Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Super Tuesday Delegate Tracker

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at

Update: This post is no longer being updated.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Delegates
% Vote In
% Clinton %Obama
Delegates Clinton
Delegates Obama
American Samoa-
New Jersey-
New Mexico1
New York-
North Dakota-
Super Tuesday Total47
Previously Pledged Delegates

Total Pledged Delegates

Superdelegate Endorsements


Delegates Still Needed to Win Nomination



«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 218   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Great table that I'm looking forward to following. I wouldn't include Democrats Abroad, though, as their voting continues through Feb 12. By that point a number of other states (and DC) will have also voted.

Anonymous said...

Why does Obama need only 8% of delegates to win when Clinton has more delegates?

Anonymous said...

if Current polls are true, Hillary will get 172 more delegates than

State - Hillary Advantage
Alabama 2
Arizona 12
California 38
Colorado -1
Connecticut 2
Georgia -7
Illinois -45
Massachusetts 27
Missouri 4
New Jersey 11
New York 60
Oklahoma 14
Tennessee 14
Arkansas 15
Minnesota 6
Kansas 2
New Mexico 4
Utah 9
Delaware 5
Idaho 0
North Dakota -1
Alaska 1
Total 172

plus add superdelegates you counting yourself plus add delegates from Michigan and Florida you counting on this site too

Matt said...

It's the percentage of the 2,025 delegates needed to win that a candidate already has. First candidate to 100% gets the nomination.

Unknown said...

I only show a Hillary advantage of 54 based on poll averages at Real Clear Politics as of 2/3 (and any others I could find):

California 7
New York 46
Illinois -47
New Jersey 8
Massachusetts 14
Georgia -13
Minnesota 5
Missouri 2
Tennessee 7
Arizona 4
Colorado -1
Alabama 1
Connecticut -2
Oklahoma 9
Arkansas 14
Kansas 2
New Mexico 2
Utah -5
Idaho 0
Delaware 3
North Dakota -1
Alaska -1
American Samoa 0

Anonymous said...

They need to change the wording of "% of Delegates Needed to Win." I'm obviously not the only person who misunderstood it at first.

Anonymous said...

John Edwards still on the ballot, he suspended but not ended his campaign, many will make an statement and want their voices to be many delegates can we count in?

Anonymous said...

yes, polls today are different from just 2 days ago, so I think it will
be around 100 delegates advantage for Hillary:

State / Hiilary Advanatage
Alabama 2
Alaska -1
American Samoa 0
Arizona 4
Arkansas 18
California 22
Colorado -1
Connecticut 1
Delaware 3
Georgia -13
Idaho 0
Illinois -47
Kansas 2
Massachusetts 21
Minnesota 5
Missouri 3
New Jersey 10
New Mexico 3
New York 50
North Dakota -1
Oklahoma 15
Tennessee 9
Utah -5

Total 100 more delegates for Hillary after 2/5/08

Unknown said...

I'm down to a 39 Super Tuesday delegate advantage for Hillary as of 2/4:

California 0
New York 41
Illinois -47
New Jersey 7
Massachusetts 13
Georgia -13
Minnesota 5
Missouri 1
Tennessee 7
Arizona 4
Colorado -1
Alabama 1
Connecticut -2
Oklahoma 9
Arkansas 14
Kansas 2
New Mexico 2
Utah -5
Idaho 0
Delaware 3
North Dakota -1
Alaska -1
American Samoa 0

BTW, some national polls are going in Obama's favor for the first time (CNN, Cook/RT Strategies)

Unknown said...

May I ask how you two are getting your predictions for delegate counts? Complicated situations arise in every state tweaking the distribution of delegates, just like Nevada where Clinton won the popular vote by 6 points, but only got 12 delegates to Obama's 13. All in all, Obama has shown in the two states he lost (NH and NV) that he seems to be able to get just as many delegates even when losing by 3 (NH) or 6 (NV) points.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
P. A. Perryman said...


There are Delegate calculators online that can be filled in with the current poll data and base that information on a State's allocation of delegates.

Everything is quite interpretive and as polls change, so too do the prospective delegate counts.

kristen said...

It's not at all clear how the delegate counts are going to break based on the polls, because the polls have been very unstable over the past few days and Obama has been surging ahead at quite a fast pace. ...I'd like to remind the Obama supporters out there that we don't actually need to "win" tonight's races. While nothing will be settled at the end of the night, if Obama comes within 200 delegates or so, it'll be a major victory on his part.

Anonymous said...

Are the number of delegates available per state in dispute? I see other sites such as the NY Times that say California has 441 delegates at large while this site says 370. What gives?

Oreo said...

The NY Times is including the superdelegates in their count. We're focusing on tonight so we're only showing the delegates that are in play.

Anonymous said...

Why is a man that lied under oath to the Supreme Court and impeached by 1/2 of Congress considered eligible to enter the White House again?

Why do people feel that we should go into Iran with either Hillary or the Republicans who already passed the Iran Resolution?

Who do people think garnishing people's wages if they can not afford Health care is a a good thing?

Why should Dubai set our laws through the Clinton's with their lobby money and buying her loyalty by giving to her campaign fund?

Such honest, moral people were forced out of the primary before most of the country got their voices heard.

When Hillary or the Republicans take us into Iran and re-instate the draft, no complaints from those who voted for corruption.

I am voting Green Party this year, both Republicans and Democrats are beyond redemption.

Anonymous said...

Because, Alice - the Clintons are wonderful. Bill did much good during his terms. Hillary will be a fantastic president!!

Dan Werner said...

Does anyone know where to get the American Samoa election/delegate results? Voting ended there at 5pm EST...

Oreo said...

We're trying to get some information on American Samoa. No luck yet.

Anonymous said...

American Samoa
Clinton 153 56%
Obama 121 44%

Anonymous said...

I'm watching CNN at 6:30 MST and their reporting is very misleading. They are treating all 24 states as primary elections when caucus states, such as Colorado, are selecting delegates only tonite. Although these delegates are chosen based on presidential preference polls, in Colorado like Nevada, a candidate can receive more caucus support, yet still lose to the other candidate based on delegate numbers. And we all know this race is about delegate count, not popularity polls.

Anonymous said...

they changed the Ameriocan Samoa totla its now 163-121

Matt said...

Leslie - everyone here knows its about delegate counts. The mass media, not so much.

Unknown said...

I can't wait to see how the delegates shake out tonight, especially these 56-44 states.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Martin said...

ND: Obama 8, Clinton 5

DE: Obama 8, Clinton 6 - see comment for discussion of fifteenth delegate.

Anonymous said...

great spreadsheet, thanbk you! any chance you can add a sub-total for pledged delegates (pre-Feb 5 + Feb 5)? as if you aren't doing enough work. :-)

Anonymous said...

Looks like Senator Obama just took Connecticut!

Alice, I don't like that everyone focuses on Bill Clinton's affair.

This is a neat delegate tracker.
21:40 CST

Anonymous said...

The Obama campaign's delegate guy, Jeff Berman, offered the Obama campaign's estimate of where they stand at this moment in terms of delegates.

606-534 estimate, in Obama's favor, of delegates pledged tonight.

Matt said...

Martin - re: Delaware - If you get 15%, you get a delegate regardless of the numbers.

Martin said...

kk, thanks =)

Unknown said...

MSNBC just estimated the delegate total at this point to be


Anonymous said...

Did Obama really won super tuesday primaries?

Can we really say Obama is a winner based on super tuesday results. Most of the states Obama won are typical red states in general election. How can we expect him to get nomination based on these results and "hope" to win the general election. Clinton clearly won the democratic base and deserves to get the democratic nomination in 2008.Let's hope all democrats realize this when they go to DNC.

Unknown said...

Are you kidding? Obama won more delegates, Obama wins. You must be a fool to think that we need a candidate that cannot win the red states or independents and cannot reach beyond the liberal base of our party. It is clear that Obama, not Clinton can change that big red blob stretching from Nevada to Missouri, New Mexico to North Dakota, to a lovely shade of blue.

Anonymous said...

Obama team now predicting winning more delegates tonight: 677 to 634

Unknown said...

MO is 49% Obama, 48% Clinton, with 98% reporting, not the other way around as you have posted.

Unknown said...

MSNBC now predicting a full delegate count:

(+/- 10 delegates)

These numbers were generated with Clinton +34 in CA(the Clinton camp's highest prediction), and Obama +2 in NM

Unknown said...

MSNBC just estimated delegate count:
Obama 841 to Clinton 837
(plus or minus 10 includes CA, NW, and AK but doesn't include the superdelegates).

Anonymous said...

I can't believe it is going to come down to the super-delegates. Three decades of Bush/Clinton is just unacceptable. I hope these super-delegates realize this and give new hope to the citizens of the United States of America. It is not just a time for change and hope, but a time for the new generation of thinking. Obama/Clark 08

Unknown said...

even if ur right and hillary is winning blue states, the CNN guys noticed that in some of those red states there are more democrats showing up to vote than republicans.

Gabe Stein said...

Here's the thing I see across the board that no one's talking about - bigger than expected margins for the states that Obama's carrying, and smaller than expected margins in states that Hillary's carrying. The truth is that the democratic nominee is going to win the big states (California, New York, etc.) in the general election regardless of the nominee. However, only Obama, it seems, is generating the kind of energy in the traditionally "red" states where he's winning by the largest margins of the night. As Jose alluded to, that could mean big, big things for carrying those states in the general election.

Anonymous said...

Gabe, I think you hit the nail right on the head. Obama appears to be the most electable across the board. Here in California there is a Republican group that is raising money in support of Obama. This man's appeal is just amazing. It will be interesting to see who he picks for VP if he receives the Democratic nomination.

Anonymous said...

To the anonymous who seems to think it's a bad thing that Obama won "red states.": What matters is who wins the election. If, in a general election, Hillary only carries the same "blue states" that Gore and Kerry took, you can say hello to President McCain.

On the other hand, if Obama appeals to the more independent-minded voters, he probably has a better chance in the battleground states.

At least, that's why he got my vote.

Anonymous said...

Gabe beat me to my point

However, let me add that I'm not shocked that red-state dems are voting for Obama over Hillary. As someone who spent the Clinton years in the reddest of red (IN), let me tell you two things.

First, when your party is already not the establishment, you're more likely to vote for a non-establishment candidate. Hence, I'm not surprised that establishment blue (like MA) voted for the establishment candidate.

Second, much of the midwest (even democrats and independents) have some unexplained hatred of Hillary. It's not logical, but it is there. Now, in the general election, Barack won't take IN. But I think he might take OH, whereas I don't think Hillary could.

Unknown said...

On the superdelegates from tonights states; out of the total 400, 170 come from Obama won states, 216 from Clinton won states, 10 Am. Samoa, 4 Dems Ab.

Three things:
Obviously a large number of these SDs have already committed, most likely 2:1 for Clinton.

I would think that due to Obama's several landslide wins he will receive more unianimous support from his won state's SDs.

Clinton has a 16 more home state SDs, nearly all of which have already supported her as have Obama's home SDs.

These three factors would seem to me to result in Obama gaining more of the 150-200? remaining undeclared, non-home state, ST SDs. I would also think the majority of these remaining SDs should endorse soon. Along with Obama's increased endorsement pace and Feb 9th's Obama-leaning contests, this looks to bring the total delegate tallies to a dead tie within the next week.

