the twit has a question

by twit

From the BBC:

… Mr Obama’s campaign said that he had in fact won the battle in terms of the number of delegates which would be allocated to back him at the party conference where the Democratic presidential candidate will be chosen.

The Associated Press reported that Mr Obama had won 13 delegates to Mrs Clinton’s 12.

If Obama won the most delegates, why are there reports declaring Clinton the winner?

Clinton captured the popular vote Saturday, but Obama edged her out for national convention delegates at stake, taking 13 to her 12.

I’m confused. Who gives a fuck about the popular vote? Since when does that matter?

Mrs Clinton’s campaign manager Terry McAuliffe told US network MSNBC: “This is a huge win for Hillary. This is big, this is a big day.”

Advertisements

6 Responses to the twit has a question

  1. lestro says:

    from the New York Times

    But some election officials said they were confused about Mr. Obama’s claim that he more delegates than Mrs. Clinton.

    “I don’t know why they’re saying that,” said Jill Derby, president of the Nevada State Democratic Party, referring to the Obama campaign. “We don’t select our national delegates the way they’re saying. We won’t select national delegates for a few more months.”

  2. twitterpaters says:

    ok, but what about the AP and MSNBC running with it?

  3. lestro says:

    Here’s what the Washington Post is reporting:

    Obama was able to edge out Clinton, Obama aides told reporters, because two rural regions, sub-areas of one of Nevada’s three congressional districts, apportioned an odd number of delegates, and Obama won the balance of them, taking away a total of three delegates to Clinton’s one. In more populated areas, especially Las Vegas, the districts apportioned an even number of delegates. But Obama was able to come in a close enough second to Clinton to evenly split those delegates.

  4. lestro says:

    from a local reporter at the reno gazette-journal:

    Technically, the Obama campaign is correct in its estimates of one more national delegate going to him than Clinton because of his strong showing in Washoe and rural counties. But it assumes much and is just an estimate. More importantly, the caucuses today were non-binding…

    The statement from the party: “The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.”

  5. twitterpaters says:

    curiouser and curiouser…

  6. twitterpaters says:

    From the Nation on January 19, 2008:

    Rural areas did secure Obama’s delegate edge. His five-point lead in the rural section of Nevada’s Second Congressional District, which stretches across most of the state north of Las Vegas, won him the single delegate at stake there. With one delegate in play, caucus math is winner-take-all. So while Clinton won about 43 percent of the area, she had no delegates to show for it. And the delegates are weighed by past voter registration — not the actual turnout on Saturday — which can also widen a gap with the true popular vote. But the popular vote is not actually available.

    The Nevada Democratic Party only released a statewide tally of local delegates. There are over 10,000 of them; Clinton has about half (5,335). But local delegates do not reflect a pure popular vote. Just like national delegates, if a local precinct only has one delegate, then it’s winner-take-all. Precinct totals can exaggerate the support for the candidate in the lead, and minimize the totals for a trailing candidate. (That’s why John Edwards’ Nevada turnout appears unusually low.) If you think reading about this system is hard, just imagine caucusing.

    Or just try explaining it. The AP and cable networks initially misreported Obama’s delegate count. (The Nation first reported Obama’s delegate lead.) The AP quickly caught the error, but its new article still incorrectly refers to the precinct totals as a “popular vote.” And on caucus night, the pundits were already talking about John Edwards’ collapse, as if the statewide tally was a popular vote.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: