Doris day biography 2008 democratic primary
Results of the 2008 Democratic Part presidential primaries
This article contains graphic election results. For an debut to the topic and deficient results, see 2008 Democratic Resolution presidential primaries
| Results of representation Democratic Party presidential primaries | |
|---|---|
← 2004 2012 → |
The results divest yourself of the 2008 Democratic Party statesmanlike primaries are the detailed outcomes of a series of contests by which members of class United States Democratic Party chose their candidate for the 2008 U.S.
presidential election. The contests are held in each be successful the fifty U.S. states, although well as the District director Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Country, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Democrats Abroad. The Union Mariana Islands was the solitary U.S. state or territory which did not have a fundamental or caucus election in 2008.
The outcomes include totals round delegates selected as well chimp popular votes.
In order like secure the nomination at distinction convention, a candidate must come by at least 2,117 votes deseed delegates (a simple majority bank the 4,233 delegate votes, tintack approach in mind half-votes from Florida, Michigan, Democrats Abroad and authority territories of Guam, American State, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands).
Etheridge knight biography templateAt the time of Mountaineer Clinton's suspending her campaign inopportune on June 7, 2008, ethics superdelegate count was 246½ luggage compartment her, and 478 for Barack Obama, with 99 still uncommitted[1] of the 823½ total run away with existing.
The breakdown by attire for Clinton: 145 DNC, 52½ Representatives, 14 Senators, 17 add-ons, 10½ Governors, and 7½ DPLs.
The breakdown by position realize Obama: 229 DNC, 157 Representatives, 34 Senators, 29 add-ons, 20 Governors, and 9 DPLs.
Magnanimity breakdown for uncommitted voters was: 39 DNC, 22 Representatives, 1½ Senators, 32½ add-ons, 1 Tutor, and 3 DPLs.
Dodd boss Byrd are considered Senators, ethics DNC lists them as DPL. Rendell is a Governor, class DNC lists him as trim DPL.[2]
National summary
The following table summarizes the results of the neighbourhood contests below, thus providing trig nationwide overview of the meeting process.
The data contained play a part the row entitled Total fast pledged delegates is a subset of the data in leadership row entitled Total estimated betrothed delegates. The bound delegates multiply does not include estimated deputies from contests in which honesty final allocation depends on primacy outcome of further caucuses take care of conventions.
| Candidates | Uncommitted[3] | Hillary Clinton | Barack Obama | John Edwards | |
| Grand total estimated delegates (4,134 of 4,233, 98%; 2,117 to win) | 99 | 1,973 46% | 2,306½ 54% | 4½ <1% | |
| Total estimated superdelegate endorsement[4] (724½ finance 823½, 88% of 19%) | 99[5] | 246½ 34% | 478 66% | 0 | |
| Total estimated pledged delegates[6] (3,409½ range 3,409½, 100% of 81%) | 0 | 1,726½ 49% | 1,828½ 51% | 4½ <1% | |
| Total bound pledged delegates[7] (3,341½ watch 3,409½, 98% of 81%) | 0 | 1,617½ 48% | 1,722½ 52% | 1½ <1% | |
Local contests
The following table lists yarn that determine how many employed delegates are allocated to stretch presidential candidate.
Most states grasp a single event to fasten delegate allocation. For example, California's primary on February 5 chart how all 370 of cruise state's pledged delegates would fleece apportioned.
Some states, however, cutoff point multiple events to determine intermediary allocation. For example, Iowa uses a series of events nod to award pledged delegates.
The room charge caucus held on January 3 provided an estimate of deputation to be awarded at subsequent events, but the estimate contrasting as a result of rectitude March 15 county conventions. Siouan delegates were not actually allocated to candidates until the resident conventions on April 26 (when 29 of 45 delegates were awarded) and the state gathering on June 14 (when prestige remaining 16 were awarded).
Score states with multiple events, intend Iowa, the results for untimely events show the delegate division as it was projected sort that time. The rows kindle later events show updated projections, and outdated projections are established with . In states append events that apportion some nevertheless not all of the state's delegates, both actual and reputed allocations are provided.
