California Delegates Awarded: 207 to 163

The New York Times has posted California's distribution of delegates from the Super Tuesday primary.

  • Hillary 207
  • Obama 163

NBC's Keith Olbermann and Dan Abrams tonight said Obama has a total of 861 delegates while Hillary has 855.

The New York Times says Hillary is ahead with 904 to Obama's 724.

That's a big discrepancy between NBC and the Times. Several of the states Obama won haven't yet awarded delegates according to the Times which may account for Obama's low total number. But, Hillary still has more from the Times than from NBC. Anyone know why?

As to how the Times counts delegates:

Many news organizations include delegate projections in their counts that are based on nonbinding votes for candidate preference, such as the Iowa caucuses. The New York Times counts only delegates that have been officially selected and are bound by their preferences.

To make things even more confusing, here's the San Jose Mercury News saying Hillary has 1000 to Obama's 902.

< Open Thread | Rezko STILL Not An Issue >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    NBC stands alone on this now (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:10:34 PM EST
    CNN and AP also have Clinton ahead.

    As do ABC and others.

    At this point, the only one I see claiming Obama with more delegates are the Obama campaign and the Obama network.

    The Time totallling is missing (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:13:31 PM EST
    a lot of Obama delegates I must say.

    Close to 100. They do not include Alaska, Idaho, CO, etc.


    They aren't counting delegates who aren't (none / 0) (#6)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:16:40 PM EST
    bound to he caucus result. I think AP and CNN are. Why are some states' delegates bound and some not? This is so confusing. I much prefer regular old primaries.

    I think the AP andCNN approach (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:19:10 PM EST
    is the correct one. It is absurd to pretend these delegates will not go for the pledged to candidate.

    I agree. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:21:57 PM EST
    I disagree (none / 0) (#21)
    by Judith on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:36:30 PM EST
    The Times is not saying they will change, but that they are able to change their mind.
    It is reponsible reporting to note thst distinction.  

    It's absurd to count all caucus delegates (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:51:12 PM EST
    as many aren't delegates to the national convention, they're local delegates to state conventions -- when only then will state conventions decide what to do.  Some can go winner take all, I understand.  Some can allocate differently than these estimates to date.

    In Iowa... (none / 0) (#65)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:59:57 AM EST
    ...it's not official until the State convention in June.  All of the Edwards delegates from the local caucus are free to to go to whatever camp they want, as I understand it.

    So, the "true" count won't be know until then.


    Yep, thanks (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:03:26 AM EST
    for confirming it.  And hey, neighbor! -- from Wisconsin

    I was diligent about checking the Dem. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:35:33 PM EST
    party rules as to the first couple of states.  They definitely differ state to state as how long a non super delegate is bound

    Not bound at all unless by (none / 0) (#26)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:40:35 PM EST
    state law...correct?

    I don't think state law, as in statutes passed (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:44:02 PM EST
    by a state legislature and signed by the state's governor, are involved.  Rules made by a given state's Democratic party control that state's allocation of delegates and how long such delegates are bound.  Except, given Fl primary date for both parties was set by FL Legislature.  

    I was listening to the radio and (none / 0) (#62)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:21:15 PM EST
    NPR had a bit last week that said unless the state has a law, or the state party has specific rules, delegates can change their preferences

    Missing states (none / 0) (#56)
    by Prabhata on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:55:38 PM EST
    Pledged delegates of missing states:
    AK, 13
    CO, 55
    ID, 18
    Total missing: 86

    For the superdelegate estimate, go to
    Delegate tally per NYT (excludes missing states):
    Clinton: 700 from primaries and caucuses
    Superdelegates 204
    Total Clinton 904

    Obama: 625 from primaries and caucuses
    Superdelegates 99
    Total Obama 724

    Difference of earned through primaries excluding AK,CO,ID: 700 - 625 = 75 delegates

    Total missing 86 - 75 = 11 delegates
    Obama would have to receive 81 and Clinton 5 delegates from the missing states for Obama to pass Clinton in the apportioned delegates from primaries and caucuses.
    I don't know if that's possible.


