1 post tagged “super-delegates”

The New Zealand MSM is still reporting that Clinton won Texas in the Democratic primaries, even though NPR has been doing some tallying and found, with the super-delegates, that Obama probably took the state:

The Texas Democratic Party says Obama’s wider caucus margin will probably give him a 37–30 break in the delegates allocated from the caucuses. The primary had almost twice that many delegates at stake, but Clinton’s primary margin there was much narrower. So when the two steps are all done, the projection is for Obama to emerge with 98 delegates to Clinton’s 95.

Guess some journalists don’t like going back on premature, possibly erroneous reports. Aw, come on, we’ll love you no less (or we’ll hate you no more) if you ate some humble pie, people!
   Some American media outlets are publishing corrections, such as this clarification in a northwestern Arkansas paper:

With about half the caucuses counted, Obama appeared to have picked up seven delegates, erasing his four-delegate deficit from the primary. That moved him ahead of Hillary in Texas by three delegates. If the trend generally holds for the other half of the caucuses, he’ll move up three more delegates, putting him up on her in Texas by six.

   As clear as mud, but from what I read, it sure looks like Sen. Clinton did not win Texas.
   Looks like the media never learned from calling the 2000 presidential election prematurely—or, they are so intent on a Hillary Clinton win. Maybe they are scared of Arkancide, too?