Thursday, February 21, 2008

Ultimate Delegate Tracker

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

Congratulation to Sen. Obama, the Democratic Nominee for the office of the United States of America and the next President of the United States of America.

Click Here To See The Rest of the Blog

Important Notes:
5/31/2008 - The RBC has just ruled that Florida's pledged delegates and superdelegates will be seated at 1/2 vote each.
The RBC has ruled the Michigan's pledged delegates be split 34.5-29.5 (69-59 at 1/2 delegate each), and superdelegates will be seated at 1/2 vote each.

For the latest information on Edwards’ delegates see What happens to Edwards' delegates?

NBC has acknowledged that 21 Edwards’ delegates have moved to Obama and they are included in their total, but there is no update to their individual states numbers. They added a bar in their chart similar to any state bar and they labeled it Edwards' delegates.We will add those 21 PD to NBC Total Pledged Delegates. This will make our NBC totals accurate and match NBC overall totals.
CBS overall totals don’t match their individual states’ numbers. They also are taking some state numbers out and correct that after a day or two. (AS, ID, and MI)


Sources aren't updating their totals as they add delegates. We have switched to adding the delegates ourselves so you have the latest numbers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In this table we compare five different news sources' delegate and superdelegate numbers for the 2008 Democratic Convention.
As new primaries take place we will update the table.

A list of delegates certified to the Democratic Convention can be found here.

Last Updated: 06/04/2008 6:00 PM (EST)

GP = Green Papers
NYA* = Not Yet Allocated.




DCW Ultimate Delegate Tracker
State
GPNBCAPCNNCBS


HCBONYA*HCBOHCBOHCBOHCBO
AK(13)
310--310310310310
AL(52)
2527--2527252725272527
AR(35)
278--278278278278
AS(3)
21--21212121
AZ(56)
3125--3125312531253125
CA(370)
204166--204166204166203167204166
CO(55)
1936--1936193619361936
CT(48)
2226--2226222622262226
DA(7)
2.54.5--34243413
DC(15)
213--312312411312
DE(15)
69--69696969
FL(92.5)
52.538.5--5334523952395335
GA(87)
2760--2760276026612760
GU(4)
22--22222222
HI(20)
614--614614614614
IA(45)
1428--1425142814271527
ID(18)
315--315315315315
IL(153)
49104--49104491044910449104
IN(72)
3834--3834383438343834
KS(32)
923--923923923923
KY(51)
3714--3714371437143614
LA(56)
2333--2234233322342333
MA(93)
5538--5538553855385538
MD(70)
2743--2842284228422842
ME(24)
915--915915915915
MI(64)
34.529.5--3429353035293429
MN(72)
2448--2448244824482448
MO(72)
3636--3636363636363636
MS(33)
1320--1320132013201320
MT(16)
79--79497979
NC(115)
4867--4867486748674867
ND(13)
58--58585858
NE(24)
816--816816816816
NH(22)
913--99913912912
NJ(107)
5948--5948594859485948
NM(26)
1412--1412141214121412
NV(25)
1114--1114111411141114
NY(232)
13993--13993139931399313993
OH(141)
7467--7467746775667467
OK(38)
2414--2414241424142414
OR(52)
2131--2131213121312131
PA(158)
8573--8573857385738473
PR(55)
3817--3817381738173817
RI(21)
138--138138138138
SC(45)
1233--1225123312331232
SD(15)
87--96969686
TN(68)
4028--4028402840284028
TX(193)
9598--9499949994999496
UT(23)
914--914914914914
VA(83)
2954--2954295429542954
VI(3)
03--03030303
VT(15)
69--69696969
WA(78)
2652--2652265225532652
WI(74)
3242--3242324232423242
WV(28)
208--208208208208
WY(12)
57--57575757
Total Pledged
Delegates

1639.51765.5--16411765163817641640176316381752
Pledged
Delegates Lead

--126.0----124--126--123--114
Superdelegates
282.5421.5--292395282389286395287401
Total Delegates
1922.02187.0--19332160192021531926215819252153
Total Delegates Lead
--265.0----227--223--232--228


HCBONYA*HCBOHCBOHCBOHCBO
State
GPNBCAPCNNCBS



Special thanks to Yousri (Formerly NiceGuy1951) for compiling all of the data!

Click Here To See The Rest of the Blog

204 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 204   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Nice table. Thanks for putting this together!

Dave said...

I was going to suggest adding a column to show the numbers from each of the candidate's website...but I can't actually find these numbers on Hillary's site.

Obama's site is nice because they've actually estimated the full counts for each state (so, for example, Colorado is more accurate since there aren't so many uncounted delegates). Obviously, this is potentially biased...it's just nice to see more complete numbers, even if they are estimates. If anyone can find Hillary's version of the numbers, I think it would be great to see them both up here.

Great stuff as always, guys!

pano said...

hi people,

first of all a big thanx for running this site. it's tough to follow the election process from abroard (germany), and your site helped me a lot!

and here's my question: how could it be that there is so much variety - still?? are so many votes uncounted yet? as i understand it there should be final results, at least for some states. i understand that every state, sometimes every (county? sub-state election district?) has it's own regulations on this, but still...

Kevin Skoglund said...

Thanks for the nice summary!

I reorganized the table based on some of the suggestions. I think it is easier to read now.

View it here.

Feel free to copy the HTML source and modify as you like.

JRH said...

The new table design is great - big improvement. Much better than what I suggested.

One more suggestion: how about adding two rows at the bottom stating the lead in pledged delegates and the lead in superdelegates? This would help clarify why each news org gives one candidate or the other the lead in total delegates.

Get a Mac said...

The new format is great! One small issue, the NBC column is missing Obama's 36 delegates for Missouri.

Jamie said...

Awesome. Really helped me cleanup some of the outstanding state counts. Keep it up.

Anonymous said...

I found this website about a month ago, and it's my favorite spot for delegate results! Thank you for all the data you get and the tables you compile. I've been waiting for one that has every state and territory, and looks like you've made it happen. I also like that you subtotal without the supers. To me, their "unpledged" status makes them unreliable.

Anna

DaxDiamond said...

Table has shaped up very nicely. I am happy with it, even if you do not dump the NYT or add my suggested hybrid column.

rachana said...

Thanks for this table. I don't need my backs of envelopes collection now.

I'd award a prize for illogical reporting to NYT. Their site states:
"The Times, unlike other news organizations like The Associated Press, does not include projections that are based on nonbinding votes for candidate preference, such as the Iowa caucuses."

Fair enough. Then they include the equally-if-not-more non-binding superdel endorsements in "Election Results". Endorsements are technically not even contested through primaries.

FYI, I asked Greenpapers on the weekend for the (mathematical) explanation as to why their numbers might differ markedly from the Obama campaign's results on AL, GA, CO, IL, TN. They were still waiting on data.

Q. for niceguy1951: you linked to
http://home.cfl.rr.com/yousri/vote.xls
Are these numbers from the Obama campaign since they match almost exactly?

ps: thanks to derekvs for enlightening me on the working of the first supertuseday table.

Carrie said...

This is fantastic, thanks!

I don't know what's doable on blogger, but I'd like a csv version of this if it's not too much trouble.

Thanks!

rachana said...

thanks for explanation daxdiamond.

i didn't think they would publish biased results but it's disturbing when media publish headlines and numbers based on incomplete counts (without making it clear) and then slyly revise them afterwards.

well, DCW is making it harder for them to get away with that!

DaxDiamond said...

Yes, and congrats to DCW for actually adding the delegate counts provided by each source. As others have noted, CBS site is showing totals that are higher (Obama by 4, Clinton by 2) than their own numbers add up to.

So DCW shows the correct CBS total when CBS can't seem to do so itself.

thelatinist said...

First of all, thank you for this table: It is an excellent resource.

Second, I would like to agree with Dax that Obama's numbers are probably as accurate as anyone's, if more speculative. While I don't think they belong in a non-partisan table like this, I will continue to check them myself.

M.Alami said...

Thanks guys, great website..
Isn't it obvious NYTimes are boosting their endorsed candidate's delegates? I was really surprised to read Obama was still behind after 8 wins in a row.
Thanks again for all the work put into this.

Steve in MA said...

This is a great site. I've been looking for something like this. But what is wrong with the new York Times? I know they are out of touch with most people in America on issues but thses are factual nubers and counts. How can they be so far off from every other tracking poll?

Kyle said...

This is a great site to follow all the different delegate counts. My question is why do we have this site at all? Which delegate count does the democratic party use to determine who is the nominee of the party? If the democratic party (and republican party for that matter) put up an official delegate count on their website we would not have all these variations in the count. This reminds me of college football where all the polls are different and at the end of the season there is a national dispute as to who is the champion. I hope we do not have that at the end of the primary season.

BillP said...

It is a great table, and thanks. Since you use a spreadsheet, and I use all the above in addition to a few other sources to create a spreadsheet, how would you feel about making your spreadsheet available for download? I think mine has all the columns mentioned in the various posts, including unassigned balances. Also, will you be moving Obama's name to the top/leading position since he is the leader? I set mine up that way in anticipation of him overcoming Billary's initial clout and count of and with the superdelegates. Thanks again for all this work!

Richard said...

Greg, the thing that sets DCW apart from the main stream media is their commitment to including only sourced numbers in their counts. This is not a site for predictions or opinions, but for facts. We come here to get the most accurate information on raw numbers that we can. If we wish to play with the numbers and spin them to make "fairer" predictions, that's up to us. Contrary to what you write, doing the things you suggest would completely destroy this site's credibility as an unbiased source of facts and would make it just another prediction site.

math 101 said...

http://www.newser.com/story/19663.html
ok i answered my own question. *sigh* It only raises others GP has always had great counts so whats up. sorry about the waste of 2 posts

Dr. Linda said...

Are the delegates listed in the NYA column pledged or super?

When will they be assigned - at the state conventions or at another time?

I LOVE this website. Thanks so much.

Dr. Linda said...

Media is announcing that Obama won 9 of John Edward's delegates in Iowa during their convention on Saturday, as well as 3 for D. Abroad (1.5 count) and 5 in California.

It therefore looks like adding this to the recalculation of delegates in Illinois on March 13which resulted in 2 more (in areas where Clinton didn't have 15% of the vote), would result in 17.5 more on Obama's totals.

math 101 said...

just trying to let the MSM know that i appreciate numbers that are correct, timely (but not rushed), and add up correctly if i of all people can see the bad addition then a newsroom shouldn't have much problem.
PS CNN should use your totals for better accuracy.

