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 President 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
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.
A list of delegates certified to the Democratic Convention can be found here.
| DCW Ultimate Delegate Summary | |||||||
| Description | Eligible to Vote | Delegates Left | |||||
| Pledged Delegates | 3409.5 | -- | |||||
| Superdelegates (1) | 823.5 | 119.5 | |||||
| Total | 4233.0 | 119.5 | |||||
| Needed to Win Nomination | 2117.0 | -- | |||||
| Candidate Delegate Summary | |||||||
| Description | Obama | Clinton | |||||
| Pledged Delegates (GP) | 1,765.5 | 1,639.5 | |||||
| Superdelegates (DCW) | 421.5 | 282.5 | |||||
| Total Delegates | 2187.0 | 1922.0 | |||||
| Delegates Lead | 265 | -- | |||||
| Delegates Needed to Win Nomination | Dem. Nominee! | -- | |||||
| Last Updated: 06/04/2008 6:00 PM (EST) | |||||||
Note1: Unknown superdelegates Add-ons are included in the Superdelegates totals.
Note2: Pledged Delegates Left.
Note3: majority of the pledged delegates is 1705.
For complete information on possible Florida and Michigan Delegate Scenarios please visit Florida and Michigan: By the numbers.
Click Here To See The Rest of the Blog
del.icio.us
110 comments:
great new page
doing a great job
there is a lot of interest at DU
expect alot of changes in the next
48 hours
Thanks for the summary. Makes me feel a little more comfortable with the worst-case scenario of FL & MI delegates. As a MI resident, I really hope they all get seated -- as uncommitted delegates across the board.
Corrections to do:
- Pledged with FL/MI: 3253
- Superdel. with FL/MI:848
You counted 5 unpledged add-ons among pledged.
Thanks for keeping this up and running. I noticed that the total pledged delegates up for grabs through and including March 4 is 2,642. Where & when are the rest coming out?
Steve,
It's the Democratic Party not the Democrat Party.
Living in MI, we were told if you wanted to vote for obama, to vote uncommitted. Thats what happened. Nobody was told to take their name off the ballot and move on to the next election, but obama did anyway. One more fact, they agree not to campaign here, but obama still did tv ad's. In my view, seat the delegates because everyone in both states were well aware of the ballot issues.
Why do I have the feeling that if the uncommited votes were higher than what Hillary got, the delegates would have been seated months ago?
I do not think your scenario for the "with fla and mich" included makes sense. It would be better to include 2 or 3 scenarios for these states coming into the picture. The one you show is the least likely to happen, where HRC gets the delegates based on the results of the primaries which were held against the rules. It seems very unlikely that after all the other primaries delegates are allocated proportionally, that these two which have been a problem will just throw the percentage towards HRC and that the rest would remain uncommitted. I would rather see this scenario shown where the primaries are re-run as could happen, with a 50/50 percentage allocated between the two, or a likely poll percentage that can change up to the date of the re-run primaries.
Mainly the current scenario is totally unlikely and actually to me is misleading.
Thanks
Please someone see my previous comment.
I am a Michigan resident who thinks the delegates should not get seated. It doesn't matter if every non-Hillary supporter was told to vote "uncommitted" if their candidate's name wasn't on the ballot. The fact is that what *was* communicated to the voters was that the vote wouldn't count toward delegates, as those had been stripped from the state.
Because of that, a great number of people (myself included) simply did not vote at all.
For Hillary to claim that those delegates should be seated now is a little like a football play where the ball is fumbled but ruled dead by the referees. Some defender picks up the ball and runs it back to the opposite endzone, celebrating like mad even though the rest of the players on the field gave up on the play once the whistle blew.
Now, you have Hillary holding a press conference after the game. Her team lost by 4 points, but she disputes those results, claiming, "Once we get those points from the touchdown I scored that was waived off, I will be the winner!"
Nor can you really have revotes now... how would you ever know who voted in the republican primary previous? Letting those people vote again in the Democratic primary would give the GOP an unfair advantage at being able to pick an opponent that they believe their candidate (already designated now) can more easily beat.
No, if we in Michigan want recourse, it is to vote *out* the officials that moved our primary to a date that resulted in this penalization in the first place.
