This is for you, Nihil: yesterday HRC ‘won’ Nevada by 6%; but it is projected that she will get one delegate less than Obama. Just as HRC had got one more delegate than Edwards in Iowa notwithstanding receiving fewer votes. The same explanation applies to both cases: it is also the geographical distribution of votes, rather than simply their sheer number, that counts.
But here’s a crucial difference: in the case of Iowa the MSMedia largely ignored the delegate numbers in order to make the simple and sensational claim that HRC had come third. Yesterday in Nevada the number of delegates has been reported almost as much as the the number of votes, in order to underplay, I guess, HRC’s victory.