Only my opinion!

Unknown said...

Wow okay, I need to say that Chuck Todd of MSNBC is copying me. He just decided to mention the superdelegates from tonight about 2 minutes after (1:56 AM EST) I posted my analysis.

He acted as if Obama and Clinton automatically win the superdelegates from the states they win, giving Obama a flat 170 and Clinton 22x? (Don't know where the difference is)likewise, which we know is NOT how they are assigned at all. He then proceeded to say that with the Feb 9th contests, Obama and Clinton should be even in delegates a week from now. (Scary. NBC should hire me as an analyst.)

Anonymous said...

Theres a group of Blue states that both Clinton and Obama would carry no matter what. Pretty much what Gore took in 2000.

Yes Obama may put states in play, but thats not guaranteed. States down south could easily see the republican voters come out to prevent a democratic president even if their not totally satisfied with their candidate.

Clinton can win these states that Gore didnt. New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Colorado.

Theres also Virginia which may trend democratic some more this year. Arkansas is also very much in play with Clinton.

Hillary isn't weak with electoral math, both her or Obama will be solid candidates.

Anonymous said...

I like Hillary, and I think she'd make a great president. But I think there's a lot of people who don't feel that way about her.

Record turnouts are everywhere for Dems. People are getting involved in the process ans supporting Obama by huge margins, either because they're excited by Barack's message or because they really hate Hillary. Barack took over 60% in 8 states, and Hillary only did it in 1.

In the general, either Barack Obama will continue to produce record Democrat turnouts, or Hillary will help Republicans set their own turnout records. The people excited by Barack's message will go away when he does, and the people who hate Hillary will come out in huge numbers to vote against her.

At a time when the nation sorely needs to be healed, why would the Democratic establishment put a figure as divisive as HillDawg up as their candidate?

Anonymous said...

to semianonymous,
just because you don't understand peoples hatred of hillary, does not make it illogical. i fall into this category of an independent supporting obama who would not ever consider voting for hillary. my dislike of hillary is because of the way she lies and twists truth in a very unbecoming manner to suit her purposes. not that no other politicians have ever bent truth, but as david geffen said in the beginning of the campaign - "the clintons lie with such ease that it is troubling" if 50% of the country view her unfavorably, there has to be a reason. accept the fact that she rubs a lot of people in the wrong way. also accept the fact that it's not just because she is a woman. for democrats to even consider risking losing the presidency by nominating hillary, i something i find "illogical", particularly at a time when there is so much enthusiasm for a 'change in leadership'.

Anonymous said...

great table, but are you sure the numbers in the first column "delegates available" are correct?

e.g. california has 241 district delegates, 81 at-large and 48 pleo for a total of 370 pledged (+71 superdels for a grand total of 441). however, your column shows only 210 for california.

the table shows 2 for Kansas though Kansas has 21 district, 7 at-large, 4 pleo for a total of 32 pledged delegates. delaware has 15 pledged delegates but the table does not show any.

the total DISTRICT delegates from 22 supertuesday states is 1,094. the table shows a total of 650 even though clinton and obama together already have 1,000+ with the votes not all counted.

the total number of pledged delegates (i.e. district, at-large and pleo) from 22 super tuesday states (not including american samoa and democrats abroad) is 1,678.

(all numbers from the greenpapers)

or did i misunderstand the column?

Anonymous said...

Hi there. Greets from Berlin, GER (pretty much Obama land, I'd say).

Hell, your voting system is complicated. But that makes it even more interesting. Hope that Obama makes it, but fear that Clinton will not be beaten.

Anonymous said...

great site, watching from Australia. Rachana, the delegates available column shows unelected/undecided delegates, not the total for the state. Cheers

Anonymous said...

I am truly pessimistic about clinton's chances. McCain will win her easily. Democrats are already frustrated because of elections in 2000 and 2004. It is very easy to beat Clinton couple, who look like bonnie and clyde creedy after power.

I think Obama has a chance to bring dems to White House. Hillary's popularity is plummeting in crucial moments. She was supposed to win easily and now she is in trouble with Obama, yet her campaign has been done with huge resources.

Her campaign has proven that Clintons belong to diffent era, which is long gone.

Anonymous said...

I thought We would have a woman president for the first time. Now that Bill has shown who is the strong man in that campaign, I have lost my appetite for that Cheater man's hoax to hide behind the very woman whom he cheated so cruelly while in White house for the first time..

I think it is safer to choose even McCain instead of Bill.

Anonymous said...

Total Pledged Delegates for Obama should be (640+63=) 703

Anonymous said...

I think it is safer to pick 'old man Paul' rather than bill

Anonymous said...

First let me start by saying this is a great spread sheet. I went searching for it last night and stumbled across this blog. Thank you for this.

Hey ben i saw the same nbc clip that you saw. On NBC he was giving out the super delegeates that have already endorsed one of the canidates. The other 400 or so are still undecided, and have not yet been counted.

As for people not understanding why people would support Obama but not Hilary I will explain why i feel this way. I typically vote democrat, but I will vote for Mccain over Clinton. I will keep it down to just 1 point, or ill fill up the screen.

I know some of you will roll your eyes when i say this, but Hilary and Bush policys are very similar, and bush, clintons both have very good ties.

1st. We all know Hilary did vote for the war in Iraq. Lets not forget her husband bombed Iraq continously while in office, and it got so bad he started droping giant cement blocks on Iraq.

2nd. Lets No forget that Clinton, and Bush senior were parading around to get donations for the Tsunami victims. Very just cause. However Bush senior said "Bill is like a son to me"

So if im going to vote for a canidate that support alot of Bush's policys anyways. I will vote for Mccain. Both canditates will get us into wars in the middle east, because thats been the American Policy there for 20 years now, under the clinton, Bush Adminstration.

I truly belive Mccain will be the better war president. He will also care alot about the soliders well being and give them all the supplies they need.

Anonymous said...

Unbelievable!!! They are counting SuperDelegates?? We need to see what the people voted for, not what the bureaucrats will or might vote for. After all, it is a government of the people, by the people, for the people....

Anonymous said...

"After all, it is a government of the people, by the people, for the people...."

yea yea we all know the cliche. But the truth is, you pretty much have to change the constitution to scrap super-delegates. we all know how many decades it normally takes to change the constitution.

Unknown said...

Based on actual (in brackets) and projected delegate counts, I've got Obama with a 32 delegate advantage for Super Tuesday:

California -37
New York -39
Illinois 49
New Jersey -11
Massachusetts -17
Georgia 31
Minnesota [24]
Missouri 0
Tennessee -9
Arizona -5
Colorado 19
Alabama 7
Connecticut [4]
Oklahoma [-10]
Arkansas -15
Kansas [14]
New Mexico 0
Utah [5]
Idaho [12]
Delaware [3]
North Dakota [3]
Alaska [5]
American Samoa [-1]


I also show Obama significantly outperformed(picked up 5 delegates or more than predicted) the polls (mostly RCP) in nine states (GA, MN, MO, CO, AL, CT, KS, ID, DE) and underperformed in two (CA, MA).

Anonymous said...

The New York total is 139-93 a -46 for Obama not a -39.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to say this is one of few boards I have seen intelligent conversation about the elections on. I would also like to say I agree with many posters, I feel that nominating HRC is political suicide for the DNC. She is too polarizing and people will vote AGAINST her, not FOR the republican candidate.

Anonymous said...

I agree completely with deru01. I'm going to subscribe to this blog. The Old Guard may make Hillary the nominee despite the amazing emergence of Barack but that would be a wink at the past and a sell-out of progressive values. I hate to say it, but we're living in interesting times.

Therapy Cat said...

PS I didn't mean for the previous comment to be anonymous. Dr. M

AD said...

Superdelegates! Good conversation on MSNBC about the fluid situation that you get when the difference between the two candidates is in the number of superdelegates... I would be interested to see a breakdown of the endorsing superdelegates: who are they? Are any of the Clinton superdelegates vulnerable to Obama?

Oreo said...

Funny you should mention that! We happen to have the only superdelegate endorsement list on the Internet. You can click on our DCW Superdelegate Tracker link at the top left or click here

You'll also find that we have a list of all of the superdelegates that haven't endorsed yet.

Anonymous said...

As we all know, it takes more than talk to make Washington function how you want it to function. The American People want a change, but do we want the kind of revolutionary changes BO offers as his main plank? I personally feel this type of change in our society offers more opportunity for corruption and despotic behavior as we could construe has happened with Homeland Security and other sweeping govt. moves. That being said, I hope we aren't just seeing Howard Dean Syndrome because his popular but idealistic support evaporated almost overnight.
What IS a superdelegate anyway?

Anonymous said...

I'm grateful for the insightful inputs that you posted. I have never been interested nor involved in the politics but this time, after how the Bush Administration drove America down the pit, I feel the great need for a positive change in the whole American government system and leadership. It would be a great shame for America to forgo this unprecedented momentous unification and energy of the people, especially the youth, who are the future of this country, to bring about a historic transformation together. It would be a pity for America to let go of such presidential potential who is the only one who can possibly change the pathetic course of the nation. We cannot entrust the changing of Washington to someone who is so entrenched and enveloped in its politics and lobbyism. America, it's time to wake up and make a wise choice!

AD said...

Oreo - Thanks! I'll check it out.

Related questions:
(1) Is the ordinary-delegate split in CA (101/59 - RealClearPolitics), which was nothing like 52/42 as the vote counted, just because of precinct aggregation?
(2) I see the total number of delegates assigned (160 - RealClearPolitics) is much smaller than the total number of delegates available (441 - RealClearPolitics). Does that mean there are 281 super-delegates for CA?

Anonymous said...

370 of the California delegates are from yesterdays primary.

Compelte delegate totals for CA may not be known til Friday at the earliest

Anonymous said...

If Florida and Michigan delegates manage to get sat at the convention (and passion will be HIGH)then the numbers skew again:

Florida: 210 delegates
Michigan: 156 delegates

Anonymous said...

Congratualtions for the great job you are doing. It allows me to follow this wonderful race; way better than concentrating on the shameful electoral campaign we are about to have here in Italy. Just to give you an idea of the difference between you and us, you are counting delegates and superdels while we are going to vote in April with an electoral system everybody calls "Porcellum", which in latin would sound something like "done by a pig", or "a pig" itself! Have a good time with the final part of the Obama vs Clinton race.

palie said...

We need change but we also need someone who can achieve it. We will have a democratic controled congress for only a short time until the next election I dont think Obama would do a bad job, I think Hillary would do a better job faster. The country does not have time for him to figure out how to do things when hillary already has the support of many of staff and connections that already know how to get things done.

Anonymous said...

point taken "I Care Said", operative word being WISE choice. In 8 years, Sen Obama will be a seasoned and wise choice, and he'll win it hands down because by then our society will be ready and willing, and he'll be just the man. Politics and Washington are by no means cut and dry, nor black and white, and to expect it to be that way is dangerously naive. imho.

Anonymous said...

point taken "I Care Said", operative word being WISE choice. In 8 years, Sen Obama will be a seasoned and wise choice, and he'll win it hands down because by then our society will be ready and willing, and he'll be just the man. Politics and Washington are by no means cut and dry, nor black and white, and to expect it to be that way is dangerously naive. imho.

Anonymous said...

