The results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries are the detailed outcomes of a series of contests by which members of the United States Democratic Party chose their candidate for the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The contests are held in each of the fifty U.S. states, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Democrats Abroad. The Northern Mariana Islands was the lone U.S. state or territory which did not have a primary or caucus election in 2008. The outcomes include totals of delegates selected as well as popular votes.
In order to secure the nomination at the convention, a candidate must receive at least 2,117 votes from delegates (a simple majority of the 4,233 delegate votes, bearing in mind half-votes from Florida, Michigan, Democrats Abroad and the territories of Guam, American Samoa, 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 of the 823½ total then existing.
The breakdown by position for Clinton: 145 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, and 3 DPLs.
Dodd and Byrd are considered Senators, the DNC lists them as DPL. Rendell is a Governor, the DNC lists him as a DPL.
National summary The following table summarizes the results of the local contests below, thus providing a nationwide overview of the nomination process. The data contained in the row entitled Total bound pledged delegates is a subset of the data in the row entitled Total estimated pledged delegates. The bound delegates row does not include estimated delegates from contests in which the final allocation depends on the outcome of further caucuses or conventions.
CandidatesExcept where noted otherwise, this column displays the number of delegates who have voted as uncommitted, not the number of potential delegates that have yet to be selected in future primaries or caucuses.HillaryClintonBarackObamaJohnEdwardsGrand total estimated delegates 991,9732,306½4½<1%Total estimated superdelegate endorsement, DCW estimates.99246½4780 01,726½1,828½4½<1%Total bound pledged delegatesSum of bound delegates in each contest in the table. 01,617½1,722½1½<1%
Local contests The following table lists events that determine how many pledged delegates are allocated to each presidential candidate. Most states hold a single event to determine delegate allocation. For example, California's primary on February 5 determined how all 370 of that state's pledged delegates would be apportioned.
Some states, however, hold multiple events to determine delegate allocation. For example, Iowa uses a series of events to award pledged delegates. The precinct caucus held on January 3 provided an estimate of delegates to be awarded at later events, but the estimate changed as a result of the March 15 county conventions. Iowa delegates were not actually allocated to candidates until the district conventions on April 26 (when 29 of 45 delegates were awarded) and the state convention on June 14 (when the remaining 16 were awarded). In states with multiple events, like Iowa, the results for early events show the delegate split as it was projected at that time. The rows for later events show updated projections, and outdated projections are indicated with strikeout. In states with events that apportion some but not all of the state's delegates, both actual and estimated allocations are provided.
This table does not list nomination events that have no effect on the allocation of pledged delegates. For example, it does not list state conventions that determine which persons will fill the role of delegates but not the number of delegates awarded or to whom the delegates are pledged.
Additional notes: Except where indicated, data comes from the sources referenced at each state's primary or caucus Wikipedia article, available by clicking on a state's name. For past events, a dash (–) indicates that a candidate was not on the ballot. The delegate numbers in brackets are estimates. Delegates will be officially allocated during later caucuses, primaries, or conventions. These delegations use multiple caucus, primary, or convention processes to choose national delegates on different days. These processes are explained on each state's caucus article. To re-sort this table, click on the double-arrow symbol () at the top of a column.
Key: 1st placeWithdrew
Event dateLocationHillaryClintonBarackObamaMikeGravelJohnEdwardsDennisKucinichBillRichardsonJoeBidenChrisDoddJanuary 3Iowa 0 [ 15 ][ 16 ][ 14 ]January 8New Hampshire 22 –913 9 4 January 15Michigan 128 55 69 73 59 – – – –January 19Nevada 0 [ 12 ][ 13 ] – – –January 26South Carolina 45 –1233 25 8 January 29Florida 185 –105673February 5Alabama 522527 – –February 5Alaska 0 [ 4 ][ 9 ] – – – – – –February 5American Samoa 3 –21 – – – – –February 5Arizona 56 –3125 –February 5Arkansas 35278February 5California 370 –204166February 5Colorado 0 [ 20 ][ 35 ]February 5Connecticut 482226February 5Delaware 15 –69 – –February 5Georgia 87 –2760February 5Idaho 12 2[ 3 ]10[ 15 ] – – – – –February 5Illinois 153 –49104 –February 5Kansas 21 –6[ 9 ]15[ 23 ] – – –February 5Massachusetts 93 –5538February 5Minnesota 722448 –February 5Missouri 723636February 5New Jersey 107 –5948 – –February 5New Mexico 261412 –February 5New York 232 –13993 – – – – –February 5North Dakota 0 –[ 5 ][ 8 ] – – – – –February 5Oklahoma 38 –2414 – –February 5Tennessee 684028February 5Utah 23 –914February 9Louisiana 562333 – – –February 9Nebraska 16 5[ 8 ]11[ 16 ] – – – – – –February 9U.S. Virgin Islands 33 – – – – – –February 9Washington 0 [ 26 ][ 52 ] – – – – – –February 10Maine 0 [ 9 ][ 15 ] – – – – – –Democrats Abroad 7 2½4½ – –February 12District of Columbia 152 3 13 12 – – –February 12Maryland 7027 28 43 42 February 