Results from Texas: Obama Leads Clinton by 3 Pledged Delegates

by Phillip Martin, Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:54:56 PM EST

Burnt Orange Report was following the weekend's TX county conventions and brings us this update - Todd

The current state of the Texas primary/caucus has Obama leading Clinton by 3 delegates. Here is the breakdown of delegates allocated to date.

In the state of Texas, 126 national delegates are primary-chosen, determined on March 4, and 67 national delegates are caucus-chosen, which won't be finalized until the state convention on June 6-7. In addition to these 193 pledged delegates, there are 35 Superdelegates elected from Texas, to total 228 delegates to Texas.

This past weekend, over 280 county conventions (or caucuses, for everyone else) were held in the next stage of the caucus process, just like Iowa had their second stage a couple weeks ago. We tracked the results from the conventions at Burnt Orange Report (besting the coverage of the Associated Press), and with 90% reporting, Obama leads Clinton 55.22% to 44.78%. That translates into a 37-30 pledged delegate lead for Obama.

Here is the overall state of the race, with our sources listed below:

                                                   Obama        Clinton
TX Primary-Chosen Results             61                65
TX Caucus-Chosen Results              37                30
---------------------------------------- -------------------------
Total Pledged Delegates                   98               95

The final caucus results won't be until the state convention on June 6, so these are not final numbers, but rather the current state of the race, should it end today. Obviously the Caucus numbers can and will change in the coming months -- but it's also fair to report where we are now.

We also are aware that these numbers differ than the +5 pledged delegate advantage reported by the Obama campaign. Their results are based on a 38-29 advantage over the caucus weekend -- and with the 10% of state convention delegates not yet accounted for, including over 280 automatic delegates to the state convention ("state Superdelegates" such as County Chairs), it is possible that a 38-29 split is still possible. However, we can only report what we know, and what we know right now is that there is a 37-30 split, advantage Obama.

However you break down the numbers, it is clear that Obama is currently winning in Texas. Even if you take the national Superdelegates from TX into account, Obama is winning Texas.

My only comment about these results is to link back to what I wrote on February 13, about how to win the Texas primary:

Senator Obama could come close to Senator Clinton in the "primary" portion and dominate the "caucus" portion --- the only catch is that those 67 votes that come from the "caucus" system won't be known until June at the Texas Democratic Party Convention.

If the expectations are that Senator Clinton will win and perhaps even dominate in Texas, then even Senator Obama finishing close on Election Day -- with an understanding that he will do well in the future caucuses -- could be enough to count as a win for Senator Obama.




Tags: President 2008, Obama, Clinton, Texas, caucus, Burnt Orange Report (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 117 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Results from Texas (2.00 / 0)

It looks to me like the delegates at the caucuses are looking at the candidates and making their choice based on who is best equipped to take on McCain in November...

Or is that line of reasoning only vaild when they're moving toward Hillary? ;-)


by FlashStash on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:03:40 AM EST

Re: Results from Texas (2.00 / 0)

Actually, that line of reasoning is only valid if you don't understand how the caucus/convention system works.


by bawbie on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:04:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not really (2.00 / 0)

There really wasn't a lot of movement at all from the precinct conventions to the county conventions. A few "rounding" as the numbers narrowed and we worked our way up the caucus pyramid.

The fun part is that we have "state Superdelegates" to our state convention that get to cast a vote in the state caucus-level convention (same as the national model). Though, they only make about 4% of the total delegate population going to the convention, so unless they unanimously back one candidate, their votes are unlikely to shift the 37-30 shift.

We're doing our best to track the state Superdelegates at BOR...


Now a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.
by Phillip Martin on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:13:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not really (none / 0)

If the county chairs mirror their primaries, they could give Clinton another delegate. If they mirror their conventions, she will gain, but not enough to change the results. Clinton won 90% of the counties in the primary, but many flipped to Obama in the conventions.

They may not vote with their districts though. SDEC 26 went 149-58 Clinton at the convention, but both SDEC 26 members went Obama.


by IVR Polls on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:34:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not really (none / 0)

On that line...

Texas "state superdelegates" are hardly like the national ones at all and in my opinion, having talked with lots of them and having been around them at past conventions- they are not thinking about their votes in terms of how their primaries or caucuses played out.

They're mostly all just going to vote for who they support or which candidate they want at the top of the ticket for their county's slate of candidates.


Follow Texas Politics at Burnt Orange Report
by KTinTX on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:44:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not really (none / 0)

Well, that's the way the national supers are supposed to decide as well. I'm not saying that they should be bound by the results, but rather that they would tend to tend to agree with the other voters in their area.


by IVR Polls on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:56:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Results from Texas (none / 0)

Wrong!  I was at our County Convention and the Obama people were trying to game the system.  Our county was small enough that we were able to keep them from cheating very much but THEY DAMNED SURE TRIED.  I have looked at the results from some of the other county conventions and have seen the videos of several and there is no doubt that there were NO Hillary delegates that were changing their minds.  After this election cycle, I will do everything I can to change the caucus system in Texas.  It is an outrage and I have zero confidence in the numbers for Obama.  The only thing I can say is you people are generating a lot of very bad Karma.  I am so glad I am not affiliated with you.


by macmcd on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:53:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Results from Texas (none / 0)

How?  Cheating how?  I've heard this a lot, but I've never seen it explained.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Results from Texas (none / 0)

On Obama guy pretended to be a Clinton supporter and was asking other Clinton supporters to vote for him as a delegate to the State Convention.  But when we checked him out he was an Obama supporter and we discovered Obama people were trying that in other groups also.


by macmcd on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:21:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

By the way, (none / 0)

He was NOT elected a delegate!


by macmcd on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:22:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, (none / 0)

Ahhh, ok.  Well, that's a shame.  I have a feeling that the pratice has been around for a long time.  Sadly, it's not limited to Obama.

