Latest AP Super Tuesday Delegate Count: Obama Leads by 2

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:20:29 PM EST
Tags: delegates (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The AP has released a new delegate count. Obama has 796 and Hillary has 794.

With nearly 1,600 delegates from Tuesday contests awarded, Sen. Barack Obama led by two delegates Friday night, with 91 delegates still to be awarded. Obama won 796 delegates in Tuesday's contests, to 794 for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to an analysis of voting results by The Associated Press.

As for totals to date, the AP includes Superdelegates:

In the overall race for the nomination, Clinton has 1,055 delegates, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates. Obama has 998.

And, finally, an explanation of why it's so hard to count delegates in plain English: [More...]

The problems arose in states with counties that are split into multiple congressional districts.

The states have provided results in each county. But in some cases, they are still working to assign the votes in the appropriate congressional district.

Those votes are important because both parties award delegates based on statewide votes and on results in individual congressional districts. Democrats award them proportionally, meaning precise counts can be necessary, even when the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate.

California is still counting 1 million absentee ballots. Colorado is still counting. New Mexico is still counting.

And here's where the math gets fuzzy:

The AP tracks the delegate races by projecting the number of national convention delegates won by candidates in each presidential primary or caucus, based on state and national party rules, and by interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences.

In some states, like Iowa and Nevada, local precinct caucuses are the first stage in the allocation process. The AP uses preferences expressed in those caucuses to project the number of national convention delegates each candidate will have when they are chosen at county, congressional district or state conventions.

< David Shuster's Apology for Chelsea Clinton Comment | Olbermann on Shuster's Chelsea Comment >

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.

Latest AP Super Tuesday Delegate Count: Obama Leads by 2 | 97 comments (97 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

God (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Steve M on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:05:07 PM EST

We might have a brokered convention simply because no one manages to get the delegates counted before then.

: For the love of heavens! (none / 0) (#74)
by ghost2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:29:43 AM EST

which genius came up with this??

Why don't they just admit it (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by hookfan on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:18:54 PM EST

Nobody knows who is ahead or behind,who's winning or not, what delegates will be seated or not. I wonder if a vote even matters much as each vote seems to get sucked up into a byzantine delegate machine that few if any know what is the criteria for spitting out at the other end any measurable result. What a mess of dead frogs this primary is.

: one thing is certain though (none / 0) (#75)
by ghost2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:31:19 AM EST

It's Clinton's fault. Don't laugh. People are already talking about drawn out process.... wink wink nudge nudge ...

: GOOD DELEGATE COUNTER SITE (none / 0) (#81)
by delandjim on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:08:56 AM EST

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

Well (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:45:22 PM EST

There is something to be said for winner take all primaries. At least they produce a clear winner.

CNN's new count has Clinton still ahead (none / 0) (#1)
by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:43:58 PM EST

with 840 for Clinton, 831 for Obama in caucus/primary delegates -- and 1,033 for Clinton, 937 for Obama including super-delegates.

sounds like (none / 0) (#2)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:53:49 PM EST

CNN is still providing estimates and AP is giving what they know for sure. Just a guess though.


if they seat MIchigan and Florida (none / 0) (#4)
by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:56:34 PM EST

and they really have to if they expect their support in the general election, Clinton pulls ahead big time....Then what?? Michigan just rejected the idea of a caucus and said it was insulting and compared it the a russion election that if you dont like your result you simply have another vote...they have also chosen their delegates and are expecting to be seated...


then people like me (none / 0) (#6)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:00:18 PM EST

get very upset. As I've said since before new Hampshire, MI and FL were how Hillary would steal the election.


Yes (none / 0) (#9)
by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:12:02 PM EST

because Hillary has a team of elves that hack voting booths and force people at invisible ink pen point to vote for Hillary...it was all part of her master plan hatched in 1993, just after Hillary had Vince Foster killed (for knowing too much about this plan most likely)


whatever (none / 0) (#16)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:20:05 PM EST

there have been very substantive debates about this on this and other sites. Mock if you like, but asking for delegates from states where candidates pledged not to campaign is more Russian than anything I've seen and tantamount to stealing the election. The question that should be asked is: did Michigan voters have reason to believe their votes would not count and therefore stay home? If your answer is yes, then that is the definition of voter disenfranchisement.