Hey, can you guys explain why there are still so many unallocated delegates in some states (CA, AL, IL, CO etc.)? Is it because congressional district vote totals are still being determined? Thanks.

Anonymous said...


Unknown said...

You are awesome! One stop shopping when it comes to checking what is what. thank you ;)

Anonymous said...

If Clinton win the nomination, and I hope she doesn't, the only chance she has of winning the election in November is to choose Obama as her running mate.It is basic math.
Clinton(core democrats)=loser
Obama(core democrats,independents, and new voters) = winner

Anonymous said...

This table is awesome, does it update its contents from sources automatically or someone has to update it?
Thanks :)

Anonymous said...

The reason for California are theres some CD that probably still have a large number of absentee and provisional ballots to count.

Im guessing the Illinois and Colorado delegate numbers just reflect the statewide and there working on putting together the CD totals.

Anonymous said...

in reply to the person who suggested that.

Clinton & Obama on same ticket?
What do you think?

An interesting article on CNN by Jack Cafferty

Oreo said...

Thanks Ray. It's all manual. We're pulling from multiple sources to get the best info.

Anonymous said...

Clinton puts Arkansas in play. If she wins everything Gore did in 2000 which is VERY possible, Arkansas is the ballgame. She wins.

Thats before you add in New Hampshire which has trended democrat big time since 2000 not to mention a great shot at Colorado, Florida and Ohio. Nevada could also be in play.

This spells a landslide.

Now if Obama wins the nomination it will mean one thing, the Michigan and Florida delegates werent seated and the only way that happens is Obama's delegates blocking it.

Will Obama face a backlash on election day in Florida and Michigan? Its possible and he will need Michigan.

I think both are very electable in November, but Clinton is more electable.... She may not be hugely popular but she will carry the base and the solid blue states and add in the right mix of swing states that makes it a comfortable electoral win.

Anonymous said...

A system that allows "Super delegates" the abilty to go against the will of the people in the state they represent is a reason for me, a Democrat, to vote Republican. Why should we vote at all? Just let these Super delegates make our decisions for us. Oh..sorry. That's how it works, isn't it!

Anonymous said...

The United States government should take over the whole process of electing a president.

Anonymous said...

Cannot read your full page, especially totals for Obama

Anonymous said...

For the last 24 hours I've been checking MSNNBC, CNN, RealClearPolitics and various sources for the delegate count. For some reason this manually run blog is the site I trust the most and where I go to check the facts.
Great job guys!
/Martin, Sweden

Matt said...

AD - (1) Is the ordinary-delegate split in CA (101/59 - RealClearPolitics), which was nothing like 52/42 as the vote counted, just because of precinct aggregation?

Yes. Only state-wide delegates are apportioned according to the state-wide vote.

(2) I see the total number of delegates assigned (160 - RealClearPolitics) is much smaller than the total number of delegates available (441 - RealClearPolitics). Does that mean there are 281 super-delegates for CA?

No, it probably just meant that only 160 delegates had been determined when you looked at their site.

MartinJ - thanks. We put the table together as we wanted to see the information, after being frusrated by the big media just like you.

Unknown said...

Obama should not face backlash from Michigan and Florida, because he does support counting their delegates. What he doesn't support is counting them as they are now, because he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan( which hillary still only got 50%, unchallenged), and never campaigned in either state along with Hillary. So it would not be fair to count their delegates unless there is another primary or more likely a caucus after they both have had a chance to campaign. The more people learn about Obama the more they seem to like him, which is why he is challenging Hillary when he was nothing several months ago.

Unknown said...

I was looking at the two undecided NY superdelegates and found some good and bad news. I hope Ralph Dawson does not support Obama because it seems it was his idea to strip delegates from states that moved up their primaries which will look bad to people from Michigan and Florida. And according to, Marianne Spraggins has donated to both Obama and Hillary, but more towards Obama.

Carrie said...

Jose - re:

...what he doesn't support is counting them as they are now, because he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan( which hillary still only got 50%, unchallenged), and never campaigned in either state along with Hillary...

Obama initiated a move to names from the MI ballot - that wasn't part of the original DNC punishment, so he's made his own bed there.
- he didn't campaign, officially, in MI but did have "get out the uncommitted vote" rallies promoted on his site (Hillary had "we have no events in MI" on her site)
- Per FL bloggers, Obama ran TV ads in Florida, where his name did appear and he still lost (Hilary did not run ads)
These were big states he was likely to lose because of demographics. He has to be grateful re: their moves and the decision to strip the delegates. Seems like it'll be a pretty shallow victory for him if he wins on a technicality introduced by a dispute he could have used his strong unifying skills to help resolve.

And, by the way, it would look very bad to us Michigan voters if Dawson backs Obama...thanks for the heads up.

Carrie said...
2nd. Lets No forget that Clinton, and Bush senior were parading around to get donations for the Tsunami victims. Very just cause. However Bush senior said "Bill is like a son to me"

H. W. Bush came out against the invasion of Iraq. Now doesn't that actually put Bill in good company wrt the current war? Good causes...right side of the war argument...

Dave said...

As I write this, you have Super Tuesday at 803-803. Just eyeballing the 75 remaining delegates and doing some simple math, it looks like Obama should take (roughly) 45 of the 75, meaning he'll have won Super Tuesday by 15. I realize it won't necessarily go that way, but it seems unlikely that Hillary can get more than half of the remaining 75.

That's pretty amazing! Yes we can!

Now if they could just do something about those damn superdelegates! :-)

Unknown said...

I really do hope they redo Michigan and Florida, because they are very important in the main event, and should get a chance to pick their Democratic candidate. I don't care if Obama loses both popular votes, but I doubt he will be stomped in either state, just my opinion, so Obama should still get some delegates, and both States will have gotten their chance.

Carrie said...

A redo seems fair on the face, but a redo would have to be caucus-style (a primary would be too costly/unmanageable at this point). Given analysis, that would give an advantage to Obama in two states in which Clinton already won. I'd prefer to be counted than do nothing, but I think I would prefer the 50% delegate count punishment doled out by the republicans. At this point, that seems even more fair. MI and FL missed out on the power they hoped to gain by going early - nobody's paid attention, so they've had no impact on fundraising. 50 % is a further punishment. A redo would be costly in a state that has a very vulnerable set of democrats - we're dealing with a lot of recalls over tax increases made to cover an incredible budget shortfall (legacy of a horrible republican...sound familiar?). The party would have to pay for the caucus process as the state already sunk millions into the early primary. It could be disastrous for the state committee, which would be bad news for the DNC, too.
The whole situation stinks here. On a positive note, I'm now totally obsessed with the whole thing. It is taking me back to the amazing speech Clinton gave - I went thinking, "it'll be novel to hear the president's wife speak," and walked out determined to go back and work my way through college. It has completely reinvigorated my progressive spirit. OK, so I'm fired up and all full of spit and vinegar because I'm so angry at Obama and the DNC. I guess he's inspiring my passion in a way, too! :)

Carrie said...

Realized I didn't address a fair concern of yours re: Obama not getting delegates in MI because his name wasn't on the ballot. When you talk to people here, many will say, "I voted for Obama." They're referring the high % of uncommitted votes. Hillary wasn't actually running unopposed here. There were large rallies around "getting out the uncommitted vote." He'd get those delegates. Of course, in FL he was on the ballot. Large margin loss is most likely due to the large >60 crowd where Clinton did extremely well in Obama 2/5 states - plus he ran ads there.

DaxDiamond said...

What will be the key to victory? Whether FL and MI delegates are seated? Who gets the most superdelegates? No. The key to victory is Puerto Rico's 55 winner-take-all delegates, making it more important than any state. Clinton will retake the pledged delegate lead on June 1 when she wins Puerto Rico.

Anonymous said...

How about adding the number of unpledged superdelegates and the number of delegates left to be chosen by primary/caucus to the chart after the delegates needed to win line?


Unknown said...

I hope the democrats don't have to wait until June 1 to finally have a candidate. Although that could lead to the democrats getting more exposure than the Republicans up to that point since it would be more interesting.

I don't think the Michigan or Florida democrats should have to pay for this redo, and I think they could do a national fund raiser for both states. I would donate to that. This election is really getting people riled up, and I keep hearing how people will vote against Hillary, but same could happen to Obama, my grandpa is a Hillary fan, and very anti Obama, he feels he is too inexperienced.

Anonymous said...

I read someone asking what super delegetes are.

Super delegates, are people of the democratic party who are congress,govners, former presidents, and vips of the party(such as Nancy Palosie Daughters, and Chelsie Clinton)

I Also read someone talking about having to change the constinution to change the delegete rules.

Actually this is not a goverment event. Its a party event. The Democratic Party would have to change there rules. Typically these conventions are to shore up each nominess between the core memebers of the party, then try to win the inpendents in the genral. This year is an exemption with some many people voting in the primaries.

Unknown said...


Although I am an Obama supporter I am trying to be without bias on MI and FL. It is unfortunate that their people's votes do not count at this time, but the whole thing is a mess and doesn't have any good solution. There can't be another contest as you said, and the DNC can't go back on its word. The current results would appear invalid due to many reasons; I wouldn't bother with voting if I was told my vote wasn't worth anything, and the people of MI and FL weren't given a fair chance to hear from the candidates themselves.


a chart including the number of undeclared superdelegates is in the upper left side margin.

After all of Tuesday's pledged delegates are allocated, 1818 of the 3253 total pledged delegates will have been assigned, leaving 1435 pdelegates from the remaining states, in addition to any undeclared superdelegates, up for grabs.

Unknown said...

Protactinium said...
"Super delegates, are people of the democratic party who are congress,govners, former presidents, and vips of the party(such as Nancy Palosie Daughters, and Chelsie Clinton)"

VIPs don't include relatives. A VIP is defined as a former leader of the party, such as former DNC chairmen or Democratic presidents (Bill Clinton).

"Actually this is not a goverment event. Its a party event. The Democratic Party would have to change there rules. Typically these conventions are to shore up each nominess between the core memebers of the party, then try to win the inpendents in the genral. This year is an exemption with some many people voting in the primaries."

Essentially yes. The parties are private entities that can do whatever they want, including getting rid of superdelegates. Doing that would probably be debated and need some sort of vote within the party though. These primaries that we have are organized by the parties themselves at the state level. Individual states can do things very differently, most notably whether or not they allow independent or republican voters to participate. The winner of the national convention, determined by the delegates, is named the official nominee for the party. This year really isn't any different except for high voter turnouts and a very close race.

Anonymous said...

As far as Florida and Michigan go, there really is no good solution. You guys should all go read the post on this blog about how the FL and MI delegates would actually be seated.

The uncommitted vote in MI could've been a vote for Obama or Edwards, who was still in the race. All candidates agreed not to campaign in either state, but Obama ran Vote Uncommitted radio ads and pushed it on his website, and Hillary held fundraisers in Florida on the day of their primary. No one's hands are clean here.

If Obama wins by enough that he won't be throwing in the towel by not contesting, he should seat them. If Hillary wins by any margin, she WILL seat them.

The Republicans punished states who moved up their primaries by penalizing them half their delegates, instead of all of them. At this point, I'm starting to think that's a pretty good compromise.

Anonymous said...

Amazing data collection! Thanks so much!

Anonymous said...

Ben gt look it up. The people I named are superdelegte. I even saw a special with Palosi's daughters saying they where torn between vote for "there generation" or "there gender"

Anonymous said...

