Though battles remain in Wyoming and Mississippi, and while Florida and Michigan seem set to work out some kind of deal to hold their contests again, Pennsylvania remains front and center on the target list for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The state, it seems, holds benefits and drawbacks for both candidates, further imperiling the notion that anything at all will be settled when Keystoners vote on April 22.

Politico's Charlie Mahtesian, a Pennsylvania native himself, calls the state a "should-win" for Clinton, pointing out favorable demographics: The state is whiter, generally older and less well-off than the national average, and its population looks a lot like Ohio's.

15.6% of the state is over 65, compared with the national average of 12.4%, while the median income is just over $40,100, slightly lower than Ohio's $41,000 and lower, as the LA Times notes, than the nation as a whole. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports the state is 29% Catholic, a demographic among whom Clinton did very well, and higher than the 24% national average. Ohio is only 21% Catholic.

Clinton has done well among voters along the east side of the Appalachian plateaus, as Patrick Ottenhoff and Jonathan Martin note, in states from Ohio to Virginia and farther south. That advantage gives her a leg up on the east side of Pennsylvania, too.

Too, Clinton enjoys backing from many prominent local politicians, including Governor Ed Rendell, who served as DNC chairman when Bill Clinton was in office. The former Philadelphia mayor can help Clinton in his native city, where he remains popular not only as governor but as occasional commentator for the Philadelphia Eagles. In fact, Clinton has support from the city's current mayor, Michael Nutter, who is serving his first term.

Still, Philadelphia, the state's largest city by far, is likely to be Obama country. The many colleges in the area, the high African American population and the generally wealthier population are all demographics that favor the Illinois senator, and maximizing his margin there will help him cut into Clinton gains in the eastern portion of the state.

And if Obama's performances have shown anything, it is that he does well when he has time. After months of trailing in Iowa and slowly building an organization, Obama won impressively in a state with more white voters -- and caucus attendees -- than Ohio or Pennsylvania, about the same percentage of college graduates and a lower median income than both states, as well as more Catholic voters than the national average.

Clinton's team will argue that Iowa's caucuses helped Obama pull out the win there, but her rival has also won primaries in the blue collar state of Wisconsin and heavily Catholic Connecticut. If Obama has the time, he can change the way certain demographics vote. And the seven weeks between now and when Pennsylvania voters cast ballots could be plenty of time.

Many of Pennsylvania's 9.4 million eligible voters will head to the polls on April 22. From the outset, it looks like Clinton has a head start: Her lead in the latest RCP Pennsylvania Average is a strong 11.7 points, and the state's demographics look like they favor the senator from neighboring New York. Still, with time and money on his side, don't be surprised if Obama's disadvantage shrinks.