After the Iowa caucuses in early January, we saw tallied results that showed Barack Obama picking up 16 delegates. That number, though, was actually a projection of expected results when the Iowa Democratic Party met for its state convention.
As it turns out, Obama ended up doing even better.
Democrat Barack Obama expanded his fragile lead in delegates over rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday, picking up nine delegates as Iowa activists took the next step in picking delegates to the national convention.
More than half the 14 delegates allocated to John Edwards on the basis of caucus night projections switched Saturday to Obama.
Iowa Democratic Party officials said that with all of the delegates picked, Obama claimed 52 percent of the delegates elected at county conventions on Saturday, compared with 32 percent for Clinton. Some of the delegates picked at Saturday’s conventions were sticking with Edwards, even though he’s dropped from the race since Iowa held its caucuses in January.
Democratic Party projections said the results mean Obama increased by nine the number of delegates he collects from the state, getting a total of 25 compared with 14 for Clinton and six for Edwards.
Now, it’s worth noting that there appears to be some disagreement about just how many new delegates Obama picked up last night. The AP says it’s nine; NBC says it’s five; and I’ve seen some reports indicating that it’s seven.
Regardless, whatever the number, it helps Obama pad his already sizable lead among pledged delegates, and offers a round of helpful news. As Ben Smith noted, “It’s a welcome — and meaningful — gain for Obama on a tough weekend, and a result both of his long, hard work in Iowa and of a situation in which Clinton’s attacks seem to be turning off party activists.”
Two other side notes to consider. First, Iowa isn’t unique in this process. Other states’ caucuses work in the same way — electing people to go to state conventions — and it’s a reminder that some of the other delegate totals may fluctuate a little.
Second, the AP article on this included one phrase that stood out.
Twelve automatic delegates bring the state’s total to 57. Obama has been endorsed by four of those and Clinton three, with the remainder uncommitted. (emphasis added)
This is the first time I’ve seen a neutral news report use the “automatic delegate” phrase, instead of the universally accepted “superdelegate.”
The Clinton campaign began recommending “automatic delegates” about a month ago, believing the subtle shift would help soften the blow if party insiders ended up overriding the pledged delegates. The push didn’t seem to go anywhere, the campaign was gently mocked for trying to change the wording in the middle of the campaign, and the talk seemed to disappear.
And yet, the AP, without explanation, dropped “superdelegate” (which everyone now recognizes and understands) in favor of “automatic delegate” (which no one recognizes or understands). It’s a little jarring.
To be sure, there are far more offensive media errors playing out during this campaign, but as Josh Marshall noted, “I think it’s a good journalistic principle not to switch terminology in the midst of an election campaign or public policy debate at the bidding of one party or another, unless someone makes an extremely good case that the existing word choices are patently misleading. And doing it at the behest of one party to the dispute is almost always bad practice. Otherwise the journalists whose job it is to sift through the spin become its messengers, wittingly or not.”