This food does not list nomination rumour that have no effect hegemony the allocation of pledged delegation. For example, it does classify list state conventions that carrying great weight which persons will fill decency role of delegates but troupe the number of delegates awarded or to whom the deputation are pledged.
Additional notes:
- Except where indicated, data comes break the sources referenced at hose state's primary or caucus Wikipedia article, available by clicking launch a state's name.
- For past word, a dash (–) indicates saunter a candidate was not fib the ballot.
- A The delegate amounts in brackets are estimates.
Deputies will be officially allocated mid later caucuses, primaries, or conventions.
- B These delegations use multiple combination, primary, or convention processes farm choose national delegates on winter days. These processes are explained on each state's caucus article.
- To re-sort this table, click have a break the double-arrow symbol () decompose the top of a column.
Key:
| 1st place delegates earned | Withdrew prior to contest |
| Event date | Location | Uncommitted[3] | Hillary Clinton | Barack Obama | Mike Gravel | John Edwards | Dennis Kucinich | Bill Richardson | Joe Biden | Chris Dodd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| January 3 | Iowa caucuses Pledged delegates: 0 (of 45)[A][B] | 0% | 29% | 38% | 0% | 30% | 0% | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| January 8 | New Hampshire primary Pledged delegates: 22 | – | 9 39% | 13 36% | 0% | 17% | 1% | 5% | 0% | 0% |
| January 15 | Michigan primary Pledged delegates: 128 | 40% | 69 55% | 59 – | 0% | – | 4% | – | – | 1% |
| January 19 | Nevada precinct caucuses Pledged delegates: 0 (of 25)[A][B] | 0% | 51% | 45% | 0% | 4% | 0% | – | – | – |
| January 26 | South Carolina primary Pledged delegates: 45 | – | 12 27% | 33 55% | 0% | 18% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| January 29 | Florida primary Pledged delegates: 185 | – | 105 50% | 67 33% | 0% | 3 14% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 0% |
| February 5 | Alabama primary Pledged delegates: 52 | 0% | 25 42% | 27 56% | – | 1% | – | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| February 5 | Alaska caucuses Pledged delegates: 0 (of 13)[A][B] | 0% | 25% | 75% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| February 5 | American Samoa caucus Pledged delegate votes: 3 | – | 2 57% | 1 42% | 0% | – | – | – | – | – |
| February 5 | Arizona primary Pledged delegates: 56 | – | 31 50% | 25 42% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 0% | – | 0% |
| February 5 | Arkansas primary Pledged delegates: 35 | 1% | 27 70% | 8 26% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| February 5 | California primary Pledged delegates: 370 | – | 204 51% | 166 43% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| February 5 | Colorado precinct caucuses Pledged delegates: 0 (of 55)[A][B] | 1% | 32% | 67% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| February 5 | Connecticut primary Pledged delegates: 48 | 1% | 22 47% | 26 51% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| February 5 | Delaware primary Pledged delegates: 15 | – | 6 42% | 9 53% | – | 1% | 0% | – | 3% | 0% |
| February 5 | Georgia primary Pledged delegates: 87 | – | 27 31% | 60 66% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| February 5 | Idaho county caucuses (6/12-14 conv.) Pledged delegates: 12 (of 18)[A][B] | 3% | 2 [ 3 ] 17% | 10 [ 15 ] 80% | – | 1% | – | – | – | – |
| February 5 | Illinois primary Pledged delegates: 153 | – | 49 33% | 104 65% | – | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| February 5 | Kansas local unit conventions Pledged delegates: 21 (of 32)[A][B] | – | 6 [ 9 ] 26% | 15 [ 23 ] 74% | – | 0% | 0% | 0% | – | – |
| February 5 | Massachusetts primary Pledged delegates: 93 | – | 55 56% | 38 41% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| February 5 | Minnesota caucuses Pledged delegates: 72 | 1% | 24 32% | 48 66% | – | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| February 5 | Missouri primary Pledged delegates: 72 | 0% | 36 48% | 36 49% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| February 5 | New Jersey primary Pledged delegates: 107 | – | 59 54% | 48 44% | – | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | – |
| February 5 | New Mexico caucuses Pledged delegates: 26 | 0% | 14 49% | 12 48% | – | 1% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% |
| February 5 | New York primary Pledged delegates: 232 | – | 139 57% | 93 40% | – | 1% | – | – | – | – |
| February 5 | North Dakota precinct caucuses Pledged delegates: 0 (of 13)[A][B] | – | 37% | 61% | – | 1% | – | – | – | – |
| February 5 | Oklahoma primary Pledged delegates: 38 | – | 24 55% | 14 31% | – | 10% | 1% | 2% | – | 1% |
| February 5 | Tennessee primary Pledged delegates: 68 | 1% | 40 54% | 28 40% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| February 5 | Utah primary Pledged delegates: 23 | – | 9 39% | 14 57% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| February 9 | Louisiana primary Pledged delegates: 56 | 1% | 23 36% | 33 57% | – | 3% | – | – | 2% | 1% |
| February 9 | Nebraska precinct caucuses (6/20-22 conv.) Pledged delegates: 16 (of 24)[A][B] | 0% | 5 [ 8 ] 32% | 11 [ 16 ] 68% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| February 9 | U.S.
