Oh, i can almost see all the left-wing blogs jumping up and down claiming that he won the texas primary.
Won't matter to them any tiny bit that their candidate will be losing by more than 80,000 votes even after accounting for all the caucus votes.

my understanding is that Obama had the delegate advantage in Texas not the other way around as you have it in the post. He won the caucuses that night although she won the primary. So that 4 delegate advantage is from the primary, the post makes it seem like he needs to make those up when he already did (even if it is not completely settled until all is said and done today, but still).

oops. I see Eric did mention the primary. my bad.

I like Nelson of Florida's proposal for election reform.

One vote, winner takes all.

The money wasted on this election would be better served helping others with charity.

The Dem election process is stupid and wasteful.

Caucuses are for voting.

I get my hogs washed in the triple load machine.

For 2012, the Dem Party can consider banning caucuses, establishnig regional primaries, moving from total delegates to total votes, or creating winner-takes-all contests, whatever.

But for 2008, the rules were clear and transparent (to candidates who bothered to study them in advance). The effort to delegitimize caucuses because they were Obama victories is the real hogwash here. It smacks of the schoolyard bully frightened about losing rank.

The problem isn't caucuses. The problem isn't proportional delegates. The problem isn't, obviously, primaries.

The problem is having the nomination process spread out over six freakin' months.

Let states assign delegates however they want to. Caucuses, primaries, town meetings, rock-paper-scissors, who cares. But have them all do it on the same day. No more of this jockeying for position, and no more of this Iowa-New Hampshire garbage.

One day national primary would solve all of these problems and more.

Eliyah, That's what I was saying. Or meant, anyway. That Hillary's margin over Obama in the primary was in large part thanks to Limbaugh instructing his idiot listeners to vote for Hillary cuz they regard her as more beatable in the general.

Quote: "One day national primary would solve all of these problems and more."

Yes, but there's an obvious problem to this, as well. Most candidates wouldn't have the money to run a national campaign from the git-go.

Maybe we should just have a silent auction.

I like the idea of regional primaries spaced out over two months. Alternate the order every four years, so no region gets too much influence over time. And if we're re-structuring everything, why not hold those primaries in April and May when they will be closer to the nominating conventions and the weather will be less of a factor?

A one day national primary would likely result in the "inevitable" candidate being shoved down our throats. That's what Clinton planned to do on not so superTuesday. Only Iowa saved us from the Clinton machine.

Just got off the phone with my wife. She's on the way home from our county convention where she was an Obama delegate today. The primary vote in our county was almost exactly 50/50. Out of about 22,000 votes cast in the March 4 primary, Clinton won by 400 votes for a 50/49 advantage.

In this county, Clinton seemed to get a lot of Limbaugh-inspired crossover votes. She won heavily in the rural areas and a bunch of my wife's collegues (Republican doctors) all admitted voting for Clinton to mess up Democrats.

However, today at the caucus, Obama won 58/42 in terms of delegates to the state convention. My wife had a blast and says she applied her knowledge from watching survivor to win the precinct for Obama. Our own rural precinct voted 70/30 in favor of Clinton and the precinct caucus favored Clinton as well but not by such a wide margin. At today's convention our precinct had 7 Clinton delegates and 5 Obama delegates and were told that they were able to vote one delegate and one alternate to the state convention. My wife observed that the Clinton delegates were somewhat divided and several of them wanted to go to the Austin convention. So she got together with the other 4 Obama delegates and they schemed to put 2 names forward as delegate candidates but all agreed to only vote for just one candidate. So they held the precinct vote with 2 Clinton candidates and 2 Obama candidates and BAM... the two Clinton candidates split their vote 3-4 while all 5 Obama votes went to just one Obama candidate and despite being outnumbered 7-5 the Obama group managed to elect the single state delegate from their pecinct. The Clinton people never knew what hit them until the vote was over and then they were really pissed. They did manage to elect the alternate though.

My wife says she never would have thought of that strategy without watching survivor. So I guess you do learn something from TV.

I got news for you. The official definition of the winner of the primary is the candidate who accumulates 2025 delegates or more. The criterion is delegates, not popular vote, despite what the Clinton team is trying to spin.

And, if neither candidate can get 2025 delegates, as is now certain, then the superdelegates decide. In that case, it still comes down to delegates, not popular vote. So once again, altogether now: delegates, delegates, delegates.

You know we all argue from here to hell and back about the unfairness or fairness of the caucus system, but the remains: the caucusing states were realities long before this campaign started, and it is not as if this was sprung on the Clinton team as a surprise.

