The New York Times cheats on delegate totals to help Hillary

[awaysidetraveler]

I'm sending this column out there to give everyone a chance to look at the delegates on a chart.
You see, if we all argue delegate math with different sources, we'll all come to different conclusions.

If you use only the New York Times as a source, you might even think that Hillary Clinton was winning.

ELECTED DELEGATES---SUPERDELEGATES----TOTALS
---OBAMA/H.Clinton---Obama/H.Clinton------Obama/H.Clinton

NBC 1078/969---------NO REPORT----------NO REPORT http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914
CBS 1251/1110--------141/210-------------1251/1185 http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/d_delegateScorecard.shtml
NPR 1063/956---------160/242-------------1223/1198 http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1 ... /
CNN 1082/973---------156/234-------------1238/1207 http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results /...
NYT ---------------------------------------927/1041 http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results ...

Obama is winning by as many as 141 elected delegates (CBS) at this point. Or he's losing by as many as 114 delegates, if we use the New York Times as a source.

How is this possible? Well, the New York Times doesn't actually add in the results of caucauses, though they do add in an undisclosed number of superdelegates. So if you ignore Iowa, Washington, Nebraska, Alaska and all of the rest of the caucuses, this is the number you come up with.

A net of around +50 delegates could go to HRC by way of Florida and Michigan (a projection based in NYTimes percentages of delegates), if they're ever seated. Fifty isn't enough to break Obama's lead of 136 delegates (CBS). It would have to be some combination of that and superdelegates to push HRC up into the lead.

NPR and CBS show a shift beginning in superdelegate positions: HRC's superdelegate lead of 93 has diminished to 69 according to CBS; and Obama's gaining superdelegates, while HRC's superdelegates remain the same, according to NPR.

This is good news for democracy: It means that the superdelegates are starting to rally behind the elected delegates.

Can anyone out there still picture HRC win without these superdelegates? I can see maybe a FL and MI count coming with a landslide HRC victory in Texas and Ohio, but even that would be pushing it.

[Tropics_Dude83]

1. Their editorial board endorsed HRC

and now this hmmmm...

E-mails should definitely be sent to the NYT. None of the other sources have their numbers AT ALL.

[awaysidetraveler]

7. Yeah, I'm with you on this. It's way off.

[leeno]

2. A.P. Delegate Projection - Hillary 1,198 Obama - 1,223

from the ny time website, below their own numbers

[awaysidetraveler]

9. That's AP's number, which also doesn't include their superdelegates.

It's bad reporting.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. I guess that makes for a more exciting race, or something.

[IndieLeft]

They need to sell papers. More people will by the NYT

if they report that Hillary is winning.

Besides, it's already been established IN COURT! that it is a news organizations right to lie to their consumers.

[awaysidetraveler]

12. Okay, I'm curious. What court was it established in that it's okay to lie to consumers?

Just out of curiousity.

[TheDoorbellRang]

19. Last week there was a political video

re Fox New Investigators vs. Fox News. This team of investigative reporters were fired from Fox after a "disagreement" about the "facts" in one of their exposes of Monsanto. The fired employees took it to court, and the judge ruled there was no law that said news sources had to report the truth. Incidentally, there's also no law saying that political ads have to tell the truth -- got that gem from factcheck back in 2004.

[awaysidetraveler]

21. That's interesting, do you think there should be a law forcing media sources to tell the truth?

There's some free speech issues there. I'm fine with political satire and the rest, but we know the difference between
a joke and this kind of mathematical distortion posing as reality.

[TheDoorbellRang]

27. Unfortunately, it's still possible to lie while telling the truth

Remember the old saying:"There's lies, damn lies, and statistics"? When they were touting the flag burning amendment a few years back, one of the oft repeated facts was that the incidences of flag burning had increased nationally by 50% in just one year (1!!1!11!1). What they left out of their oh-so-righteous-and-patriotic tirade is that national instances of flag burning increased from 4 in one year to 6 the following year. Somehow that little factoid didn't have the same ominous cloud.

But still, it'd be nice to start somewhere. We allegedly have laws to promote truth in advertising; it'd be nice to have some laws promotin truth in politicking or news reporting.

[awaysidetraveler]

29. As it stands we just kind of wait for the media to lie again.

The internet does help us to find alternate sources of media,
but it also allows the lies to spread without consequence.

I can still find sites claiming that Obama doesn't salute the flag,
and that Hillary was guilty of fraud during Whitewater.
Neither statement holds up to a detailed examination of facts,
but that examination takes time and intellectual effort that most people don't have.

Some laws need to be in place to protect against scurrilious lies,
even if it were only in the form of a legal agency discrediting the lies as they come.

[IndieLeft]

4. What do you expect? It is the New York Times.

[awaysidetraveler]

10. I don't know. I used to read them, but I'm tired of being stonewalled by their point of view.

In the eighties, I had more faith in them.