Dr. Linda said...

And when will the Delegates Abroad and Ohio delegates be assigned?


(I love this site - it's like an election encyclopedia)!

gabe said...

What is legit by changing all the rules to benefit one candidate?

Here's a way Obama can win 2025 pronto- Give each state one equal block of 80 votes +_ so the person that won most states will be the winner? We live in a republic, why discriminate against smaller states? that is how we choose the senate.
why not the nomination?

grantcart said...

Thevoiceofreason, blogger at DU
who diagnosed a small error in Mississippi's delegate count has advised that his numbers are now accepted as correct by the state.

By 2/000ths of a percent Obama now has 62.512% and therefore the split for statewide delegates will now be 3-1 instead of 2-2.

The total Mississippi vote should now be Obama 20-Clinton13. I don't think any media outlets are aware of this change.

You can see TVOR's outstanding work here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5330945

frstan said...

I know you will wait on the AP to do an update, but I note for the record the State of Mississippi has now officially incorporated TheVoiceofReason's error correction into its Certified Results.

MS final: Obama 20 and Clinton 13 -- a swing of +2 for Obama.

Steve in MA said...

I don't see why everyone is so worried about the superdelegates picking the nominee. Taht's the way the Democratic Party has their primaries set up for. Any time there is any type of close race noone has a chance to get enough elected delegates. There are 4047 total delegates of those 848 are super delegates which means there are only 3199 elected or pledged delegates. That means to win you have to get 63.2% of all elected delegates to keep it being decided by superdelegates and the way that delegates are proportioned it's almost impossible to get that be a percentage!

thevoiceofreason said...

I'm glad to see that the AP has changed its numbers in Mississippi. My biggest praise, however, goes to the folks at the Democratic Party of Mississippi, who took my call, listened to my point, took the time to pull the figures, agreed and acknowledged that they had made a mistake, agreed to correct it, actually corrected the mistake, tracked down the party officials necessary to certify the new numbers, and sent them to the secretary of state. I just added and divided.

StevePhilly said...

The following report by the Chicago NPR station, which changes the Illinois delegate count from Obama 104, Clinton 49 to 106-47, is NOT yet reflected in the counts of any of the major news organizations nor in the ultimate delegate tracker counts here.

"WBEZ 91.5 FM

Chicago
Public Radio

Public Affairs coverage from our award-winning staff

City Room

POLITICS

Clinton Loses Two Illinois Delegates

Produced by Tony Arnold on Thursday, March 13, 2008

Illinois U.S. Senator Barack Obama officially picked up two more delegates today in his bid for the White House. They were awarded to him after the Illinois Board of Elections recalculated the delegates assigned after the state's primary.

In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, only a hundred or so delegates separate Obama from New York Senator Hillary Clinton. But the process for counting those delegates is complex, to say the least. Dan White is the executive director of the Illinois Board of Elections. He says there was a mix-up in awarding Clinton two delegates from Chicago's South Side.

WHITE: It was an oversight on our part. We did review this to make sure, but for some reason it was not calculated.

White says Clinton lost the delegates because she didn't receive the required 15 percent of the vote in two South Side congressional districts. The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to our calls for comment."

Ayala said...

A tip of the cap to thevoiceofreason for drawing attention to the Mississippi results. His accomplishment validates the efforts of netroots activists everywhere. Now lets hope this and other sites will catch up with AP. Given how long the Illinois results have sat uncorrected, I won't hold my breath.

Oreo said...

StevePhilly,
The numbers are included in the total. I just talked to a guy at the IL State Board of Elections and we went over every single district's delegate distribution.

It was the 1st and 2nd District that were in question. Originally each was 7-1 for Obama. It was changed to 8-0 shortly after Super Tuesday.

For some reason nobody picked up on it until CPR did the story you pasted on March 13th.

NumberCruncher said...

Wikipedia has a good list of all the superdelegates and who they have supported.

When you take the uncommitted superdelegates per state and award them as per latest pledged delegate split or predicted pledged delegate split per state, Obama reduces the gap in superdelegates from the current 32 to 10. This is because most of the super delegates in the Clinton states like New York have already made up their mind.

Using the latest polls for the remaining states, this should give Obama a comfortable lead of about 100 delegates, even if he loses PE & KE by 20%, NC & WV by 10% and draws the rest.

Obama, Congrats.

Ayala said...

Sorry, I just checked the Green Papers and indeed, CD1 and CD2 show no delegates for Hillary Clinton. Thanks for your diligence.

frengle said...

The Mississippi Democratic Party just distributed a press release that shows a 19-14 delegate distribution, instead of the 20-13 that was widely reported. Although they do confirm the 265,502 (62.512%)-159,221 margin that should result in a 3-1 PLEO split; they, split the PLEO delegates 2-2. I think that this is a mistake. I've pasted below a link to their press release:

http://www.msdemocrats.net/Press%20Statements/040208newsrelease.html

Matt said...

Green Papers just changed it to 1.5/1.5 after I emailed them. But the AS and the DNC documentation is very unclear what happens in this case, and don't hold your breath waiting for the other media orgs to follow suit.

frengle said...

Dink:

I see that the Mississippi Democratic Committee has taken down their press release. I'm hopeful that this was done as an acknowledgement that they had made a mistake in reporting their results. The 19-14 results were reported in a couple Mississippi articles posted on the web (http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=8110804&nav=menu119_2)

Since they acknowledge Obama surpassing the 62.5% threshhold, I believe that the split should be 20-13. Hopefully that will be changed soon...

vasti61 said...

"Hiker94, I think gabe was making fun of vasti64's "compromise" solution, not making a serious proposal."

With all due respect Gabe and Keinde

but last time I looked the superdelegates by democratic party rules are suppose to exercise their own will when choosing a nominee--so for all those including BO who want the delegates to get behind either the popular vote and or pledged delegates are actually changing the rules in midstream--seems funny that you would attack my rule changes but continue to further your own

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that if this races closes up and there are good reasons to think that BO's pledged and popular vote totals are going to shrink to just about even and then you will have the problem I suggested in my post. The only way the super-delegates can exit the convention without the hatred from the losing camp would be a way to elect EITHER CANDIDATE without it appearing as if they had a choice to choose the other candidate-- for example if you use the pledged delegates then what happens to the superdelegates from Mass-- do they all vote for Clinton or are they split like the the pledged delegates are? Whatever your answer is to that question will allow the loser to say it is unfair because they are suppose to vote their consence remember-- no changing the rules.

That's why my suggestion gives them some cover-- how you say? am I not changing the rules as well? NO I AM NOT-- because as long as BO or HC cant come up with the 2025 in the first ballot-- the rules on the other ballot rounds would give way to just this solution and it would appear to be fair since as I have stated, that's what will happen in the fall so why not break the deadlock and use it to produce the democratic nominee--. Nothing is perfect but cover will be supplied to allow the superdelegates to vote their state's will in the end-- and their can be little argument (or at least a very weak one) to suggest this isn't a more fair method.

Aterall, I honestly think that when this primary season is over it will be HC with the popular vote (she even has a chance-- a long one that she would lead without FL or MI as long as there is over 1.2M votes cast in Puerto Rico)--we will see

grantcart said...

Re frengle and the 3-1 Obama split.
Thank you for the update on the press releases. Please be informed that thevoiceofreason (TVOR) the DU blogger who discovered and worked with the SOS and dem party has been aware that an incorrect rounding method was still being used that could undo the result.

We have been furiously calling numerous sources to get this laid to rest and will not rest until the 3-1 split is confirmed final.

If you see any announcements pls post them here so that we can respond immediately.

ed iglehart said...

Vast161,

"there are good reasons to think that BO's pledged and popular vote totals are going to shrink to just about even"

Care to mention any of these "good reasons"?

Wishful thinking, methinks.

KCinDC said...

Vasti61, this thread is for discussion of delegate allocation. If you have any news about that, please post it. Otherwise, we know where to find MyDD if we want it, and I don't think our hosts want such arguments here.

KCinDC said...

My battle to make sure the DC party followed the rules for allocating pledged PLEOs made the City Paper blog. I'm sure if DC had come out with a 11-4 split instead of the expected 12-3 bloggers all over would have jumped on it immediately and it would eventually have been fixed, but it's good we got it straightened out before that point.

grantcart said...

Dem Party of Mississippi advises they are contacting DNC to clarify computing method for deciding split of 4 PLEO delegates.

frengle said...

Grantcart:

Nice work. Also, I noticed that the final certified summary listed on the Mississippi SoS website does not reflect the final Yazoo county results (see link). By correcting this, Obama would recieve an additional 44 votes, while Clinton would receive an additional 5 votes. This does not make a difference in the PLEO distribution, as it only increases Obama's relative vote precentage to 62.515% from 62.512%. It does, however, provide a cushion in case any further changes are coming. There are still 3 (of 82) counties that have not posted final "Recapitulation Sheets" (Copiah, Forrest and Tippah). Given that the margin is so tight, even the slightest adjustment could throw the extra PLEO delegate back to Clinton.

Yazoo:
http://www.sos.state.ms.us/elections/2008/Primary/Democratic/Yazoo.pdf

State Summary:
http://www.sos.state.ms.us/elections/2008/Primary/DC%20Statewide/2008%20Statewide%20Democratic%20Primary%20Results.pdf

vasti61 said...

"Vast161,

"there are good reasons to think that BO's pledged and popular vote totals are going to shrink to just about even"

Care to mention any of these "good reasons"?

Wishful thinking, methinks.
"

ed iglehart

Look-- It's obvious that Puerto Rico is the key to Clinton overtaking Obama--as you may or may not know Puerto Rico has a reputation of producing some of the largest voter turnouts percentage-wise of any people on the PLANET not just in the USA. Now the problem with this thinking is that they usually never have a say in the democratic nominee-- I don't think it has ever happened, however if you look at local elections the turnout has almost alway been very heavy. I dont know if they will turnout in great numbers for certain but the evidence is there that the turnout could be at least 1.5M or maybe even more. If Clinton beats Obama by 25% or more then you are talking about popular votes margin of 375000 votes-- that's a lot for such a close race. Of course she needs to run close in North Carolina and that remains to be seen and she needs to do well in both WV, IN and PA--but it is very possible that that could happen-- I don't think it's as far fetched as you may believe--and dont forget that a lot of Obama's pledged delegate lead is based on caucus states and they are notorious for being soft-- so don't be surprised that he looses some pledged caucus delegates by the time the convention begins--I still think Obama will go to the nomination with about 50 or so pledged delegates lead and Clinton will have the lead in the popular vote total (especially if you include FL-- and if that's the case it's almost certain that she will lead in popular vote and be about 15-20 behind in the pledged delegates)

grantcart said...

thevoiceofreason has triumphed and Mississippi Dem Party and the DNC has agreed.

Obama 20 and Clinton 13

ChU_o.o said...

Well i am from Puerto Rico and I would say 70% of us right now don't really care for the primaries of the us since we don't get a vote in electing the president.
The candidates need to really come here learn some Spanish lol and motivate us to vote because right now we don't really care. I care but I am the only one that cares in my house. I want Hillary to be president!
Also we are five in my house there would be 3 votes for Hillary and 2 for Obama.

Ayala said...

Those Texas delegate numbers are in doubt. If this story amounts to anything, Obama may yet win the 38-29 split that was projected.

http://burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=CA45737E032ACB2405111699A8F31BA2?diaryId=5523

The El Paso County Democratic Convention is mired in controversy regarding the seating of at-large delegates to the state convention in June. El Paso's popular vote went for Hillary Clinton, around 70%-30%. The delegate proportion at the convention went in Hillary's favor at a margin of around 76%-24%.

Democratic party rule [(10. Election Procedure in Presidential and in Non-Presidential Years, (d)(4)]
reads "Poll results shall be used by the Nominations Committee and by the Convention as a whole as the basis for nominating and for electing At-Large Delegates so as to ensure the fairest possible representation of the Convention participants as a whole within the total delegation, without disturbing the Precinct Caucus election results." By this rule the delegates that are sent to the state convention should more or less reflect the popular vote margin.

~snip~
Apparently Anchondo, and Nominations Committee Chair (and former State Committeeman) Ken Sutherland didn't care much for protecting the minority. Sutherland says that he knows that there were many Hillary delegates that never got seated and that the number of delegates signed in at the convention, about 6% more than the popular vote margin, didn't accurately reflect the will of the people in El Paso.

So he felt like a more appropriate representation of the will of the people of El Paso was a 90%-10% split in favor of Hillary! The Obama camp immediately raised objections but Danny Anchondo pulled a Pontius Pilot [sic] and left the vote up to the body, which was 3-1 in favor of Hillary

Wolle said...

Ayala-

If that's the only correction it will be far away from 38-29.

It would be 38-29 at the moment with still 200 county delegates and 270 state delegates missing. Both parts will favor Clinton.

But it would be a hard knock for the Clinton hopes for a 36-31 or even 35-32 split.

BTW...i can change in both directions:

http://www.baumbach.org/b2evolution/blogs/index.php?title=
dmn_collin_county_democrats_convention_v&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Kenya said...

The results of the Texas county convention on March 29 changed the estimated delegate counts. It looks like the 38(OB)-29(HC) delegate split is now 37(OB)-30(HC). Major newspapers may be slow to change the numbers or they may wait untill the Texas State Convention in June before they change anything.

Matt said...

Important Note 4/5:
DCW has switched from AP to the Green Papers(GP) as our primary source of "Pledged Delegates". The Green Papers has done a better and quicker job of keeping their numbers up-to-date.

As a result Green Papers(GP) columns have been moved to the beginning of the table and AP columns have been moved in Green papers(GP) place.

MKSinSA said...

Nice table. Came over here to see how that shift to GP changed the overall numbers and realized that this font is a killer. Like I didn't already feel old and half-blind :)

Andrew said...

I remember reading here a while back that the IL numbers were off by 2 because in two districts a 15% threshold was not met. Any news if the IL numbers will change, or will they stay the same?

Yousri said...

Andrew said...
"I remember reading here a while back that the IL numbers were off by 2 because in two districts a 15% threshold was not met. Any news if the IL numbers will change, or will they stay the same?"

Oreo said in one comment few days back that the error was caught right after Super Tuesday and was reflected in the Official result.

Andrew said...

Thanks Yousri.

math 101 said...

Yousri make your life easier and ditch the cbs numbers.
WHY WON'T CNN FIX THE CA NUMBERS THEY WERE OFFICIAL WEEKS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!
one question why does the GP numbers have 5 delegates missing i cant fathom why no scenario i have ran on my comp allows me to figure it out (unless i am to stupid to see it)

to all news editors "Why are you letting your egos affect the quality of the news you report. We don't mind if you admit you made mistakes. We just want you to report accurate numbers promptly and change them when you get better data."

P.S. to dcw your format keeps getting better and better nice job

gpcote said...

comparing pledged del from Sen B Obama site and the GP list there is some differences: Louisiana 34, Washington 53, Colorado 35 and Texas 99 (they are probably waiting the June State convention to update the final caucus results) and the total delegates is 1419 instead of 1415

Malcolm said...

Just wanted to know if you have any plans to get together with the other media site counters to compare your current figures. If you were able to do this then perhaps you could write an explanation on this site so that those of us who are statistic fanatics could keep a check on the individuals concerned.

c_b said...

Reporting from Colorado's county conventions has been spotty. Results are available from many of the larger ones, and they don't show major changes from the caucus results.

The major difference between AP and CNN numbers seems to be that CNN is holding off on projecting the closer slots.

My projection based on the caucus results by county and CD gives Obama 36, Clinton 19, with the two closest spots being ones that Clinton holds by slim margins.

I have compared these numbers to the GP projection (the only one that shows its sources). The delegate projections differ in one CD, and their source doesn't make sense to me. (They call CD5 2-2, it looks like 3-1 Obama to me).

Dink said...

The Green Papers relied on Colorado Confidential as their source for the county convention numbers allocated to Congressional Districts. C B, if you have an alternative source, I'm sure they would appreciate knowing about it.

Coming up with these results in caucus states is extremely difficult. This is a problem that the Democratic National Party should address for the future. The Democratic National Party Charter forbids secret votes at every level in the process, yet in the majority of the caucus states the State Committee's seem to have done every thing within their power to prevent anyone, including the party members who originally voted at the precinct level, from accessing the results.

Amot said...

I ran Colorado twice, first with the caucus results second time with the county conventions results! Both times 35-20! I admit 2 CD were too close to call and I thought Obama had some chance to steal a delegate, but in both CDs at the county conventions he lost ground! I will check again CD by CD and will give my estimates here. There is a small problem to make the exact numbers by CD because some counties are divided between CDs, but I did detailed projection weighting everything possible and there was no result too close to tell :( I am the last one who wants Obama going 35-20 but that's the reality!

Amot said...

Well I did the check with the results shown at GP. They confirm my initial projection that only CD3 and CD5 were too close to tell. According to GP results Clinton has secured two delegates in CD3 even in case all uncommitted delegates join Obama. In CD5 if we exclude uncommited Clinton gets 40% and she needs 37,5% to secure 2 delegates. In my projection I had only 3% allocated to uncommitted and that is the average for most counties, but in CD5 those are above 12%! That is a large portion. If many of those uncommitted go Obama, he can secure that 3rd slot. On the other hand if at the State Convention uncommitted go overwhelmingly to Clinton, he will lose PLEO delegate! However the first scenario is more likely to happen! c_b keep hoping!

c_b said...

I have posted to coloradoconfidential and emailed GP with my source info.

Amot, I'd be interested in more detail about your results (though that may be a bit much to post here). The 5th CD results seem to be almost totally available (only 2 small counties I haven't found), and thus the most conclusive. El Paso and Park counties are on the official county Dem websites; the rest at http://demnotes.com/?cat=13

gabe said...

Thx for the info, looks like the AP numbers are more on the money!. that 5 delegate difference between AP and CNN in Colorado accounts for the discrepancy . Take out 5 from CNN numbers and they approach AP's.

Amot said...

Ok, I made another check on Colorado. I suggest your read this:
http://www.squarestate.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=5391
Clinton is gaining 1-5% all over the state because Obama had his forces focused on winning 11 in a row. However in CD5 they have about 500 delegates! and there is no way she get 185 out of this i have El Paso 271/119, Park 7/3 and Teller 12/7; I project Chaffee 20/10, Lake 5/3 and Fremont 22/22. That is just above 160 for Clinton.

About Colorado Confidential - with those uncommitted numbers they look absolutely unreliable source! I wouldn't agree with any of their numbers! Will make a new projection based on Clinton +2% by CD and state.

Amot said...

Final CO update!
I was able to find CO delegates numbers county-by-county, CD-by-CD and total:
http://www.demnotes.com/wp-content/DelegateCalcs08dft3.pdf
According to that source CD5 has 490 congressional district delegates. We have been able to track 457 of them:
El Paso - Obama 271, Clinton 119
Park - Obama 7, Clinton 3
Teller - Obama 12, Clinton 7
Fremont - Obama 20, Clinton 18
I was not able to find the results in Chaffee and Lake, but I think those are unsignificant and predictable - Chaffee should like 16:8 Obama and Lake should go 7:2 or 6:3 Obama. That gives Obama total of 332 or 333 delegates out of 490. CD5 goes 3:1 Obama since he gets over 67% of the vote and he needs only 62,5% to secure the split!

CO goes 36:19 Obama!

Matt said...

Amot - you should email the GreenPapers with your CO analysis. Their email is on their homepage.

Yousri said...

Amot,
Congratulation on your CO analysis.

Green Papers has updated their CO numbers to (Obama 36 and Clinton 19).

Good Job!!

Amot said...

Thank you! I sent them my work, but I am not sure they used it...
The new numbers they have are total mix! But the final result is the most important! I must admit I was afraid CD1 will go 3:3 because there was a serious effort at the convention to shift the vote toward Clinton, but they were not able to shift it enough. If I don't get the Chief of Staff position I will run for White House Press Secretary :) Do I have your endorsement?

gpcote said...

Yousri,

GP has different numbers for Louisiana and Washington:

33 PD for Obama compare to 34 for other sources and 52 compare to CNN and the published results from Obama web site. Who is right

Yousri said...

gpcote ,

For WA, I think that everyone is right except CNN. They tend not to update their numbers after the initial result. Unless is a major press release announcing new numbers.
As far LA, Green Papers uses their methods and scripts to allocate delegates.
I have seen that GP numbers seems to be the closet number to the official results, the other news sources follow suite.
However, I've seen that Obama website differ sometimes from the other news source due to that the campaign has more detailed data than the others.

My guess that they will be the same once all results are known or someone like TVOR or Amot do their own calculation and discover a mistake.

HTH

Yousri said...

