(You can read more on delegate counts here)
IMPORTANT NOTE: Delegate allocation is still being tabulated.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Keep in mind, Iowa, Wyoming, Nevada, Maine, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota, Minnesota (Republicans), Washington, and Nebraska have not awarded any National Convention delegates and will do so at their respective State Conventions. The delegate counts provided by the media are estimates and may vary in the final result.
Superdelegates and Unpledged delegates who have made an official endorsement are included for the Democrats and Republicans respectively.
Here are the delegate counts as of April 21, 2008.
% is the percent NEEDED to be nominated--2,024 or 2,025 delegates for the Democrats and 1,191 delegates for the Republicans.
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
68 comments:
I dont understand, according to cnn they have posted what certain states delegates plan to pledge, and have hillary at 124 and obama at 75 however, how have they counted this considering the primaries havent happened?
Also, if there are something like 2,000 in total delegate votes, shouldnt states be handing out hundreds not tens of delegate votes, i mean weve been through two states and obama only has 17...
can you explain this...
It's my understanding that CNN is ''projecting'' how the delegates will fall and are adjusting as the elections progress.
CNN is listed Democratic superdelegates that have already pledged there votes.
If the above link doesn't work, it should point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
who / how are defined the # of delegates. Based on population, arbitrary number?
Why Texas has more than NY?
Marc Bouchard, SC
The respective national committees (RNC, DNC) ultimately award delegates to states and declare superdelegates. I'm not sure if their processes are public. But for example, it was the DNC that stripped Wyoming and Michigan of their delegates for moving up their primaries without the DNC blessing. The RNC decided to strip half the delegates from WY and MI.
Correction: Nevada is holding a caucus, not a primary.
Why don't you show Ron Paul's face???
To the site host: I understand you want to portray an accurate measure of delegates each candidate has backing them and thus are including superdelegates/unpledged delegates based on CNN poling. However, it is very misleading to lump pledged delegates together with the much more fluid unpledged delegate count without a breakdown as you are doing here. Looking at this website, it would appear Clinton has a significant lead over Obama unless one understands the character of a pledged delegate coming from a caucus/primary is very different than a superdelegate who is leaning towards a candidate but in fact represents a much softer commitment. Obama actually leads in pledged delegates whereas CNN poling suggests Clinton has more superdelegates openly backing her. It is a much more interesting commentary to see how the data suggests Obama has been garnering more popular support whereas Clinton is being buoyed by institutional support from the DNC and DC. For now.
SHOW SOME INTEGRITY!!
Add Ron Paul to the graphic on the left of the delegate count page!!!
This site is called reliablepolitics.com. Ron Paul has more delegates than Rudy Guiliani...Why wouldn't you acknowledge that? Why don't you just not show McCains face and instead just show Duncan Hunter, who has no delegates. Reliablepolitics??????
To Colby and the commenter above you, Ron Paul has NO delegates. IA, WY, and NV have NOT awarded any delegates and will do so at a later date. Any reports of Ron Paul with delegates is FALSE and only an estimation. So, either get EDUCATED on the system before you comment and make accusations.
To Rick Evans even the overly biased FOX, CNN and MSNBC, list Dr. Paul. And whatever happened to Louisana' delegate count. Seems like there's somthing shady at this site. And I am way more educated about politics thatn most people.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
The the person above. CNN, FOX and MSNBC are only interested in a horse race, they are NOT interested in the facts. Louisiana has NOT awarded any delegates. Iowa, Wyoming and Nevada has NOT awarded any delegates. I'm not interested in pretend delegates, I'm interested in the facts. The way Ron Paul supporters keep preaching that I would think you would support this.
Nothing is shady here. It is you who do not understand the facts and the process. Get educated!
You better go check what the Louisanna GOP site has to say about Dr. Paul's delegate count. Then you can remove that cross dressing piece of garbage, who will be done after the Florida primaries are over. And as for an education, I have a Masters in Political Science, so I know the truth.
www.whatreallyhappened.com
Obama HAS the most delegates. Why not put him on top? That would be news. We are not asking for you to use your psychic abilities to predict the winner.
God, all you people are so damn annoying. Read. I don't care if you have a MA in Poli Sci. You're wrong and you're too stupid to admit it. LA did NOT choose any delegates to the National Convention, they choose delegates to the State Convention which would then select delegates to the National Convention. Get that into your head.
