« More Matthews Weirdness | Main | Too Close to Call » Delegate Count19 Jan 2008 06:54 pm It seems Barack Obama may have won more delegates in Nevada, although if you include super-delegates that puts Clinton back in the lead again. UPDATE: Now there seems to be some disagreement as to whether it's 12-13 in Clinton's favor or 13-12 in Obama's favor in terms of delegates allocated. Comments (83)
1) Obama did win more delegates in NV. Not "may have won", but "did win". 2) What does the superdelegate situation have to do with who won more delegates in NV? 
"God I hate caucuses." You ought to be loving caucuses right now. Your candidate won NV because of the caucus rules, even if Team Obama is too incompetent to get the press to bite on the actual story here.
With Matthew's unsourced update, I'll temporarily retract my point #1 above.
Matthew, Where is that update coming from? Everyone else is reporting 13-12 in favor of Obama.
Is it true that Barack Obama's middle name is http://ladyofthecake.com/mel/hood/images/wedding.jpg
I'm watching Olbermann, and he said the Obama camp is claiming they won 13-12, but the AP is standing by its story that Clinton won. I care about more than the outcome, Petey. Obviously, I'm gratified if Obama did win, but this process has spawned (and will continue to spawn) seriously misleading press accounts which have undoubtedly hurt Obama today. Further, it's just wacky that Hillary could win on the entrance poll, win on the exit poll, win on the state delegate count, and still lose the actual contest. I'd expect Clinton supporters to argue that isn't a fair process, and I think they'd have a case.
CNN has it 13-12 Clinton.
NBC just backed Obama's claim. They say he won 13-12. (Oddly, they still have the check mark next to Clinton.)
Well, the delegates haven't been awarded. If all the Obama but not all of the Clinton people show up, or vice versa, to various County and State conventions, one or the other could gain or lose delegates.
AP says Clinton won. NBC says Obama won. I figure we'll know in an hour or two.
"Further, it's just wacky that Hillary could win on the entrance poll, win on the exit poll, win on the state delegate count, and still lose the actual contest." It's not wacky. Caucus rules reward a candidate that runs well all over the state. Winning a few caucus sites overwhelmingly runs up your popular vote totals, but doesn't help you very much in actually winning the caucuses.
The bottom line is that this was a close contest. It's hard for anyone to claim victory. With the low number of delegates at stake, it was never that important. South Carolina will be a big test, before the real decider on February 5th.
Even if its clear that Obama won more delegates, do you think the news will reverse their calls that Hillary won?
"You ought to be loving caucuses right now. Your candidate won NV because of the caucus rules, even if Team Obama is too incompetent to get the press to bite on the actual story here." Look, I'm for Obama myself, but can you even wrap your head around the fact that some people might love or hate caucuses independent of whether "their guy" wins? Out of, you know, principle?
"Even if its clear that Obama won more delegates, do you think the news will reverse their calls that Hillary won?" No. Team Clinton are pros. Team Obama are amateurs.
Looks like Obama may have really won Nevada in terms of delegates. Also, the party put a leash on Bill: http://www.politicalinaction.com/2008/01/party-just-put-leash-on-bill.html
The AP now confirms it: Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama split the spoils in the Nevada caucuses Saturday night... She captured the popular vote, but Obama edged her out for national convention delegates at stake, taking 13 to her 12.
"AP says Clinton won. NBC says Obama won." AP has corrected their story to say Obama got more delegates. Obama officially won Nevada.
Otto - no.
Well in a way both candidates won Nevada. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, which probably matters in terms of momentum. Obama is reported to have one more delegate, HOWEVER, that number may change at the state convention. We saw in Iowa, Edwards was reported to have won one more delegate than Clinton, however later she actually had one more than him. This is a very uncertain situation.
Anyway, if you factor in superdelegates, she won anyway.
"Anyway, if you factor in superdelegates, she won anyway." Again, what do superdelegates have to do with the NV caucuses? Smarter nomination analysts, please.
Well they are really more indirectly connected to the caucus. Anyway, at the state convention the delegates could change. The current delegates are an estimate. But when people look at the Nevada caucus, they are going to see Hillary the winner no matter what because she received the popular vote, and more people are going to see that as that she won more peoples votes than Obama did which all and all gives her a bit more momentum.
Did Hillary really win the popular vote?