ElSalvador taught me differently, but I'd slowly come back around to trusting them a little.

Now this.

[debatepro]

5. I think they don't include caucuses!!!!! !!!!!!! !!! !!!

Something about how caucuses choice their delegate at a later date so they aren't counting them.

[awaysidetraveler]

8. Yeah, but that's no reason to skip over the caucuses.

Or, if you like the idea of them skipping uncertain delegates, why is it okay for them to count superdelegates?

[rinsd]

26. They don't count Superdelegates

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/2008delegates.html

[awaysidetraveler]

30. Your link doesn't say that they don't count superdelegates.

The link that I left, and the numbers that they've come indicate that they do count some superdelegates.
They're probably only counting the ones from primary states, but that's splitting hairs anyway.

The important part is that they're showing Obama losing, when he's winning.

[rinsd]

31. I goofed and misread.

They do include their Superdelegate count at the bottom with this link explianing how they came to their figures. It appears that it hasn't been updated since Feb 4th.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/leading-among-the-unpledged/

[awaysidetraveler]

34. Well, thanks for coming clean. I goofed in missing their 204-99 superdelegate count favoring HRC

They're being awfully picky in choosing the delegates to count, don't you think?

[rinsd]

35. I don't understand why all the caucus's are omitted.

Don't different states have different rules about when those delegates are allocated?

:shrug:

[awaysidetraveler]

38. The NYTimes is omitting caucus results in favor of HRC.

The caucus delegates will show at a later date, and the NYTimes refuses to recognize them
until they meet in the flesh.

[goodhue]

15. MN's caucuses were binding so they include, but only the statewide delegates not those by CD

very strange

[TexasObserver]

6. The New York Times has been trying to help Hillary by hook or crook, mainly crook.

[awaysidetraveler]

11. So I've noticed.

Thanks for the byline.

[algol]

13. It is the Old Gray Lady -- maybe sisters stick together or something. n/t

[goodhue]

14. Its weird that they include MN's delegates allocated statewide, but not those allocated by CD

not a very accurate snap shot of pledged delegates to date since many are assigned by CD

[awaysidetraveler]

17. I'm pretty sure it's inaccurate for a reason.

Seeing as they came out in favor of HRC and all.

[Hart2008]

16. The New York Times' credo: "All the news that fits, we print." n/t

[ShortnFiery]

36. OMG! I'm filing that one.

;) :hi:

[Hart2008]

37. It's not original from me, but I can't remember the exact source.

Someone wrote that when they had they caught the NYT's reporter making up stories.

[SOS]

18. At the NYT, Obama never wins

He "duels" or he "captures", but only Clinton "wins".

[awaysidetraveler]

20. It makes for a depressing read.

I'd never thought of the NYTimes as nihilistic, but they don't seem to have any problem
censoring these votes.

[berni_mccoy]

22. It's because the NYT pushed the Iraq War and Clinton voted for it. They have much in common.

[TheDoorbellRang]

23. yes -- all the varying totals have had me completely befuddled

I've actually been trying to compile my own list, but there's so many variables from state to state I'm still befuddled. Excluding American Samoa and the Virgin Islands for the nonce, so far I've got a total of 2165 total "pledged" delegates, with 1078 to Obama, 971 to Clinton, 26 to Edwards, and 90 uncommitted(AL-1;CA-5;CO-27;GA-2;NM-1;LA-1;WA-28;D.C.-1;MD-24). Can't find any info on the territories except the NYT noting American Samoa and Virgin Islands each had 3 pledged and 6 unpledged delegates, so I'm not sure if they also have superdelegates -- need to research some more. Didn't include Michigan or Florida in my totals at all.

[awaysidetraveler]

24. At least you're intelligent enough to know you've got to do math to know for certain who won.

Think of all the people out there who don't realize that much... or who take these numbers as their gospel,
without asking hard questions like: is it okay for superdelegates to start the race off with a lead, or is it
okay for FL and MI not to be counted?

[TheDoorbellRang]

28. I'm a real neophyte in trying to make heads or tails of the process

Methinks we've exchanged smoked-filled back rooms for smoke-and-mirrors numbers crunching. ;(

[rinsd]

25. Huh? The NYT does not include Supers in their delegate total

They also have not done the allocation for caucus states which explains why Obama is behind in their count.

Info that is explained here

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/2008delegates.html

NYT lists the Superdelegate race as 204 to 99

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

[awaysidetraveler]

32. Okay, you've got the right links the 204 is the number of superdelegates they added in.

That's your link. 204 is the number of superdelegates they counted.

How they arrived at 204 to Obama's 99 is beyond me.

[rinsd]

33. I goofed, they do include those Supers.

I linked to their explanation in another post.