• comment on a post Texas Caucus Fraud (Updated) over 6 years ago

    Are you equally concerned about the blatant ignoring of the rules by the Clinton majority in El Paso in how you allocate at-large delegates to the state convention?

    http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_90452 56

    El Paso delegate fight could be resolved soon

    By Ramon Bracamontes / El Paso Times
    Article Launched: 04/25/2008 12:00:00 AM MDT

    The challenge questioning whether the El Paso County Democratic Party properly seated its delegates for the state party convention may be settled this weekend, and if it is not, the challenge will linger until the state convention in June, officials said.

    El Paso lawyer and longtime Democrat Don Williams is challenging the way the county Democrats selected the at-large delegates who will represent El Paso in Austin at the state Democratic convention.

    In his challenge, which was sent to the state party earlier this month, Williams claims that of the 48 at-large state delegates selected by a committee, 37 should have been delegates who support Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for president.

    Instead, the committee appointed only 11 Obama-supporting delegates and 37 Hillary Rodham Clinton delegates.

    "The issue is not what happened on the floor and which delegates were elected at the convention," Williams said. "It's the at-large delegates who were seated who are in question. They were supposed to reflect what the convention looked like."

    According to a report issued at the El Paso County Democratic Party convention, of those in attendance, 75 percent signed up as Clinton delegates, and 25 percent signed up as Obama delegates. During the precinct elections, 120 Clinton delegates, or 90 percent, were elected and only seven Obama delegates were elected.

    Williams contends that because of the precinct conventions, the at-large delegates seated by the committee should

    have been selected in a manner that reflected the convention's attendance -- 25 percent for Obama, 75 percent for Clinton.

    The final delegate count ended 157 for Clinton, 18 for Obama.
    It should have been 131 for Clinton and 54 for Obama, Williams said.

  • on a comment on Counting the people over 6 years ago

    It's two separate contests. Sorry we're unique, but this is exactly the type of reason why basing an argument on an impossible to accurately calculate 'popular vote' is pointless.

  • on a comment on Counting the people over 6 years ago


    The Texas caucus counts (1 million voters) are not included in this chart. They went 55-45 for Obama.

  • on a comment on Counting the people over 6 years ago

    Let's add another layer of insanity onto this chart.

    Texas has 2 separate steps in it's delegate nominating process both of which accord delegates by a vote of the people- a caucus and a primary.

    This chart does not include the vote of the Texas caucus which Obama won by about 10 points and in which an estimated 1 million people voted. So that's another ~100,000 votes for Obama which no one is talking about or including.

    So the talk about "disenfranchised" voters in contests that neither candidate competed in and were asked not to by the DNC (and they both agreed to) wears pretty thin on me. Update the numbers from Texas, and maybe we can talk.

    This all of course ignores the fact that the popular vote in and of itself determines nothing other than a flavor of the day talking point for the Clinton campaign.

  • "Regardless of Texas' wacky rules" It's not regardless- the rules are the rules, rules that Clinton's Texas leadership wrote and worked against her.

    In the primary portion (about 3 million voters) Clinton won more votes and in the convention portion (about 1 million voters), Obama won more voters and he won that portion by such a margin that taken together (because you can't pick and choose half of our process) Obama won more delegates and more 'votes' in the entire Texas process.

    Arguing that you got more votes in half of a process, while nobel, doesn't change the fact (like in the 2000 election) that at the end of the day, it didn't help Clinton win the Texas Presidential Election on either measure.

    It's not personal, it's just the facts- and the facts that actually matter.

  • Clearly you don't understand how the Texas Presidential Process works- I know, it's more complicated than others, but the primary is not separable from the rest of the process.

    The delegates are the only ones in the end that cast determining votes towards selecting a nominee. Clinton did not gain the majority of those from Texas.

  • Incorrect- you've forgotten to combine both elements of the Texas Presidential process which allocate delegates based off a convention process and a primary. The end result was a +3 (maybe +5) net delegate win in Obama's favor.

    http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDia ry.do?diaryId=5492

  • And a lot of good that did. She lost the University of student boxes and caucus sites 3-1.

  • 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.

  • The data has changed a bit even since this post. With corrections in Houston, Obama would be just barely (by about 5 state delegates) above the line to force a 38-19 caucus split for a +5 pledged lead from Texas. That might become more solid as a couple of challenges come to be in districts (one of which is a pretty clear case of misallocation mathematically of at large delegates in SD-26 in San Antonio). We'll update those at Burnt Orange Report as we find out more.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Her people actually wrote the rules for our system before that.

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


Advertise Blogads