Four HRC supporters claiming to be for Obama were running to be elected as delegates in the upcoming California caucus.  They were ferreted out across two congressional districts --- it came to light that they'd (among other indicators) already maxed out their contributions to HRC.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:30:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, (none / 0)

I do not believe you.  All the information and guidance I have gotten from the Hillary campaign was to be absolutely honest and to not contact Obama delegates in any way other than to politely give any help to them that they need.  There has NOT been a hint of a suggestion to cheat or game the system so your suggestion does not have any credibility.


by macmcd on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:29:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, (none / 0)

Believe what you will.  I'm not trying to convice you.  Well, there's this:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/020 8/8583.html

So, there are hints that the HRC camp will try to poach pledged delegates.  It's not illegal, and is tecnically within the rules, but it is a little distasteful.

Anecdotally, I have personally spoken to Obama pledged delegates in Nevada who were encourgaged to jump the fence.  One has an answering machine full of calls from HRC folks.  I've heard them.  If that wasn't the HRC camp, it was someone pretending to be.

As for people pretending to back one candidate over the other, I'm not saying these "fake supporters" are campaign sanctioned attempts. Both HRC and BO have some VERY spirited supporters who might be willing to fudge around.  

You KNOW with all certainty about the fake Clinton supporters in Texas, but can't see the possibility that some Clinton partisans might try the same ruse in California?  That's strikes me as odd, if not a little naive.

In any event, I sincerely hope that any "cheaters" are caught and punished, regardless of who the cheat for.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:57:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep (2.00 / 2)

I have a story that trumps the silliness I hear has been coming from the orange fog. Evidently, there was a rec listed story about Hillary moles making it onto the credentials committee in a county where they were far outnumbered, and that their challenges had to be overturned in open session by the convention.

This is believable - TDP rules sort of encourage it. Delegates are not bound to their initial preference, so in a county or precinct where you are badly outnumbered, your only hope to be a delegate is to hide your preference. This is a game party insiders have played for years.

So let me tell you about my mole:

As you mention, the HRC strategy was to encourage order and transparency, but to be ready to face down Obama's famous rowdy crowds if necessary.

We had caucus training once or twice a day for about a week at our HQ. We were very open, media was invited, and we even allowed Obama-leaners, like a precinct chair who we had previously ID'd for Obama, but who we hoped to flip to Hillary. Most meetings were assisted by a party stalwart who had been not only a state delegate, but a national delegate for Clinton/Gore '92.

Anyway, our stalwart party caucus expert, who I'll call "SM," had open access to everything about our campaign, not just the open portion of our caucus strategy.

So guess who the mole was? That's right, SM was uncovered as an Obama supporter after weeks of lying to us about supporting Hillary. Think that story might make the rec list at Daily Obama?  Not likely.

SM was on the credentials committee, and threw up all kinds of silly procedural flack. The twisted irony, and proof that this mole has particularly low character, is that he knew about his own side's rampant irregularities as we uncovered them. In fact, our organization was so dominant, there is no way he would have known about the breadth of his side's irregularities without seeing our field operation collect them.

I should add, we were well enough organized that we didn't only just oppose anti-Hillary irregularities, we had the resources and the luxury to comb for potential Obama challenges that might make us look bad. We were sensitive to all complaints, even about professionalism of Hillary supporters who were not directly connected to the campaign. We cooperated with angry Obama supporters where there were a couple of disputes. At the end of the entire process, I did not hear one allegation that people in our campaign perpetrated the irregularities that the other side did.

The untold story here is that what Obama's overly enthusiastic law breakers did is not typical of Democratic politics. It's not typical of the Hillary campaign, and it's not typical of any Dem campaign I've volunteered for. It's not quite clear to me what is different about the Obama campaign.


by Pacific John on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:22:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Attempting to characterize (1.50 / 2)

the entire Obama campaign by what a few folks in one county did is intellectually dishonest and doesn't help you make your case for your candidate. You just become another deeply biased partisan less concerned with the rules and fair play and more concerned with making your opponents look bad.  

In my county - Bastrop - we had equal representation from both sides on all committees, everything was done above board, and all challenges were handled professionally and transparently. As an Obama precinct captain and delegation chair, I blew the whistle personally on two of my own delegates who did not have standing, and two alternates as well; although somehow I missed one other which was brought to my attention  the night before but I had no grounds to protest the challenge.  I made a concerted effort to go the extra mile for the Clinton leader in our precinct to help her find alternates to fill two empty slots she had on convention day, and offered her the floor to appeal to the Obama alternates for anyone willing to switch in the interests of fairness.

Butr I also busted my tail to train and inform my Obama delegates about the process, make sure they knew the rules and that we played by them at every turn. At no point did any Obama volunteers or organizers EVER encourage or imply to meina nay way that we do otherwise. In fact, as part of my training package, we placed a lot of added emphasis on getting clarification of any rules that were even remotely unclear and making double-sure we abided by all decisions of the committees.

I could go on about a couple of Clinton leaders who strategically lodged 11th-hour credentials challenges hoping a few delegates hadn't brought ID or proof of their precinct or voting, or trying to lie to delegates about a rules interpretation which we had clearly clarified (I gave the rules report at our convention), or how I lost a delegate who should have been seated at the last minute because I didn't have time to go dig my documentation out of the car and didn't have the energy to argue with the lady...(it wound up not mattering in our caucus anyway as we still won both delegates and one alternate). I could find more stories from my compadres Saturday about such nonsense and have several emails worth of it in my box right now.

