AP Posts (Incomplete) National Primary Numbers

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:19:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The AP reports on the national primary/caucus numbers, only the numbers don't include an unspecified number of absentee ballots or early voters. Nonetheless, it's a handy partial guide:

State Dem Total Obama Clinton GOP Total
N.H. 284,104 104,772 112,251 233,381
Mich. 593,837 X 328,151 867,271
S.C. 530,322 295,091 141,128 442,918
Fla. 1,684,390 569,041 857,208 1,920,350
Ala. 539,743 302,684 226,454 563,822
Ariz. 422,460 181,416 218,064 500,341
Ark. 307,318 80,774 217,313 224,581
Calif. 4,228,134 1,827,485 2,226,622 2,370,142

More...

State Dem Total Obama Clinton GOP Total
Conn. 350,595 179,349 164,831 150,159
Del. 95,979 51,124 40,751 50,062
Ga. 1,046,485 700,366 328,129 954,462
Ill. 2,003,800 1,301,954 662,845 885,009
Mass. 1,244,133 511,887 704,591 496,171
Mo. 820,453 405,284 395,287 584,618
N.J. 1,109,369 492,186 602,576 556,855
N.M. 139,869 67,531 68,654
N.Y. 1,721,262 697,914 1,003,623 602,747
Okla. 401,230 130,087 228,425 329,843
Tenn. 614,096 250,730 332,599 547,614
Utah 122,617 70,373 48,719 283,759
La. 357,547 220,588 136,959 156,101
D.C. 113,157 85,534 27,326 5,711
Md. 745,078 457,053 277,941 281,145
Va. 970,393 623,141 347,252 481,970

Note the numbers for Florida differ from Florida's official numbers:

Hillary Clinton 870,986
Barack Obama 576,214
John Edwards 251,562
Total voting for other than Hillary or Obama: approx. 300k

There may have been 500,000 early voters in Florida.

Anyway, do these numbers tell you anything? Anyone feel like crunching them?

< Move On Urges Super Delegates To Support "The Will Of The People" | TPM's Sargent: It Was Not About Shuster, It Was About NBC And Tweety >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

AP Posts (Incomplete) National Primary Numbers | 43 comments (43 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

There was othing to agre or disagree about (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:56:11 PM EST

It was not her call.

Let e just say this for the last time. This falsehood is repeated over and over again. I am deleting all such comments without warning or comment.

The PLEDGE was to NOT campaign in those 2 states. That is it . all the rest of these stories are pure lies.

they will be deleted without comment in the future.

Bravo. (none / 0) (#17)
by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:59:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]

asked and answered (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:02:43 PM EST

Indeed (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:15:21 PM EST

Participate did not require removal of the names from the ballot. If you REALLY have done your search, you will know that Obama tried to organize everyone to pledge to remove themselves from the MI ballot (strangely NOT the FL ballot) as an ADDITIONAL EXTENSION to the pledge.

Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel did not go along.

Of course, Obama's name WAS on the ballot in Florida.

Did he violate the pledge in your mind?

[ Parent ]

The FL ballot was later (none / 0) (#34)
by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:23:35 PM EST

Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, etc. pulled their names from the Michigan ballot in an attempt to show solidarity with the DNC. They appealed to all candidates to do so. Clinton, and Kuchinich, refused and deliberately left their names on. The deadline to remove names from the Florida ballot was weeks later. And having seen that there would be no solidarity and that the potential was there for a candidate to potentially use it as an unfair advantage everyone left their names on the Florida ballot.

[ Parent ]

Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel (none / 0) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:25:57 PM EST

DISAGREED. It was much commented upon at the time.

[ Parent ]

Focus about FL (none / 0) (#43)
by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:29:31 PM EST

I was giving context to your charge about names off the ballot for MI but not FL.

[ Parent ]

: Indeed (none / 0) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:30:24 PM EST

I know the answer. I have written about this subject in detail here.

[ Parent ]

BTW (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:27:33 PM EST

How much later? when did Iowa, NH and S. Ca move up their contests?

[ Parent ]

Another thing on FL (none / 0) (#52)
by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:39:07 PM EST

There was now way to remove your name from the ballot. Edwards and Obama couldn't remove their names.

[ Parent ]

: Not news to me (none / 0) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:43:01 PM EST

I wrote that in my post on this. I am scrupulously fair. Makes a mockery of the argument that the pledge required it though.