And despite what Bill and Hillary may think about caucuses, they opted to run for president and co-president. Nobody forced them. And now that they are behind the eight ball because of their failure to deal with the realities of caucuses, they are...well to put it mildly..whining.

To me the failure of Hillary to adapt her campaign to the realities of the caucusing system and engineer victories in enough of them to be ahead of the game is kind of convincing proof that she is lacking in the leadership department.

Hillary is one smart gal and very determined. But she has not been able to supplement her talents with leadership, innovation, inspiration, or a true commander in chief's ability to adapt to circumstances in the field.

Now, all she and Bill can do is whine about the "injustices" of the caucusing system. It would be like the New York Giants complaining about not understanding the defensive formations of the New England Patriots, and whining to the referee...look at them. They're lining up in a formation I don't understand. It's not fair!

Had they done that, who do you think would have won the Super Bowl?

On the other hand, the Obama team rolled up their sleeves, went to work, and found out about how caucuses work. That is leadership.

Anyway - Tell your wife another Texas female Democrat says: You rock!

Thanks.....and for what it's worth. The stereotypes don't necessarily hold in this thing. My wife is a a 30-something Latina and hard-core Obama supporter. In our precinct the biggest Clinton supporter is loud and pushy black woman who is our next door neighbor. According to my wife she was so loud and pushy that she managed to split the Clinton group in half which accounted for the Obama minority being able to ambush them and walk away with the delegate.

Actually, I am a Clinton supporter.

Voted for him twice, will vote for her twice and always will support the Clintons.

Proud of it.

I'm curious - if Clinton does not get the caucus win in TX, can she tie it up in the courts?

Clinton Folks:

It's amusing to witness your new found and belated despise for Caucus process.

But you should be more appalled Hillary hadn't fired Mark Penn & Co. Her failure in caucus states speaks volume about her abilties as a cheif executive.

E.g., While Penn was learning the odd rules of the Texas Primary, Obama camp was making Power Point presentations to volunteers across the state.

I think Caucus are very important- because they reward voters who are actively involved in the political process and from all we witnessed so far even Mark Penn- on the top of the pyramid-doesn't appear all that involved in the political process- coz he continues to split his consulting time between Microsoft and Hillary.

Hillary inbability to run a grass root level organization is what is killing her, and a very democratic process called Caucus is exposing her inability.

Only contests that favor Hillary are fair! WHaaaaaaaAAA!!!

Change the rules mid-game to favor Hillary, or you're not a real Democrat! WHaaaaaaaAAA!

Yarrgh.

I just got back from our senate district convention. Clinton carried our county on March 4, by a margin of about 70/30.

Clinton supporters showed up en masse for our county convention, and the margin was still approximately 70/30. Our precinct caucus was allotted 21 delegates: 16 for Clinton and 5 for Obama.

We showed up, did as we were asked, and were seriously outnumbered and outvoted, so our precinct gave the delegate to Clinton.

4,000 people showed up. Check-in was one gigantic clusterf&*k. We arrived at 7, the doors opened at 8:30, we stood in line 20 feet away from the front door, and it took us an hour to get inside. The sign in started 30 minutes late and was extended 30 minutes.

That said, things went very smoothly, all things considered. I left at 4:30 once it became clear we were seriously outnumbered and the Clintonistas weren't going to give on anything.

Our county is on the border. Clinton did will primarily along the border and the (delegate poor) Rio Grande Valley. Elsewhere, Obama prevailed. The popular vote ratio was 60/40 here; but Obama did much better in the March 4 caucuses, suggesting he'd do extremely well in today's caucuses.

But with 25 percent of the returns in, [url=http://www.burntorangereport.com/frontPage.do]Burnt Orange Report[/url] suggests its a little closer thus far.

Judging by this [url=http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2008/03/29/mass-confusion-at-fort-worth-convention/]Texas Observer blog report[/url], our little clusterf&*k really wasn't so bad.

I still think Obama will do much better in today's caucuses than he did in the popular vote, but the going is pretty brutal in some quarters.

As of 8:01 Texas Time.

36% reporting: Clinton 42% Obama 58%

If this thing becomes a blowout, look for the Clintons to file suit:

Clinton campaign may challenge Texas caucus results...

http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=215574

This article pertained to the March 4 election, but today's results may push them over the edge. Once again, though, if they file suit, they are risking backlash from party elders who don't want any more turbulence than we already have.

Even if she wins a suit, what would be the gain? A few more delegates? Is it worth tearing the party apart over?

Somewhat off topic, but Huff Post has people really angry because they are censoring posts and delays are ridiculous. I suggested they come over here and blog.

Obama's lead in delegates so far is astounding:

http://www.burntorangereport.com/

Was anything of these dimensions expected?

Have you noticed that the MSM is hardly covering the Texas convention at all? Any thoughts about how they are going to color the Big Map after the Texas delegate count is final? Will they stripe it, differentiating between primary and caucus delegates, as if it were a split decision? Think of the visual impact of Texas colored in for Obama. Will anchors and reporters finally stop referring to the 'big Clinton wins in Ohio and Texas'?

Having spent some time in NH pre-primary, I would hate to see us lose the early, town hall/living room campaigning that goes on there and in Iowa. It's the best way to 'level' the playing field between the big money, establishment candidate and the one that just 'ring true' with the people up close and in person. If it weren't for those in the beginning, Mitt Romney and HRC would have been set in as nominees long ago, I think ... and I don't think the country would be better off for that!!

Odd idea: divide into 4 regions
-- have an 'early' contest in each region (which was the idea this year with IA, NH, NV and SC),
-- rotate which region goes first
-- rotate which state within a region goes first (great fun when it would be Hawaii's turn!)
-- then regional primaries (or caucuses if the states prefer, I suppose) later, in the same order that the 'early' contests were held.

Compress all that into a workable time period but allow enough between early contests and between regions for, as someone said, the 'story' to develop.

Sounds complex in words, but would be very simple on a chart or spreadsheet. I think it would maximize voter contact and minimize cost.

Newest number: Obama - 59.60 %

Clinton - 40.40%

I don't know if the traditional "early" states (i.e. Iowa and New Hampshire) would be willing to give up that status to other states within their regions, but I do agree that how we do it now is not great.

My own state is lumped into Super Tuesday, and it seems to almost guarantee we get ignored in the rush. I'm convinced that Hillary won here mainly because she was the known commodity, not because she was the better candidate. A visit or two from Obama would have definitely tightened up the race, if not changed it altogether.

The Clintons have complained about the Texas caucus process since the end of February. Senator Clinton said it "made grown men cry trying to figure it out", even though they have run twice under this system when Bill was running in 92 and 96. Then they tried to get the democratic party to delay the caucus. Now that they are officially losing, what will they pull next?

Three items from Texas:

1) There were robo calls this week telling Democratic voters that the district conventions had been cancelled. The state party chair generously attributed this to “enthusiasm” turned to irresponsible acts. I call it dirty tricks.

2) One of my friends is a precinct chair. On March 4, her precinct caucus went 51-49 and they designated 6 delegates for Obama and 6 for Clinton. One of the Clinton supporters wanted to chair the delegation. Fine. On Wednesday of this week he called my friend with many questions; she patiently explained where the convention was being held and how to chair the delegation. On Wednesday evening, he filed a challenge to the Obama delegates from his own precinct. He and she had a conversation on Thursday where he was unbelievably rude. This morning my friend—just six days out of the hospital—went to the convention to make sure the Obama delegates were seated. His challenge was immediately thrown out.

My friend has been active in the Dem Party forever and has proudly displayed pictures with the Clintons in the 90s. Now she is simply disgusted.

Can someone help me understand how these tactics are supposed to build goodwill for Clinton and encourage people to vote for her in the general?

3) I work with college students. Several have told me that their Republican parents are interested in voting for Obama in the general. So is my Republican son-in-law. Not a word about any Republicans wanting to vote for Clinton in the fall!

For those who are insomniac, or who had too much coffee, or who have nothing better to do this saturday night, you can spend the next hour or two trying to sort this out. It purports to explain how the delegates are apportioned, including the 42 that are in play today.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4877

Well, Storm, like I said other logical systems could be devised. Not a bad idea.

You could compress my 10 regions into 5 pretty easily. Take the round one, 5 state initial primary like you suggest and have a lottery in each of the 5 regions to see who goes first. This puts the "getting to go first" into a 40 year election cycle, but that's okay. Better than now where nobody but Iowa and NH can go first.

The second round as well could have a lottery to determine which region is first. Again, each region could have their turn to be first every 5 election cycles. And again, better than now where some states never ever get to go first.

It's amazing that two digital entities on the Internet can come up with better proposals with only 10 minutes thought, than what exists. You'd think that the Party wasn't even trying. Nah, couldn't be that.

Actually, in Texas, primaries are for voting; caucuses are for voting AND party-building! That's why we have both.

Texas is building a strong Democratic Party this year! :-)

Actually, in Texas, primaries are for voting; caucuses are for voting AND party-building! That's why we have both.

Texas is building a strong Democratic Party this year! :-)