Depends on what you mean by "substantial"

"What I have to do is win a substantial number of delegates" John Edwards told the New York Daily News.

Asked whether he needs to win at least somewhere, Edwards replied, "I don't believe I have to. ... I believe I have a great chance of winning some places on Tuesday, but I'm not drawing that line."

Well, Johnny, you may not be ready to draw a line, but this Knight-Ridder report draws a picture.

"Kerry now has 663 delegates, which each state awards proportionate to a candidate's share of the vote. He could coast to the 2,162 needed for the nomination by winning 47 percent of the delegates that remain to be chosen. Edwards has 199 delegates, which means he must win 62 percent of all remaining delegates, including those up for grabs on Tuesday".

"And every time Edwards falls short of 62 percent in one state, he has to win an even larger percentage of the delegates in other states."

OK, then, let's imagine (and this will tap all of your imaginative power) that Edwards has a surge of such magnificance that he actually wins three states, say Georgia, Ohio and Minnesota, by a 60-40 margin. Let's say he holds Kerry to the same margin in the other seven states, pulling 40% of the vote everywhere else (Yeah, I know it's impossible, since he's not even on the ballot in Vermont).

What does that get him? The short end of a 631 to 520 delegate split. Where's that leave him? 575 votes down. Even a complete delegate sweep on March 9 wouldn't be enough to catch up, and it will never happen.

That's with wins in three states, while Edwards claims he doesn't even need one.

And they give Kucinich grief for stubborn optimism...