Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Super Tuesday Delegate Tracker

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Update: This post is no longer being updated. For the latest delegate information, please see our Ultimate Delegate Tracker.

The delegate counts below should not be considered accurate anymore. They were last updated on Friday, Feb. 8.

We are keeping a total tally of pledged delegates in the Delegate Tracker in the sidebar. We have decided to use AP as the source of the pledged delegate numbers, and the AP provides state-by-state breakdowns for both pledged and unpledged delegates. Of course, we still using our own numbers for the unpledged Superdelegates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The big day has come and gone is upon us and we're still keeping track of the Super Tuesday delegates for you.

Winners (popular vote) of each state have their percentage in bold.

NBC News has predicted, 12:50 AM: Obama-841, Clinton-837, (+/- 10 delegates)

Edwards is at 10% in Oklahoma. Looking at the county breakdowns, he's over 15% in many counties, so he is likely to pick up a delegate or two.

Last updated Thu 8:20 PM EST. AL, AR, GA, TE updates.
Sources: CNN, CBS, AP, other estimates. Numbers are not final, and are subject to change.

State Delegates
Available		% Vote In
% Clinton %Obama
Delegates Clinton
Delegates Obama
Alabama3
99%
42%
56%
24
25
Alaska-
98%
25%
75%
4
9
American Samoa-
100%
57%
43%
2
1
Arizona-
93%
51%
42%
31
25
Arkansas-
95%
70%
27%
27
8
California-
99%
52%
42%
201
169
Colorado27
99%
32%
67%
9
19
Connecticut-
100%
47%51%22
26
Delaware-
100%
43%
53%
6
9
Georgia6
99%
31%
67%
25
56
Idaho-
100%
17%
79%
3
15
Illinois8
97%
33%
65%
49
96
Kansas-
100%
26%
74%
9
23
Massachusetts-
100%
56%
41%55
38
Minnesota-
82%32%
67%
24
48
Missouri-
100%
48%
49%
36
36
New Jersey-
99%
54%
44%
59
48
New Mexico1
98%
49%
48%
13
12
New York-
99%
57%
40%
139
93
North Dakota-
100%
37%
61%
5
8
Oklahoma-
100%55%
31%
24
14
Tennessee2
100%
54%
41%
38
28
Utah-99%
39%
57%
9
14
Super Tuesday Total47
---814
820
Previously Pledged Delegates



4863
Total Pledged Delegates



862
883
Superdelegate Endorsements



203113
Total



1065
996
Delegates Still Needed to Win Nomination




960
1029
Total
4863

Posted by Matt at 12:46 AM

Labels: , , , , ,

218 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 218 of 218   Newer›   Newest»
DaxDiamond said...

Matt - I emailed you at

demconwatch @ googlegroups . com,
but without the spaces. Hope that is right.

I think you were right to discontinue chart updates with multiple sources. And if you use only one source, just provide a link as you have done.

If I do not get your email, I will check back here to see if you explain why not. Otherwise, will not look to this page again as you have discontinued updates.

February 08, 2008 1:50 PM
Carrie said...

Saturday may be better - it will be interesting to watch. I think it will depend on the structure of the workforce. It struck me when I moved to Philadelphia for a few years that none of the grocery stores were open in the middle of the night. That's when I always shopped here in Michigan. Then it occurred to me, Michigan's history as a manufacturing state with 24-hour shift workforce has led to a state that never sleeps.

February 08, 2008 2:44 PM
Unknown said...

Caucus/Primary? I think it's a little overplayed. There have been close caucuses and close primaries, as well as blow outs in both types of contest, with either candidate on either end. Do not fail to note that Clinton didn't bother to campaign seriously or at all in ANY caucus state. Living in Colorado, the second largest caucus state with 71 delegates, we had one Bill Clinton rally in the shadow of a massive 15k man Obama rally and heard nothing else from the Clintons. The two caucus states in which Clinton did campaign, NV and IA, ended in a win and a close third (Clintons were on cruise control in IA, and Edwards was big sexy). Additionally, these caucus states do not have the strong liberal establishments of California, Massachusetts, New York and nearly every other primary state that, in the least, approach the Clinton/Obama choice with a more traditional, experienced mind of liberal thought.

In short, aside from the notion that not many people are willing to spend two hours caucusing for Clinton when she decided to write off their state and vote, an act that signaled a predictable Obama victory, the caucus/primary divide does not exist (in my opinion).

A coincidental trend at best.

February 08, 2008 8:37 PM
Anonymous said...

thank you Karry and Carrie (NOT Kerry!)

I am going crazy watching CNN (of which I've long been a fan but....)

they are 66% white men, 30% black men -- and they will every now and then bring in a women from the field (this was on SuperDuper Tuesday). they are biased as so i many white men (present bloggers excluded!) apparently are against Hillary.

interestingly the McCain V.Hill or Oback are not focusing in on the few swing states -- which will again make or break the election?

correct me if I'm wrong.

