NYT does not include caucus results in current delegates total, Obama supporters call it cheating.

[rinsd]

How The New York Times Counts Delegates

By MEGAN THEE

State political parties choose different means of selecting their delegates — either a primary or a caucus. A primary is completed in one day and is often binding, while a caucus is the first step and is generally a multitiered process that culminates with the selection of delegates. This year, a number of states have been penalized and docked a portion of their delegates because they scheduled their nominating contests too early.

Many news organizations include delegate projections in their counts that are based on nonbinding votes for candidate preference, such as the Iowa caucuses. Except for its count of superdelegates, explained below, The New York Times counts only delegates that have been officially selected and are bound by their preferences.

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

[sandnsea]

1. Fuck the NYTimes

Nobody has any business being outraged at Fox News bias with this bullshit going on.

[Bicoastal]

2. NOW who's disenfranchising voters?

[Mass]

3. So, they count superdelegates, but not delegates from caucuses.

An interesting and innovative way to count delegates.

Guess what, Without the superdelegates, Obama wins the NYTimes totals as well: 894 to 872.

So, they can twist it the way they want. Obama is ahead.