Hm I may have made a mistake about Chelisie Clinton being a super delegate. Even though I would have sworn this war true I coudent find it online. Didnt want to be the source of miss info.

Christine Pelosi - Undecided

Anonymous said...

Carrie great name, same as mine just spelt differently.

As far as Florida and Michigan go, the best solution is to give 50% of Michigan to both parties, that way the whingers are shut up. In the case of Florida since both did backyard games split their results 50 - 50 on the proportion of their own votes.

This way both the Floridans and the Michiganites will have at some say and be part of the democratic process and not be disenfranchised

But you know Carrie? I am sure Obama’s supporters and surrogates will find a way to whinge about that reasonable resolution to this problem.

However you will need to make the final count proportional to the new result.

If the party does not accept the delegations from both Florida and Michigan, I am sure the voter backlash will mean 4 years of McCain. Do we want this? Or do we want to be responsible. I am sure it will be worked out.

From my own personal observations, the high end of the Democratic Party is voting for Obama, and the lower end of the Party are voting for Clinton, who are Poor, and not so well educated, or the Aged who are considered less valuable. In doing so, they are voting for their own desire for Change.

That CHANGE is for health care that will give them a chance of a quality of life they can’t afford. When your young, health care rates pretty low. When you have money to spend and go out for dinner, or to have parties and go to movies, issues faced by the lower working classes mean little to them because they are not on that side of the fence.

Yes women are voting for Hillary, but it doubt it is simply because she is a women. I believe they are voting for her because they are the ones that handle the house hold budgets and are struggling to make sure that they can make ends meet. Unfortunately it is not the budgeters that do the salary negotiations with the boss.

Richer democrats can afford to be more Liberal with their money then poorer democrats.

This argument has yet to be played on the National Stage, the class warfare game between the Rich Democrats (elitists) and the Real Poor Democratic voters.

Kevin M said...

Regarding Obama's supposed "inexperience", let's look back at the presidential heros of the Democratic party and see how much experience they had before being elected to the highest office:

William Jefferson Clinton:
2 years as Arkansas Attorney General
12 years as Arkansas Governor
Total Political Years: 14

John Fitzgerald Kennedy:
6 years in the U.S. House of Representatives
8 years in the U.S. Senate
Total Political Years: 14

Franklin Delano Roosevelt:
3 years New York State Senate
6 years Assistant Secretary of the Navy
4 years New York Governor
Total Political Years: 13

Barack Obama has the following resume:
6 years Illinois State Senate
3 years U.S. Senate
Total Political Years: 9

Now, for Hillary Rodham Clinton:
7 years U.S. Senate
Total Political Years: 7

Okay, so she was First Lady of the U.S. for 8 years, and First Lady of Arkansas for 12 years before that.

Barack Obama was a lecturer on Constitutional Law at U of Chicago for 11 years, and has been heavily involved in community development, voter registration, public policy, discrimination law, etc... for years before that.

Does HRC *really* have that much better a resume, riding on the coat-tails of her husband's political career? Obama has "been there, done that" for over 2 decades, uniting people together to work for a common goal, with some significant success.

Obama has spent years as a unifier of people. Clinton has spent years causing division.

Anonymous said...

Kevin M

Maybe you might like to look and get your fact correct.

Resume of Hillary Rodam Clinton

Junior Senator New York 7 years

1969 Attracts National Attention with controversial address as the first student to speak at commencement exercises for Wellesley College

1973 began her career as a lawyer after graduating from Yale Law School

career as Congressional legal counsel

1979 first female partner in Rose Law Firm

1988 and 1991 listed as one of the one hundred most influential lawyers in America

First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992

active in a number of organizations concerned with the welfare of children

First Lady of the United States 1992 - 2001

helped establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program and the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

Her Voting Record

Missed Votes

Hillary Clinton has missed 108 votes (24.0%) during the current Congress.

Voting with the Party

Hillary Clinton has voted with a majority of her Democratic colleagues 97.1% of the time during the current Congress.

Obama's Voting Record

Voting with the Party

Barack Obama has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.4% of the time during the current Congress.

Missed votes

Barack Obama has missed 170 votes (37.8%) during the current Congress.



Anonymous said...

Wow. I think its unfair for you to compare resumes unless u post both of them IMO. Im sure Obamas looks very Similar in the early carrer previous to becoming a politicion the some years of age.

Im did not know she was one of the top 100 lawyers. Makes me want to vote for her less.

And Jezze I wish I could get away with missing that much work.

Even 25% is really rediclous, however all elected officals do it, because theres no one to hold them responisble for it.

Anonymous said...

Protactinium said

'And Jezze I wish I could get away with missing that much work.

Even 25% is really rediclous, however all elected officals do it, because theres no one to hold them responisble for it.'

With a statement like that, makes you wonder what life will be like under Obama. Obviously Protactinium, we will not have a President on the Job.


Carrie said...

Adding to HRC's resume:
-at 14 - organized babysitting brigade for migrant farm workers who couldn't afford childcare
- Wellesley College, CHOSEN BY HER CLASSMATES to be the first-ever student commencement speaker (great line, too: "The challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible.")
-0ne of two women lawyers on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee considering the impeachment of Richard Nixon
- ran a legal aid clinic for the poor & handled cases of foster care and child abuse in Arkansas.
- appointed by President Carter to board of the United States Legal Services Corporation, federal nonprofit that funds legal assistance for the poor
- lead task force to improve education in Arkansas - served on national boards for the Children's Defense Fund, the Child Care Action Campaign, and the Children's Television Workshop.
List goes on from there - including her political (vs spousal) activities during Bill's tenure

I did read Obama's bio on his site and didn't come up with a whole lot to say other than years in legislature and the widely known activity around Chicago fair housing

As my dad (staunch republican who can't stand HRC) put it, in another country or another time, HRC would have been president before Bill. It's truly unfortunate that she's disadvantaged by his going ahead of her.

Carrie said...

I'm rereading and I suspect some posters might not have been voters in 1992. I had been assured by my republican family members that the aging population would never put another democrat in the white house, so I would have to wait a long time. The Clintons both energized and united the party - bringing young people in in record numbers - to defeat the incumbant pres, former VP of Ronald Reagan. The idea that either of them have been "dividers" for decades is inaccurate and insulting to those of us who cherish those years when we were first witnessing change and feeling empowered.
I'm lucky now to be well educated & well paid (bc of HRC, sweet story). I agree that, if I hadn't had the experience of voting for Bill when I was down and out, I might have been more inclined to go for progressive and inspiring Obama over practical old Hillary.
I also remember all too well that Bush beat Gore because Gore lacked the passion Bush spoke with. Passionless Al is now a nobel peace prize winner and, well, I don't think I need to say what our passionate pres has been up to. Voters under 26, unless they were wise beyond their years and paid close attention, are at a disadvantage as voters who can't remember these elections.
92 election was inspiring...2000 election was certainly an education!

Carrie said...

Man - I'm really verbose around here...somebody get me a vote that counts quick! I'm going to use up all the words! (Sorry.)
Desperately Seeking Significance

Anonymous said...

Hi Desperately Seeking Significance.

Carrie well said. It's time that people who remember what life was like for them before 1992 come to the foreground and remind those under 25 something how difficult life was under the Republicans.

I am sure some of those that are voting against Hillary were direct recipients of the programs she has worked on as First Lady.

When you listen to Obama woffle, it is like being in Church having a Sermon read to you. Listening to Hillary is an inspiration of what you can achive.



Anonymous said...

In the end.. I will vote for HRC or Obama as I definitely want something different. The main issue I find with HRC is that she sounds very rehearsed and does not inspire me. She tends to pout and doesn't have the natural charisma of a born leader. Bill had it in spades.. Obama on the other hand, is very charismatic and very inspiring. Both are extremely intelligent and both could do a competent job. I just find much more upside in Obama. The "experience" factor is media induced, I don't buy it. All Presidents get thrown into the fire.. you will never know how they will react until they are forced to do so. That, and I honestly believe Obama's story of an immigrant father, multi-race background can do more healing for our country and foreign policy/respect than having a woman president. Both are good mind you.. just my opinion that one will do more than the other.. The last comment is.. who the Pres picks as his cabinet is just as if not more important than who is the President.. so once again, the "experience" factor is overrated.

Anonymous said...

Comparison of popular vote

According to The Green Papers
Presidential Primaries 2008 Numbers

Popular vote Comparison:

With out FL & MI
Obama: 7,817,360
Clinton: 7,722,093
The difference is: 95,267 for Obama

With FL & MI Counted
Clinton: 8,914,099
Obama: 8,388,693
The difference is: 525,918 for Clinton

Unknown said...

Dean is now trying to cover his screwup in MI and FL by brokering a nominee in advance of the Convention, avoiding a floor fight. This will of course make the MI and FL situation moot (and probably gets those delegates seated). I'm not sure either candidate will be persuaded to cut a deal, unless Hillary selects Obama as VP and agrees to a single term. I am now happy Dean got nowhere near the White House.

Anonymous said...

What exactly is keeping the votes from being counted and the delegates from being allocated.

I just don't understand? They have counted millions of votes, but can't count the few thousand that are left?

We're in 2008 and 2 days after the elections, and the delegates are still up in the air, that's just ridiculous!!!

Anonymous said...

MSNBC has an article that answer the previous post

Delegates count, but how do you count them?

The URL is:

Anonymous said...

How many times did Clinton take the bar?
What year did she finally pass it?
Its amazing they made a partner out of the governors wife!

She married the right guy. If you want to talk about a self made women use one that we don't even know the name of her husband.

Dave said...

The notion that counting the Michigan and Florida votes is even being considered just blows my mind! The understanding going into the vote was clear: the votes WOULD NOT COUNT.

How can anyone think it's reasonable to come back AFTER the votes are cast and say that the rules that everyone agreed to before the vote should be changed?!?

Are people from New England screaming the touchdowns scored in the last two minutes of the Super Bowl shouldn't count? I mean look, they were ahead most of the game, maybe they should be declared Super Bowl champions.

Honestly, this makes no sense to me. The way this whole thing is set up allows each candidate to do their best to convince people in each state to vote for them. If every state voted without any campaigning, Hillary would have won the whole thing by now. The candidates didn't have that opportunity in MI and FL because the party had declared that the votes wouldn't count. To suggest that they now SHOULD count is simply absurd.

Dave said...

@DaxDiamond -- Your statement about Puerto Rico's 55 "winner-take-all" delegates surprised me because I didn't think there were any winner-take-all states for the dems.

According to (and the official delegate selection plan document they link to), what you said is not correct.

"The Delegate Selection Plan for Puerto Rico provides for its pledged delegates to be allocated proportionally to presidential preferences based on
Senatorial District Caucuses on June 7, 2008."


Unknown said...

What blows my mind is that the longer this goes on, any one of the following four factors could outweigh all votes cast by eligible citizen voters:

1) MI and FL fiasco
2) Superdelegates
3) Winner take all Puerto Rico "caucus" (See Michael Barone's article on this at RCP - it's scandalous)
4) Howard Dean backroom dealing with BO and HCR


Anonymous said...

Carrie you say, "Bush beat Gore because Gore lacked the passion Bush spoke with"

This is the excat same reason Hilary is going to lose to MCCain.