Amot,

I think we need you calculation help for LA. See previous post.
Thanks.

Amot said...

About WA I made my case month ago it is obvious 53/25 split you can read my post at Open thread (post N3). I checked the results of as many conventions as possible that took place this weekend and they only confirm it! Can't figure why other sources get it wrong!

As you know I think no one spotted so far that at Idaho state convention Clinton won't be viable!

Louisiana I have never ran, I will check it asap!

Amot said...

Guys, you owe me a big one! I have just proved wrong split of LA 2. It goes 76,5% Obama = 4/1 delegates. had to calculated it precint by precinct :)

gpcote said...

good job! Amot

Amot said...

Guys, work on LA finished! I can confirm that GP have the correct numbers, and they have only the split for CD2 wrong! Obama won there big enough to score 4:1! I am a little bit concerned about the results in CD3 I must say that Clinton need about 300 votes out of 48 000 to split 3/3 there. And since I had to add precincts from 3 divided counties, I am not sure how to divide the absentee vote there. Plus I hope I didn't miss any precinct in the calculation because it is really up to one precinct to change the split!

Finally 34/22 Obama there!
I wonder should I inform GP about that since they didn't say thanks for the last one :(

Amot said...

Now about my interrupted job on WA:

I can't find state convention delegates assignments for WA. And maybe that is the difference. I mean - one county voted 6000 Obama and 4000 Clinton (60/40 state delegates); another county voted 2500 both ways (35/35 state delegates). Total is 15000 votes and 170 delegates. Obama wins 56,67% of the vote and 55,88% of the delegates. The drop of nearly 1% is due to higher turnout in the first county! Because I don't have the real number of state delegates county-by-county I can't make exact projection! Using only the vote results I predict 53/25 split but a drop of 2% due to tricks and odd proportions can make it 52/26!
If any of you guys can send me that county-by-county state delegates allocation plan I can be 100% sure in my results!

RobH said...

Amot's on fire......

Forget Press Secretary, I got you for Fed Secretary. You've got the numbers down.

PS at 7:51 you say GP has the correct numbers (tho they show 33/23 and you say it's 34/23).

Can you clarify?

RobH said...

oops, meant you said 34/22.

Amot said...

"GP have the correct numbers, and they have only the split for CD2 wrong"
I ment GP have the correct number of votes, the correct numbers for PLEOs and at-large delegates; and they have all CDs but CD2 wrong! I didn't mean they had the correct number of delegates total, sorry if I was not clear.
I am collecting WA data now and so far I am sure he will keep his lead and get 53:25. Still looking for the exact county-by-county allocation though...

P.S. Leah makes the appointments :)

Dink said...

amot said "As you know I think no one spotted so far that at Idaho state convention Clinton won't be viable!"

I just looked at the numbers and it appears to me Clinton is not viable in either CD as well as state wide, so Obama should get all 18 pledged delegates. Is this correct, amot?

Amot said...

Yes, and No, Dink! Clinton may not be viable at the state convention in ID but she will still get CD delegates, because she met the threshold of 15% in number of votes (she doesn't meet the threshold only in number of delegates). Only PLEOs and at-large are assigned according to the number of state delegates. Still it is one delegates more for Obama :)

Yousri said...

Amot,
First, you are doing really great job.

Second, you should email the GreenPapers with your analysis, for LA, WA and ID.

gpcote said...

Amot, I will vote for you as Chief of staff!!

Dr. Linda said...

Hi Amot:

WOW! This is amazing.

Are you saying that the AP pledged delegate count for Obama should be increased by five?

Please summarize by naming each state and the increases that you have uncovered.

Thanks for being an example of diligence and using expertise for positive results!

Dink said...

Amot:

Thanks, but I reviewed the Idaho selection plan and the way I read it only the votes in counties where the candidate exceeded the 15% threshold should be included in the CD totals. Thus Clinton gets no votes in both Ada 1 and 2 and Valley County. This puts her below the 15% threshold in each CD.
This would be consistent with the rules in other caucus states where the 15% threshold must be met at each level of the process.

interested_observer said...

Amot:
I think the 52-26 split in Washington is due to the fact that the PLEO and At-Large delegates are not elected by the state convention like in other caucus states, but by the pledged national CD delegates.
The CD Delegates will likely split 34-17, which will lead to 11 At Large and 7 PLEO delegates for Obama.


"These delegates will be selected by the Elections Committee, defined as a
quorum of district-level national delegates who are present at the
Washington State Convention."

"At-large delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated among
presidential preferences according to the division of preferences among the
Election Committee"

interested_observer said...

Which also means a change in CD delegates will change the PLEO and At-Large delegates allocation, too.

If Obama loses 1 CD delegate he will also lose 1 PLEO delegate.

interested_observer said...

Dink:

The way I read the Idaho Plan Clinton should get CD delegates, but no At-Large or PLEO delegates. She should not be viable at the state convention but is viable in both CDs.

"Provided, however, that any presidential preference (or uncommitted status)receiving less than 15 percent of the vote in a Congressional District shall not be entitled to any National Delegates for that Congressional District. "

Dink said...

Interested Observer:

The next sentence reads "The allocation of National Delegates shall be determined by totaling the votes of all presidential preferences (and uncommitted status, if applicable) that are at or above the 15 percent threshold following the final recaucus for each county, and allocating the available delegates proportionately among them."

This is not very clear, but I think the reasonable interpretation is that only votes that are at or above the 15 percent threshold in each county should be totaled. If the threshold only applies at the CD level you would have to total the votes first to determine which candidates meet the threshold, but the plan says "total the votes ... that are at or above the 15% threshold". The Clinton votes in Ada and Valley counties are not at or above the threshold and should not be totaled.

Dink said...

The results from Clark County, Nevada are in at the
State Committee Site. 1330 state convention delegates were elected from the Clinton slate and 1133 from the Obama slate.
The current estimate of a 13/12 pledged delegate split favoring Obama appears to reflect wishful thinking and great spin by the Obama folks in the aftermath of the January 19 caucuses. The allocation of the 16 delegates allocated to the 3 Congressional Districts will be based on the preferences of the state convention delegates from each district, but there was no attempt in either the January 19 caucuses or Saturday's Clark County Convention to select delegates by CD. Clark County include all of CD 1 and 3, and a substantial portion of CD 2.

The current Green Paper allocations are based on an Obama campaign claim that the six delegates from CD 2 will be allocated in three separate groups but while the district will be split into 3 separate caucuses for the election of National Delegates this will be done AFTER the allocation by Presidential Preference of the full six delegates.

Matt said...

Dink - As I've suggested elsewhere, you should email GreenPapers and make your case. The're very receptive to well-reasoned claims. If you can convince them, the major media orgs may follow.

Dink said...

Thanks, Matt, I already did.

interested_observer said...

Dink:

You certainly have a point. The wording of the Idaho Plan can be interpreted in both ways.
I guess we will have to wait how this play out at their state convention.

Regarding Nevada I wondered about the same thing. Reading their delegate selection plan it really looks like CD2 should split 3-3.

Dr. Linda said...

Hi Amot:

Did you email GP to increase:
Idaho 18-0 (plus 3 for Obama)
WA 53-25 (plus 1 for Obama)
LA 34-22 (plus 1 for Obama)

If so, that would be 4 more pledged delegates (which is BIG in such a challenging race).

Dr. Linda said...

Whooops!

I meant 5 more pledged delegates.

c_b said...

Dink:

What is the source for your interpretation that "while the district will be split into 3 separate caucuses for the election of National Delegates this will be done AFTER the allocation by Presidential Preference of the full six delegates" ? The best source I've found is Delegate Selection Plan. This seems to say that the pesidential candidate representatives will approve the lists of potential delegates before the split into caucuses, but not that delegates are chosen before the split. Do you have something more detailed or more recent?

I also note at NV Dem Caucus Site there is a notice titled "**Clarification** of Statement by Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby" from after the caucuses that "if the delegate preferences remain unchanged between now and April 2008, the calculations of national convention delegates being circulated by the Associated Press are correct".

Amot said...

Sorry, guys, I have taken a short leave :)
Now, about Idaho - Selection plan says:
"The National Delegate allocation will fairly reflect the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the county caucus participants in each Congressional District. Provided, however, that any presidential preference (or uncommitted status)receiving less than 15 percent of the vote in a Congressional District shall not be entitled to any National Delegates for that Congressional District. The allocation of National Delegates shall be determined by totaling the votes of all presidential preferences (and uncommitted status, if applicable) that are at or above the 15 percent threshold following the final recaucus for each county, and allocating the available delegates proportionately among them."
That means one and one thing only - to get the final number at CD level one must use the recausus results. That helped big Clinton, because with 99% probability she would be under 15% in CD2. Threshold on county level is only required county delegates to be chosen for the state's convention. So we can 100% confirm CD level number of delegates!
The state convention is still unclear:
- there are 382 delegates, Clinton needs 58 of them to get viable;
- there is question about the delegates split in Power and Blaine county; Clinton should get none delegates in both and she is assigned 1 and 2 delegates respectively;
- if Clinton gets no Blaine delegates she gets 57 only!

All sources say Clinton felt below 15% on the caucus and recaucus in Blaine, so I hope there was an error and that error will be corrected.

I am working with Green Papers and Idaho Dems over the problem.

Amot said...

About the other questionable states:
CO - GP have updated their info, the results are almost complete and 39/16 Obama is confirmed and shown there. We (me and GP) work to get all counties' numbers, but I can assure you CO will not be changed anymore!

WA - Dink has spotted something here I have missed - PLEOs, at-large and add-ons are all selected by Election committee - all delegates chosen on district level, that means PLEOs go 7:3 Obama, at-large go 11:6 Obama, total 52:26. However, if Obama gets one more CD delegates at the coming conventions he will get one more at-large!

LA - I have my results in CD2 confirmed by GP, but there is something else unclear and so far we can't tell the correct number of delegates.

I will make my research on Nevada later today!

Amot said...

Bad news on Idaho - they had recount of the caucus votes in Blaine county - split goes 9:2 Obama. Even if she gets no Power's delegate she still meet the threshold of 58 delegates at the convention! Yet, maybe one of those will not go there... But looks like it has been a good weekend for HIllary :(

Amot said...