But I know, and you know, that would be pointless, because the only reason to carry on about such things would be to paint one side as being less honest and more unethical than the other, when the truth is that there are dishonest and ethically-challenged people of all political persuasions, and most of the Clinton people I worked with were fine folks of tremendous integrity that I look forward to working with this summer and fall.  

I think you should limit your root-hogging to things you have personal and direct knowledge of, and stop trying to paint your subjective


by SuperTex on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Attempting to characterize (2.00 / 1)

Um, I do have direct knowledge. If you re-read my posts, you'll find that I was somehow involved in all of the allegations I mention.

This is factual information that I would be happy to share with reporters.


by Pacific John on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Attempting to characterize (none / 0)

So stick to your factual info and leave out the ludicrous innuendo meant to indict the entire campaign.

you have factual information. Why not present it to the state credentials committee, or your county chair or one of the party's standing committees that deals with such issues? What's your obsession with sharing it with 'reporters'? Are you assuming said reporters will somehow help resolve the problem? You've said this several times now, as though it's supposed to mean you're seeking a fair and impartial ruling of some kind. Sounds like you just want to give your opponents some bad publicity, which is all fine and good in this game I suppose - just be honest about it.
???


by SuperTex on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:42:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Attempting to characterize (none / 0)

You don't seem to have a sense for what is happening here. All of this has already been successfully handled, as far as it can be, within party channels.


by Pacific John on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:39:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Attempting to characterize (none / 0)

I limit my criticism of Obama people to the one I have personal knowledge of.  Because of him and because of the videos that I have seen of what happened in some of the caucuses in Texas, I have no respect for Obama or his supporters with the exception of you because you sound like an honorable person.  I wish you would have been here in the stead of the Obama person we dealt with Saturday in our county convention.


by macmcd on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent (2.00 / 1)

so you want us to believe your Obama story, but you won't believe the Hillary story.

Yeah, you are not biased at ALL??


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:22:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent (none / 0)

Interesting, isn't it?


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Results from Texas (none / 0)

Actually Obama has been sabotaging the Clinton delegates from getting to the convention. Riverdaughter and Taylormarsh both had this on there websites. You can see a video taped phone call of one Clinton precinct captain talking to an Obama camp volunteer on the phone right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nROKBU_Kl Zw&eurl=http://taylormarsh.com/


by apolitik on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:16:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just asking (2.00 / 6)

"However you break down the numbers, it is clear that Obama is currently winning in Texas."

That would include the 100,000 margin of victory by Clinton the day of the primary?


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:04:36 AM EST

Re: Just asking (2.00 / 0)

The Democratic party holds state elections to elect delegates to the national convention.  The only real measure of victory in a state is how many delegates they send to Denver for each candidate.

Anything else is simply a mental exercise.


by bawbie on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:06:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just asking (2.00 / 1)

That's correct.

The will of the people in this instance means nothing.


by Dave B on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:23:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just asking (2.00 / 1)

Delegates represent the Will of the people,

that is WHY delegates are assigned based on votes or caucuses

and that is why bigger states get more delegates since they have more voters in the states.


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:27:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have news for you! (none / 0)

In Texas, Delegates were not assigned based on the votes or caucuses.  Delegates were elected Saturday based on the attendees at the various Conventions and which group your particular precinct fell into.  In our group even though Hillary had overwhelming support  (over 90%) the Obama people tried to game the system and get their people in.  We were paying attention so we were successful at not allowing them to cheat; however, if we had had several hundred people who were voting it would have been much harder.  Obama people telephoned Hillary delegates pretending to be from TX Dem HQ and telling them time or location had changed or that their delegate status had changed.  There is a whole website filled with video proof of what went on.  I, myself, witnessed what was tried at our convention.  My personal feeling is that the Obama people are a bunch of crooks and pranksters who will do anything to win.  I suppose it is an accurate reflection of their candidate.

In addition, delegates to the state convention in early June are also not bound to vote for the person they stated that they support when they were elected yesterday.  I fully expect the Obama people to try to game the June convention also.  Shame on them.  If they had a good candidate, they would not have to try to cheat.

Sorry to sound so negative but I am really upset with what has gone on in the caucus system in Texas.


by macmcd on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:03:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have news for you! (none / 0)

Over on taylor marsh she had a video of Obam guy misleading a HRC delegate on the phone. Texas was so rigged, over 2000 reports of voter intimidation,fraud,rulesviolations, etc... most violationscommitted in favor of Obam.They did'nt even finish counting the final tally of the caucuses stopping at 40%. In Texas 40% is the new majority. I'm from Texas and we tried to complain to the TDP about cases of voter fraud we knew of  (Teenagers that are not 18 caucusing for Obam and no one checking ID or primary record. They were swamped in some precincts. TDP told us there was nothing they could do about it. I have no respect for the TDP. It's an embarrassment.Glad you served at the convention, I wish those at the top of the TDP would get it together. Some prec. did better than others, but they should have been better prepared and Obam just took advantage of it and created chaos.


workingclass artist
by workingclass artist on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hmm, (none / 0)

for accusations like that, you have to provide a link...nooo?


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:24:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just asking (2.00 / 1)

We have a two-part process, so we've got to look at both parts. The legitimacy of the two-step process aside, we have both, and delegates are allocated for both. Obama's currently leading in the pledged delegates.

As an aside, we never had the hard numbers from the precinct conventions, but considering Obama had a 55%-45% lead, and the estimates are that 1 million people voted in the caucuses, that would mean Obama had 550,000 to Clinton's 450,000 votes in the caucuses...