Can anyone explain how come the in the first few hours of voting both in Texas and in New Hampshire the results gave Barack a ten point lead? Are they counting the early votes, the previous days votes or is there really a dramatic change in the mood of the electorate?
Pledged delegate total 3253, means 1627 is a majority of pledged delegates.
Obama is 267 away of a pledged delegate majority, Clinton is 407 away.
Another way of putting it: of the 673 pledged delegates to be awarded, Obama needs 39.7%, Clinton needs 60.3%, to get a majority of pledged delegates.
Subvertigo - Finally got the numbers fixed. thanks. (Pledged - 3566, Unpledged - 848)
jean paul: I assume you mean in the first few hours of counting the delegates, not of voting. The answer is that in many places Obama dominates in more populous areas with large numbers of early and absentee ballots, or with faster means of counting delegates (some towns still use paper ballors!). When the more rural areas where Clinton dominates come in, the margins narrow or reverse. This doesn't represent a shift in the electorate -- all the polls are closed before the first results are reported -- but a geographic and demographic trend. You will see the same issue in the General election.
Are there really 73 unknown superdelegates at this time. Your charts identify 721 superdelegates (Obama 202, clinton 242, undeclared 267) but we are told there are 794 superdelegates (w/o Michigan and Florida). Are these people still not appointed? Who controls there appointment?
Edward
Yes there still 73 unknown Add-ons, 78 if you count FL & MI.
Each state has a specific number of Add-ons, which will be selected in State Conventions.
Oklahoma and Alabama have already selected their Add-ons on 2/23/2008 and 3/1/2008 respectively. The next states to select their Add-ons are Arkansas and Tennessee on March 8, 2008
The rest of states will select theirs between now and June 28, 2008.
Watch for a complete list of the Add-ons schedule coming soon in DCW!!
WHEN will the national media accurately report that TEXAS is UNDECIDED and latest counts show a tie between Clinton & Obama (check RealClearPolitics). with a LIKELY OBAMA WIN. Hillary eeked out the primary votes, Obama the caucus votes (count incomplete). Yes, it's a crazy system we have. Gary Mauro, Clinton's Texas campaign manager helped design it. Why do we do this? Because everyone is allowed to vote in whichever primary they want (including Republicans who took Rush Limbaugh's advice to Vote for Hillary because she's easier to beat in Nov). The Caucus tries to correct for this because those Republicans probably won't go to a public Democratic meeting. I'm not defending it, just explaining the rationale. But Please Correct Texas and Nevada. Both a TIE in delegates; OBAMA LIKELY to be TEXAS WINNER since the as yet uncounted votes are from Caucus.
Please put a huge freaking asterisk next to all of the michigan and florida numbers!
The michigan numbers are not valid at all...I think not having your name on the ballot makes it pretty tough to get many votes!
Why include them at all?? There is no way they will be allowed in their current form...if so, all hell will break loose within the party.
David - We don't know what will happen with FL and MI. Those are the current results if the delegations are seated as is. The reason we want to have these numbers is it will be significant if Obama goes ahead of Clinton with the current FL & MI numbers included, even without the 55 uncommitted from MI. If that happens, that might be the end of it.
Can you estimate the add on delegates?
Arent they assigned to the winner of the popular vote in the respective states?
The add-on are not assigned to the winners of the state. The process is different in each state. May be a state chairmans picks, or subject to a vote at the state convention, or some other way.
Hi, can anybody help with a question. If John Edwards endorses one of the candidates does the 25 pledged delegates follow him to the candidate or are they 'freed up' to choose again.
Many thanks.
Just realised that the '25 delegates' included Michigan and Florida'. That should be 12 delegates.
Bill UK - The short answer is that all delegates to the convention, pledged and unpledged, including those pledged to Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, can vote for any candidate at any time. So any endorsement that Edwards makes is a political statement, not a rules-based statement.
For more details on Edwards delegates, see
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/edwards-delegate-update.html
as well as the links inside that post, or use the Tag Dropdown in the right sidebar and look for John Edwards.
