Democratic Results by State Size
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 pm by David Farrar| State | Result | Margin | Electors | Cumulative |
| California | Clinton | 8% | 55 | 55 |
| Texas | Clinton | 4% | 34 | 89 |
| New York | Clinton | 17% | 31 | 120 |
| Florida | Clinton | 17% | 27 | 147 |
| Illinois | Obama | 32% | 21 | 168 |
| Pennsylvania | Clinton | 10% | 21 | 189 |
| Ohio | Clinton | 10% | 20 | 209 |
| Michigan | Clinton | 10% | 17 | 226 |
| Georgia | Obama | 35% | 15 | 241 |
| New Jersey | Clinton | 10% | 15 | 256 |
| North Carolina | 06-May-08 | 15 | 271 | |
| Virginia | Obama | 29% | 13 | 284 |
| Massachusetts | Clinton | 15% | 12 | 296 |
| Indiana | 06-May-08 | 11 | 307 | |
| Missouri | Obama | 1% | 11 | 318 |
| Tennessee | Clinton | 14% | 11 | 329 |
| Washington | Obama | 37% | 11 | 340 |
| Arizona | Clinton | 8% | 10 | 350 |
| Maryland | Obama | 25% | 10 | 360 |
| Minnesota | Obama | 34% | 10 | 370 |
| Wisconsin | Obama | 17% | 10 | 380 |
| Alabama | Obama | 14% | 9 | 389 |
| Colorado | Obama | 35% | 9 | 398 |
| Louisiana | Obama | 21% | 9 | 407 |
| Kentucky | 20-May-08 | 8 | 415 | |
| South Carolina | Obama | 28% | 8 | 423 |
| Connecticut | Obama | 4% | 7 | 430 |
| Iowa | Obama | 8% | 7 | 437 |
| Oklahoma | Clinton | 24% | 7 | 444 |
| Oregon | 20-May-08 | 7 | 451 | |
| Arkansas | Clinton | 43% | 6 | 457 |
| Kanasa | Obama | 48% | 6 | 463 |
| Mississippi | Obama | 24% | 6 | 469 |
| Nebraska | Obama | 36% | 5 | 474 |
| Nevada | Clinton | 6% | 5 | 479 |
| New Mexico | Clinton | 1% | 5 | 484 |
| Utah | Obama | 18% | 5 | 489 |
| West Virginia | 13-May-08 | 5 | 494 | |
| Hawaii | Obama | 52% | 4 | 498 |
| Idaho | Obama | 63% | 4 | 502 |
| Maine | Obama | 19% | 4 | 506 |
| New Hampshire | Clinton | 3% | 4 | 510 |
| Rhode Island | Clinton | 18% | 4 | 514 |
| Alaska | Obama | 50% | 3 | 517 |
| DC | Obama | 51% | 3 | 520 |
| Delaware | Obama | 11% | 3 | 523 |
| Montana | 03-Jun-08 | 3 | 526 | |
| North Dakota | Obama | 24% | 3 | 529 |
| South Dakota | 03-Jun-08 | 3 | 532 | |
| Vermont | Obama | 20% | 3 | 535 |
| Wyoming | Obama | 23% | 3 | 538 |
The table above shows the 51 states (including DC) which get to vote in the November US election, and who has won each state in the Democratic Primary, and by how much. It is sorted by most to least electoral college votes.
Of the ten biggest states (comprising 256 of the 538 electors) Clinton has won eight, and Obama just two (one his own).
Obama is still highly highly likely to be the Democratic nominee. But his inability to win in the larger states does mean those lingering doubts about him grow. And Clinton is not going anywhere as Maureen Dowd points out:
Now that Hillary has won Pennsylvania, it will take a village to help Obama escape from the suffocating embrace of his rival. Certainly Howard Dean will be of no use steering her to the exit. It’s like Micronesia telling Russia to denuke.
Heh. Indeed.
