About Those Texas Caucus "Results" ...
A lot of readers have wondered why the Texas caucuses have been so slow to report to the media. The answer: They're not reporting in great numbers anymore, and they don't actually have to.
Nonetheless, we might still have a decent estimate of the final result for you to consider.
Hector Nieto, spokesperson for the Texas Democratic Party, explained to Election Central that the caucuses elected delegates to the state Senatorial district conventions that will then elect delegates to the state convention, and weren't required to report to the state party headquarters. The results that have come in came from a voluntary system set up in order to help the media get an idea of what to expect the final delegate result to be.
On the assumption that the current results coming from all around the state represent a decent cross-section of the state as a whole, and that all the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama district delegates show up to their conventions in their proper proportions, we can make an educated guess.
Give or take, Obama would get 37 delegates to Hillary's 30 delegates, netting Obama a +3 delegate advantage for the combined Texas prima-caucus. "This is believed to be a good sample of what's available throughout the state," Nieto said. "And if this trend continues, one could estimate that."
Bottom line: Hillary's overall gain for March 4, which had 370 total delegates up for grabs, will be about +8.
Woo! What a big Clinton win! Oh wait, she actually LOST the delegate count in Texas. Way to bury the lead on that one, guys.
March 5, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Oh wait, she actually LOST the delegate count in Texas. Way to bury the lead on that one, guys."
No kidding. The MSM is also failing to cover that Obama actually won Texas on delegates.
The NYT is calling Texas for Hillary, which is only true in the primary, not the Caucus, and not the delegate total. That of course being another example of how hard the MSM has been on Hillary. :rolleyes:
I know that's exactly how and why the MSM sucks. But TPM and blogs are supposed to be better right?
A funny thing is that smaller blogs, people who are still busting their asses to cover the issues the MSM doesn't, they are reporting these facts. It's only the big blogs like TPM who are blowing it, having become far too complacent, focusing too much on stuff like page design, the business back room stuff, and expansion, instead of basics like reporting and keeping the fire in the belly.
TPMC is basically dead except for a few issue advocate hacks. Half of the new staff are flunkies. Josh hardly posts.
March 6, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually the Obama site has reported that Texas election authorities project a +5 net gain,an Obama delegate victory from the combined prima-caucus. The Obama site gives a -4 for the entire evening, net loss to Clinton. Not exactly a sweeping victory, and certainly not changing the delegate situation, only making it worse for Clinton.
March 5, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
basically, what Eric is saying is that Hillary's big night is equal to Obama's victory in Hawaii.
but what cmpnwtr is saying is that it's actually more like Virgin Islands than Hawaii
March 5, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who designed this nonsense? The Texas Two Step? Don't get me wrong--it's working out well for my favored candidate, but seriously: what's wrong with Democrats? They take a simple process, and make it completely incomprehensible to anyone without an advanced degree in reading badly written manuals. And accomplish exactly what? Confirmation of that sneaking suspicion that Democrats wouldn't be able to find their way out of paper bag even with a flash light?
I can get the whole caucus idea--it's cheap. I don't get the "we're going to weight the votes according to how many people voted in this region in the last election" part. WTF?
With this ridiculous system, the Democrats might be close to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. As usual.
My apologies to all for this rant. I'm pretty unhappy with how the Democrats have taken a golden opportunity this election cycle and managed to screw it up seemingly every step of the way. Sure, DNC! Let me throw some cash your way because you're doing such a damn fine job of everything right now!
March 5, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea behind weighing congressional districts differently is that districts that have been historically Democratic should weigh more than districts where it's been traditionally red or purple.
One thing I'm curious about is whether they give the true blue districts higher counts or if they give them uneven counts. If you give a district 8 delegates, then a candidate needs over 60% to score more delegates. If you give a district 3 delegates, it's easier to pick up a lead in delegates.
I actually don't think caucuses are that bad, though obviously they aren't designed to handle heavy turnout. Sure, they're undemocratic. But they measure each side's organization and enthusiasm, and who said those are bad things to have in a general?
