Texas County Convention Results

The results are coming in from the Texas county conventions.

Early results tallied by The Associated Press showed that Clinton had 301 delegates, or 60 percent, compared to Obama's 202 delegates, or 40 percent. That's out of about 7,300 delegates expected to be selected at about 280 county and senate district meetings across the state Saturday.

The major metropolitan areas which should go heavily for Obama aren't in yet. There were a few surprises.

At the Travis County Senate District 25, after a credentials committee heard complaints, 12 Obama delegates were removed and two Clinton delegates were removed.

In Webb County on the Texas-Mexico border, where Laredo is located, Clinton surprisingly swept all 51 delegates because Obama did not meet the 15 percent threshold of caucus support.

Burnt Orange is tracking the results as they come in. As of 5:45 CT, only 19% of the vote is in. It's going to be a long night.

Today's conventions pick delegates to the Texas state convention. According to the Texas Delegate Selection Plan (pdf),Texas has a total of 228 delegates and 32 alternates. Of those, 126 will be primary delegates, 67 will be caucus delegates and 35 are superdelegates. [More...]

2/3 are chosen by the primary vote in the state's senatorial districts. 1/3 are results of the caucuses held the night of the primary.

In the primary, Hillary won with 51 percent of the vote to Obama's 47 percent.

The senatorial district formulas are based on the Democratic turnout for the 2006 gubernatorial election and 2004 presidential election. Here's the breakdown (pdf). The higher the turnout in those elections, the more delegates the district will get this year.

In all, Texas gets 67 delegates to the national convention and has 34 electoral votes.

Update: Texas voting shenanigans, via You Tube.

< Buying An Election? Or Blocking Two? | Bob Casey: Liberal for a Day >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What a travesty (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:19:44 PM EST

    isn't the whole process one? (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:27:56 PM EST
    There's got to be a better way to do this (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:29:47 PM EST
    I guess I am really confused. Can they change (none / 0) (#5)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:42:15 PM EST
    the number of delegates each candidate gets yet again? I thought they were divided between the primary and the first caucuses.  Can you explain exactly what is happening with these caucuses?  I read what you say but I'm not grasping it. Sorry.

    Yes. All caucus states recaucus (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:55:28 PM EST
    at every stage, several times.  This is not the last stage yet in Texas.  No caucus state has completed the process, which does not end until June.

    And that is why I have been saying for eons that the media's "delegate counts" -- especially when used to pressure Clinton to drop out -- are crap.  They are incomplete.  And in the case of one candidate who relied on exploiting caucuses as his strategy, the delegate count is especially "soft" and still not valid.

    I so despise the caucus process for several reasons, including its lack of utility as a predictor at this point as well as larger concerns about this being the way to run a so-called democracy that would bring Jimmy Carter in for the UN if these were countries on other continents.

    But I especially deplore, today, reports yet again of chaos at some caucuses that again look like voter suppression and even voter intimidation.  And this is justified as "party building," but read the reports (on blogs, online media, etc.) to see how many people say they never will take part again and think that the Dems can't herd themselves, much less cats.


    Couldn't have said it better myself (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by DWCG on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:55:10 AM EST
    I'll go even further and say this is the main reason I don't consider pledged delegate counts/caucus results a better indicator of "the will of the people" than actual votes/primaries.

    People went to the polls to vote for candidates, not delegates - and certainly not this faux-democratic process.  So if we're going to still have a convention with delegates and ballots and all, shouldn't it be more inline with the proportionally divided version of the electoral college where a candidate wins a certain percentage of the state on election day and they are sent to the convention with a legal requirement to vote for the candidate they've been elected to represent, at least on the first ballot?


    Here's the travesty: (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:54:17 PM EST
    I live in Ft Worth, TX.  The day of the election, my mother was a paid election worker by the county. She reported the Obama campaign had workers electioneering INSIDE the designated area that NO electioneering was to transpire. I called the Dem county chair to go and stop it.  After he left, my mom told me that the Obama campaign was at it again.  She called Voter Protection @ the Hillary hdqtrs. As I was helping at MY precinct (volunteering for the HRC campaign), I noticed the Obama voters caucusing incorrectly.  As I tried to advise them of the correct methods, I was called a HOST of very bad names taking shots at my ethnicity and my sexual orientation. (Being gay and Chicano, you can probably guess what I was called).

