NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN and NYTimes Delegate Totals.

[awaysidetraveler]

I'm writing this column to give everyone a chance to look at and discuss the same numbers.

ELECTED DELEGATES---SUPERDELEGATES----TOTALS
---OBAMA/H.Clinton---Obama/H.Clinton------Obama/H.Clinton

NBC 1078/969---------NO REPORT----------NO REPORT http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914
CBS 1101/965---------141/210-------------1242/1175 http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/d_delegateScor...
NPR 1063/956---------160/242-------------1223/1198 http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1... /
CNN 1059/953---------156/234-------------1215/1190 http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results /...
NYT ---------------------------------------927/1041 http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results...
(The New York Times, which supports Hillary Clinton, does not add in the results of caucauses)

Shouldn't these delegate numbers all be the same, or even roughly the same?

Note in the elected delegate category: HRC's votes have a 16 delegate differential; Obama's votes have a 40 delegate differential.

H. Clinton won 50% of the vote in Florida, and 55% of the vote in Michigan. (NYTimes is the source)
However, the delegates remain stripped in those states. Using that source and multiplying percentages against total delegates, HRC would get 93 to Obama's 61. Edwards would walk away with 27 delegates. In Michigan, Clinton would get 70 elected delegates. The "undecided" delegates would then go to Obama, at 52. No one knows what would happen with the superdelegates in these states.

So the delegate difference is +50, favoring HRC if both Florida and Michigan are counted into the mix.
As it stands, the delegates have been stripped from these states by the Democratic Party for a reason and a good one:
they broke the election rules.

Do you think they should be included in the general election? If so, when?

NPR and CBS show a shift beginning in superdelegate positions: HRC's superdelegate lead of 93 has diminished to 69 according to CBS; and Obama's gaining superdelegates, while HRC's superdelegates remain the same, according to NPR.

How do you think the superdelegates should be added into this mix? Should they represent the winner of their state? should they represent the percentages of voters within their state? Should they only vote at the end of the election? Also, when should their vote be added into the mix of other delegates?

How the media counts superdelegates is anyone's guess, but one thing is certain: they'll count them in the most divisive manner possible, because there's no story in a finished election.

Essentially, what you're looking at is the most divided message of all. It is the mathematical proof that these media agencies cannot agree on basic delegate math.

Isn't that something we can all agree on?

[awaysidetraveler]

1. Crickets...

Please, feel free to pipe in with an opinion.

[awaysidetraveler]

2. And more crickets....

[awaysidetraveler]

3. And still more crickets.

[MaineDem]

4. Many threads get no posts

Don't take it personally. :)

[TexasObserver]

6. Change your title to: New York Times cheats on delegate totals to help Hillary

No headline, no traffic.

[awaysidetraveler]

9. Thanks, I'm out of time, but you're right--that's the headline.

Slipped right past me.

[TexasObserver]

5. The New York Times has consistently cheated to give Hillary the edge. They LIE.

The New York Times is badly biased and trying to influence the war.

Nothing new there.

Remember when people cared what the NY Times said?

[leeno]

7. Obama's Numbers

from his site, but they don't include yesterday's numbers

Obama 1031
Clinton 944

[awaysidetraveler]

11. Thanks, that's a nice addition. n/t

[Orangepeel]

8. Some delegates are selected as state caucuses later

Since the people who are selecting were voted in at the congressional level caucuses, the presumption is that they will vote for the candidate they were elected to vote for, kind of like the electoral college. But different states have different rules. Some might be bound, some not. But since they haven't actually been selected yet, the totals are a little fuzzy.

Not counting them and counting superdelegates is just dumb. They are at least as bound.

[awaysidetraveler]

12. Yeah, I don't see anyone coming out in defense of ignoring caucus numbers.

The NYTimes is wrong here.

[City Lights]

10. Shouldn't the DNC be keeping track of delegate distribution?

Where are their numbers? :shrug:

[awaysidetraveler]

13. Yes, they should.

Their website has no numbers, though it does have a delegate map.