<p>Today I read this about the Democrat delegate count:</p>
<p>ABC: Clinton 1,149, Obama 1,127
CNN: Clinton 1,148, Obama 1,121
CBS: Obama 1,139, Clinton 1,132
AP: Clinton 1,136, Obama 1,108
MSNBC: Obama 958, Clinton 904</p>
<p>So it looks like each news organization has calculated the delegate spread differently. CBS and NBC say Obama is in the lead. ABC, CNN and AP say Clinton is leading.</p>
<p>AP has Clinton up by 28.</p>
<p>MSNBC has Obama up by 48.</p>
<p>Why is there such a difference? I know MSNBC isn’t counting super-delegates for now, but there is a big difference in the other counts as well. </p>
<p>It makes me suspicious about how the final tally will be made, and if it’s close at the end, how will we trust the results? It seems like the DNC should come out with an official tally of pledged delegates at least.</p>
<p>" The overall delegate estimate is a combination of our superdelegate estimate and our calculations of how many delegates the candidates won through primaries and caucuses. We add those numbers together and come up with the overall delegate estimate.</p>
<p>For the superdelegate count in particular, CNN’s ongoing survey involves phone calls and e-mails to delegates as well as public statements of endorsement for a particular candidate."</p>
<p>Thanks for that link, BassDad. Very interesting. At the bottom of the chart, it lists just the pledged delegates and even THOSE are conflicting. For example, in Clinton’s case, the news sources have her with these numbers:</p>
<p>The delegate count can swing by a several one way or another once the last few percent of returns come in within a state and as provisional ballots are counted or not. This sometimes takes weeks in a close race like this one, but the TV stations want sound bites for the 10 PM news when the polls closed an hour ago, so the numbers that they show are always in a preliminary state. Only political junkies really care when a contest from a primary that was held last month delivers one more delegate to a particular candidate, so that doesn’t get reported. Some media outlets do more than others to keep their counts up-to-date. Some are quick to try to predict the way all of a state’s pledged delegates will eventually break while others prefer to wait for the official word. Even so, one wonders where the 1043 in that series of numbers came from.</p>
<p>Besides the factors mentioned above, the delegates assigned on the basis of primaries and caucuses are actually state delegates. Some time after the primary, there is a state convention when national delegates are chosen. Some news sources do not count pledged delegates until the national delegates are officially named. </p>
<p>As far as superdelegates go, they can change their minds any time. Also, different news organizations have different information on which superdelegates have confirmed their support for a particular candidate.</p>
<p>Does anyone think maybe we need a new delegate system? Seems not as straightforward as one might think. I have no problem with having it come down to the convention, etc, but I kinda like the thought that certain delagates once yours are yours until after the first vote. I did not realize that, with super delegates esp, that is NOT the case.</p>
<p>I kind of like it this way. At a certain level politics should be messy. The general election has to be “by the books” for obvious reasons, but here it’s just a political party picking its candidate.</p>
<p>Could you imagine your S or D as a super delegate? Here’s a video of a 21-year-old from Wisconsin who first ran at age 17 to become one. He’s had breakfast with Chelsea, calls from Bill and John Kerry, etc… He’s never even voted in an election before.</p>
<p>Dan Abrams tries to pin down who he will vote for and the kid fends him off admirably.</p>
<p>Why not separate the data so we can see the real votes, vs their estimate based on superdelegates? </p>
<p>I found CNN is incredibly biased toward Clinton. I had to stop watching it on super Tuesday. I probably only noticed the bias since it ran against my own. </p>
<p>"A senior adviser to Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has suggested that she — along with other “party elders” — will step into the ring if they feel Democratic hopes of winning back the White House or maintaining control over Congress are being threatened. Ms Pelosi insists she remains neutral in the race and that her "focus is on re-electing a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives”. </p>
<p>But her voice would carry great authority among many uncommitted super-delegates on Capitol Hill — and she is said by one of thsoe close to her to be “leaning” towards Mr Obama."</p>