All right, I've seen a lot of people (me too) on TPM throwing around predictions for what will happen next Tuesday in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island.  There's also been plenty of speculation about what will happen after those results come in.

Now's the time to make it official, put your predictions in this post and you can return Wednesday morning and gloat about how right you were or just lurk and pretend you're not online because you were way off.  

Directions: First give the numbers for the 4 states' votes and then give the fallout for what happens in the campaign.  So here's my prediction:

March 4th results
Texas: Obama 54% - 46%
Ohio: Clinton 52% - 48%
Vermont: Obama 65% - 35%
Rhode Island: Clinton 53% - 47%

The fallout: Clinton celebrates in Ohio and puts as much positive spin as possible, making a big deal about the start of a comeback. The Clinton camp on March 5th says they'll win in Pennsylvania too and that the Texas was a tough state because of the expense of running in a state that large. 

The Obama camp immediately begins pressing hard on superdelegates to come over to Obama to end this before it gets really ugly (i.e. red phone ad from Hillary).  Before Pennsylvania Obama gains dozens of new SD endorsements and Hillary a handful. 

The media hound the Clinton campaign with questions about the near impossible chances that she can overcome Obama's delegate count. Clinton camp says they can win in Pennsylvania (the new firewall) and turn it around if MI and FL hold caucuses this spring and seat their delegates.  

Hillary loses badly in Wyoming on March 8th and in Mississippi on March 11th.

MI and FL parties publicly announce they will not hold caucuses.  Obama gets dozens more SD endorsements and pulls even in SD count.  

Hillary concedes before Pennsylvania votes. 
 

"Superduper war hawk"?
"Sexy lobbyists"?
"Some wingnuts don't like me"?
"Straight talk sidelined"?
"Somebody shut Rush up"?
"Soooo many white men at my campaign stops"?
"Shenanigans before the election are expected"?
"So lucky that Mitt, Rudy, and Fred were horrible campaigners"?
"Stay in Iraq for 100 years"?

Ok - I know that the "S" stands for Sidney but I thought it would be fun to come up with ideas on what it REALLY stands for. Especially since GOP wingnuts apparently believe that someone's middle name should scare the bejesus out of American voters.

I think the "scare" tactic will utterly fail. The only people who are going to think that Obama's names are an important issue are the same people who watch Bill O'Reilly, think Mexicans are stealing our jobs, and that we were attacked by Iraq on 9/11.
 
Other ideas on the S? 

According to an archive of CNN's articles on the superdelegate count, Hillary Clinton's SD lead has shrunk from 104 on January 3rd (before any votes were cast) to a current low of 62.  Perhaps most telling, and not unsurprising, in the last 15 days she has had a net gain of only 4 SDs, while Obama has gained 20.  Given that, I guess it's also not a surprise that the Clinton campaign would begin to urge caution to SDs that they don't move too quickly to take sides (just days after touting the importance of SDs in selecting the nominee). 

Here's a chart showing the decline in Hillary's SD lead this year (kind of reminds you of the graph's of Rudy's polling numbers).

Below are three snapshots of the SD count this year:

January 3, CNN:  Clinton SD lead of 104