AP Should Start Reporting the Real Delegate Count

For most of this primary race, the Associated Press has been publishing a misleading delegate count. I don't think they have bad intent in doing this and they are trying to be as accurate as possible, but when they keep reporting the overall delegate count -- including super delegates -- they are giving a false sense of the race.

Counting the super delegates now is misleading for two important reasons. First, they can and often do change their minds. Just last week at least three super delegates left the Clinton camp and went over to Obama. Second, at this point, it appears unlikely that they will vote against the interests of the Democratic voters, so their endorsements do not indicate how they will actually cast their ballots at the convention.

If one of the candidates wins a clear majority of the pledged delegates, it is very unlikely for the super delegates to vote to override that outcome. There will be tremendous pressure from the public, the press and the party to put aside earlier endorsements and vote the same way as the pledged delegates.

Hence, giving an account of the race with the super delegates counted in as if they have already voted is very misleading. Also, it doesn't give you a true sense of how large Senator Obama's lead is at this point. Readers might be surprised to see how Senator Clinton is trying desperately to climb back into the race when she doesn't seem that far behind based on the AP count. In reality, she understands she can't afford to lose the real count - of pledges delegates - and in that count she is now way behind.

Tonight, at the very end of the night, the AP finally made this distinction (I have seen them make the distinction on a few earlier occasions, but almost all of their stories regularly only give the count that includes super delegates). With the super delegates counted, even with the Wisconsin win, Senator Obama only has a 70 delegate lead. But when you look only at the pledged delegates, he has a whopping 145 delegate lead.

The pledged delegates are the ones voters actually voted on and they are the ones most likely to determine the final outcome. So, for the sake of accuracy and clarity, the Associated Press and the rest of the media should report the real count of this election - the pledged delegate count.

Young Turks on You Tube

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[Plowboy]

If they can keep people believing the count is close, it will make the prize easier to steal.

[ErinG]

At long last, a voice on this issue emerges. Ever since Obama routed Hillary in the South Carolina primary, the Associated Press has consistently failed to make the distinction between pledged delegates and super delegates.

[TheScarletPimpernel]

Obama represents the Joe Lieberman wing of the democratic party.

Elected by republicans, independants and foolish Dems, If those morons in Conneticut had stuck with the Dem candidate this war would be over now.

[capitalismisntamoral]

the other 'strategy' at work in case you hadn't noticed is all the polls/results split out by

gender
race
age group

white men x% to y%
blacks z% to x%

The point is that - if every single day we are told to think of people as belonging to these separate groups ...

Divide and conquer indeed.

[SethBLiNK]

I don't think there is anything wrong with counting the superdelegates (and Hillary, if you want to call them automatic delegates, you go girl), but they should definitely be in a separate column so that both numbers can be tracked separately.

If you think the AP is bad, check out the New York Times: http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html

According to their system, all caucus' are in the "to be decided" category, because caucuses elect reps to go to a state convention where national delegates are selected. So, in the Times list, Iowa doesn't count yet. As Hillary's people often mention, Obama does well in caucus states. So this weighs in Obama's favor.

But that's not all... though they don't count caucus delegates (because they are not official yet) they do count superdelegates. Their superdelegate count is different than every other one I've seen, (Hillary's edge is only 55) but it makes no sense to count supers and not caucuses.

Based on this questionable math, Obama leads by a mere 5 delegates.

Of course all these different organizations using different criteria makes good fodder for the spin meisters.

[Stanley]

Important Fact: The Associated Press is owned by Reverend Sun Yung Moon and his Unification Church. This is not an organization founded on the principles of Journalism.

[jbstonesfan]

You love to change the rules as long as it suits your guy....but it's OK to disenfranchise the voters of Fla and Mich....unbelievable hypocrisy

[HowardRoarke]

How does it enfranchise the voters of Michigan to count the vote of the ones who voted Hillary, but not the ones who wanted to (and couldn't) vote Obama?

I hear Fidel wins elections by being the only candidate on the ballot.

[RobBob]

Yes, it is hypocrisy isn't it, for you to be implying that the Dems should change the rules in order to suit your desires?