Now a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.
by Phillip Martin on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:08:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just asking (2.00 / 0)

Thanks for putting this together Phillip and clarifying any of the incorrect point made by out of staters.


Follow Texas Politics at Burnt Orange Report
by KTinTX on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:18:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry to say (none / 0)

But you're accepting the premise that a million people caucused, and extrapolating from that.  With a primary, there is no "premise" to accept.  Numbers are clear.  

Additionally, isn't it true that in some areas of Texas, more delegates could be obtained than in others --for the same amount of caucus-goers?  Isn't it determined by how many people in a paticular area voted in the last election?  As I understood it, some of the African-American urban areas had more delegates to win vs. similarly populated Latino neighborhoods.  That's hardly fair.  Again, if that's true, the numbers are far from clear.


by DaTruth on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:22:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry to say (none / 0)

The process of electing a Democrat is about as screwed up as it gets.


by Dave B on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:25:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know what to tell you (2.00 / 1)

The rules were followed. You can argue about fair -- plenty of folks are constructively talking about that in TX, irrespective of which campaign they support -- but it doesn't take away from the reality of the current state of the race:

Obama is leading Clinton by 3 in pledged delegates. That's a fact. Everything else is arguments/opinions...which are fine, but it's interesting how quickly so many (including Jerome) respond so negatively to facts.


Now a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.
by Phillip Martin on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:28:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not disputing the delegate numbers (none / 0)

Let's be clear here.  I didn't dispute whether Obama is going to come out with more delegates, so let's drop that line right away.  

Did you answer my question about delegate apportionment where some locales got more delegates per population than others?  

Remember, this all goes to your comment about the 55-45 split and this "estimate" of participation of a million caucus-goers resulting in the 550K-450K Obama win.  I'm pointing out "facts" that aren't mentioned in this reporting that can easily skew those results, that's all.  


by DaTruth on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:35:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not disputing the delegate numbers (2.00 / 0)

Sorry, I didn't realize you needed your question answered, since you seemed to know the answer.

Yes, areas of the state that had higher turnout in the general election in '04 and '06 had more delegates assigned to them. This is a model that's been in the rules for quite some time. Ironically, some folks in the party wanted to get rid of this a while ago, but numerous Hispanic legislators wanted to keep it in place. And no, I don't have documentation for that -- you'll just have to trust the anecdote.

I really don't mean to get into a war over anything, so I'll step out. All of your points are great arguments, and you make them well.


Now a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.
by Phillip Martin on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:44:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not disputing the delegate numbers (2.00 / 0)

We also have 2 US Senators from each state despite the fact that the states vary widely in population. Not everything is proportional in our democratic system.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:52:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just asking (none / 0)

I am not sure that is actually true.  Some of the more sparsely populated areas have a delegate but they may not have had the number of voters that we had in our part of the state.  I am pretty sure that since it was divided by state senate areas then by precincts within that area that the delegate to voter ratio is not constant.


by macmcd on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just asking (none / 0)

How do we know? The demcrats stopped counting the caucus votes after 40% had reported staing that there was just too many
more lame excuses.... This is one of the reasons HRC tried to get the TDP to postpone the convention, that and  oh yeah! Over 2000 reports of voting fraud. Texas Caucus is rigged pure and simple. Should award according to primary only.
workingclass artist
by workingclass artist on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:33:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just asking (none / 0)

That's absurd. You're basically stating that some people get two votes, right?


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:18:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just asking (none / 0)

People could vote twice in Texas Jerome- once in the primary, and once in the caucus. Have you read any of Burnt Orange Report's detailed posts on this in the last 2 months? Some states have primaries, some states have caucuses, we have both a primary and a caucus. That's our system.

You can't just discount half of our elections. Our Texas election consists of both. There's no splitting of the baby here.

Delegates decide the nomination. The total pledged delegates from the entire Texas process were won by Obama.

I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it. Anything else and you are ignoring the simple fact of how you "win" Texas, where Phillip and I happen to know what we're talking about.


Follow Texas Politics at Burnt Orange Report
by KTinTX on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:15:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0)

I'm stating the rules of the TX primary, which have to be followed. I'm not saying it's fair, it's better, or whatever -- I'm saying that's the reality of what's going on.

Disagree with it all you want, but it's not going to change the reality of what it is. And unless you live in TX, there's really nothing you can do about it.

Superdelegates get to vote twice too, you know.


Now a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.
by Phillip Martin on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:00:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Winning is just delegates (2.00 / 2)

the votes of citizens don't count for Obama people.


That's it, baby; let's go win this election!
by Beltway Dem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:12:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually (2.00 / 1)

Delegates are all that counts per the Democratic party rules.

If you don't like the rules, change them for next time.  But this time we are playing by the rules that were in place when the contest started.


by bawbie on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:14:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Winning is just delegates (2.00 / 1)

We're just reporting what's going on. Obama is leading Clinton by 3-pledged delegates.

We've also received enormous praise from both the Clinton campaign and Obama campaign for our coverage of the county conventions, and we worked with both campaigns to make it happen. I understand the pull to shoot each campaign down, but that's happening less and less in TX as it happens more and more nationally...


Now a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.
by Phillip Martin on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:14:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Winning is just delegates (2.00 / 1)

I followed the BOR reporting all weekend and you guys did an amazing job.

Thanks so much for your hard work.


by bawbie on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:16:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Winning is just delegates (none / 0)


With all due respect for the hard work you are doing, when you say this:

"If the expectations are that Senator Clinton will win and perhaps even dominate in Texas, then even Senator Obama finishing close on Election Day -- with an understanding that he will do well in the future caucuses -- could be enough to count as a win for Senator Obama."

