Obama Wins Most Nevada Delegates

Barack Obama may have won the most delegates in Saturday's Nevada Caucus, even though Hillary Clinton bested his statewide turnout by about six points.

A source with knowledge of the Nevada Democratic Party's projections told The Nation that under the arcane weighting system, Obama would win 13 national convention delegates and Clinton would win 12 delegates. The state party has not released an official count yet.

Barack Obama released an official statement celebrating a delegate victory. "We came from over twenty-five points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled," he said.

A current estimate of the national convention delegate count is below, though not all precincts have fully reported.

District 1 Clinton 3, Obama 3

District 2 (Washoe) Clinton 1, Obama 2

District 2 (Rural) Clinton 0, Obama 1

District 2 (Clark) Clinton 1, Obama 1

District 3 (Clark) Clinton 2, Obama 2

At-Large Clinton 2, Obama 1

PLEO Clinton 3, Obama 3

UPDATE: The Obama Campaign is now pushing hard to promote this delegate victory. The campaign is convening a post-caucus conference call for reporters -- something that only winning campaigns usually do -- and circulating numerous Clinton quotes about how delegates are the only thing that matter. From the new press release:

Senator Obama was awarded 13 delegates to Senator Clinton's 12. As Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson said, "This is a race for delegates…It is not a battle for individual states. As David knows, we are well past the time when any state will have a disproportionate influence on the nominating process." [Washington Post, 1/16/08]

Comments (19)

1. That's interesting.....`democracy' in action, as practiced by...the Gambling Democrats? Winner take All is the rule of the land, for better or worse? Guess it depends!

   Posted by Happy at 01/19/2008 @ 6:09pm

2. Mr Melber....keep hope alive, but if it comes down to a Convention fight and "who has the most delegates"?

   No matter who wins, the Dems will be wounded. Somebody will walk away from the Pepsi Center this August with hurt feelings, bruised egos, and no incentive to vote for the Other Guy or Gal.

   Posted by Mask at 01/19/2008 @ 6:11pm

3. What a wacky system. So you can lose and still win.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 01/19/2008 @ 6:12pm

4. Question, what would be wrong with the party funding primary campaigns and having a national primary where the delegates are awarded by percentage? It would get rid of this kind of phenomenon, as well as not weighting the votes of Iowa, NH, and South Carolina citizens so heavily. If the party funds the campaigns as a condition for being on the ballot, you would not have the problem that you do now where only two candidates can afford to compete once multiple states are involved.

   I know it would ruffle some feathers, and the 24 news stations would have to find something else to cover (probably the polls), but so what?

   This is a pretty simple idea, so I am guessing that either there is some good reason to oppose it, or it is just another thing where there are vested interests working against a rational system. But I don't know which, so what am I missing?

   Posted by dentedpat at 01/19/2008 @ 6:20pm

5. Or if you can count the Superdelegates, you can be ahead before the primaries even begin. It's a system that is difficult to understand, but Hillary has certainly benefitted from the Superdelegates.

   Posted by loria at 01/19/2008 @ 6:23pm

6. Gore won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college. Hillary wins the popular vote in Nevada, but is the loser in delegates. There is something wrong when the will of the people is subverted by the process controlled by the parties.

   Posted by CyclingLeft at 01/19/2008 @ 6:41pm

7. Posted by LORIA 01/19/2008 @ 6:23pm

   "Super-delegates" that Hillary won in Iowa are based on support from the state party establishment, whereas Obama won more delegates in Nevada based on the "broadness" of his appeal to Democrats.

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/19/2008 @ 6:49pm

8. This complicated rules. One thing is the rules set upon to 'try to protect the party', another is to deceive democracy...not the Democratic Party!

   They better keep count of the citixens' votes and handle the nomination to whom has the most or else the party's direction will loose credibility.

   Posted by Frank42 at 01/19/2008 @ 8:14pm

9. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/19/2008 @ 7:55pm

   Sure, especially if it's Romney, which LVLIB (not alone, I'll bet) has indicated that he WON'T vote for no matter what because he's a "Temple Mormon".

   Frankly at this point, anybody but McCain I think is in for a tough row to hoe.