Nevada research over:
- there was no rule demanding Clark county convention to be split in 3 sub-conventions;
- there is a specific rule demanding 5 caucuses at the state convention - CD1, CD2 (3 sub-caucuses), CD3;
- it's is not clear if they had proportion between Clark 1, 2 and 3 when allocating state convention delegates (from what I read there was no!). That means 56%-44% proportion is not valid for all 3 Clark sub-caucuses! I hope he doesn't go below 41,66% in CD1 or he will lose delegate. Finally - Nevada split will probably be 13/12 Obama. Unfortunately he could not achieve the same results he did on the first Clark attempt and could not bring it to 14/11. Another bad news is Nevada state convention chose one add-on!

Wolle said...

amot--

A first: Thx for the great work you're doing!

But...

"GP have updated their info, the results are almost complete and 39/16 Obama is confirmed and shown there. "

I think it should be 36-19?

Amot said...

Of course it is 36/19. It was lapsus manus, sorry! I am still trying to figure out why LA Secretary of State have different numbers in CD2.
Extra point - there are rumours that in one of WA CDs Obama can get another delegate. I can't see where that could happen but he is improving results this weekens by 3-5% everywhere. With all this CDs, LDs and counties it is really hard to tell what happens there!

Wolle said...

amot--

Good luck.

BTW:Burnt Orange updated their numbers and i made a new prediction.(in the old "Texas State Convention Day"-thread)

It seems likely that it will end with a 37-30 split.

Dink said...

C_B:

I've been looking at the Nevada Delegate Selection Plan as well, although the copy I've been looking at, linked from Green Papers, dated August 20, 2007, is a slightly earlier edition than the link you provided, oddly dated September 24, 2008 (but named draftdelselupdated_oct2007).

I think there is a lot of confusion between allocating delegates by candidate and election of the specific individuals who will serve as delegates. This is what the plan says about the allocation of delegates in Nevada: "the national
convention delegates elected at the district level shall be allocated
in proportion to the percentage of the caucus vote won in that
district by each preference group"
No where in the plan is the term "district" used to describe anything other than a Congressional District. The three divisions of CD II are referred to as "three distinct regions". No where in the document does it say delegates will be allocated in proportion to "regional" results.

The allocation takes place, of course, before the election. This is noted in several places in the document and a specific time, 12:00 Noon is even provided for the announcement of the allocations. The election of district-level delegates starts at 2:30 PM.

As to the "Clarification", it was issued back on January 19, the day of the Precinct and At-large caucuses and I don't remember what AP reported that day.

Also, in looking at the plans it is important to remember that the rules are whatever the convention says they are. A little history for you young folks. After the 1968 convention a commission chaired by George McGovern adopted major changes in the way delegates would be selected in 1972. One of the changes was to eliminate the "unit-rule", for example winner-take-all primaries. California held a winner-take-all primary in 1972. McGovern won it. The National Credentials Committee reported that a proportionally allocated delegation should be seated, but McGovern needed the full delegation to obtain the nomination so the national convention adopted a minority report and McGovern got all the California delegates. At the Nevada State Convention, Clinton will control the majority.

Matt said...

Dink - I think there's one error in your comment, and it makes the Nevada rules open to much interpretation. You say: "No where in the plan is the term "district" used to describe anything other than a Congressional District. The three divisions of CD II are referred to as "three distinct regions""

There is one place. The table in section B(7)(c) is titled "District Level Delegate Breakout 3.1", and in that table the 5 lines show CDI, CDII, CDII, CDII, CDIII. So in this table, the three subregions of CDII are referred to as "Districts". (And it gets even worse right below when it refers to all 5 areas as "Congressional Districts"). I think this table, especially as it has the delegate breakdown, makes the usage of the word "District" inconsistent and open to interpretation.

I'm not advocating one position or another. But it is my opinion that the Nevada rules are not totally clear on the subject.

Amot said...

Section 3B(6)i:
i. At 2:30 p.m. on May 17th, delegates and alternates shall be elected by
Congressional District caucuses (3): CD I (Clark County), CD II (All
Counties) and CD III (Clark County). Each district will separate into a
different room and after brief delegate/alternate candidate remarks the
election will be by non-secret signed ballot of those qualified to run.
i. CD II is further divided into three distinct regions: Clark County,
Washoe County, and then remaining rural counties. When
caucusing election of CD II delegates will be within these regional
subgroups.

I think it is absolutely clear that 5 caucuses will take place and split is 11/9 in district delegates

Dink said...

Matt:
Yes you're right, I ignored that table because in addition to including "CD II (Washoe)" under the "Congressional District" heading it also included "Unpledged PLEO" and every other type of delegate. To me that is just an obvious drafting error. Maybe I should have disclosed it in my post, but they seem to be getting awfully long.

Amot:
Yes, there will be five caucuses that will elect the district-level delegates. In fact, it will be more like 10 caucuses since only Obama state delegates can vote for Obama national delegates, etc. The real question is when "By 12:00 p.m., the announcement will be made to the state convention of the Presidential Preference Poll results and the final candidates for delegate seats and the numbers
allocated to CD I, CD II, and CD III by Presidential Preference and Gender." (III.D.11.b.2) will the allocation by based on CD II as a whole or as three sub-divisions.

I think we have exhausted this subject and I will have nothing more to say. Let's agree to disagree. Tony Roza at Green Papers is trying to get a clarification about CD II. If he doesn't we will have to wait until Saturday and see what happens.

Dink said...

A few posts back Amot credited me for "finding something I missed". It wasn't me, it was "Interested Observer" who pointed out that Washington At-large and Pledged PLEO will be selected by the District Delegates.

Matt said...

All - I just want to thank everybody here for all the great research and comments on this thread. The exchange of ideas here is proving to be a great check on the delegate numbers. I wish I had the time to delve into all these issues further, but you are all doing a great job.

If anybody wants to volunteer to help track the PA numbers by CD on Tuesday, send us an email. There's a CQ post out today that sets a baseline for the CD allocation, and it will be interesting to see how the numbers eventually add up.

We'll have a post up in a few days specifically for the PA primary, so you can use that to run though all the numbers in real time on Tuesday. Thanks!

Amot said...

Dink, I am sorry about giving you extra credits :) I apologize to Observer, he/she spotted it!

Nevada - it seems NV has sud-CDs not for a first time. Last time they had CDII divided in two sub-CDs. I guess that is why no one has spotted so far the allocation procedure is a little bit unclear. Obviously they will procede as last time - allocation according to sub-CD results.

Matt, I would like to help with PA ;)

Dink said...

Amot:

I accept your apology ;)

I know I said I wouldn't have any more to say about Nevada, but last time the question at the State Convention was moot. There was only one viable candidate so the allocation came out the same anyway they did it.

Matt said...

amot - send us an email at the email address in the right sidebar.

Irish Eyes said...

Great work Amot

Just to try to summarise the overall position, am I right in thinking that there are now 5 discrepancies bewteen TGP (+163)and Obama's (+169) site re allocation of delegates (Obama's first below):

1. American Samoa (TGP 1.5:1.5 - BO 1:2)

2. Democrats Aboard (TGP 4.5:2.5 - BO 5:2)

3. Texas (TGP 98:95 - BO 99:94)

4. Louisiana (TGP 33:23 - BO 34:22)

5. Washington (TGP 53:25 - BO 52:26)

I know that you have probably covered all of these on here already, so sorry for asking you to repeat yourself, but could you please briefly summarise your current take on each of the above and, if there is still doubt, when a clear figure might emerge.

Many thanks for your work to date and I look forward to your contuing anlaysis.

Amot said...

Thanks!

You couldn't pick more difficult contests to discuss:

1.AS - I couldn't find the full delegates selection plan. The problem is do the 3 delegates first get allocated and then halved or vice versa? I read the summary available and I must admit it is very unclear. But I found that in 2004 delegates were spli 2.5:0.5 so probably they were first halved and then proportionally allocated. Next but - they are already selected - I found the names and those are four delegates Clinton, two Obama. Looks like TGP is wrong this time. Pity!
http://www.goobergunch.net/45demconroll.html

2.DA - I can't find false reasoning in TGP, plus i found the list:
http://www.demsjapan.jp/node/304

3.TX - last March thread is dedicated entirely to Texas, we have posted a lot of info and pojections there, read it. So far it is unclear but we have agreed that 98:95 (37:30 caucus) is the most probable result!

4.LA - much confusion here. Delegates have been named (33:23) and the difference came from CD2 where Clinton get about 25% and tehrefore should get 1 out of 5 delegates, but she was awarded 2. I have reasons to believe there is something wrong about it. Me and TGP work on the problem but LA officials don't seem to be cooperative. I think 34:22 is the true result, Obama campaign should take care of this!

5.WA - Obama campaign have made their projection based on vote result. They have probably missed the fact (just like I had initially) that at-large and PLEOs are elected by Election committee. I think with all those LDs, CDs and counties, caucuses, sub-caucuses and conventions we have to wait. There is a small chance that Obama gets one more CD delegate resulting in one more at-large. So it is either 52:26 or 54:24! Most probably 52:26

interested_observer said...

Thanks Amot. You really make a great job here.

About American Samoa I don't understand how they can split the delegates the way they do. It looks like it should be a 3-3 delegate split.

I have the impression the local party officials are not always up to this difficult process. As seen in Mississippi or DC where they only changed the results due to internet bloggers.

Good luck with Lousiana !

interested_observer said...

The 2004 allocation for AS you posted clearly indicates that they split the delegates proportionally and not the votes.
Unless they changed their rules I don't see how they don't split 3-3.

Amot said...

AS looks strange to me too, but I guess 2004 split was due to 15% threshold met. In a case like that when it is unclear party official apply the rules the way they want. You know AS PLs favor Clinton - they made the split most convinient for her. Otherwise they should split 2004 2:1 instead of 2,5:0,5.
One more example - Idaho! You know i have spotted that Hillary will not be viable there. However they made a recount (probably legitimate) in Blaine county, somehow it turned out that the votes needed for Clinton - 20 or so - were found and she gain the three so needed delegates. More to follow... In three Idaho counties with 2 state delegates each Clinton received more than 15%(the threshold) and less than 25%(half quota) of the votes. That is either one delegate due to the threshold or zero due to unsufficient quota. Strange, but in two of the counties they split the delegates 2/0 and in the third - 1/1. Strange, isn't it? Idaho officials suddenly stopped their correspondence with me when I raised the question...

interested_observer said...

This county in Idaho seems to have the same misunderstanding of the 15 % threshold as the DC party had.

The 15 % threshold does NOT mean the candidate automatically is entitled to a delegate. It only means the candidate is viable and COULD get delegates according to the proportional vote count.

If I understand you right due to the recount Clinton will be viable at the state convention ?
Is it close enough that 1 state delegate could make the difference ?