You are not "just reporting what's going on." You are repeating Obama spin and playing the "expectations" game. Once you start talking about what "could. . .count as a win," you are moving beyond straight reporting. As for the "expectation" that Hillary would "win and perhaps even dominate,"  both candidates started with zero votes in Texas.


by freemansfarm on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:04:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And (none / 0)

That was a comment I made 6 weeks ago, and it's shown to be true.

But you're right, that is a comment -- as I acknowledge when I said, "my only comment."


Now a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.
by Phillip Martin on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:17:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And. . . (none / 0)

. . .it's a comment you chose to include in today's post, even it was your "only comment." I did not go searching through your past statements looking for something to prove that you are a partisan.

Again, I respect the hard work you are doing. But don't claim to be presenting "just the facts, Ma'am," when you are also presenting Obama spin.


by freemansfarm on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And. . . (none / 0)

And I'm sorry I said that all my comments were facts. I was trying to "legitimize" my analysis of the post by showing that, hey, I may know what I'm talking about, considering I called what would happen back when most in the media didn't know how TX worked at all. Thought that would make folks take my post more seriously.

Clearly, I need to be more careful with future posts I write for MyDD.


Now a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.
by Phillip Martin on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:57:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And. . . (none / 0)

. . . now I'm sorry I made such a big deal out of it.

Thanks again for all the hard work, and the local knowlewdge.


by freemansfarm on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reporting vs. Spinning (2.00 / 1)

With all due respect for the hard work you are doing, when you say this:

"If the expectations are that Senator Clinton will win and perhaps even dominate in Texas, then even Senator Obama finishing close on Election Day -- with an understanding that he will do well in the future caucuses -- could be enough to count as a win for Senator Obama."

You are not "just reporting what's going on." You are repeating Obama spin and playing the "expectations" game. Once you start talking about what "could. . .count as a win," you are moving beyond straight reporting. As for the "expectation" that Hillary would "win and perhaps even dominate,"  both candidates started with zero votes in Texas.


by freemansfarm on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:05:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Winning is just delegates (2.00 / 0)

yet you can't get those delegates without people voting,

almost as if the delegates represent how the people voted and thus their will?

could delegates actually represent the will of the people who voted for those delegates!!!


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:32:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I am just telling you (none / 0)

I was there yesterday and it is really, really possible in large county conventions for major cheating to go on.  It was tried in our small county.  All it takes of for an organization of conmen to take over and abuse the rules.  

I have absolutely NO confidence that Obama won every county convention in Terrant County.  It is really similar to our county in demographics and we are overwhelmingly supporting Hillary 75% to 23% and nobody can tell me that within a few miles that there is overwhelming support for Obama there.  NO way.  It is just easier to game the system and cheat when there are hundreds or thousands of people in the caucus.  Shame on those who cheated.


by macmcd on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:13:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Winning is just delegates (none / 0)

My, but that's a silly comment.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:06:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just asking (2.00 / 0)

Yes, and in turn that would include the estimated 100,000 - 150,000 Limbaugh Democrats who http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articl es/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to _boost_gop voted for Clinton with the intent of helping John McCain]. There is ample evidence that pro-Clinton Republican voters in Ohio, Texas, and Mississippi were doing so as mischief-makers; there is no corresponding evidence that any pro-Obama Republican voters were doing so for that reason.

Since mischief-making Republicans were considerably less likely to involve themselves in the caucus process, this has been a chance to undo some of the damage that Limbaugh has done to our state's representation in Denver.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:19:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm still skeptical about this... (2.00 / 0)

This presumes every Republican who voted in the caucuses (which isn't more than 2-3% if you actually look at the numbers, and not just estimate like everyone else has) did so b/c of Limbaugh. Plenty of moderate Republicans, who are really independents (TX labels are way different than national labels) voluntarily voted for Obama.

Either way, Republicans are only voting for Democrats....something like .01% of voters in the Republican primary were Democrats. It's a one way street, and they're fleeing the other side.


Now a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.
by Phillip Martin on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:26:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

More nonsense (2.00 / 2)

So, every vote for Clinton from a Republican is automatically a "mischief" vote, while every vote for Obama is "a heartfelt vote"?  Please...totally, totally unprovable --in the least.

Now people are trying to put forth who's vote is sincere and who's isn't.  That's where we've come to.  It's a shame.  


by DaTruth on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:31:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More nonsense (2.00 / 1)

I didn't say that, nor did the article. There's no way to be sure how many votes were mischievous.

In Mississippi exit polling showed that 75% of Republican voters voted for Clinton. It also showed that 75% of Republican voters preferred John McCain as President and would be dissatisfied if Hillary Clinton were to become President, while 25% would be satisfied if Obama were to become President.

That looks very much like a Limbaugh effect to me.

Exit polling in Texas and Ohio is nowhere near as clear, and I'm not making the case that every Republican vote for Clinton was mischievous, nor that no Republican votes for Obama were mischievous. However, it's become pretty clear that we are not talking about small numbers, as was originally perceived, and that there is a very real bias in who Republicans who vote for either candidate actually support.

It's most likely that Clinton had a much-larger-than-expected win in the primary, but would have won it anyway, than that the Limbaugh effect actually flipped the state. But it's not clear either way (and never will be).