True and (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by hookfan on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:42:01 PM EST

not seating those who voted because Republican legislatures screw around with dates for voting is also viewed as voter disenfranchisement. What is most certain is voters will be disenfranchised. But hey, superdelegates are not bound by any official state results or rules-- they can choose their own criteria. There's alot of them too. That really promotes the import of any democratic voter"s ballot doesn't it? And requirements like in calif that delegates for any district will be evenly split unless a candidate gets 60% of the vote for that district, really enhances the value of any vote, doesn't it? Sure. One can win an entire state by double digits and still be equal in delegates. Sounds just equitable and fair to me-- when I'm drunk!


: It should be purely percentage based (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:47:25 PM EST

off of the overall vote count...I guess that would just make the math too easy though right? I mean...we'd put the whole voter disenfranchisement cottage industry out of business if we made it too easy...probably lose those jobs to India.../snark

Ok...but why are you blaming HRC? (none / 0) (#20)
by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:27:22 PM EST

if you want to talk substantively, how about answering the above?

You're blaming her for 1) winning 2) the DNC's action 3) the other candidates removing their names from the ballot


I'm blaming her (none / 0) (#24)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:35:50 PM EST

solely because she is asking for those delegates to be sat. I blame the DNC for causing it in the first place. The only fair solution to the voters is to have primaries that count.


Do you also place some blame on Barak then? (none / 0) (#28)
by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:44:13 PM EST

because by that standard, Barak should also take some blame...since he too said they should have been seated...of course that was before it was clear Hillary would take FL...but Barak wouldn't waffle on an issue because it is no longer politically favorable to support it...thats not his style, right?

So let me get this straight. It's Hillary's fault that the Florida and Michigan voted for her, its Hillary's fault that her opinion that they should be seated does not match the DNCs current position, and it just so happens that the disenfranchised voters benefit Hillary. So all that in your opinion computes to a solution of:

As I've said since before new Hampshire, MI and FL were how Hillary would steal the election.

and of course

but asking for delegates from states where candidates pledged not to campaign is more Russian than anything I've seen and tantamount to stealing the election.

I am REALLY struggling to make sense out of your opinion. I just can't see the logical connection with your opinion of her stealing the election, and your opinion that whatever MAY benefit her is ill gotten by her...I just don't see how the two are 1) proven 2) connected


absolutely not (none / 0) (#34)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:52:38 PM EST

obama never has ever said that the delegates from MI or FL should be sat. Please back up your statement.


at least (none / 0) (#39)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:56:55 PM EST

not in the context of they should be sat but we shouldn't be allowed to campaign there. I think everyone wanted them to be sat prior to the dnc laying down the gauntlet.


: Well, Obama was the one (none / 0) (#57)
by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:29:05 PM EST

who campaigned there, by the terms of the pledge he signed. He held a press conference, he did advertising, both banned by the pledge.

at least (none / 0) (#41)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:57:09 PM EST

Didn't say MI...I said FL (none / 0) (#43)
by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:00:31 PM EST

please....... (none / 0) (#50)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:09:50 PM EST

yes, of course if any candidate was a clear victor they would seat MI and FL. But to use them to get over the top is totally different and you know it.


: Nobody has used them yet (none / 0) (#55)
by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:26:22 PM EST

You're attacking Hillary for some perceived crime that has not (yet or ever) been committed...this is beyond ridiculous...its histrionics, really!
Not only do you not want to discus this issue in earnest, but you're changing your argument as each point you make is removed or disproved...this is beyond fruitless for me, and quiet frankly a waste of both of our time.

of course if any candidate was a clear victor they would seat MI and FL.

The sad thing is, this is more damning of Obama than anyone else, especially in context of how things have played out...I am not sure if it is worth explaining how it is more damning, or if you already know that and are just arguing for the sake of doing so...either way, you're not going to see this any differently than you want to see it, so it is a waste of my time.

Obama/Florida (none / 0) (#88)
by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:50:44 PM EST

Of COURSE he did, andrew. He CLEARLY told the voters in Florida he would support their reinstatement at the convention.

