Texas Caucus Results Start Coming In

Only 5% in, with Obama at 56% and Hillary 44%.

I'm just looking for Hillary to win the popular vote. That will give her superdelegates a reason to stay with her.

If Obama loses Texas and Ohio, in the popular vote, many Democrats will begin to question whether he can win the big states, especially Ohio, to beat John McCain.

I'm not that interested in the caucuses. I think it's very likely the superdelegates will be deciding this race. Ill be updating this primary vote thread, but here's a place for you to comment on them.

Update: Just heard from a reader who I wrote about this morning. Hillary won his caucus, his report is below:

Wrote to you earlier about my experience at my polling place in Houston. My neighborhood is in the Meyerland/Bellaire area of Houston, a middle to upper-middle class area. Well tonight we had our caucus. By the time it started, I was the only person who had a Clinton credential (the others who were working the location had to go to their precincts to caucus). Of course I wasn't the only Clinton supporter.

Clinton had 76 caucus votes, Obama had 51. So Clinton got 11 delegates to the local convention on March 29th and Obama got 8.

Frankly, this was an tiny but enormous victory for Clinton. Obama had more people outside, more signs (made of plastic and with todays date, so they are headed for the landfill), more everything (donuts, cookies, drinks, including Starbucks coffee...) - they had everything except people who came back and stood for 2 hours to support their candidate.

Of course, none of this is in any way indicative of how any of the other 8000 or so precincts will turn out, but at least anecdotally, it demonstrates that Clinton supporters are a bit more solid behind her than Obama's may be. We're willing to go all the way, and I certainly hope Clinton is as well.

< Hillary Wins Texas | Late Night: The Rising >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How does one explain a discrepancy (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:34:51 PM EST
    Between a caucus and a popular vote?

    You know.  To someone who wouldn't know.

    Popular vote is what you do at the polls on (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:49:38 PM EST
    election DAY.  At night when the polls close are the caucuses.  In Texas, supporters show up and "vote" again for their candidate.  The number of votes for each candidate are tallied and each gets a percentage based on the number of delegates allotted to each precinct.  For instance, in my precinct we had 29 delegates.  BO got 16 and Hillary got 13.  It is based on the number of supporters at the CAUCUS, not in any other vote or place or time.  At the caucus, that evening.  Make sense?  Then those delegates go to the county and state conventions and the votes eventually get allotted to the candidates.  Complicated mess is what it is.  And stupid.  And should be abolished.

    Seems safe to say then (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:52:07 PM EST
    Caucus voters have more free time and more resources to get where they need to go to caucus?

    Well, the disabled, elderly, people who must work (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:56:04 PM EST
    at night, people who have young children, lots of people just can't make the caucuses.  But they can vote early or during election DAY.  This going back at night is a mess.  And it doesn't really reflect the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.



    Obviously the point is (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:34:35 AM EST
    Obama's demographic is the caucus demographic, people who have the time to vote twice.

    Clinton's demographic is the lesser priveledged demographic.

    I did want to make sure.  I'm from California.   I have no idea what a lot of this is about or how it works.


    That's a big part of the argument against... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by sumac on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:04:04 AM EST
    the caucuses. They are at a set time - too bad if you have to work, or have children you have to watch (I saw a number of children with their parents tonight).

    There's a reason we have early voting and voting that goes on throughout the day in primaries - to maximize voter participation/enfranchisement.


    If she loses the TX caucus... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by sumac on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:20:20 AM EST
    This could make a good argument against all caucuses when paired with the results from WA. It's fairly clear that they (caucuses) are NOT representative of the popular vote. The numbers are skewed.

    You make (none / 0) (#37)
    by facta non verba on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:18:19 AM EST
    an excellent point. Thanks!

    1/3 of delegates are selected (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:43:30 PM EST
    via the TX caucuses.  I care.

    50% of harris county is now in (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Turkana on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:43:34 PM EST
    and she's leading statewide by 58,000. san antonio has just 55% in and el paso just 28%. i think she has it.