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:38:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More nonsense (none / 0)

Obam campaigned in like 4 of the big cities in central texas where there are large urban pops. and big schools. Typical pattern of campaigning which is why he does'nt have and can't carry the other 2/3 of the democratic base. HRC campaigned everywhere all over the state, and drew on long assoc. with hispanic voters. She carried the state overwhelmingly in the primary, check the county map on line it's astouning. Obam et.al, swamped the caucuses and created so much chaos the TDP caved. Sounds like more rovian tactics happening at the conventions. Chicago Rules.


workingclass artist
by workingclass artist on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:44:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just asking (2.00 / 1)

BS!!!!!  In my precinct, Hillary supporters were 100% registered Democrats and long-time workers in local politics.  Of the Obama supporters, 40% said they were Independents and several who claimed to be Democrats are known to be Republicans and are believed to be intending to support McCain in the general.  

This is a personal observation in my own precinct.


by macmcd on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:17:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just asking (none / 0)

Conversely, my precinct convention was Limbaughed.

Six of one, half a dozen of another.

"Saddle up" and "buck up".


by Over the Edge on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:43:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just asking (2.00 / 5)

no, jerome, "winning" is used here in a strictly functional sense, and in a selective amnner. obama "won" texas because he got more delegates, but fewer votes. on the other hand, he also "won" alabama because he got more votes, even though the delegates are tied. see how it works?

the will of the people has nothing to do with "winning", obama-style. the obama campaign is oblivious to the disconnect between the delegate vote collection process and the opinions of the democratic voters in the candidate selection process.


by campskunk on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:30:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just asking (none / 0)

And yet, you're okay with a scenario in which Super Dels hand the nomination to HRC at the convention, even if BO holds a lead in pledged delegates, popular vote, and states won, right?


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:15:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

for the millionth time... (none / 0)

...both candidates need the superdepegates to get enough delegates to win. your "solution" to hillary getting the nomination with superdelegate support is obama getting it with superdelegate support.  i'm struggling to discern how superdelegates supporting obama is somehow clean, and supporting hillary is dirty. help me out here.


by campskunk on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:05:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: for the millionth time... (2.00 / 1)

i'm struggling to discern how superdelegates supporting obama is somehow clean, and supporting hillary is dirty.

Seriously?  I find it hard to believe that you're actually this confused about it.  

It's pretty simple: The SDs giving Clinton the overall win if Obama wins the majority of pledged delegates would be overturning the will of the people, and the basic metric by which the race was run: delegate count.

They can do it, for sure, but there would be the appearance of her "stealing" the nomination if that came to pass, and rightly so, IMO.  Clear now?


by ChrisKaty on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: for the millionth time... (none / 0)

Uh, yeah.  Both need super dels to reach the magic number.  For the millionth time, that's not the issue.  It's a bitter pill either way, but far easier to swallow if the majority of supers support the candidate who wins by all other rational metrics (e.g. popular vote).  This scenario is thus more "clean", however slightly, than the overt overturning super delegate coup that the HRC camp has pursued.  

Now, you "help me out".  This is a simple question, really, and you've not yet adressed it.  Where will your "will of the people" arugment be should the Super Delegates elect to overturn both the will of a majority of voters (popular vote) and those who represent them at the convention (pledged delegates)?

By the way, which "solution" of mine do you refer to?  I wasn't aware I had offered one.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:33:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Shall we call it a tie? (none / 0)


by bookish on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:15:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just asking (none / 0)

Yes, Jerome, it would.

Thanks for asking.


by SuperTex on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:40:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just asking (none / 0)

Yes, it does. Thanks again for asking.


by SuperTex on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Average Joe knows Clinton won (2.00 / 2)

If I were part of the Obama campaign, I don't think I'd be touting a "victory" in Texas via the split primary/caucus. This is a microcosm of what people think is inherently wrong with caucuses.  She won the primary by a significant vote.  That's what people know, and that's how people refer to it.

A caucus --which by its very nature is exclusionary to those who can't attend-- is a poor choice for determining where the majority of voters stand.  

So, will he come out with more pledged delegates? Sure. Will this shed even more light on how silly and unrepresentative the caucus system is? Absolutely.  

Advice: Take your delegates and keep quiet about it.  


by DaTruth on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:17:39 AM EST

What's interesting... (2.00 / 0)

Is that the newspapers in TX this weekend are reporting that, "hey, maybe Obama won TX." For whatever that's worth.

We've got a two-part process, and yes, even our State Party Chair has acknowledged that we need to change this -- though he's embracing the grassroots and trying to get solutions made through the process in place.

If folks want to dump on the Obama campaign, or the TX caucus system, they can. I'd hope they realize, though, the tremendous value in having the caucuses -- it helps our Party identify stronger Democrats. We'll take that, considering how much work we have to turn TX blue.

For us in TX, we have real work to do after the Presidential circuses leave town...


Now a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.
by Phillip Martin on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But again, your premise may not be true (none / 0)

"It helps our Party identify stronger Democrats"?
Says who?  So, should all 50 states have a presidential caucus in November so we can truly identify who the strongest candidate should be?

Come on, man.  It is what it is, but let's not make this kind of definitive statement that really can't be proved.  To me, it helps the party identify who's willing to caucus.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

Now, if you're going to say that someone's caucus vote is more important somehow than someone's secret ballot primary vote, that's not a poisiton I'd like to have to defend.


by DaTruth on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:28:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But again, your premise may not be true (2.00 / 0)

I'm not...

I'm saying in TX, it is a happy consequence to have this many Democrats getting active at the convention level. They got to meet neighbors, feel like a part of a community, etc. Those are benefits that are real in TX (I have no idea if it's true elsewhere), and they're good for our Party in the long-term.