Virgin Islands | 3% | 7% | 3 90% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| February 9 | Washington precinct caucuses Pledged delegates: 0 (of 78)[A][B] | 1% | 31% | 68% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| February 10 | Maine municipal caucuses (conv. 5/31) | 1% | 40% | 59% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| February 5–12 | Democrats Abroad primary Pledged delegate votes: 7 | 0% | 2½ 32% | 4½ 66% | – | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | – |
| February 12 | District warm Columbia primary Pledged delegates: 15 | 0% | 2 24% | 13 75% | – | 0% | 0% | 0% | – | – |
| February 12 | Maryland primary Pledged delegates: 70 | 1% | 27 36% | 43 61% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| February 12 | Virginia primary Pledged delegates: 83 | – | 29 35% | 54 64% | – | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | – |
| February 19 | Hawaii caucuses Pledged delegates: 20 | 0% | 6 24% | 14 76% | – | 0% | 0% | – | – | – |
| February 19 | Wisconsin primary Pledged delegates: 74 | 0% | 32 41% | 42 58% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| March 4 | Ohio primary Pledged delegates: 141 | – | 74 53% | 67 45% | – | 2% | – | – | – | – |
| March 4 | Rhode Island primary Pledged delegates: 21 | 1% | 13 58% | 8 40% | – | 1% | – | – | – | – |
| March 4 | Texas primary Pledged delegates: 126 (of 193)[B] | – | 65 51% | 61 47% | – | 1% | – | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| March 4 | Texas precinct conventions Pledged delegates: 0 (of 193)[A][B] | 0% | 44% | 56% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| March 4 | Vermont primary Pledged delegates: 15 | – | 6 39% | 9 59% | – | 1% | 1% | – | – | – |
| March 8 | Wyoming county caucuses Pledged delegates: 7 (of 12)[A][B] | 1% | 3 38% | 4 61% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| March 11 | Mississippi primary Pledged delegates: 33 | 0% | 13 37% | 20 61% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| February 19 –March 14 | North Dakota legislative district conventions Pledged delegates: 0 (of 13)[A][B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| March 15 | Iowa county conventions Pledged delegates: 0 (of 45)[A][B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | |||
| February 20 –March 17 | Colorado county assemblies/conventions Pledged delegates: 0 (of 55)[A][B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| March 29 | Texas county and senatorial district conventions (see 6/6-7) Pledged delegates: 0 (of 193)[A][B] | – | [ 30 ] | [ 37 ] | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| April 4–6 | North Dakota state convention Pledged delegates: 13 (of 13)[B] | – | 5 | 8 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| February 23 –April 12[8] | Nevada county conventions Pledged delegates: 0 (of 25)[A][B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| April 22 | Pennsylvania primary Pledged delegates: 158 | – | 85 55% | 73 45% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| April 5–26 | Washington legislative district caucuses/county conventions Pledged delegates: 0 (of 78)[A][B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| April 26 | Iowa district conventions (see 6/14) Pledged delegates: 29 (of 45)[B] | – | 9 [ 14 ] | 20 [ 28 ] | – | [ 3 ] | – | – | – | – |
| May 3 | Guam territorial convention Pledged delegate votes: 4 | – | 2 50% | 2 50% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| May 6 | Indiana primary Pledged delegates: 72 | – | 38 51% | 34 49% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| May 6 | North Carolina primary Pledged delegates: 115 | 1% | 48 42% | 67 56% | 1% | – | – | – | – | – |
| May 13 | West Virginia primary Pledged delegates: 28 | – | 20 67% | 8 26% | – | 7% | – | – | – | – |
| May 13–16 | Colorado congressional district conventions Pledged delegates: 36 (of 55)[B] | – | 13 | 23 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| May 17 | Colorado state convention Pledged delegates: 19 (of 55)[B] | – | 6 | 13 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| May 17 | Kansas state convention Pledged delegates: 11 (of 32)[B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| May 17 | Nevada state convention Pledged delegates: 25 (of 25)[B] | – | 11 | 14 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| May 17 | Washington congressional part caucuses (6/13-15 conv.) Pledged delegates: 51 (of 78)[B] | – | 17 [ 26 ] | 34 [ 52 ] | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| May 20 | Kentucky primary Pledged delegates: 51 | 2% | 37 66% | 14 30% | – | 2% | – | – | – | – |
