Mar. 06 absentee ballot for overseas voters

Electoral vote here
Senate score will go here
House score will go here

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES 2008 Click for Republican primaries and caucuses

Senate map with polls
Downloadable polling data
Previous report
Next report
News: Updated Mar. 06

Obama Obama won
Clinton Clinton won
March March
April April
May May
June June

News from the Votemaster

Here are the results from the Texas primary, senate district by senate district.

District Clinton % Obama % Clinton delegates Obama delegates
SD-1 56% 39% 2 2
SD-2 49% 50% 2 2
SD-3 60% 35% 3 1
SD-4 53% 44% 2 2
SD-5 47% 50% 2 2
SD-6 64% 35% 2 1
SD-7 46% 54% 1 2
SD-8 44% 55% 2 2
SD-9 43% 57% 1 2
SD-10 42% 58% 2 3
SD-11 53% 46% 2 2
SD-12 51% 48% 2 2
SD-13 26% 73% 2 5
SD-14 36% 63% 3 5
SD-15 37% 62% 2 2
SD-16 47% 53% 2 2
SD-17 45% 54% 2 3
SD-18 51% 46% 2 2
SD-19 61% 36% 3 1
SD-20 69% 30% 3 1
SD-21 68% 29% 3 1
SD-22 56% 42% 2 1
SD-23 27% 73% 2 4
SD-24 52% 46% 2 1
SD-25 45% 54% 3 3
SD-26 61% 38% 2 2
SD-27 70% 28% 2 1
SD-28 57% 37% 2 1
SD-29 69% 29% 2 1
SD-30 61% 36% 2 1
SD-31 59% 38% 1 1
Statewide 51% 47% 65 61
  A quick look at the map below shows it to be all gray (Hillary country) except for three red islands (Obama country). The three red islands are Dallas, Austin, and Houston. In Texas, Obama is the Democrat, winning in the places Democrats normally win, like big cities, and Clinton is the Republican, winning in the countryside (but also in some smaller cities like El Paso). However, nationally, it is the opposite. Clinton has won all the big Democratic states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, while Obama triumphed in Republican states like Idaho, Utah, Kansas, and Alabama. It is a weird election.

While Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary 51% to 47%, she netted only 4 delegates from it. For a map of how all the counties voted, look here. Final results from the Texas caucuses aren't in yet, but preliminary results (with 40% of the precincts reporting) give Obama a 56% to 44% lead and 3 delegates more than Clinton. When the full caucus results are known, it is likely that Obama will ultimately net more delegates from the Texas caucus and primary combined than Clinton.

In Ohio, which simply had a primary, Clinton won the popular vote by a large margin, 55% to 44% but it netted her only 9 more delegates than Obama due to the way Ohio allocates its delegates. In Rhode Island, Clinton won a huge victory and picked up a net of 5 delegates. In Vermont, Obama won an even bigger victory and netted 3 delegates. All in all, when the Texas caucus results are finally in, her three-state victory may have ultimately gained her something in the vicinity of 10 delegates.

This problem is going to continue for Clinton all the way to Denver. Her next big hope is Pennsylvania on April 22, but even a sizeable win there, like in Ohio, will probably only result in a net win of maybe a dozen delegates at most. She is about 100 pledged delegates behind and it will be close to impossible to win that many in the remaining primaries and caucuses. The PLEOs will clearly play a big roll here.

Lurking in the background are the delegations from Michigan and Florida, which will not be seated under party rules because they scheduled their votes before Feb. 5, in clear violation of party rules. The governor of Florida (and Vice Presidential hopeful) Charlie Crist, has said he would not be against having a new Florida primary. Of course when a Republican governor offers the Democrats a tasty treat, one should look at all the details to see exactly what he has in mind. Is he doing this to sow discord among the Democrats? Does he think Clinton would win it and be the weaker candidate? What's the catch? He wants the DNC to pay for it. It is estimated that a primary would cost $25 million. Thus what he is really proposing is draining $25 million from the DNC warchest and probably having the weaker general election candidate win it. Sounds like an excellent plan (if you are a Republican governor hoping to be tapped as Vice President). The Democrats could hold caucuses in Florida and Michigan instead of primaries. Caucuses are paid for by the parties but they are MUCH cheaper. The problem with caucuses is getting both Clinton and Obama to agree. Caucuses are sparsely attended and the candidate with the better organization usually wins them. Obama has won nearly all the caucuses so far, so Clinton would prefer primaries. Politics does not have a What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get interface like modern word processing programs. You have to parse every sentence very carefully and know the context to see what they are up to.

Yesterday I noted that Obama is having trouble with Catholic voters. In Texas that might be due to the fact that most Texas Catholics are Latinos, but other states don't have that property. There is a at Politico about this issue.

The polling results for all states are available as a Web page and in .csv format.

Here are the delegate totals from various news sources rounded to integers (Democrats Abroad has 22 delegates, each with 1/2 vote). The sources differ because in most caucus states, no delegates to the national conventions have been chosen yet, just delegates to the district, county, or state convention. Also, all sources try to count the PLEOs (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) and unpledged delegates, who also get to vote at the convention. When different reporters call a PLEO and hear "Well, I like Hillary, but Barack has his charms too" they may score it differently.


Source Clinton Obama BHO-HRC Edwards McCain Romney Huckabee Paul
Washington Post 1462 1567 +105   1253   271  
NY Times 1370 1457 +87 12 1110 142 225 5
AP 1462 1567 +105 26 1253 257 271 14
CNN 1424 1520 +96 26 1289 255 267 16
ABC 1457 1566 +106 32 1222 273 272 14
CBS 1441 1552 +111 26 1205 149 231 10
MSNBC 1213 1355 +142 +26 1230 293 252 14

Needed to win: Democrats 2025, Republicans 1191.

Here is another source for delegate totals.

-- The Votemaster