In 2008 Hillary won the Nevada Caucuses 51%-45% but only got 12 delegates to Obama's 13. Good times.
Gotta love caucuses. Any chance similar things happen this year (in either party) or have the caucus systems been adjusted?
The RNC did fix one thing with caucuses: Which is that caucus results will now be binding on the delegate allocation, so you can't have a Nevada 2012 scenario where Romney got the most votes by far in the caucuses, but it didn't matter because the Paul-istas controlled the state party, and can allocate the delegates however they want. This time, the caucuses results will actually bind the delegate allocation.
But that's a separate issue from the Nevada 2008 Clinton/Obama thing that you're talking about. That stems from the fact that the Democrats (and the Republicans, at least in most states) allocate at least a portion of their delegates based on the results in individual congressional districts. So one can end up with a mismatch between the statewide result and the delegate allocation if the statewide winner is getting too many votes in the "wrong" districts. This can happen in both primary and caucus states.
At least the Dems give different numbers of delegates to different CDs depending on how heavily Democratic they are. Most of the states on the Republican side give every single district in the state the same number of delegates, regardless of whether the district has 500 or 500,000 Republicans. So a comparatively "moderate" candidate like Bush could win a bunch of heavily Democratic districts in the Los Angeles and San Francisco metro areas, and end up with the most delegates in California, even if they lose the popular vote in the state overall.