    I'm feeling that too (none / 0) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:46:55 PM EST
    It just doesn't look like Obama's closing.

    Knock wood, kaynahorah.


    Fox and NBC just called Texas for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:47:54 PM EST
    !!! Wow!

    CNN too! (none / 0) (#14)
    by Iphie on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:51:52 PM EST

    I am just amazed. I had thrown in the towel (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:50:54 PM EST
    and now she's won three of four.

    It's so encouraging (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by vigkat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:52:44 PM EST
    Enjoy it.  Tomorrow they will have had an opportunity to explain it away, somehow.

    heh, 2 words: hard work , she worked damn hard! (none / 0) (#31)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:19:57 AM EST
    I'm feeling good like when her husband was president.

    with the neg. press she's learned to walk on water, afaic.


    The MSNBO Boys (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by vigkat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:51:14 PM EST
    Seem slightly bitter.  What a downer for them.

    MSNBO Boys (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by lisadawn82 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:53:49 PM EST
    Great labeling.  I'll need to remember that one.

    I can't take credit for it (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by vigkat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:58:03 PM EST
    but unfortunately failed to note the name of the person who coined the acronym.  It's so fitting I couldn't resist using it.

    SLIGHTLY bitter is the understatement ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:26:09 AM EST
    ... of the day, I'd say! While Hillary was getting ready to speak in Ohio they were discussing how and when "She" could be persuaded to withdraw from the race for the sake of the party. Almost every sentence began with "She ...," as if it hurt them to actually utter her name. After her speech they were fumbling for words, lamenting that they'd have to keep covering this primary race, and calling upon Howard Dean to put them out of their misery.

    On the positive side, I can't wait for this week's episode of SNL! Because they're going to have The MSNBO Boys to kick around for a while longer. Maybe someone with connections could send them that name; it's a great title for a weekly SNL skit.


    CNN CALLS IT FOR HRC (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:53:17 PM EST
    I have died and gone to heaven. What a night!

    Both monikers, actually. You make a great pair ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:28:20 AM EST
    ... so to speak!

    cnn (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Turkana on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:53:57 PM EST
    gives tx to clinton!

    Put Up or Shut-up Time for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by pluege on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:55:12 AM EST
    Now that the Obama irrational exuberance express has been derailed, maybe we can start find out who Obama is and whether or not he's more than flowery words. If nothing else, this is essential to know before he could be the dem nominee.

    I guess I'm greedy (none / 0) (#1)
    by lisadawn82 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:33:14 PM EST
    I'd like to see her win the primary and caucus in TX.  I don't want any talking points left out there for Obama to take up and I'd like to see the pundits stifle it.  But it's way too early for Christmas I guess.

    In Some Ways (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:51:22 PM EST
    It will be better for Clinton if she loses the caucuses in Texas and, especially, if they are a mess.  I think this is what is going to happen.  There are reports of Obama folks doing funny stuff and the caucuses overwhelmed.  

    All of that should highlight what an undemocratic disaster caucuses are.  And that helps her fight against a lot of Obama wins, not just Texas.


    exactly! (none / 0) (#36)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:10:43 AM EST
    but will the MSM even imply the caucus system isn't democratic?

    I hope this isn't off-topic but... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Oje on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:46:44 PM EST
    Coming out of Super Tuesday 2 with losses, has Obama  reported his February numbers yet? He has been very guarded about the final numbers after Hillary reported $35MM.

    It would be great if the subheading was not, "Obama still leads pledged delegate count," but "Clinton also outraises Obama by $5MM in February." Wishful thinking... but has not the press let the Obama campaign off the hook on the fundraising?

    He hasn't that I've heard ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:49:11 PM EST
    MSNBarack was trotting out a $50 million estimate.  Donna Brazille repeated that on CNN.

    But I don't think that's official.

    My guess is it's in the 40's.  