    The Obama voters were very aggressive and refused to hear how the rules worked.  I told them that they were going to have to caucus again today (Mar 29).  They summarily said I was full of crap.

    It doesn't surprise me that there will be a shortage of Obama supporters in some locales.  I would tell them, "Look, we're all Democrats, yes I may be with Hillary's campaign but I don't mind information sharing."

    After the name calling I received and the names that these voters called Hillary, those actions forever turned me off to Obama.  His supporters were rude and cussed anyone out who tried to help them.

    This happened at Precincts 1126 and 1311 in Tarrant County, @ the Unitarian Church on Sandy Lane.  I filed a complaint with our local election board as how the Obama precinct captain handled all this.


    txpolitico (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by faithandhope97 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:08:43 PM EST
    Sorry, you had to endure that kind if treatment, there is no call for this.  

    Thank you (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:12:46 PM EST
    I've been active in politics since I worked for Ann Richards gubernatorial race back in 1990.  To see all these newcomers come in and try to YELL and CUSS at me on how to caucus was offensive.

    I am hoping that ALL caucusing is removed once and for all. People barely know how to mark a ballot much less caucus.  I know this because I had been an elections judge for years.  

    Let's get to one ballot one vote.  Move on with it.


    Ditto... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by AmyinSC on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:30:50 PM EST
    It pains me to read of your experience, and I am really sorry you had to go through that when you were acting in good faith.  

    Along those lines, Obama has certainly NOT been progressive in terms of LGBT issues, and it is reflected in his supporters.  It amazes me wen gay or gay friendly people I know support him given his associates (McClurkin, et al), and his actions, or lack thereof...

    Again - so sorry!


    Tarrant County is a travesty again today (none / 0) (#13)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:01:44 PM EST
    according to a report I just read -- maybe at Burnt Orange, but I've been surfing around.

    I am so sorry you and your mother had to tolerate such voter intimidation and so undeservedly, when you are doing your part in a democracy.  And I am so disgusted to have read so many such reports in every caucus state, starting with Iowa.  And almost all about participants for only one candidate -- a reason that I have had to consider this entire primary process a fraud from the start, at the grass roots, well before the latest garbage from that campaign and now from Dem leadership at the top.

    I hope you filed complaints.  I did so in my state about a far lesser problem at my polls, and it took weeks and a couple more calls to make clear that I was not going away.  But this week, I got a call, an apology, and a promise to take corrective steps from the top election official in my city, a major city.  

    Take steps -- and take care of yourself, too.  And tell your mother she also has an admirer almost all the way to Canada. :-)


    I'm coming to the conclusion that.... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:08:16 PM EST
    ..the idea of a caucus is fine in theory, but they seem to be really easy to manipulate.

    They're great social events and a lot of fun (none / 0) (#45)
    by badger on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:51:36 PM EST
    and most years they're irrelevant to the nomination, so I've usually defended them on that basis.

    In my epxerience (and I don't think it's unusual from others I've talked to) there is essentially no organization and little attention paid to the rules.  I know exactly which votes I could challenge at our caucus because most of my neighbors were in the wrong precincts (they had no map at the caucus this time and made no effort to assign people correctly) and the people in my group mostly weren't my neighbors at all I was in the right group).

    In 2004 the next step was the county convention, and they decided since the alternates drove all the way down there, they should get to vote too, along with anyone else who showed up. This year it's by legislative district instead of county, and the woman running it spends most of her time in mailing-list flame wars with other local Dem officials - it'll be a disaster, which is why my wife is a delegate and I'm not.

    This is not democracy at its finest, but in small towns there isn't much else to do this time of year.


