Please... that's spin from HRC? She won the popular vote even though Obama had union backing.

Interesting that people keep acting like Obama is the "hip urban candidate" when it seems like he is actually playing better in the rural areas, while Clinton seems to be doing better in urban areas. I think New Hampshire was like that, too, if I'm not mistaken.

It's great that we still have competitive races on both sides, despite the MSM's best (worst) efforts. Although they did quite a number on Mr Edwards.

The next interesting election event will be when Rudy (noun-verb-9/11) Giuliani does a major face-plant in Florida.

Hahahahahahahahaha...

Sure. Obama won. Absolutely. Right on.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

@4: Only on a technicality--calm yourself. Or maybe I should say, steel yourself for SC!

What I really want to see is a post from Josh about the fact that Edwards 4%- when pre-caucus polls showed him in the 20-30% range- mean that people are afraid to vote in public for a white man.

Ah yes! Why indeed is Edwards only at 4?

Because this is even more complicated than what Annie just said. The AP is incorrect when they say Hillary won the popular vote. Hillary actually won the most local delegates. Edwards, while doing much better in entrance polls, was not viable in many caucus sites, knocking him down to 4% of the local delegates and sending some of his popular vote over to inflate the count of local delegates for HRC and BO.

The real popular vote will probably never be known.

Woo! This is what democracy looks like! Boo ya, Cuba! Suck it!

Neat! Now maybe Clinton will take this concept of getting rid of the Electoral College A LITTLE MORE SERIOUSLY!

After President Obama appoints her to look into it, before nominating her to the US Supreme Court.

elenchos-

But since we've all been told time and time again that Hillary is nobody's second choice- ever- can we safely assume then that her actual margin over Obama going into the caucuses was probably MORE than 6%? Since the non-viable Edwards supporters *must* have broken for Obama, right?

On a less smart-ass note, I think that whoever wins- Clinton or Obama- this process will produce a candidate better able to take on the Republicants. Even if it stays dirty and rough. It's nothing compared to what we'll face in the general election.

elenchos @7:

Because this is even more complicated than what Annie just said. The AP is incorrect when they say Hillary won the popular vote. Hillary actually won the most local delegates.

Thanks for clarifying that. I was seeing the results with 90% of the returns in and Clinton was leading with just over 5,000 votes, or what I thought was votes. I was thinking, "So only 10,000 Democrats voted in Nevada?!"

What's interesting is that the Obama campaign was saying this afternoon that he had won 13 delegates to Clinton's 12, but the AP was giving Clinton the 13. Then the AP reversed itself and confirmed that Obama came away with 13 and Clinton with 12. So you could say Obama got the win on a technicality. Clinton, though, certainly got the political win and whatever momentum comes with that.

Annie Wagner:

OK, I know this whole thing is confusing, and Josh just texted me to dispute my count. Technically these delegates aren’t yet pledged, as the Nevada Democratic Party points out.

If Josh Feit wants to dispute Obama's delegate win, then let's all get into the game of questioning whether any primaries or caucuses count. Maybe between now and April, Bill Clinton will personally visit every one of those 13 Obama delegates in Nevada and harass them and get all red in the face until they pledge to change their vote.

Bill Clinton can do that until he's blue in the face - doing so would probably lose more delegates than it would gain, cressona.

More elenchos @7:

Ah yes! Why indeed is Edwards only at 4?

…Edwards, while doing much better in entrance polls, was not viable in many caucus sites, knocking him down to 4% of the local delegates and sending some of his popular vote over to inflate the count of local delegates for HRC and BO.

Thanks for explaining this too. I was scratching my head, "How the heck did Edwards wind up with only 4%?" I didn't realize, if what you say is accurate, that Nevada was using the same viability rules as Iowa. The press didn't mention this.

Still, I'm stunned at how poorly Edwards did.

I'm not Cressona. Edwards is the Democratic version of Romney far as I'm concerned. Both of them can compete selling cars down at the Chevy dealership. That being said I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if it's him vs. any Republican in the race.

Can someone explain exactly who these mysterious super-delegates are? And why the primary process is so effin confusing?

Actually, you're all wrong: they tied with 14 delegates each when you count Super Delegates.

P.S. Go Hillary!!!

arduous - You can find out who the Super Delegates are at this page: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html

Basically they are Democrats in Congress, DNC members or past Presidents and VPs.

LOL. So, basically, each victory Hillary's had so far has been like Gore's victory in 2000?

