Behind the Media: Obama actually wins Nevada

Something to keep in mind as the Media spins the latest Clinton inevitability story:

Check the delegate count.

Clinton’s win in Nevada, based on the precincts she won: 12 delegates.

Obama’s “loss”, based on his precincts: 13 delegates.

His precincts were in more of the high-delegate areas, by a slight margin. So, even though he “lost”, he comes out of Nevada with more of that state’s delegates.

At this point, though….I have the growing feeling that this race may end up going all the way to the Democratic Convention. Great for media ratings, I guess — but runs the risk of damaging the final nominee’s chances in the main election in November.

My bet (a theory I heard earlier today): Edwards stays in all the way to the Convention (because he opted for public financing, it doesn’t cost him to do so), and then uses his small collection of delegates to play kingmaker, determining the winner.

8 Replies to “Behind the Media: Obama actually wins Nevada”

  1. You know, while I like the fact that Obama got more delegates, since I want him to win…

    It bugs me that this kind of thing is still even possible. In today’s modern age, I truly believe it’s time to ditch the concept of delegates and the Electoral College, and go straight to a pure majority vote.

  2. Don’t I wish! We’ve certainly got the tech for it now–easy enough, with touchscreens and e-ballots and so forth. Instant, accurate counts, and no more of this crap about electoral colleges, which was fine at the country’s founding (when you had to ride for days or weeks to reach the state capital if you wanted to vote, and when the rep knew his constituents by name) but is ridiculous now. Esp. since most college reps aren’t required to vote according to the actual vote results.

    It’ll probably never happen, though. I think it’d take a Constitutional Convention to overturn the elctoral college system, and the likelihood of that ever going through–well, I’m not holding my breath.

  3. Gareth, can I perhaps as you a favor?
    Could you write a post on why Obama over Clinton?

    I’m still on the fence, and I don’t like one over the other, but I have not yet understood why so many people are behind Obama.

  4. I gave some details in this post.

    In summary:

    1) He’s the only candidate who represents an abandonment of the “Woodstock vs. Vietnam” culture war that the Boomers have crippled this country over.

    2) He’s a brilliant, moving speaker — which is exactly the sort of rhetorical, motivational and diplomatic weapon we need to repair America’s image at home and abroad.

    3) He’s on the record as saying he’ll roll back the power grab of the “unitary executive” that Bush/Cheney have implimented. Clinton fudged her answer.

    4) I was living in NY when Clinton was elected. Her resume is padded. Everybody goes on about her experience, but she has none, other than being married to a president, and cake-walking through a sacrifical-lamb election in a majority-Democratic state. (Initially, her race was against Guiliani, and she was losing. He had to drop out due to personal problems, and she therefore ran against a state party tool whom nobody had ever heard of, Rick Lazio.) In other words, The Emperor Has No Clothes, and it pisses me off that nobody is pointing this out.

    5) Clinton is the only candidate who has the divisive draw that will bring out the Republicans and possibly lose this election. They don’t want to run against Obama. They want to run against her, because their base hates her. Why would the Dems be that stupid?

  5. Wait… wait…

    Obama got *more* deligates??

    Okay, I see you are right. easy enough to look up.

    But why the HELL hasn’t anyone said anything about this in the media?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.