    No (none / 0) (#20)
    by muffie on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:54:06 PM EST
    You can check for yourself at fec.gov.

    I think Obama's campaign has done a pretty bad job of lowering expectations in general.  This applies not only to the fundraising, but to OH and TX as well.  If he raised less than 50 million, it'll be viewed as a disappointment.


    HIllary projected winner in TX (none / 0) (#8)
    by vigkat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:48:47 PM EST
    Wow.  That's just awesome.

    WOW... (none / 0) (#21)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:54:18 PM EST
    Jamal Simmons on CNN is really bitter. And I mean really bitter. He doesn't believe Clinton has won it. Seriously sour grapes.

    Yes, I saw him blathering on about (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:57:31 PM EST
    it's not over yet, the last vote was cast somewhere in TX at 10:52 (if so, that's just more evidence of appalling mismanagement by the state Dem party), etc. Jamal really thinks there must be something fishy going on, because Texans didn't have the epiphany.

    Appalling mismanagement by TX Dem party (none / 0) (#27)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:02:18 AM EST
    is being much too kind to them.

    The Obama surrogates (none / 0) (#26)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:00:03 AM EST
    seem to take it personally when he loses.  I don't see the same out of Lanny Davis or Paul Begala.

    I think he showed (none / 0) (#33)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:25:06 AM EST
    the Obama strategy from here going forward... whine a lot about how much the extended race is hurting the party and how this whole thing needs to be ooooooover pretty please.

    Distinction (none / 0) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:58:02 PM EST
    The networks have called the primaries.

    The caucuses are still in play.

    I don't see (none / 0) (#30)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:10:16 AM EST
    superdels caring much for the outcome of the bogus thing called a caucus in Texas.  And I don't see it as having any relevance to figuring out how to enfranchise MI & FL.

    RESULTS (none / 0) (#35)
    by amde on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:59:10 AM EST
    my precicnt wasnt allowed to start the convention until 9!!! the voter turn out was the highest its ever been!! ever, and coming from El Paso, a realtively uniterested people hardly ever vote, it was amazing!! our caucus had over 200 people. 10 delegates for clinton and 6 for obama. EL Paso will be the push that hillary needs to clinch texas, our polls dont even close until a hour after the rest of texas. hillary is favored throughout el paso 2:1 handsdown.

    My Texas experience (none / 0) (#40)
    by lobary on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:45:14 AM EST
    Crazy. Just crazy. Never in my wildest presidential election wet dreams did I think a Texas Democratic primary would have this effect on the national picture.

    I live in a deep blue section of Austin. Travis County has over 300 precincts, and my precinct sends the third-most delegates to the senatorial convention. I arrived about fifteen minutes early tonight, but because many people were in line to vote at 7 p.m., we didn't get started with the precinct convention until probably 8:30 p.m. After everyone had signed in and stated their presidential preference, the meeting was called to order and we went through the resolutions proposed by the Texas Democratic Party. Most of the proposals were standard Dem fare-- initiatives on health care, social security benefits, green energy, war on drugs, Iraq, etc..--and once our precinct chair had finished tallying the votes we broke up into our respective groups to select the individual delegates to go to the county convention.

    Six Hundred Forty Two people showed up. Unbelievable. Of those, the overwhelming majority were Obama supporters, 461. Clinton got 161. Our precint sends 87 delegates to the senatorial convention, so Obama got 65 and Clinton got 22. I'm excited to be one of them, but more excited that Texas gave the pundits and the liberal web the Big Fat Middle Finger.

    My Wish (none / 0) (#41)
    by Siguy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:19:30 AM EST
    I'm very frustrated.

    I feel like tonight demonstrates significant general election weakness in Obama, but the delegate totals are going to remain the same. She can't touch his delegate numbers.

    That's very problematic.

    If you asked me what I wanted most in the world right this second as an Obama-supporter second and a Democrat first, then I want it to be a Hillary/Obama ticket so that my guy gets the seasoning he needs, the party is united, and we trounce the Republicans in the fall.