   And if the Dems have a Convention fight, he could snatch a 80% Dem victory from the jaws of GOP defeat. (or something like that...heheh...in other words, actually win it despite supporting the war and promising "more of the same" that Bush had done).

   Posted by Mask at 01/19/2008 @ 8:16pm

10. "OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!

    For those of you who still have not heard:

    There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O." You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties and fundraisers. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama. The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.

    So please, SPREAD THE WORD!

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM

    YES WE CAN

    Anne

    Posted by annevilla at 01/19/2008 @ 8:17pm

11. Jeesh, whatever happened to one person one vote? Obama's being silly. BTW, my precinct was unviable, and then I gave a short speech for Edwards, and we became viable.

    9 of 86 people were for Edwards going in, and we ended up with 15 -- and 1 delegate.

    (Slightly better than 1 person one vote, I might add.)

    Posted by jedreport at 01/19/2008 @ 8:24pm

12. Posted by JEDREPORT 01/19/2008 @ 8:24pm

    Edwards doesn't get 2nd (or better) in South Carolina....he has NO reason left to keep running, except ego.

    Posted by Mask at 01/19/2008 @ 8:27pm

13. Anyone but Clinton, Anyone but Clinton. Edwards, not that I like you or Obama better, but get outta there already. I admit its unfair and I would be about as ticked as I could get, if Clinton unfairly was the one who got fewer votes and more delegates. Clinton wont complain because she is afraid of how it looks to stand up for whats right when appearance is an issue.

    Posted by conshame at 01/19/2008 @ 9:02pm

14. Super-delegates" that Hillary won in Iowa are based on support from the state party establishment, whereas Obama won more delegates in Nevada based on the "broadness" of his appeal to Democrats.

    Posted by METTEYYA

    Metteyya, I agree with you. But, I think you might agree that as each caucus and primary comes and goes, what we know and what we think we know are two different things. What I am trying to say is that I don't want to hear anyone complain about the unfairness of the assignment of delegates in NV if they aren't going to also acknowlege that the superdelegates favor Hillary.

    Posted by loria at 01/19/2008 @ 9:17pm

15. Are journalists writing these stories or idiotic misinformed media hacks? GET THE FACTS FIRST BEFORE YOU REPORT - GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!! NEVADA HAS NOT ASSIGNED NATIONAL DELEGATES! HILLARY CLINTON WON!!! THE OFFICIAL statements from Nevada party officials are:

    **OFFICIAL Statement by Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby: (Las Vegas, NV) "The Nevada Democratic Party and its officials have taken great effort to maintain our neutrality in the presidential campaign and the integrity of our process. Just like in Iowa, what was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention, of which Senator Clinton won the majority. No national convention delegates were awarded. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."

    Las Vegas Sun latest report:

    Clinton's win over Barack Obama in Nevada gives her much-needed momentum going into next Saturday's South Carolina Democratic primary, where Obama was seen as having an advantage because of that state's large African-American population.

    Her victory today included a stunning showing at the nine controversial at-large sites on the Las Vegas Strip -- where she won seven of those precincts.

    However, during the late afternoon, the Culinary-backed Obama campaign tried to throw some cold water on Clinton's victory.

    Using arcane caucus math and a formula that figured in Obama's results in rural Nevada, his camp insisted that Obama actually won Nevada by taking 13 of the Silver State's 25 national delegates. However, party leaders put out a statement saying Obama's camp was flat wrong.

    Posted by akchonan at 01/20/2008 @ 04:18am

16. As one smart blogger noted today, "In the face of tough situations and defeat, it is disappointing to watch Obama's behavior contradict his rhetorics for positive change. He has been dismissive of Clinton while uplifting of Reagan. That instigates division among democrats. He was quick to acknowledge a black man's contribution to civil rights and totally unrecognizing of other white men's contribution and even spanned racist sentiment against Hillary for equalizing the contributions of MLK with Johnson's. That instigates division among Americans. When he lost in Nevada he lost his grace and whined, even suggesting the others did not run a clean campaign. His campaign even gave misleading statements about the delegate-winning process. If he's not ready, he's not ready. It's tougher in national elections. He cannot be whining and accusatory all the time. If he thinks being ordinarily candid about questions like "what's your weakness" is good, he's being naive. His answer is not wrong but it's not the kind that will come prudent and respectable in the world stage and even presidential league. No president can be perfect but America cannot go from one extreme (GWBush) to another extreme (BHObama). The experienced person can fail and there is greater probability that an inexperienced person would fail. Obama is running for the presidency now, not because he is called for a vision, but because he is compelled by a favourable condition. His candidacy is not about hope. His hope is about his candidacy. "