On the democratic side, delegates are proportional to the % of the vote the candidate won. Clinton won 51% of the vote, so she should receive 51% of the delegates. Clinton: 12.75 (rounds to 13 delegates) Although Edwards isnt reported to have any delegates, his % of the vote is proportional to 4% of the delegates, which is 1 delegate out of the 25.
"Well they are really more indirectly connected to the caucus." How? What is the "indirect" connection between superdelegates and the NV caucuses? Superdelegates are "indirectly connected to the caucuses" in the same way that your thoughts here are indirectly connected to reality. ----- "But when people look at the Nevada caucus, they are going to see Hillary the winner no matter what because she received the popular vote" That's how you win a primary, by winning the most votes. But you win a caucus by winning the most delegates. People are going to see Clinton as the winner because Team Obama failed to adequately prepare the press to report on the results of a caucus.
State delegates are based upon the popular vote from each county. In a caucus, most of the time the popular vote isnt released, as was in Iowa.
Tyler, The delegate numbers for each precinct are set prior to the election based on the number of registered Democrats in that area. It has nothing to do with the percentage of the popular vote obtained by a candidate. So there's no justification for the statement that Hillary won the popular vote.
"On the democratic side, delegates are proportional to the % of the vote the candidate won." You're a moron, Tyler. Almost everything you've said in this thread is factually untrue.
Well im sorry you dont understand what im saying. I guess im saying that superdelegates do matter. They do make up nearly 800 of the delegates needed to win. And I do not understand why you are so testy with me. Apparently your an Obama supporter. AND, once again, the delegates are decided at the state convention. This is an ESTIMATE.
How am I moron? Delegates are awarded proportionally to the percent of the vote that a candidate wins. I will however admit I was wrong about Edwards receiving a delegate as you must receive 15% to get one and I apologize for that. So I guess it really could go either way in the state convention.
Tyler, Did you not read what I wrote above? You're just wrong that "Delegates are awarded proportionally to the percent of the vote that a candidate wins." That's just not what happens.
"And I do not understand why you are so testy with me. Apparently your an Obama supporter." I'm testy with you because literally almost everything you've said here has been factually untrue. To take 60 seconds and grab a few: - There is no connection between the NV results and superdelegates. - NV delegates aren't awarded proportionally from the popular vote. - We don't know that Clinton won the popular vote in NV because we don't know who won the popular vote in NV. And by design, we'll never know. - I'm not an Obama supporter.
Well I will go read the caucus site...I was just going by what CNN said.
I guess I was wrong about the proportional thing. I guess the info that I got about that, which came from CNN, is incorrect. The caucus site explains it. However, I do know the delegate count is a bit uncertain as I saw a bit of a delegate shift after Iowa as Clinton was third in delegates after that evening and a few days later she was second. But as of now I guess Obama has won in delegates. However, I do not think America will see it as him winning.
CNN says that the state delegate convention will be held in April and the number of national delegates is slightly subject to change. Another wesbsite I looked at said that all the precincts havent reported yet, so its possible the numbers could be slightly different. Definably a more complicated process.
I have to say, I'm pretty frustrated with the Obama campaign right now. They won this frickin' contest. They should be making the news reflect that. It's just totally unacceptable that every news outlet is characterizing the outcome ass backwards. Obama won. Stop the presses.
Well they may be waiting to ensure that Obama won the delegates for sure. There are still 5 counties yet to finish reporting and if they favor Clinton more, then its possible she could steal a delegate or even the other way around if they heavily favor Obama.
"I have to say, I'm pretty frustrated with the Obama campaign right now." Post-IA, Team Clinton has been running an incredibly good campaign, and Team Obama has not stepped up its game in the least. They're simply eating your lunch.
A CNN guy just made a good point. Obama can preach delegates (like Romney was lol) but he needs a "victory."
I think Obama's Reagan comments have messed him up a bit. To me, if the delegate numbers hold up, both candidates won, because she won most county delegates and he won slightly amongst national delegates in the state. Both candidates did well here in the state. If Obama wants to come back he needs to be more aggressive.
They're simply eating your lunch. I want my lunch! I don't know what's stopping them from having the candidate call in to a news station. Clinton in no sense won a victory. The state convention delegates (which she has more of) are an internal matter of no real relevance to the nomination race, and we don't know the popular vote. So, best as I can tell, Hillary lost. And yet she's over there eating my lunch. Dammit.
Well a news story says Clinton won the popular vote, but Obama as of now, which isnt a certainty until all areas have 100% reported, so it looks like a split win here as of now.