Meanwhile Clinton is going more hawkish than the hawks. Look at this:
Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on “Good Morning America” Tuesday. ABC News’ Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
Hey if MCain wins, maybe she can be Secretary of Defence 
Related posts:
- Analysing the Democratic Results
- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
- Super Tuesday Summary
- Who won the popular vote?
April 24th, 2008 at 12:16 am
It does kind of sound like something Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would say regarding the Israelis…
Its easy to say she’d nuke the Iranians, when in actual fact she wouldnt need to – Israel would have beaten them to it. Presuming there was an Israel left of course…
A simple ploy to make yourself sound tough and “manly” for all those average-joe americans who may be skeptical of a woman Commander in Chief. It’s gender politics and an attempt to kill negative perceptions of a woman as Pres.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 1:20 am
And the math by state – Clinton wins the states that vote Dem, Obama the states that don’t? I can’t remember which is better though….
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 2:52 am
I’ve been doing some research on the “Iranian threat”. So far, it indicates that it is actually the “Israeli Threat”….against Iran. Israel has been taking about a pre-emptive military strike against Iran since late 2002. The US has usually chimed in supporting or in a few cases said unilaterlly that Israel may attack Iran, as Cheney did say in 2004/5,
The only stories I can find where Iran threatens Israel are always (not often or sometimes) responses to previous Israeli and US threats – often over periods of weeks – to attack Iran.
The media reports the talk of Israeli attacks in a more or less straight fashion while the Iranian responses to those threats are almost always presented as being extreme and anti-semitic.
Over a period of several years, this pattern is repeated. I can’t find a single example of Iran threatening anyone – Israel, the US or whomever – without Iran first being the subject of threats against it. If anyone can find an example of a unilateral and unprovoked Iranian threat, I’d love to see it.
The sanctions around Iran are claimed to be related to nuclear activity, but their actual focus appears to be to restrict the viability of the Euro-based oil bourse Iran has been trying to operate.
I find this interesting as the lock-in to the US dollar in international trade appears to be a big problem for our own economy. While the Kiwi dollar is stable or falling against the currencies of our major trading partners other than the US, our exports continue to “rise” in price due to the US dollar depreciating faster than the currencies of other countries we trade with. In the past two months, the Kiwi dollar has declined by between 5% and 10% against the Yen, Aussie dollar and Euro. But risen against the US dollar.
In supporting the US dollar as the de facto currency for international trade, we appear to be cutting off our noses to spite our face.
Clinton buying into the monstering of Iran and maintaining the threat against that country is one more example, to me, of how dumb she is. How do you make Iran feel more secure and less in need of nukes by threatening it militarily virtually every day? Just one more example of backward thinking leading to the very consequences they claim to seek to avoid. Certainly, provoking a war with Iran would be profoundly and deeply stupid. There are 65 million people in Iran. It’s not a trivial place.
From a strategic perspective, if Iran were funding insurgencies in neighbouring countries or regions, this can also be presented in a defensive light as the US has been doing the same for many years with respect to Iran’s neighbours and has physically invaded and occupied two of them. Yet Iran is portrayed as the aggressor. This appears to be a case of the talk of the “Iranian threat” not matching the walk. Islamic extremists promote a form of Islam generally based on the Saudi Arabian Wahabi sect, not Islam as found in Iran.
I have an open mind no Iran, but the result of my investigations on the topic to date doesn’t point to Iran as aggressor, but rather Iran as responding to aggression.