    I understand not everyone thinks this way. Afterall, I talked yesterday about how it'll make me sick to vote for Hillary because I hate the way she runs her campaign, but if we don't beat the Republicans this year I'm gonna lose my mind, and right now my mind says Hillary/Obama is the clear, obvious best ticket, so that's what I want. I just hope the two of them are smart enough to put their egos aside and make it happen some time in the next few months.

    I Have To Disagree With You...... (none / 0) (#42)
    by HsLdyAngl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:35:47 AM EST
    on the idea of Obama becoming Hillary's VP.  That would be the absolute worst position he could make.  With Bill Clinton in the picture, if Hillary is elected, the VP would be totally a dignitary filling-in position for the president.  Bill could not but help acting as Hillary's VP.

    Not to mention the fact, that if Obama would elect to run for the presidency in 2016, he would be burdened with the Hillary baggage of eight years, and God only knows what that would be.  Remember Al Gore having the "restoration of dignity back to the White House", compliments of Bill Clinton?

    And if Hillary does get the Democratic nomination, through whatever means she gets it (Michigan & Florida delegates or superdelegates) and loses the election to McCain, Obama would be damaged by that.  Better he just build up his resume in the Senate and let Hillary sink or swim in the GE on her own merits against McCain.  If she fails to win, she is done for in presidential politics and Obama still has a chance in 2012 to run again.

    Just my thoughts as an avid Obama supporter.....

    Thank you.


    Re: disagree (none / 0) (#45)
    by Siguy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:00:15 AM EST
    Well, but my values on this are different. I'm desperate to win this election. I want Obama, but I want to win more. I'm sure that sounds horrible, but after eight years of Bush/Cheney I find myself thinking about leaving the country at my lowest moments.

    As for what's best for Obama.
    I don't think a Hillary/Obama loss in 2008 would hurt Obama. I think it would make him the obvious next front-runner as Democrats say "Well crap, we chose wrong" and he'd have four more years in the Senate by then and the experience questions would magically disappear just by being the VP candidate.

    As for the distant future. I actually think Hillary would have more to worry about being in Obama's shadow if he were VP. He's a compelling figure and obviously they'd have to work something out so that he had a serious role in the administration. If what I suggest came to pass, she'd of course owe him tremendously for biting the bullet and joining her campaign. But frankly, as much as I love the guy and think he'd be the best President, I can't worry about his chances in 2016 at this point. Eight years of any Democrat, scandals or not, would be like heaven on earth to me.

    I didn't mean to make this all sound so negative. I just think the country may not be ready for Obama right now, and I think Hillary/Obama is the best, most exciting and unifying ticket possible, so that's what I'm wishing for.


    Clinton Supporters... (none / 0) (#43)
    by pluege on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:49:50 AM EST
    should STOP disrespecting her by always referring to her as "Hillary". Its way too casual for the gravity of what she is doing. Its what NBC and others that repeatedly diss her do - her supporters should do better.

    Wait a second... (none / 0) (#46)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:07:22 AM EST
    Have you gone to her website?  Have you seen her commercials?  Have you looked at the campaign's printed ads and material?  If you had, you might have noticed her own logo says "Hillary for President"!

    In fact, if you go to the home page of her campaign website, it says "Clinton" once and "Hillary" or some derivative thereof (Hill, HillBlazers, etc.) at least 14 times that I counted.

    In fact, the only place it said Clinton was down at the very very bottom, where it says "Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President"...  I think it's safe to say she doesn't mind us calling her Hillary.  In fact, I think that might be how she prefers it.


    In fact... (none / 0) (#47)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:08:21 AM EST
    I used "In fact" way too many times.  In fact, I think it's bedtime.  In fact, goodnight!

    That's what her campaign calls her (none / 0) (#50)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:12:16 AM EST
    The signs say Hillary.... they are hard to miss.  Did you just start following the election?