As for Obama, you are right my friend, Obama has the most BASE delegates, but in the Democratic party, superdelegates are just as important and therefore will be counted. Only superdelegates which have endorsed a candidate have been counted. There are still 400 superdelegates at stake.
Rick
I am just thankful you took the time to put this togther. It is far to easy to sit and bash from the back seat. Keep up the good work and let the educated master of the universe start there own site.
If you want a no spin on the numbers and good clear definitions on the process go here: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/
Funny you should link there as I have linked there on my blog as well. What sites like that and the networks DON'T take into account is that Iowa, Wyoming, Nevada and Louisiana have NOT awarded any delegates. There is not spin here. In fact, I layed it out in a nice little chart for everyone.
What's up with this? No Ron Paul? Especially odd since Ron actually has more than double the amount of delegates (and double the votes). And people wonder why his supporters are angry? BE FAIR!
liberty lover, learn to read before you comment. Ron Paul has NO delegates. Why? Iowa, Wyoming, Nevada and Louisiana have NOT awarded any delegates.
Rick Evans,
I marvel at your patience. Nice job, thanks for the info.
God I can't stand the Ron Paul loons. They're a bunch of whining crybabies. They are the only ones in the country who think that 5% is a majority.
this site is great. ive learned a lot. all the haters can go take a leap and a swim.
I just wish I could understand all this..it is like the old routine of Abbott and Costelo, "Who's on first?"
Let's get Edwards off this damn blog...he's a quitter. Why? Because he had nothing to inspire the people with. Get Ron Paul up not because he's a front runner but because he's still in the race and is fighting to get his message heard.
But before Huckabee’s surprising turnaround at the convention, McCain delegates told FOX News they had been instructed by the campaign to throw their support to Huckabee.
McCain delegate John Vuolo said former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer approached him and other McCain supporters at the convention and told them he had spoken to McCain, and that the best thing to do was to support Huckabee in the hope that Huckabee could beat Romney in this winner-take-all state.
But McCain backers, seeing that their candidate was trailing, switched their support to Huckabee to deprive Romney of the win.
"Are we going to put a true conservative in the house that Ronald Reagan built or are we going to take a left turn?"
the title of this page is reliable politics but Ron paul is not even mentioned
To Marc Bouchard, I could be wrong, but the number of delegates is determined by the national party, based on how "democratic" or "republican" the state is, whether or not it is a "swing state" and various other variables. Sorry I can't be more specific.
To all of you Ron Paul supporters: shut up, his voice has been heard and rejected by the staggering majority of your party. And stop calling C-SPAN... I know you are naturally inclined toward conspiracy, but if your candidate was at all viable, then you really would be considered a political force. But he's not. So please, shut up. Shut up and join the Libertarian Party because Republicans obviously hate you.
I really am curious why people call Ron Paul supporters 'loons' or 'nuts'. Some of us are sick of the war and sick of masses of people being imprisoned over nonsense. He has been hope for many. To tell them to shutup is like saying 'ban free speech'.
War is seldom if ever the answer. And an endless war is insane. Ron Paul without a doubt gave many people hope that he would definitely put an end to it.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/shank1.html
guess the only next hope is Obama ??
To the Paul supporters out there, the table is roughly right. When delegates are awarded, the table should change.
Also, I'm old enough to remember the derision that the mainstream media had for rap/hip-hop and punk rock. I'm getting the same vibe now with the Paul campaign. Which suggests better things are coming. Just keep working within the system for change.
You've not only got popular opinion working against you, but a political system designed for two parties. Paul, whether you want to admit it or not, can be easily characterized as a third party movement.
I support Dr. Paul as much as the next person, but all this whining about how he doesn't have a picture and this website is somehow a conspiracy and such earlier just makes all Ron Paul supporters look ridiculous. Please, be civil and dignified.
Is it true that if Huckabee drops out at anytime that his delegates go to guy above him? This doesn't help McKennedy. It's sad that someone like McChicken can't win on his own merits and has to conjourn up ways to get HIS WAY! Boy, I hate to see poor losers. Does anybody realize he's 71 years old? Does this mean we are voting for great grandpa?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=
HOW COME CNN HAS DIFFERENT NUMBERS?
elloj, please read the post before you comment regarding delegate counts. And about Huckabee's delegates: if he drops out, I'm not sure where it goes. I will have to do my research.
