NYTimes Delegates Counts: Hillary 892 vs Obama 716

[kelvinyany]

Ahead by 176

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html

[NJSecularist]

1. That is wrong

Data for several key Obama wins isn't even there.

You can take this with a grain of salt.

[thunder rising]

2. But it makes them feel good to lie for just a minute longer.

[comfycouch]

4. What are those states? n/t

[Nailzberg]

5. Iowa, Nevada, North Dakota, Minnesota, Idaho, Colorado, Alaska

Pledged delegates from Iowa, Nevada, North Dakota, Minnesota, Idaho, Colorado, Alaska not included in their totals.



Many news organizations include delegate projections in their counts that are based on nonbinding votes for candidate preference, such as the Iowa caucuses. The New York Times counts only delegates that have been officially selected and are bound by their preferences.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/2008delegates.html

[NJSecularist]

6. For starters...

Just look at Alabama and all you need to know about this page is that it is complete shit.

Also, Illinois is underrreported for Obama (he'll win by more than 35 delegates). Minnesota and Idaho, big Obama wins, haven't been reported.

etc

[Texas_Kat]

12. Maybe not.... Delegate count.... CNN has Clinton winning as well

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#AL

Delegates

Obama 20
CLINTON 21
Edwards 1

Since the Obamaphiles were so quick to say he 'won' Nevada with a single delegate vote, so Clinton wins Alabama.

Payback's a bitch, don'cha think?

[Barack_America]

15. No. Gerrymandering of districts is a bitch.

A 13% win should never mean a delegate loss. Man, the South can be evil. Anything to keep 'undesirable' votes contained! :eyes:

[Texas_Kat]

16. In most states, rural votes are given a more significant weight than urban

just like in Nevada. It's the way it works and there are good reasons. Go to a Democratic Party meetings and you will find out how the system works.

[Barack_America]

17. I know all about the rural weighting...

We saw it in Nevada. IMO, that isn't enough to explain the discrepancy we see here. But gerrymandering is.

Do you doubt that heavily African-American districts are gerrymandered in redder than red Alabama?

[lurky]

18. "There are good reasons"

Could you enlighten me?

[Thrill]

3. The NYTimes coverage is so tilted to Hillary....It isn't even funny

I'm beginning to see why Repukes call it the Pro-Clinton Rag

[AZBlue]

7. Why is the NYT misprinting the numbers??

Can't they add?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. someone should tell them

perhaps they could print their error tomorrow

[BattyDem]

8. They didn't include several of the states Obama won. How sweet!

:eyes:

[TexasObserver]

10. NYTimes has no credibility on the race because they can't count

sad

[mzmolly]

11. The website indicates that they don't have all the numbers tallied.

:hi:

[never_get_over_it]

13. This is probably closer to the truth

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

[kelvinyany]

14. It isn't winner takes all, people.

Look at the chart again.