Thank you Matt
Why do you and others keep counting the Michigan and Florida delegates for Clinton when it is very clear that they are not to be counted. I am sure that if Obama were to campaign in both states that the delegate count would be a lot different in a do-over. Stop trying to allocate delegates to Clinton which are bogus.
onedreamtolose - We give the delegate counts with and without the Florida and Michigan numbers. Our readers can choose which set of numbers they want to look at. We give these numbers in the event that the current delegations are seated, which could still happen. If there is a do-over in either or both states, as soon as the process is approved by the states and the DNC, we will remove the old FL/MI numbers from our tables. But that hasn't happened yet.
being from TX, I was very disappointed to see what a crazy system we have for primaries. In my opinion, we should abolish the caucus system nationwide as it is a relic of the past. Primaries make it a lot easier for both canidates and voters and in the end, the voters are the ones you need to make it easier for. A lot of the younger folks I work with don't vote just because of the fact that the system here seems complicated to them. I try to encourage them to vote no matter who they choose to vote for as it is important for our country as a whole. Now, as far as Florida, Michigan, I think their vote must be counted one way or another, either what they already did or some sort of new one. Yes the powers that be in both states were told not to move their date but as far as the voting public, there was little recourse once it was changed. In other words the voters are not at fault. Now they can take it out on the idiots that they elected that made this change by not voting for them next time because of this but that will not help the current situation. we are talking about two very populous states and we should have their votes counted in a fair way.As far as I can tell, it was fair in that neither Obama and Clinton was allowed to campaign there so no one had an advantage, right ? If I'm wrong here, tell me how one or the other had an advantage when neither did any campaigning there. And we know they didn't or the DNC would have been all over them already. I read that Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot, why was this done if it didn't matter either way ? Was he trying to make a statement or was there some other complex rule why it was better for him not to be on the ballot. And it was said he still ran tv ads there, isn't that campaining ? With Michigan, I think the only fair thing would be another vote so both can be on the ballot, Florida is more of a grey area since both were on ballot.
I am concerned why there is very little scrutiny on Obama in the media, is it because it might be mistaken as racism ? One of these two may be our next president and treating him as the golden boy(no offense ment here)without finding more about his decisions he has taken while in public office is crazy. It should be an even field here as far as knowing more about them. I think most people could care less about his missle name, his religion or his personal life. we need to vet him more to find out who we get if we elect him. I think he is fine man with good values or he wouldn't have made it this far in life but always attacking Clinton for her personality or her her husbands doesn't help the process as a whole.
I would also like to say that critizing Obama for the pics of him in the Kenya head garb was so far fetched, it borders on idotic.
Also constandtly critizing Clinton everytime something negative(rare) comes out about Obama is leaked from her group is also crazy. The Republicans are probably more guilty of this than her as they would rather not face him in November than Clinton.
Polokid, Actually Clinton held 4 'fundraisers' the week of the primary in Florida! Also Obama's name was not even on the ballot in Michigan. WHat is worse is that many many voters did not bother to vote because they had been told it would not count.
The answer is simple, redo the process in both States. Expensive yes, but it is the only fair way to do it. This way those that previously voted can again recast their votes so they are not dissenfranchised, also those that did not vote because they were told it was pointless could now vote, so they are not dissenfranchised. In fact it seems to be the Clinton camp that does not want to redo the votes because it is clear that Clinton will lose heavily in the delegate game.
Hope this explains why the current non-allowed vote cannot stand as the result. To dissenfranchise voters is the worst crime in a democracy.
Please move this conversation to either the FL/MI post or our Open Thread.
Thanks
Hi,
I seem to remember reading somewhere that you use AP figures for 'Pledged Delegates'. If this is correct then it should be pointed out that AP is the only source now not showing the official finalised count for California. AP is showing:
Clinton 202
Obama 161
The official finalised delegates for California is:
Clinton 203
Obama 167
This means an increas of +1 for Clinton and +6 for Obama.
So perhaps it could be added (or contact AP to update their figures so that we can have these figures updated here).
This really is a fantastic site for information. Thanks for the great work. Stop by at waxpolitic.blogspot.com for more political opinion if you'd like.
Cheers!