[ Parent ]

From What I Remember (none / 0) (#59)
by ghost2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:38:15 PM EST

Removing the names from Michigan ballot at the DEADLINE was a power play (orchestrated by Obama campaign) by other campaigns to put Clinton on the defensive. And it WORKED.

It denied Michigan media exposure and it denied its candidate (Clinton) bounce and momentum.

It put Hillary on the offensive in IA and NH. Remember that if Michigan was stripped of half the delegates (which rules stipulated, but Donna Brazille and the Rules and Bylaws Committee had other plans in mind), it would have been a real contest and Hillary would have had the momentum of NH, MI, and NV behind her. HUGE difference.

I think I read that Florida Law would not allow the removal of the names off ballot.

Florida got a really bad deal in the whole process. They were forced to move their primary, and apparently DNC (thank you, Dean and Donna) offered them help to hold caucuses in 150 locations. That's for the whole state of FLORIDA!!

My argument is that Caucuses are undemocratic. Primaries cost too much. Michigan and Florida are already punished: No ads, No candidate visits, No campaigning, No offices in their states, No expenditures, No media exposures, No bounce or momentum for their candidate.

This accused has served his/her time. For that reason, Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated.

[ Parent ]

Yes she did (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:16:57 PM EST

and she did not campaign in either.

Strangely enough, the only actual violation of the pledge was by Obama, who ran ads that reached Florida voters and held a press conference in Florida. Inadvertent I am sure.

Somehow I am certain you know all this.

But if you did not, now you do, any further FALSE comments on this will be deleted.

[ Parent ]

Obama's campaign said (none / 0) (#35)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:24:22 PM EST

his ads were national buys and the networks couldn't exclude Florida. Hillary cried foul at the time. She didn't run ads in Florida or campaign there.

In August, major Democratic candidates signed a pledge to not campaign in Florida as part of the state's punishment for moving up its primary election to Jan. 29 -- a week before national rules allowed....The only exception in the ban is for fundraising.

"press conference" is misleading (none / 0) (#39)
by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:27:18 PM EST

On the way from a fundraiser to his cars he answered a few questions from local reporters. Now perhaps this was not allowed, but it's hardly what people have in mind when using the words "press conference".

[ Parent ]

: Misleading? (none / 0) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:29:33 PM EST

I suppose. I know I have read out and out lies about Clinton, not a few from you, on this very issue claiming she violated her pledge by appearing in Florida for fundraisers.
But your point is right. I am irritated with an obvious troll on this. Not you. You are an earnest Obama supporter who contributes substance.

[ Parent ]
: Press conference (none / 0) (#50)
by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:34:38 PM EST

It certainly DID matter. It was at that press conference that Obama sent a message to Fla voters that he would reinstate them at the convention. Many people voted based on that press conference.
As soon as he found out he lost, Obama reneged on that press conference statement.
Can you guess why?

[ Parent ]

she campaigned in neither place (none / 0) (#42)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:29:15 PM EST

end these questions please.

[ Parent ]

Not really. (none / 0) (#1)
by sweetthings on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:22:12 PM EST

About the telling part, that is.

My quick crunch says those numbers put the candidates at a virtual tie, with Obama having 9,606,364 votes to Hillary's 9,697,699.

But I'm not sure what anyone's supposed to make of that, given that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI.

So subtract Michigan from the numbers (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:26:32 PM EST

It is a close popular vote race.

[ Parent ]

No, I wouldn't subtract MI (none / 0) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:31:56 PM EST

The uncommitted in Michigan may be representative of Obama's votes -- he took himself off the ballot as did Edwards -- Hillary's votes should count. Here's Michigan's final numbers.

If this is about who voters preferred (not delegates) all votes should count.

[ Parent ]

But this report is not counting uncommitted (none / 0) (#24)
by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:06:43 PM EST

It gives Hillary 328,151 and for Obama just X. Whether or not the delegates are seated it seems unfair to allot Obama zero votes.

[ Parent ]

: You are missing the point. (none / 0) (#60)
by ghost2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:42:10 PM EST

Look, removal of his name off the ballot was a POWER PLAY by him to pander to IA and NH, and deny HIllary momentum, b/c she was sure to win Michigan.
It WORKED.
It's like someone doesn't show up to a match because they are not prepared, and spend the time resting for the next contest, and then come back and say, not fair, we should have a rematch for the one I didn't show up.
Doesn't make sense.
His name wasn't on the ballot because he didn't want to show up. It was completely up to him.

