However, I didn't initially realize that the totals for many caucus states, such as Iowa and Maine, were not actual votes but state delegates awarded (until a friend pointed out that 171,109 people voted in the Iowa Democratic caucuses). So, I went back and searched the Internet to find the total number of votes cast in each caucus state and, if I could not find a vote total for each candidate, divvied up the votes according to the percentage each candidate had won. Then I added up the votes, state by state -- and discovered that Hillary Clinton had garnered over 2.4 million more votes than Bernie Sanders -- and blogged (and tweeted) about it.
Then the spouse said to me, "You should make a table!" So I made a table, listing the number of votes cast for Hillary Clinton and the number of votes cast for Bernie Sanders in each state. And I just updated it to include the results from Wisconsin, which is an open primary state, meaning anyone can vote for anyone -- so perhaps not an accurate barometer of how people would vote in the general election (as there was a lot of chatter about Democrats voting for Cruz to make things difficult for Trump).
Regardless of how you feel, or who you plan to vote for, numbers don't lie. And even with Bernie Sanders's win in Wisconsin, by over 130,000 votes, Hillary Clinton still leads Bernie Sanders by 2,270,493 votes (give or take a few, or even a few hundred, votes, due to caucus counting). That's before you factor in super delegates, where Clinton has a substantial lead over Sanders. (Not saying it's fair. Just saying that's what it is.)
Here's the the table I created, so you can see for yourselves the state-by-state totals -- as well as vote totals for American territories and Democrats Abroad [H/T Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post] -- for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in their race to become the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. (Click on the image to enlarge it.)
I will continue to update the table after each primary. Btw, the next big primary is New York, on April 19th, which is a closed primary (meaning you have to be registered to vote for a specific party, Democrat or Republican, and can only vote in your party's primary).
Posts
5 comments:
Nice work!
Your use of facts is charming, but don't you realize elections are about feelings?!
Couple of observations:
1) Sanders will throw his weight behind Clinton after she secures the nomination; there is far less rancor there than is being played up by the media (who wants this kind of horse race).
2) Sanders supporters taking the "anyone but Hillary" tack are 1) a tiny but noisy minority grabbing a disproportionate amount of media attention (see #1) and/or 2) fake supporters of the PUMA 2008 variety, stirring the sh*t as is their wont.
@Dave S., I realize elections are about feelings, not facts. That's why Trump has gotten so far -- and why Reagan and Obama won. Re 1), so far Sanders has refused to say whether he'd support Clinton if she is the nominee, and I would not be surprised if he didn't. (He's not exactly known for being a team player or compromising.) Re 2), I fear that that minority isn't as small, or as minor, as you think. And as Sanders has stated that he won't tell his supporters who to vote for if he's not the nominee, I think the Democrats could be in trouble. But I hope you are right on both counts.
Any thoughts on a veep for Hillary that would gain her more youth vote? Don't know if veep choices really have an effect. Question: why don't presidents utilize their vice presidents better? They always seem wasted, when they could really be helpful by splitting the work (I'm thinking on focuses on foreign policy, the other on domestic).
@Anna, why yes I do: Julian Castro. I actually thought of Julian Castro before I read other folks thought he'd make a good VP for Hillary. (His twin brother, Joaquin Castro, might also be a good choice.)
And I agree with you that VPs are wasted, though I don't think that's been the case with Obama and Biden.
Post a Comment