It is clear that you have never seen Obama at a live convention. There is nothing like it. I live in chicago and used to see him speak when he was running for sentor. Theres nothing like it.

Its also odd to me to see Hilary supporters say Obama Waffles. In fact its been documented that Hilary voted for the war then tryed to lie about it.

Obama has in been the same on his issues from day one. I do know this for a fact, and he very beloved by the people of chicago. Like no other politicion, other then maybe Daley(who we respect more then love)

Also This belief that clintons where so great at building the enconomy is bull. Bill Clinton happened to walk into office when the internet just started taking off as an idustry. This would have happened with or without the clintons, they just got lucky.

Also the fact the hilary blames tax cuts for the 2001 recession, show how little She Honestly knows about economics. Things that hurt consumers are the hi cost of living, such as Hi commedity prices, and Hi TAXES.

As for Hilarys people now trying to get Flordia and Michigan delgates count, Even though she signed a paper, and aggreed to this long before the election started just proves she will do, and anything to win.

Also Hilary will no doubt lose to a Mccain - Condoleezza Rice. If the republicans are smart enough to run this ticket. Though i belive Hilary is a losing candite almost no matter what in the gen election. Nothing will work better to get the convservatives (who make up 45% of the republican donations) to line up behind Mccain. As well as alienate many young democratic
votes, and black voters.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to the poster of that NBC article about the delegate allocations.

Still though, pretty wild that million of votes have been counted, while some others are super slow...

And the fact that they have to struggle with the maps and what counties overlay which congressional districts, I mean, they make the rules, but don't have an excel chart ready to make the calculations for them.

What bothers me is states like New Mexico. They have 98% of the vote counted within a few hours...but it's been 2 days to count that 2%.

Are they using like...blind people to do the counting in these "slow counties"?

Carrie said...

-The constitution doesn't need to change to scrap's a party decision. The party is not bound by the constitution to give anyone a vote. We don't have a constitutional vote to pick a nominee. In the general, anyone can run, the party just picks who runs with their support. The party's only oversight is its membership.
-Hillary has received more votes in rich electoral states. Per NPR, on 2/5, all republicans combined received only 500k more votes than either HRC or Obama alone. People are inspired by both and moved to vote. Gore was a middle-aged white guy running against another middle-aged white guy. Not the same situation at all. I'm far less concerned with electability than quality - concept that really seems
to be getting lost. Obama really focused on electability leading into 2/5. Lousy, really. Give us some credit.
-On MI/FL getting what we deserve, I'm copying my post from another discussion in which I try to give a perspective from within. I'm copying it to this one since it seems this is where the conversation is taking place (sorry for the redundancy for anyone following the other thread):

"Thanks for the "heart goes out" comment. Michigan is really struggling with the highest unemployment rate in the country. I drove through my Ford headquarters middle class neighborhood the other day and within 5 blocks, on one side of the street, saw 4 foreclosures and 5 for sale signs. We can use all the heart we can get. Compassion would be a refreshing side dish to the promises of unity. I'd even take compassion in the place of an attempt to bring Michigan and Florida into the process in some limited capacity, but the tenor out of the Obama camp has been very harsh (very Bush-like...wrath upon those who dare to disagree...feels pretty bizarre). At the very least, even if a punitive approach seems most appropriate, the message could be delivered with a conciliatory nod to the fact that the Michigan move was one made out of desperation. Remember that there was a lot of talk in the media that if Obama won New Hampshire he could clinch the nomination. Michigan might have been naughty, but nonethe less right about the problems in the process. Doesn't it count to be right from the outset of a dispute?"

Dave said...

My understanding re: New Mexico is that they have a large number of people who registered to vote early but didn't. These people then signed something on election day saying that they hadn't already voted. So now they have to go back and confirm that nobody voted twice.

I totally agree about the mapping from precinct-to-district. You'd think that even though it may be somewhat complicated, it would be well-documented and automated. I assume that's what's going on in my state of Colorado as well.

Carrie said...

BTW - In an amazing speech I saw live, Hillary inspired me to go back to school, overcome adversity, and to spend 3 years teaching in urban public schools (I appreciate her commitment to public schools). She's inspired me to stay up late after my little one goes to bed to make phone calls to earlier time zones. She's inspired me to stay up later and get up at ungodly early hours to spend my sadly lacking spare time to write all these posts. You obviously haven't seen her speak in person. She's amazing.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

"What bothers me is states like New Mexico. They have 98% of the vote counted within a few hours...but it's been 2 days to count that 2%."

I think they outsourced the 2% counting to overseas third world country.

This is just a joke :-)

Kevin M said...

My intention in posting comparative political resumes was not to say that Hillary is inexperienced, or to say that Obama is significantly more experienced than she is. Rather, my intention was to defend Obama against the allegation that he is inexperienced... too inexperienced to be a good choice for President.

Also, my intention was not to drag out full resumes of community service from the time a candidate organized a food collection when they were 8 years old.

I think it is obvious that Carrie is a dyed in the wool, true blue supporter of Hillary Clinton. HRC seems to be a personal hero of Carrie's. I respect that.

That said, I personally believe that HRC is a liar and devious to the core, and will do anything and say anything to get back into the White House. She will change any personal opinion at the drop of a hat, if the winds start blowing in that direction.

I am not a Democrat. I have no loyalty to one party or another. I am one of those independents who will end up determining whether the Democratic nominee or John McCain will end up in the White House. If HRC ends up nominated, then I, along with a whole lot of other pro-Obama independents will make John McCain the 44th president of the United States.

Dave said...

I'd be curious to hear what HRC supports think of Kevin M's comment about HRC losing to McCain.

I hear the same thing. I hear it a LOT. People who would vote for Obama in a heartbeat but who would choose McCain (or anyone in many cases) over Hillary.

I don't agree with it (I love Obama, but I'd vote for HRC if she got the nomination), but I think it's a fact people really need to consider. Obama has such a broader base of support. Do HRC supports honestly see this differently?

Oreo said...

We now have a breakdown of how the superdelegate endorsements from each state compare to the primary/caucus results.

Unknown said...

Carrie: I agree that what Michigan and Florida did was "right", in the sense that they have correctly identified that the nomination process needs to be changed to give more states a chance at early primaries/caucuses, but anarchy is not the answer. They tried to bully the DNC based on their delegate count, and it backfired. Shame on the political leaders in those states for risking the votes of their electorate.

Anonymous said...


The democrats were allowed to hold private fundraisers in Michigan and Florida which Clinton did, she didn't violate any agreements with the DNC there.

She also held a rally after the Florida Primary which would be allowed since the vote already occured she couldnt possibly be campaigning there.

Obama on the other hand ran ads in Michigan to "get out the undecided vote" and also ran ads in Florida.

Anonymous said...

If Pelosi's daughter is a superdelegate it is because she is a DNC member not because she's Nancy Pelosi's daughter.

Anonymous said...


Theres the group of blue states that either candidate would win, I would classify those as the Gore 2000 states.

I dont think McCain can eat into Clinton in any of those states.

New Hampshire is much more democrat then even 4 years ago when it went for Kerry, both Obama and Clinton should carry it easily in November.

Arkansas goes Blue if Clinton is the nominee, stays red if its Obama.

That puts the electoral math in the Democrats favor for either candidate and thats before even discussing Florida and Ohio.

Clinton may not be the most popular person, but she will win the states she needs to for the electoral college win.

Anonymous said...

kevin m

Its fair to compare Obama and Clinton's experience. And yes her time as FLOTUS is a factor.

She represented the United States over seas on many occassions.

It is unfair to compare Obama's experience to JFK or Bill Clinton using Obama's time as a state seantor in Illinois. He represented a small section of Illinois while Bill Clinton ran the state of Arkansas for 12 years and John F Kennedy was in the US Congress for 14 years.

Carrie said...

I totally know, right - she'll say ANYTHING! Can't you just picture Hillary's evil minions plotting in an evil lair a week before 2/5..."You know what we REALLY need to say to get elected...she need to lie and tell people she'd garnish people's wages to ensure universal heathcare coverage. YES! That's just what people want to hear!"

Give the "say whatever" junk a rest. It's tired.

Yep - I'm a die-hard supporter. Always liked her. Her long resume of civic contributions speaks to her intentions and credibility. I liked Obama until his statements about MI/FL (and his subsequent request for my $). I began the process looking forward to casting a primary vote for HRC (even if it didn't count), but happy at the thought that we had such a wonderful field to look forward to. Unfortunately, I now find his promises of uniting people hollow and insincere because he isn't taking any responsibility for resolving the MI/FL issue. At best it's a domestic diplomatic faux pas. Experienced or not, it worries me that he'd represent us this way in conflicts abroad.
I'm also really concerned by how zealous and hostile his supporters seem to be toward his opponents. I'm supportive of HRC, but I'm not spewing vitriole. It's counterproductive to the goal of change and unity. I'm just correcting a misconception that Clinton's large number of supporters (someone's voting for her now, right?) aren't inspired.

It's also true that I'm very, very angry at Obama and the DNC - not for delivering the punishment (though I think it's a poor judgement call, and I think it really stinks), but for delivering it coldly, without compassion. I'm angry enough that if Michigan isn't a vulnerable swing state and he's the nominee I won't vote for him, I'll write in Hillary (she's 60 and I won't likely get another chance). I won't, however, cut off my nose to spite my face. I won't let McCain be elected just because I think Obama is more sparkle and less substance, because I have concerns about his relationships with Exelon and Maytag, or because I'm skeptical about his sincerity or ability to keep his promises. Obama and Clinton are, by and large, aligned on their policies - even if they might have made voted differently on Iraq had they both been in the senate, they're now both committed to pulling out. McCain is happy to have another Korea - I'm not. McCain is committed to appointing conservative justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade - terrifying. Reagan's legacy of justices was the dismantling of desegregation in schools. W Bush's is the dismantling of personal liberties related to legal rights. What a nightmare another social conservative with an eye toward big defense budgets would be! Nope, as much as it will sting, and it will sting, I'm not willing to toss my daughter's future away out of spite. The stakes are way too high.

Carrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave said...

Carrie, I'm confused. Why is Obama the bad guy for saying that the rules should be followed? Everyone knew the FL/MI votes wouldn't count -- the democratic party unanimously agreed on it.

I think it's a shame that things went the way they did, but it seems odd to suggest that Hillary's support of counting the votes of an unfair election is somehow more noble than accepting the decision of the party (which was made before the election took place).

FWIW, I like both candidates. I prefer Obama, yes, but I'd vote for either of them over McCain in a heartbeat. To me, the ideal solution is for MI & FL to hold new elections, allowing ample time for both candidates to campaign in both states. No other solution seems particularly fair.

Anonymous said...

The polls say that 70& of Democrats would vote for either Hillary or Obama in the general election, regardless of their preference in the primaries.

Why is Obama stating that he will get Hillary's supporters, but not vice-versa?

Anonymous said...

So why is it taking so long for them to finalize the Super Tuesday delegate allocation?

Dave said...


1st - Where did you see that poll? I'd like to check it out.

2nd - I don't think democrats are as big an issue as independents and some republicans who would support Obama but would not support Hillary. (Which is why I'd like to see that poll, to see if they also polled non-dems).

Carrie said...

