Outlying at the NYT: Comparing media delegate tallies

Below the fold, I've gathered the current delegate tallies from six major news organizations: CBS, ABC, the A.P., CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times.

The first five media outlets all show Obama ahead in combined "pledged" and "unpledged" or "super" delegates, following his 8-state sweep after the dead heat of Super Tuesday. The average of these five tallies is:

Obama: 1,198
Clinton: 1,147

The New York Times tally, by contrast, is the only one which shows Clinton ahead -- by 83 delegates.

Now, I've been a news junkie all my life. I've only missed reading The New York Times a handful of times since I was 14 years old, and I'm in my late 30s.

So when I see the slanted way the Times as a whole -- not just its editorial department -- has handled the Democratic nominating process, I'm filled with dismay. Despite it's many failings, I considered this "my" paper -- at least until the Judith Miller debacle.

Nowhere is this slant more patently obvious than in this delegate count. (Note: I read that the Clinton campaign is now trying to pressure the media to call the superdelegates "automatic delegates" instead... perhaps to foster the impression that she is automatically going to get them?)

.............................................
CBS NEWS:
Obama 1,242•         Clinton 1,175
.............................................
ABC NEWS:
Obama 1,232•         Clinton 1,205
.............................................
ASSOC. PRESS:
Obama 1,223•         Clinton 1,198
.............................................
CNN:
Obama 1,215•         Clinton 1,190
.............................................
MSNBC:
•Obama 1,078•         Clinton 969
.............................................
N.Y. TIMES:
Obama 993         Clinton 1,076•
.............................................

(Note that the LA Times and many other newspapers are using the Associated Press's tally; and at last, perhaps in a nod to criticism, the New York Times is showing the A.P. tally alongside it's own... which is doubly odd, once you hear their excuse for keeping such a different score; see below.)

So what is the self-appointed Paper of Record's reason for having such a crucial number so out of line with others'. The Times says "it's complicated" counting delegates -- though apparently everyone else finds it complicated in an entirely different way.

Their "rationale" is both simple and stunning: The Times is alone in deciding not to include caucus results in its tally until each caucus state holds its state convention to officially name the delegates.

But this is a pathetic dodge, given that there is no argument to be made that the actual distribution of delegates in caucus states will differ from the caucus results. The names of delegates may change, but not the number. The only effect of this bizarre decision by The Times is to help the Clinton campaign maintain a false appearance of a lead, despite losing all eight contests on Super Tuesday, which was essentially a draw.

I believe in statistics, such an anamoly is called an "outlier." In this case, the emphasis should be on the "lie."