I don't understand caucuses
So, how is it that Clinton won Nevada by a healthy 6%, but it appears that Obama actually won more delegates?
Am I misunderstanding something?
Later: A bit of an explanation here. That 13 to 12 Obama delegate advantage is based on a projection that the state delegates elected tonight (which Clinton won?) will vote in April the way they were selected today. It has to do with weighting of the various caucuses.
Am I misunderstanding something?
Later: A bit of an explanation here. That 13 to 12 Obama delegate advantage is based on a projection that the state delegates elected tonight (which Clinton won?) will vote in April the way they were selected today. It has to do with weighting of the various caucuses.
posted by mikevotes at
9:04 PM
2 Comments:
Delegates are apportioned by precinct. The delegate distribution isn't linearly proportional. In fact some rural precincts are given proportionately more delegates in an effort to attract candidates to these areas during the campaign.
Thus, not unlike the electoral college, one can "lose" the popular vote while winning the delegates.
As a side note, I'm shocked with the dismal showing by Edwards. I thought NV was supposed to be a much, much tighter race among the top three.
By
-epm, at 9:13 PM
Edwards is deemed out of it, and with a tight, highly advertised race among the other two.....
Still, you would think he'd at least residually get more than 4%.
By
mikevotes, at 9:22 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home