media. Just so we admit that. Compare with the A.P., for example, or even CNN. Why does SLATE love Obama so?

Because the superdelegates can change their minds and their support on a whim. In fact, there have been at least 2 superdelegate switches in the last 2 to 3 days... so keeping track of them as though they are locked for the convention is probably not instructive. (of course, Clinton has lost 1 pledged delegate in the second round of Iowa caucuses... so those might be less stable than one would suspect as well.)

As far as I can tell, the pledged delegate totals that Slate posts match the other news agencies, the others just include superdelegates as well... which narrows the gap for Clinton by ~30 votes.

SLATE's OBAMA delegate lead highest of all media. Just so we admit that.

No, because it's not true. Slate's Delegate Calculator is calculating pledged delegates. Obama's lead in the calculator (158) is just about the same as NBC's (157) (which is where the number comes from, can't explain the one-vote difference, maybe there's an update that Slate missed), is less than the NY Times's projected pledged delegate difference (168), almost the same as the AP (155). According to the NY Times, the Clinton campaign's count has Obama up by 159.5, though the total number of pledged delegates counted seems to be lower than the others, and the Obama campaign has him up by 168. <link>

So Slate's pledged delegate numbers don't seem out of line to me. If you have info to support your claim, please post it. But facts that don't support your candidate isn't necessarily a sign of bias. Someone is ahead, and someone is behind, and maybe those results will hold up, and maybe they won't.

oh NOW I understand by looking at their graph: I can see that this 158 lead comes from pretending that Obama would exactly tie Clinton in both Michigan and Florida, which as everyone knows is make-believe.

hey I just thought of a slightly fairer compromise, although still not as democratic as complete redos for the entire 2 states. Make all of these supposedly equal delegates for these 2 states officially "SUPER" delegates, not only free to choose either candidate, but EXPECTED to change to the candidate they feel would better represent their state AND compete better in the Fall vs. McCain.

Slim, once again, go find your botle of MEDS! Just because HRC now wants the delegates that where never in play, doesnt mean you have to be so intellectually dishonest.

NOW I understand by looking at their graph: I can see that this 158 lead comes from pretending that Obama would exactly tie Clinton in both Michigan and Florida, which as everyone knows is make-believe.

The calculator doesn't pretend anything. It has fixed the numbers for all past primaries and caucuses. All the rest of the states have been split 50-50, not just Florida and Michigan. You're free to change the percentages for those states to see how the pledged delegate totals would come out. And that's the point of the calculator: not to predict the final result, but to allow us to play with the results in every state to see what the result would be.

The calculator also allows users to exclude Michigan or Florida or both, or include them both, to take into account revotes that might or might not happen (though they both look dead at this point). You get to make the call, not the calculator.

Why am I intellectually dishonest? Is that what you cultish guys call arguing for allowing fair representation of 2 very critical and important states?

BTW: back to my original post, in today's paper I read an article by Susan Ferrechio--which you cult-members will probably denounce since it sounds like she has a hispanice name, but she says, and I quote, "Obama holds a lead of roughly 120 delegates." That's not 158, is it? It's quite a bit less.

You know who I hate about re: these 'dishonest' partisan numbers'? He's on MSNBC, and I think his name is "Chuck Cox." I apologize if I got his name wrong. He has a slightly uneven goatee, kind of short, pudgy build. Not much hair on top. Anyway, he's been coming on Olberman (the left's Dennis Miller, as if we needed or wanted one) for a LONG time, making the anti-democratic argument that "THE numbers say she can't catch him! She can't catch him! Quit, Hillary! Quit Hillary!!" I imagine after he's finished with Olberman, he goes over to g.cos.com is it? where the Obama folk have been threatening Clinton supporters with violence, hunting down their addresses, that sort of thing, to stifle the kind of debate the rest of us believe democracy is all about.

*sigh*

If you're not being intelectually dishonest, you're certainly not being intelectual.

