WTF does CNN have Clinton with the delegate lead?

CNN Election Center 2008
updated 3:25 a.m. EDT, January 4, 2008
Road to the White House

Delegate Estimates

Clinton 169 (52%) Obama 66 (20%) Edwards 47 (14%)

here:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

When I went to bed, Obama won Iowa by 8%. No other states have voted. What gives with M$M/CNN? I'm half awake, so I could be missing something.

OK, back to bed. Maybe when I wake up, Obama will be in the lead again...:boring:

That page is using publicly committed Super Delegates from what I can tell.

Will those Super Delegates stay with a losing candidate named Hillary?

I'm not a political science major (just a political DU junkie) - but this smells like the corporate media trying to wag the tail again. Just maybe, they don't know what the fuck they are talking about. :think:

...that Obama and Edwards have to overcome, since she's the party favorite.

That's cool. All that means is that Obama just has to keep winning over the *voters* and to hell with the party insiders.

"Total Delegates include the results from Iowa and CNN estimates for other states"

Makes me wonder how good their estimates for Iowa were before last night.

Michigan wasn't going to send delegates to the convention, so Barack and John didn't get their names on the ballot.

Now it looks like they might send delegates.

Which means, 150 free delegates for Hillary.

Ripe for the Clinton picking.

And Michigan is a heavyweight in Dem prez politics.

That does not seem right.

Thanks :hi:

John Edwards and Barack Obama (among others) pulled their names from the Michigan ballot as a pander to Iowa. HRC did not.

Now Obama and Edwards are complaining that HRC will receive Michigan's delegates, since they are not on the primary ballot here, while HRC remains on the ballot. However, as I mentioned before, the DNC has stated Michigan's delegate's won't count anyhow. Despite this, many people have speculated that Fla's and Mi's delegates will eventually be seated at the National Convention...

Imo, Edwards and Obama have no room to complain; no one required them to remove their names from the Michigan ballot. They did so to please voters in Iowa, and in the process, have lost the support of people in Michigan. Cause/effect. Who's to say that Obama would've won in Iowa if he hadn't disrespected Michigan voters to win the support of Iowa voters?

showed HRC with a commanding lead.

Hillary is my least favorite candidate, but facts are facts.

Bill Clinton got 2.8% in Iowa in 92. This the beginning of a process, not the end. Obama did great in Iowa, but he spent 6 million more than any other dem candidate. There are 49 more of these to go, and it is a three way race now.

The media always ignores the actual delegate count.

If Michigan's delegates get counted, it's a whole new race:

especially with a popular female governor there.

This Dem primary is far from over.

Which gives the lie to the "democratic" process.

That's the difference. She gets 15 Iowa delegates because of her third place there. The majority of the super delegates are still uncommitted. She also benefits because she represents a populous state and has 39 super delegates from NY committed.