I don't understand why some state totals are not at 100% dispersed. For instance, in CA, only 59 delegates are showing in candidates' columns but there should be a total of 173. There are several more states like this as well such as GA, AL, AR, etc...Could you please explain? Thanks.
Hey, joseph, the delegate allocations are still being tabulated in some states. Remember, we have at-large delegates and district delegates. District delegates will take a lot longer to allocate. Some states are not 100% reported their results.
This website is bogus. Posting incorrect figures...and a link to donate to Hillary Clinton on the same page.
She's the last thing this country needs right now.
Go O!!!!!
Most websites are showing Obama with the delegate advantage, NOT the Queen of Evil.
The site should be called BSpolitics.
To the above two posters, learn how to read before you comment. Get educated please, before you comment.
And, Clinton is leading in the overall delegate race.
Oh Ricky, how I'd love to compare diplomas and resumes with you. But there's no time for that.
Clinton is only leading when you take superdelegates into consideration. The remaining superdelegates will fall in line with the American voters when it is all said and done.
Obama can beat McCain, and Billary can't, and they know it.
It will so nice to see them lose.
http://www.votesmart.org/election_president_how_primary_works.php#4
This is the best explanation. So basiclly nobody can be quite sure about anything at this point.
If Obama were to be the Democratic nominee he would need all of Hillary's supporters to vote for him in order to beat McCain. There is already talk by the majority of Hillary's supporters they will (1) not vote at all (2) jump ship, change parties and vote for McCain. Obama will never win if he is nominated. OTOH, if Hillary is nominated then you can be assured of a Democratic President.
Whether you want to believe it or not, America is not going to vote a black man as leader of this country. Especially a black man with a Muslim name. All the GOP has to do is reference the muslim name of "Barack Hussein Obama" to 9/11 and Obama has lost. And you know the Republicans are going to do just that - which is why they are pushing so hard to see Obama nominated.
dr. tim martin. I support Hillary Clinton, but I think the same applies for Clinton. Many of Obama's supporters now will not support her in the general. Much of the youth vote will not come out. Independents will either stay home or vote Republican. I think African-Americans will come out as they always do. The 2/5 exit poll from CNN showed 75% of the supporters of each candidate will support the other candidate if nominated. DEM's have two very strong candidates.
Having said that, Obama does not yet have my full support if he is the nominee. There is a reason why I support Clinton. I trust her on the issues and on being Commander-in-Chief. This country is at a crossroads and we need someone who can not only inspire, but who could get the job done. Clinton has a record, Obama's doesn't. I like Obama, but I just don't think he is ready. He will have to win me over. But, there is much time for that.
Dr Tim.....please!!!. That sounds a little racist. You don't think that places like Idaho, Nebraska, Iowa haven't heard about Obama's name. He is winning the heartland of America because they are tired of the same ole thing.
No president has had a error free presidency but Hillary is like a magnet for contention and hostility. Its either going to be Barack or McCain. The Clinton legacy is over.
To the above post, I would not go as far and predict Obama will be the nominee. He can certainly be the nominee, but there is a long way to go.
Plus, the reason why Obama is winning in states like KS, NE, and ID is because they hold a caucus. A caucus favors a candidate who is a movement. Look at Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a movement and his best performances are in caucus states where he could get up to 20% of the vote. A poll done by Survey USA showed that if Washington state had held its PRIMARY today, Clinton would of lost by only 5 points. That same poll predicted a landslide victory for Obama in the state's CAUCUS. It is why people think a caucus is undemocratic. It is an event, not an election.
Wow. This post sure got people up in a tizzy.
The new look is great, Rick.
I'm sorry, but I have been studying politics since I was a wee child, and I don't think Hillary can win the National Election. Her hope is that if she is the nominee that she can hold onto the hope that disillusioned Republicans will stay at home. There is no way that she can increase her positives or lower her negatives. She is not going to gain any voters, her only hope is that her money will somehow get a large portion of poor, white, single men and women to get out and vote while keeping the religious version of the same at home via a McCain nomination.
This is ridiculous. I, personally, support Obama. I consider his LACK of experience a BENEFIT. Hillary has been given money by so many people I doubt she remembers all the favors she has done in return. She is a close friend of the Military Industrial Complex. She is a close friend of consolidated media. She is a close friend with every interest group the Democrats didn't know they were letting in when we elected her husband, and that have cost the democrats the last two elections and that we now want out Washington.
