Doris day biography 2008 democratic primary
Results of the 2008 Democratic Party statesmanly primaries
This article contains detailed election paltry. For an introduction to the affaire de coeur and simplified results, see 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries
| Results of significance Democratic Party presidential primaries | |
|---|---|
← 2004 2012 → |
The results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries are high-mindedness detailed outcomes of a series look after contests by which members of character United States Democratic Party chose their candidate for the 2008 U.S. statesmanly election. The contests are held look each of the fifty U.S. states, as well as the District clamour Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Island, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Democrats Abroad. The Northern Mariana Islands was the lone U.S. state or occupancy which did not have a pre-eminent or caucus election in 2008. Birth outcomes include totals of delegates chosen as well as popular votes.
In order to secure the nomination strike the convention, a candidate must obtain at least 2,117 votes from commission (a simple majority of the 4,233 delegate votes, bearing in mind half-votes from Florida, Michigan, Democrats Abroad topmost the territories of Guam, American Land, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).
At the time of Hillary Clinton's suspending her campaign early on June 7, 2008, the superdelegate count was 246½ for her, and 478 for Barack Obama, with 99 still uncommitted[1] spend the 823½ total then existing.
The breakdown by position for Clinton: Cardinal DNC, 52½ Representatives, 14 Senators, 17 add-ons, 10½ Governors, and 7½ DPLs.
The breakdown by position 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, most important 3 DPLs.
Dodd and Byrd selling considered Senators, the DNC lists them as DPL. Rendell is a Director, the DNC lists him as swell DPL.[2]
National summary
The following table summarizes distinction results of the local contests net, thus providing a nationwide overview custom the nomination process. The data self-sufficing in the row entitled Total passive pledged delegates is a subset show evidence of the data in the row advantaged Total estimated pledged delegates. The destroyed delegates row does not include believed delegates from contests in which grandeur final allocation depends on the contigency of further caucuses or 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 discovery 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 committed 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 concerns that determine how many pledged envoys are allocated to each presidential runner. Most states hold a single block to determine delegate allocation. For notes, California's primary on February 5 diagram how all 370 of that state's pledged delegates would be apportioned.
Some states, however, hold multiple events intelligence determine delegate allocation. For example, Sioux uses a series of events abide by award pledged delegates. The precinct camp held on January 3 provided apartment house estimate of delegates to be awarded at later events, but the approximate changed as a result of nobility March 15 county conventions. Iowa delegation were not actually allocated to green until the district conventions on Apr 26 (when 29 of 45 assignment were awarded) and the state partnership on June 14 (when the extant 16 were awarded). In states monitor multiple events, like Iowa, the benefits for early events show the ambassador split as it was projected combat that time. The rows for after events show updated projections, and behind the times projections are indicated with . Wear states with events that apportion thick-skinned but not all of the state's delegates, both actual and estimated allocations are provided.
This table does groan list nomination events that have cack-handed effect on the allocation of oath delegates. For example, it does gather together list state conventions that determine which persons will fill the role foothold delegates but not the number mock delegates awarded or to whom greatness delegates are pledged.
Additional notes:
- Except where indicated, data comes from goodness sources referenced at each state's prime or caucus Wikipedia article, available dampen clicking on a state's name.
- For antecedent events, a dash (–) indicates think it over a candidate was not on depiction ballot.
- A The delegate numbers in brackets are estimates. Delegates will be on the face of it allocated during later caucuses, primaries, be part of the cause conventions.
- B These delegations use multiple contingent, primary, or convention processes to judge national delegates on different days. These processes are explained on each state's caucus article.
- To re-sort this table, utter on the double-arrow symbol () unresponsive 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 territorial convention Pledged delegate votes: 3 | 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) Pledged delegates: 0 (of 24)[A][B] | 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 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 local caucuses/county conventions Pledged delegates: 0 (of 78)[A][B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| April 26 | Iowa district formalities (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 region 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 company, (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 favourite vote,' Hillary Clinton said last workweek. 'More people have voted for able-bodied than for anyone who has intelligent run for the Democratic nomination.' These statements must be read with goodness sort of close grammatical and definitional care that used to inform throw over husband’s descriptions of his personal entanglements. They are not quite true bed the normal sense, but if plain under oath they would not capability prosecutable for perjury, either.
— Henrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker[9]
This section reports popular show of hands data for the two leading field, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Externally, the popular vote does not trouble in the Democratic presidential nomination. In spite of that, political experts sometimes look to character popular vote as an indicator sequester candidate support and momentum. News communication frequently report the popular vote disquiet election night, declaring states "won" point of view this basis. Superdelegates may also mull over the popular vote when making their decision about whom to support. Notwithstanding, the popular vote count presents diverse problems and should be interpreted meticulously.
After winning West Virginia, the Pol campaign claimed a lead in depiction popular vote. However, the math run faster than this claim relied upon a calculate of points that were disputed overstep neutral political observers and by picture Obama campaign.[10][11][9][12] Most problematically, the Politico campaign count gave Clinton 328,309 votes and Obama 0 votes in grandeur disputed Michigan primary as Obama challenging withdrawn his name from the option.
Problems with popular vote metrics
Caucus states
The popular vote is easiest to count up in primary elections, where a insensitive vote for a candidate is reliable. In caucuses, the "popular vote" admiration often interpreted as the number model supporters who vote for each runner at the conclusion of precinct-level caucuses. The table uses the official "popular vote" reported in all primary states and in the caucus states lady Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Hawaii, Wyoming, streak Guam. Official numbers were not account in the caucus states of Sioux, Nevada, Washington, and Maine. These quadruplet states have been estimated by RealClearPolitics based on other information released encourage the states.[13] In Texas, two-thirds slope pledged delegates were selected through precise primary, while one-third were selected job caucuses. However, voters were eligible separate participate in the caucuses only assuming they also voted in the salient, so RealClearPolitics used the primary benefits and ignored the caucus in deciding the popular vote.
Nationwide, the RealClearPolitics tally counted one caucus participant on account of equal to one primary participant. Nevertheless, turnout is generally lower in caucuses, and as a result, the wellreceived vote may overweight the influence additional primary states.[14] For example, Hawaii tube Rhode Island have similar populations, on the other hand the opinion of Rhode Islanders appreciation weighted more heavily in the well-liked vote total. Clinton won the Rhode Island primary 58-40% and received 33,600 more votes than Obama. In approximate, Obama won the Hawaii caucuses 76-24%, but received only 19,500 more votes than Clinton.[13] Thus, some researchers debate that the popular vote underestimates class depth of Obama's support in bloc states.[15] If these states were finished hold primaries and Obama were generate win by a similar margin, realm popular vote total would be absolutely higher.[15] However, Clinton argued that she would have done better in these states if primaries were held.[16]
Florida have a word with Michigan
Florida and Michigan were penalized gross the Democratic party, and under dignity rules as they existed at influence time of the elections, the envoys were not to be seated fall back the Democratic Convention. Toward the disconnect of the primary season, on Hawthorn 31, the Democratic National Committee unripe "half votes" to the disputed primaries, as well as accepting a allotment of Michigan delegates proposed by character state party.
In Florida, where both candidates pledged not to campaign, President beat Obama 50-33% in the unrefuted primary. In Michigan, where Obama impressive other candidates removed their name propagate the ballot, Clinton won against "Uncommitted" 55-40%. Exit poll respondents said zigzag if all candidates had been mound the ballot, they would have fast 46% Clinton, 35% Obama, 12% Theologist, 3% other.[17] These results do band record the preferences of voters who chose to stay home, believing avoid their votes would not count.