As to American Samoa the summary says:
"The Delegate Selection Plan for American Samoa provides for its 6 pledged delegates (casting 3 votes) and alternate to be allocated proportionally to
presidential preferences".

Too bad the complete selection plan is not available online, but this sound pretty clear to me.

mauisurfer said...

Kos says:
The super delegate gap continues to shrink. As of earlier this morning, Obama had narrowed the gap by another five supers.

Obama picked up an Oklahoma superdelegate, add-on Reggie Whitten. Clinton now leads in superdelegates 257-235. Since Sunday, Obama has picked up five supers to Clinton’s zero. With his three elected superdelegate pick-ups yesterday, Obama has moved past Clinton among the group (U.S. Senators, Reps and governors): 96-94. In the overall count now, Obama leads by 142 (1,651-1,509). He has a 164 pledged-delegate lead (1,416-1,252).

Then later this morning, Clinton lost a DC super:

You heard it here first. Council member and newly elected superdelegate Harry Thomas Jr., initially a supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, is announcing in minutes that he will cast his vote at the Democratic National Convention in Denver for Sen. Barack Obama [...]

"After meeting with the candidates and listening to my constituents, I have to honor the 83 percent who support Barack Obama," he said in an interview, referring to the results of the Democratic primary.

That's a net gain of seven, so update NBC's super delegate lead to 256-237. That's just 19.

Amot said...

Observer, about Samoa - at the DNC selection plan they are given three delegates, and in Samoa plan it is said they have three delegates but actually six with half vote each. Numbers are constantly mixed. It is unclear, whatever they say, but it was the job of Obama campaign to protest it. After all they have lawyers and staff, don't they?

Idaho - Clinton was 2 delegates short! In Blaine county she was below 15%, it turned out vote was manipulated or something like that and they recounted (officials simply told me they recounted); she passed 15% and get three delegates, just one over viability. However Idaho is large state and I know some of the delegates will not attend the convention since it is not a cheap trip. But in Power county they gave her one delegate though she was below 0.5 of the quota (less than 25%). State plan is unclear - it says 15% gives the right of delegates. At the same time there is no specific rule for 25% or 16.66% threshold in two- and three-delegates county (many states do, DC had such rule with very small letters underline). Idaho also doesn't use the similar phrase 'when [necessary for allocation] percentage is met'. It is obvious the rules can be understood both ways - 15% is either allowance to receive delegates or obligation to receive at least one when there are more. ID officials told me that was the reason Power get 1/1 split, but when I raised the question why Boise and Fremont didn't do the same, they said they will take a look and that was the end of correspondence. I will urge them again to explain the situation. If both Power delegates go Obama it is up to any of Clinton'c 58 delegates to reconsider or miss the convention and make her non-viable! Pretty good chance I say!

interested_observer said...

They should have protested. Maybe they overlooked it. Maybe there is a rule we don't know of in the AS selection plan to justify the split.

The one delegate in Idaho is indeed very close. Too bad about Blaine County, sounds kind of strange. In the results on their page she is still below 15 %. You are right about Power. She should not get a state delegate there. Passing the threshold does not mean automatically getting a delegate. (Unless it is stated explicitly)

BTW it's funny to discuss 1 state delegate in Idaho, but I like this numbers stuff....

mike said...

I think the rest super are waiting for HRC to listen to the voice of reason and do the right thing, like Edwards, Biden, Todd, and save them the agony of having to vote against her.

Aluta Continua....the battle surely continues, but for how long and at what cost to the Democratic party?

KCinDC said...

Amot, there wasn't any special rule for 25% and 16.667% thresholds in DC. I have seen rules like that for some of the caucus states, but those thresholds effectively come out of the way the math works in the delegate allocation in rule 13.D in the DNC plan.

Once you determine which candidates pass the 15% threshold and are thus viable, you still have to follow the rest of rule 13.D to determine how many delegates each gets. And when there are 2 candidates and 2 delegates to divide, the rule clearly results in 1 candidate getting both when that candidate has more than 75% of the combined vote.

There's nothing guaranteeing a delegate to every candidate that passes 15%. For an obvious example, if there were 2 delegates to be divided among 3 candidates who each got more than 15% of the vote, then 1 of the candidates would not get a delegate despite passing the viability threshold.

Amot said...

KC, I gave the same example to ID officials. It is just some people don't understand maths at all! I am confused that cases like ID, LA, DC, AS etc. are not taken care of from the campaign. And that no one cares to respond to people like us...

Amot said...

Observer, Blaine will be updated they said. About Power - more silence!
BTW, in Alaska Clinton has also 2 or 3 delegates above the 15% at the convention, I have a post in the very beginning of open thread about that!

Searching For Pericles said...

Your count for NBC is off by 2 (1,415 to 1,417). Where is it? DA is 4-2 NOT 2-2. BTW, if you look at the chart, NBC does list the delegates from the "territories", though DA, VI, and AS are all combined.

Amot said...

Well, we use TGP - they are really precised counting the pledged! About the supers - most sources don't keep track on add-ons and soon DCW will have the biggest numbers for supers.

Yousri said...

Searching For Pericles,

I couldn't find the chart, but I will take your word for it that DA
is 4-2 NOT 2-2.

At that time NBC has DA as 2-2 and I nvere found where they hide DA, VI and AS. :-)

Anyway, the numbers now matches their total.

Amot said...

Actually I usually check Obama campaign for number of delegates, they have 2 errors that I know and it works perfectly for me...

mauisurfer said...

Hillary Rodham Clinton added a new trio of superdelegates to her tally on Friday.

Two former New Jersey governors, Jim Florio and Brendan Byrne, endorsed Mrs. Clinton last year, but they were only selected to be their state’s add-on delegates Thursday. As such, they have the same voting rights as superdelegates and don’t have to vote with the popular vote winner of their state (although Mrs. Clinton won New Jersey anyway).

Representative Betty Sutton of Ohio also came out in support of Mrs. Clinton. The district she represents is in northeastern Ohio.

gpcote said...

Prediction of the 22th election in PA (from Dailykos

CD-01 (7 delegates): Barack Obama 4, Hillary Clinton 3
CD-05 (4 delegates): Hillary Clinton 2, Barack Obama 2
CD-06 (6 delegates): Hillary Clinton 3, Barack Obama 3
CD-07 (7 delegates): Barack Obama 4, Hillary Clinton 3
CD-08 (7 delegates): Barack Obama 4, Hillary Clinton 3
CD-09 (3 delegates): Hillary Clinton 2, Barack Obama 1
CD-12 (5 delegates): Hillary Clinton 4, Barack Obama 1
CD-13 (7 delegates): Hillary Clinton 4, Barack Obama 3
CD-14 (7 delegates): Hillary Clinton 4, Barack Obama 3
CD-15 (5 delegates): Hillary Clinton 3, Barack Obama 2
CD-16 (4 delegates): Hillary Clinton 2, Barack Obama 2
CD-17 (4 delegates): Hillary Clinton 2, Barack Obama 2
CD-19 (4 delegates): Hillary Clinton 2, Barack Obama 2

MKSinSA said...

I'm no mathmetician but, this from The Caucus doesn't add up. Says 11 then gives 6.5 and 3.5 = 10. You have 7 for DA. I'm sooo confused. What's the real skinny here? Pls!

"With the exception of two superdelegates who have yet to decide, Democrats Abroad, which will send 22 delegates representing 11 votes to the party’s convention in Denver, has settled on its slate of delegates.

"Barack Obama has garnered 6.5 delegate votes from the group and Hillary Rodham Clinton has gotten 3.5 votes. Each overseas delegate to the convention gets half a vote. The results from the group’s “Global Convention” were announced Monday."

KCinDC said...

MKSinSA, the 10 votes (20 delegates) is not counting the "two superdelegates who have yet to decide" mentioned at the beginning of the quote. So there are 22 delegates (with 10 votes), made up of 14 pledged delegates (7 votes) and 8 superdelegates (4 votes). The Democrats Abroad delegates get half a vote each, whether they're pledged or unpledged.

If you look in the SD tracker pages, you'll see they have 2 DA SDs for Clinton, 4 for Obama, and 2 undeclared. In votes that's 1 Clinton, 2 Obama, and 1 undeclared.

Add that to the 2.5 Clinton and 4.5 Obama listed in the pledged delegate table, and you get 3.5 Clinton, 6.5 Obama, and 1 undeclared.

MKSinSA said...

God, THANK YOU!! I was like "22/11-2 + .5 x square root of the hypotenuse of the undecided delegates...." Lord spare me! Ya know, after this election is over I think I'll check into that Britney Spears rehab place!

frstan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
countjellybean said...

RealClearPolitics and NBC have moved one Ohio pledged delegate from Clinton to Obama.

thevoiceofreason said...

How firm is the Pennsylvania 84-74 projection ya'll have?

thevoiceofreason said...

I don't knkow if my last post appeare. Sorry if this is a dupe. How confident are you that the 84-74 split is close or spot on (obviously subject to provisionals).

Matt said...

You should assume there might be some adjustments in the numbers. We use Green Papers for our numbers, but I don't know where they got their CD level votes from, and how accurate they are at this point.

Amot said...

It is not firm at all unless TGP has access to Philly results by CDs. At this point 85:73 looks more probable!

Antonio said...

The table shows Guam as having 3 delegates (not yet selected, of course). Don't they have 4 pledged delegates?

Amot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yousri said...

GU should have 4 pledged.
It was a typo, and it is Fixed now.

StevePhilly said...

Can't the Not Yet Allocated for GP be dropped (unless there is actually something in it, which there has not been for a week or two recently). Thanks.

Yousri said...

StevePhilly,

It is more practical to keep the column in the table even if it has nothing in it.
Once you take the column out from the table, it is very hard to add it again to the table in the blog, since it is done manually.

Amot said...

Nothing in PA, still 2 delegates at stake, probably it will take to count the absentees and provisionals plus to check, re-check and (hopefully not) manipulate the numbers.

In LA CD2, you better ask Obama campaign, or LA Dems. I got response from LA SOS that they are not responsible for the split and the numbers were given them by the party. I smell something fishy...

cloud9ine said...

I want to get a history by day or week of how many total delegates Clinton and Obama had. I mean, total including delegates and supers. I have seen both times that clinton won the primaries (ohio, texas and pennsylvania), obama's delegate lead went down, but within a week, usually, it would reach the same number it was at. I am trying to get the data so I can create a chart and correlate the blips with the primaries in each state.