Obama is the only person who can do this. I will NOT VOTE for the first time since I was 18 if she is the nominee. Unless there is a Green Party candidate. Every Hillary supporter will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. If they won't, then we don't need them. The independents, republicans, religious people, disenfranchised minorities that Obama CAN pick up for the Democrats will be more than enough.
So, Democrats. If you want to win this Fall. Don't vote for Hillary. You will lose far more Democrats in the General, and you will not pick up ANYONE that isn't a diehard Clintonite. I think we already have them.
And for the Ron Paul supporters. His views on abolishing the IRS and ending foreign intervention might seem nice. But when he allows states rights to ban interracial marriage, same sex relationships, and private acts between a man and a woman. When his belief in states rights allows the Mormons in Utah to legalize plural marriage, and ban alcohol. When bible belt nuts start trying to stone people for adultery, I think you will regret your rush to support a proven idealogue who flirts too closely with Racism.
Dr. Martin, I’ve been fascinated by the comments on this site and have been coming here to read. Your racist remark, which is as bull as saying democracy in the US doesn’t exist today, has tempted me to post. And my response to Rick is I don’t Clinton to be the Commander-in-Chief. She is short on judgment and is inclined to continue the same Bush mistakes. Her meanness is also beginning to show.
Our family (52 living members in all)– ranging from the WWII generation to an 7 month-old infant of this current Iraq War era - has its roots in Pennsylvania Dutch County… couldn’t have it more Whiteland than that. We are all whites and we are support Obama.
A president’s name has no relevance to his/her ability to perform. Let's not forget we are a democratic country.
Clinton has come to exhibit her true character in this primary. It’s not very flattering to her. Morally and ethically, we can’t accept a President who sees wars and the extermination of a culture as the only answer to this nation’s health. Hitler did that and sank Germany to its worst. If Clinton wins, we will stay home. We will also encourage our friends to do the same. Clinton is no different from McCain and will plunge America to more doom. Without a good domestic economy, Americans won’t survive, lest sustain its endless wars. America needs a leader who can perform with good judgment. Obama has displayed good judgment, a quality Abraham Lincoln had to his greatest credit.
Bill Clinton is a hero to me for what he did for this country, and Hillary was part of the "team". Having said that, I am voting for Obama. Not because I do not like the Clintons, but because I know that Obama is a strong candidate and will unite this country after 7 years of divisive political games.
States are awarded delegates roughly based on the population of the state as well as how "Republican" or "Democrat" the state is. For instance, Texas has more RNC delegates than New York because Texas tends to vote Republican more often than New York does.
The rules are way more complicated than that, but that's the basics.
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic,comprising fifty states and a federal district. If one more persons says we are a democracy I am going to spit. Did they not teach you anything in school? Say the pledge of allegiance people..."and to the
Republic for which it stands"....
We are not a democracy!!!
The media would like us all to think that, just like they would like us to get rid of the electoral college. If we do that the big states will always chose our leaders. Remember the small states would not ratify the Constitution until something was done to reflect their states votes. I even heard a CNN reporter say, "Big deal if Obama won small states". Is that not proof enough of liberal bias media. this is the first primary that is suppose to be viewed exactly how it's suppose to be.
WE THE PEOPLE ARE FINALLY FLEXING OUR MUSCLES AND A LOT OF THE ESTABLISHED MEDIA AND POLITICIANS DO NOT LIKE IT!
Doesn't it feel great to have control of our country back by WE THE PEOPLE?
YES WE CAN, YES WE CAN, YES WE CAN!!!!!
Community brewing, democracy in action.
I may even feel proud to be a Democrat again?
Go Obama!!!
I must of fell in to a left blog or one of cnn or other of the left wing news channels blog.
Go Huckabee!!!!!
Update your delegate counts.
Obama is about to be in the lead after tonight!!!!
Bye bye Billary, bye bye.....
You're doing good work here. Don't waste your time replying to those overly-excitable folks who have not bothered to read your actual post. Keep up the good work, Rick.