March 5, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It rewards active Democratic voters...
Maybe it's wrong, but it's been this way for over 20 years.
It's just never been an issue until now, with two competitive candidates. (well, if you count Hillary as actually having a chance, which is debateable)
March 6, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Eight down, only 142 to go!
That's momentum for you!
March 5, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
anyone want to bet how many delegates Obama wins on sat?
March 5, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
142?
according to Obama's website, make that 155 to go
or 165 by Sunday
with 566 delegates remaining from April onwards, she'll need to break them 366 to 200 to win this
hence: she lost.
March 5, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Hillary cannot win the pledged delegate count, and the Democratic party would be commiting suicide if they overturned the result of vote. As someone pointed out on Hardball this afternoon, the relationship between African Americans and the Democratic party would be ruined for generations. Hillary fans, you're going to have to get used to the idea of losing. If you don't, you'll have a third term of Bush.
March 5, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...you'll have a third term of Bush."
Based on their slimy, scorched earth, kitchen sink attacks on his qualifications and character, I think this is exactly the goal they are aiming for. Because then, theoretically, at least, Hillary would have another chance to run in 2012.
March 5, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can Obama continue to oppose her when Hillary is racking up gains that are nearly in the double digits?
March 5, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary racking up gains in double digits, rabbitsmorgasbord????? Hey, pass that pipe, cuz I wanna have a nice drag on whatever delusion-inducing dope you're smoking.
Hillary hasn't had double digit gains anywhere, and on a day when even Bill Clinton was saying that she would have to win by 25% margins or so in Texas and Ohio-- she didn't even come remotely close.
NOT EVEN CLOSE-- the day as a whole was basically a draw.
Contrast this with OBAMA WINNING 11 CONSECUTIVE STATES BY UTTERLY BLOWOUT MARGINS, something that Hillary has been utterly unable to do.
Dude, buddy-- IT'S OVER! Obama has won the pledged delegates, the popular vote and the states. Hillary cannot overtake him. It's done. Fini.
I've not been an Obama backer, but since the GOP contest has been officially decided, the Democrats need to rally around a candidate-- specifically, the candidate who is leading in the pledged delegate count, as Bill Richardson wisely suggested.
That candidate is Obama.
If the Dems want to have any chance against McCain in November, then the Hillary people need to stop engaging in this delusional charade about thinking that the superdelegates would or even could overturn the pledged delegate count. This would be utter political suicide for the Democratic Party, it would enrage African-Americans to such an extreme level that they would never return to us, and it would cause lasting damage from which the Democratic Party would never recover.
The superdelegates aren't stupid. They're going to support whichever candidate has won the pledged delegates tallied from the states across the nation. That candidate is Obama. It's time to rally behind him.
March 5, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say "in the double digits". I said "nearly in the double digits." A gain of 8, almost 10. Even though 10 wouldn't be enough to help, really. It was a joke. Poking fun at the HIllary supporters who are grasping at straws to justify Hillary's continued attempts to destroy the Democratic party.
Go back to what you were smoking before, it's working fine! :-)
March 5, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny. LOL
March 5, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
+8 for Hillary? Modest yet significant!
March 5, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If you don't, you'll have a third term of Bush."
But what about this:
Maybe Hillary WANTS Obama to lose in the General?
Then she can come back in 2012 unopposed.
McCain ain't getting any younger.
Maybe this explains the muslim smears, the praise she heaps on McCain, and the hopeless dead-ender strategy of hanging in as long as possible for no real reason.
Is this too cynical, even for Hillary?
What do y'all think?
March 5, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Observer2, I've been suspecting what you're suggesting for a while, that Hillary would actually want Obama to lose in the GE against McCain, thinking that she could get the nomination in 2012.