But that was BEFORE the primary.

Apparently he has now reneged on his promise.

He was FOR reinstatement before he was AGAINST it.

Can you guess why?
Can you guess how p*ssed the Floridians are?


Politics (none / 0) (#30)
by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:44:56 PM EST

If Obama had won, he'd be asking for them to be seated.

There's an argument on both sides. Neither is completely right and neither completely wrong. Which is why this is a complete cluster. Frankly, I think they should negotiate a resolution to this now, when neither side is exactly sure how it will end. That gives both sides a reason to compromise, Clinton because at least some of the delegates will be seated and Obama, to avoid having all of the delegates seated.

Why Howard Dean didn't follow the Republicans' lead and simply halve the delegates to begin with is beyond me? I know it was unlikely the race would be this close, but any close race was bound to create this very problem.


Dean has done a lot for the party (none / 0) (#35)
by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:53:07 PM EST

but he also has a knack for just making a really boneheaded decision (granted he's more than capable to correct them)...but this seems to be in the boneheaded decision bracket for Dean...

Ohwell...if Clinton loses the nomination, there will be some grumbling on her side about 1.5 million voters or so being disenfranchised, and that will be a legitimate complaint (albeit some sour grapes too) but if the delegates get seated and Obama loses the nomination (because of or in spite of those delegates) there will be grumbling about how unfair it is...but ultimately that argument won't have a lot of traction because one of the tenets of our party is the support of the voter and the little guy...anyone who votes for disenfranchisement does not have the best interest of the party in mind...maybe a candidate...or something else, but not the party...and that is what this is all about! power of the party to enact a platform of issues we all collectively agree on and believe in...


how does (none / 0) (#46)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:02:56 PM EST

telling voters their vote means nothing to keep them away from the polls only to tell them that it would have mattered had they voted live up to the tenets of our party?


Fair...but again, you are blaming HRC (none / 0) (#48)
by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:05:44 PM EST

for this...it is not her fault...sure she won...and I am sure a good number of her supporters stayed home too...probably about the same percent of the other candidates supporters...the argument that turnout was depressed is legitimate, the argument that only Barack Obama's turnout was depressed is not...and blaming HRC for winning despite depressed turnout is not only unfair but dishonestly biased


yeah (none / 0) (#51)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:11:48 PM EST

Michigan and Florida are just by coincidence the states Hillary has won by the widest margins in.


Obama's only (none / 0) (#61)
by IndependantThinker on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:47:58 PM EST

draw is his stump speech. Without that opportunity to give his "You are wonderful, great, brilliant if you vote for me, and we can change the world if you vote for me", he has to rely on his record, and he doesn't have one.


Well he has one... (none / 0) (#71)
by Virginian on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:56:51 AM EST

we don't know much about where he stands on stuff, but at least we know he was present...(very much tongue in cheek)


: record (none / 0) (#82)
by delandjim on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:19:35 AM EST

heh heh, maybe there should also be a 'maybe' vote.

Obama ran ads in Florida, (none / 0) (#52)
by sancho on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:17:27 PM EST

AndrewW. He encouraged people in Michigan to vote undecided. He was involved in both states' elections. He likley removed his name from the ballot in Michigan (Edwards too) as a strategic campaign move to take Mi. off of the map. If so, that would make him (and Edwards) vote depressers. The demographics of these states match Hillary's strengths. Had she won Michigan and Florida openly, then those powerhouse dem states Utah, Idaho and South Carolina would not seem so important. The Republicans have a long history of depressing voter turnout. I want to support the candidate who does not try to suppress the expressed will of voters and whose voters turn out anyway even when told not to.


Then let's go with the one (none / 0) (#54)
by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:24:07 PM EST

who abided by the pledge to not do campaigning in Michigan -- for "uncommitted votes" to be given to the candidate at the convention . . . the one who did not do advertising in Florida . . . the one who did not give a press conference in Florida . . . the one who did not have a public event in Florida until after polls closed. . . .

That would be Clinton.


Virginian (none / 0) (#87)
by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:46:26 PM EST

ROFlMAO!! You owe me a new computer monitor ---I just spit coke all over mine.