Anthony Timperman, Publisher
waxpolitic.blogspot.com
Bill UK,
as of 2:55 PM, AP is the only one that did not update CA numbers.
the only source I can find with all the info... not even the networks are showing what is going on when you actually take into consideration Florida and Michigan. It's a shame the mainstream media is ignoring the facts. Keep up the good work!
Does anyone else see the same problem that I see with adding caucus and primaries up into a so-called "popular vote"? I won't go long here (I did on my blog), but with Obama doing better in Caucuses, that number artificially makes Clinton's support look stronger than it is. Anyone with a statistics background want to touch that? And why are the big news sources overlooking it, other than the obvious underdog-boosting?
www.andlittlefishes.blogspot.com
hi,
great page! it's nice to see everything in one place!
the Total Delegates Left, In States Yet to Vote:
wouldn't that be 566 w/o FL&MI
and be rather 879 w/FL&MI?
it's somewhat awkward, i know, to include their numbers as already taken place while also considering a re-do. but since a re-do is seeming more and more likely, it might make sense that way...
antigravity,
See Matt note above, which was posted on March 09, 2008 5:01 PM.
fair enough!
Has anyone taken note of the fact that, according to exit polls, Obama's percentage of the white vote was over three times Clinton's percentage of the black vote in Mississippi?
Going only by pledged delegates (W/O FL&MI):
Needed for majority (1627):
Obama: 223 (37%)
Clinton: 378 (63%)
This could be added as a column...
Regarding 'and little fishes' comment, I don't know how they quantify those caucus numbers. Most Secretary of State websites list caucus delegates but rarely provide a concrete number of actual turnout. I noticed some press reports that over 200,00 turned out for the Washington caucuses yet the only hard numbers I've seen are the local delegate counts, which totaled 31,984. I'd be interested to read your blog and see who else has insight into the mysteries and significance of the popular vote.
Green Papers has a complete list of all states that voted already and the total number of popular vote.
You can click on the state that you are interested in, and you will see the complete results for that state including the popular vote.
HTH.
That's just it. The day after the caucuses, the Washington papers reported 200,000 democratic caucus-goers. Green Papers lists 32,035 "precinct delegates selected". That's a pretty substantial difference. The GP does include the popular vote for some caucus states, but by my count, there are no popular vote totals for Idaho*, Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington.
This is the best source I've found for overall Democratic turnout:
http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm
The US Elections Project (above) has estimates for these states but I can't verify some of their sources. The Iowa hyper-link to the Quad City Times has expired and I don't know where they got their total for Nevada. Unlike the other four, the Idaho turnout figure (provided by the Idaho Dems) exactly matches the GP count of State Delegates. Furthermore, since they don't break the turnout down by candidate for each of these caucuses, it is only marginally useful to the press.
I'll post more on this later.
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.
Suggestion: For the first table in the sidebar, rather than that useless 0 in the "Undeclared" row for the pledged delegates, how about putting the number of remaining pledged delegates there? It would be the delegates to be chosen in the remaining contests, plus whatever delegates haven't yet been assigned from contests that are finished (currently there are none).
KC - thanks for the good suggestion. We've made the change.
Matt,
I've got a question for you...
What will happen to the 18-31 pledged delegates (depending on if/how Florida is counted) that John Edwards will hold after the primary season is over? I know that the PD's from Iowa will be allocated through the state convention's process. But, what about the PD's from SC, NH, and FL? Does Edwards become the ultimate superdelegate, holding sway over a couple dozen votes that more and more look like a number significant enough to give the nomination to one candidate or the other?
Thanks for your time,
Shannon
Shannon - The Edwards delegates, like all delegates, can vote for whoever they want to for any reason. If Edwards endorses will they follow his lead? That's a good question, one I haven't seen answered. Also, if there's any negotiated settlement of the Florida delegates, I wonder if Edwards will keep his.
I wrote more about the Edwards delegates here.
Caucus Problem
As a resident of a caucus state I too am frustrated by the popular vote count. At our county caucus the newspaper reported that 1634 people attended the caucus. We sent 29 delegates to the state convention (23 for Obama, 6 for Clinton). Each of those delegates represented over 50 attendees.
I know that there is no official way of keeping track of the caucus attendees, but every time I see popular vote numbers I get irritated.