    Thanks for your comment. (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:09:40 PM EST
    Omigosh there's more that happened today at the Fort Worth convention.  Hillary supporters were being challenged left, right, front and center.  One man, who actually was smart enough to videotape himself on his video cellphone @ the March 4th caucus, was challenged to his being present and signing his own name.

    His date and time-stamped video shut down that Obama supporter.  This same supporter was asking for people to re-sign their signatures because she was saying that certain voters were not present and their signatures needed to be verified.

    All her challenges were false.  After her sixth attempt, she was not recognized anymore.

    What a darn joke.


    Same strategy as Illinois (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:32:20 PM EST
    where the signatures were challenged by Obama.

    It's confusing (none / 0) (#12)
    by zyx on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:01:29 PM EST
    Is that a travesty?

    apparently Obama didn't make the 15% (none / 0) (#25)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:34:59 PM EST
    threshold not just Webb county but also in Star county and perhaps a couple of others in the Rio Grande Valley.  i also understand that while McLennan county was originally reported as an Obama win, Hillary took it today.

    and this whole confusing travesty will be repeated at the state convention in june.  this is fubar.


    Cameron County (Brownsville) in the valley (none / 0) (#30)
    by reality based on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:46:14 PM EST
    is reported by the San Antonio Express News to have gone 63% Clinton, 31% Obama, 6% undecided.  Bexar County (San Antonio) is chaotic according to the Express News.

    Probably the wrong place to put this, but (none / 0) (#66)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:57:53 AM EST
    I just started laughing when I read this..
    after a credentials committee heard complaints, 12 Obama delegates were removed and two Clinton delegates were removed.

    Given how much time and effort Obama has put in over the years finding disqualifications for his opponents, I think this is poetic justice, and rather amusing as well.

    I like this quote (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by dianem on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:39:50 PM EST
    "They're engaged in a coordinated strategy to challenge our delegates and we're not," he said. "It's disappointing to see the Clinton campaign throw up these obstacles."

    We wouldn't want any obstacles in the way of voting, now would we? I doubt he gets the irony.

    Have you seen this ? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Gabriele Droz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:07:26 PM EST
    Obama campaign shenanigans:



    Wow, that's quite a video. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:13:23 PM EST
    I would bother to get angry if I thought that it would make any difference. I'm so disgusted but I just know they will get away with it. Jeebus.

    Ann (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:20:46 PM EST
    You probably don't look at her blog.  But, Ann Althouse has been all over this.  Her son is an HRC supporter in Texas.

    Jeralyn has linked to his reports (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:40:18 PM EST
    at Althouse -- a sister resident of my state (when she's not on sabbatical) whose blog often is so . . . well, I'll skip that.  So it has been interesting to see her maternal instincts conquer political inclinations, as she has become appalled by what her son reports of the goings-on in Austin.  Btw, his reports are good; he has his mother's gift for a good turn of phrase as well as for understated but righteous anger at what he has seen.

    My progeny that age also have been so turned off of politics as done by some Dems.  Mine are in not interested in revival meetings-cum-raves anymore.  They have been dealing with this lousy economy for this age group entering the job market, as well as the lack of health care coverage and more.  They have grown up with home-grown terrorism in high schools and then 9/11, and they want serious leadership as well as to be taken seriously themselves.  They, like Althouse's son, are voting for Clinton.


    Ann did a post a while ago (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:51:54 PM EST
    explaining why she voted for Obama rather than Hillary.

    I could have saved Althouse (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:39:46 PM EST
    a lot of time and bandwidth.  Her vote for Obama was entirely predictable for anyone who reads her even infrequently, as I do.  She's a Madtowner, in the land of the latte-sippers.  (Local joke and great headline in a paper there was that in Madison, they put their brats -- that's bratwurst -- on croissants.:-)  

    That said, she's also so readable, insightful on some particular points, and has some faithful followers who are good commenters with insights, too.  It has been a shame that she is away from Wisconsin this year, though, with less attention to our local races on which she would be good and usually have more to say -- such as a race for our Supreme Court that is much about race, sadly.  