Matt said...

Cloud9ine - I've seen pledged delegate history in places, but I don't have a link. If I see it again, I'll post it here. Superdelegate history can be found by clicking on the history graph in the left sidebar.

ChU_o.o said...

The Green Papers super delegates are wrong they are according to GP
HC - 267
BO - 244

not HC - 268
BO - 248

Matt said...

Green Papers gets their superdelegate numbers from us, so we always use our latest numbers in the GP column. They will update at some point.

Adam_In_Zim said...

One-time contributor ... long time reader ... LOVE these blogs.

Seems that Green Papers has two separate sources that they based Indiana results on ... USA Today & Indiana Secretary of State
(The latter just updated their vote count for CD-1, changing 4-2 split to current 3-3 split ... making it 38-34 instead of 39-33.)

Again, LOVE this site ... I'd like to give a 'shout out' to Amot for his predictions and follow-up delegate projections by CD.

Cheers!

Bull Schmitt said...

*thumbs up*

Thanks for the effort, folks - glad to do my tiny part ;)

mike said...

Youguys are amazingly super efficient. Just want to inform of Crystal Strait, but you've already added her. Any thought on finding out whose endorsement will be the 2025th (pledge and unpledge)? I guess each source will have different name...Just a thought.

Again, thanks for all the wonderful efforts in keeping up with the endorsements and delegate tallies.

Regards

Ceci said...

Hey guys -- Your math is wrong on the Total Pledged Delegates row for three columns on the chart:

1. The NBC-Clinton column adds up to 1427, not 1426.

2. The AP-Clinton column adds up to 1425 not 1426.

3. The CNN-Obama column adds up to 1591 not 1592.

(You'll also need to fix the math in the rows that follow the Total Pledged Delegates.)

Love the site. Keep up the great work!

John S said...

It's nice to see the major news outlets converging on the more accurate DCW and GP numbers.

Does anyone know if delegations are actually allowed to bring fractional vote totals to the convention or are they required to round to whole numbers before Denver?

The Democrats Abroad 2.5 / 4.5 split reported by Green Papers looks accurate but the major news outlets all list round numbers. I assume the major news outlets are just slow with updates but if the numbers need to be rounded then the whole number totals would make more sense.

John S said...

So it seems the major news outlets are either too lazy to adjust their websites to handle fractions or they are just not interested in reporting that level of precision.

It's a good thing this site is out there to set the record straight for all the stat junkies :)

Robert in MN said...

I noticed that GP now has 1601.5 Obama and 1444.5 Clinton. This appears to be a subtract one from Clinton and add one to Obama instead of an Edwards delegate since Clinton went down one.

I haven't used that site much and was not able to find what the latest update was. A link to GP updates would be much appreciated.

Oreo and Matt--Great job on keeping this up to date and fresh!!

Amot said...

Yes, DCW is the best source!
The number DCW shows reflects the number of delegates that will have voting power in Denver. And DCW doesn't round!

Benjamin Ady said...

Oreo, Matt,

You guys are awesome.

Are you going to be doing any coverage/posts about the 3rd level washington caucuses--the congressional district caucuses, which are happening in Washington State today. It could be interesting because 51 of the 78 national delegates are being elected today, and since those 51 elect the other 27, basically after today we'll know for sure whether it's going to be 53/25 or 52/26. It should be getting some coverage this afternoon in the local media, I'm guessing--especially if we see changes from the precinct and Legislative district caucus results

Bull Schmitt said...

Mike:

(1) Discussion of new/switching Supers should go on the "DCW Superdelegate Tracker" page.

(2) George McGovern is not actually a Superdelegate. There is a list of uncommitted Supers provided to check against before posting a "new find"

(3) Thanks anyhow for trying to help, don't lose your enthusiasm!

frstan said...

Obama will certainly have an absolute majority of the pledged delegates by the end of the day Tuesday.

KCinDC said...

Jack Evans, the Clinton pledged PLEO delegate for DC, says he's switching to Obama. Might have something to do with the fact that he's up for reelection as council member this year and his ward, like the rest of DC, went overwhelmingly for Obama.

ChU_o.o said...

I am a Clinton supporter and I see BO advantage is growing and growing, he has a 190 advantage now if he gets to 200 I will actually consider declaring Hillary's campaign over. I still believe she is the best one but it is just impossible for her to catch up =(.

KCinDC said...

I can't believe I wrote that Jack Evans was a PLEO delegate, considering that I was instrumental in ensuring that he wasn't one specifically because he was a Clinton supporter. I wrote that and then went out and realized what I'd done about a block away from home. Anyway, he's an at-large delegate, not a PLEO.

Dan said...

The BO website just updated their numbers for Washington state. They now have 52/26, in line with all the other news organizations. Decreased their previous count by one.

chuck said...

OK - can someone help me with me math here? I am trying to figue out how many delegates have from Primay vs Caucus states (without Edwards switches...just what the voters did). Using NBC's numbers Obama 1647 Clinton 1502 (which seems to not have moved Edwards people to Obama), I get caucus states: Alaska, Col, Hi, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mn, Nebraska, Nev, Was, Wyoming. Virg Is, Am Sam and Tex (O-38- C-29)...

Obama 318 - Clinton 173

So, for delegates elected in Primaries we are at

Obama 1329 - Clinton 1329

Is that right? May 23rd and a tie in delegates elected in primaries?

Yousri said...

Chuck,

Primaries
Clinton 1353.5
Obama 1360.5

Caucuses
Obama 288
Clinton 147

(Edwards' switch delegates are not included from SC, NH and IA, but IA updated with many delegates moved to Obama as a result of new percentage at the counties convention), and up-to-date.

chuck said...

Trying again, using NBC's 1647 - 1502 (no Edwards switches for the moment) now I get:

Caucuses Obama - Clinton
Alaska 9 - 4
Col 36 - 19
Haw 14 - 6
Idaho 15 - 3
Iowa 25 - 14
Kansas 23 - 9
Maine 15 - 9
Minn 48 - 24
Neb 16 - 8
Nev 14 - 11
N.Dak 8 -5
Tex (cauc) 38 - 29
Was 53 -25
Wy 7 - 5
V.Isl 3 - 0
AmSam 1 -2

Total Obama 325 Clinton 173

Meaning primaries equal:
Obama 1322 Clinton 1329

Clinton up by seven. Help me with the math...

chuck said...

The big difference between GP and NBC is South Carolina which was a primary. They give seven more votes to Obama 31-12 compared to 25-12 that has to be Edwards switches. Edwards had 18% of the vote and only shows 2 delgates left to him at CNN that can't be what he started with.

Otherwise on the Caucus stuff Iowa is one more Obama and one less Clinton and Was is one more Clinton and one less Obama kind of a wash.

Yousri said...

Pleas note that our number don't match NBC numbers. Here is the reason:

05/23/2008: NBC has acknowledged that 12 Edwards’ delegates have moved to Obama and they are included in their overall total, but there is no update to their individual states numbers.
We can’t use their numbers if they are not broken by individual state.
They also keep taking some state numbers out and correct that after a day or two.

Mr C. Lee Jr said...

I think the issue with Florida and Michigan can be easily resolved. Count the votes and split them equally without changing the total amount on deligates(2025) needed to win. The 2025 deligates needed to win would not have changed if Florida and Michigan would have opened their polls on the correct date. So, why are we trying to change it now? We can allow the deligate counts from both states, to be split between the 2 candidates. However, the end result(2025) should remain the same. It has always been tha wat so why try to change it now?

Yousri said...

Ultimate Delegate Tracker has been with news sources updating their superdelegates numbers.

mike said...

In view of her role, it seems this is the best evidence of endorsement of BO by Pelosi. Is this sufficient to move her to Obama column?

http://empowertube.blogspot.com/2008/05/pelosi-supports-obama-and-says-women.html

Matt said...

Nowhere in that article does he confirm support for Obama. He never even mention's Obama's name. If Carter believes the criterion has been met, he should just come out and endorse Obama. He hasn't, and until he does, we're not moving him.

Mike said...

ABC news flash!!!!!

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=7986234&ch=4226716&src=news

Obama hopes to clear as the Democratic party nominee on Sunday, after Puerto Rico's primary

He must have had the required number of supers for most probable FL/MI scenerio.

I guess he is taking this agressive stance to prevent surprises from the Clintons and the DNC establishment

Dr. Linda said...

This AP news doesn't make much sense to me. Why would Obama declare BEFORE Montana and South Dakota? There isn't a point in that and it might actually result in fewer voters at the polls in those states.

On the other hand, if he could declare on Friday (before the Rules Committee meeting on Saturday), he could show that he has the 2026 delegate count established at the onset for the nomination. I wouldn't be surprised if he secretly has enough (49 superdelegates) to throw him over the top already but has been "saving" them for the right moment.

If 49 delegates declare by Friday, this could change the whole atmosphere for the Saturday meeting. Obama would then be able to talk about his desire to seat FLorida and Michigan without having any motivation (on either side) regarding the seating of with a primary goal of "securing" the nomination.

My opinion favours either Friday, Saturday (at the meeting) or on the evening of June 3rd.

Declaring the win is not just a formality but, if done with thought, can actually be used as leverage to ensure that these two states are involved in the general election because it is an issue to be dealt with - and not just as pawns to get candidate needs met.

MKSinSA said...

Thank you, Yousri!

Irish Eyes said...

Does this news from El Paso now make a 99-94 split more likely in Texas (as projected by Obama campaign) or does the 98-85 split advocated by TGP (and demconwatch) still hold good?

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_9408903

I know there were some very detailed projections and analysis done on here at the time, and the consensus seemed to be that 98-95 was correct, but I wonder if that still holds good?

Yousri said...

Ultimate Delegate Tracker has been updated with today's endorsements of OR, WA, WV and TX; AP adjusting their LA numbers to 23-33 and some news sources updated their superdelegates counts.

c_b said...

The El Paso appeal won by Obama probably won't, in itself, shift the TX national delegate count. There are still several unknowns, most notably 223 undeclared superdelegates (at the state level). The endorsement of Obama by state party chair Boyd Richie and his wife Betty could signal something significant there.

arm said...

Fascinating site.

Completed 142 tax returns in 73 days...and only 5 or 6 since 4/15 because of cool sites like this.

