Click Here To See The Rest of the Blog
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 | 3253 | 86 | |||||
| Superdelegates (1) | 796 | 204 | |||||
| Delegates Yet to be allocated | -- | -- | |||||
| Total | 4049 | 290 | |||||
| Needed to Win Nomination | 2025.0 | -- | |||||
| Candidate Delegate Summary | |||||||
| Description | Obama | Clinton | |||||
| Pledged Delegates (GP) | 1,660.5 | 1,499.5 | |||||
| Superdelegates (DCW) | 312.5 | 279.5 | |||||
| Total Delegates | 1973.0 | 1779.0 | |||||
| Delegates Lead | 194.0 | -- | |||||
| Percentage of Required Delegates | 97% | 88% | |||||
| Delegates Needed to Win Nomination | 52.0 | 246.0 | |||||
| Additional Candidate Information | |||||||
| Popular Vote (GP) | 16,715,324 | 16,244,904 | |||||
| Popular Vote Lead | 470,420 | -- | |||||
| Pledged Delegates (GP) | 1,660.5 | 1,499.5 | |||||
| Pledged Delegates Lead | 161.0 | -- | |||||
| Pledged Delegates Left (2) | 86.0 | 86.0 | |||||
| Pledged Delegates Needed for Majority | Clinched! | -- | |||||
| Last Updated: 05/24/2008 11:00 PM (EST) | |||||||
Note1: Unknown superdelegates Add-ons are included in the Superdelegates totals.
Note2: Pledged Delegates Left.
Note3: majority of the pledged delegates is 1627.
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
86 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