    Respect is respect (none / 0) (#57)
    by pluege on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:14:40 AM EST
    Oh so I see you're a follower...thinking on your own is a little too difficult.

    Respect is respect. Whatever her campaign's motives may be for using her first name in advertising, she is not your BFF or your neighbor; she is someone in serious contention for POTUS. And if her campaign had the respect and seriousness it should have for the office of POTUS that she covets, it too would not be using her first name. But presuming her campaign has some intentional marketing motive such as fooling schlumps into thinking she is their BFF or neighbor, or perhaps even more likely that they feel it essential that she be distinguished from a very famous living ex-POTUS of the same last name, well they get a pass for now.


    Nope I personally call her many things (none / 0) (#58)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:27:14 AM EST
    Hillary, Mrs. Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Senator Clinton, etc.

    I hardly ever use HRC though.  Later!


    What are you (none / 0) (#49)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:08:49 AM EST
    talking about? It's a great night for Democrats.

    Maybe a bad night for Obama supporters!  

    And all the doom and gloom about the GE is making you all look like sore losers. He may be up in delegates, but last time I checked, he didn't have the nomination wrapped up by any stretch.  He NEEDS HRC to drop out so he can take the nom unconstested. But she won't. And this will go to the Convention.

    I love it.

    But now who (none / 0) (#55)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:35:47 AM EST
    do you support? Obama right?

    It's a great night for Democrats because this is Democracy in action. You're getting all riled up simply because the guy you backed lost.  And this Democrat? Who's been around for a long time and has been interested in politics and elections way before  hope became the mantra...knows that you're not beyond anything...you're just being a sore loser.

    What Obama has done to the Clintons over the last few months in cahoots with the MSM is beyond horrible. He ripped another Democrat to gain votes. Called them racists (which suddenly I'm hearing Ohioans and Texans are now too). She's gone negative because it's the last hope she had to get her message out.

    Yes, it's a great night for Democrats. I want this to go all the way to the Convention.


    Completely disagree (none / 0) (#52)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:21:49 AM EST
    The continued race means continued coverage, which means almost no coverage of Republicans. This is good.

    The continued race means we get to really see what Sen Obama is made of, finally get some kind of real scrutiny by the media that has been lacking for months now (I hope).

    There is no intelligence to quickly selecting someone who has not been tested nor vetted, only to watch him get killed in the GE. I think if anything Ohio should send big warning signs to Obama supporters about the difference between what they say will happen in the GE and what will really happen if he is on the top of the ticket.

    Updated info please (none / 0) (#56)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:41:50 AM EST
    As for GE polls showing Sen Obama doing better: those are very out of date. Check out newer polls and you'll find quite a few that show this is not true. In fact in critical swing states (where electoral math matters) Sen Clinton does much better. And please, there is no 50 state strategy. Its a good campaign line, but its bogus. Have you carefully followed national elections?

    It is a bit silly to claim Sen Clinton has not been vetted. And are you now using the oldest tactic in the world: implying that because the Clintons made money they have somehow done something wrong? This is a fishing expedition started by Sen Obama. Do you have any information that suggests they have done something wrong? Or is this now the Obama campaign version of republican smear tactics?

    Finally take a look at the recent Pew poll about Sen Obama vs Sen Clinton and party defections. It may not fit into the "electability" meme so nicely.


    This may be OT... (none / 0) (#54)
    by K Lynne on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:34:15 AM EST
    But has anyone with more time on their hands than I have done the delegate math excluding caucus states, or calculated what non-caucus state delegates would be if they did something silly like allocate them statewide based on popular vote (i.e, give Hillary 51% and Obama 47% of the Texas delegates)?

    Obviously, Barack has tended to do much better in the caucuses.  I'm just curious whether taking the caucuses out of the equation is enough to seriously change the outcome thus far...

    If it does, it would definitely be something for the Superdelegates to think about!  In addition to the whole 'he's not winning the big / purple states' thing...