    And after the last race for our high court, last year, that was such a travesty.  I imagine, Jeralyn, that you read a bit about how that seat was bought for a Republican who then faced censure by the Supreme Court, on which she now sits, for outrageous violations of the bar's ethics code.

    And then there's the infamous Georgia Thompson case here, rivaling the Siegelman case as an example of the Rovian use of the Dept of Justice.  Reading your work on the Siegelman case and his release reminded me so much of the extraordinary ruling that finally freed poor Georgia Thompson, who only recently received another ruling that Wisconsin owes her for her legal fees.  But she lost her house, her reputation, and so much else.


    Do you have a link? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Gabriele Droz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:01:35 PM EST
    I'm trying to get a blog post together with links to back up the video's credibility.  Thanks.

    If you (none / 0) (#47)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:18:29 PM EST
    look through you'll find this is a reoccurring topic for her:



    Good grief! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by OldCoastie on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:57:26 PM EST
    that just puts a horrible knot in my stomach...

    Thanks for the Video! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:40:57 PM EST
    Gabrielle Droz, That YouTube Video: Obama people calling Hillary Delegates in Texas, is an absolute blast. Everybody, click that link above - it's a must see. Very entertaining and illuminating.

    This makes me wonder about the folks (none / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:39:29 AM EST
    that they 'pre-register'. Not all 'dems for a day' they think they are getting are just that. some are folks that want to vote for one of the candidates for the right reasons. They were 'making it easy' for the voter by saying they would turn in their forms for them. But they were also going to 'track' them.

    Too bad my state's voted. I'd sign up as a volunteer for Obama just to see what's happening . . .  


    I am shocked. There is not yet a diary (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:50:18 PM EST
    on the rec list at Daily Obama declaring that Clinton is cheating in Texas.

    Other thread, similar comment (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:10:42 PM EST
    Hillary won popular vote in primary by 4%

    Obama is as much hurt as helped by variation in outcome from caucus because knowing that she won votes, it becomes obvious that the distribution of delegates by caucus subverts the voters will.

    Thus by gaining delegates, he proves that the caucus system is inherently non-democratic...just like Washington.

    Thus his other caucus votes are evident NOT to be expressing the will of the voters.

    Thus rendering his caucus based delegate gains suspect.

    Thus making popular vote counts the only true indication of voters will.

    I've got news for the Obama supporters (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:31:01 PM EST
    The general election AIN'T no caucus

    It hurts Obama to ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Tortmaster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:38:54 PM EST

    ... win more delegates in a primary/caucus than Clinton?

    Chicago-style politics won it for JFK (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:42:51 PM EST
    as well, and those who remember only his enshrinement after his martyrdom do not know that the way he won shadowed his presidency and meant some tradeoffs that made him ineffective -- if oh-so-inspiring and beloved by media, too.

    Cole Porter called it.  Everything old is new again.  So to those of us who are older, sadder, and wiser, this is not news.  And we know what is ahead.


    WE won't get fooled again (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:17:47 PM EST
    The big difference between Obama and JFK (none / 0) (#67)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:10:07 AM EST
    is that JFK was in Congress for 14 years before running for President, as a Congressman and a Senator. Even if he had to make some deals, he still had the chops to get legislation through, and the connections in Congress to do so. I remember that election, and wondering afterwards if Joe Kennedy was really kidding when he joked about how expensive all those votes were. My guess is that he was only half-joking. The Kennedys had lots of political connections throughout the country through Old Joe's business and social dealings. Obama doesn't have anywhere near that sort of machine or that sort of experience in politics. To compare JFK to Obama is silly. One was a seasoned politician with a huge  network to back him up, the other is a neophyte with huge ambitions, and very little to back it up.

    well it's certain that (none / 0) (#31)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:53:33 PM EST
    losing a primary, then winning a simultaneous caucus with far fewer voters, does make caucuses seem silly at best.