Democracy can be SUCH a messy business...

Go Obama. Go Hillary. Go Democrats. Just somebody PLEASE steer the ship back on course away from disaster.

We got, what, 360-some days to go?

@14 & @17 - I believe current Democrat governors are also given super delegate status. The mysterious "DNC members" are the biggest chunk of the super delegate pie.

I really hope super delegates don't end up deciding this race. All the confusion and mystery behind the system could really undermine the eventual nominee's credibility.

I can't believe Democrats are actually choosing to lose again, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating Rupert Murdoch's choice candidate.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

What a bunch of fuckin' crybabies. I guarantee you, we Clinton supporters won't be such touchy grumpy douches if she loses in SC.

Whoops. Sorry. That was meant for another thread.

Everyone in this thread is wonderful.

Annie, Obama did very well, but he didn't win. Don't turn into a political weasel just yet and start spinning a close loss into a sorta win. Obama lives to fight another day. Edwards doesn't though--po' boy's in freefall.

@22,

Of course you will.

this is such a lame desperate attempt by the obama people, "no really, he won". none of you said a thing when clinton "technically" came in second in iowa cos she scored 1 more delegate than edwards (and just 1 less than obama). just stfu already. this is the reason why i haven't been able to get behind obama, and i've wanted to. his supporters are just so obnoxious without ever giving me an actual reason to support him.

Right on, Sven and um. My sentiments exactly. Oh, and on the topic of the superdelegates, ALL of them are people who are pretty firmly entrenched in the mainstream Democratic party. Don't sit around being shocked when all of them go for Hillary.

The Stranger should do us all a great public service and find out what drink the candidates settle down with at the end of a long day. Fuck those namby-pamby Chardonnay-drinkers - I'll vote for the person who goes for a good cold beer.

@19:

saturday the 20th is 1 year exactly till inaguration.

and pray its not mccain - he's already doddering @ 71. about the last thing we need is ANOTHER old fuck president like reagan. he'll be 72 at swearing in, and 80 when noelle bush is appointed to rule the scraps of the american empire.

The system is screwy. Rural peoples' vote weights more than urban peoples'? Why not try the novel concept of one person one vote?

i'm confused all the way back to NH:
the big news was HRC's "win" of the primary, but according to the CNN chart at least, BO walked away with more delegates... so why wasn't that news?

(a typo by CNN?)

maybe their count included superdelegates? still, would think it would be newsworthy, especially now that the delegate process is under scrutiny in nevada.

@ 22 Big Sven is my hero.

@31: The pledged delegates in NH split--nine for Obama, nine for HRC, so technically it was a tie. (I posted that too.) If you're counting superdelegates state by state, as CNN does, then Obama got more in NH. I'm not doing that, because it's not relevant to the caucus/primary we're talking about. I'm lumping all the superdelegates from everywhere together, and Clinton is still way ahead in the overall superdelegate count, despite Obama picking up a few with those high-profile endorsements last week.

Just remember, Clinton fans, Edwards is going to have a decent number of delegates to release, and they could well be sent Obama's way.

"Well, it depends on what the definition of 'win' is" -- relying on unfair and unequal voter-strength delegate allocation systems -- spinning like crazy -- the new "Obama politics" is rematkably similar to the old "Clinton politics."

Or you could jusst wake up and realize, it's all politics. Part of the human condition, men be not angels, yada yada yada.

Here's what I think we know.
1. They're both great. One of them will top the ticket.

I hope that whoever is at the top they pick the other one for VP. Unity. Experience + change >>> either one alone, etc.

2. Clinton is clearly ahead right now.

It's 2 and 1 out of IA, NH and NV.

As per CNN site the delegate ocunt right now is Clinton 210, Obama 123, Edwards 52 delegates. That's a big lead.

[BTW those super delegates make up about 735 roughly of the 4049 total delegates. Right now 386 delegates are already chosen, almost 10% of the total. You need 2025 to win the nomination. Clinton has about 10% of that, Obama about 6% of that.
see http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

]

4. SC has 45 delegates not counting superdelegates. Even if Obama took 'em all he would not lead in delegates.

But yes, he'd get a media bump, he'd tie the count at 2-2, and it's off to Florida and super Tuesday. It is competitive.

(When his vicotry is expalined as racial loyalty, he'll pay the price that this undermines his post-race, "unity" message. Clinton could pay a terrible price, too, if she or Bill competes too nastily.)