From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/us/politics/19cnd-dems.html Mr. Obama said that he received more national delegates in Nevada than Mrs. Clinton because of his strong performance across the state, “including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled.”
"Well a news story says Clinton won the popular vote" The popular vote is not tallied in NV. You're a moron, Tyler.
said Jill Derby -- where are all the people who were outraged at Gore being treated this way in 2000? Bill is going to explode- don't know when -- just hope it is before the nomination so we still have a shot at the general Obama '08
"Well a news story says Clinton won the popular vote" The popular vote is not tallied in NV. You're a moron, Tyler.
Anyway, that is true that the delegates arent OFFICIALLY selected until April...hence why the NY Times doenst show the delegate count.
said Jill Derby -- OOPS you mean Rory Reid OOPS you mean Harry Reid OOPS you mean Bill Clinton Correct, you are.
Correct, you are. Dammit.
And Obama ISNT the winner of Nevada. These delegates are decided in April. The delegates do not matter until April, as that is when the national delegates are decided there. The Nevada Democratic Party officials have also stated this as well. When it comes to state delegates, she won. But if you want to count the ESTIMATED delegates, then they both lost and won at the same time.
Now in April, if these delegate counts are correct, then he won Nevada, but as of now she won at this moment.
Tyler, I don't believe what you say is true, but let's assume it is. In that case, no candidate won and there wasn't much reason to cover what happened today. Given your version of the rules, the story "Clinton Wins" is false. The outcome will be determined in April.
Why does anyone care who "won" Nevada -- which candidate will eventually get 13 delegates, and which 12? I endeavor to provide a bit of delegate context here: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/01/who-won-democratic-nevada-caucus-who.html
But all in all, it really doenst matter much who got 13 or 12 delegates. Its a ONE delegate difference. These delegates are really going to start mattering more once we get into Feb 5th where the delegates add up very quickly and are in huge numbers. 1698 delegates are up for grabs on Feb 5th. Thats when the delegates really start to matter a lot more.
Obama won the delegate count and the Clinton's are using establishment pressure to keep the Sec. of State in Nevada from issuing a statement that states the facts. The rules of the delegate distribution are clear. The Clinton's don't want the delegate count as a secondary headline. Further, Bill called the casinos to gain greater access to create media coverage and the perception that Hillary is the winner. There is absolutely nothing he won't do. Obama is fighting two candidates and continues to narrow the gap. Guaranteed Bill will do his best to be in every Black church while people are home on MLK birthday.
Why does anyone care who "won" Nevada -- which candidate will eventually get 13 delegates, and which 12? Perception. Why I care, Marty, is the media narrative has a far more significant impact on the race than the number of Nevada delegates would suggest. If the Obama campaign fails to capitalize on their apparent good fortune, then the story will be that Obama is coming off two losses coming into SC. If the media are saying he eked out a win after a tough loss in NH, then he's in a better political place.
there is no evidence to suggest that they are pressuring the Sec. of State from releasing a statement. Thats a classic response you made that comes from Obama and Republican supporters. Last I checked the Sec. of State is his own individual. Anywho, there is no guarentee he won the delegate count yet. That is decided in April. Anyway, what is significant is that she won amongst women, latinos, and among most issues. The only reason Obama would win the delegate count is because he won more votes in the rural areas, not because he actually got more peoples votes overall.
LOL...if the tallies we are seeing on the T n V are percentages of delegates and HRC won the majority of the at large caucuses Bill was so vocal about, shouldn't he insist that the percentages are unfair and give some back? And what's up with all these women? I'm a woman and I simply can't see that kind of fervor. Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.
I believe Tyler is attempting the Chewbacca defense. Although I dont think you quite understand everything im saying and are misunderstanding me, I do find that comment humorous :D
"The only reason Obama would win the delegate count is because he won more votes in the rural areas, not because he actually got more peoples votes overall." A caucus is not a primary, Tyler. You win a caucus by prevailing according to the caucus rules, which Obama did. We have no idea who "actually got more peoples votes overall" in NV, and we never will.
although if you include super-delegates that puts Clinton back in the lead again. How can you count superdelegates when superdelegates aren't bound to vote for any candidate?