Thanks for the peaceful response. In my ramblings I apparently wasn't clear. My trouble with Obama is in how hardnosed he's been in delivering his decision. Like I said, I think it stinks that we've been disenfranchised, but I certainly understand that it's a bed we made. I could blame the state party officials, but I should have had my head in it earlier...I listen to MiPR, I had my shot.
The difference to me is in the message deliver. The following seem like two reasonable responses to the question of seating MI & FL's delegates raised by Clinton:
1) "I understand that MI and FL are struggling states desperate for help, and that some serious work will need to be done to heal the wounds created in this conflict and bring us all back together for our common cause so that citizens of those states get the help they need. However, the race to move primaries was spiralling out of control and, whether or not it was the best consequence, the stripping of delegates was the only solution that seemed likely to bring things back into order. It is regrettable, but unlike Sen Clinton, I feel I must stand by my commitment."
2)"Senator Clinton's own campaign has repeatedly said that this is a 'contest for delegates,' and Florida is a contest that offers zero. It seems like Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to win an election.”

#2 is a quote out of the Obama camp - Granted, he added "No one is more disappointed that Florida Democrats will have no role in selecting delegates for the nomination of the party's standard bearer than Senator Obama," but that seems a little empty. To us here, this isn't about a pissing contest or jealousy. It's about having two small states with low unemployment driving the nomination.
What I did specifically appreciate about Clinton (why I wasn't so ticked) was not her call to try to seat the delegates. Voting was long over here by that point. It was that Clinton didn't go the unnecessary extra step of filing paperwork to remove her name. It wasn't part of the promise, and it felt like a real slap. That in combination with the Obama-involved "get out the uncommitted vote" campaign here felt a little dirty. I voted -I think you'd be surprised by how many of us did - fully expecting our delegates to not be seated. I, too, liked both candidates - really. I preferred Clinton and certainly had a personal fondness for her, but I was thrilled at the prospect of either. I just got really frustrated that the candidated I preferred was losing ground to Obama BECAUSE he was running on a platform of change and unity when he couldn't/wouldn't make an effort to unify us - to bring US, our party, together - and seemed instead to be carrying himself like a Bush-style cowboy sheriff.

RE: fairness of a redo, my earlier post explains why this isn't really fair or manageable for us here - though I do appreciate Jose's sentiment that the DNC should raise funds to pay for it, and that would certainly help a lot toward healing. I think our collective funds should be saved for the general elections, and any directed to Michigan should go to helping protect vulerable positions.

Carrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...


The polls I saw were all over the TV coverage on Super Tuesday. The numbers were 70% and 72% (can't recall which way) for Obama supporters backing Hillary and Hillary supporters backing Obama.

You can go to and see all sorts of breakdowns - although their numbers are closer to 50% for Obama supporters backing Hillary (and vice versa).

In the gallup polls, independents who LEAN democratic favor Obama over Hillary. These are not Hillary supporters though.

Obama has said he can get all of HER supporters should he prevail but not vice versa. The polls do not indicate that there is a real difference between Hillary and Obama on that issue.

The gallup polls also indicate that Clinton has the edge in who can best beat Republicans in Nov.

Dave said...

Thanks for pointing me to the gallup polls. Those numbers aren't quite what I would have expected (I hear so many people who say they hate Hillary -- not me, but I hear it). Still, the independent factor seems pretty significant.

51% of democrat-leaning independents would vote for Obama
38% of democrat-leaning independents would vote for Clinton

I think it's his ability to appeal to such a wide audience that gives him the best shot.

Anonymous said...

Actually my point in this was not to argue about who is best able to win in Nov. It's to point out the whole notion that Hillary will do or say anything to get elected, while Obama appeals to our "better angels" is pure fantasy. He is not above distorting the facts to his advantage. They are, after all, both politicians.

Something about the hypocrisy in his campaign just irks me. When he starts his spiel about not having "the baggage" that Hillary has, what exactly is he saying? The baggage of mindless hatred by the opposition? Can you imagine if Hillary said, vote for her because she doesn't have the "baggage" a black candidate might have with those who will not vote for a black candidate?

If Obama believes the "baggage" of the opposition's hatred is based upon anything of substance - he should point out the substantive differences and argue those points.

Also, I think if one fears that anti-Clintonism will be a factor, a case can be made for the fact that she has been "pre-disastered"-
anything they fling at her has been flung long ago - and she's still standing.

Anonymous said...

Was the final actually 803 to 803 for Obama vs. Clinton (exclusively Super Tuesday delegates)??

I have a bet with my brother and a tie means neither win. We are brothers. We need a winner.

Does anyone have any updated stats or a way to look at the numbers and include Super votes pledged on Super Tuesday to have it not tie?

Unknown said...

Both candidates should be favored to win over McCain (who will be the opponent), but which is 'more' sure?

It seems that Clinton folks are counting on AR, the 2000 Gores, and an OH or FL to deliver the win. Obamans argue that they can win the 2000 Gores along with new swing states all over the country via the independent vote. These new swing states are what gave us the landslide in the last congressional election. They do exist, and the overwhelming turnout yesterday for the Dems in those states suggests that they are still in play.

While yet another election hinging on Ohio or, God forbid, Florida makes me cringe, I will acknowledge the Clinton's ability to run a strong campaign and pull it off. Everyone understands this strategy, so lets talk about Obama.

As for Obama, I think at least half of the red states from 2000-2004 are swingers in Obama v Mccain. I would state it like this: across the board, red states are more conservative, blue states are more liberal. Therefore, in red states for Obama v McCain, the more conservative conservatives will be disappointed and lack energy with McCain (they didn't vote for him in the primaries), and the more conservative independents (that have shown from 2006 and 2/5 that they lean towards Dems) will be not be drawn to the Republican by the base nuts, allowing an easier Obama victory among them. In contrast, Hillary Rodham Clinton would definitely energize the conservative machine in these states, and these conservative independents who preferred Obama will go to McCain under the influence of the red state base. However, this same dynamic would occur in blue states if it was not for two important distinctions; the liberal bases will support and work for Obama and the liberal minded independents will definitely favor any Dem. The end result is Obama winning 5-10 red states, losing a small blue state and FL.

Either way, we should have a Dem in the White House for 2009.

Unknown said...

To the last Anonymous,

Not all votes have been counted yet. 803-803 will not be the final, and no one has a full count. Should be in by the end of the day on Friday.

Anonymous said...

looks like the SuperDelegates are not going to be able to make or break --
and that they will be in essence worthless --- or with huge amounts of controversey. the superdelegate not-so-democratic status is now in the news -- and people will simply not stand for the party's power people to nominate (if including them results in a nominee counter to what the popular vote would produce)

Nancy Pelosi tried to defend them; Donna Brazil says she will leave the party if they are used to determine the nominee.bljwtqlz

Anonymous said...


If the democrats can carry the 2000 Gore states which isnt out of the question all they need is 1 state.

Clinton will add Arkansas for sure and either would likely add New Hampshire which has trended Democrat big time since 2000.

We dont need a blowout, just 270 electoral votes.

Unknown said...


Only 270 is what Gore and Kerry said. I did acknowledge that Clinton has a much better chance of succeeding, but history is against her.

Anonymous said...

The only way to stop the Democratic Party from imploding is if Obama wins a majority of delegates in the next month or two taking the decision out of the superdelegates hands as well as the DNC. None of the Independents or crossover Republicans that support Obama will ever vote for a Hillary ticket. They have no loyalty to the Democratic Party and will only become more disgusted with the two party system if their voice isn't heard. These are not opinions; these are facts and should not be at the base of your decision, but it would be wise to seriously weigh them before voting.

Anonymous said...

Can some one tell how to register here, so you can use your name rather than Anonymous?

Anonymous said...

Interesting. Came here looking for "the table", and read the blog. There were some comments regarding who would get cross-over and independent support. I'm normally a Republican, but faced with this election's probable choice, I'll be voting for Obama if he's available. Only if the choice is between McCain and Clinton would I vote for McCain.

Matt said...

How to register: under where you leave a comment, login using your Google account, or click on Sign Up Here. It would be great if people logged in to comment - its hard to respond to all the Anonynous posters.

Yousri said...

Thank you Matt.
I registered.

Dave said...

Carrie, I'm honestly trying to understand you, but I think I keep missing what he did that was so bad. I'm guessing it's one of those "you had to be there" kinds of things.

I do hope, if Obama DOES end up getting the nomination, that you'll reconsider how much weight you give to this specific issue. Hopefully the bigger picture is ultimately more important. Obviously, writing in Hillary would be equivalent to not voting (a step up from voting for McCain, but only a small step).

Carrie said...

I thought I was clear above when I stated that, if my vote was needed - that is, if MI was at risk of going to McCain - I would cast it for Obama. I'd canvas for Obama, albeit a little begrudgingly. My ears are burning just to think it, but I'd probably give money to the campaign. Like I said, it'll sting a bit if I have to, and I might grumble a few words under my breath, but I won't stand by and watch McCain win. That's what I was saying in the "not going to cut my nose off to spite my face" comment. I, too, am a bit flummoxed by voters who support Obama but feel more closely aligned to McCain than Clinton or vice versa.
For now I'm responding to two popular topics that hit home for me: 1) Hillary's a villain, Obama's our last best hope for peace; and 2) the situation in Michigan is entertaining and is being used only by Clinton in the game of politics.
My probably vote won't count in the primaries - I've accepted that, and I share in the responsibility. The best I can do now is share my perspective in the hopes that it makes a difference with one voter who can be my proxy in a state that does count.
I might not be getting anywhere...maybe I need to hone my message...however, it is an outlet and it's turning out to be pretty cathartic. I'll take what I can get.

Carrie said...

If rules are rules, rules are rules. If not, they're not...Going in, superdelegates and a limit of 4 pre 2/5 primaries was the name of the game.
Under the current rules, MI/FL delegates don't count and HRC could win on superdelegates even if Obama won on pledged delegates - taking the votes out of the hands of the many and giving them to the few goes against liberal values, so I see where this smells rotton.
Aye, but here's the rub...If we pitch the rules, MI/FL delegates count and HRC is even further ahead of Obama based solely on the pledged delegates.

I know...blah, blah, blah - Michigan primary wasn't fair - blah, blah, blah. Obama's camp promoted "get out the uncommitted vote" rallies. Besides, we Midwesterners have national news, radio, and, yes, access to the internet. People had plenty of access to information about all of the candidates. Didn't work out very well for us, but it was OUR primary in OUR state held OUR way - we all have to live with it. Obama also ran regional ads that aired in FL. Effectively, his campaign reached both states. They just weren't his type of states. It might not be fair for the results to count since MI/FL clearly broke the rules. However, the results are fair.

As for Donna Brazille, like MI she has to do what she thinks is best for herself. I hope it works out better for her! :)

Anonymous said...

Carrie I would never vote for Obama. I would either not vote in the Presidential Election or I would vote for McCain.

You do not want inexperience running this great country.

Obama is just a bag of wind.

he does not even want to debate real policies.

Hes only great at his rallies and he should have won hands down at 5/2/8 but he only scaped over the line.

Vote for Experience.


Anonymous said...

If Obama was such a Unifier then we would not be debating the MI/FL Vote.

He's disenfranchising the voters of MI & FL. If Obama does win the Nomination, I am sure the results will go the Republicans way, the voters won't forget his disunification and voter disenfranchisement. Remember its not just the delegates that vote, it is the number of dem voters you can get on the day and will get the nominee across the line.

