessment of the Texas winner wherein you state"but in the Texas primary (where the prize was a larger portion of delegates anyway), Clinton narrowly defeated Obama 51 percent to 47 percent".Texas io a 'two stepper - that included a caucas. Obama won the Caucas - 52 to 44 thus he got 99 total delegates to Clinton's 95. Therefore Obama won TEXAS! Why isn't that reported properly?

Edward

It's interesting to note that while last week's contests (Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont) got much more media fanfare than the two most recent contests (Mississippi and Wyoming), the net total in pledged delegates from these contests evens out to zero (based on RealClearPolitics.com figures).

Ohio: Clinton +9
Rhode Island: Clinton +4
Texas: Obama +3
Vermont: Obama +3
----------------------------------
March 4th Net Total: Clinton +7

Wyoming: Obama +2
Mississippi Obama +5
--------------------------------
Net Total: Obama +7

Chris,

Could you please find random political stuff for us to predict over the next 6 weeks? (special election winners, fundraising totals, Clients 1 through 8, Geraldine Ferraro's next genius comment, etc.)

Otherwise, I think I might go into Prediction Time withdrawl. Thanks!

I agree with faberman.jason. we will need more things to predict and soon.

and hey where's my t-shirt for winning the battle in seattle prediction?

Amen, friendlyfire. This is pissing me off each time I see or hear it on the news.

Clinton did NOT win Texas, Obama did. If the contest was specifically only for the primary, my apologies. But there were percentages for the caucus portion, as well.

Clinton actually lost Texas in the total delegate count, and that is what really matters. As Hillary said in Feb, "A win is a win, is a win." Obama won Texas. That's one more in the bag for Obama. OBAMA 2008