    Banning caucuses is the only answer (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:35:20 PM EST
    First of, let me say that it has bothered me for a while that the main stream media has not seriously covered the fact that caucuses are susceptible to  manipulations like the ones we are now witnessing. I think it is entirely the job of the main stream media and press to seriously examine this issue and document what has been happening in caucus processes all over the nation. It bothers me a great deal that one camp or another may be unfairly advantaged or dis-advantaged by such processes.

    We should not permit the legitimacy of a candidate to be questioned by the process (even to that of a party's nomination) like this.

    I suppose anyone can make videos and put it on youtube, and the resources to investigate each and every one of them could be considerable. I can only see one answer to this. We really should work toward abolishing this sort of thing altogether at the root. We should all come together after this nomination and election, and organize to get caucuses BANNED. One person == One vote. The electoral college in the GE is messy enough as it is, we don't need multiple levels of manipulative politics like this. No more caucuses,

    I was at the same convention (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by wasabi on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:06:25 PM EST
    But the caucus captain was a Hillary supporter.  We had no problems and the vote went pretty much as expected.  Hillary lost both Senate Districts in Travis county 2:1.
    I walked out at 7:30 Pm after getting there at 7AM.  There were still resolutions to be voted on.  One of the districts spent at least 20 minutes arguing among themselves over whether the resolutions would be read all at once and then voted on en masse OR if they should take a vote after each resolution.  It took more time arguing than it would have to just vote on each one.  Since it wasn't my district, and I could tell they were looking at another few hours to get through them before our district resumed reviewing propositions, I gave up and walked out.  Gotta love democracy.

    Looks like Obama (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:11:33 PM EST
    is on track to win 60 percent of the delegates at the county level

    Well, the results of TX put to rest any (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:04:05 AM EST
    lingering questions about whether caucuses reflect the will of the voters---they don't.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:36:04 AM EST
    we're clear that -- some -- people vote twice in Texas....those that don't have family responsibilities, or aren't military, or aren't disabled, or aren't elderly...you know, Obama supporters.

    LOL!  Two part process.  That's a nice way of putting it.  Me, I call it, vote early, vote often.

    It must be pretty much of an echo chamber over that that you would come all the way over here.  


    I used to hate that I lived in late states (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:45:39 AM EST
    Now I'm loving that I live in a late state that moved up and has a closed Primary. My former state is the same also.

    I actually 'fit' the Obama profile a bit more than Clinton, but there is no way in heck I could have done a caucus this year. Thankfully, I did have time to pop out and vote. I find it interesting that some of the educated Obama voters can't see what's wrong with how some of these states are handling the Primary/Caucus. Oy...


    It has a two part process that is a travesty. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:40:28 AM EST
    Were you not clear on that?
    The Florida results are a much clearer indication of the will of Democrats than Tx's abomination.

    And the Primary has the majority of delegates (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:48:19 AM EST
    right? Methinks that's a better indicator as to which holds more weight and reflects the will of the people. Voting twice just says some folks have more time.  ;)

    So.. you hear trying to drum up support for (none / 0) (#58)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:41:08 AM EST
    McCain, should Obama be the nominee?
    If so, you're doing your usual mediocre job.

    The chaos at the various Dallas County conventions (none / 0) (#6)
    by reality based on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:48:05 PM EST
    is being documented at the Dallas Morning News live blog.  Not pretty.

    Argh. (none / 0) (#8)
    by eleanora on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:51:05 PM EST
    I read all the links and got more confused than I was before. And does this convention even settle things for good or could final delegate allocation still change at the June 4 meeting?

    The results can change at the State Convention (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by reality based on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:59:35 PM EST
    The Texas Clinton forces have an old master at getting every possible vote in political conventions.  I expect her vote total to be maximized under the circumstances.  I hope Hillary takes him to Denver.

    WHO (none / 0) (#14)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:03:12 PM EST
    is this supposed king-maker?

    Yes, in theory (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:36:04 PM EST

    In theory, it can change again, according to the rules.

    In practice, however -- in most years it doesn't change, or not enough to make much difference between the original caucuses and the final convention.

    This is why some of the news outlets which report delegate counts, use the term "projected" delegate counts from caucuses to indicate that they are not yet final.