For reference:
http://www.idahopress.com/?id=3647
Clinton is determined to seat Florida and Michigan based on the January elections. Please research and post a list of the EXACT members of the Credentials Committee and who they support, as well as the dates by which those yet unnamed to that Committee will be named. Since the DNC announced on April 9th that Florida and Michigan will have members on that committee, it seems that it would not be difficult to tip the balance in favor of Clinton, particularly if she wins KY, WV, and PR. Why is the media ignoring this very obvious path to the nomination?
Mali,
This post in Politico The Dean 25 could decide Clinton's fate will give you some insight of what you're looking for.
HTH
Mali-
First, no need to post the same comment on 3 different threads.
Second, the members of the Credentials Committee are selected at the various state conventions. See the add-on post for the dates.
Finally, and most important, this is not a path to the nomination for Clinton. Regardless of who has a majority of votes on the Credentials Committee, a majority and minority report will be given to the convention, and voted on by all the delegates, NOT including MI and FL. So if Obama has a majority of the delegates on the floor of the convention, again, not counting MI and FL, he will control the decision over whether the MI and FL delegates get seated - not the Credentials Committee. Basically, the Clinton report will ask that the delegates be seated according to the primary results, the Obama report will ask that the delegates be seated with a 50/50 split, and, assuming Obama has a majority of the delegates, his report will win. So the make-up of the Credentials Committee will just not be that important.
I'm wondering about the discrepancies between Obama's website and this one. He has stated that he has 134 to go in order to have a majority of the pledged delegates and 285 for the nomination. That means that they are counting 3 more pledged delegates and 4 more superdelegates.
It looks like this could almost be over by next week or so. If he gets 110 pledged delegates he would only need 24 more. With the upcoming Ad-ons he would be even closer. I'm wondering if Edwards might actually get to be the "king maker" by throwing his 19 to Obama??? Whatever happens in the next couple of primaries, it seems that it's just time and the superdelegates are breaking towards Obama as they see the inevitable.
What about the difference of 3 pledged delegates that Obama is counting? Are they "for sures" or has the campaign speculated or miscounted?
Thanks again for a wonderful election website. It's my favourite!
Dr. Linda,
I am glad to be of help!
Many people ask the same question and I have posted several times so far, but I will make a short summary of the current situation:
AS: GP said delegates should be split 1,5:1,5 and they still stick to it, but when the names came out they were 2:1 in favor of Clinton; noone can tell why the rules were applied that way; IMHO - 2:1 is the valid result since Obama campaign had agreed
DA: GP has it 4,5:2,5 in favor of Obama, the campaign has 5:2 split (they have this split from the very beginning); the names are known, the split is 4,5:2,5 and final and the correct one
LA: GP suggest 33:23 due to official source, Obama has it 34:22; the official source can't explain why they have one more delegate for Clinton in CD2, also they don't give the final numbers CD-by-CD; IMHO - something fishy, probably the campaign has filed an appeal and that is why they stick with the correct(IMHO) 34:22 result
TX: caucus results are still not final so both sources have different projection - campaign has 99:94, GP has 98:95 (more probable if the race is not over before June 7th)
WA: again different projections GP has 52:26, Obama campaign has 53:25; our experts here found that at-large and PLEOs in the state are not allocated based on popular vote, they are chosen by the CD pledged delegates; that makes 53:25 impossible projection and most probable projections are 52:26 and 54:24 (less probable); I am making attempts to find all LD conventions results and predict the outcome of the CD conventions, but results are very hard to obtain...
Finally - Obama has plus 3 due to LA, TX and WA (AS and DA neutralize each other)
IMHO the real result for Obama is GP +0,5
P.S. PA is not final yet with two delegates still in question!
Meanwhile PA posted unofficial results by CDs. Clinton 85, Obama 73. I don't want to comment why it took so long to provide the results!
"PA posted unofficial results by CDs. Clinton 85, Obama 73."
Do you have a link? I've been looking for the final results from PA.
Sure, here you are:
http://www.dos.state.pa.us/dos/lib/dos/elections/democratic_presidential_results_by_congressional_district_(unofficial).pdf
Thanks to GP for the source!
you are my 'Rain Man' too
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/
love you guys
Craig Grant
What did you do to the tracker when you updated on May 4?? It blew out its formatting in my sidebar.
