It ain't over til it's over--bubbling up from the blogosphere, and appearing nowhere in MSM (yet) is the fact that final California Primary results were reported on Tuesday, March 4, for the February 5, 2008 primaries (Super Tuesday). Final certification of presidential primary results is March 8, 2008, and the results will be officially released on March 17, 2008, by Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State.
Working backwards from Andrew Sullivan's March mention in the Atlantic Monthly:
Obama in California
Largely missed in this week's craziness: he just picked up a swing of 8 delegates after the certification came through.
As reported in Daily Kos on March 6:
What were the final numbers?
203 for Clinton to 167 for Obama [Ed., as opposed to the original 207 Clinton/163 Obama split]
CNN has it wrong.
MSNBC has it wrong.
Real Clear Politics has it wrong.
Calculating genius thevoiceofreason on Democratic Underground breaks it down further, complete with link to raw data from the state of California in case anyone would like to check the math on 129 at-large (not pledged delegate or superdelegate) counts, distributed in proportion to all candidates who received over 15% of the popular vote--i.e., Clinton and Obama.
So from March 4, to today, March 8, the breakdown according to the NYT, and incorporating the above information on California's added delegates to Obama, looks like this:
- Texas (67 unpledged delegates to be chosen via convention, 35 unpledged)
Clinton 65, Obama 61; advantage Clinton 4 - Ohio (20-21 unpledged delegates)
Clinton 75, Obama 66; advantage Clinton 9 - Rhode Island (11 unpledged)Clinton 13, Obama 8; advantage Clinton 5
- Vermont (8 unpledged)
Clinton 6, Obama 9; advantage Obama 3, or Clinton -3 - California primary final results
Obama 8 added; advantage Obama 8, or Clinton -8
...for a grand total of a net gain of 7 delegates by Clinton this week. Clinton is still behind Obama in the overall delegate count--and if I've added correctly, there are 142 delegates spread over the 4 states whose backing can't be determined.
In each of the four states that had primaries on March 4, the number of unpledged delegates is large enough in number to significantly sway the state's total number of delegates in two hugely different, mutually exclusive directions.
Kinda puts the big MSM hullaballoo over Clinton's "corner-turning" wins in Texas and Ohio in perspective. But it also qualifies the depth of Obama's lead, and throws into question what we're getting when MSM declares the winner in a given race.
Keep in mind early Texas and Ohio returns from March 4 have yet to be certified, and in a neck-and-neck race like this one, races that were "called" to suit MSM news cycles and not to document actual results may yield tallies substantially different than the final count. In fact, with Texas, we may not know actual delegate counts reliably until June 6, when 67 delegates will be chosen through the 3-stage state convention system, according to MOMocrat blogger (and now Texas Democratic Party delegate), Julie Pippert.
(ETA) Commenter Maria Niles (hat tip!) adds that Iowa votes are not completely accounted for either. Blogger David Redslawsk has this to say:
Given that the Democratic race remains unsettled nationally, the upcoming March 15 Iowa County Conventions (one in each of Iowa’s 99 counties) may still have an important role to play.
You see, not one election national convention delegate has yet been designated in Iowa, no matter what CNN’s delegate counts imply.
...
...especially with John Edwards dropping out, Iowa’s 45 elected delegates remain up for grabs.
Redslawsk, who leads an Edwards delegation in Iowa, underscores the importance of candidates continuing to work their ground game in Iowa:
...across Iowa some 30% of all county convention delegates are John Edwards supporters (more than Clinton has by a handful), and those folks may have to make a choice. The choice they make may determine whether Clinton or Obama comes out of Iowa with the bulk of our national delegates – either one could conceivably pick up all 14 of Edwards’ potential delegates. Normally that wouldn’t matter much, but this time around every delegate may make a difference.
Now, if I were managing the Clinton or Obama campaigns, I'd have a second wave of staffers go through to consolidate initial support as indicated by those January returns. However, according to Redslawsk--
Interestingly, at least locally, only the Obama campaign has been making efforts to woo Edwards delegates. The Clinton campaign seems to be completely missing in action.
What are we to conclude from this? As an Obama supporter, I'd say it's another example of quietly effective, competent campaigning that understands the rules, plays by them, and takes no gain for granted. Slow, steady, methodical ground game--in it to win it.
If I were a Clinton supporter, I'd be wondering why her campaign is slow to show. (It's hard to believe no one will show...right? That incompetence would be hard to fathom.) Because this is a totally legitimate way for her to reinforce existing delegate support, if not pick up more delegates to add to her overall total. And it's part and parcel of Iowa's process, not a party-rupturing push to make Florida and Michigan a new battleground. Yet there doesn't seem to be any Clinton activity in Iowa. Why? (ETA: Talking Points Memo also takes up this issue to help explain why Clinton's now talking about "caucus delegates".)
From all this I conclude that Edwards could play kingmaker long before the actual convention. Many have called for him to step up. Does he want to? Why or why not?
And I also conclude that MSM is not serving the electoral process well. When will we see stories on the facts and the process as bloggers have been talking about, above? What, is the math too hard or the attention to detail too demanding? I'm beginning to realize MSM doesn't care as long as the horse race is exciting, traffic/ratings are up, and huge media conglomerates can report a solid bottom line for 2008. So what if actual news and information falls off the map? MSM 1, public 0.
MSM is like that friend who always seems to have the latest gossip, but is always wrong, maximizes bad feeling, and gooses the drama for drama's sake. You know, like that frenemy you finally left off your holiday card list?
Vote wisely, often, and well--and keep your math-lovin' bloggy friends close, but your giant media monopoly frenemies closer.
Cynematic's personal blog is P i l l o w b o o k.
Great post - I agree completely - love the math & politics geeks :)
Here's one more for you... Iowa http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2008/03/why-iowa-might-still-matter-especially-to-obama/
Posted by: Maria Niles | March 08, 2008 at 12:23 AM
I wonder if Clinton's reliance on paid staffers to do the organizing has left her without the cash needed to cover this level of detail, while still dealing with the ongoing race?
The way Obama's team trained local volunteers as organisers means he has people on the ground with the knowledge and training to step up as needed.
Bring on the math!!
Posted by: Jo MacDonald | March 08, 2008 at 11:23 PM