That makes Clinton’s stance on Iran look dubious…..as do many of her other foriegn affairs stances, past and present. Obama once again seems the moer sane and reasonable option, given both McCain and Clinton appear to be locked into a mindset that says guns and threats are their first choice for international problem resolution.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 3:14 am
PaulL: The key question is whether or not Democrat voters will back whoever becomes their nominee. Polling suggests that if they do, the Democrats will win. McCain’s weakest point is that he thought invading Iraq was a good idea….and still does. That can’t help him at the polls given the US has 4,000+ dead troops on the tally to date, with no end in sight, and has spent on the order order of US$ 1 trillion that could have been very productively employed on other things.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 6:14 am
I think that Clinton is the more electable of the two. Once the gloves are off, sadly Obama will be hung out to dry on either having to qualify his ‘blackness’ to one part of the electorate, or else playing down the threat of his ‘blackness’ to the other. We’ve already seen indication of this covertly waged racism when they linked him to his preacher and have suggested he is a muslim-loving terrorist appeaser, which of course left him exposed over his Hama statements. Honestly, I’d prefer Clinton she has more experience toughness and will be less affected by hubris than Obama. As ground-breaking as having a Black President will be I do not think Obama is it. ANd after all this is a race for Presidency.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 6:37 am
Steve, it’s not just Iran that Israel has on its agenda. You might be interested in the new book:
Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel by Stephen J. Sniegoski
All candidates are unduly influenced by Israel, except for Ron Paul. Its influence also affects almost every member of Congress via AIPAC. Obama is the only one not likely to attack Iran, but only because his most influential FP advisor is Brzezhinsky, who has Russia in his sights. The fact the US media never reports on this influence, nor conducts balanced ME reporting, is explained by the ownership of said media. (Just scroll about halfway down.)
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 6:54 am
That passes for hawkish these days? MSM.
Just means the Iran will attack Israel with everything else except nukes.
Even Ralph Nader would wipe out Iran if it nuked Israel.
Clinton positioning herself against Obama shows you how damaging Obama’s out reach program to holocaust deniers and now 9/11 truthers really is.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Al-Girta, Israeli influence over US politics and the media crosses all party lines and renders redundant those divisions. Therefore analysis along the hawk-dove lines is irrelevant.
If you really believe Iran is aggressive, then do some research as Steve did. You might be surprised.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Sorry, DPF, I think both Clinton and Obama need to STFU with the small vs. big state argument. And here’s a little history lesson why.
In 2000, if Al Gore had won his own home state, Tennesee (#16), he would have been over the top in the Electoral College regardless of who won Florida’s electors.
California — Gore won, 11.7% margin.
Texas – Bush won, 29.3%
New York – Gore won, 25%
Florida – Bush won, 0.01%
Illinois – Gore won, 12%
Pennsylvania – Gore won, 4.2%
Ohio – Bush won, 3.9%
Michigan – Gore, 5.2%
Georgia – Bush, 11.1%
New Jersey – Gore, 15.8%
So, Gore won ‘more’ big states, but remind me who’s President of the United States right now?
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Reid if you knew your bible you could work out, apart from Bill Clinton, why the fundie chrisitians have put their man in the white house every time since 1968.
Anyway what has Bill been doing lately? Pumping the super delegates for Hiliary. He is a good man.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Meanwhile, nice to see McCain is telling the North Carolina GOP to pull their heads in, and pull a race-baiting anti-Obama attack ad running ahead of the N.C. Democratic primary:
[Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0408/McCain_implores_NC_GOP_to_not_air_ad.html ]
Wonder if Clinton will say the same — or is she quite happy to have the Republicans do her dirty work? And will the N.C. GOP take a bind bit of notice?
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 8:30 am
I love this quote I saw a few days ago.
Watching the Democrats in the 21st century is like watching the All Blacks at a World Cup. There’s no way they could lose. No way. I mean, look at the opposition. There’s no way they could make the same old mistakes all over again.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Florida and Michigan werent really contests. as they had problems with their dates of the primary and I think neither Hilary or barack campaigned. and in one state Obama wasnt even on the ballot
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Heh – Clinton’s bringing out the “People’s Elbow”
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 9:04 am
I wouldn’t worry about Iran. A lot of the talk from Iran is to satisfy internal politics. They’ve either managed to manipulate (or had some really good luck) the US into taking on 2 of their neighnouring enemies – Sadamm in Iraq, and the Taliban/Al quada in Afghanistan.
The US/Israel vs Iran debate keeps Iranian nationalism alive and the Iranians diverted from real domestic issues. So as long as the missiles don’t fly it’s all good news for Iran.