Hillary elves and invisible ink......Thank you, I needed that. :):)

Be prepared for the Obamanauts to be p*ssed.


HRC is not stealing anything. MI voted. JE and (none / 0) (#10)
by Angel on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:13:48 PM EST

BO removed their names from the ballot. Maybe a mistake. But FL voted, and all names were on the ballot.


That's the DNC's problem (none / 0) (#11)
by blogtopus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:14:28 PM EST

Nobody forced those other candidates to ignore millions of voters. Yes, I know they had an honor system, but what kind of system makes you ignore the wishes of registered voters?

Nevertheless, it is a clusterfrog. For all those voters who went uncommitted, how many would support Obama vs. Hillary?

I love being ambiguous. Being ambiguous means never having to say you're sorry.


1.7 million democrats voted in Florida alone! (none / 0) (#76)
by ghost2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:33:34 AM EST

How in the heck is that stealing an election???

Is that the newspeak by Obama?? Caucus's count twice, whereas actual votes by 1.7 million people don't get counted??


: Florida voting (none / 0) (#89)
by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:59:14 PM EST

A million and a half voted; YES THEY CAN.
And here are the numbers broken down:
Clinton 856,944
McCain 693,425
Romney 598,152
Obama 568,930
Hell, Obama couldn't even beat Romney, let alone McCain, and that's WITH ads and press conferences. Hillary wiped the floor with ALL of them, without any ads, any press conferences, any campaigning.
She had roughly 300,000 MORE votes than Obama in Florida.
And NOW he has reneged on his previous promise to support their reinstatement.
Excuuuuuuuuse me???

Good for Michigan; it did vote (none / 0) (#7)
by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:01:31 PM EST

and why should the state party have to pay for a caucus? Those funds are needed to get other candidates into office . . . and it can't be as easy fundraising in Michigan right now. It went into the recession some time ago, already.


Count the votes! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by sancho on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:41:20 PM EST

Caucuses are clearly undemocratic. It is very depressing to think our likely candidate is running a campaign that evicerates the one vote-one voter rule. He is piling up points (delegates) in states we cannot win in November and then using those phantom "victories" to assert his momentum. (How many democrats voted in Alaska? Hint: not many.) He is arguing against counting the votes of people who have voted. (This is part the DNC's fault, I admit.) Most likely scenario: Hillary will receive the most total votes during the primaries. She will have won handily--in terms of counting votes--in the key big states. And Obama and his supporters will say she's "undemocratic" and a vote-stealer.


: Lets be fair (none / 0) (#60)
by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:40:02 PM EST

he is using the old system (so much for change aye) and they are legitimate victories. Sure, he has found a way to build huge margins in the caucuses...but he's playing the caucuses by the rules...
With that said, Obama has clearly illustrated how unfair to the voter and their vote a caucus is (not to mention demographically depressing voters). Obama really will end up being a catalyst for change; by working the caucus system so well to his advantage, he's opened all of our eyes to the inequality of the caucus system (I bet that was his only goal, to enlighten us), and hopefully the party will take steps to correct this.

caucas's are undemocratic. (none / 0) (#77)
by ghost2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:39:30 AM EST

Plus if there are caucases, that means a FINE NEW MESS in Michigan and Florida. With nothing else going on, it would be up to parties to advertise the vote. People also would be CONFUSED because they just voted. Then since nothing else is on the ballot, very few people show up, and winner is the one who can bus the most voters to the polls. So, turnout is almost guaranteed to be very low.

Then: do you count Florida with 1.7 million votes?
Do you count Florida with 0.5 million votes?
Do you not count Florida at all??

This is ridiculous!! The punishment from DNC was given so that 1) candidates don't campaign in Michigan and Florida, and 2) candidate don't spend advertising money in Michigan and Florida. Both those goals have been accomplished.

As for Michigan, it's not Hillary's fault that the other guys got their names off the ballot on the deadline in a manauver to pander to Iowa and NH.


Maybe, but still odd . . . (none / 0) (#5)
by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:59:50 PM EST

as NY Times also has her well ahead from Super Tuesday, 687 won that day alone vs. 608 for Obama -- and the Times' story yesterday (I think it was) went into considerable detail as to how conservative it was in its count.