    NYT apportionment of AL is strange (none / 0) (#59)
    by Prabhata on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:06:55 PM EST
    NYT gives Clinton 19 delegates and Obama 10 delegates for AL.  It's either a mistake or Clinton pull a NV on Obama if it's true.

    Another source saying Obama leads in Pledged (none / 0) (#9)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:19:59 PM EST
    RCP - news sources based off of AP

    NOT based on AP (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:27:29 PM EST
    Based on a number of sources.

    In essence it is an RCP estimate.

    Frankly, it is as useless as any other.

    For example, it gives Clinton 4 less deleagtes net than the NYTimes.


    I want to add (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:33:58 PM EST
    assuming that NBC is not counting Supers, which has to be the case, then NBC is projecting that Clinton won Super Tuesday by 9 delegates.

    Obama led by 15 going into Super Tuesday asnd emerges only +6.

    So even the Obama Network accepts that Clinton won more delegates on Super Tuesday.

    Well, I support (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:38:01 PM EST
    a national primary as the least bad system.

    At minimum, break things up (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:50:48 PM EST
    into just 2-3 Super-X days.  The primaries should be held for only one month.  They shouldn't be spread out all spring.

    What's happening now is disasterous for the D's.

    And there should be PRIMARIES, not caucuses that are biased toward people with a lot of time on their hands.


    To be honest. . . (none / 0) (#30)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:43:36 PM EST
    I like the smaller primaries.  And I think they definitely increase the chance of a non-establishment candidate breaking through.

    I'd say Iowa and New Hampshire go first, on the same day (to shut them up) with primaries, not caucuses.  And then four states a week for twelve weeks -- possibly skipping a few weeks to stretch it out a bit.  The four states each week would be chosen, a year in advance, one from each geographic region of the country.


    As a matter of principle (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:45:02 PM EST
    NH and IA should be forced to suck it up and go last, or at the same time as everyone else.

    You know, using the precedent. . . (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:46:43 PM EST
    of FL and MI, we could just decide that every year two states don't get to vote in the primary -- sort of a reverse wildcard system.

    How about this: I like your grouping of (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:51:48 PM EST
    states by geo. region and all primaries, no caucuses.  Add distribute delegates in direct proportion to votes cast.  But lets let a couple states go ahead and vote each year and then tell them afterward their delegates won't be seated.  Got to keep it interesting. Larry in NYC for chairman of the DNC.  Reformer.  Change.  Buy your t-shirts here.                

    And make it on a Saturday or Sunday (none / 0) (#36)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:46:54 PM EST
    so that more people can actually participate...weekend primary...

    Or several days. . . n/t (none / 0) (#41)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:52:19 PM EST
    Maybe Obama was a little hasty in his (none / 0) (#35)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:46:51 PM EST
    suggestion that super delegates should vote based on their states delegates?

    Personally, I don't want to see 20,000 people in Idaho decide this either. Not to pick on Idaho but you know what I mean.


    Or a few hundred in New Mexico (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:47:23 PM EST
    Or 400 in Alaska. We need to do (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:50:26 PM EST
    something about this before we ever have another close race. I'm really nervous about how this will turn out.

    I finally saw (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Judith on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:41:54 PM EST
    some of the shows you guys have been talking about and all I can say is you should shut off all that garbage.  I heard one guy going on and on about Obama winning Mass while I was seeing the numbers run across the bottom of the screen.
    Good lord, what nonsense.

    Sorry I missed all the fun - hope you all enjoyed yourselves.  

    Not over yet. (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:52:55 PM EST
    preference or instant run off voting (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by popsnorkle on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:18:42 PM EST
    I've been thinking that the way to go would be a national primary, but with some sort of preference or instant run off voting.  Maybe its time to take advantage of what's possible with 21st century technology, instead of 18th. Perhaps if the Democratic party changed it would pave the way for some changes in the general election.

    And for all those people pushing for 3rd party candidates, they should really be campaigning to change it so that you need over 50% to win the general election, because then a third party candidate couldn't be a spoiler.