Obama holds somewhere between a 155 (AP count, lowest gap) and a 171 (cnn count, highest gap) PLEDGED delegate lead...

Once you add in superdelegates (depending on the news agency this could be based on anything from public support to interpretations of comments about the candidates from different superdelegates), that number shifts wildly... Some agencies give Clinton a 25 superdelegate lead while others give her a 40 superdelegate lead... (though most are ~30)

So, your comment that "a local paper" had a commentator that gave Obama a 120 delegate lead was certainly adding in the superdelegates and choosing some of the more Clinton-friendly calculations available. That does not, in any way, invalidate the calculation of 158 PLEDGED delegates...

We'll see if this gets through THIS time.

:)

...but you won't touch the Cox, Olberman, Dennis Miller remarks, huh? ha

You know, I just checked CNN, on election scoreboard right here on SLATE, and they said '131' lead NOT '171' cited by T--i. What happened? Did you make a simple subtraction mistake, or did Hillary gain '41' delegates in less than 2 days? If it's the later, then at this rate, I think she can catch him.

Next year, please DNC, let's have some system where everyone will have the same numbers everyday and no states are excluded simply because a new guy's followers do not like those states.

You know, I just checked CNN, on election scoreboard right here on SLATE, and they said '131' lead NOT '171' cited by T--i. What happened? Did you make a simple subtraction mistake, or did Hillary gain '41' delegates in less than 2 days?

It sounds to me that the difference is because CNN is using total delegates (pledged delegates + declared superdelegates) while the Slate calculator is using ONLY PLEDGED delegates. Clinton's lead among superdelegates is usually considered to be between 35 and 40, so that sounds like about the right difference once you throw in slight variations that come up in determining the pledged delegate count. It's exactly what T--i was saying.

Next year, please DNC, let's have some system where everyone will have the same numbers everyday and no states are excluded simply because a new guy's followers do not like those states.

The varying totals have nothing to do with excluding states or favoring some states over others. States that have caucuses sometimes have multistage processes that don't formally decide the delegate counts for weeks or months after the vote. For a while, the NY Times refused to count those results at all until they were formally certified (now they have a "projections from nonbinding contests" column), while other news outlets used estimates that they were pretty sure would be right within a few delegates. As the processes continue, those estimates can change slightly, hence the differences in the pledged delegate count.

As for the superdelegates, some may answer some surveys and not others. Some may change their minds. Some may have said something that sounds like a definitive endorsement, some may think it wasn't a final commitment. So those numbers can vary too.

There is no conspiracy here. The Slate delegate calculator says it's only for pledged delegates and does not include superdelegates. The count of pledged delegates can change slightly according to various estimates for processes that have not been completed. Slate's numbers are well within everything else I've been able to find online.

When we're passionate about something, there's a tendency to see what we want to see instead of what's really there or not there. Let's try to keep a sense of objectivity when making these discussions.

The simple explanation is this: the delegate counter, when it first loads up, assumes that all future races are split 50/50, so future delegates are added in as such. To see the current delegate count for one candidate, set all future races for the other candidate to 100%. (EG, to see current pledged delegates for Obama, set to 100% for Clinton.) Doing so shows Obama currently with 1413 pledged delegates and Clinton with 1255 pledged delegates. For comparison, NBC has it 1408-1251 and CNN has 1413-1242.

There is no bias here. Only your inanity.

Just one thing? Who gets to pick the super delegates? It wouldn't be HRC by any chance now would it?

no it wouldn't (last question), but I doubt that the Obama cult would complain if THEY did. They're useless anyway--haven't you heard that clap-track lately?

My original post is still accurate. Wasabe, your numbers are not what is being quoted on election scoreboard right here on Slate. It's higher. Slate loves Obama, they've been on their knees in front of him like a nutty church or something. don't know why. Doesn't seem very democratic to me, but I'm one of those who believe that we shouldn't shove Michigan and Florida into voting for McCain this Fall. So of course, no Obama-fan wants to listen to me...