Remember voters in the upcoming primaries review the voting history of vote Obama and Clinton and review their policies and resumes -

Vote for Experience.


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

Karry - I totally hear you. We agree on the ideal candidate.
Given my priorities, between Obama and McCain, I have to go for the inexperienced person who will choose federal and judges and supreme justices whose values align with mine. They're there for good...their only oversight being the grim spectre of death. While I question his abilities and his commitment to unity, I do believe Obama values the things I find most important as a social liberal.
McCain certainly has a long and credible record on his issues. They're just too far afield from mine. I'm actually a little worried that, with his experience, he might accomplish what he hopes to!

That said...Hillary Yes! I ditto that, of course. Experience and substance = awfully nifty! Let's hope we don't have to choose between two others...

DaxDiamond said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

Thanks. I was hoping all the sites I consulted would eventually come to an agreement, but they aren't. Please note that for the tracker in the sidebar, we're now using AP number, not my own Super Tuesday numbers. We're not trying to become a definitive source on pledged delegates numbers. I'll probably change these numbers over to the AP for constancy over the weekend.

And come on, all this fun can't convince you to vote for the Democrat???

DaxDiamond said...

Matt, thanks for the speedy reply. I note that your AP numbers shown in the side bar are currently 832-821 in favor of Clinton, a total indicating 139 not yet allocated.

With the Obama margin of 15 before supertuesday, and estimate of say 25 for supertuesday, his lead should be about 40 once the tally is complete. I would not count on that anytime soon.

It seems that the slow calculation and lack of good estimates from major media sources is robbing him of some favorable PR, as most are describing supertuesday as a tie or worse yet, total pledged delegates as a virtual tie (and still showing Clinton in the lead when she actually trails by about 40, as AP does).

Obama's lead will continue to expand through February as he wins almost all of those contests, some handily. Obama fans will be estatic. However, it will shrink on March 4 with Clinton taking Texas by a wide margin, and probably Ohio.

Right about that time, we will start to hear more about Puerto Rico and its tradition of a winner-take-all process. People will wonder why PR (55 elected delegates) should have a greater impact on the nomination than any state.

So you Obama fans have 3 things to worry about - (1) will FL and MI delegates be seated in proportion to their primary outcome; (2) will Obama hold the pledged lead only to see it evaporate in June when Clinton takes Puerto Rico 55-0; (3) will superdelegates override his elected delegate margin should he somehow manage to retain it.

Matt said...

Dax - According to my source(Green Papers), PR is NOT winner-take-all. Do you believe otherwise?

DaxDiamond said...

David Brooks mentioned it on the Jim Lehrer news hour earlier this week. He may have written about it in his NYT editorial - I don't know. Michael Barone has written about it in Newsweek.

Wikipedia mentions it in "Democratic Party Presidential Primaries 2008". It is a recent addition so I assume they picked it up from the above sources.

The elected delegate margin is certain to be very thin after March 4, certainly under 100 delegates with Obama probably still ahead. This issue with Puerto Rico is bound to get major media attention by then. PR is the last big primary and it could very easily be decisive if it is indeed winner take all. This is Dean's worst nightmare.

So you guys need to get on top of this issue. I emailed that advice to your google address yesterday, got no response, so I posted it here to get your attention.

Anonymous said...

Carrie, I hear you about the Supreme Court.. :o)

what the obama people have not noticed is whilst obama won the red states? mostly from independants aka republication defectors (hehe) doh!! sounds familar I know...

what they do not sit back and want to notice is that Experience won all the blue and picked up AR, NV, Okal, AK, Tenn, and Fl. Oh I nearly forgot the red state of NH as well she won...

Note Carrie, those states are RED STATES AS WELL. Notice Obbie supporters have not taken those RED STATE WINS ON BOARD???

Seems like Experience can pick up both red and blue but INEXPERIENCE CAN'T PICK UP ALL THE BLUES he will need to Win the Presidency.

Obbie only picked up Del, Iowa, Conn and Ill, amazing and they call that a clean sweep..

Hillary has picked up NY, MASS, NJ, FL, ARK, OKLA, AZ, CL, TENN, NV, NH, MI,

Note: Electoral College States Tally won so far to date, excluding NM.

Clinton 194
Obama 112

Is obama going to make up the difference in the General Election??


Only goes to prove to me.


Anonymous said...

OOpss Forgot one,

Alaska 3 Electoral College Votes.

Makes Obama 115 Clinton 194

Tell me if I missed anymore.


Anonymous said...

Hi Matt and Oreo

Is it possible for you to start a new table on the left for Candidate Electoral College Votes derived from States won todate?

It is great to see the delegates and if we can all see how the Winner is going to be positioned regarding Electoral College States this would provide another balanced view for bloggers.

I love this site you guys are champions like Hillary.


Anonymous said...

i think that totals now looks like that:
superdelegates 190-104, C+86
pre feb5, pledged 48-63, C-15
feb5 pledged 840-841, C-1
without FL&MI 1078-1008, Clinton +70
with FL&MI 1256-1130, Clinton +126

Matt Cohen-Price said...


demconwatch is an awesome blog that has given me a lot of great information over the last week, and I'm happy I found it. I would like to point anyone who is interested to another (my) blog, All Else Equal, dedicated to pulling news from a number of different media outlets, compiling and publishing it, and discussing why the numbers are so different - similar to what the fine folks at demconwatch have been doing, but with a twist.

Check it out!

Dave said...

Karry, what are you TALKING about?!?

The fact that Hillary won, for example, California, says nothing about whether or not Obama would win it against McCain. It's completely silly to be doing those types of calculations.

You might consider thinking about it another way -- perhaps Obama could actually turn some of those red states he's been winning BLUE this fall. Remember the whole "50 state plan"? With Hillary, it'll be the same old red/blue division...hopefully with a key state or two going her way to give us the election. With Obama, some of the barely red states (like Colorado!) come into play.

Anonymous said...

Would someone please explain why there is so much discrepancy in delegate counts. NYT has it 904 - 716. This site 883 - 862. Both sites say super delegates are excluded. When you look at both sites summaries by individual state, nearly all the numbers are different.

Dave said...

I'm curious about opinions from the Hillary fans on this. This is probably the #1 thing that worries me about Hillary getting elected -- independents! I've seen a number of different surveys along these lines (and I personally know independents who feel this way as well), and Hillary simply never comes out looking more electable than Obama. As I've said, I like them both (yes, I prefer Obama), but above all else, I want to see ONE of them in the white house!

Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain's 41%, the TIME poll reported, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each. Put another way, McCain looks at the moment to have a narrowly better chance of beating the New York Senator than he does the relative newcomer from Illinois.

The difference, says Mark Schulman, CEO of Abt SRBI, which conducted the poll for TIME, is that "independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator." Independents, added Schulman, "are a key battleground."

To summarize: a 7-point win for Obama vs. a toss-up for Hillary.


Anonymous said...


The point of the question is that whilst you might like to play Obama Wins Red States.

Note also Clinton Wins Red States as well.

There is a very good possibility that she can covert those states to Blue States in the Next General Election, with the appropriate VP Candidate the party under her leadership can build a strong base of support.

If Obama was doing as well as his supporters suggest he is, then why has he not picked up the great Blue Ribbon Seats on the East Coast and West Coast.?

Also if you look at the number of registered voters in those red states that vote for Obama the majority of voters in those Red States are Registered Republicans or those that tend to vote in favor of Republican Nominees.

What Obama supporters tend to forget is that you need to ensure that you win your current supporter base and try and break into the Red Based States.

Obama does not have the full support of the Hispanic community in those Red States and they voted overwhelmingly against him in favour of Clinton. That support for Clinton does not automatically translate support in a general election for Obama. Hispanics are known to support the Republicans. It is the policies of Clinton that are drawing the support of the Hispanic Community which is giving her the edge as she has given them the attention and support they obviously are looking for.

So, the tally that means anything to me and I am sure the Parties Super Delegates will be who has the great ability to win the majority of voters with the Policies they have presented to the supporters in the lead up to the General Election and for those to glean those independents and disenfranchised republicans and others to there side.

Tally of States Wins based on Electoral Votes

Washington 11
Oregon 7
California 55 CLINTON
Idaho 4 OBAMA
Montana 3
North Dakota 3 OBAMA
South Dakota 3
Wyoming 3
Nevada 5 CLINTON r
Utah 5 OBAMA
Arizona 10 CLINTON r
Colorado 9 OBAMA
New Mexico 5 ??
Texas 34
Nebraska 5
Kansas 6 OBAMA
Okalahoma 7 CLINTON r
Minnesota 10 OBAMA
Iowa 7 OBAMA
Missouri 11 OBAMA
Arkansas 6 CLINTON r
Louisiana 9
Mississippi 6
Tennessee 11 CLINTON r
Kentucky 8
Illinios 21 OBAMA Wisconsin 10
Michigan 17 CLINTON ???
Indiana 11
Alabama 9 OBAMA
Georgia 15 OBAMA
Florida 27 CLINTON ??? r
South Carolina 8 OBAMA
North Carolina 15
Virginia 13
West Virgina 5
Ohio 20
Pennsylvania 21
New York 31 CLINTON
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
New Hampshire 4 CLINTON
Massachusetts 12 CLINTON
Connecticut 7 OBAMA
New Jersey 15 CLINTON
Delaware 3 OBAMA
Maryland 10
District of Colombia 3
Alaska 3 OBAMA
Hawaii 4


Electoral College State Votes of Winning Candidates to the 02/07/2008

Obama 115

Clinton 194

Obama is trailing by 79 Electoral College State Votes


Total Blue States Won to 02/07/2008

Obama 4 Blue States and 11 red states picked up out of 15 wins for 115 Electoral Votes

Clinton 6 Blue States and 6 Red States picked up out of 12 wins 194 Electoral Votes

Experience. Yes, Hillary Has !!!

Dave said...

Karry, I hear what you're saying. But counting the electoral votes like that is just silly.

Who CARES if Hillary did better than Obama in New York? Do you think for a SECOND that Obama wouldn't win New York? Do you honestly think he wouldn't win California? I'm certainly not going to sit here and tell you that Hillary wouldn't win Illinois against McCain. Let's be reasonable here!

Your translation from the primaries to the general election is really, truly pointless. I honestly hope you can see that. If you want to go down that path, try to come up with some way to estimate who would actually win each state against McCain -- that's what actually matters.

Both candidates have their demographics of choice. Hillary does better with Hispanics, women and older people. Obama does better with African-Americans and young people. And independents in general! (see poll above from Time)

Anonymous said...

Dave said...
I'm curious about opinions from the Hillary fans on this. This is probably the #1 thing that worries me about Hillary getting elected --independents!

Dave have you thought that a large number of these Independants and others that are voting in the open Primaries may infact be Republicans who are trying to get Obama elected because when it comes to the General Election he will be much easier to beat.

He is a poor debater, and hmms and hars, and pauses. What is he going to do when he is debating McCain a seasoned campaigner and very resourceful combatant.

he will have the power of the GOP on his heals, and he has never experienced that before. Look what they did to Kerry in 2004.

Kerry was hopeless and bush white washed him as a flip flopper and a extreme left wing liberal.

I know when it comes to the General Election I want to see a Candidate that can handle the tough questions.

