Has Clinton won ANY state in the pledged delegate count?

[MH1]

Current scorecard of pledged delegates: BO-63 HC-48 JE-26

How the states went:
Iowa: Obama by 1 (O 16, C 15)
New Hampshire: Tied (O 9, C 9)
Nevada: Obama by 1 (O 13, C 12)
South Carolina: Obama by 13 (O 25, C 12)

Numbers are taken from CNN's scorecard candidate pages: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#val=1918 (Obama) and http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#val=1746 (Clinton)

I know Clinton expects to win some states on 2/5, but isn't this a bit of an under-reported story? She hasn't actually won ANY states yet?

(cross-posted in GD-P. Feel free to K, R, and defend as need be.)

[karynnj]

1. Not to mention the Nevada results deseve an * as much as Barry Bonds does.

It seems clear that the Clinton dominated party engaged in voter suppression and dirty tricks.
1) It seems they made 2008 a caucus - just for this year.
2) The lawsuit was a blatant effort to suppress the vote
3) The Taylor Marsh et al, followed up by Clinton himself, claim of union intimidation and voter suppression was an attempt to intimidate the union from doing the normal actions of communicating their endorsement to their members.
4) What appears to be the party/Clinton camp moving the time up a half an hour in some places.

This and the Clinton lies may forever disgrace him further. He had been very lucky that his successor was so bad.

[sandnsea]

2. They keep distorting it with superdelegates

or with Nevada and their ridiculous claim that the actual human being delegates haven't been chosen so the vote doesn't matter. If this were anybody else, the story would be Obama is running away with the nomination. Maybe the Kennedy endorsements will change the media story.

[Dr Ron]

3. New Hampshire ballot placement

Also keep in mind that while Clinton got the momentum out of New Hampshire, she very likely only won due to ballot placement. The New Hampshire ballot has over 20 names on it as they allow a bunch of people who aren't serious candidates to get on the ballot. In the past they have randomized them in different areas, but this time they were in alphabetical order. Clinton was first and Obama was way down the list. Considering how close it was, this ballot position could have accounted for the margin. In terms of delegates, New Hampshire got it right in calling it a tie. I'm curious as to whether Clinton's supporters in NH had any influence in changing how the names are ordered on the ballots this year.

The Clinton campaign has been based upon showing a sense of inevitability from the start. They have managed the news well in getting New Hampshire, Nevada, and Michigan to be considered victories for her. In reality Obama has won or tied every event for delegates. Plus two of Obama's wins were by significant margins, considering that Clinton came in third in Iowa and had less than half his votes in South Carolina.

I'm hoping that the media starts portraying Obama as the leader in terms of delegates won in previous primaries/caucuses going into Super Tuesday.