    Most years, in practice, the "projected" counts, (based on projecting from the original caucus proportional counts), are usually close enough to be considered generally firm.

    Its just this year, has been a very different set of circumstances, eg blow-out turnouts of first-timers etc, and all the other stuff, that we've read about here and elsewhere.

    So, short answer is yes, the numbers might change again at the state convention, or then again, they might not! We live in very interesting times <grin>


    Good Lord... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Fredster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:08:11 PM EST
    What a cluster-**    FUBAR!!

    The obamamaniacs over at (none / 0) (#36)
    by kenosharick on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:14:57 PM EST
    americablog are screaming their heads off that Clinton is cheating and "stealing" the caucus. I scan their threads and all they do is bash Hillary all day long in every thread-no matter the subject. I can't go there anymore.

    good let them spin themselves silly (none / 0) (#61)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:54:08 AM EST
    I'm waiting for Hillary to get the sympathy vote.

    I've had enough of their juvenile bs,

    btw, what is fubar?


    Old WWII acronym (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ricosuave on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    F'ed Up Beyond All Recognition.  Glad I could explain, but if only you had access to some type of searchable information system piped into your house that was designed for lookup up the answers to questions like this...perhaps we can get Al Gore to invent one!

    Very funny! (none / 0) (#77)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:46:22 PM EST
    FUBAR EXPLANATION (none / 0) (#62)
    by Fredster on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:15:17 AM EST
    Will get me banned or something. It's something f'ed up beyond repair

    that YouTube is crazy (none / 0) (#39)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:52:22 PM EST
    doesn't a scandal need to happen to bring the issue of caucuses to the forefront?  If there is a pattern by the BO camp, can this and the other video from the primary help de-legitimize the process?  

    Does anyone know when the final results will be in?  Thanks!

    The YouTube video (none / 0) (#46)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:16:19 PM EST
    of the Texas shenanigans is incredible...

    Disclaimer: I am not that Andy  ;-)

    Besides watching to the video (none / 0) (#48)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:20:37 PM EST
    you should read what is written on the side

    About This Video

    Ok...so I called the Obama campaign. Sure enough they had me in there as an Obama delegate. He wasn't nearly as misleading as Renee's phone call...obviously since we didn't have the sense to tape that call. Anyway...here is the video. He was acting like it was just all a big mistake...but once I stopped acting like a confused person and started laying into him...his excuse was, "I've heard you guys are doing the same thing...I'm not listening to you anymore...click." So he knows what he's doing and it's deliberate and it's on tape. He probably wasn't as misleading with me since Renee had called before me and chewed them out and they show us at the same address. So I wonder if they put an asterik next to our address...so they knew not to pull the same BS

    Ok, the accusation Hillary cheated is in (none / 0) (#51)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:48:04 PM EST
    a diary on the Rec list now:

    i'm sure caucuses (none / 0) (#63)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:28:53 AM EST
    are great social events. they aren't a great way to select a nominee. i suspect someone's fiefdom would be at risk, should the caucus method be done away with. it won't be.

    Just a question.... (none / 0) (#64)
    by ConsiderChange on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:57:46 AM EST
    Where the caucus votes of March 4 COMPLETELY counted?

    Nope (none / 0) (#65)
    by wasabi on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:58:08 AM EST
    I heard from someone on the credentials committee that several precints in a county north of Austin never did turn in their March 4th paperwork, so they will not get to send anyone to the state.

    Bill isn't Hillary. Why would she quit (none / 0) (#68)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:22:11 AM EST
    when she is gaining on Obama? Is he such a weakling that he needs to get rid of the competition to win?? Sure has worked for him in the past, but this isn't state level politics, he is playing with the big boys and girls now and he has to finish the race, all the way to the end. With all his supporters calling for Hillary to drop out, I wonder if they know something we don't about his stamina and attention span. If he can't finish the primary campaign, he shouldn't be running. This is the big leagues, you can't win by getting your opponent to quit, you have to win it by being the best. Obama doesn't make that criteria. Most of his races have been easy, given his propensity for eliminating his opponents through disqualification. This one won't be, and frankly, I don't think he has the stones for a real battle.