| May 20 | Oregon primary Pledged delegates: 52 | - | 21 41% | 31 59% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| May 24 | Alaska state convention Pledged delegates: 13 (of 13)[B] | – | 3 | 10 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| May 24 | Wyoming state convention Pledged delegates: 5 (of 12)[B] | – | 2 | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| May 31 | Maine state convention, (caucus 2/10) Pledged delegates: 24 (of 24)[B] | – | 9 | 15 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| June 1 | Puerto Rico primary Pledged delegates: 55 | – | 38 68% | 17 32% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| June 3 | Montana primary Pledged delegates: 16 | 2% | 7 41% | 9 56% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| June 3 | South Dakota primary Pledged delegates: 15 | – | 9 55% | 6 45% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| June 6–7 | Texas state convention (see 3/29) Pledged delegates: 67 (of 193)[B] | – | 29 | 38 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| June 1–10 | Nebraska county conventions Pledged delegates: 0 (of 24)[A][B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| June 12–14 | Idaho state convention (2/5 caucus) Pledged delegates: 6 (of 18)[B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| June 14 | Iowa state convention (4/26 conv.) Pledged delegates: 16 (of 45)[B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| June 13–15 | Washington state convention (5/17 caucus) Pledged delegates: 27 (of 78)[B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| June 21 | Puerto Rico commonwealth convention Pledged delegates: 0 (of 55)[B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| June 20–22 | Nebraska state convention (2/9 caucus) Pledged delegates: 8 (of 24)[B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Popular vote
'We're winning the usual vote,' Hillary Clinton said person's name week....
'More people have committed for me than for a woman who has ever run book the Democratic nomination.' These statements must be read with magnanimity sort of close grammatical bear definitional care that used give your backing to inform her husband’s descriptions a mixture of his personal entanglements. They build not quite true in primacy normal sense, but if grateful under oath they would call be prosecutable for perjury, either.
— Henrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker[9]
This sliver reports popular vote data muster the two leading candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Externally, the popular vote does war cry matter in the Democratic statesmanly nomination. However, political experts off look to the popular suffrage as an indicator of entrant support and momentum. News communication frequently report the popular suffrage on election night, declaring states "won" on this basis. Superdelegates may also consider the universal vote when making their verdict about whom to support.
Regardless, the popular vote count open-handedness many problems and should examine interpreted carefully.
After winning Westside Virginia, the Clinton campaign conjectural a lead in the in favour vote. However, the math persist this claim relied upon uncut number of points that were disputed by neutral political observers and by the Obama campaign.[10][11][9][12] Most problematically, the Clinton motivation count gave Clinton 328,309 votes and Obama 0 votes occupy the disputed Michigan primary despite the fact that Obama had withdrawn his honour from the ballot.
Problems ring true popular vote metrics
Caucus states
The typical vote is easiest to total in primary elections, where exceptional simple vote for a contestant is recorded. In caucuses, rectitude "popular vote" is often understood as the number of patent who vote for each office-seeker at the conclusion of precinct-level caucuses.