    So (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by hookfan on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:23:32 PM EST
    does my vote count much, if at all? First impression is: not so much. The criteria from place to place varies so much, open cauces closed primaries, uncertainties for establishing what the delegates are or not bound too,etc.And topping it off, states not counting due to REPUBLICAN legislature choice to mess with schedules, and Superdelegates not bound to state election results, and delegates being split evenly unless candidates outperform each other in a local by high percentages---pffft. This is horsefeathers.

    NPR News Items On Delegate Counts (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by xspowr on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:41:05 PM EST
    First time here, so hello to everyone! I don't know if this information has appeared elsewhere, but I thought it was relevant to this thread.

    First, unaffiliated Democratic strategist Tad Devine discusses the disparate delegate counts coming from the various news organizations (nothing much we don't already know, but a nice summary):

    Explaining Disparities in Democrats' Delegate Tallies

    For the record, Devine thinks the AP count is probably the most accurate due to the "on the ground" reporting done by the AP (e.g. actual interviews with superdelegates).

    Second, New Mexico is going to do a complete recount, with no date announced for the results:

    New Mexico to Recount All Democratic Votes

    Things are sure going to get more interesting as this goes along!

    The Times is wrong (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by dday on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:46:34 PM EST
    I've been following this very closely at Calitics.  First of all there are up to a million and maybe more votes left to count, so saying that the delegates have been awarded is completely irresponsible. Beyond that, even if you wanted to use current vote totals, the delegate numbers simply don't add up to the reality at the Secretary of State's site.  As you can see, there are two districts in San Diego (CA-50 and CA-53) within 200 votes, and the winner will get a 3/2 delegate split there, so those are too close to call at this point considering there are 159,000 uncounted ballots in San Diego County.  Plus, CA-01 is within 400 votes and that's a 5-delegate allocation, too.  But even with those numbers as a guide, 207-163 is not the score right now.

    The state has 28 days from the election to certify and so we'll know by then, but my educated guess (I've been following this hardcore all week) is around 36 more delegates for Clinton than Obama, or a final tally of 203-167, give or take a couple depending on what those final million votes yield.

    PLUS, there are 94,000 votes in LA County that have been uncounted because DTS voters failed to fill in the "double bubble" on a poorly designed ballot, so that's another factor.

    Geek Out, California Style (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:19:24 PM EST
    As dday indicated there are still ballots out in California, so things could change, but going off the current vote totals on the Secretary of State's website, I get very close to the NYT number, 208-162 for Clinton.  (I could not resist doing the math myself, I'm a geek, okay, I accept that.)  Of those, Clinton leads CD delegates 137-104 and statewide 71-58.  If CA-50 and CA-53 flip, that would drop Clinton's by two and give them to Obama.  Similarly if uncounted ballots move the statewide popular vote in Obama's favor, then that would move the statewide delegates.

    The official results will be in March 4, the day of the Ohio and Texas primaries.  Coincidence?

    show your work (none / 0) (#63)
    by dday on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:05:09 AM EST
    I don't see how you get to that number.  There are no more than 8 districts where Clinton gets the 3-1 split.  132-109 is what I get on the district front.  203-167 is my total number, subject to change (in Clinton's favor too; I didn't realize CA-23 tightened up so much).

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#2)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:12:46 PM EST
    Thanks for writing on this.  I have been annoying people all night asking about these contrasting delegate reports (among other things).

    Any idea when we will know for 'certain' what the final, official count is?

    They have Clinton winning Alabama 19-10 (none / 0) (#4)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:14:42 PM EST
    while CNN has it 21-20 Clinton. Either way, I think she won the most delegates there and no one is mentioning it the way they did with the opposite result in Nevada.

    I think the final tally will be 25-23 (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:18:16 PM EST
    Obama in Alabama.

    You mean even Alabama isn't through (none / 0) (#10)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:20:50 PM EST
    allocating? This most be more difficult than it sounds.

    All the votes need to be counted (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:23:51 PM EST
    But frankly what is becoming increasingly clear, and it is surprsing the Clinton campaign did not push harder against this, is that the Obama campaign spun NBC silly and that in fact Hillary seems to have clearly won the most delegates on Super Tuesday.

    After the BS about Nevada (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:25:30 PM EST
    it's kind of incumbent upon them to actually figure this out.

    What a stupid system.


    I think they should admit (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:28:26 PM EST
    they have no idea.

    I really think (none / 0) (#5)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:16:10 PM EST
    NBC should lose their license for broadcasting or whatever it is they have to legally give out propaganda numbers....It is disgusting

    You really want to start banning news orgs (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:24:29 PM EST
    for doing a bad job? NBC news sure isn't at the top of that list.

    I watched Faux News today (none / 0) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:44:14 PM EST
    They actually had news on, when the rest of it was just spinning candidates.

    Then Laurie Due(Doo? Dew?) came on and I couldn't take it anymore.  


    my goodness (none / 0) (#13)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:24:08 PM EST
    this really makes me wish we could just dip our fingers in some purple ink, and whoever has the most votes wins.

    This is crazy....

    The REAL problem (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:30:11 PM EST
    is the allocation per Congressional district.

    It is an instant voting dilution system.

    They could of course just allocate by percentage of the vote. But that would be too freaking easy.

    They CLAIM it has to do with Party building.

    This is no way to choose a nominee.  


    As I said yesterday, the Democratic party (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:39:23 PM EST
    could screw up a one car parade.  And they're proving it yet again.

    This can't be a mess of (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:40:55 PM EST
    "first impression" though.  Have the delegate allocation/binding rules changed radically for this particular contest?

    Wish I know but in the past we've (none / 0) (#52)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:44:29 PM EST
    never gotten this deep in the weeds before there was a winner.  I don't know how all these different schemes came about but I sense some sort of proportional rep junk in it.  Not actual proportional representation of course, that would be OK.

    Every time I read your post (none / 0) (#29)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:42:21 PM EST
    I laugh...its sad, but if feels so true

    It's always been true in my memory. Oh well :-) (none / 0) (#53)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:45:14 PM EST
    My takeaway from Primary 2008 -- (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:39:50 PM EST
    the entire system sucks -- superdelegates, caucuses, weird delegate allocation schemes, scheduling screw-ups.

    Serious work needed here.


    Just couldn't stay away, could you? (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:39:11 PM EST
    You may want to check out the on line non profit rehab. group Stellaa and I are setting up for Primary race junkies.

    Because Congressional districting is problematic (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:05:38 PM EST
    in itself, as those of us who watch redistricting know.  It is incredibly politicized, and in the hands of legislatures -- so in some of our states, it was in the hands of Republican legislators.  (If you haven't seen the Texas map when they were done, it's worth a google search.:-)

    But no matter the party in power in each state, redistricting in the '90s created some of the most inane gerrymandering even seen, with convoluted maps that look like those at the time of Columbus.  (I track  wonderful old ones to see when a few things show up like, oh, the Great Lakes, the Mississippi, etc.)

    Some of those gerrymandered district maps might as well say not "Here There Be Dragons" but "Here There Be Politicians Saving Their Seats and Careers While Also Covering Their Butts."

    And that's why the power of rural areas over urban areas is screwing up so many delegate allotments -- as redistricting so often lands in the hands of the long-entrenched and disproportionately represented rural areas' legislators, whose task is self-preservation to maintain that disproportionate allotment in their favor . . . instead of all those black and brown and yellow people in the big, bad cities.


    It's not really a problem (none / 0) (#64)
    by MaxUS on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:31:05 AM EST
    if you consider that Super-delegates, as designed, serve as a buffer for any hinkiness that occurs as a result of the CD splits.

    No matter how much Chris Matthews or Bill O'Reilly try to spin it, the SDs don't have constituents in their capacity as Super Delegate. They are SDs because at some point in time, Democrats elected them as their representatives to promote the Democratic platform.

    It's ridiculous to suggest that Jimmy Carter is in any way, shape or form bound to vote the way that the state of Georgia votes.

    Moreover, it's not an argument that Obama wants to make, because he has this little problem of not being able to win in Democratic strongholds. CA has 71 SDs, Idaho has 5...winner-take-all SDs per state favors Clinton.

    I'm happy with the system because it allows Dems to, among other things, have open primaries that bring in new Democratic voters, while still maintaining the Democratic brand. SDs ensure that our candidates don't stray too far to the right in their appeals to those voters.

    Winning the nomination is supposed to be hard.

    PS: First time poster here...hi, everyone


    Welcome, and thanks for being (none / 0) (#68)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:07:58 AM EST
    the only other one I've seen so far to say that super-delegates are not satans incarnate.  We elected most of them, whereas most of the pledge delegates are big donors . . . who can go their own way without any accountability at the polls to us, if there is a brokered convention and it goes past the second ballot (some being unbound after the first).

    And those of us who really are Dems and attentive to party processes knew, when we elected our governors, lieutenant governors, members of Congress, etc., that we were elected convention super-delegates.  If those just getting involved in politics now are just finding that out now, well, they'll know it for next time -- if they remain involved as real Dems.


    You would think that fair minded KO (none / 0) (#43)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:53:32 PM EST
    would mention that some of the other news sources are getting different results, wouldn't you?

    Instead he over and over again praises Todd what's-his-name for his incredible accuracy in estimating delegates...as if ANYONE knows if ANYONE is accurate.

    It's really a sad state of affairs.  

    i haven't watched ko for the last few weeks. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by hellothere on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:17:26 PM EST
    if i do again it will probably be when the election is over. i have some good memories, so while spoil it.

    We actually removed him from our Tivo (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:15:43 PM EST
    I like supporting him, because he's our O'Reilly...but I have a really hard time doing it at the sacrifice of Dem principles of fairness and truth...so long Countdown on my Tivo

    okay (none / 0) (#44)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:58:07 PM EST
    So, Clinton won both the popular vote and the delegates on Tuesday?  I am just trying to get this straight.

    Because this whole system is so convoluted that it strikes me as incredibly obscene that the networks were mimicking the Obama spin and saying he won the delegate race.   I know I shouldn't trust the press, but we've been hearing that Obama will take the delegate lead all week, and I think Obama himself MUST have thought that would be the case because he was calling for action based on having more of the delegates.  Then, there was the leaked (not leaked) memo about delegates...

    All very confusing still.

    Any idea when we will "know" for certain what is what?

    Well, we know about Idaho (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:56:50 PM EST
    and apparently that matters a whole heckuva lot.

    So there are some certainties in this world.  I feel so much better now.


    A little vague, (none / 0) (#45)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:00:16 PM EST
    these counts. Can't say that any particular looks more accurate than another. Plus, superdelegates are a big question mark. I heard one superdelegate from Minnesota say that he felt obligated to support Obama because of the way the state went. But that's not how the rules read.

    Then there's the question of who will have the longest coattails. That plays into the formula.

    It would be nice to see a real breakdown, explaining how each delegate was calculated, but that might be asking a lot from the media. If the NYTimes only count delegates that are bound to support a candidate then maybe CNBC only counts those delegates bound by a blood oath or something.

    Has LA county registrar finished the eyeballing (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:01:46 PM EST
    of the double bubble ballots?  There were lots of them in that county.

    It depends ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by chemoelectric on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:34:18 PM EST
    It depends on what the meaning of "equals" equals.

    Rove says Clinton wins (none / 0) (#66)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:50:50 AM EST
    The Evil genius speaks

    Also RCP has Clinton ahead 1077 to 1005.

    Why is it so confusing to know who's winning?

    KO is just one of the O Acolytes (none / 0) (#69)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:27:41 AM EST
    .....you need to just ignore him and those goofy guest from Newsweek like Alter who keeps spouting that the Dems don't need more women, they need men, I guess he and KO doesn't understand women's votes count too and that 48 percent voted for Bush a more likely group to draw from.

    I don't even try to understand MSNBC NewsWeek Wapo punditry anymore but it has something to do with emasculation by the Bush GOP being called sissy and not going to fight the war.  Some how believing O is and always has been anti war leaves them off the hook somehow. I view them as irrational and for now incapable of providing any factual data on this race, their stuck deep in the fog that is the Cause of O for now.