Update with NC and IN!
Your official source at the Green Papers shows NC delegate split at 66 - 49. However the table in the left sidebar reflects a 63-52 split. Would you agree to correct this?
The numbers for "Pledged Delegates Needed for 50% + 1" don't look right.
Shouldn't that be 27.5 for Obama and 189.5 for Clinton?
Christopher
There are 3253 pledged delegates, to take the leade you need to get 1627 pledged delegates which is 50% +.5.
If you subtract Sen. Obama's or Sen. Clinton's pledged delegates from 1627, you will find that the numbers in the table are correct.
HTH
The table shows 50% + 1 but the results displayed are actually 50% + 0.5 so the numbers are off by 1/2 a delegate.
Aside from the 1/2 delegate offset the numbers look right.
(3,253 / 2) + 1 = 1,627.5
Obama 1,627.5 – 1,589.5 = 38
Clinton 1,627.5 – 1,427.5 = 200
John S,
Majority is
(3,253 / 2)= 1626.5 + .5 = 1,627.0 and the numbers are based on that.
Changed the text to simply say "majority".
Thanks
The popular vote figures don't seem to include the Texas caucus results (23,918 Obama; 18,620 Clinton; 44 Uncommited/Other per GP).
BTW, thanks so much for your fantastic site! It's my first destination every morning. Great work!
Antonio,
no one counts the Texas caucus votes. The people, participating in the caucus were part of those, participating in the primary, so they should not be added to the total.
Every vote counts, but every vote counts once only!
Amot,
Fair enough. Good point. Thanks.
Amot,
I think I asked you this before, but either you didn't notice my post or I didn't notice your response.
Where do you go to get estimates of caucus results in IA, NV, WA and ME? This well known site gives a TOTAL estimate as Obama 334,084 and Clinton 223,862; but that's for all four states combined. I'd like a state-by-state breakdown.
By the way, even though I can see the logic of your not counting votes twice in Texas the fact is that they DO count 'em twice in Texas. If you reason that you can only count one vote, why not disregard the primary vote? I suspect that you might be close to the truth if you assume that everyone who voted in the caucus voted in the primary and that many who voted in the primary did not vote in the caucus -- but there might be some who voted in the caucus and didn't vote in the primary.
In Washington state, for example, we count the caucus but don't count the primary (where Obama got a 36,015 vote plurality) -- the reason is that the caucus generates delegates and the primary does not. Since BOTH elections generate delegates in Texas, both votes should be tabulated.
Anyway, I don't have a good estimate of the Texas caucus either. They seemed to have stopped counting when they got 43% done.
A question...
If John Edwards decided to endorse Obama, would his 19 pledged delegates automatically go to Obama?
No. His delegates can vote for anyone they want, whether Edwards endorses or now. (And that includes Edwards even if he endorses). Whether they follow Edwards's endorsement is up to each one.
The campaigns are treating them like superdelegates, and are in contact with them just like the supers.
Paul Bradford,
Actually, in Texas you may not vote in the "Precinct" caucus UNLESS you have already voted in the primary (and both are held on the same day, in different places.)
Therefore, for popular vote purposes, if you count the primary votes you have counted ALL of the votes ONCE, which is - hopefully - what you want to do.
Paul Bradford,
as magia said the only reason not to count TX caucus is because participating in the primary was requirement to participate in the caucus. If it was snot so I would propose the following formula:
TXpopular=2/3*TXprimary+1/3TXcaucus
because the primary was used to determine 2/3 of the state pledged delegates and caucus - 1/3
But the above mentioned requirement makes this formula meaningless since both contest ARE NOT independent. The bigger one and the more important one and the more open one (it is easier to participate in primary) was the primary so though I am Obama fan I am accepting TX primary popular vote as the official one for the state.
To answer your caucus question:
In the caucus participated appr. 1M voters. Precincts reported only number of delegates and they were not obliged to do so that is why most did not send such reports and we had only 43%. 1M total was calculated based on unofficial information about turnout.
