However, the national delegate numbers from Iowa were Obama 16, Clinton 15, Edwards 14. What's interesting is that the media narrative following Iowa did not really focus on the national delegate numbers, and Obama was declared the overwhelming winner. In my opinion, this was the correct narrative, and I was glad to see Hillary act gracious in defeat. She didn't tout the fact that despite John Edwards' claims of his second place finish, she potentially had more national delegates. I think this was smart because she realized that national delegates can change, and she would look like a sore loser because it was evident that she came in third place. I'm not sure if Iowa's national delegates are binding, but its clear in Nevada that they are non-binding.

So, in Nevada, entrance polls show Hillary Clinton with a comfortable popular vote victory. Based on her caucusing totals (including support of non-viable candidates), she received 51% of the state delegates, while Senator Obama received 45% of the state delegates. Now, based on Nevada's unique national delegate formula, Obama did in fact win 13 delegates, while Clinton received 12. However, because these delegates are non-binding,  if Clinton wins overwhelmingly on February 5 and beyond, at the Denver Convention, the 13-12 deficit could become something like a 19-6 victory. Some Nevada national delegates would likely defect to Clinton to acknowledge her statewide victory.  Likewise, if Obama seizes control of Super Tuesday, the 13-12 margin could climb to 22-3 in his favor, if Hillary tanks or a scandal sinks her candidacy.

What's curious is that the media is buying Obama's spin in talking about national delegates when they are non-binding in an effort to diminish Clinton's win. In contrast, the closeness of national delegates was a distant afterthought in Iowa.

Clinton has 50.71% of the vote, Obama has 45.19%, Edwards has 3.75%.

I believe what Jeralyn is describing, via the Maisel article, is the method for determining the National delegates only. All states, caucus or primary, have something like this kind of system, where pledged delegates are apportioned by several criteria: 1) popular votes, with thresholds; 2) Congressional District performance (not mentioned here); 3) sometimes At Large delegates. (Then add Super Delegates to that.) As Maisel says, this virtually ensures that a candidate will not give up on all states he/she believes they won't win. Or to campaign only in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, etc. It is intended to protect the voice of the voter.

But while the basic caucus method for selecting State Delegates is similar, it differs in a key aspect. It is what Big Tent is decrying. It does allocate state delegates according to the popular vote in each precinct, but the system also gives more weight--more delegates--to sparsely populated areas. The intention of this method at the precinct/county level is the same as at the state level: to encourage candidates to campaign all over, and not write off the rural counties for the vote-rich urban counties. It's similar to the Electoral College. Which is to say, I agree with what I take to be Big Tent's argument: that caucus apportionment is a relic, it has serious problems, and it dangerously subverts the principle of one person-one vote.

after iowa, i decided the caucus method was ridiculous. nevada turns out to be even worse than iowa, which i didn't think was possible.