WTF! CNN airhead just gave delegate counts of 1262-1213. "These are all pledged delegates."

[milkyway]

2:37 pm est.

CNN has been the leader is misleading the public about the delegate count. They have been insistent in mixing their non-binding poll of supers, who haven't voted and won't until the convention, with pledged delegates, who have actually been won through past voting. They have done such an exceptional job of this that even one of their on-air idiots doesn't know the truth.

Obama has been the leader in pledged delegates since Day One in Iowa, and has never on any single day of voting received less delegates than Clinton, yet CNN and other corporate media outlets have continually told the public that Clinton has been the leader. This gives voters the impression that she has been the stronger candidate, and the one best able to win in November. Some voters decide that Obama is a heckuva candidate, but in the end they go with the supposedly "safer" Clinton.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. Neener Neener Neeeeeeeener!

:P

[Exultant Democracy]

2. They want to make it look like a Horse Race, CNN is getting paid, what do you expect from our MSM.

[sundancekid]

3. yea, right - "pledged" just like that dust spray --- wooooosh! Clinton News Network

can ONLY wish - "they report, and we snort"

[fenriswolf]

4. maybe msn is giving a hint to obama

to spread some of his campaign money around.

fucking corporations.

[jenmito]

5. They just showed those numbers again saying OBAMA was in the lead. n/t

[milkyway]

9. Yes, but their count includes unpledged superdelegates. She said they

were all pledged delegates. CNN has always included the supers--you would think the woman speaking (I don't watch enough to know her) leading into a story on the delegate count would know it by now, but she apparently doesn't. I was speaking to my brother about a week ago, who frequently watches CNN, and he was unaware that CNN's total was not based only on voting results.

After Tuesday's results, John King spoke at length about the current delegate count and the various possibilities of how results in future states will affect the total count. He spoke for at least five minutes and never mentioned that CNN's count included their unbinding, nearly irrelevant, polling of superdelegates who don't vote until the Convention.

There is little variance in pledged delegate counts, with all having Obama up about 130 delegates. MSNBC has 1116-985.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22419475

[jenmito]

11. That's right. Good point! They're doing everything they can do to make Hillary look like the

winner-or at least like she's doing better than she is. Also, they just said she'll be in WI 'til Tuesday and they showed her speaking in OH and then repeated her new line that she uses, "Yes we WILL," saying that that's her new line.

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. this is why I don't watch CNN

first, it's just plain boring. secondly, they're wrong a lot.

[TheDonkey]

8. lol

I agree. If I want to curl up and sleep I'll turn on some Wolf Blitzer. And why can't CNN afford to air in HD yet?

[juajen]

7. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying?

Of course, Clinton, on any election day where she won, such as Mass. NY, NJ, OK, CA, NM, AZ, TN, NH, etc. received more pledged delegates from that state that she won. Obama has been ahead in pledged delegates. Of course when they added in super delegates, Clinton was ahead as she lead in super delegates for a long time. I believe CNN has correct results. I just went over there and checked out the totals. Look right to me. What exactly is your point.

[milkyway]

10. My point is that CNN shouldn't be adding in the superdelegates. These are non-binding,

and these delegates frequently change their candidate. The various media outlets call them to find out who they support. It's possible that sometimes they will tell one media outlet that they are supporting candidate X, and a few days later tell another media outlet that they are uncommitted. The count of supers, at best, is only a prediction of what will happen in the future. The pledged delegate counts are based on actual past events (voting).

There are 796 supers, and only 300 have publicly stated who they're supporting. Most of the other 500 uncommitted are waiting for a winner to emerge from the voting, at which point they will then coalesce around the winner.

Not only has CNN obscured the difference between pledged delegates won through actual voting and unpledged supers who haven't voted yet, but they could at least break their count into pledged delegates and unpledged supers.

MSNBC's count of pledged delegates is representative of that of other organizations. They have it 1116-985. CNN.com has it 1262-1213, but their on-air personality didn't know this count included supers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22419475

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

[milkyway]

13. Also, Clinton has never won more delegates than Obama on any single day of voting.

Hillary won individual states on Super Tuesday, but Obama won more delegates overall on that day.

Jan 3: Iowa Obama 16, Clinton 15
Jan 8: NH Obama 9, Clinton 9
Jan 19: Nevada Obama 13, Clinton 12
Jan 26: SC Obama 25, Clinton 12
Feb 5: 22 states: various counts, but all had Obama winning more; msnbc: Obama 861 Clinton 855; wikipedia Obama 847 Clinton 834; (feel free to add up the CNN results)
Feb 9: Obama sweeps 4 contests
Feb 10: Maine Obama 15 Clinton 9
FEb 12: Obama sweeps 3 contests

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scor...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Tuesday

I posted about this a few days ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4562660

[milkyway]

12. Jessica Yellin was the on-air "reporter" who didn't know CNN has constantly included supers in their

count.

[suston96]

14. Too many forget that in November it's not how many, but exactly which states you win......

[milkyway]

15. You mean the important swing states, such as Virginia, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado?

Obama will easily win states like Cali, NY, and Mass. He has performed much better than Hillary in the states that have been decisive in the last few election cycles. And remember, in November all the independent and republicans will be voting also. Obama has a huge advantage over Clinton with these voters.

[anamandujano]

16. He couldn't even take those states in the primaries.

He'll do worse in the general, without his Repuke crossovers.

[milkyway]

17. Are you saying Obama will not win Cali, NY, or Mass in November? So that means you

think the repugs will probably sweep all 50 states against Obama. If Obama can't win the best blue states, he would probably lose everywhere. This is one of the more ridiculous statements I've read here.

Remember, in these heavily Dem states there will only be one Democrat on the ballot. None of these states will be competitive.

[Jamastiene]

19. It is the electoral college not popular votes that

decide the presidency. We are in for another loss if he is our candidate.

[TexasObserver]

18. CNN and the New York Times are committed Hill Shills, lying about delegate numbers

They're both ridiculous and totally untrustworthy on the delegate counts.

They've entered Fox News territory when it comes to lying constantly to push their candidate, Sen. Hillary.