...were curious about the uncommitted Supers so re-sorted your morning list of 191 by alphabetic state as follows:

Cramer AL)
Turnham AL)
Worley AL)
AL) Count TTL 3

Shackleford AR)
AR) Count TTL 1

Vacant - 1 at-lrg
Vacant - 2 at-lrg
At-large) Count TTL 2

Bivens AZ)
Giffords AZ)
Goddard AZ)#
AZ) TTL 3

Torres CA)
Filner CA)
Mulholland CA)
Pelosi CA)
Migden CA)
McNerney CA)
Perez CA)
Honda CA)
Pelosi CA)
Rankin CA)
Farr CA)
Ybarra CA)
Davis CA)
Count TTL 14

Ritter CO)
Salazar CO)
Salazar CO)
Udall CO)
Count TTL 4

DiNardo CT)
Count TTL 1

Warnke DC)
Brazile DC)
Count TTL 2

Smith-Windsor DE)
Biden DE)
Daniello DE)
Carper DE)
Count TTL 4

Boyd FL)
Tobias FL)
Glasser FL)
Murphy FL)
Ausman FL)
Thurman FL)
Ceasar FL)
Klein FL)
Parker FL)
Brady FL)
Mahoney FL)
Sink FL)#
Geller FL)#
Count TTL 13

Marshall GA)
Carter GA)
Ray GA)
Count TTL 3

Harkin IA)
Count TTL 1

Smith IL)
Emanuel IL)
IL)
Count TTL 3

Moore KS)
Knetzer KS)
Boyda KS)
Count TTL 3

Moore KY)
Smith KY)
Beshear KY)
Count TTL 3

Melancon LA)
Whittington LA)
Leach LA)
Cazayoux LA)
Burkhalter LA)
Landrieu LA)
Jefferson LA)
Count TTL 7

Kozikowski MA)
Markey MA)
Roosevelt MA)
Olver MA)
Tierney MA)
Tsongas MA)
Count TTL 6

Leong-Hong MD)
Cardin MD)
Hollen MD)
Mizeur MD)
Sarbanes MD)
Sweeney MD)
Hoyer MD)
Turnbull MD)
Count TTL 8

DeChant ME)
Michaud ME)
Spencer ME)
Count TTL 3

Abbott MI)
Levin MI)
Kilpatrick MI)
Dingell MI)
Bunn MI)
Kilpatrick MI)
Radjewski MI)
Lalonde MI)
Battaglieri MI)
Brewer MI)
Lawrence MI)
Tardiff MI)
Stupak MI)
Shoemaker MI)
Wiener MI)
Count TTL 15

Peterson MN)
Count TTL 1

Chappelle-Nadal MO)
Carnahan MO)
Temporiti MO)
Medley MO)
Wheat MO)
Nixon MO)#
Count TTL 6

Fondren MS)
Taylor MS)
Childers MS)
Count TTL 3

Schweitzer MT)
McDonald MT)
Tester MT)
Campbell MT)
Baucus MT)
Count TTL 5

Parker NC)
Offerman NC)
Etheridge NC)
McIntyre NC)
Peterson NC)
Count TTL 5

Strauss ND)
Count TTL 1

Lynch NH)
Buckley NH)
Count TTL 2

Lautenberg NJ)
Murphy NJ)
Holt NJ)
Count TTL 3

Udall NM)
Count TTL 1

Reid NV)
Masto NV)
Gates NV)
Lieberman NV)
McAllister NV)#
Count TTL 5

Mitchell NY)
Stein NY)
Dawson NY)
Count TTL 3

Wilson OH)
Redfern OH)
Beatty OH)
Kaptur OH)
Moss OH)
Kucinich OH)
Space OH)
Malone OH)
Brown OH)
Count TTL 9

Holmes OK)
Parmley OK)
Frasier OK)
Boren OK)
Count TTL 4

Dixon OR)
Bradbury OR)
Wyden OR)
Count TTL 3

Brady PA)
Altmire PA)
Doyle PA)
Holden PA)
Count TTL 4

Roques-Arroyo PR)
Count TTL 1

Reed RI)
Count TTL 1

Cobb-Hunter SC)
Spratt SC)
Clyburn SC)
Count TTL 3

Chapman SD)
Count TTL 1

Gore TN)
Gordon TN)
Crutchfield TN)
Sasser TN)
Davis TN)
Bredeson TN)
Lee TN)#
Count TTL 7

Hardt TX)
Johnson TX)
Strauss TX)
Chavez-Thompson TX)
Lampson TX)
Count TTL 6

Langan UT)
Matheson UT)
Count TTL 2

Cranwell VA)
Herman VA)
Segovia VA)
Leaman VA)
Webb VA)
Count TTL 5

Stapleton VI)
Count TTL 1

Dean VT)
Count TTL 1

McDonald WA)
Cote WA)
Mast WA)
Count TTL 3

Kohl WI)
Zellner WI)
Count TTL 2

Germond WV)
Manchin WV)
Casey Jr. WV)
Count TTL 3

Nunley WY)
wyCount TTL 1

Super Count TTL 191

Wierd stuff form sort(didn't know what to do with):

-32 Unnamed Add-Ons,
-Fmr. Senator and Majority Leader
-including 2 from Michigan

Yousri said...

"Ultimate Delegate Tracker" Updated with NBC totals:
_________

NBC has acknowledged that 12 Edwards’ delegates have moved to Obama and they are included in their total, but there is no update to their individual states numbers. They added a bar in their chart similar to any state bar and they labeled it Edwards' delegates.
We will add those 12 PD to NBC Total Pledged Delegates. This will make the NBC totals accurate and match NBC overall totals.

Amot said...

Irish Eyes,
about TX:

The info from El Paso gives 99% security of the 98/95 split. While most numbers' guys here advocate 98/95 is the most probable outcome, we also continuously say that the timing of TX state convention makes it unpredictable. If Obama gets the majority this week or Clinton leaves the game he can even get 100. But if he fails to win enough supers before next Sunday and if she say she will fight for every vote and bring it to the convention, 98/95 still looks more probable than 99/94.

uplandpoet said...

Hey, I have been following the live blog thread, but wondering, now that the rules committee has reached a compromise, how soon will you have these new numbers in your charts?

Oreo said...

upland...
we are working on getting everything updated as things are finalized

uplandpoet said...

great, i wasnt complaining, just wondering about a time window, but it sounds like you plan to get it up within a hour or so, not a day or so...!

Mike said...

BO needs 25 to 27 supers by Tuesday in order to claim victory. He'll get 37 to 42 pledge delegates from PR, SD & MT

I see HRC dropping out in matter of days. Dont be surprised if there is no congratulatory/concession speech.

Yousri said...

"Ultimate Delegate Tracker" has been updated.
__________
5/31/2008 - The RBC has just ruled that Florida's pledged delegates and superdelegates will be seated at 1/2 vote each.
The RBC has ruled the Michigan's pledged delegates be split 34.5-29.5 (69-59 at 1/2 delegate each), and superdelegates will be seated at 1/2 vote each.

Yousri said...

"Ultimate Delegate Tracker" has been updated.

As a result of the decision of the RBC to seat Fl peldged delegates, it is unclear now if the 2 Edwrds' delegates from Florida will still pledged to Sen. Obama.

Miranda said...

Barack Obama picked up a national delegate from Maine on Sunday as the Democratic State Convention closed.



http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2008/06/01
/maine_democratic_convention_adds_one_delegate_for_obama/

Searching For Pericles said...

Great site and great job. 2 Comments.

1) I think there is a discrepancy on the site. In the Edwards delegate tracker, you list 2 FL Edwards delegates (of 13) to Obama. But you don't count them anywhere else in Obama's column. If these are indeed Obama backers, he should have 1,724.5 pledged, not 1,723.5.

Similarly, Edwards should have 12.5 (5.5 FL (1.0 to Obama); 1 NH, 1 SC, and 5 IA) pledged delegates.

If the Total number (1,723.5) is correct, then the Edwards delegate tracker needs to be updated to show that those 2 delegates (of 13) are NOT endorsing Obama.

2) NBC Now has 16 Edwards delegates to Obama. It was 12 at the beginning of the day. It must be 4 extra Florida Edwards delegates.

Searching For Pericles said...

I think there is a discrepancy on the site.

1) Via Edwards delegate tracker: Obama gets 1 vote (2 delegates) from Edwards' pledged total of 6.5 (13).
Thus Edwards would have 11 delegates with 5.5 votes from Florida.

Via the ultimate tracker, the Edwards' FL delegates to Obama are not reflected. Edwards still has 13.5 total delegates (13/6.5 from FL) instead of the 12.5 shown on the Edwards delegate tracker.

One or the other (Total or Edwards delegate tracker) needs to be modified.

Yousri said...

"Ultimate Delegate Tracker" has been updated with FINAL PR delegates allocation and today's endorsements.

Mike said...

Clinton Campaign is winding down

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

Reality setting in?

frstan said...

Here is MSNBCs rational for moving all the pledged Edwards FL delegates to Obama:
1. Edwards has asked all Edwards delegates to endorse Obama.
2. Edwards now has vetting rights on FL Edwards delegates.
3. Edwards can now replace anyone who doesnt want to endorse Obama with someone who will.
4. THEREFORE move all Edwards pledged FL delegates to Obama.

Yousri said...

"Ultimate Delegate Tracker" has been updated with with NBC delegates for PR, moving 2 Florida delegates from Edwards' to Obama (each with 1/2 vote), all news sources updating their superdelegates numbers and today's endorsement as of 8:00 PM.

Yousri said...

"Ultimate Delegate Tracker" has been updated with 1 Edwards pledged delegate Fred McDowell from Florida has switched to Obama. We have added .5 for Obama and taken away .5 from Edwards; and today's superdelegate count with 11 endorsements (8.5 superdelegate votes) as of 6/3/2008 2:35 PM.

ChU_o.o said...

Hillary supporter here but now depending on what is Hillary's choice I will throw my support behind senator Obama! Lets get the White house Back =). I just hope Obama chooses Hillary as his VP.

Mike said...

Kathleen Sebelius is my choice for VP. Its is better to unite the party. Obama/Clinton will be a nightmare, a constant reminder of party division, and will provide the opportunity for the Clintonites to consolidate their strangle hld on the party. The party needs to grow, in new direction.

Even if it is by one vote, Hillary is a loser and brings lots of baggage to the ticket. She is nt a team player. There are lots of other outstanding candidates who will complement Obama's vision and not compromise it. It will cost the party the GE if Hillary is on the ticket.

FOr every Hillary supporter that refuses to vote fr nn Hillary ticket, there are many independent and moderate republican who will fill in the gap.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 204   Newer› Newest»