Two days have passed but the Democrat's delegate count continues to confound

With the exception of MSNBC (which still shows Obama up 838 to Clinton’s 834), it seems that the other websites now have new delegate counts. The NY Times originally showed the Associated Press’ delegate count on their homepage and their own delegate count. Now, the Associated Press’ numbers are nowhere to be found and their own count has spiked. Yesterday, they had Obama beating Clinton 34 to 21. Today, however, Clinton is now winning, with two sets of numbers. Her Feb. 5th numbers are up 667 to Obama’s 583 but now, it seems, they’re also using Super Delegates which balloons her lead to 892 over 716.

CNN originally had Clinton up 818 to 730 but now that has changed to 823 over 741. In case you weren’t confused enough, here are some other sites I forgot to mention before. Yahoo’s political dashboard shows Clinton at 830 delegates and Obama at 820. Fox News shows Clinton ahead 1,024 to Obama’s 933. Finally, Real Clear Politics, shows Clinton in the lead 1,060 to 981. I’m sure there are more numbers out there, but I don’t have the energy or the patience to delve into more baffling results.

So why is there still discrepancy to the delegate counts? Well, according to MSNBC, “Different news organizations make different delegate calls at different points along the process” and “some estimate what the candidates will get after the lengthy counting process has played itself out.”

However, the NY Times claim they use officially pledged numbers. If this is the case, how are their numbers higher than MSNBC, CNN and Yahoo? It made more sense yesterday when their numbers were drastically smaller. It doesn’t make sense that the other sites would keep official counts out of their estimated totals.

What is the lesson to all this? For me, it’s to vote for the person that best represents your cause and just be patient until the official candidate is delared at their respective Conventions.

3 thoughts on “Two days have passed but the Democrat's delegate count continues to confound

  1. If there was a year to confuse everyone about choosing a nominee in parties…this would be it. Most experts can’t even explain it in layman’s terms.

  2. Why can’t they just show how they came up with those numbers? It would seem simple enough for them to list the delegates per state and per candidate so we can understand how they came up with their totals. I mean, why can’t they just show a chart, or something like it, so we can figure out why some websites have more and some have less? Let us know what exactly some of you are including or not so we can figure out what’s going on. It seems that they just want to confuse you on purpose so at the end, you don’t know how and why someone won; if it was because of the popular vote or “super” delegates. Either way, whether they do it on purpose or not, I would appreciate some much needed clarity in this issue. You would think that’s what these so called “news” channels would do, since that’s their job, to keep the public informed. Instead, they all just speculate until the end of time, and leave you more confused than ever. *sigh*

  3. It really makes you feel like your vote has little value when you can’t even understand the mechanics of the entire process. You’re right, Claudia: it’s just a way to keep people shrouded in ignorance and allow foul play to go by un-noticed. Heck, Bush served two terms.. Nuff said. =oX

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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