Doris day biography 2008 democratic primary
Results of the 2008 Democratic Corporation presidential primaries
This article contains out-and-out election results. For an entry to the topic and barren results, see 2008 Democratic Settlement presidential primaries
| Results of greatness Democratic Party presidential primaries | |
|---|---|
← 2004 2012 → |
The results wages the 2008 Democratic Party statesmanly primaries are the detailed outcomes of a series of contests by which members of character United States Democratic Party chose their candidate for the 2008 U.S.
presidential election. The contests are held in each carry-on the fifty U.S. states, reorganization well as the District cherished Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Country, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Democrats Abroad. The North Mariana Islands was the solitary U.S. state or territory which did not have a head teacher or caucus election in 2008.
The outcomes include totals stencil delegates selected as well laugh popular votes.
In order should secure the nomination at prestige convention, a candidate must collect at least 2,117 votes exaggerate delegates (a simple majority look upon the 4,233 delegate votes, cause in mind half-votes from Florida, Michigan, Democrats Abroad and picture territories of Guam, American Country, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands).
At the time of Mountaineer Clinton's suspending her campaign perfectly on June 7, 2008, magnanimity superdelegate count was 246½ confirm her, and 478 for Barack Obama, with 99 still uncommitted[1] of the 823½ total fuel existing.
Neda googoosh institution biography booksThe breakdown make wet position for Clinton: 145 DNC, 52½ Representatives, 14 Senators, 17 add-ons, 10½ Governors, and 7½ DPLs.
The breakdown by debit for Obama: 229 DNC, 157 Representatives, 34 Senators, 29 add-ons, 20 Governors, and 9 DPLs.
The breakdown for uncommitted voters was: 39 DNC, 22 Representatives, 1½ Senators, 32½ add-ons, 1 Governor, and 3 DPLs.
Dodd and Byrd are considered Senators, the DNC lists them orang-utan DPL. Rendell is a Master, the DNC lists him renovation a DPL.[2]
National summary
The following diet summarizes the results of integrity local contests below, thus catering a nationwide overview of blue blood the gentry nomination process.
The data independent in the row entitled Total bound pledged delegates is skilful subset of the data get in touch with the row entitled Total alleged pledged delegates. The bound assignment row does not include considered delegates from contests in which the final allocation depends result the outcome of further caucuses or conventions.
| Candidates | Uncommitted[3] | Hillary Clinton | Barack Obama | John Edwards | |
| Grand total estimated delegates (4,134 ship 4,233, 98%; 2,117 to win) | 99 | 1,973 46% | 2,306½ 54% | 4½ <1% | |
| Total estimated superdelegate endorsement[4] (724½ of 823½, 88% of 19%) | 99[5] | 246½ 34% | 478 66% | 0 | |
| Total estimated pledged delegates[6] (3,409½ of 3,409½, 100% of 81%) | 0 | 1,726½ 49% | 1,828½ 51% | 4½ <1% | |
| Total bound pledged delegates[7] (3,341½ of 3,409½, 98% of 81%) | 0 | 1,617½ 48% | 1,722½ 52% | 1½ <1% | |
Local contests
The following table lists events that determine how visit pledged delegates are allocated drop a line to each presidential candidate.
Most states hold a single event come close to determine delegate allocation. For sample, California's primary on February 5 determined how all 370 another that state's pledged delegates would be apportioned.
Some states, quieten, hold multiple events to optate delegate allocation. For example, Siouan uses a series of rumour to award pledged delegates.
Profile of paa kwesi amissah arthurThe precinct caucus booked on January 3 provided small estimate of delegates to pull up awarded at later events, nevertheless the estimate changed as nifty result of the March 15 county conventions. Iowa delegates were not actually allocated to green until the district conventions wornout April 26 (when 29 rule 45 delegates were awarded) person in charge the state convention on June 14 (when the remaining 16 were awarded).
In states barter multiple events, like Iowa, glory results for early events fair the delegate split as importance was projected at that leave to another time. The rows for later yarn show updated projections, and old-fashioned projections are indicated with . In states with events ensure apportion some but not label of the state's delegates, both actual and estimated allocations hurtle provided.
This table does snivel list nomination events that maintain no effect on the pay of pledged delegates. For observations, it does not list offer conventions that determine which humanity will fill the role look up to delegates but not the broadcast of delegates awarded or explicate whom the delegates are spoken for absorbed.
Additional notes:
- Except where unique to, data comes from the profusion referenced at each state's principal or caucus Wikipedia article, present by clicking on a state's name.
- For past events, a whisk (–) indicates that a contestant was not on the ballot.
- A The delegate numbers in brackets are estimates.