However don’t underestimate what Iran could do from a miltary point of view if actually provoked. Depending on who fired first and with what (US or Israel), then Iran has a number of responses that it could use, either within the region or globally.
I think that strategically Iran is happy with the current situation, it’s all good news for them, and as a bonus with the ‘Great Satan’ bleeding to death in Iraq, the future is looking pretty good for an Iranian controlled middle east (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) – still with most of the worlds oil.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Since DPF’s list doesn’t actually tell us whether the Clinton voters in particular states would vote for the very likely Dem candidate, it’s more than a little pointless.
Fortunately, highly respected and accurate polling organisation Rasmussen conducts an exercise where they calculate the likely results in each state and do a tally. Here’s today’s result:
“The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows the Electoral College race remains a Toss-Up. Democrats lead in states with 190 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. When “leaners” are added, the Democrats lead 260 to 240″
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 9:15 am
I’ve been doing some research on the “Iranian threat”. So far, it indicates that it is actually the “Israeli Threat”….against Iran. Israel has been taking about a pre-emptive military strike against Iran since late 2002. The US has usually chimed in supporting or in a few cases said unilaterlly that Israel may attack Iran, as Cheney did say in 2004/5,
I would suggest your research is biased against Israel.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Fortunately, highly respected and accurate polling organisation Rasmussen conducts an exercise where they calculate the likely results in each state and do a tally. Here’s today’s result:
“The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows the Electoral College race remains a Toss-Up. Democrats lead in states with 190 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. When “leaners” are added, the Democrats lead 260 to 240″
That’s strange Rasmussen has typically been releasing polls showin McCain with the advantage – got a link?
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 9:24 am
The link for Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll is: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
True, it shows “John McCain with a three-point advantage over Barack Obama, 47% to 44%. McCain attracts support from 82% of Republicans, Obama from 71% of Democrats, and McCain has a very slight edge among unaffiliated voters.”
Given that it’s over six months to polling day, this just shows that it’s still anybody’s race to win. All the Dems need is a wicked recession and for things to turn to custard again in Iraq (although I am sure they don’t want that), and McCain’s current very small advantage in popular vote will melt away…
Note that the gap between each candidate’s own-party support does not favour McCain so much, since Democratic identifiers are running at record numbers.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 9:31 am
No body mentions nukes mavxp. She said attack. If Iran attacks – not nukes – Israel a Clinton administration will attack – not nuke – Iran. Commando Comics are not really training manuals, its just an expression.
My question is why the Dems nomination race is being covered by all media as the presidential race? This isn’t a race for teh whitehouse as TV3 keeps claiming. Its just the dimocrats nomination.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Sorry Murray, but Clinton was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with *nuclear* weapons.
Her response, “we would be able to totally obliterate them” doesn’t sound like your standard invasion, a la Iraq, does it?
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Sorry Murray, but Clinton was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with *nuclear* weapons.
Her response, “we would be able to totally obliterate them” doesn’t sound like your standard invasion, a la Iraq, does it?
Doesn’t mean she is going to order a nuclear strike herself though jafa – you’re assuming the worst. Fact is the Yanks could obliterate most countries without having to unleash the nuclear option.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Fucked up the Iraqi army well enough.
Something that the Hidlebeast was all for when her wife was in the seat.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Dinnerjacket must be praying to the big Al to get a Pres. Dhimmi Carter to deal with.
Looks like an Iranian attack on Israel is the sand to glass option.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Most NZers do not seem to understand how the primaries work and why the Republicans normally have a candidate early in the piece while the Democrats keep tearing each other apart for so long.
It is an electoral college system where each state has a number of electors or delegates.
The Republican rules declare that whoever wins their state takes all the votes.
So if one candidate gets 49 of the 100 delegates and the other gets 51 the winner takes all 100.
The Democrats share the delegates according to the percentage.
So if Hillary gets 49 and Obama 51 Obama gets 51 and Hillary gets 49.