    As for Obama's aides and the latest misinformation from the Obama campaign … keep spinning, we are not listening…you are an Obomination to the democratic process AND your candidate…

    Posted by akchonan at 01/20/2008 @ 06:13am

17. The only abomination I see is how the MSM continues to declare the Clintons winners when the only thing standing between them and a total washout is Superdelegates, those paid-for politicos who have made a joke of the democratic process, undermining it at every step. The ever-polite, ever pulling-his-punches Barack gets slandered, his poll workers and union supporters get hit with bogus lawsuits, and Hillary and Bill target the least-educated voters, but Obama is the one who isn't ready? Not ready to roll in filth then call himself leader of a real democracy, and good for him. At this point, if he can't beat Hil and Bill's slime machine and filthy politics, America deserves the Clintons. I won't vote for them; two terms is the constitutional limit for all presidents, and from what so many [including Latinos who voted for them] said, it's Bill they're voting for, not Hil.

    "She's got good past experience as a first lady and a woman always listens to her man," she said. "In this case, her man was a great president." (Newsday, quoting a Latina NV voter.)

    The Latinos and Latinas and black folks who voted for Obama said "He's for the poor" "He marched with us, helped us with our contract" "He gets his donations from regular people not lobbyists". Whose voters sound like they actually learn about their candidate?

    When elections are winner-take-all, liberals are mad, it doesn't give 3rd parties a chance. When the caucuses and primaries are proportional, distributing delegates so sparsely-populated rural areas aren't drowned out by cities, liberals are mad. Let's stop reacting and actually learn about our political system. The proportional delegates and civic meetings face-to-face with neighbors and co-workers are more transparent and fairer to lower tier candidates than at-large primaries counted by Diebold machines and based on TV/radio ads on stations promoting gas guzzlers, war machines and Viagra! You think it's hard getting a few hundred folks to stand up and talk to their neighbors for an hour? Try getting folks to "make time" in one entire weekday only, by the thousands, in precinct after precinct, district after district, county after county - with voting systems anything but transparent. And at the end of the primaries, all we get is delegates [in most states proportional at least], who still have to fight it out in a convention run by political players with no scruples if it's anywhere near close.

    Obama's done all he can to train as many people as possible to learn our system, warts and all. He's only one man with a small team having to fight with one hand behind their backs so Hillary doesn't scream about a "ganging" - what does that remind you of? And all the vitriolic lies they spread about Obama's faith, spreading rumors he's plotting against America! Will it be an abomination if their vitriol sets off assassination attempts, Akchonan?

    Get away from the computer screens from 9 am to 9 pm and get on the phones, wear out some soles to help this campaign, or it'll be the Clintons and their military contractors, and pity the USA. It was the Clintons, after all, who gave Blackwater their first contract after the bombing of the USS Cole. Look it up.

    Posted by Inaru at 01/20/2008 @ 07:13am

18. "The proportional delegates and civic meetings face-to-face with neighbors and co-workers are more transparent and fairer to lower tier candidates than at-large primaries counted by Diebold machines...."----Posted by INARU 01/20/2008 @ 07:13am

    Do you think "Diebold machines" are what won Nevada for Hillary???

    Posted by Mask at 01/20/2008 @ 09:59am

19. The system that we have in this country is no different then trying to win the World Series: it is not the number of runs that is scored (votes), but the number of games (delegates in this case). You can have a team lose the World Series, but score the most points, have the better batting average, etc. Nobody would argue that they were robbed would they? The candidates know the rules going into the election and create a strategy to win based on those rules.

    Posted by dbucks at 01/20/2008 @ 12:27pm