I have thought a great deal of late about a Clinton Obama ticket and I believe that he would not be suitable anymore for that.

If he goes up against the Republican Candidate for VP, will he have his hums and hars, and pauses and then will he turn it into a sermon on the mount?

We need a good strong Governor such as a Mid West Strong Man to secure the support of the Heartlands.

If these so called new Independants vote for Obama maybe he might be suitable, but I doubt it.

I honestly believe Clinton should be now looking at who is going to be her running mate in the General Election.

Regarding the Polls, well they are as believeable as you want them to be.

Look at California, they showed it was in the bag for Obama, and many other states, but this was not the case. Don't put all your hopes on polls. Remember they had polls showing Hillary would do well in other states but she did not get across the line.

The only poll that counts is the final count.

Remember Dave.


Anonymous said...

Dave Said....

Your translation from the primaries to the general election is really, truly pointless. I honestly hope you can see that. If you want to go down that path, try to come up with some way to estimate who would actually win each state against McCain -- that's what actually matters.

Dave what a great idea, maybe you might like to go into those figures and show us all.

If re: your comment about CA and NY he would win, then why did he not win? I think you are dreadfully presumious suggesting that the Hispanic vote will go for Obama in CA, and also the women vote? Maybe like the lovely Independants that you like to stroke all the time as supporters of Obama. I have a feeling when it comes to the General Election that many of those voters will turn red if they have not already.

How absolutely sure that these voters will turn out on the GE Day? Independants often are known to vote in primaries one way and in the GE the opposite.

We will have to see.

But please research for us all your theories. I am sure the Forum would love to get your results.

Remember Dave?

Experience. Yes, Hillary Has !!!

Anonymous said...

Matt and Oreo,

any idea of when we are going to get a final results with all the delegates? Will it be before the next set of primaries this weekend?


Anonymous said...

From where do you get your 201-169 count from California? I did the math and I get 207-163. My math is the same as that posted on Green Pages (CA released congressional district-level results).

Carrie said...

More than the red/blue divide, I'm wondering what the caucus/traditional open primary split might tell us about ultimate electability.
Obama is just electric in caucuses - where people gather in a room to energize and influence eachother.
Clinton is much stronger in states with traditional primaries - where people go privately into a box and vote on their own convictions at the time without thinking what others might think.
General election format is akin to the open primary. Wouldn't that actually give her an edge?
For better or worse (of course my bias says worse) Clinton has been positioned since 1993 as the woman republicans, and no many others, love to hate.
It does seem like there must be more "closet" Clinton fans, as they're out in droves in open primaries. I would think that would play into the general election.

DaxDiamond said...

burtonOO - see my earlier post about Arkansas. I did the math down to district level and got 26-9, not 27-8 as shown in the chart. I had assumed that complete counts in the chart were "final". Matt explained that they come from a variety of sources and may not be correct.

The problem is that delegates must be rounded to whole numbers for each district, state at-large, and state PLEO. Until every vote is counted, including provisional and absentee, some segments are in doubt and are not being officially reported. A variety of sources use a variety of methods to estimate the counts not yet official.

In CA, the Obama-Clinton difference divided by the Obama-Clinton sum is 10.3%. When applied to 370, that provides an estimated delegate difference of 38, consistent with your more granular math - assuming you know the total delegates by district.

Same technique for NY provides Clinton margin of 42 whereas chart has 46.

Same technique applied to every supertuesday state provides Obama margin of 29. If the final margin is different from 29, and it almost certainly will be a little different, we will see which candidate benefited from rounding each of these several hundred calculations. Sort of like tossing a coin 200 times - you probably will not get exactly 100 heads.

DaxDiamond said...

Carrie, you have been conditioned by the major media to pay to much attention to this red-blue nonsense.

The national popular vote winner has failed to win the elctoral vote only once or twice in our history, and only when the pop vote margin was less than 1%. The chance of a candidate winning the national pop vote by 2% and losing the electoral vote is very small - although that would have occurred had Bush lost Ohio in 2004.

And to the extent electoral math could play a role, the Obama-Clinton result in any particular state is meaningless. Most of these states, like NY and CA, will not be in play in a close election. Even for states that will be in play, like Ohio, say Clinton beats Obama handily by getting the loyal dem vote while he gets more independents. Do you really think that means she has a better chance in the general election?

As has been pointed out by others, to the extent you are concerned about electability in Nov, the only data of interest now are the polling results for Clinton-McCain and Obama-McCain matchups. These results show Obama with a significant advantage over Clinton in the general election. Unless you can provide a sound theory for why that is likely to change before Nov, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Matt said...

Karry - We have no idea when final numbers for all these states will be available, and as just posted, we will not be updating this post in the future.

Burton00 - The Green Pages is a great source for this information. As I said in the post, we will not be updating this specific post going forward. Whatever source I used could easily have changed their numbers by now.

DaxDiamond said...

For anyone who cares about the arcane math used to determine delegate allocation. I was previously using an incorrect pop vote for one of the AR districts. I now agree with the 27-8 chart posting.

AR is a good example of the luck factor. If all 35 AR delegates had been apportioned according to state-wide vote, Obama would have been calculated at over 9.5 and rounded to 10.

Instead, the calculation is separate for 8 at-large delegates, 5 state PLEO delegates, and each of 4 congressional districts. The fractional result for Obama was rounded down in each of those 6 calculations. Very bad luck for him in AR.

In addition to the rounding luck factor, I note that district one had about 55,000 votes and got 6 delegates, while district four had about 78,000 votes and got only 5 delegates. Had district four been allocated 6 delegates, Obama would have won 9 in AR instead of 8.

Carrie said...

Dax - I was trying to change the subject from Red/Blue because I think it's way over-played. I really am interested in the caucus success vs. private vote success dynamic. I find it really interesting (much more interesting in general than electability - which all just sounds like spin and noise to me). Why the split? What plays into the decision of a crowd vs. the decision of an individual? Seems like there's some opportunity here to understand the dynamics of group vs. individual throught and action. I think it's a good question for us dems to ask as we - regardless of the '08 outcome - will almost definitely be looking to reform our nomination process in '10.

Matt said...

DaxDiamond - Can you send me an email at the address in the sidebar? I have a question for you.

Dave said...

Well Karry, I'm always up for a challenge!

I put together a spreadsheet that shows all 50 states, ordered by how blue/red they were in 2004. I made an arbitrary decision to claim that states where the vote varied by less that 10% were potentially "in play" in 2008 (I'm not claiming this is 100% accurate, of course...but I had to draw a line somewhere). There are 20 such "purple" states. Of those states, nine have held valid democratic elections for 2008 so far. Three of those states were so decisively won by one candidate or the other that I think it's fair to say that the direction that state goes might differ based on which democratic candidate wins the nomination. Those states were:

Arkansas (Clinton, 6 EC votes)
Minnesota (Obama, 10 EC votes)
Colorado (Obama, 8 EC votes)

Given how close Iowa was in 2004, I think you could make a pretty good argument for Obama there (7 EC votes) as well. To be fair, you could argue for Florida being in Hillary's column (she won the unfortunately bogus election by about 20%), but unfortunately we have no way of knowing how that election would have gone if it had actually counted.

Anyway, I don't think any of this is iron-clad proof of anything, but it's MUCH more reasonable than assigning EC votes to each dem candidate based on which states they won against other dems.

The full table is HERE.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Karry - I do believe many of the so-called Independents going for Obama are Republicans casting votes for their preferred opponent in the fall.

I have not seen the county by county breakdown in NJ, but one
neighboring town near me, which is heavily Republican, had a Democratic turnout of 109% - almost 5,000 previously unaffiliated voters declared themselves as Democrats.

While I suspect these were largely
Obama votes, am I to believe that
he has energized voters to that degree?

In states like NJ, Republicans had little to lose by crossing over in this way as McCain was a foregone conclusion.

At this point, there is a little part of me that almost wants a Republican to win in Nov. The clean up will be enormous. I want a two term Democrat - not a Jimmy Carter.

Were it not for the war and appointment of Supreme Court Justices, I would almost like to see them clean up their own mess. Is there any site that tracks the health of the Supremes???

Dave said...


I'm curious about the apparent caucus phenomenon as well. I don't have a lot to say on the subject, but I'll just throw out my experience (here in Colorado, we had a caucus)...

Where I was, there was none of the pressure that you might think would exist. 150 of us packed into a room and each side was given a few minutes to state their case. Not a single person changed their choice during the event. 112 people raised their hands for Obama and 37 raised their hands for Hillary. The one undecided voter in the room, I believe, remained undecided.

OK, now that I've typed this, I do have one thought. Perhaps it's an issue of passion? Attending a caucus is a pain in the neck compared to "normal" voting. You have to go at a specific time, perhaps you have to find a babysitter, etc. Voting in a traditional primary is much easier. So could that be the difference? If you're not all that passionate about your choice, maybe a caucus is too much trouble? I'm speculating, of course...but I think it's fair to say that there's more passion coming out of the Obama campaign right now.

Carrie said...

Interesting. I could definitely see passion playing in. In our last gubenatorial election, I certainly had to feel pretty passionate to stand in line for 2 hours with my screaming 10-week-old in tow :).
Another theory could be that barriers to participation are keeping Clinton voters away who, per exit polls, tend more often to be:
- skilled hourly workers who tend to have little flexibility at work
- women, who tend to have more issues with childcare
- poor and elderly who tend to have more issues with transportation
Conversely, Obama has tremendous support among college students and college educated professionals. I fall into the latter category, and I definitely enjoy the benefits a flexible salaried position and access to high-quality childcare.

I actually find the notion of a caucus very romantic. Bringing people together for debate is so richly democratic.

Unfortunately, given issues of access - particularly in a state like Michigan with such a huge number of shift workers - I think in practice it would be undemocratic. At least here, until we give elections Christmas status and give everyone the time off needed to attend, I would tend toward expanding hours for participation rather than limiting them. I'd love to see a 24- or 48-hour voting cycle beginning and ending at the same moments across the country for our general election.

I really appreciate your insights. Please know that my thoughts about barriers to access are not meant to invalidate caucus states' votes or Obama's success there - as I'm sure your theory about passion was not meant to be a Clinton jab.

Dave said...


I think you may be right.

As much as I personally enjoyed the caucus process, I actually really feel like it's a bad idea because of the number of people it, by definition, keeps away. It really hit me in Nevada with all the discussion of Casino workers. In a place like Las Vegas, where there aren't a lot of 9-5 jobs, saying "you can only vote at 5:00 PM (or whatever) on this one day" is really not a good idea. A national voting "week" would be great IMHO.

Washington state will be interesting...their caucus is on a Saturday. I wonder if these issues are less relevant on a Saturday than they are on a weeknight? Who knows...???

Anonymous said...

Matt, I assumed that was the case, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. I'm sure the delegate counts for several states could remain fluid in primary states for a few weeks until final returns are certificated and potentially for several months in caucus states until state conventions are formally held. The mechanisms for determining national delegate counts in the caucus states are far from uniform and I'm not 100% certain that the AP and other sources are fully accounting for all the intricacies, specifically on how exactly delegate selection is done (i.e. based on caucus preference or state convention delegate count) and at what levels the 15% threshold is calculated. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the state parties implements their own procedures incorrectly, though I'm sure the campaign mathematicians would catch any error going against them.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 218   Newer› Newest»