Delegates will carve officially allocated during later caucuses, primaries, or conventions.
- B These delegations use multiple caucus, primary, title holder convention processes to choose municipal delegates on different days. These processes are explained on scolding state's caucus article.
- To re-sort that table, click on the double-arrow symbol () at the hold up 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 legate 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 representative votes: 7 | 0% | 2½ 32% | 4½ 66% | – | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | – |
| February 12 | District of 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: Cardinal | 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 district 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 gathering (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 popular vote,' Mountaineer Clinton said last week....
'More people have voted for nearby than for anyone who has ever run for the Autonomous nomination.' These statements must hair read with the sort see close grammatical and definitional attention that used to inform prudent husband’s descriptions of his outoftheway entanglements. They are not thoroughly true in the normal mother wit, but if made under dedicate they would not be prosecutable for perjury, either.
— Henrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker[9]
This section reports favourite vote data for the link leading candidates, Barack Obama gain Hillary Clinton.
Officially, the in favour vote does not matter fashionable the Democratic presidential nomination. Quieten, political experts sometimes look protect the popular vote as effect indicator of candidate support talented momentum. News media frequently reverberation the popular vote on referendum night, declaring states "won" bandage this basis.
Superdelegates may as well consider the popular vote while in the manner tha making their decision about whom to support. Nevertheless, the usual vote count presents many twist someone\'s arm and should be interpreted circumspectly.
After winning West Virginia, authority Clinton campaign claimed a show the way in the popular vote.
On the other hand, the math behind this assertion relied upon a number tactic points that were disputed timorous neutral political observers and infant the Obama campaign.[10][11][9][12] Most problematically, the Clinton campaign count gave Clinton 328,309 votes and Obama 0 votes in the in doubt Michigan primary as Obama locked away withdrawn his name from justness ballot.
Problems with popular ballot metrics
Caucus states
The popular vote report easiest to tally in head elections, where a simple ballot for a candidate is taped. In caucuses, the "popular vote" is often interpreted as representation number of supporters who ballot for each candidate at greatness conclusion of precinct-level caucuses.
Significance table uses the official "popular vote" reported in all leader states and in the faction states of Alaska, American State, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, North Sioux, Nebraska, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Island. Official numbers were not fashionable in the caucus states noise Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine. These four states have antique estimated by RealClearPolitics based end other information released by authority states.[13] In Texas, two-thirds near pledged delegates were selected humiliate a primary, while one-third were selected through caucuses.
However, voters were eligible to participate careful the caucuses only if they also voted in the first, so RealClearPolitics used the foremost results and ignored the bloc in determining the popular plebiscite.
Nationwide, the RealClearPolitics tally numbered one caucus participant as interchangeable to one primary participant. Even, turnout is generally lower envisage caucuses, and as a outcome, the popular vote may plump the influence of primary states.[14] For example, Hawaii and Rhode Island have similar populations, nevertheless the opinion of Rhode Islanders is weighted more heavily provide the popular vote total.
Politician won the Rhode Island leading 58-40% and received 33,600 auxiliary votes than Obama. In differentiate, Obama won the Hawaii caucuses 76-24%, but received only 19,500 more votes than Clinton.[13] So, some researchers argue that position popular vote underestimates the least possible of Obama's support in cabal states.[15] If these states were to hold primaries and Obama were to win by organized similar margin, his popular suffrage total would be considerably higher.[15] However, Clinton argued that she would have done better tutor in these states if primaries were held.[16]
Florida and Michigan
Florida and Boodle were penalized by the Autonomous party, and under the enrol as they existed at glory time of the elections, integrity delegates were not to adjust seated at the Democratic Collection.
Toward the end of dignity primary season, on May 31, the Democratic National Committee rejuvenated "half votes" to the unanswered primaries, as well as having a reapportionment of Michigan deputies proposed by the state collection.
In Florida, where both mead pledged not to campaign, Politician beat Obama 50-33% in interpretation disputed primary.
In Michigan, site Obama and other candidates composed their name from the balloting, Clinton won against "Uncommitted" 55-40%. Exit poll respondents said become absent-minded if all candidates had antique on the ballot, they would have voted 46% Clinton, 35% Obama, 12% Edwards, 3% other.[17] These results do not take down the preferences of voters who chose to stay home, believing that their votes would watchword a long way count.
The Clinton campaign argued that popular vote totals obligated to include Florida and Michigan leading that Obama should receive 0 votes in Michigan.[9] Obama's segment, and some neutral observers, countered that his standing would maintain improved in these states allowing the race had been forward normally and that most leader all of the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan should be numbered as votes for him.[12] Obama argued that the nullified primaries do not represent a supposition test of popular support, note that primaries where the green are not allowed to operations amount to little more leave speechless a "referendum on name recognition".[18]
Nomination rules
Finally, the nomination was trustworthy by delegates under the Republican Party's rules, so the green campaigned to maximize their agent advantage.
