That’s the word from the exit polls we’re seeing now.
Here’s some demo info:
Also, here’s a tidbit from Politico which might not be good news for Obama…
The cities and suburbs usually report their returns first, which gives the candidate favored in those areas a quick â€“ and sometimes fleeting â€“ lead. The conservative-leaning small towns through the center of the state usually filter in much later in the evening.
So Obama could show a lead in the early results, but it might be short-lived. If Clinton is ahead at the start, she may never lose it.
And to that point, here’s Irish Torjan in Tennessee with some exit poll realities…
In New Hampshire, the “first wave” showed Obama leading by 4; he lost by 3.
On Super Tuesday, the “first wave” had Obama winning New Mexico by 6 (he lost by 1) and losing California by just 3 (actual margin: 8). The “second wave” wasn’t any more accurate: it had Obama winning Georgia by 50 (actual margin: 35), Illinois by 40 (actual margin: 32), Alabama by 22 (actual margin: 14), Delaware by 14 (actual margin: 9), Connecticut by 7 (actual margin: 4), Arizona by 6 (lost by 8), New Jersey by 5 (lost by 10), Missouri by 4 (actual margin: 1), Massachusetts by 2 (lost by 15), and losing Tennessee by 10 (actual margin: 13), New York by 14 (actual margin: 17), Oklahoma by 30 (actual margin: 23) and Arkansas by 46 (actual margin: 44). So Oklahoma and Arkansas were the only states on Super Tuesday where Obama did better than the leaked, unweighted exit polls suggested.
On March 4, the “second wave” showed Obama winning Vermont by 34 (actual margin: 21), Texas by 2 (lost by 4), Ohio by 2 (lost by 10), and tied in Rhode Island (lost by 18).
More as it develops…