What the heck?
As of right now, after the Maine results, the news services are showing the following
**AP ** - Obama 1108, Clinton 1136
CBS - Obama 1134, Clinton 1131
ABC - Obama 1110, Clinton 1127
CNN - Obama 1121, Clinton 1148
Realclearpolitics - Obama 1137, Clinton 1134
MSNBC - Obama 943, Clinton 895 (I presume this is without the supers)
New York Times - Obama 741, Clinton 912 (I don’t know what the heck this is)
Why are the numbers all over the place? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Two reasons:
They count the superdelegates differently. Some rely only on endorsements, others on polls of superdelegates, etc. The methods of tabulating superdelegates are all pretty poor, which is not even to mention the fact that they can change their minds.
Not all delegates have been selected. In caucus states, for example, delegates are actually selected at state-level conventions. The outcomes of these conventions can actually vary from what the popular vote in each district would require. And outside caucus states, they haven’t yet figured everything out (see, e.g., New Mexico).
This has been covered in other threads I believe. But in summary:
Or, on editing, what Richard Parker said.
Ed
Jinx!
So can anyone give a pledged, definite delegate count, without superdelegates? Is there one out there?
I’m sure there’s other places but Real Clear Politics breaks out the superdelgates so it’s a pretty simple matter of math. (998 to 921, Obama leading)
No. One could theoretically give a count of pledged delegates from non-caucus, non-NM states, but I don’t think they’ve even finished tabulating that.
We’ll have to wait for the caucus states to hold state conventions to know the count for sure. Apparently Mondale was able to steal a bunch of delegates from Hart the last time it was contested this far in. So we can look forward to stories about the Clintons attempting to do the same (not saying they will, but you know there will be stories).
I’m not doubting what you say, but that’s ridiculous. Numbers are numbers. The news services are being provided the counts from, I presume, the same sources. Why would the numbers be different? …unless the services are all using unique criteria to determine what to include which, again, is ridiculous. The rules for how and which delegates are counted should be universal.
True, I should have clarified. RCP gives the assumed pledged delegate counts via the election results. Those are suject to change for various reasons but still seem a much more solid base than the superdelegate counts.
As Electoral-Vote.com explains it:
My presumption is that the lowest counts (i.e., MSNBC) are closest to the positively, absolutely, confirmed committed delegate counts. The higher numbers involve prognostication and/or superdelegates.
Those NYT numbers look to be about a week old.
The point is that in the case of caucuses and superdelegates, the news services aren’t being “provided” delegate counts by anyone. They are estimating the counts themselves, based on their own understanding of what the situation is. The only raw numbers the services are provided are the number of people who voted for Obama or Clinton in the caucus, and that can only provide a rough guide to the number of delegates that will eventually be chosen from that state.
In other words, to answer your last sentence, the rules for how delegates are counted is far from universal.
Ed
I didn’t say they were being provided ‘delegate counts’. I said ‘counts’, meaning votes. I should have been clearer…although I did say delegate counts at the end of my post, so I definitely should have been clearer.
So, at least in my way of thinking, if all the news outlets are getting the same counts (and why wouldn’t they?), then there should be a standard formula used universally to determine delegate totals.
And I agree with someone in another thread who said they shouldn’t be counting super delegates in these totals. Super delegate numbers are so nebulous at this point as to really mean nothing, and just muddy the waters.