They don't count caucuses (none / 0) (#79)
by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:20:57 AM EST

Which Obama pretty much ran up a big score on. There's a possibility that, when the state convention happens, the projected delegates could shift by +- 1 or 2 so NYTimes won't include them.


: Caucus votes (none / 0) (#90)
by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:02:48 PM EST

Well, andrew, they're RIGHT. Caucus votes are not binding or certified until the state conventions take an actual VOTE. Until then, NONE of Obama's caucus delegates count.

Do we count the ones coming in tomorrow? (none / 0) (#3)
by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:55:32 PM EST

And Sunday and Tuesday?

Funny, we used to talk about the primaries and caucuses here.

We only count them if they benefit (none / 0) (#13)
by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:15:00 PM EST

Barak...otherwise we don't count them, because they obviously wouldn't be cool enough to remain delegates if they aren't pledge to Barack


Yeah, will of the people and all that.....besides, (none / 0) (#14)
by Angel on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:17:39 PM EST

he won the CAUCUSES!


Because you have to (none / 0) (#18)
by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:22:34 PM EST

be super cool to win a caucus...Hillary is just a bookworm...Barak is cool...so he should win...his uniform is prettier...etc. etc. etc.

In all seriousness, I do think his supporters use the peer pressure and "hipness" and "trendy" to pressure people into tepid support...I don't know if this happens at a caucus or if there is underlying peer pressure at a caucus, but it wouldn't surprise me


I think you're on to something about the peer (none / 0) (#22)
by Angel on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:27:33 PM EST

pressure. It's a cult of personality. I like what Steve Clemons said, something to the effect that BO is a rock star, we just don't know when he'll pop.


caucuses for BHO (none / 0) (#83)
by delandjim on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:28:54 AM EST

I think Hillary has a point about people having to work during the caucuses. Her support draws more from working class who are less likely to be able to leave work to go vote. His has more affluent people who may be able to alter their schedule to take a few hours out of the day to caucus and students can fairly easily change schedules.

I know not all of her support is from these groups and not all his is from his groups. But all that has to happen in these smaller contests is increase slightly one side and depress slightly the other side. and you get a margin in favor of the candidate s with support from the group with more flexible schedules.


: Caucuses (none / 0) (#91)
by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:08:25 PM EST

Not to mention the fact that Obama winning a small caucus in an actual November RED states (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Nebraska) doesn't mean SQUAT in a general election in which winning Michigan, California, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania is KEY to winning the Presidency.
NO ONE believes Alabama, Georgia, Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, or Kansas are actually going to vote BLUE in November.
Sheesh

What about New Mexico? Anything from them yet? (none / 0) (#12)
by Angel on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:14:54 PM EST

The last I saw was the HRC was ahead by about 1700 votes but they were still counting the provisionals. Also, Jerlyn, what do you think about the absentee CA ballots? Think that might tip things to HRC's favor?

New Mexico is doing a complete recount (none / 0) (#17)
by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:22:26 PM EST

before counting the provisional ballots. I'll bet that democrats in New Mexico are pretty hacked about now. They are not giving a time frame for the recount, which seems ridiculous.


Still Counting (none / 0) (#19)
by MO Blue on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:22:41 PM EST

The counting of the 17,000 outstanding provisional ballots cast on Tuesday in New Mexico was supposed to have begun today but that process has been delayed by a recount of the 130,000 regular ballots cast.

It will be awhile before the last of the Super Tuesday states declares a winner. New Mexico Democratic Party officials announced Thursday that they will recount every ballot. Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama in the state by about 1,000 votes. [...]
But the Democrat-only contest was plagued by so many problems that the state party, along with the Clinton and Obama campaigns, agreed that only checking all ballots cast would insure an accurate result.
MY DD

About the CA absentee ballots (none / 0) (#21)
by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:27:23 PM EST

I read where they are counting about a million more ballots. Since Hillary was way ahead in polling when lots of those were sent, I don't see how it could do anything but add to her victory.


: Any idea the number of delegates at stake in the (none / 0) (#23)
by Angel on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:28:54 PM EST