Further, it's just wacky that Hillary could win on the entrance poll, win on the exit poll, win on the state delegate count, and still lose the actual contest. Petey's right. You're confusing the system everyone thinks we have (one-person-one-vote) with the system we actually have (we vote for delegates, not candidates). You'd think more people would have realized that after the 2000 election. That said, I think southpaw's wrong. If Obama started making noises about winning the delegate count even though he lost the popular vote it would bite him in the ass. People don't like being told their votes don't count - even when it's true. It's not worth it for one delegate. If he manages to lose the popular vote, but squeak ahead in the delegate count at the convention, that's a different story. And personally, I'd love to get rid of this absurd delegate system, even if my candidate ultimately wins under these rules.
"Well a news story says Clinton won the popular vote" News stories probably said that because that's what the exit polls said: "Clinton won more state delegates and -- according to the exit polls -- a plurality of people who showed up to caucus. "
"That said, I think southpaw's wrong. If Obama started making noises about winning the delegate count even though he lost the popular vote it would bite him in the ass." The Clinton campaign has spent the last week pushing hard to delegitimize the caucus rules. The Obama campaign decided (because they're amateurs) not to push back and defend the caucus rules. And so here we are. Obama wins NV and Clinton gets to celebrate a victory. Campaign decisions matter, and Team Obama have been consistently making bad ones since Iowa.
"News stories probably said that because that's what the exit polls said" The exit polls said Obama won more significantly more votes in New Hampshire than Clinton. We don't know who won the popular vote in NV and we never will. It's a caucus.
If Obama started making noises about winning the delegate count even though he lost the popular vote it would bite him in the ass. People don't like being told their votes don't count - even when it's true. It's not worth it for one delegate. That's reasonable enough, except that the only thing we know Obama's behind on is the state delegate count not the popular vote. Now, that state delegate count may have been reported frequently enough as though it were a popular vote total that it now exists in the public mind that way. But let's not confuse that with the truth: We don't know the popular vote, Clinton has more state level delegates, but Obama won the caucus. You're may be right that the story has solidified to the point where Obama would be unwise to challenge it very strongly, but that just points up the importance of having campaign media people who are swift enough to keep this story from settling in. (As I said, I hate these byzantine caucuses, and I think this is a great example of how much they suck.)
Actual Delegate Count To Date (via CNN website) Clinton has 210 delegates: 36 pledged and 174 super delegates. Obama has 123 delegates: 38 pledged and 85 superdelegates. So . . . who's winning?
Just to elaborate a little more . . .
For one thing, there is no reason why the state delegate count should have been given such prominence in the coverage. Certainly, the state delegate count should not have been confused with the popular vote in story after story. Further, there should be agreement about the objective of the race. Was everyone trying to win the popular vote? Perhaps then, we should have measured it. Was everyone trying to win the state delegate count? There's no earthly reason why. Was everyone trying to win pledged delegates for the national convention? Then Obama won, or--if you want to believe the most generous spin to the Clintons--no one did. Why was there so much confusion? Easy, the caucus process is completely opaque. So, in the end, Hillary is rewarded because her people have a hammer lock on the media, the people of Nevada are not really heard from, and Obama's supporters are punching holes in the walls. What do we gain from such a perverse process?
Superdelegates are office holders and national committee members who get to go to the national convention no matter how the primaries turn out. The superdelegates gave Clinton a 100 delegate lead before Iowa.The superdelegates are free to change their mind up until the convention.Obama has a 2 delegate lead among the delegates awarded by primaries and caucuses. Clinton won more state delegates in Nevada but Obama's delegates were spread out around the state in such a way that they will be able to vote for more national delegates.
We don't know who won the popular vote in NV and we never will. It's a caucus. That's why I said, "News stories probably said..." As it is, instead of saying "so and so won the popular vote in NV...", we can simply add the parenthetical "according to the exit polls..." to precede it and everything would be hunky-dorky, right?
THE TWO CLINTONS PLAY DIRTY IN NEVADA. THE PRESS WILL NOT COVER IT. READ HERE: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573
Holy shit! We have a transparent, bald attempt by one camp to justify defeat as victory, by the ostensibly simon-pure "reform" candidate who values the voice of the people, and a lot of the comments here are trying to cover his ass. I've gotta hand it to this guy. I've been following Dem presidential politics since '84, and I've never seen the level of powerful idolatry he excites in his followers, for whom he can do no wrong. He's on the side of the angels when he opposes a suit on the Strip caucuses because it's all about giving the people the vote, then the votes are counted, he loses statewide, and it becomes about his ability to use the anti-democratic weighted delegate rules to get the edge. I'm sure his supporters, nay, acolytes see nothing inconsistent or unseemly in any of this.
hahahahaha. While I think these proportionate allocation schemes distort our democracy and should be changed, I'm of course pleased by this particular result. And Scott-- there's a difference. The thing with the Clintons on the strip was an attempt to change the rules mid-game to give themselves an advantage. They were FINE with the apportionment when they thought they'd win it. That's just wrong. Obama probably shouldn't have won the delegate count here-- but at least he wasn't trying to cheat.
