Cumulative delegate count (including 'Superdelegates') after last night's primaries: Kerry 310, Dean 161, Edwards 94, Clark 88.
(* Delegates for all states except New Hampshire may change).
Delegates needed to win nomination: 2161.
Percentage of 2161 currently committed, according to the Times: Kerry 14%, Dean 7.4%, Edwards 4.3%, Clark 4.1%.
Number of news stories that points this out: 0
Number of news stories that point out the pledged delegate count: 0
First sentence in Reuters story (emphasis mine): Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry rolled to dominating wins in Virginia and Tennessee on Tuesday, scoring a Southern sweep that knocked rival Wesley Clark out of the race and put the nomination within reach.
Does this bother anybody but me?
I don't particularly care who wins the nomination, but the fact that the media is pimping so hard for Kerry just reeks.
William Saletan at Slate has noticed this too:
By media consensus, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is over. Why? Because John Kerry has won 12 of the 14 primaries and caucuses held so far. And why has Kerry won these contests? Not because voters agree with him on the issues. The reason, according to exit polls, is that voters think he's the candidate most likely to beat President Bush. There's just one problem: The same polls suggest this may not be true.
Two weeks ago, Kerry beat Howard Dean by 12 percentage points in the New Hampshire primary, convincing Democrats around the country that Kerry was their most electable candidate. How did Kerry win? By racking up a 4-to-1 advantage over Dean among voters who chose their candidate because "he can defeat George W. Bush in November." Among voters who chose their candidate because "he agrees with you on the major issues," Dean and Kerry were tied.
Let me say that again: Among voters who picked the candidate they wanted based on the issues, not the candidate they thought somebody else wanted, Kerry did not win the New Hampshire primary.
OK, maybe Dean wasn't the most electable guy. But in the states that followed, voters applied the same theory to other candidates, padding Kerry's delegate count and aura of inevitability. They figured the guy who had won Iowa and New Hampshire was a winner. So, they voted for him, proving themselves right. The biggest delegate prize on Feb. 3 was Missouri, where Kerry beat John Edwards 2 to 1, filling the airwaves with talk of a juggernaut. How did Kerry thrash Edwards so badly? He won "agrees with you" voters by 10 points—a healthy but not awesome margin, largely attributable to the fact that Kerry was the candidate the media were talking about, since he had just won New Hampshire. No, the people who gave Kerry his enormous vote tally in Missouri—and nearly two-thirds of the state's delegates—were the "can defeat Bush" voters, who went for Kerry over Edwards by a ratio of more than 3 to 1.
originally posted by zagg