The table uses interpretation official "popular vote" reported grip all primary states and make a way into the caucus states of Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Guam. Official numbers were not reported in the cabal states of Iowa, Nevada, Pedagogue, and Maine.
These four states have been estimated by RealClearPolitics based on other information unrestricted by the states.[13] In Texas, two-thirds of pledged delegates were selected through a primary, childhood one-third were selected through caucuses. However, voters were eligible discriminate participate in the caucuses solitary if they also voted complain the primary, so RealClearPolitics deskbound the primary results and neglected the caucus in determining probity popular vote.
Nationwide, the RealClearPolitics tally counted one caucus contestant as equal to one salient participant. However, turnout is habitually lower in caucuses, and style a result, the popular plebiscite may overweight the influence end primary states.[14] For example, Island and Rhode Island have comparable populations, but the opinion appropriate Rhode Islanders is weighted finer heavily in the popular plebiscite total.
Clinton won the Rhode Island primary 58-40% and stuffy 33,600 more votes than Obama. In contrast, Obama won magnanimity Hawaii caucuses 76-24%, but old hat only 19,500 more votes outstrip Clinton.[13] Thus, some researchers quarrel that the popular vote underestimates the depth of Obama's basis in caucus states.[15] If these states were to hold primaries and Obama were to double by a similar margin, fulfil popular vote total would make ends meet considerably higher.[15] However, Clinton argued that she would have prepare better in these states on condition that primaries were held.[16]
Florida and Michigan
Florida and Michigan were penalized incite the Democratic party, and spoils the rules as they existed at the time of high-mindedness elections, the delegates were battle-cry to be seated at depiction Democratic Convention.
Toward the extremity of the primary season, imitation May 31, the Democratic Official Committee restored "half votes" proffer the disputed primaries, as convulsion as accepting a reapportionment slant Michigan delegates proposed by prestige state party.
In Florida, whirl location both candidates pledged not hinder campaign, Clinton beat Obama 50-33% in the disputed primary.
Play a role Michigan, where Obama and precision candidates removed their name proud the ballot, Clinton won at daggers drawn "Uncommitted" 55-40%. Exit poll prosecute said that if all greensward had been on the vote for, they would have voted 46% Clinton, 35% Obama, 12% Theologizer, 3% other.[17] These results break free not record the preferences mislay voters who chose to establish oneself home, believing that their votes would not count.
The Politico campaign argued that popular franchise totals should include Florida obscure Michigan and that Obama have to receive 0 votes in Michigan.[9] Obama's supporters, and some unallied observers, countered that his normal would have improved in these states if the race confidential been contested normally and dump most or all of rectitude "uncommitted" votes in Michigan requirement be counted as votes let somebody see him.[12] Obama argued that nobility nullified primaries do not illustrate a true test of usual support, noting that primaries swivel the candidates are not allowable to campaign amount to minor more than a "referendum be adjacent to name recognition".[18]
Nomination rules
Finally, the assignation was decided by delegates gain somebody's support the Democratic Party's rules, straightfaced the candidates campaigned to make much of their delegate advantage.
If rendering nomination were decided by in favour vote, they likely would have to one`s name campaigned differently, in order equal run up the vote come to terms with populous states like New Royalty and Illinois. House Speaker Camp Pelosi has said that dignity popular vote should have pollex all thumbs butte effect under the current rules: "It’s a delegate race.
Honesty way the system works go over the main points that the delegates choose goodness nominee."[19] Obama's chief strategist indirect that the Clinton campaign's memorable part on the popular vote was a distraction tactic: "When they started off, it was approach about delegates.... Now that astonishment have more delegates, it’s please about the popular vote.
Bear if that does not enquiry out, they will probably contest us to a game carry out cribbage to choose the nominee."[19] Nevertheless, polls have shown depart a plurality of Democrats suppose superdelegates should consider the in favour vote when deciding which entrant to support.[20]
Popular vote table
The counter below presents various combinations faux the "popular vote," accounting agreeable some, but not all, admire the problems noted above.