First of all, wouldn't happen-- Hillary would have inspired such palpable rage among the Democrats, that they would never support her. Furthermore, if Hillary were to continue like this, it would become clear to Democrats that any loss by Obama would have been caused specifically by Hillary's tactics, increasing the anger at Hillary to even higher decibel levels. If anything, it would open the path to Obama in 2012.
Second, this is the end of the road for Hillary and her camp knows it. There's going to be a nasty lawsuit against Clinton hitting the airwaves by October. Also, those Clinton tax returns are going to be released immediately (by law), and all those shady dealings with Kazakhstan are going to be exposed. IOW, it's going to be ugly and horrible for Hillary.
She wants Obama to lose against McCain for no other reason than juvenile, petulant pique-- she is frustrated and embittered that Obama snatched away something that she thought should be her coronation, and she could never forgive Obama. Thus, merely out of pique, she would want McCain to win.
Plus, I strongly suspect that the Democratic elders *and* the rank and file would set out to destroy Hillary Clinton's political career for good, if she were to mess up the Democrat's best chance for victory in a generation, by trying to swipe the Dem nomination from Obama by fiat and continuing on in a futile primary race against Obama rather than bowing out gracefully, even when it's obvious that she can never overtake Obama's numbers.
This could take many forms-- further lawsuits against Hillary after November 2008, primary challenges, public denunciations, shaming, ostracism. It's become quite obvious that Hillary is toxic and ruinous for the Democratic Party with the narcissism that overwhelm both her and Bill Clinton, and the party would do best by ridding itself of her.
Remember, the party elders are thinking about the party's long-term viability here, and the Clintons have already done tremendous damage to that. Black voters have already been severely alienated, permanently in many cases, and young voters, college-educated and otherwise have been flocking to Obama. If Hillary uses machine politics to overturn popular support, then the core of people that the Democratic Party needs to survive long-term, will be enraged.
Black voters will never return to us. Educated voters will be turned off and made cynical for good. Young voters will no longer back us. These are the people who have been giving the Democratic Party the deepest support, and they won't come back to us.
(I even know quite a few examples of embittered young, especially professional voters who are so embittered, so cynical about the USA's broken system, that they are emigrating from the USA to countries like France, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, China or South Korea if they know the language.)
IOW, the party elders know that they would have to excise the Clintons permanently from the Democratic Party if Hillary were to cause Obama to lose against McCain, which is precisely what she's trying to do, again out of nothing more than pique. We should all join in that effort.
March 5, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There's going to be a nasty lawsuit against Clinton hitting the airwaves by October."
details?
March 5, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It fits perfectly with her cynicism. Why else is she publicly endorsing McCain over her fellow Democratic candidate?
Since it's very unlikely that Clinton will win the nomination, let's hope the Dems pick up more than a few Senate seats as well, so Clinton can be expelled from the Democratic Party for actively campaigning for a Republican. She and Holy Joe can then go cross the aisle to where their true comfort zone lies.
Bush = McCain = Lieberman = Clinton.
March 7, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary racking up gains in double digits, rabbitsmorgasbord????? Hey, pass that pipe, cuz I wanna have a nice drag on whatever delusion-inducing dope you're smoking.
Hillary hasn't had double digit gains anywhere, and on a day when even Bill Clinton was saying that she would have to win by 25% margins or so in Texas and Ohio-- she didn't even come remotely close.
NOT EVEN CLOSE-- the day as a whole was basically a draw.
Contrast this with OBAMA WINNING 11 CONSECUTIVE STATES BY UTTERLY BLOWOUT MARGINS, something that Hillary has been utterly unable to do.
Dude, buddy-- IT'S OVER! Obama has won the pledged delegates, the popular vote and the states. Hillary cannot overtake him. It's done. Fini.
I've not been an Obama backer, but since the GOP contest has been officially decided, the Democrats need to rally around a candidate-- specifically, the candidate who is leading in the pledged delegate count, as Bill Richardson wisely suggested.
That candidate is Obama.