[ Parent ]

That's an understatement. (none / 0) (#6)
by sweetthings on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:32:04 PM EST

If you subtract MI, you get Obama with 9,606,364 and Hillary with 9,369,548...a little larger spread, but still just over 1%.

I'm not sure you can make much of that either way.

[ Parent ]

Apparently Obama deliberately (none / 0) (#3)
by MarkL on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:27:01 PM EST

removed himself from the MI ballot, as a power play.
I read that over at MYDD earlier today.
It makes sense---he knew he wouldn't win, and without his name on the ballot, he could claim that vote shouldn't count.

[ Parent ]

I deleted a response that was false (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:54:05 PM EST

I will warn you that your comment assumes a fact not in evidence - that Obama knew he would lose.

Next time you comment an obvious falsehood as you did here, I will delete your comment.

[ Parent ]

Do you recognize the following words? (none / 0) (#16)
by MarkL on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:58:55 PM EST

What TPM does not realize is that the removal was an attempted power play by Obama because he knew he could not run well in Michigan and thought that the pressure of Iowa (protect the whole first thing) would allow him to shut down the possibility of a Michigan beauty contest being deemed meaningful. And indeed Obama's hardball ploy worked. Michigan was not covered

I may not be using a fact in evidence, but I am using your opinion. That OUGHT to count for a lot at talkleft!
(You are cited in Universal's diary)

[ Parent ]

But are you joking? (none / 0) (#19)
by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:01:37 PM EST

No. I think BTD's point is obvious (none / 0) (#21)
by MarkL on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:02:25 PM EST

and correct. I now believe MI's delegates should be seated, without any change.

[ Parent ]

: I know, because I'm quite (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:13:30 PM EST

certain you will henceforth boldly label all your snark!

[ Parent ]

I should not have done so (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:18:57 PM EST

I also should note since that time I am on a drive to retain civility on this blogs between supporters and about candidates.

I would not write that sentence now.

[ Parent ]

: Fair enough, but Obama's (none / 0) (#33)
by MarkL on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:23:25 PM EST

split decision on FL and MI raises a question that he needs to answer---credibly--in the coming weeks.

[ Parent ]

Michigan (none / 0) (#41)
by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:27:34 PM EST

And yet, Obama supporters ACTIVELY campaigned for people to vote "uncommitted" on his behalf.

Do you think THOSE people broke the rules?

[ Parent ]

Is New Mexico official, yet? (none / 0) (#5)
by ding7777 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:32:00 PM EST

: ding (none / 0) (#11)
by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:49:15 PM EST

good question. Is it jaded of me to say that it must have gone for Clinton because we haven't seen it in the news...?

[ Parent ]
: Nope. (none / 0) (#13)
by sweetthings on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:55:11 PM EST

New Mexico remains officially undecided, though it seems all but inevitable that Hillary will win by a thousand or so.
Not being a winner-take-all state, I'm not sure how meaningful that is either, but it's something.

[ Parent ]

Obama stayed on the ballot in FL (none / 0) (#10)
by MarkL on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:48:39 PM EST

your argument is a non-starter.

Did anyone see (none / 0) (#15)
by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:56:30 PM EST

that Quinnipiac says McCain beats Obama and Clinton by the same margin in Florida (though Clinton gets higher % than Obama)?

Florida: McCain 44 percent - Clinton 42 percent; McCain 41 percent - Obama 39 percent; 1,009 Florida voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent

: Just started a new thread on this (none / 0) (#36)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:25:37 PM EST

here

[ Parent ]

Absentee ballots and early voters (none / 0) (#18)
by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:00:40 PM EST

The AP report says "Results do not include all the absentee and early voting returns."

Which would indicate at least some are included.

thanks, I clarified that (none / 0) (#47)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:31:49 PM EST

in the post above.

[ Parent ]

: RealClearPolitics has a chart (none / 0) (#58)
by ghost2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:29:24 PM EST

and I think it's easier to read:
Popular Vote

[ Parent ]

When a post does not take (none / 0) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:26:44 PM EST

there is usually a reason. Please refrain from reposting it.