I'm not going to get into a back and forth about opinions and arguments. I'm just here to report what is actually happening in TX..."da truth" if you will. :)

For more about TX, check out www.burntorangereport.com


Now a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.
by Phillip Martin on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:31:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But again, your premise may not be true (none / 0)

Twill be for naught... If Dean doesn't come up with fair resolution of FL. and MICH. These Dems and many others may leave the party if they go with the 48 state plan. Must be done before June or it will look like a fix Chicago - style for Glamour Boy. With pressure for HRC to drop it's already smelling pretty bad.


workingclass artist
by workingclass artist on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:52:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But again, your premise may not be true (2.00 / 1)

You're mis-reading Phillip's statement. The caucus identifies stronger Democratic voters based upon their commitment to attend.

We have over 3 million ID'd Democrats now (we have no party registration here) and 1 million ID'd Democratic activists because of the caucuses this year.


Follow Texas Politics at Burnt Orange Report
by KTinTX on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:34:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But again, your premise may not be true (2.00 / 3)

Judging from everything I have read online, reports from caucus goers in Texas, it seems like it was not a very warm and fuzzy, party building exercise. People seemed angry and left hating people.

How is that good for the party?


by americanincanada on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:42:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well (2.00 / 0)

This is where you're trusting the media, who like to report conflict.

We got around 250+ comments on BOR following the primary conventions, and having read them all, there were just as many (if not more) precinct conventions that went smoothly. Even more went well this weekend (though some went late into the night).

For example, the Dallas Morning News blog almost exclusively whined about the length of the process, and "reported" lots of people shouting and yelling. But reports from Democrats who were actually there suggests that just as many, if not more, had a splendid time.


Now a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.
by Phillip Martin on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:48:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (none / 0)

Phillip: I have problems believing your experience in this regard was much different from mine.

At the precinct convention I helped facilitate, I did not meet one person, including the officers I recruited, who support the caucus system. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've talked to literally hundreds of chairs, captains and assorted volunteers. Not once, have I heard someone say they want to keep the TX caucuses, and I'm quite sure it would have made a head-snapping impression if they did.

I identify the TX caucuses with two people. One is an elderly gentleman who recently lost his sight, and is homebound by his disability, "under house arrest." The other is an elderly recent stroke victim confined to her bed, who could not be count ed at her precinct because there is not proxy a system for people who are physically unable to attend. Both had the STRONG desire to attend the caucuses. We gave a ride to the gentleman. There was no solution for the lady.

The degree of heroics we asked for is beyond cruel, and the line between superhuman character, and the impossible is somewhere between these two people.


by Pacific John on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:54:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But again, your premise may not be true (2.00 / 0)

Well lets just write a party rule that requires them to be warm and fuzzy. We can do that at the state convention June 6-7th in Austin.


Follow Texas Politics at Burnt Orange Report
by KTinTX on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:48:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's fine, but... (2.00 / 1)

How is a caucus-goer's vote ANY "stronger" than someone else's secret ballot vote?  Does it count for more in the November elections?  Can soldiers who are deployed caucus?  Can any person who can't physically attend caucus?  

My point is it's all well and fine to have people fired up about a given candidate.  But you know what?  One person-one vote in an election is what matters.  You don't get extra points for being an activist.  Your vote counts the same as someone who pulls a lever, or sends in an early ballot.    

So, if I'm a registered DEM in Texas --WHO VOTES--why should it matter or be in any way representative if I do/don't attend a caucus?  I've voted!  I've made my choice!  What's so hard to understand about that?  

To imply that a candidate is stronger somehow because they draw more people to a speech or a caucus is just not a good indication of how people really feel.  God, you should have learned that in New Hampshire.  How many media reports were there of "Obama's drawing thousands at his campaign appearances!", where Hillary was drawing far less.  But you know what?  SHE WON!  So much for the excitement factor.  It's not necessarily a good indicator.

I'm not trying to diminish the enthusiasm someone might feel for a candidate.  But to me, someone telling me that a caucus is a derminative in figuring out who TRULY is the best candidate --regardless of what a primary might show?  I don't buy that for a minute.  


by DaTruth on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:47:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But again, your premise may not be true (none / 0)

Yeah, it actually does. It gets people personally engaged in the process beyond simply pulling a lever and going home to sit on their asses in front of the television. And FYI, I've actually participated and had this experience, so there's your f'n proof.


by bookish on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's interesting... (2.00 / 0)

I too followed your reporting all weekend and it was awesome.  Thanks for all the work, even staying up late on Sat. night to update the table.

FYI:  On this particular blog, if you say anything looks good for Obama you will be majorly flamed, but I guess you've already figured that out.

Thanks again for your hard work.


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:42:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Results from Texas: Obama Leads Clinton by 3 P (2.00 / 3)

The progressive Obama supporters seem to miss the irony of their support for regressive caucuses and disenfranchising entire states.


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:59:28 AM EST

Which ones? (2.00 / 0)

Because I support seating FL & MI, and I'm an Obama supporter. So who are you talking to?

Also, I've never said I support caucuses. I've:

1) reported results from the caucuses
2) talked about the happy consequences of the caucuses

I think you're talking to someone who isn't the author of this diary, which makes me wonder -- why comment in this space?


Now a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.
by Phillip Martin on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:10:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Results from Texas: Obama Leads Clinton by 3 P (none / 0)

Ya'll are grumbling so much about the anti-democratic nature of Obama's campaign when, by all metrics I've seen, even those that include FL/MI, Obama has received more votes than Clinton.  (And don't cite a count that doesn't include the caucus states--talk about disenfranchising states!) The rules of the system have skewed Obama's national popular vote total into a slightly larger pledged delegate total (I'd be curious to see an analysis of the size of this distortion).  In some individual states (NV, TX), this has had the perverse but not all that dramatic result of pairing a slight Obama popular vote loss with a slight Obama popular vote lead.  Similarly, in Alabama, it has paired a dramatic Clinton popular vote loss with a tie in pledged delegates.  