12Virginia 83 –2954 – –February 19Hawaii 20614 – – – –February 19Wisconsin 743242March 4Ohio 141 –7467 – – – – –March 4Rhode Island 21138 – – – – –March 4Texas 126 –6561 – –March 4Texas 0 [ 29 ][ 38 ] – – – – – –March 4Vermont 15 –639%959% – – – –March 8Wyoming 7 3[ 5 ]38%4[ 7 ]61% – – – – – –March 11Mississippi 331337%2061% North Dakota 0 – – – – – – – – –March 15Iowa 0 –[ 14 ][ 25 ] –[ 6 ] – – – – Colorado 0 –[ 19 ][ 36 ] – – – – – –March 29Texas 0 –[ 30 ][ 37 ] – – – – – –North Dakota 13 –58 – – – – – – All of Nevada's county conventions took place on February 23, but one county's convention (Clark County) had attendance that overwhelmed its ability to continue. That convention was therefore recessed to April 12.Nevada 0 –[ 12 ][ 13 ] – – – – – –April 22Pennsylvania 158 – 85 73 – – – – – –Washington 0 – – – – – – – – –April 26Iowa 29 –9[ 14 ]20 16 [ 28 ][ 24 ] – 4 [ 3 ][ 7 ] – – – –May 3Guam 4 – 2 2 – – – – – –May 6Indiana 72 – 38 34 – – – – – –May 6North Carolina 115 48 67 – – – – –May 13West Virginia 28 –208 – – – – –Colorado 36 –1323 – – – – – –May 17Colorado 19 –613 – – – – – –May 17Kansas 11 – – – – – – – – –May 17Nevada 25 –1114 – – – – – –May 17Washington 51 –17[ 26 ]34[ 52 ] – – – – – –May 20Kentucky 513714 – – – – –May 20Oregon 52 - 21 41%31 – – – – – –May 24Alaska 13 – 310 – – – – – –May 24Wyoming 5 – 23 – – – – – –May 31Maine 24 – 915 – – – – – –June 1Puerto Rico 55 –38 17 – – – – – –June 3Montana 16 7 9 – – – – – –June 3South Dakota 15 –9 6 – – – – – –Texas 67 –2938 – – – – – –Nebraska 0 – – – – – – – – –Idaho 6 – – – – – – – – –June 14Iowa 16 – – – – – – – – –Washington 27 – – – – – – – – –Puerto Rico 0 – – – – – – – – –Nebraska 8 – – – – – – – – –
Popular vote
This section reports popular vote data for the two leading candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Officially, the popular vote does not matter in the Democratic presidential nomination. However, political experts sometimes look to the popular vote as an indicator of candidate support and momentum. News media frequently report the popular vote on election night, declaring states "won" on this basis. Superdelegates may also consider the popular vote when making their decision about whom to support. Nevertheless, the popular vote count presents many problems and should be interpreted carefully.
After winning West Virginia, the Clinton campaign claimed a lead in the popular vote. However, the math behind this claim relied upon a number of points that were disputed by neutral political observers and by the Obama campaign. Most problematically, the Clinton campaign count gave Clinton 328,309 votes and Obama 0 votes in the disputed Michigan primary as Obama had withdrawn his name from the ballot.
Problems with popular vote metrics Caucus states The popular vote is easiest to tally in primary elections, where a simple vote for a candidate is recorded. In caucuses, the "popular vote" is often interpreted as the number of supporters who vote for each candidate at the conclusion of precinct-level caucuses. The table uses the official "popular vote" reported in all primary states and in the caucus states of Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Guam. Official numbers were not reported in the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine. These four states have been estimated by RealClearPolitics based on other information released by the states. In Texas, two-thirds of pledged delegates were selected through a primary, while one-third were selected through caucuses. However, voters were eligible to participate in the caucuses only if they also voted in the primary, so RealClearPolitics used the primary results and ignored the caucus in determining the popular vote.
Nationwide, the RealClearPolitics tally counted one caucus participant as equal to one primary participant. However, turnout is generally lower in caucuses, and as a result, the popular vote may overweight the influence of primary states. For example, Hawaii and Rhode Island have similar populations, but the opinion of Rhode Islanders is weighted more heavily in the popular vote total. Clinton won the Rhode Island primary 58-40% and received 33,600 more votes than Obama. In contrast, Obama won the Hawaii caucuses 76-24%, but received only 19,500 more votes than Clinton. Thus, some researchers argue that the popular vote underestimates the depth of Obama's support in caucus states. See also Glenn Horowitz and Gregory P. Nini, "How Would Primaries Have Changed the Results in Caucus States?", manuscript, 2008-04-8. If these states were to hold primaries and Obama were to win by a similar margin, his popular vote total would be considerably higher. However, Clinton argued that she would have done better in these states if primaries were held.
Florida and Michigan Florida and Michigan were penalized by the Democratic party, and under the rules as they existed at the time of the elections, the delegates were not to be seated at the Democratic Convention. Toward the end of the primary season, on May 31, the Democratic National Committee restored "half votes" to the disputed primaries, as well as accepting a reapportionment of Michigan delegates proposed by the state party.
In Florida, where both candidates pledged not to campaign, Clinton beat Obama 50-33% in the disputed primary. In Michigan, where Obama and other candidates removed their name from the ballot, Clinton won against "Uncommitted" 55-40%. Exit poll respondents said that if all candidates had been on the ballot, they would have voted 46% Clinton, 35% Obama, 12% Edwards, 3% other. These results do not record the preferences of voters who chose to stay home, believing that their votes would not count.