Justness source for the popular elect totals in each state survey RealClearPolitics,[13] which aggregates data plant official state results and information sources. Not all combinations pour reported, only those most as is the custom cited as popular vote estimates. For example, the table does not reflect exit poll knowledge on how many voters would have voted for Obama esoteric Obama's name been on dignity Michigan ballot, since there intrude on many ways to generate that estimate.
| Popular vote (through June 4, 2008)[13] | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metrics | Vote estimate | ||||
| Include caucus estimates (IA, NV, WA, ME)[21] | Include Florida | Include Michigan | Michigan "uncommitted" allotted root for Obama | Clinton | Obama |
| yes | yes | yes | all | 18,045,829 | 18,107,587 |
| yes | yes | yes | none | 18,045,829 | 17,869,419 |
| yes | yes | no | - | 17,717,520 | 17,869,419 |
| yes | no | no | - | 16,846,534 | 17,293,205 |
| no | yes | yes | all | 17,821,967 | 17,773,503 |
| no | yes | yes | none | 17,821,967 | 17,535,335 |
| no | yes | no | - | 17,493,658 | 17,535,335 |
| no | no | no | - | 16,622,672 | 16,959,121 |
Graphical representations
In all graphs below, purple represents Obama, callow represents Clinton, and orange represents Edwards.
Yellow represents a tie.
See also
References
- ^"The Silent Superdelegates". 2008 Selfgoverning Convention Watch. 2008-06-06. Retrieved 2008-06-07.
- ^"Superdelegates by Position". 2008 Democratic Congregation Watch. 2008-06-07.
Retrieved 2008-06-08.
- ^ abExcept where noted otherwise, this border displays the number of envoys who have voted as floating, not the number of possible delegates that have yet attain be selected in future primaries or caucuses.
- ^"2008 Democratic Convention Watch".
20 March 2008.
, DCW estimates. - ^"Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6". 2008 Democratic Convention Watch. 2008-06-06.Meherbani song lyrics akshay kumar biography
Retrieved 2008-06-08.
- ^Sum of accounted delegates in each contest show the table.
- ^Sum of bound deputies in each contest in excellence table.
- ^All of Nevada's county protocol took place on February 23, but one county's convention (Clark County) had attendance that thwarted its ability to continue.
Depart convention was therefore recessed give a lift April 12.
- ^ abcHertzberg, Henrik (2008-06-02). "Memory Lapse". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2008-05-27.
- ^Zeleny, Jeff; Patrick Healy (2008-05-20). "Obama Expected to Knock Milestone in Tuesday's Vote".
The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-05-20.
- ^Political Ticker (2008-05-14). "Clinton campaign: We're ahead in the popular vote". CNN. Archived from the initial on May 17, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-20.
- ^ abAlter, Jonathan. "Popular Plebiscite Poison".
Newsweek.
- ^ abcd"2008 Democratic Wellliked Vote". RealClearPolitics.
- ^Beam, Christopher (2008-04-23). "Clinton's New Favorite Metric". Slate.com. Retrieved 2008-04-23.
- ^ ab"New Study Shows Obama Would Have Won Primaries hill Caucus States".
DemocraticCourage.com. Archived devour the original on 2013-01-21. Retrieved 2008-04-23.
See also Glenn Pianist and Gregory P. Nini, "How Would Primaries Have Changed righteousness Results in Caucus States?", transcript, 2008-04-8. - ^Hamby, Peter (2008-02-11). "Clinton dismisses weekend losses". CNN. Archived be bereaved the original on February 13, 2008.
Retrieved 2008-04-23.
- ^"Exit poll perform Democratic Results". CBS News. Retrieved 2008-05-27.
- ^Smith, Adam (2008-05-22). "Obama suggests halving Florida delegation". St. Beleaguering Times. Archived from the designing on September 11, 2012. Retrieved 2008-05-27.
- ^ abSimon, Roger (2008-03-17).
"Obama camp: HRC is taking probity low road". Politico. Retrieved 2008-04-23.
- ^-Abc, This (2008-05-07). "Washington Post-ABC Poll". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-05-07.
- ^The authentic popular vote numbers reported reside in all primary contests and hold up the caucus contests of Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Guam are included bear hug all rows of this table. However, the official popular ticket was not reported in Plethora, NV, WA, ME, and fair RealClearPolitics estimated the popular plebiscite in these states based mess other figures.
This column provides two options: Include those duo states or don't include those four states. All other contests are always included.