Plus these national polls forecasting the national election do not account for the fact that Obama with his 2 years in the US Senate (one of the total of 3 has been devoted to his campaign, not our government) will get chewed up or similar by McCain, an old timer.

another anti-Hillary tactic -- taking as truth, the republicans who way they want her running so they can beat her. might this be a set-up? a little to complex for the media, I suppose........

OK enough babbling...
well one more compliant -- it's hard to be here in California and talking to all the Obama youth -- i guess i should be more understanding -- i once believed that poets (remember Eugene McCarthy) would make good public servants....

may they remain idealistic-- if naive -- while they can --- one must live and learn.....

of -- i hear CNN in the back discussing repeatedly the Hillary haters and taking it seriously.... there they go again!

CAN ANYONE SUGGEST A LESS BIASED -- YET LIBERAL --NEWS NETWORK?

February 08, 2008 11:04 PM
Anonymous said...

SWA, It sounds as if you want a station that is nothing but Pro-Hillary......that would be MSNBC. They keep fluffing her up to Queen status. They have already annointed her majesty. I say they keep blowing her head full of hot air......eventually it WILL explode......Damn that sounded good.

February 08, 2008 11:42 PM
Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
SWA, It sounds as if you want a station that is nothing but Pro-Hillary......that would be MSNBC. They keep fluffing her up to Queen status. They have already annointed her majesty. I say they keep blowing her head full of hot air......eventually it WILL explode......Damn that sounded good.

Anonymous said...

Find a life..

February 09, 2008 12:07 AM
Carrie said...

Imagine a world in which supporters of two minority candidates with 97% agreement on policy could come together to watch one news network.

SWA, let me know if I'm overstepping in speaking for you (and myself) - We would really appreciate an unbiased news source. If we wanted a Hillary cheerfest, anonymous is right - we'd already have one.

February 09, 2008 8:13 AM
Carrie said...

Ben, on the caucus/primary candidate correlation - I'm honestly trying to take something away from this that will shape my views as I go into the future debate about exactly how we will reform the democratic party's nomination process. Maybe there isn't a causative relationship, but it's certainly a high corellation worth looking at.

That said, the issues of barriers to access that are keeping the majority of people from having power, healthcare, healthy groceries, quality education etc. has definitely NOT been overplayed.

February 09, 2008 8:20 AM
Unknown said...

If you're looking for a Hillary biased news source, try The New York Times. Today, four days after Super Tuesday, they have so far been able to count all of Clinton's pledged delegates, but not Obama's, leaving the pledged tally at 912-741 in favor of Clinton.

Having watched MSNBC for every primary contest, I would say that they at least try to be unbiased. CNN on the other hand likes to just repeat whatever trash they hear from either campaign. I don't think they have a single person on their "CNN=POLITICS" team that could analyze their way out of a paper bag. I also like to hear a real talk about the Republicans, something CNN obviously lacks. In general though, the Clintons don't have a great relationship with the media, and a majority of individual liberal media members prefer Obama.


I agree with you Carrie, the disenfranchisement of voters due to the caucus process isn't a good thing. I would much prefer that all states held primaries instead, but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

Finally, I am tired of having every voter demographic generalized by the media as in support of either Clinton or Obama when, outside of black voters, the split of any one group is no more than 65:35. While on the topic of demographics, it just occurred to me that McCain's "liberal" stance on immigration has a potential to maintain the Republican share of Latino voters in the general election. This won't be that big against either Dem however, as the Clintons are favored by Latinos, and Obama can gain support with the correct running mate.

P.S. I've got CNN's live broadcast of a Clinton stump speech in Maine on the in the background, and she suddenly sounds a lot like Obama. Much was made from IA-SC of Obama's use of "we" not "I" in his speeches, and it seems that Clinton not only has picked up her energy, but switched to "we", just like Obama. I think this is the best H.R. Clinton speech I have heard yet. I still don't like her healthcare plan though. Even if she says "we" a lot.

February 09, 2008 3:07 PM
Anonymous said...

I was reading the comments again, and I am starting to see some real falacy in the arugments IMO.

The concepts of Hilary being more likey to win because she carried the blue states. In fact his actually proves the oppiste, and makes her less valid canidate.

The reason for this is because Obama will carry all the blue states in election. Carrie ackowleged she would vote for Obama simply because she would rather not allow Mccain to elect the next judges. This will be true in most blue states

However Hilary will carry almost no red states. In fact Obama has mostly destroyed Hilary in "swing" states and "red" states. Show that he can bring out a massive votes in those states that Hilary can not turn out.

Also I heard someone say Hilary will carry IL. That is false. I live in chicago, and have family that lives downstate IL. Hilary is one of the most hated candites in IL that i have not seen in a very long time. Women, Men, Black, White does not matter. Everyone i talk to says that there selection is Obama first, Mccain second. I have even heard republicans say this. Considering Hilary is from IL it kinda supirses me that we have such a sour taste in our mouth.

Hilary will lose IL.

February 09, 2008 10:54 PM
Carrie said...

