AP Should Start Reporting the *Real* Delegate Count (Lead of 145 Vs 70)

[ihavenobias]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/ap-should-start-reporting_b_87508.html

AP Should Start Reporting the Real Delegate Count
By Cenk Uygur

For most of this primary race, the Associated Press has been publishing a misleading delegate count. I don't think they have bad intent in doing this and they are trying to be as accurate as possible, but when they keep reporting the overall delegate count - including super delegates - they are giving a false sense of the race.

Counting the super delegates now is misleading for two important reasons. First, they can and often do change their minds. Just last week at least three super delegates left the Clinton camp and went over to Obama. Second, at this point, it appears unlikely that they will vote against the interests of the Democratic voters, so their endorsements do not indicate how they will actually cast their ballots at the convention.

If one of the candidates wins a clear majority of the pledged delegates, it is very unlikely for the super delegates to vote to override that outcome. There will be tremendous pressure from the public, the press and the party to put aside earlier endorsements and vote the same way as the pledged delegates.

Hence, giving an account of the race with the super delegates counted in as if they have already voted is very misleading. Also, it doesn't give you a true sense of how large Senator Obama's lead is at this point. Readers might be surprised to see how Senator Clinton is trying desperately to climb back into the race when she doesn't seem that far behind based on the AP count. In reality, she understands she can't afford to lose the real count - of pledges delegates - and in that count she is now way behind...(for the rest, click the link at the top of the page)

www.theyoungturks.com

[crikkett]

1. I think it's an editorial decision, a setup if you will

too bad you didn't bother to include the real count.

On edit, it looks like the articles you linked to, that talk about this, didn't include the 'real' count either. Sorry to snap at you!

What a sad state journalism is in. Off to find some actual numbers, like I have nothing else to do ...


Editing again: CNN hosts an updated map of delegates, done in flash - I couldn't find a chart so I'll try to assemble one...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/10/delegate.map/

[ihavenobias]

2. Save the mock indignation

over the "sad state of journalism" for a *real* issue please.

[CherylK]

4. Very well put!

The main contention of the article is true. Far too often reports of delegates include the super delegates, and that is misleading. If people want to argue that we should stick to the facts, they should consider sticking to the main point of the article and explain why including the super delegates is NOT misleading instead of trying to dismiss the article based on some stupid technicality because they disagree with its basic premise.

[ihavenobias]

6. Well

it's obvious that the *reason* they disagree with the basic premise is that it reflects poorly on their candidate of choice, i.e. Hillary.

I've defended Hillary against non-substantive attacks (as has the author of the article we're discussing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmM2j8P55SA&feature=user), but this isn't an attack, and it's plenty substantive. It's an observation of how the media can influence perception of the race, even unwittingly.

[crikkett]

5. excuuuuuuuuuuuse me

I'm trying to help here, and have every right to be indignant because I need to spend forty-five stinking minutes to look up a FACT.

Oh wait, you're the person who posted the article about fudging numbers on delegates without finding what the real number of pledged delegates was, yourself.

You're welcome.

[ihavenobias]

7. You *may* have had a reasonable argument to make

if you had left it to the facts instead of making an absurd suggestion that this was intentionally misleading on the part of the author.

Pretending that your motivation is simply objectivity in this context is questionable when your real motivation (in my opinion) is defending your preferred choice for the Democratic nominee, which happens to be Hillary.

And last night on MSNBC they actually *did* break down elected D's vs Super D's and Obama DOES have such an enormous lead. If you'd like further proof, by all means, spend another 45 minutes looking it up. If I had used the DVR last night I'd go in the other room and tell you the exact number, but the numbers included in the article in question are very close *at worst*.

[crikkett]

10. My preferred candidate is NOT Hillary.

Furthermore, you also incorrectly assigned the opinion to me that the author was intentionally misleading.

I think you were so eager to pick a fight that you didn't take time to consider what my reply actually said.

I said I thought it could be an editorial decision to exclude the actual delegate count. I did say that I suspected bias towards Clinton. Essentially I agreed with the position I thought you were taking.

Now I say, that the actual delegate count could have been excluded because practically speaking, it would take too much space or time to explain what the numbers meant. Or, the reason it was excluded could be lazy reporting, tight deadline, perhaps innumeracy.

[ihavenobias]

11. I apologize then

I'm not eager to pick fights, not at all. I'm just eager to defend people from dumb attacks (which is what I thought your original comment was). Also notice that I specifically said "in my opinion" with regard to my assumptions about your motives and preferred candidate.

Finally, I could swear I've seen you promoting Hillary in the past (you have a pretty distinct username/avatar) but if you haven't, then clearly I was wrong on that count.

Still, in the end the point stands that the author of the article in question was right, and the numbers he provided (a lead of 145 Vs 70) were incredibly close to the numbers you got from MSNBC, as I knew they would be.

[crikkett]

12. well it's possible that I said something not-negative

about Clinton sometime during the primaries, and to be fair I was snappy, first. Plz forgive.

My candidate was Kucinich because he most closely spoke to what I think is important.

I never did make the excel chart of delegates that I wanted - but it's still on my desk.

Thx

[Deep13]

3. The media should always report facts, but I'm not holding my breath. nt

[crikkett]

8. NBC posts a blurb about "hard count" = Obama:1,168 vs Clinton:1,018

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/20/684156.aspx

*** The Delegate math: After last night’s contests, here’s where things stand: The NBC News Hard Count is Obama 1,168, Clinton 1,018. There are 53 delegates unallocated, including 19 in MD, 10 each in CO and GA, 6 in WI, 4 in HI, and one each in DC, TN, NY and IL. We estimate a conservative 27-26 split here. The Superdelegate Count: Clinton 257 versus Obama 185. That’s a grand total of: Obama 1,355, Clinton 1,276. Counting only the superdelegates he has now, plus his pledged delegates, Obama needs 65% of remaining PLEDGED delegates to hit the magic 2025 number. Reaching that is probably unrealistic, but when you add in the unaffiliated 353 superdelegates (76 of whom are not yet known yet and won't be appointed until April, May and June), his magic percentage number is down to 48%. On the flip side, Clinton needs to win 58% of all remaining pledged delegates simply to get the pledged delegate lead back. Forget 2025. And if you assume Obama wins Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, then the magic percentage number in the states Clinton wins rises to 65% -- SIMPLY TO GET THE PLEDGED DELEGATE LEAD BACK...

[ihavenobias]

9. Thanks

So Cenk's numbers (which he wrote about almost 12 hours ago) *were* off!

He said Obama's Elected D Lead was 145 (Vs 70 w/ Super D's included) when in reality according to the link you posted, it should be 150 Vs 79 (a difference of 4).

[Baby Snooks]

13. The reality of AP

AP has sold out like so much of the rest of the media. They have consistently shown delegate counts in favor of Hillary Clinton when in fact the delegate counts have been in favor of Barack Obama.

That should be another one of many dots to connect if anyone cared to connect them. The media holds off on a "Swift Boating" of John McCain until after he has been ensured the nomination. Something very wrong with that. Another one of many dots.

The corporate sector wants Hillary Clinton. The problem is the people want Barack Obama. This election will decide whether we are "by the people, for the people" or "by the corporation, for the corporation."