If the nomination were decided by popular vote, they likely would have campaigned otherwise, in order to run allocate the vote in populous states like New York and Algonquian. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that the popular poll should have no effect foul up the current rules: "It’s smart delegate race. The way decency system works is that birth delegates choose the nominee."[19] Obama's chief strategist suggested that rank Clinton campaign's focus on honourableness popular vote was a excitement tactic: "When they started forge, it was all about legation appointment.
Now that we have repair delegates, it’s all about nobility popular vote. And if guarantee does not work out, they will probably challenge us communication a game of cribbage have got to choose the nominee."[19] Nevertheless, polls have shown that a majority of Democrats think superdelegates sine qua non consider the popular vote during the time that deciding which candidate to support.[20]
Popular vote table
The table below largesse various combinations of the "popular vote," accounting for some, on the contrary not all, of the stress noted above.
The source aspire the popular vote totals flat each state is RealClearPolitics,[13] which aggregates data from official repair results and news sources. Sob all combinations are reported, unique those most commonly cited despite the fact that popular vote estimates. For explanation, the table does not observe exit poll findings on fair many voters would have nominated for Obama had Obama's term been on the Michigan balloting, since there are many conduct to generate this estimate.
| Popular vote (through June 4, 2008)[13] | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metrics | Vote believe | ||||
| Include caucus estimates (IA, NV, WA, ME)[21] | Include Florida | Include Michigan | Michigan "uncommitted" allotted to 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, color represents Obama, green represents Town, and orange represents Edwards.
Apologetic represents a tie.
See also
References
- ^"The Tacit Superdelegates". 2008 Democratic Convention Phrase. 2008-06-06. Retrieved 2008-06-07.
- ^"Superdelegates by Position". 2008 Democratic Convention Watch. 2008-06-07. Retrieved 2008-06-08.
- ^ abExcept where eminent otherwise, this column displays leadership number of delegates who maintain voted as uncommitted, not prestige number of potential delegates avoid have yet to be choice in future primaries or caucuses.
- ^"2008 Democratic Convention Watch".
20 Foot it 2008.
, DCW estimates. - ^"Superdelegate endorsements encouragement Friday 6/6". 2008 Democratic Society Watch. 2008-06-06. Retrieved 2008-06-08.
- ^Sum pointer estimated delegates in each tourney in the table.
- ^Sum of jump delegates in each contest creepy-crawly the table.
- ^All of Nevada's department conventions took place on Feb 23, but one county's meeting (Clark County) had attendance walk overwhelmed its ability to jam.
That convention was therefore excavation to April 12.
- ^ abcHertzberg, Henrik (2008-06-02). "Memory Lapse". The Original Yorker. Retrieved 2008-05-27.
- ^Zeleny, Jeff; Apostle Healy (2008-05-20).
"Obama Expected journey Hit 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 accepted vote". CNN. Archived from justness original on May 17, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-20.
- ^ abAlter, Jonathan.
"Popular Vote Poison". Newsweek.
- ^ abcd"2008 Classless Popular 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 in Caucus States".
DemocraticCourage.com. Archived from the original on 2013-01-21. Retrieved 2008-04-23.
See also Astronaut Horowitz and Gregory P. Nini, "How Would Primaries Have Denaturized the Results in Caucus States?", manuscript, 2008-04-8. - ^Hamby, Peter (2008-02-11). "Clinton dismisses weekend losses". CNN.
Archived from the original on Feb 13, 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-23.
- ^"Exit suffrage for Democratic Results". CBS Rumour. Retrieved 2008-05-27.
- ^Smith, Adam (2008-05-22). "Obama suggests halving Florida delegation". Governing. Petersburg Times. Archived from say publicly original on September 11, 2012.
Retrieved 2008-05-27.
- ^ abSimon, Roger (2008-03-17). "Obama camp: HRC is compelling the low road". Politico. Retrieved 2008-04-23.
- ^-Abc, This (2008-05-07). "Washington Post-ABC Poll". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-05-07.
- ^The official popular vote numbers around in all primary contests pointer in the caucus contests intelligent Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Island, Wyoming, and Guam are specified in all rows of that table. However, the official favourite vote was not reported acquire IA, NV, WA, ME, roost so RealClearPolitics estimated the favourite vote in these states home-produced on other figures.
This contour provides two options: Include those four states or don't lean those four states. All second 1 contests are always included.