5. Josh is right -- In NV, those county delegates who were chosen will do a bit of switching or some will be sick or old Bill will call them up and get a few to switch -- no doubt!

So saying Obama "took" 13 or Clinton "took" 12 delegates is just false, wrong, erroneous and misleading reporting.

It's good campaign spin, though.

@35: Okay, you're absolutely right, Clinton is way ahead in superdelegates. But those delegates are volatile, because they answer only to themselves. They'll switch like crazy as soon as there's an obvious frontrunner--or, and I hope this doesn't happen, they'll ultimately decide who wins on their own in a brokered convention. On the other hand, the pledged local delegates in Iowa and Nevada have a responsibility to elect national delegates who represent the candidate they themselves were elected to represent. True, they could switch, but they are far more likely than the superdelegates to stay put.

Furthermore, the media has a responsibility to report the delegate count, because getting the necessary number of delegates is the only way a candidate gets the nomination. Merely reporting wins and losses, as though the D delegates were apportioned like Electoral College delegates--all or nothing--is what's actually "erroneous and misleading reporting."

It is a fine day when we have such great choices for President to choose from.

But the media does need to report the delegates, because only the delegates vote - there is no national primary, no day before November when every citizen has just one vote.

And in that race, it's neck and neck, and Obama's ahead, and the MSM are still not discussing issues but only handicapping the horse race.

@36:
(sighs)
--Yes, Clinton is ahead in total delegates. We agree on a fact and agree it's relevant.

Glad _someone_ pointed it out.

(@37: Obama's not ahead. Look at the total count including superdelegates.)

@36:
--Superdelegates will "switch like crazy as soon as there's an obvious frontrunner" -- This is a fairy tale. Totally erroneous --they don't switch like crazy until maybe the 2d or 3d ballot at a brokered convention.

Source: all history books dealing with US pres. nominating conventions and history. Available at all public libraries.

-"On the other hand, the pledged local delegates in Iowa and Nevada ...could switch, but they are far more likely than the superdelegates to stay put." Again, the superdelegates don't switch like crazy.
A desperate and obvious attempt to undermine significance of HRC lead among superdelegates, elevate BHO 1-delegate advantage from NV.
--"Furthermore, the media has a responsibility to report the delegate count, because getting the necessary number of delegates is the only way a candidate gets the nomination."

Right.

So, after the headline, "It's the Delegates, Stupid", a _responsible_ media writer would have reported the total delegate count, that shows Hillary is ahead.

--"Merely reporting wins and losses, as though the D delegates were apportioned like Electoral College delegates--all or nothing--is what's actually "erroneous and misleading reporting.""

Hmmm...who could that be who "merely" reported wins and losses?

Moi??
Nope, I didn't merely report wins and losses.

Tweren't me -- though by quoting me, you erroneously imply it was.

Oh look here! I found the culprit.

It's an old friend i politics, Mr. Straw Man!

Remember him?
------------------------------------
I think what should have happened here was the news that Obama is _likely_ to get 1 more delegate than Hillary out of Nevada, afgter all the remaining conventions in Nevada.

And therefore there's an argument that he won NV.

And, put it in context -- she's way ahead in total delegates.

Then explain this superdelegates stuff. Accurately.

And then, if you like Obama so much, which is fine, and respectable, and no secret, why not discuss the superdelegates institution as being unfair and undemocratic, pro-insiders, theyre about 735/4000 of all delegates, it's all designed so Hill can sew it up in advance, it hurts an insurgent like Obama arising from the "people," and so on.

But saying it's the delegates stupid, then attacking someone who points out erroneous and misleading statements, and who provides the actual delegate count?

Not kosher.

Very old-style politics. You know, use any tool you have to twist things around, to advance your favorite, and put down the opponent.

Is it still about "change"??

Maybe time to update that "change" meme a tiny bit. You know -- just amend it to:

Plus ca change,
plus la meme chose.
___________________________________

Ugh. The only way you can claim I didn't provide the total delegate count is if you can't add integers.

In pledged delegates, Obama has pulled 2 ahead of Clinton, 38 to 36. But it’s also about superdelegates, and Clinton still leads there, 167 to 110. Here’s the most readable graph I can find to explain all of this.

Clinton's superdelegates have jumped since I posted this, but that's the only thing that's changed. It used to be C (167+36=203) and O (110+38=148). And it's now:

Clinton: 200+36=236.
Obama: 110+38=148.

Here, again, is that handy graph I linked to. Stop being obnoxious.