2016 Democratic Popular Vote
GOP Delegate Count, Map | GOP Popular Vote | Dem Delegate Count, Map | Dem Popular Vote | Latest 2016 Polls
| State | Date | Clinton | Sanders | Spread | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RCP Total | - | 8,924,920 | 6,398,420 | Clinton +2,526,500 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Iowa | February 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| New Hampshire | February 9 | 95,252 | 151,584 | Sanders +56,332 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nevada | February 20 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| South Carolina | February 27 | 271,514 | 95,977 | Clinton +175,537 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Alabama | March 1 | 309,928 | 76,399 | Clinton +233,529 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| American Samoa | March 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Arkansas | March 1 | 144,580 | 64,868 | Clinton +79,712 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Colorado | March 1 | 49,314 | 72,115 | Sanders +22,801 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Democrats Abroad | March 1-8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Georgia | March 1 | 543,008 | 214,332 | Clinton +328,676 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Massachusetts | March 1 | 603,784 | 586,716 | Clinton +17,068 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Minnesota | March 1 | 73,510 | 118,135 | Sanders +44,625 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Oklahoma | March 1 | 139,338 | 174,054 | Sanders +34,716 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tennessee | March 1 | 245,304 | 120,333 | Clinton +124,971 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Texas | March 1 | 935,080 | 475,561 | Clinton +459,519 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Vermont | March 1 | 18,335 | 115,863 | Sanders +97,528 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Virginia | March 1 | 503,358 | 275,507 | Clinton +227,851 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Louisiana | March 5 | 221,615 | 72,240 | Clinton +149,375 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nebraska | March 5 | 14,340 | 19,120 | Sanders +4,780 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kansas | March 5 | 12,593 | 26,450 | Sanders +13,857 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Maine | March 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mississippi | March 8 | 182,447 | 36,348 | Clinton +146,099 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Michigan | March 8 | 576,795 | 595,222 | Sanders +18,427 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Northern Marianas | March 12 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Florida | March 15 | 1,097,400 | 566,603 | Clinton +530,797 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Illinois | March 15 | 1,007,382 | 971,555 | Clinton +35,827 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Missouri | March 15 | 310,602 | 309,071 | Clinton +1,531 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| North Carolina | March 15 | 616,383 | 460,316 | Clinton +156,067 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ohio | March 15 | 679,266 | 513,549 | Clinton +165,717 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Arizona | March 22 | 235,697 | 163,400 | Clinton +72,297 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Idaho | March 22 | 5,065 | 18,640 | Sanders +13,575 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Utah | March 22 | 15,666 | 61,333 | Sanders +45,667 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Alaska | March 26 | 99 | 440 | Sanders +341 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hawaii | March 26 | 10,125 | 23,530 | Sanders +13,405 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Washington | March 26 | 7,140 | 19,159 | Sanders +12,019 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Only 500 people showed up to vote in AK? Really?
But its population is about 750K...HI has a population of 1.3M.WA has a population of 7M.
Yet HI had more voters than WA?
Take WA: Even if you assume only 30% of the population is eligible to vote (that's a lot of kids and foreigners!), only 50% of those people are Democrats (which would be low for The Left Coast), and only 25% of Democrats show up for the primaries (because people in WA don't care about politics..FALSE), that would be... 262K people.
What WA *actually* reported are _delegate numbers_. In one precinct in Washington, 149 people showed up. 8 delegates were awarded. That means the ratio of reported delegates to actual participants was 18:1.
If this scale alone were appropriate, the actual popular vote would be about 464K.
This chart is completely invalid. It CLEARLY has a BIG CATEGORICAL ERROR. It compares apples and oranges. It takes only a little common sense to realize this.
I can only attribute such a dramatic failure of data analysis 101 that one would think a high school student in a reasonable education system would be able to catch to either maliciousness or complete and utter incompetence. If I were a "tinfoil hat" wearing person, I would say this data is purposefully being misrepresented so it can be misconstrued...
But I'm a charitable person. So instead, I'll assume it's complete and utter incompetence by "RealClearPolitics" that obscures more than it helps. I might be wild and say this kind of dramatic failure should cause us to immediately discount all of their data as lacking basic data sense, but maybe this particular table is "just the intern."
But isn't it funny how fundamental errors of basic analysis in these types of "canonical data sources" can spread misinformation like a plague throughout the Internet?
Don't forget to question the data, and the methods used to collect and analyze it.
But its population is about 750K...HI has a population of 1.3M.WA has a population of 7M.
Yet HI had more voters than WA?
Take WA: Even if you assume only 30% of the population is eligible to vote (that's a lot of kids and foreigners!), only 50% of those people are Democrats (which would be low for The Left Coast), and only 25% of Democrats show up for the primaries (because people in WA don't care about politics..FALSE), that would be... 262K people.
What WA *actually* reported are _delegate numbers_. In one precinct in Washington, 149 people showed up. 8 delegates were awarded. That means the ratio of reported delegates to actual participants was 18:1.
If this scale alone were appropriate, the actual popular vote would be about 464K.
This chart is completely invalid. It CLEARLY has a BIG CATEGORICAL ERROR. It compares apples and oranges. It takes only a little common sense to realize this.
I can only attribute such a dramatic failure of data analysis 101 that one would think a high school student in a reasonable education system would be able to catch to either maliciousness or complete and utter incompetence. If I were a "tinfoil hat" wearing person, I would say this data is purposefully being misrepresented so it can be misconstrued...
But I'm a charitable person. So instead, I'll assume it's complete and utter incompetence by "RealClearPolitics" that obscures more than it helps. I might be wild and say this kind of dramatic failure should cause us to immediately discount all of their data as lacking basic data sense, but maybe this particular table is "just the intern."
But isn't it funny how fundamental errors of basic analysis in these types of "canonical data sources" can spread misinformation like a plague throughout the Internet?
Don't forget to question the data, and the methods used to collect and analyze it.