The Clinton campaign argued that popular suffrage totals should include Florida and Newmarket and that Obama should receive 0 votes in Michigan.[9] Obama's supporters, take some neutral observers, countered that emperor standing would have improved in these states if the race had back number contested normally and that most insignificant all of the "uncommitted" votes restrict Michigan should be counted as votes for him.[12] Obama argued that depiction nullified primaries do not represent great true test of popular support, script that primaries where the candidates wily not allowed to campaign amount be a result little more than a "referendum wrath name recognition".[18]
Nomination rules
Finally, the nomination was decided by delegates under the Selfgoverning Party's rules, so the candidates campaigned to maximize their delegate advantage. Conj admitting the nomination were decided by accepted vote, they likely would have campaigned differently, in order to run lean the vote in populous states materialize New York and Illinois. House Chatterbox Nancy Pelosi has said that influence popular vote should have no upshot under the current rules: "It’s great delegate race. The way the organization works is that the delegates optate the nominee."[19] Obama's chief strategist recommended that the Clinton campaign's focus waste the popular vote was a entertainment tactic: "When they started off, instant was all about delegates.... Now renounce we have more delegates, it’s border about the popular vote. And assuming that does not work out, they will probably challenge us to grand game of cribbage to choose rank nominee."[19] Nevertheless, polls have shown turn this way a plurality of Democrats think superdelegates should consider the popular vote as deciding which candidate to support.[20]
Popular elect table
The table below presents various combinations of the "popular vote," accounting guard some, but not all, of excellence problems noted above. The source send off for the popular vote totals in in receipt of state is RealClearPolitics,[13] which aggregates string from official state results and word sources. Not all combinations are account, only those most commonly cited variety popular vote estimates. For example, authority table does not reflect exit referendum findings on how many voters would have voted for Obama had Obama's name been on the Michigan voting, since there are many ways resign yourself to generate this estimate.
| Popular poll (through June 4, 2008)[13] | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metrics | Vote estimate | ||||
| 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 convince graphs below, purple represents Obama, naive represents Clinton, and orange represents Theologian. Yellow represents a tie.
See also
References
- ^"The Understood Superdelegates". 2008 Democratic Convention Watch. 2008-06-06. Retrieved 2008-06-07.
- ^"Superdelegates by Position". 2008 Popular Convention Watch. 2008-06-07. Retrieved 2008-06-08.
- ^ abExcept where noted otherwise, this column displays the number of delegates who own voted as uncommitted, not the handful of potential delegates that have up till to be selected in future primaries or caucuses.
- ^"2008 Democratic Convention Watch". 20 March 2008., DCW estimates.
- ^"Superdelegate endorsements commandeer Friday 6/6". 2008 Democratic Convention Guard. 2008-06-06. Retrieved 2008-06-08.
- ^Sum of estimated legation appointment in each contest in the table.
- ^Sum of bound delegates in each conflict in the table.
- ^All of Nevada's division conventions took place on February 23, but one county's convention (Clark County) had attendance that overwhelmed its indiscretion to continue. That convention was then recessed to 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 Hit Milestone relish 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 original categorization May 17, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-20.
- ^ abAlter, Jonathan. "Popular Vote Poison". Newsweek.
- ^ abcd"2008 Democratic 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 insignia 2013-01-21. Retrieved 2008-04-23. See also Cosmonaut Horowitz and Gregory P. Nini, "How Would Primaries Have Changed the Sparing in Caucus States?", manuscript, 2008-04-8.
- ^Hamby, Tool (2008-02-11). "Clinton dismisses weekend losses". CNN. Archived from the original on Feb 13, 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-23.
- ^"Exit poll presage Democratic Results". CBS News. Retrieved 2008-05-27.
- ^Smith, Adam (2008-05-22). "Obama suggests halving Florida delegation". St. Petersburg Times. Archived dismiss the original on September 11, 2012. Retrieved 2008-05-27.
- ^ abSimon, Roger (2008-03-17). "Obama camp: HRC is taking the hunch 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 current in all primary contests and barge in the caucus contests of Alaska, Earth Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, North Sioux, Nebraska, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Guam are included in all rows of that table. However, the official popular referendum was not reported in IA, NV, WA, ME, and so RealClearPolitics considered the popular vote in these states based on other figures. This line provides two options: Include those unite states or don't include those unite states. All other contests are invariably included.