If the Dems want to have any chance against McCain in November, then the Hillary people need to stop engaging in this delusional charade about thinking that the superdelegates would or even could overturn the pledged delegate count. This would be utter political suicide for the Democratic Party, it would enrage African-Americans to such an extreme level that they would never return to us, and it would cause lasting damage from which the Democratic Party would never recover.
The superdelegates aren't stupid. They're going to support whichever candidate has won the pledged delegates tallied from the states across the nation. That candidate is Obama. It's time to rally behind him.
March 5, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know people reading TPM probably get this, but as an Obama supporter, I welcome the rest of the race ending up pretty much Obama's "loss" today. Just like his "loss" on super tuesday it puts him much closer to the nomination. Obviously an all out win would help solidify the Dem. party, but coming closer to the Dem. nomination is good enough for me.
The math:
Going into tonight Obama had a 160 pledged delagate lead.
Going into last night there were around 1000 delagates remaining in the race. Hillary needed to win 58% of the remaining delagates to tie Obama (to his 42%).
Last night 370 delagates were given out. Hillary Clinton cut his lead (at best) down to 150 last night.
There are now 630ish delagates remaining. Clinton now has to win 390 of the remaining delagates to tie Obama.
That would be 62% of the remaining delagates.....but yeah she won last night???
On the other hand, as long as it is not as dirty as it has been in the past week, a longer primary battle would be great for the Democratic party building a stronger grassroots organization.
***This is all asuming that the Dem party would not have super delagates overturn the pledged delagate vote. I am willing to bet anyone $1000 that that is a fact.
March 5, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Hillmentum equals +8 net delegates. Let Hillthusiasm reign throughout the land! Feel the Hillarity! Feel the Hillmentum.
And I can predict the reaction from Saturday and Tuesday's non-contest already. Those states don't matter.
Seriously, this is what I hate about the MSM buying spin (from anyone). Once you cut through all of the bullshit, you are left with the facts. And the fact is, after all of that crap about drawing even or close on March 4th, we are right were we started the day before. And yet, the virtual hand wringing from pundits on Obama's behalf and the claims of RESET by the Clinton campaign are pretty damn laughable. Are they going to see another reset on Saturday? Or Tuesday? Of course not.
And to think, we have SEVEN MORE WEEKS OF THIS BULLSHIT. Good gawd.
March 5, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this is EXCELLENT news, for you-know-who...
March 5, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's going to happen in the general when all of the 'little' states that Obama won refuse to vote for Hillary and McCain picks up IA, KS, MO, WA, MD, VA that are all in play now.
Good God, they need to form a unity team right now and concentrate fire on McSame and BushCo.
March 5, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Btw, shouldn't this be a front page story. Hillary's crushing victories net her +8 pledged delegates? No? Bigger story is the virtual tie in Democratic contest popular vote(600M+ seems more than a tie, but I don't want to quibble) even though popular vote has ZERO to do with gaining Democratic nomination? Ok. I guess.
March 5, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting the way that the discussion is taking place right now on this board. Some want to believe that Clinton won some sort of mega-victory yesterday while other want to assume that Obama is all but the nominee.
If you take into account recent polls, past histories, regional voting trends, current voting trends, as well as popular vote, and apply it to remaining states, it's not going to be easy for Obama or Clinton to win the nomination.
Clinton would actually, however, need blowouts in not just the "leaning Clinton" state of Pennsylvania, but she would also need blowouts in North Carolina (which is trending more towards Hillary, but at the same time Obama still leads), Oregon, which leans Clinton, Indiana, which will most likely go to Obama, and every other remaining state.
The same is nearly true for Obama. He has to destroy Clinton in Pennsylvania, otherwise his support in the remaining states could swing towards Hillary.
I live in North Carolina. North Carolina's Primary is always in May. We've not really counted before. North Carolinians have realized this now, and it is beginning to spark here. Democratic Voter Registration is up nearly 200% here in the Wilmington, NC area, and I would assume that is also the case in the big cities of Charlotte, Greensboro and Raleigh.
