In case you missed it in all the media coverage of the Nevada Caucus, Obama actually won more delegates.
AP: On the Democratic side, Clinton claimed the Nevada vote as a victory. "This is one step on a long journey," Clinton told cheering supporters in Las Vegas. She captured the popular vote, but Obama edged her out for national convention delegates at stake, taking 13 to her 12.
Howard Wolfson, communications director for Clinton, in The Washington Post on Wednesday, "This is a race for delegates. . . . It is not a battle for individual states."
Although they haven't said anything yet, I'm sure the New York Times, The Washington Post and other professional news organizations will cover this minor detail at some point. Right?
Total Delegate Count through the Nevada Caucus:
Obama - 38
Clinton - 36
Edwards - 18
UPDATE: The New York Times finally tackled the subject:
[T]he delegate count under the intricate rules of the caucuses appeared to favor Mr. Obama because of his support from a wide swath of the state, giving him 13 delegates compared with 12 for Mrs. Clinton.Still waiting on The Post.In a statement, Mr. Obama noted that he had received one more delegate in Nevada than Mrs. Clinton because of a strong performance in precincts outside Las Vegas.
“We came from over 25 points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton,” Mr. Obama said, “because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled.”
Strategists from both campaigns, as well as the Nevada Democratic Party, were poring over the returns several hours after the caucuses concluded. If the Democratic presidential race becomes a bare-knuckle fight to the nominating convention in August, the extra delegate for Mr. Obama could prove as important to him as the momentum that Mrs. Clinton might receive from winning the most votes in the state.
4 comments:
I think the country would be better served if the media would stop treating the primaries as a sporting event or an American Idol competition.
I don't know - maybe we should just let Paula Abdul and the other two nitwits decide who's going to be president.
The media's played a huge role in this election - not sure if it's any more or less than the previous ones, but it has been great. Their obsession with Clinton and Obama from the beginning has been a disservice to Edwards, Richardson, Biden, etc.
But they're just so simplistic sometimes. I understand that Hillary won the support of a greater percentage of the people who caucused, and that's important. (Don't like, though, how they say someone won the "popular vote," as if an actual vote had been taken by the people of Nevada. You're talking about 10,000 people in the caucus, out of a population of 2.5 million. 4% of the people in the state participated as delegates to the caucus.) Was a bit stunned, though, that even major papers like the Times and Post couldn't seem to handle a situation with a bit of complexity. How hard is it to say that Clinton won X% of the people who caucused, while Obama actually won more delegates? It's not bloody rocket science.
You know what worries me more? The fact that Clinton's techniques for getting elected are looking a lot like Dubya's. We certainly don't need another one of him. (No matter the political spectrum.)
No, it isn't pretty. Especially some of Bill's tactics. The editor of Newsweek talking to Jon Stewart the other night: "Now you've got the husband running around. He's sort of King Lear with a southern accent. Wandering around out there." Thought that was an apt description.
Post a Comment