The thing that I find suspiciously absent is the criticism of the election system itself. When will we decide to abandon the notion of the electoral college and delegates, and go to a simpler, much more accurate "popular vote", where the person with the most votes wins the election? Although we can argue cogently about the 2000 election, in 2004 the American people voted for Kerry while the electoral college voted for bush. Similarly, Obama's lead over Clinton is quite formidable using popular voting protocol. It's time for "one person, one vote." This is one way that political power can be transferred back to the hands of the (largely idiotic and unenlightened) masses.
Well.. Electoral College or not, you have your facts wrong. In 2004 Bush received a higher popular vote total than Kerry did. In 2000, Gore had more popular votes than Bush.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922901.html
As someone noted, this is a Republic in which we the people are represented by representatives. The peope do not write laws or vote on legislation. I wrote my HS senior thesis paper on the electoral college, going against it but coming out for it in the end. I have my reservations about the system. The EC "stole" the election four times since its inception. What I think we need to do is modify the EC system to more accurate reflect the opinion of the people. Whether than means abolising the winner-take-all system, I don't know. I happen to like the winner-take-all system.
Obama wins Wisconsin and Hawaii on Tuesday for sure.
Keeping that in mind, D-bag Clinton will have to win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania with at least 57% if the vote.
This is without considering the fact that Obama will more than likely take Indiana, Vermont, Montana and South Dakota.
It's going to be very difficult for her to catch up.
And the superdelegates going for anyone other than the popular vote/pledged delegate winner would be disastrous for the party-and they know that.
She's on a sinking ship...and it's going to be wonderful to watch her supporters inflate their lifeboats, and paddle to Obama as fast as they can.
Yes, I accidentally reversed the years 2000 and 2004 along with the respective candidates.....I still have not heard ONE cogent argument on why an electorate is not a usurpation of power when the means exists to determine a popular vote. In a true democracy, the majority of votes, not electors or delegates, should win. In logic as well as physics, we learn that the most simple idea or formula is also (typically) that which is closest to truth. How does the obfuscation and over-complication of the current system "trump" the elegant simplicity of a popular vote? Why do you like the winner take all system? How does it keep the power with the people? I am aware that the electorate has only stolen the general election four times; how many times have primaries been "stolen" by delegates? (This is a bit more difficult to figure out.)
Of course, I'm so liberal I thought Mike Gravel had good ideas......
In order for any Dem to win the Presidency, they're going to have to move at least one Red State to Blue while winning all the states they did in 2004.
There are only 3 single states with enough votes to swing the election. Texas, Florida and Ohio. Texas isn't moving, so you're left with Ohio and Florida as battle ground states.
Just like 2000 and 2004. Combinations of two or more states are possible of course, but honestly, find two others that went Red you expect to go Blue this time? Certainly none in the South (KY,VA,NC,TN) with the larger EC totals.
The Dems must also hold PA and WI... both of which were pretty close to 50/50 in 2004.
So the battleground states will remain pretty much as they were in 2004.. FL, PA, OH and WI with (IMO) OH as the biggest battleground.
The electoral college has many positives. First and foremost, I'll cite the 2000 election as a prime example of why the electoral college is GOOD, and I am a democrat. Do we recall the legal battles and recounts that waged for months while we waited to see who the next president would be? It is thanks to the electoral college that a problem like that can be localized to a single state. Any voting system will have its problems when taking the votes of many millions of voters, and the promise of every vote counting as it was intended is simply unrealistic, even if we used modern voting technologies. Imagine if the Florida fiasco reached national proportions. No other states bothered with a recount because each was won definitively outside the margin of error inherent in any election. The electoral college ensures that a winner will come out (decisively) of even the closest election, thus avoiding a potentially endless battle for presidency. Even I will admit that a Bush victory is preferable to a potential national recount that would leave the presidency in a state of contested turmoil. Additionally, the electoral college forces candidates to campaign outside the major cities, and redistributes the power away from large centers of population. Just because a majority of the people live in cities does not mean that their collective voices should be heard over those of rural areas. Strengthening the minority (which the electoral college does by giving each state 2 electorates regardless of population) is a critical tool to avoid the "tyranny of the majority." A quick scan of the federalist papers and even the constitution itself will clearly show that THAT is an important goal of the American form of government.
This article is full of misspellings and grammatical errors. How unprofessional!!!!
Anyone else notice that McCain has won 66.6% percent of the vote...
Creepy.
What about Ron Paul...why isn't he listed?
Post a Comment