But as a "progressive Obama supporter," I'm capable of recognizing that our system introduces all kinds of distortions as it translates our votes into electoral decisions.  The most basic of these is by dividing our votes, in various ways, into individual states.  At the end of the day, as part of my progressive values, it's people I care about, not states.  And as long as Obama is ahead in the popular vote count, then my progressive values see no contradiction in supporting Obama.  If Clinton goes ahead in the popular vote count but still trails in the pledged delegates, then she can use her lead among superdelegates to make up the difference, and everyone will be happy! Right?


by ankylosaurus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:16:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Results from Texas: Obama Leads Clinton by 3 P (none / 0)

My problem with the primary/caucus process is that there is alot of DOUBLE voting going on here.  

Vote early and vote often in Texas, it seems.


by stefystef on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:15:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As I mentioned at burntorange (2.00 / 8)

and got peppered with TRs,

I saw, in our 170 El Paso precincts, a broad effort to shave the vote in Obama's favor. (No, I won't disclose witness lists on a blog. Yes, I will be happy to talk to reporters).

But unlike most of Texas, we were organized and orderly, so our initial caucus preference was close to the popular vote (pv = 69%, precinct convention = 75%). At yesterday's convention, a fraudulent delegate count, for example, was overturned in one of the precincts I oversaw. And due in large part to our ability to turn out our delegates, we took 90% of the county convention.

The central lesson I took from election night is that an orderly, fair caucus vote is similar to the popular vote, and only where there was chaos and vote shaving did our caucus vote fall significantly behind the popular vote.

It's most interesting to me how close the popular vote was to the caucus vote in counties that were well organized enough to efficiently report their results election night, like Travis (Obama) and El Paso (Hillary).

Caucuses are simply illegitimate in their current form, and it's an exception, rather than the rule, when they reflect the voters.


by Pacific John on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:19:05 PM EST

Thank you PJ (2.00 / 2)

for your report on what really goes on and also thanks for your help in the real world.


I didn't believe in god before the primaries and I still don't.
by NewHampster on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As I mentioned at burntorange (2.00 / 1)

Thank you very much for report.
I have read on other blogs the same experience.  

Hillary should fight it, but then she'd look like a trouble maker.  Texas needs to re-evaluate their election process.  Lose the caucus.  It only really works in a smaller, homogenous state like Montana, if it works at all.

I always felt that primaries give the REAL opinion of Americans because it's private.  From that I saw of the caucus in Texas, it looked like a free-for-all.  

You are not alone in your assessment.  Please keep blogging.  Would love to hear more of what happened down there.


by stefystef on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:09:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, I'm not a fire breather on this. (none / 0)

I'm sure a few people deserve jail, but that would not help anyone at this point.

There are a few things at play here: we used the information we had to do the best job possible to make the TDP system work. We did it under the radar, after a warning shot a couple of weeks ago. We did correct a number or irregularities where we were organized.

Also, seeking what I believe to be justice for the voters, would backfire. The media would not be an honest player, and we would have another Hillary-is-evil circus no matter what the facts. It is so shocking and challenging to conventional wisdom to say that there was rampant fraud, that the push back would do anything but provide justice to the 53% of Democrats who were cheated out of caucus delegates.

The only thing I hope to come out of this is recognition that Chicago-style politics and caucuses don't mix well, and dampen the actual will of voters, that the most credible numbers are primary popular vote numbers. It's a pretty obvious case. I belong to a party, that in 2000, was organized around the principle that every vote should count.


by Pacific John on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:23:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, I'm not a fire breather on this. (2.00 / 1)

You're correct. When OBAMEDIA got hold of the letter HRC wrote to the TDP asking that they postpone the convention till mess was cleared up, the OBAMEDIA raised a big stink implying shady things were afoot by the Pink Lady. OBMEDIA did'nt seemed to find it scandalous that her letter listed over 2000 reports of voter fraud in the caucuses.


workingclass artist
by workingclass artist on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:05:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly right (none / 0)

Instead of actually, you know, reporting on whether the 2000 complaints were serious, the media played the story as a political game.

I'm not just a little offended that the press has failed to even kick the tires on this.


by Pacific John on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:32:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A quick look at the NYT numbers (2.00 / 2)

from election night, the only two large counties I can see that reported over 50% of their precinct results were El Paso and Travis (Austin). It's obvious that these two counties' precinct conventions ran well compared to the rest of the state, since so many of their elected chairs were able to call in their numbers to TDP HQ in Austin. They were exceptional in their degree of order.

Their results are as follows (popular vote, caucus vote, county convention Burnt Orange county convention spreadsheet) :

El Paso: 69/29, 75/25, 90.1/9.9 Hillary/Obama
Travis: 63/37, 66/34, 67.5/32.5 Obama/Hillary

I note that Travis, the strongest large Obama county saw three points of erosion for Hillary between the popular vote and the initial caucus reports; El Paso saw six points of erosion for Obama.

I draw these conclusions:

- Austin was run roughly as well as El Paso was - I suspect that the Obama organization was a cut above the rest of the state, as was the Hillary campaign in El Paso.

- I suspect that there was very little cheating in Travis caucuses because the numbers, like El Paso's were similar to the popular vote

- The rest of the state must have been exponentially more chaotic than what I saw in El Paso, and what I suspect from Travis.

- Something went wrong in most of the state that did not in the two well run counties - in chaotic counties, Hillary lagged the popular vote.

- As the Burnt Orange Report wrote a few w