The four caucus states:
I haven't made attempt to find the info for each of them. In this moment I believe that Sen. Obama will be able to win the popular vote measuring whatever one wants (even FL and MI as 0 Obama). I acknowledge GP as official source. Maybe you should google for better info on the four states but any result will be speculative.
The primary season does seem endless, but don't exaggerate it...
Currently footnote 2 says "(189 States yet to vote)".
Nice catch, b.j.!
That should be 189 pledged delegates yet to be determined...
Thanks BJ
And all along I thought there were 57 states ;)
There was a comment upthread by Amot in regard to the Obama site showing LA as 34-22 (which IHHO was correct) and GP's 33-23 split.
Louisiana's Democratic Party site lists the actual names and contact info, as of 4/1/08, for 22 Obama delegates and 6 alternates here. It does the same for 15 Clinton delegates (0 alternates) here.
On May 3 the Democratic State Central Committee met to select the PLEO and at-large delegates. The split was 11 Obama, 8 Clinton. (The names and cities of these 19 people are given here.)
Add together, and the final total is 33 for Obama and 23 for Clinton. CD-2 must have gone 3-2 for Obama instead of 4-1. I guess it's settled then. Green Papers is right.
Jeff,
neither me not GP team received explanation from LA Dems giving reasonable explanation to their split. I did a manual count of all precincts and found Clinton short of several thousands votes to claim second delegate in CD2. I still support Obama's campaign split! If you check carefullly, GP don't publish their usual delegates table for LA since no math can explain the split!
Seven Edwards delegates switched to Obama today.
Ultimate Delegate Summary has been updated with:
CA Add-on endorsements; 3 for Sen. Clinton and 2 for Sen. Obama.
Hi!
Can I suggest that you remove "popular vote"?
There is no "popular vote" in the nomination process, because there are different types of races, caucuses and primaries, both open and closed.
This is not true in the general election, when everyone votes in the same type of format.
If one just adds up the nomination-process numbers, you get a 'aggregate vote' or 'total voters', but not what people think of as a 'popular vote'.
Therefore, to avoid adding up apples-and-oranges, one *must* estimate (which some will naturally find unsatisfactory, but there is no way around it).
To do so, turnout in caucus state runoffs is a lot less than turnout in primary state runoffs.
Any adjustment to produce an estimate therefore would greatly advantage Obama, who won consistently in the caucus states.
That adjustment is very large, and survives a further adjustment that caucus state margins tend to be wider than primary state margins.
I come up with a net adjustment in favor of Obama of over 850K, in a caucus-to-primary adjustment!
Ultimate Delegate Summary has been updated with KY and OR numbers.
Ultimate Delegate Summary table has been updated with the new GP numbers for OR:
Sen. Obama - 31
Sen. Clinton -21
Ultimate Delegate Summary has been updated with 2 Edwards' NH delegates moving to Obama and today's endorsements.
Ultimate Delegate Summary has been updated with the new GA and WY Add-ons endorsements.
Ultimate Delegate Summary has been updated with AK Add-on.
Also GP has adjusted AK Pledged Delegates numbers:
Sen. Obama 10
Sen. Clinton 3
The superdelegate numbers are not up to date as your special superdelegate page. If you could program them to be the same simultaneously, that would be best, of course. But this page is way behind.
Ultimate Delegate Summary has been updated with the new HI endorsements.
On Tuesday new PR poll will be announced!
Ultimate Delegate Summary has been updated with today's endorsements.
Is anyone else sick of the superdelegates just sitting on their vote? I feel as though they are simply basking in the attention and feelings of self-importance. They could have ended this weeks ago, but I truly believe they enjoy being courted by the candidates and holding onto their 'power' in this election. I feel by dragging this on, they are costing both candidates time and money by having to continue to campaign.
Ultimate Delegate Summary has been updated with today's endorsements.
"Ultimate Delegate Summary" has been updated.
___________________________
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.
How are you calculating the popular vote now that the Michigan & Florida issue is resolved? Have you put "uncommitted" in Obama's column?
Yousri said...
Yondalla said...
How are you calculating the popular vote now that the Michigan & Florida issue is resolved? Have you put "uncommitted" in Obama's column?
______________
The popular vote was recalculated and YES I put "uncommitted" in Obama's column?.
"Ultimate Delegate Summary" 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.
Please do your readers and the Democratic Party a favor. Get rid of or qualify the so-called "popular vote" on your site.
First, as Amicus insists above, and as so many of us have tried to argue over the last several months, you can't combine apples and oranges. "The national popular vote is a myth, or I should say, a mythical beast. It is a chimera. You cannot generate a national popular vote from contests that have included caucuses (which cannot produce nearly as many votes as primaries), contests that have permitted independents to vote, as well as states that have permitted Republican crossovers, etc."
[From "Why I Can't Stop Criticizing Hillary, yet (although I wish I could)http://msa4.wordpress.com/ ]
Second, the DNC sent a message today about the Michigan "primary." Its delegate compromise is meant to undermine Clinton's position on the popular vote in Michigan. Obama had the votes at the DNC for a 50/50 split of the delegates. He agreed to a compromise from the Michigan Democratic Party that gave Hillary a slim majority of the delegates, but also gave him more than he would have received from those who voted for "uncommitted." With this decision, the DNC is saying that there is no way that Hillary's numbers should be added to any "popular vote" total while leaving Obama out. Or, to be absolutely clear, it doesn't make any sense to try to manufacture popular vote totals from a state in which one candidate wasn't on the ballot.
Third, returning the first point, if you were to offer a popular vote total, you would need a mechanism to translate caucus state votes into something comparable to primary state votes. There is no agreed on formula.
Please let's stop the myth of the popular vote. It is only going to serve to undermine the legitimate winner of the Democratic race.
"The Popular Vote Myth (or why caucuses may be hazardous to your representation)" http://msa4.wordpress.com/page/2/
Mitchell Aboulafia said...
Please do your readers and the Democratic Party a favor. Get rid of or qualify the so-called "popular vote" on your site.
_____________________
I agree with you.
Popular Vote is taken out for good!
Love this site. Thanks. Other sites are missing the important numbers and facts around the delegates. Other sites (including Obama's) add all kinds of irrelevant info. It's not "states won", popular vote, white working class vote, black vote.
It's a race for delegates.
It is interesting to remember that not one elected office in the United States Government is designed to have power that corresponds directly to the number of votes received: President? Nope (ask Gore)! Senators nope, a Wyoming Senator is equal in power to a California Senator even though one represents 0.5 Million and the other represents 36 Million! Congressmen are not given more power based on the number of votes they get or the margin over their opponent.
Our framers insured that states and regions were represented and that minorities still had some voice. We are a representative republic, not a pure democracy. This avoids the "tyranny of the majority" that Plato warned democracy could be.
"Ultimate Delegate Summary" has been updated with partial PR delegates allocation and today's endorsements.
"Ultimate Delegate Summary" has been updated with FINAL PR delegates allocation and today's endorsements.
"Ultimate Delegate Summary" has been updated with today's endorsement as of 10:45 AM.
Hi,
I'm following your calculations closely, but I can't see why your total delegates differ by one delegate to most other calculations done by CNN, the Greenpapaers and so on. (Your calculation: 4233 delegates at stake vs. "the others" 4234 delegates. Who is this mysterious delegate?
Thanks for Visiting from Germany!
The mystery delegate is Al Wynn who will resign today from the House.
We removed him a while back which is why the numbers vary. We're curious to see how long it takes the media to change their number needed.
thanks Oreo for that clarification.
One more question: I've heard from "special elections" which are due in June and could add more delegates to the convention in august, if the democrat nominees will win. Would that change your calculations or is this already counted in?
We lay it all out here
Wynn's seat will almost definitely be filled by Donna Edwards which will raise the number needed to win by .5
"Ultimate Delegate Summary" has been updated with moving 2 Florida delegates from Edwards' to Obama (each with 1/2 vote) and today's endorsement as of 8:00 PM.
Obama has to win. Because
1 ) He is the only charismatic leader among trio - Obama Clinton, Mcain.
2) Obama could surpass Clinton dynasty clout which ruled USA for eight years.
So hail you Obama. You are the right American Son against Osama.
Good luck
"Ultimate Delegate Summary" 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.
Post a Comment