The real point is, considering the demographics of the people who are supporting Clinton, and those that are supporting Obama, Clinton is going to win decisively on February 5.
HRC may win the nomination yet, but they won't do it without ripping their party and probably the country apart if they keep up the tactics shown so far...and it's not just me that thinks that: Prominent Democrats are upset with the aggressive role that Bill Clinton is playing in the 2008 campaign, a role they believe is inappropriate for a former president and the titular head of the Democratic Party. Clinton is undeterred by the criticism and will likely keep hammering Obama if he thinks it helps Hillary. "History will judge the impact on the Clinton legacy, not daily or weekly political reporters," says Matt McKenna, Bill Clinton's press secretary. http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385
I think the fact that Obama won 64.7%p of the 17 counties is more than a little win. If you are taking it proportionally and not saying 'hey well, the big cities get to decide and stuff the rest of ya', then Obama clearly got the most endorsement by county. And he got the most delegates as a result. If the popular vote was won by Clinton - it was won primarily in one county - Clark. That was what gave her the edge. So far as I can see Clark is not the only county in Nevada. Clinton's 'numbers' win is a hollow victory. Both in fact won, depending on how you view it.
Further, the 'super delegates' are simply people with a right to vote in the nomination - people like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, etc. So when Leahy and Kerry, for example, came out and endorsed Obama - he picked up two super-delegates. Now the thing to remember about all of this is that super-delegates can change their mind about who they want to back, switching endorsements. There are a fair number who simply are deciding not to make an endorsement - YET. They are waiting to see how things play out. Clinton picked up most of her super-delegates prior to the primaries starting - when she seemed like a sure fire thing. Since Obama's showing in Iowa, he has picked up a number of super delegates as they realize he has got a shot. He might even have some of Clinton's established delegates switch to him yet. Super-delegates have an overall 40% influence on who the nominee ends up being. Now if I was a super-delegate, and I really wanted the democratic party to have the best chance to win the presidential election - I would be weighting this up: who is less polarizing, who do the independents love, who would the blue leading Republicans endorse? Cos that is what will help carry a usually close presidential race over the line. I can tell you quite confidently, by the polls, that in this instance O comes before C in the alphabet.
But JKay - nobody counts "votes by county." That's not part of the mix at any level. It doesn't matter any more than "votes by latitude" or "votes by favorite flavor of ice cream." The caucus system as it currently stands is not one man : one vote, but if they were to count only votes by county, that would skew things MASSIVELY. In the 2000 Census, Esmeralda County had 971 residents, while Clark County had 1,375,765. That's more than 1,000 times Esmeralda County's total. Your suggestion would have the residents of Esmeralda County's votes count more than 1,000 times as much as a resident of Clark County. Cities have more of a say in the election process because that's where there are more people.
Jay - there are 796 superdelegates out of 4,049 total. That's a little less than 20%, not 40%.
Two things... First, months ago everyone involved...national party to local level organizers and all the campaigns...was fine with the Nevada set up. They all signed off on it. Then the union endorsed an unexpected candidate. The Clinton backers (not the teachers union, but several members affiliated with the union but also Clinton backers) filed suit saying the weighting of votes in Clark County was unfair. Clinton wins Clark County and it's back to them being fine with the setup and declaring more people voted for her. How do we know if more people voted for her if those delegates were so *unfairly* weighted? Bill went on for days quite vehemently that they counted FIVE TIMES MORE than the outside votes...
Do rural votes add up to more than big city votes nationally? There are 300 million folks in this country...whoever wins is responsible to govern all of them. Electability is something we all need to look at if we don't want to assure a McCain or Romney presidency isn't it? So who can compete all across the nation? And does it really matter about rural votes or do cities outweigh them?
Comments closed February 02, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
So Obama may have gained more convention delegates (though not super-delegates) than Hillary, Hillary won a clear plurality (maybe majority) of state delegates, and nobody knows yet how many actual votes either candidate got.
God I hate caucuses.
Posted by southpaw | January 19, 2008 7:03 PM