Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Wyoming Caucus and Mississippi Primary Tracker and Bonus IN-7 Special Election Results

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

Mississippi will hold its primary today. There will also be a Special Election in IN-7 today.

CNN has a delegate counter that lets you figure out how each candidate can get enough delegates to win the nomination.

Today's Special Election in Indiana's 7th District is to fill the spot of Representative Julia Carson who passed away in December of last year. This could be a close one.

IN-07 Special Election

Andre Carson (D) - 54%
Jonathan Elrod (R) - 43%
96% Reporting - WISH TV

Carson wins!

Wyoming Caucus and Mississippi Primary Tracker
% Vote In
% Clinton%Obama
Delegates Clinton
Delegates Obama
Combined Total-

Previously Pledged Delegates (AP)

Total Pledged Delegates

Superdelegate Endorsements


Delegates Still Needed to Win Nomination


Source for Vote Percentage is CNN. Source for Delegates is CBS and AP. Source for Superdelegates is DCW.

Policy for this post is to use the highest delegate numbers available from any source. Eventually they will all come together.

This post will not be updated further. Please see the Ultimate Delegate Tracker for ongoing state-by-state updates.

Next up is Pennsylvania on April 22nd.


Bamabelle said...

I wonder how the totals would change if the party decides to count only the votes of registered democrats when assigning pledged delegates. They could do this in the roll call before delegates are seated. If 7-10% of the votes for Obama are from republicans trying to select the democrats' nominee, wouldn't this make sense?

Bamabelle said...

I wonder how the totals would change if the party decides to count only the votes of registered democrats when assigning pledged delegates. They could do this in the roll call before delegates are seated. If 7-10% of the votes for Obama are from republicans trying to select the democrats' nominee, wouldn't this make sense?

JayZed said...

Yes, that makes perfect sense if the Democratic party wants a candidate who doesn't appeal to anyone other than registered Democrats. On the other hand, if you want someone electable who appeals to independent voters...

Bill UK said...

Bamabelle, interesting, especially when one thinks about the 10% Republicans who it is estimated voted for Clinton in Texas!

Scott de Brestian said...

What are you talking about, barnabelle? All the delegates are Democrats, naturally. Wyoming is a closed caucus, so no Republicans there. Mississippi does not record party registration, so there are no registered Democrats in Mississippi.

Scott de Brestian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Greenberg said...

You guys missed one super delegate from MS:

Everett Sanders of Natchez.


He's for Obama.

Adam said...

If Foster wins, will he be added for Obama right away, or are you going to wait for an actual official endorsement?

Matt said...

Good question. We'll have to check with the dedicated members of the DCW team for their thums up or thumbs down.

Richard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard said...

John, Sanders hasn't publicly committed to Obama, but says he is only leaning toward Obama. He hasn't been missed, he's just on the list of delegates who haven't committed. See here.

Carrie said...

UK -

Let's clarify the stats on Texas republicans:

It is true that (per exit polls) an estimated 9% of democratic primary voters in OH and TX were republicans. However, in OH, they were split evenly (so, 4.5% the total votes were republican and were for Hillary). In TX, Obama actually took 52% of the 9% of the vote that came from Republicans. So, take out the republican cross-over votes and Hillary actually gets a bigger win in TX.

In previous races, Obama took more of the republican cross-over - so maybe the right-wing conservatives did influence folks, cut into Obama's Republican cross-over demographic.

On the other hand, I think WAY too much credit has been given to the influence folks like Rush Limbaugh might have had on our TX results...Keep in mind, this is the same motley crew that gave all they had to prevent John McCain's nomination...look how that worked out for them. The days of their great power indeed seem behind them.

Howard said...

I think Andre Carson maybe should have hired a proofreader for his website. But then maybe "tax releif" and "heath care" are just as good as the real thing?

Oreo said...

If you want to see bad spelling check this out
I think Elrod trumped Carson with that fiasco.

PseudoPeach said...


First of all, it is up to the states to decide how to allocate their delegates. Open primaries have been a part of the process for decades.

Even if it made sense to erase the votes of non-dems who voted in those races, there's no way to actually weed out those votes. A ballot is a ballot. Once it is cast, there's no way to tell from whom it came. The only way we even know that non-dems voted for Obama is in the open primaries is through exit polls. Altering the results of an election based on sampling data is not a road that I want to go down, personally.

Howard said...

Yeah, good point. Huge bold text and a campaign "commerical" certainly take the bad spelling visibility cake.

Bill UK said...

Polls about to close in 10 minutes in Mississippi.

Unknown said...

Looking at the exits, I'm intrigued. Either there are still a lot of registered Democrats in MS who are racists and vote Republican, or there were a lot of conservative Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary. According to CNN's exits, 13% have strongly favorable opinions of McCain, and they voted for Clinton 74-24. The 11% who say neither of the candidates inspire them vote Clinton 87-9. Self-identified Republicans vote Clinton 77-23. It could just be that MS is a very different world than the rest of the country, but that just stinks of Republicans crossing over to keep Obama's margins down.

WhoAmI? said...

With most of the results in 19-14 is the most likely split. With an outside chance at 18-15 or 20-13 and even 21-12 not out of the realm of possibility.

USA Today has a good tracker at:

CD1 should stay 2-3 (Clinton wins) with 100% reporting.