I believe that, if the trend continues to move towards Hillary Clinton, you could see a "bandwagon effect" take place where what were Obama-friendly states begin to lean more towards Hillary Clinton.
And speaking of "big states," everyone is beginning to focus on Pennsylvania, and it's 158 pledged delegates. Let's not forget that here in North Carolina, we have 115 pledged delegates to hand out. The only other remaining state to have more than 100. Indiana is closest with 72.
March 5, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is a very astute observation, and probably underscores the real change in the dynamic. Obama has to arrest her momentum this weekend and in Mississippi next Tuesday. If he can't, it undercuts his strength in other states (including Pennsylvania) and may ultimately kill his movement (movements need victories).
So yeah, I see your point and hopefully other Obama supporters see it too.
March 5, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, you don't seem to understand delegate allocation. It is extremely unlikely that HRC significantly erodes Obama's pledged delegate lead enough that the super delegates can allow her to win, even with a bandwagon effect. While PA has some 150+ delegates, HRC will be lucky to get a net gain of 20 delegates from the state. I would suggest you look at Marc Ambinder's analysis on Atlantic and the Slate delegate counter.
March 5, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
People are locked in a winner take all, general election mindset.
March 5, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iam from NC myself and i do not see Hillary winning NC. Clinton hate runs deep here.
March 5, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
who's you-know-who?
March 5, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
devilandfriends, you may be right.
Hillary would spi na loss in 2008 as the fault of not choosing her. She's brazen enough to try.
Obama couldnt and wouldnt likely even try again in 2012. Michelle has said as much.
But maybe it is just a scorched earth strategy out of spite and bitterness.
The trouble is, the DNC elders, are so cowardly, so weasle-like, that they don't have the backbone to stop this. It is fratricide, and will hand the GOP the vote, but they don't have the cajones to shout her down.
Seriously, when she didn't denounce the "muslim" rumors and we heard nothing from the DNC.
Or when they used racial politics in South Carolina and only a few spoke out.
Nancy Pelosi just said this should continue on and on. When she should have said, it should go on but the negative attacks have got to stop. They should all be saying this. And they don't.
If the superdelegates don't start to wrap this up soon and the Clintons aren't chastised for stepping over the line (the endorsement of McCain comes to mind), we are heading for a trainwreck of historical proportions.
Any true Democrat should worry about these prospects.
March 5, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
cbphillyguy, FlyontheWall has a good analysis of why there's no bandwagon effect.
It's all demographics and it doesn't budge much.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/flyontnewall/
March 5, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
New WaP/ABC poll has BO beating McCain by 12 and Clinton beating McCain by 6. His age seems to be an issue...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030502646.html?hpid=topnews
March 5, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
New WaP/ABC poll has BO beating McCain by 12 and Clinton beating McCain by 6. His age seems to be an issue...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030502646.html?hpid=topnews
March 5, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
New WaP/ABC poll has BO beating McCain by 12 and Clinton beating McCain by 6. His age seems to be an issue...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030502646.html?hpid=topnews
March 5, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And tomorrow the nation will still think that Clinton "won" Texas...
We're obsessed with the delegate count - it's all that matters in the end - and yet Clinton "wins" Texas when she gets less delegates than BO. Strange times indeed...
March 5, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry about the repost
March 5, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are the facts on the Texas delegate race with a statement from the Obama camp,+ 5 projection net gain for Obama from prim/caucuses, more than TPM states here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGB2C5
Obama Wins Delegate Fight in Texas
By Sam Graham-Felsen - Mar 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pm EST
Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content
AUSTIN -- Obama Texas State Director Adrian Saenz issued a statement on the projected primary and caucus results that show Senator Obama won more Texas delegates than Senator Clinton.
“By fighting the primary to a near-draw and earning a resounding victory in the caucus, the people of Texas have moved Barack Obama one step closer to claiming the Democratic nomination for president,” said Adrian Saenz. “Texans in both parties and of all ages sent a clear message that the American people are ready for the kind of change that Barack Obama will bring to Washington, DC as our 44th President."
