Lies, damn lies and press reports on the US presidential primaries
"Hilary wins New Hampshire"
"Obama neck and neck"
"Huge swing to Huckabee"
And so on... what the press don't seem to report is that each of these primaries are electing a set of delegates to go to the National Conventions. A Democratic candidate needs about 2,200 delegates to secure the nomination, and about 80% of the delegates come through the state primaries. The rest come from superdelegates who are those in the Senate, House of Representatives and various party people. The Republican system is similar.
New Hampshire is worth 30 delegates. Iowa was 45. And unlike winning the whole state in the main presidential election, the seats are divided up -roughly- proportionally on the number of votes a candidate gets. To compare, California sends 370, Ohio 141 and US Somoa 3.
So what is the real scores (from Wikipedia, which one of the few places I can find this information):
Republicans
Mike Huckabee = 18 (17 Iowa, 1 New Hampshire)
John McCain = 10 (3 Iowa, 7 New Hampshire)
Mitt Romney = 24 (12 Iowa, 8 Wyoming, 4 New Hampshire)
Fred Thompson = 6 (3 Iowa, 3 Wyoming)
Ron Paul = 2 (2 Iowa)
Duncan Hunter = 1 (1 Wyoming)
Rudy Gulliani = Nil Points.
Only a ten superdelegates have pledged so far.
Democrats
Hilary Clinton = 24 (15 Iowa, 9 New Hampshire)
Barrack Obama = 25 (16 Iowa, 9 New Hampshire)
John Edwards = 18 (14 Iowa, 4 New Hampshire).
The rest, no scores.
The majority of the superdelegates who have pledged have backed Hilary (around 150), but they are not bound to keep their pledges.
So, really, the vote percentages and the rest while interesting to see the under currents don't matter... the race is pretty close, but the press seem to desire to make it BIG NEWS that Hilary WON New Hampshire, despite, at present (6 more delegates to come) she's sharing the votes with Obama, and Edwards is one good result in a medium sized state from being in the overall lead.
Maybe I am missing the subtleties of this, but I don't understand why the press aren't reporting these numbers (which are what really counts) rather than 'winning' and 'losing' which implies the candidate is a dead duck... when they really aren't.
What these two primaries seem to do is set a stall out for the candidates, policies, personalities etc.
"Obama neck and neck"
"Huge swing to Huckabee"
And so on... what the press don't seem to report is that each of these primaries are electing a set of delegates to go to the National Conventions. A Democratic candidate needs about 2,200 delegates to secure the nomination, and about 80% of the delegates come through the state primaries. The rest come from superdelegates who are those in the Senate, House of Representatives and various party people. The Republican system is similar.
New Hampshire is worth 30 delegates. Iowa was 45. And unlike winning the whole state in the main presidential election, the seats are divided up -roughly- proportionally on the number of votes a candidate gets. To compare, California sends 370, Ohio 141 and US Somoa 3.
So what is the real scores (from Wikipedia, which one of the few places I can find this information):
Republicans
Mike Huckabee = 18 (17 Iowa, 1 New Hampshire)
John McCain = 10 (3 Iowa, 7 New Hampshire)
Mitt Romney = 24 (12 Iowa, 8 Wyoming, 4 New Hampshire)
Fred Thompson = 6 (3 Iowa, 3 Wyoming)
Ron Paul = 2 (2 Iowa)
Duncan Hunter = 1 (1 Wyoming)
Rudy Gulliani = Nil Points.
Only a ten superdelegates have pledged so far.
Democrats
Hilary Clinton = 24 (15 Iowa, 9 New Hampshire)
Barrack Obama = 25 (16 Iowa, 9 New Hampshire)
John Edwards = 18 (14 Iowa, 4 New Hampshire).
The rest, no scores.
The majority of the superdelegates who have pledged have backed Hilary (around 150), but they are not bound to keep their pledges.
So, really, the vote percentages and the rest while interesting to see the under currents don't matter... the race is pretty close, but the press seem to desire to make it BIG NEWS that Hilary WON New Hampshire, despite, at present (6 more delegates to come) she's sharing the votes with Obama, and Edwards is one good result in a medium sized state from being in the overall lead.
Maybe I am missing the subtleties of this, but I don't understand why the press aren't reporting these numbers (which are what really counts) rather than 'winning' and 'losing' which implies the candidate is a dead duck... when they really aren't.
What these two primaries seem to do is set a stall out for the candidates, policies, personalities etc.