I will vote for my convictions - for the causes and policies, appointments and priorities both democrats promote. I am convinced that Clinton is a better candidate, and I have a lot of respect for her accomplishments.

I will vote for either in the general because, again, I will vote for my convictions and Obama's align with Clinton's 95% of the time.

That you can carry people who either don't support your platform or who do but will compromise their beliefs to spite someone doesn't seem like something to brag about. Doesn't he think he can rally those same voters in the best interest of his country? Or does he not intend to try?

Why is it such a bad thing that Hillary's voters are committed enough to civil liberties, leaving Iraq, universal healthcare, etc. that they'll suck it up as gracious losers and vote for the next best thing?

February 09, 2008 11:27 PM
Dave said...

Carrie said:

Why is it such a bad thing that Hillary's voters are committed enough to civil liberties, leaving Iraq, universal healthcare, etc. that they'll suck it up as gracious losers and vote for the next best thing?

I don't think it's a bad thing at all. As I've said before, I feel similarly (but with the candidates reversed). But sometimes I think you just have to face facts that you may not like to face. It is a fact that Hillary has the highest "dislike" rating of any of the three remaining candidates (sorry Huck, you're not really in this IMHO). This is a problem! There's a pretty clear limit to how high she can go -- and that limit is probably the Kerry blue states and possibly one or two other states. Independents matter! And independents may not look at the issues the same way that you do.

To me, what Clinton supporters need to think about is this -- how important is that 5% difference in policy? Is it worth the risk? Am I sure the difference is really that significant? Am I willing to risk 4 more years of the same on that 5%?

Of course, I see that 5% (maybe more) pointing in the other direction -- having someone who opposed the war. Having a health care plan that's less likely to result in garnishing of wages. Having someone who doesn't take money from lobbyists. And, of course, having someone who the majority of the country can possibly get excited about, rather than someone known to be polarizing.

February 10, 2008 10:33 AM
Anonymous said...

Hilary without superdelegates is a "ZERO".
Obama will surely sweep against Mc Cain. Obama is the only hope of Democrats. Hillary reflects the past.
After all, she has the same opinions like Bush, Mc Cain.
War, war and war again and again. No sign of hope, no sign for peace and compansion.......................

February 10, 2008 8:03 PM
Anonymous said...

McCain Should Be Feared, Writer Says

Presidential hopeful John McCain is being billed as the Republican that liberals can live with, but his credentials as a “bipartisan progressive” are in fact a “lazy, hazy myth,” according to liberal pundit Johann Hari.

“The truth is that McCain is the candidate we should most fear,” writes Hari, a columnist for The Independent in Britain, in an article that appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. “Not only is he to the right of Bush on a whole range of subjects, he is also the Republican candidate most likely to dispense with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.”

Hari writes of McCain: “Rage seems to be at the core of his personality. Describing his own childhood, McCain has written: ‘At the smallest provocation I would go off into a mad frenzy, and then suddenly crash to the floor unconscious. When I got angry I held my breath until I blacked out.’”

McCain has distinguished himself as an uber-hawk on foreign policy, according to Hari, who is on the editorial board of The Liberal magazine.

“To give a brief smorgasbord of his views: At a recent rally, he sang 'bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran,' to the tune of the Beach Boys' ‘Barbara Ann.’ He says North Korea should be threatened with ‘extinction.’

“McCain has mostly opposed using U.S. power for humanitarian goals, jeering at proposals to intervene in Rwanda or Bosnia . . .

“So why do so many nice liberals have a weak spot for McCain? Well, to his credit, he doesn't hate immigrants: He proposed a program to legalize the 12 million undocumented workers in the U.S. He sincerely opposes torture, as a survivor of it himself. He has apologized for denying global warming and now advocates a cap on greenhouse gas emissions but only if China and India can also be locked into the system.”

Hari concludes: “These sprinklings of sanity — onto a very extreme program — are enough for a superficial, glib press to present McCain as ‘bipartisan’ and ‘centrist.’”

February 11, 2008 5:12 PM
Carrie said...

Dave said...
To me, what Clinton supporters need to think about is this -- how important is that 5% difference in policy? Is it worth the risk? Am I sure the difference is really that significant? Am I willing to risk 4 more years of the same on that 5%?

If you have a few minutes, please read my post from 1:10 this morning in the Weekend Delegate Tracker thread. I think you'll find that, by my estimations anyway, these aren't the right questions.

I'll be interested in your response

February 12, 2008 9:35 AM
ms_snark said...

I'm not sure where to post this, if it's old news I apologize in advance: Certification of California Primary delegates changes result:
Clinton 203
Obama 167
http://calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5248

March 07, 2008 9:05 AM
Unknown said...

Is there somewhere on this site or elsewhere that breaks down the delegate leads/wins and also includes if it was a caucus or primary win? Thanks~

May 18, 2008 10:45 AM
Matt said...

I2 - Check out the Ultimate Delegate Tracker (link in upper left sidebar). All delegate counts by state are there. We don't have caucus/primary distinction.

May 18, 2008 3:11 PM
«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 218 of 218   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)