Because of the close finish, Senator Clinton will likely net only two delegates up-for-grabs in the Texas Primary. Based on a large sample of caucus results in all 31 state senate districts, Senator Obama is projected to post a substantial victory in the Texas caucus and, thereby, net at least seven delegates. This means that Senator Obama will win at least five more pledged delegates from Texas than Senator Clinton.
March 5, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bottomline:
Obama fights to a draw or near draw on her big "firewall" days.
He cleans up everywhere else by big margins.
The nets have bought the spin that yesterday was a "victory" when it was actually another broken firewall. She invested the ENTIRE MONTH of February and all of her resources in OH and TX, states she called "important" because they favored her to begin with, and couldn't get a big win in delegates.
March 5, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Observer2 - You are so right! We need to get out of the "loser" mindset because that is going to be our undoing; especially since it's not true!
March 5, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know it is "boring" to point these things out, but I wonder what the lede would have been if Hillary had won the most delegates in Texas. I'm guessing it would have been something like, "Hillary WINS Texas Delegate War! Good News for Hillary."
March 5, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's even worse.
The final numbers for Ohio are 75 delegates for Hillary, 66 delegates for Obama, net gain of 9
She got another 5 from Rhode Island, but lost 3 in Vermont and another 5 in Texas.
So her final tally is +6 delegates, not +8.
March 5, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Six down, only 149 to go!
That's momentum for you!
(I hereby amend my previous statement.)
March 5, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The final numbers for Ohio are 75 delegates for Hillary, 66 delegates for Obama, net gain of 9
She got another 5 from Rhode Island, but lost 3 in Vermont and another 5 in Texas.
So her final tally is +6 delegates, not +8."
Actually the Obama campaign is giving the final number as net gain of 4 for Clinton for the entire evening with an Ohio tally of 74-65, 7 for Clinton.
March 5, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Four down, only 151 to go!
That's momentum for you!
(I hereby amend my previous statement.)
March 5, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now the Obama folks are cheering because the delegate results don't reflect the popular will?
What amazing principles!
March 5, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this your very first US election, did you just arrive off the boat a month ago, or were you just not paying attention all those previous elections?
The USA is a Union of 50 States, and this is what happens if you don't follow a 50 state strategy.
Hillary has only herself to blame.
And before you go off about how undemocratic it is, let me remind you that the little states have a right to be heard just as much as the big states, and they don't get many chances.
March 6, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
YES as Idiot would say but with a twist THIS IS EXCELLANT NEWS FOR THE IRON WITCH!!!!
March 6, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Caucuses were originally set up in the Dixiecrat South, so that everyone had to vote in public. If you wanted to support a candidate who believed in black rights or populist ideals, you had to do it in front of your neighbors. Over time the state party has realized the overall absurdity of this method as well as its ties to the formerly racist Democratic Party (as opposed to the openly and currently racist Republican Party). Thus, I believe in the 80s, we here in TX created a combined primary/caucus system. Old Dixie voices may quiet, but they never die.
I support Barack Obama, and am happy he had a good enough campaign machine to map out a clear strategy for success, even if that meant using an inherently flawed system to his advantage.
My 2 cents as an Okie born Texan with the soul of a Yankee
March 6, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing I don't like about caucuses is the "voting publicly" aspect. It allows people to see which way the wind is blowing and vote accordingly, calling into question whether the results are a reflection of people's actual desires.
Aside from that, all of the different formats have problems that have been highlighted this year:
Party-run caucuses can be sabotaged by a state rep with a horse in the race (Washington, Republican).
State-run primaries can be sabotaged by a legislature which can run it to the ruling party's benefit (Florida, Democrat).
Open primaries can be infiltrated by members of the opposing party with nothing better to do that day (Michigan, Republican & Ohio/Texas, Democrat).