[altohone]

Cenk,

You are far too kind or naive.

OF COURSE the AP knows they are misleading!

It's not a coincidence that EVERY corporate media outlet ignores the difference almost all of the time.

The establishment has been trying to skew the results all along, and to give them the benefit of the doubt is not justified.

[HowardRoarke]

MSNBC has fairly consistently explained and shown the difference.

[SmartChick]

An important point, and one definitely worth mentioning. Luckily, due to extensive media coverage, the super delegate issue is getting sufficient coverage - a LOT of people are now aware of the differences between pledged and super delegates. The nuances of the count are not entirely lost on voters as they might have been. But it is good to keep reminding voters that this race is far less close than it looks.

[lisakaz]

I don't necessarily trust the superdelegates so I think in all fairness to the current climate both totals should be listed so people can follow the story. If that trial balloon was legit and Clinton's people are trying to gauge how they might flip pledged delegates (or simply seat MI and/or FL delegates), these things need to be talked about too.

In my mind, this is why Obama needs to keep winning, to cut out any inroads for these extra-legal devices to seem legit. Of course, if the Clintons try any/all of this, they will split the party and, frankly, I cannot understand how in good faith they'd refuse to need the majority of sanctioned primary voters (the beauty contests were not that from the getgo) and then still expect these votes to come their way in November. Makes no sense to me at all. Seems like a recipe for making a McCain Administration.

[SteveRoach]

Neither candidate can secure the nomination without automatic delegates. It is mathematically impossible for Sen. Obama to secure the delegate votes needed for the nomination without automatic delegates. This is why, despite publicly attempting to discount the role of automatic delegates, the Obama campaign is aggressively courting - and pressuring - them behind the scenes.

[MerhabaAbi]

Yahoo's political dashboard keeps a running tally of pledged delegates. Cenk is right on target. Obama is leading by 145 delegates. Clinton needs to overwhelm in either Texas or Ohio to remain viable. I'm currently a Clinton backer. Obama is pretty damn good too though.

[bradio1]

I'm for Obama, but Clinton has my vote should she win the nom. Is that so hard?

[larry278]

Thanks for your crisp, concise blog. A lot of us who support Barak Hussein Obama hope that you're right about super delegates & that they won't attempt to cancel the voters decisions by supporting HRC. While it's too early for the cautious to say that BHO has won the nomination-BHO has momentum going for him. It could be a good idea to use BHO's full name often to defang the vipers who make a fuss about Barak Hussein Obama having a Muslim name. Muslim names aren't that rare or strange in the USA anymore.

[donovong]

It would be an even better idea to simply spell his first name correctly: B-A-R-A-C-K!

[emj2740]

LOL!!!

[PaulLoeb]

Important point--I was about to post on it as well.

Remember the call by Bush's cousin that GW had won Florida? It reversed the initial exit polls, enshrined a Bush victory in the public mind, and made it easier for Jeb, Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court to ignore the will over the voters and enshrine their boy as President.

We're now seeing a version of the same thing with the media and the Democratic delegate count. Whenever the counts lump actual elected delegates together with the initial preferences of superdelegates, they make the race seem far closer than it is. While most stories go into more detail in the fine print, lots of readers won't read beyond the initial summaries. And if you ask most Americans now, my guess is that up till the last few races they've believed Obama and Clinton are essentially tied.

All this has a cumulative impact, reinforcing Clinton's current theme that the race is still anyone's call, and making it easier to create a self-fulfilling prophecy where she gets the superdelegates to override the will of the Democratic voters, and gets the credentials committee to do the same, by seating the Florida delgates here candidates didn't even have a chance to campaign, and where in Michigan, she was the only one on the ballot

Barring massive victories in Ohio and Texas, that's probably her only shot, but it would be a lot harder if rank and file Democrats had been living with months upon months indicating a clear Obama lead. Instead, the media coverage blurs the actual results, and makes it easier for Clinton to act as if things were tied, in the words of key Clinton strategist Harold Ickes, "they see a tied ballgame."

Paul Loeb
Author Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While
www.paulloeb.org