Bicoastal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-12-08 04:37 PM
Original message |
Even CNN sez it: Obama is now within *12* of beating Clinton's delegate count... |
|
...and yes, that includes those goshdarn SDs.
Candidate---pledged/superdelegates/total
Clinton-----923/234/1157
Obama-----989/156/1145
If all goes as expected tonight, he may soon officially be in the lead.
|
tekisui
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-12-08 04:39 PM
Response to Original message |
1. He already is at other news sites. But, I guess it takes CNN to make it official. |
frazzled
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-12-08 04:48 PM
Response to Original message |
|
They all count them so differently. The New York Times, for instance, does not count caucuses in their pledged delegate counts (!). In their chart in today's paper they have Clinton at 839 pledged and 204 super (1,043 total); they have Obama at only 822 pledged and 99 super (921 total). They also list as uncounted in their totals "Delegates from contests with incomplete results" (must mean NM)--66; and delegates from non-binding contests, like many caucuses--a whopping 271 left out! A further note explains:
"The Times is not estimating delegate totals in most states that held caucuses because they are just the first in a multi-step selection process that occurs over weeks."
I'm a little surprised at that. Yes, the actual delegates need to be selected at the county/state conventions--but I was under the impression that the number of delegates each candidate gets is indeed "binding" (or at least as binding as any primary-elected delegates are).
|
Bicoastal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-12-08 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. I wouldn't say the Grey Lady is biased... |
|
...but they are a New York paper and they DID endorse HRC over Obama. Who knows? :shrug:
Anyway, most of the networks already show Obama in the lead. If/when CNN shows him winning, it'll be a TV sweep.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:18 PM
Response to Original message |