The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[scbelle]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Does anyone else really get a little crazy over trying to figure out how each state & each party decides their delegate distribution? It seems so unfair to me that California, with such a high population is "winner takes all" (at least for the Democrats). According to Yahoo!, Clinton took 52% and Obama took 42% of the vote, yet Clinton took all the delegates.

Can anyone recommend a really good map or list for each state, and the delegate distribution?

California is not a winner-take-all for Democrats. No state is. The DNC divides the delegates in each state based on congressional district and population. I'm not sure about the Republican side, if CA is a WTA state or not.

And I happen to like www.mydd.com for delegate counts. It keeps a list of the states and how many delegates each candidate has received. It also has a list of all the "superdelegates" that have endorsed and those who haven't yet.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by scbelle

California is not a winner-take-all for Democrats. No state is. The DNC divides the delegates in each state based on congressional district and population. I'm not sure about the Republican side, if CA is a WTA state or not.

That's what I always thought. Yet, both CNN & FoxNews said last night that it was.

And I happen to like www.mydd.com for delegate counts. It keeps a list of the states and how many delegates each candidate has received. It also has a list of all the "superdelegates" that have endorsed and those who haven't yet.

Thanks - I'll have to take a look.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by honeychile

That's what I always thought. Yet, both CNN & FoxNews said last night that it was.

I watched a LOT of Fox last night, and I don't recall them saying anything like this - in fact, they continuously pointed out how anything less than a win by huge margins (such as 25%+) would make CA, effectively, a wash . . . which guys were you watching?