    Question: (none / 0) (#70)
    by Publicus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:26:24 AM EST
    Did Bill Clinton say Hillary would quit if she lost Texas?

    stop trolling (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:31:36 AM EST
    here. I already deleted that comment once. She did win the Texas primary. By 4%. She could get zero delegates at yesterday's caucus convention and she would still have won the Texas primary.

    Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Publicus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:09:43 PM EST
    The person that won the most delegates won Texas.  Hillary lost and should honor her promise to quit the race should she lose Texas.

    Reading this post (none / 0) (#73)
    by facta non verba on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:49:03 PM EST
    and the comments leave me wondering why am I in Harare, Zimbabwe monitoring an election when fraud seems more prevalent in Texas. Zimbabwe today has been largely calm though tense awaiting the trickle of election results from around the country. My job today has been primarily unofficial, basically providing guidance to the opposition on what to look for in terms of fraud and advice on how to write press releases (Western press has been limited). I had trouble getting into the country on my European passport on Wednesday. The EU was not allowed to monitor the process, so technically I have unofficial observor status which means no access to the Electoral Commission. The South African Development Community has monitors in place and yesterday and this afternoon I met with the American contingent here. There are 10 US State Dept hosted observors, again officially unofficial. But we all have ears and eyes. I am currently at the Spanish Embassy here in Harare (I have a Spanish passport) and the atmosphere is very relaxed basically awaiting Mugagbe's next move. Full results are no expected until late in the week. The Zimbabwean monitors here are exceptional. We provided some training earlier in the week but really we have to keep a low profile. The Zimbabwean Election Support Network deserves a lot of credit for making this election transparent. It is amazing that even with the deck stacked against them, they got some 9,000 poll observors stationed around the country. More later.

    I am horrified about the mess in Texas. I thought you were not supposed to mess with Texas.

    Abuse observed at convention (none / 0) (#75)
    by lucymahan on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:39:11 PM EST
    I was an alternate delegate to one of the county conventions in the Rio Grande Valley, TX, where Clinton supporters outnumbered Obama supporters. Our convention was organized and managed by Clinton supporters. I observed Obama delegates being disenfranchised with no recourse. The Clinton chair of one caucus said that he just "knew" that the Obama supporters had submitted too many names from the precinct caucus, and therefore he was taking away two of their delegates, delegates who had been authorized by the credentials committee, and instead adding two unauthorized Clinton delegates.
    Outsiders from the Clinton campaign meddled in convention activities and organized the shouting of "Hillary" during the Obama video. In contrast, the Obama supporters sat quietly and respectfully during the Ann Richards-Clinton video (which Richards' two sons have disavowed).
    It was never in doubt that Clinton would carry this county, but the tactics employed by some Clinton supporters left me feeling embarrassed for them and disappointed.
    As a longtime past Clinton supporter and veteran Democratic convention attendee, I found that Saturday's activities just reinforced my commitment to the Obama campaign.

    Interesting. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:37:07 PM EST
    You're the very first person I've read who's seen this come from the Clintonites.

    Hillary Rodham Clinton's Texas campaign is challenging the seating of delegates from numerous precincts for Saturday's Democratic county conventions, particularly in Barack Obama's strongholds.

    State Senate District 23, which includes much of southern Dallas County, was a central target of the Clinton campaign.

    Just before Wednesday's deadline to file complaints before the county convention credentials committee, Clinton campaign officials delivered a large packet of challenges.

    "There are numerous challenges," said Dallas County District Clerk Gary Fitzsimmons, who is temporary chairman of the District 23 credentials committee. The district went solidly for Mr. Obama in the primary, and there's a question over whether Mrs. Clinton will reach the 15 percent threshold needed to receive delegates.


    I witnessed the same in SD 16 where numerous challenges were brought against Obama delegates.

    The majority credential committee report was not agreed to by the whole convention until a compromise was made to reflect some of the minority report findings.