This is held to be more democratic but in reality it often means that neither gets the required majority and the decision is left to the superdelegates.
Vote:If neither Hillary nor Obama end up with the required clear majority then the Super Delegates could declare Al Gore the Candidate.
Unlikely – but can happen and has happened.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:22 am
And while I have enormous respect for John McCain, how much coverage — or in-depth analysis — has anyone seen of his recent speeches on domestic energy and economic policy? Got to say that McCain deserves brownie points for admitting that economics isn’t his strong point, but I really hope he’s got a good team around him and comes up to speed fast. I don’t think this campaign is going to be as Iraq-focused as the punditocracy thinks, and if he comes into the general campaign (and the level of media scrutiny he just hasn’t been getting while all eyes have been on Obama and Clinton) without a serious and credible economic platform his service record isn’t going to be enough.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Craig, I saw McCain visited Inez, Kenucky, where Johnston declared his “War on Poverty” but didn’t actually have any policies of his own. Sad.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 10:37 am
“Got to say that McCain deserves brownie points for admitting that economics isn’t his strong point, but I really hope he’s got a good team around him and comes up to speed fast.”
Damn right. Cos it’s really hard to imagine what it would be like to have a President who doesn’t know jackshit about jackshit, yeah?
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Ann has some problems with Oby.
New info I think.
http://www.anncoulter.com/
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Obama wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan, and no-one campaigned in Florida (both states were stripped of their delegates by the DNC for playing silly-buggers with the primary calendar).
Obama actually got more delegates out of Texas than Hillary did, because Texas was a hybrid primary/caucus, and his strong caucus showing basically cancelled out Hillary’s primary lead.
As for the others, it’s been Hillary’s strategy all along to just focus on winning the big states (she wasn’t planning on this going beyond Super Tuesday). Obama’s strategy has been to keep his losses in the big states to relatively narrow margins, and clean up in the small states Clinton has been ignoring. And Obama’s strategy has worked: he got a bigger net gain in terms of delegates out of tiny Idaho than Hillary did out of New Jersey.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Bill Clinton was walking along the beach when he stumbled upon a Genie’s lamp. He picked it up and rubbed it and lo-and-behold, a Genie appeared. Bill was amazed and asked if he got three wishes.
The Genie said, “Nope…Due to inflation, constant downswing, low wages in third world countries, and fierce global competition, I can only grant you one wish. So…What’ll it be?”
Bill didn’t hesitate. He said, “I want to be remembered for bringing peace to the Middle East, instead of that other stuff with Monica, and Jennifer, and the rest of those women. See this map? I want these countries to stop fighting with each other.”
The Genie looked at the map of the Middle East and exclaimed, “Jeez, Fella! These people have been at war for thousands of years. I’m good, but not THAT good. I don’t think it can be done. Make another wish.”
Bill thought for a minute and said, “You know, people really don’t like my wife. Even though she got elected, they call her a carpetbagger. They think she’s mean, ugly, and pushes me around. I wish for her to be the most beautiful woman in the world and I want everybody to like her. That’s what I want.”
The Genie let out a long sigh and said, “Lemme see that map again.”
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
another good post farra
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Al-Girta:
I do know my Bible actually, having read it from cover-to-cover at least seven times. What specific part(s) do you have in mind?
Notwithstanding, I disagree with your implication that the fundies are behind every Pres since 68.
Re: Bill, he was actually sabotaging Hillary’s campaign in Feb-Mar. I realise many may not see it that way, but that’s what he was doing, deliberately.
As I said before Christmas, the PTB want McCain, and therefore they want the weakest alternative candidate opposing him. That’s why Obama will get the nomination.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I’m starting to think that this is all Hillary’s revenge on the Democratic Party for not being more supportive during Bill’s, er, troubles with the VRWC.
Vote:April 24th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
And further to this thread, have a look at this interesting development: Olmert downgrades Iran’s nuclear threat.
I await Cheney’s POV.
Vote: