Though Hillary Clinton pulled in about 6% more votes than Obama, he may actually be the winner in Saturday's Nevada caucus. Because he did well in rural Nevada and Clinton's strength was the Las Vegas area, Obama actually won one more delegate, 13-12, under the Nevada Democratic Party's rules.

MSNBC explains:

The more populous Clark County, which Clinton won, awarded a even number of delegates, and Clinton and Obama split those down the middle. Meanwhile, the more rural areas, which Obama won, awarded an odd number of delegates, which gave Obama the edge.

If you look at delegates won, Clinton and Obama actually tied in New Hamphsire, as well. This isn't just spin coming from the Obama campaign. Delegate counts determine the nominee, and those delegates are rewarded proportionally—not in a winner-take-all manner—based on the popular vote from each state.

Then why so much focus on who "wins" a state? Maybe the media is just accustomed to general elections where the winner of a state takes all of that state's electoral college votes. Reporters and pundits seem to prefer that method, because it's a little more exciting than a long, drawn-out accumulation of delegates.

They enjoy racing each other to be the first to declare a victor, often after less than 10% of the vote has been counted. They've spent months painting the race as an epic fight, a gloves-off battle, and reporting delegate ties wouldn't fit very well into that narrative. It just wouldn't be as good for ratings.