CD2 Obama has 76.8% with 97% reporting. He needs 78.57% to make it split 6-1, so it'll probably stay at 5-2

CD3 should stay 3-2 (Obama wins), but may help Obama's statewide % (66.7% with 98% reporting)

CD4 is showing Obama up 42,636 - 41,768 = 868 votes with "100% reporting". This could certainly change, and with provisional votes and such it may be a while before we know the breakdown for sure.

Statewide Obama has 62.07% needing 62.501 to split the PLEO's 3-1 (to go with the At large 4-3). With all the precincts yet to report in Obama's strongest districts, this could tip as well.

This Kos thread has some great info:


Carrie said...

Could someone check my math/logic?

I'm trying to figure out the threshold for 1/2 the pledged delegate count, with and without MI/FL.

w/o - 4049 delegates - 796 super delegates = 3253 /2 = 1626.5

w/ - 4416 delegates - 850 super delegates = 3566 /2 = 1783


Unknown said...

Some random observations after MS:

- Obama has won 30 contests to Hillary's 15 with an average margin of victory of 57 to 41
- Obama will likely win 5 net delegates from TX (her supposed "big win")
- Obama should pickup one net pledged delegate in the contests between last Tuesday and yesterday, has a pledged delegate lead of 164, and an overall lead of 127.
- Hillary has not significantly outperformed the pre-contest polls in any contest after Super Tuesday (he has outperformed his polling in six of those contests)
- Only 17% of the pledged delegates remain in the remaining contests
- Obama now only needs to secure 44.5% of the remaining pledged and superdelegates to win the nomination

math 101 said...

good math but this is better
w/o - 796/2 (super delegates 398) + 3253 /2 (delegates 1626.5)equal 2024.5
If your intention was to provide a simple rationale why the super delegates should vote for Sen. Obama (or not even exist) then ok no argument from me but that isn't a very strong argument (and as to the second question ask a political historical expert person not some talking head on tv or 30 second sound-bite). Lets just remember that the entire system of primaries and YES caucus's (did i mis-spell that) evolved over many years in accordance of the states wishes. (if you want proof find a historian or write the history channel) wow sorry this kind of turned into a rant :)

Carrie said...

Math 101 -

I'm definitely a Clinton supporter. I'm also a MI voter.

I'm on the side of letting things play out - tired of hearing people say things are over - tired of people accusing my candidate of destroying the party by not throwing in the towel. I don't think it's over, so I'm trying to settle on an "over" threshold I can live with.

I'm OK with MI & FL not redoing the vote, if the super delegates stop getting pressed to vote "with the will of the people" (I'm people!). I'm ok with arguing that the super delegates shouldn't overwhelmingly override the will of the people if we're all counted. However, if after PA, things are "close," and MI/FL aren't counted, I think it's unfair to threaten anarchy and rebellion against the democratic party if the super delegates essentially break a near tie - particularly if they're attempting to take into consideration the will of the people who couldn't vote.

So, now I'm trying to figure out what's "close"...

Until Obama reaches the 1626.5 pledged delegate threshold, it's definitely not over.

If MI & FL don't revote, and Obama passes the 1783 pledged delegate mark without those states - that's half of the pledged delegates incl. MI/FL - then I'll concede that he has passed any threshold of close.

If Obama's somewhere between the 1626.5 and 1783 threshold after PA, and is still resisting a re-do in MI...well...it'll depend on which number he's nearer.

NOTE: I don't expect anyone else to live by, accept, or care about my little set of thresholds...it's really just trying to prepare myself. I do the same kind of thing when I'm shopping...it's an odd sort of budgeting. (so - no need for any Obama supporters to harangue me)

math 101 said...

carrie in my post i only seek the best information possible. bad information bothers me. its a personal thing i dont fully understand it myself. as to my post i re-read your post after i sent mine and i wish i could have changed a few words sorry. after your second i agree with everything you said except i want them to have a re=vote i don't want to have 6 months of stupid news stories about FL ballots ever again. i don't want to see an asterix in the history books (as to how well the election represented the will of the ppl)
This is a time to build the party and unite behind whoever when it is official. there have been posts by loyal democrats in FL or MI on this site saying that they stayed home for the first time in like 25 years (somewhere on the net if not here) i want to let that person to pull a lever check a box touch a screen. wow sorry about this rant.
*wow i should sleep*

Carrie said...

math -
Here's my funny story: I was going to be out of town, so I shifted my work so I could take time off and drag my little one down to city hall and vote absentee - knowing full well my vote wouldn't count. Laughed about it, cried about it. Voted.

I agree that we can't use the votes as is. I think it's a shame that Dean recommended a mail-in for both states, given that one campaign is opposed. Don't know who I'm more frustrated with - Dean for not having buy in before he went on the Sunday talk shows, or the Obama campaign for saying they'd go along with whatever the DNC came up with and then backing out. Either way, it's frustrating.

I'd love a second turn voting for my candidate, and it would be pretty darned sweet to have it count.

I'd also love to see my motown neighborhood plastered with yard signs for the democratic nominee rather than foreclosure stickers (which is what we have already) or McCain flair - I'm really worried that if we don't count (and 50/50 doesn't count), I'm going to be stuck with the latter. Yargh.