Closed primaries can be won by a candidate with no appeal to independents (any primary won by Mike Huckabee, Republican).
There's no perfect way to run this thing, but there needs to be some serious discussion done on how to improve it, pronto.
March 6, 2008 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I participated in my precinct caucus and the chairman told me that he had a Thursday deadline for turning in the packet without caucus results. So something more complete if unofficial should be available today or tomorrow.
My Senatorial district is number 13 and its results have been stuck at 35% since early yesterday morning with Obama 79% and Hillary the rest.
Senate District 12 is an interesting case for trivia buffs. Obama beat Clinton by 50,000 votes in Harris County (Houston) and the margin in Senate District 13 was just over 50,000, so it provided all of Obama's margin in Harris County. The district is a snapshot of the demographics of Obama's support -- sizable black neighborhoods combined with affluent liberal neighborhoods, including those around Rice University, the gay community and a traditionally Jewish area that has had an influx of affluent immigrants from Asia.
Obama's netroots campaigning method worked well in my area, but the fact that his votes were a wash with Hillary's in other parts of Houston and earlier in California tells me that it is an effective but insufficient approach in big states like Texas and California. You still need compelling advertising in the big states, and Obama has not been as effective there.
Finally, any political junkies among you should take a look at the county by county results in South Texas. Starr County on the Rio Grande was 85% Clinton, and the Rio Grande counties such as Webb (Laredo), Hidalgo (McAllan) and El Paso were well above 70%. Many of these areas have individuals that, for pay, round up voters and take them to polls. Bill Clinton and the Clinton's key ally, former Land Commissioner Gary Mauro, undoubtedly are experts in this system. Don't look for Obama to challenge some of the unsavory aspects of this practice, but the Republicans will be all over it in November.
March 6, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
To Ricosuave, CogInsystem and Splitting Image: I'm not sure the caucus system was "invented" by the Dixiecrat south, but it was certainly prevalent there. Whatever the Dixiecrats may have done with it, it has benefits. It is a fun, social event in which neighbors get out and find out that some think like them and some don't. It encourages a kind of activism and I think that is good as well. The anonymity of the voting booth is valuable, but it is not everything.
March 6, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still so many delusional Billary Bots.
She has less pledged today than March 1.
a) He won Texas.
b) He's picked up 4 in California (8 delegate swing)
c) He's picked up about 50 supers since Super Tues, she's down 1.
March 7, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Delusional Billarybots part 2.
Does any one really believe that the party elders like Pelosi, Dean, Gore and Reid - really want the Clintons taking over the party. They are just politely biding their time and will take her out when the Maths get sillier.
At this point a vote for Hillary is a vote for Mccain. Only people who can not play chess can not see this - in the meantime these suckers just keep singing to Rush Limbaughs little tune. No wonder they hao much contempt for Democrats.
March 7, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just about everybody in the public knows that Clinton won Texas in the popular vote. If she loses the delegate count, the only thing that emphasizes in the public mind is the illegitimacy of the pledged delegate count as a reflection of the popular will.
So, at the end of the primary process, when Obama is ahead in the pledged delegate count -- but most likely behind in the popular vote -- how much force do you think it will have when the Obama campaign insists that the superdelegates absolutely must follow the pledged delegate count?
Just about zero.
So, Obamabots and Obama campaign, enjoy today's spin about how Obama "won" Texas. Tommorrow, it will bite you in the ass.
March 7, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh... Democracy! aint it grand?
You know the cool thing is that people are jazzed up about this election more than any time in my life (and I campaigned for McGovern in '72 with my Dad).
BTW.. I saw George McGovern at Harstfield airport in the mid 90's - I think he was wearing a suit he used in the '72 campaign, but what a friendly, respectful and approachable dude.
Anyway, I think one of the key stories not being told is how fired up Democrats are this year. The primary turnout for Dems is huge, and doesn't portend well for McCain in Nov. I hope.
Game on.
March 7, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink