As of Sunday night:
Obama: 1,134
Clinton: 1,131
Superdelegates
Clinton: 211
Obama: 137
« Patti Solis Doyle Steps Down As Clinton Campaign Manager | Main | Quakes In Hillaryland, Part II » Democratic Delegate Update11 Feb 2008 05:58 am Comments (17)
By listing them separately, you give the impression that the top numbers are pledged delegates .... the top numbers *include* the superdelegates -- that is, Obama now has an overall lead, even given Clinton's current lead in superdelegates. And if he can maintain his lead in pledged delegates, does anyone doubt that the superdelegates will begin to bolt to him? 
I think what Marc is missing is this figure in pledged delegates: 997 Obama +77 Obama Guilty by omission.
Honestly, how can you be doing such a sordid job? Its simple, make a table thus: Obama Hillary Suprdelegates Total
A revitalized ruralvotes.com thinks you are spinning for Hillary....me thinks so too. http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=537
Hi,
Agree w/ the other posters. I was likewise confused until I checked on MSNBC's site. I'm not claiming bias, just sloppiness! Geez - how hard is it to be clear with numbers for writers who have to be clear with words????
Frankly, Thomas, I do find Marc to be quite sympathetic, for an obvious Clinton supporter. I mean both halves of that statement sincerely. There are much worse apples out there.
The reason why I added the comment above is that some readers don't recognize that such incendiary comment might make him lose his job (a bit extreme I know) but in the least case, it will affect his confidence.
Up until a couple weeks ago, I'd give Marc a solid 8/8+ (except for his election night coverage, which was a 5, but only because it was always a little outdated and would never format correctly in my browser). Over the past two weeks, I'd say he's about a 4, which numerous posts in the 1-2 category. This one's a 3, only because it's not explicitly making an intellectually dishonest argument, but rather making one by omitting the, oh yeah, only number that matters.
I doubt Marc is especially biased. I do know that this blog has gotten lousier and lousier; this inability to state clearly how the delegate count is working is just one case in point. I suspect the main problem is that Marc simply doesn't have any expertise in these late state primaries; his laughable bungling over Maine being just the most obvious example. He seems to lack sources, and be relying mostly on what the campaigns (especially Clinton's) spin him. It just doesn't result in very impressive reporting.
I don't mind if the writers I enjoy reading admit they don't know what they're talking about, but I do mind if they try to pretend that they do. If they try to fool me enough times, then I no longer enjoy reading them. Marc is getting to be pretty far down that path. And if one of them would just learn the obvious lesson, taught so many times this year, that endorsements don't matter, well, I'd be a happier man. But perhaps I'm just bitter because I don't have the fearsome Baldacci machine in my corner.
Oh my goodness. I saw the flagrant deceit as soon as my eyes grazed over the post. But what I don't understand, Marc, is how this presentation of bias is helpful to you - i mean, it was THAT obvious, and you most assuredly should have seen reactions such as mine and others coming a mile away. You must, for the sake of your reputation, do a better job of masking your pro-Hillary sentiments. It should not be so hard!
Marc is an unrepentant Hillary shill and is embarrassing himself and stealing all credibility fom his blog by not admitting his obvious bias. And the sad truth is, 65 percent of what Ambinder offers is his sources in thw Clinton machine. If Hillary loses, those sources lose thei importance, and Marc should be in danget of losing his gig. Step up your blog game, Marc. This has been a horrible two weeks for you, as you've mirrored the Clinton campaign....wheels coming off everywhere.
I do not understand. I guess all my training and experience as a lawyer deprived me of the ability to read and understand plain English.
Marc...is a Clinton acolyte???
The New York Times Sunday had a whole discussion by their public editor on delegate numbers. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10pubed.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=public%20editor&st=nyt&scp=2 The caucus totals may not reflect how it may all turn out in the end and the superdelagtes aren't really pledged, unlike those chosen in the primary process. Another article mentioned that in 1984 Walter Mondale had stolen delegates that gary Hart had been expected to get as the causus process went on. (They are chosen in layers)
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
In case Marc's post isn't clear, the total delegate numbers include the superdelegate numbers, so Obama actually has a lead of 77 in pledged delegates according to the CBS tally.
Of course, as many have noted it is pretty silly to be including superdelegates in the totals right now.
Posted by DTM | February 11, 2008 7:28 AM