Voting patterns across America seem consistent in their indication that the longer the campaign wears on and the more voters know about Obama, the more likely they are to vote for him. The effect of this exposure showed today, as he continued to perform much better than expected, chalking up wins in at least 13 states compared to his opponent Hillary Clinton's 7; and showing a respectable performance even where he lost. But just like in Kenya, the number of provinces you win counts for little, as some states are much larger and more populous than others.

First reports indicated that each candidate won their home state, with Clinton taking the Atlantic state of New York and Obama taking Illinois. Unusually high turnouts in many of the states, and election irregularities nearly as ridiculous like ours delayed results in many places. In California for example, the rigours of the delegates system will mean a delay in the final announcements until Friday as many voters sent absentee ballots. Voters claimed the economic troubles America is beset with as their primary motivation, with a need for political change the clarion call across the Democratic Party and much of the country.

Senator Clinton who represents New York in the American Congress won in much of New England, picking up wins  in Massachusetts, New Yorkand New Jersey. She also picked up victories in Arkansas where she was first lady when her husband Bill Clinton was Governor: Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arizona and the massive California.

Senator Obama, who has relations in Kenya and whose campaign has captured great interest here, added to his win in Illinois with victories in Georgia, Alabama, Minnesota, Connecticut, Delaware, Utah, Kansas, North Dakota, Missouri and Idaho. Much has been made of the fact that 88% of the African American vote has swung for Obama, but this is very misleading and perhaps even malicious. The Illinois Senator has won not just Southern black heavy states (blacks are still a small minority across the US), but also rural Mid-Western  states and had a very good showing even where he has lost. 

Tuesday's contests were delivering 1,681 of the 2,025 delegates needed for the Democratic nomination, but it is still too early to see where the delegate votes are. There are two interesting features to the delegates system. The first of these is the fact that 40% of the party's delegates are not elected or 'sent' by the voters but are super delegates who make personal decisions on who to back (the delegates, all of them, get to choose the party's nominee at the convention later in the year). Senator Clinton's establishment background has given her a big lead among these super-delegates, one of whom is her husband Bill Clinton. However, there's always buyer's remorse and present endorsements are not locked in the bag, especially if Obama continues to tear away at her lead as he has done all year. 

Latest reports from the BBC and ABC call 466 delegates for Hillary Clinton and 411 for Senator Obama, but Chuck Todd on MSNBC has called Obama 594 and Clinton 546 . 2025 delegates are needed for outright victory before the party convention.

The consensus is that with the next batch of states being likely pro-Obama states, a loss by less than 100 delegates for Obama is a good result, and would make him look very much like a winning candidate. His ability to fundraise without taking from the lobbies continues to replenish his coffers without sullying his reputation as a politician unaffected by the political culture of the Beltway. 

The second intriguing characteristic of this system is that the Democrats divide their delegates proportionally, so a candidate who finished second could pick up an impressive haul of delegates. So for example, in spite of Obama losing on votes cast in the larger states like New York and California, he may make a good showing in delegate numbers there. In New York he could come away with nearly 40 percent of the total. These delegates are sent from voting districts within the states and the system as explained below, may give Obama an advantage .

In short, every congressional attributes a number of delegates -- between three and eight. It is very difficult to get an extra delegate in an even-numbered district. For example, in a 4 delegate district, the candidate split the delegates 2-2 unless one of them breaks 62.5%, in which case the allocation is 3-1. In a 6 delegate district, the allocation is 3-3 unless a candidate breaks 58%, in which case it's 4-2. In odd delegate district, a one vote margin in that district gives the victor an extra delegate. So if a candidate gets 50.01% of the vote in a 5 delegate district, that already c reates a delegate gap.

The delegate rules means that Illinois and New York will be big stories tonight: How will each candidate fare in the other's home state? They are both likely to cross 15% of the vote everywhere (though there is a chance that Clinton fails to cross that in the 3 African-American districts of Chicago, which are some rare 8 delegate districts, and that could give some massive leads to Obama), but will they cross the 32% or 27% thresholds that will enable them to force a split of delegates in even-numbered districts?

Obama could be stronger at this game, as he looks strong enough in New York that he is likely to cross 30% in a lot of districts that Clinton will win handily. In other words, Clinton could get 65% of the vote in a district... but only 50% of its delegates! For district-by-district (literally, all of them) analysis and number crunching, take a look at Cook Political's wonderful chart of the delegate allocation scenarios. I have used this chart in my analysis, and will definitely refer to it throughout the night to keep tabs on what is going on.

In short, Clinton has more to lose in this strange delegate game. And this for a very simple reason: The constituency that is breaking the most heavily for a candidate is the African-American community. This means that in predominantly black districts -- and there are many throughout the country -- Obama is likely to come out with more delegates, even if the district has even number of delegates since Obama is getting more than 70% of the black vote. On the other hand, even if Clinton wins more consistently across other districts, she is far less likely to break 60% and get that extra delegate. She could win the state overall but lose the district-level delegate count. 

All around, even at the beginning of January, this result would have seemed like a dream for Obama and his supporters. He has already made what will remain an indelible mark in American politics and with some papers already calling him superman, the sky truly is the limit for him.

 ----------

Calculations based on a wide variety of sources, give Hillary Clinton 670 delegates and Barrack Obama 650, but still with 210 to be allocated from California ( the biggest state delegate wise and which Clinton won by 52%-42%) and 47 from Illinois, and smaller amounts elsewhere.  Note that head-to-head in their home states, Obama won his home state by 67 delegates (110-43; 153 total) and Clinton won hers by 52 delegates (142-90; 232 total). End result then, among home states, Obama won a net delegate margin of 15.

Overall, with previous pledged delegates, and superdelegates, added in, the latest numbers award Clinton 919, Obama 823, with 2,025 needed to win (remember this total excludes Florida and Michigan.