A Call For Sobriety Dealing With Primaries: It's Delegates Not Votes That Count

Tonight the MSM reported a "big win" and a "stunning victory" for Clinton. What a bunch of baloney.

This is a call for sober responses to the primary results. Okay, I'm a Scrooge when it comes to the hoopla. But really it just looks stupid to me when people are calling the outcome of New Hampshire a "win" for Hillary Clintion when is was actually a "tie."  And in fact, Hillary did not come in third in Iowa; she came in second.

What the heck am I talking about? These are PRIMARIES people! You really need to stop looking at the vote results and look at the delegate counts.

All the crowing by supporters of Obama after Iowa and supporters of Clinton after New Hampshire is really a form of self-delusion about the actual results.  

In New Hampshire, Clinton won the vote by 2% but she and Obama each got 9 delegates.  Since the primary is a race for delegates not a race for votes, New Hampshire IS A TIE, not a win for Clintion.

In Iowa, Obama won 16 delegates Clintion won 15 and Edwards won 14, so actually Clintion came in second while the MSM reported Edwards came in second and Clintion third based on the caucus voting. So Obama winning Iowa by 1 out of over 4,000 delegates was not such a big win after all.

The combined delegate wins after Iowa and NH (not counting superdelegates)
is:
Obama 25
Clintion 24
Edwards 18.

Only 2000 delegates more to go for one of the candidates to win the primaries.

That's what I mean by being sober.

CNN Delegate counts Democratic Delegate Scorecard

My Direct Democracy MyDD Delegate Count

The Green Papers Democratic Convention Delegate Count

If you have a good delegate website please share them here.

Okay, I'm a humbug.  But watching the responses on TV is bad enough, but to see the raving here where people are acting like winning 1 delegate  is "huge" or tying delegates is a "big comeback" just makes me think that the most intelligent voters there are --as represented by the people here-- are still too stupid to know that primaries are about delegates and only the delegate results are what counts.  I would have thought that the Kossacks of all people wouldn't be blinded by the MSM hype about the vote counts.

The state of our democracy is really unhealthy by the looks of it. I wonder if our democracy will survive the creeping fascism of the MSM propaganda?

UPDATE: Here's some information provided by Tony Rosa of Green Papers.
Different websites may have different numbers from time to time due to two factors:

1. Superdelegates change because people die or resign positions that make them eligible to be a superdelegate.

2. Florida snd Michigan are up in the air due to the Democratic National Committee sanctions.

Here's what Tony wrote:

The Democrats released a new delegate allocation chart effective 1/5/8.
http://www.democrats.org/...

Indiana
-1 unpledged PLEO delegate (due to the passing of Democratic Congressman Julia M. Carson

Louisiana
-1 unpledged PLEO delegate (due to the election of  Republican Governor Piyush "Bobby" Jindal)

Assuming sanctions are applied to Florida and Michigan, the total number of delegates
is now 4,049 with 2,025 needed to nominate.

Assuming the Florida and Michigan delegations are seated, the total number of delegates
is now 4,415 with 2,208 needed to nominate.

Thank you for calling this to our attention and your interest in TheGreenPapers.com,

Tony Roza

Check out theGreenpapers.com for the most in depth information about the primaries and how each state's primaries work.

•  Tips for delegate counting.

  by Gregory Wonderwheel on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:26:12 PM PDT

•  Well, in that case...

  Hillary actually lost NH, since she didn't live up to the "media hype" of having actually won.

  by Trix on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:31:01 PM PDT

  •  Which clears the field for Edwards, of course /nt

    by hhex65 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:53:19 PM PDT

    •  Heh :) n/t

      by Trix on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:54:33 PM PDT

    •  Edwards Can Win

      He has lots of support here in California and Nevada...

      The majority of Democratic clubs are endorsing him in the Bay Area, and the people in Reno I spoke to love him.

      Edwards has lots of grassroots support.

      by Kakie on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:33:53 PM PDT

•  Actually, it's about consensus.

  We will reach a stage where the media, the party, the candidates and the public will kinda get to the point where they can call the winner.  We agree to coalesce around one person and start the real campaign.

  That or we count delegates at a true clusterfuck convention where we democrats look like idiots.  I'd rather the GOP provide such entertainment come August while we look like the competent adults.

  But at this stage, with a very close delegate count so far, there's absolutely no reason other than naive partisanship to say anyone (but Richardson) should bow out.

  And while you're at it, make mine a scotch and water.

  by Mark Adams on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:00:09 PM PDT

  •  Actually, hate to burst your bubble

    Including the superdelegates, HRC comes out way ahead on the delegate count.  I'd stick to winning the primaries and see where that takes you.  As for pie...yes, I'll take a slice and a cup of tea, thank you:)

    by ljm on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:03:26 PM PDT

    •  Still an Open Race Between E-C-O

      It's anybody's guess what will happent...Remember, just a few weeks ago, Clinton was considered a shoo-in...No longer...

      It's anybody's race, and the delegate count is so close..

      Super delegates will/can change their votes depending on who has the momentum, so it's anybody's race.

      by Kakie on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:36:01 PM PDT

•  What pisses me off are the Super Delegates

  We don't even get to vote for them, but they get a vote nonetheless. There may not be any smoke any more, but there are still backroom deals going on to keep we, the unwashed, in check...A dash of institutional "stability" from our more prominent elected officials' past and present. The Clinton people have lots of'em all over the country. If it's close in the end, they can use them as a back-stop.

  Nothing against Hillary, but this is an undemocratic tool for use in the Democratic Party. We need to watch this.

  by bleeding blue on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:09:22 PM PDT

  •  Superdelegates are flexible. though

    or they will be after Super Duper Tuesday.

    by hhex65 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:14:20 PM PDT

    •  As we in WA State don't caucus until Feb. 9th

      I prefer the term Stoopid Tuesday:-)

      by bleeding blue on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:24:56 PM PDT

    •  One third of super delegates have not announced.

      So far CNN has only 266 of the 796 superdelegates as announcing their preference. Most are waiting to see how thigns shake down before committing.
      Of course, Bill Clinton as past president and now resident of NY is a superdelegate in NY, we can guess who he's voting for.  

      by Gregory Wonderwheel on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:03:20 AM PDT

•  Thanks for the Reminder

  It concerns me ... this rush towards declaring a winner.  For the life of me, I can't see how it benefits the democratic party, the individual nominees nor the process of raising personal investment and identification in the process of supporting a democratic candidate against all comers.  An early winner would NOT galvanize nor intensify identification or involvement.  For all the state caucuses to be considered irrelevant by the media, the party and the campaigns ... weeks before they come up ... this is not how you win hearts and minds.  Let there be a race.  

  by crescentdave on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:25:37 AM PDT

  •  The rush to declaring a winner is about

    pundits scoring points in their race to appear "most insightful/prescient".

    by Ran Talbott on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:52:49 AM PDT

•  Right now, it IS more about votes than delegates

  These first few primaries are "test marketing",  and what candidates are trying to do is demonstrate to potential donors and to potential supporters who are influenced by the "herd instinct" that they have broad popular appeal and/or "momentum".

  The number of delegates at stake in these small-population states is relatively trivial,  and their allocation is of no interest at all to most folks.

  by Ran Talbott on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:11:17 AM PDT