Still Waiting For Texas Democratic Caucus Results?

Still Waiting For Texas Democratic Caucus Results?


With around 39% precincts reporting, the political world is wondering when the other 61% come in.

TPM has the answer (emphasis mine):

Eric Kleefeld called down to Texas, and the Democratic Party tells him, in so many words, that the caucus reporting was voluntary.

Precincts were not required to report results to the state party, but they set up a voluntary reporting system so that the media would have results to report. Nice of them, no? […]

We’re told not to expect too much more in the way of caucus returns. Sort of makes sense. If you were going to comply with the “voluntary program,” you probably would have done so by now.

Hahahahaha…jeezus h…

Still, if the numbers hold up in Obama’s favor, here’s what that means for the delegate math…again from TPM:

On the assumption that the current results coming from all around the state represent a decent cross-section of the state as a whole, and that all the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama district delegates show up to their conventions in their proper proportions, we can make an educated guess.

Give or take, Obama would get 37 delegates to Hillary’s 30 delegates, netting Obama a +3 delegate advantage for the combined Texas prima-caucus. “This is believed to be a good sample of what’s available throughout the state,” Nieto said. “And if this trend continues, one could estimate that.”

Bottom line: Hillary’s overall gain for March 4, which had 370 total delegates up for grabs, will be about +8.

But again, who knows if we’ll ever get a full tally from the Texas caucuses.

More as it develops…


    Oh man…. if Hilary somehow sneaks this out… its America FTL.

  • Alan Stewart Carl

    What a joke. Without reporting what’s to stop delegates to the state convention from changing their mind or going against the will of their precinct? The national delegates that come out of the state convention could have little to do with how people actually voted.

    That just puts a nice plump cherry on top of the big bowl of disaster that was yesterday’s caucuses. My favorite eye-witness story from the event? One caucus held at an apartment party room got over full so they moved parts of it to a laundry area where the Clinton supporters promptly shut out the Obama supporters. I’m not sure if it ever got settled but there’s no way these caucuses are representative of the will of the people.

  • SilverSeraphim


    What’s the point of holding caucuses in addition to primaries if the results are going unreported to the party? What a waste of time and energy.

    So many reasons why I hate Texas, and am glad I left…

  • mw

    Gosh. I really hope the “will of the people” as represented by the pledged delegates produced in this caucus (which to the untrained eye might appear to superficially directly contradict the “will of the people” as determined by the actual votes in the primary) will not be over-ruled by those mean nasty superdelegates.

  • Alan Stewart Carl

    Silver, hey, don’t be a hater. We still got good tacos. And music. And, you know, boots.

  • Jon Kay

    Caucus results ARE all returned to the party. Just in an old-fashioned way – delivery in no more than 3 days. My training session mentioned phoning the results to speed things prominently, but nobody at my caucus seemed to be remembering, and neither did I until, of course, we got home.

    At my precinct (2/3 Obama), the Obama caucus results are only 2% higher than the primary, so I’m guessing the overall caucus result will also be very close to the primary.

  • Dave

    The TPM article is the most ill-informed, poorly researched piece I’ve read in weeks. I don’t know the exact Dem caucus rules for Texas, but in Washington there was no VOTE at the precinct caucuses. The only thing office that happened was the electing of delegates. UNPLEDGED delegates as that. Yea, the caucus did a somewhat meaningless exercise by asking people to write down their “preference” for candidate, but that MEANS NOTHING in the delegate election process. So, it didn’t matter what was counted. Nobody was going to win anything. Hell, they could have announced Mike Dukakis as he winner and it would have meant the same thing….NOTHING.

  • TOM

    Check out this site for latest totals from the Texas caucus-

    Latest caucus count- Obama 56% – Clinton 44%. By Tuesday night after Mississippi Obama will have gained back all he lost and maybe more. This could put his delegate lead greater than it has ever been.
    With 370 delegates up for grabs on Tues. Clinton gained
    +8 (@ 2 %). If she does this well with 611 delegates left she will gain 12 more delegates on Obama the rest of the way and only trail Obama by 135 delegates when this is over. If superdelegates decide this thing instead of the people (1 Super equals about 10,000 voters, 100 Supers will over ride more than 1 million voters) — all I can say is “Do you remember Chicago in the summer of 1968?”

  • mw

    Hey, Tom – I don”t know if you noticed, but you happen to be in a thread that is explaining how Obama is somehow getting more delegates out of Texas, despite the will of “the people” very clearly voting for Clinton in Texas. So please spare me any sanctimonious BS about pledged delegates representing the will of “the people”. They don’t. Texas shows clearly that pledged delegates are as likely as not to represent the exact opposite of the will of the people. After such a a travesty in Texas, it is the duty of the superdelegates to restore the will of the people by reversing these BS caucus results. Caucus generated pledged delegates do not represent the will of the people. They represent the organizing skill and fund raising capability of the candidate. As such they have no more validity or connection to the will of the people than do Superdelegates. Probably less. At least most superdelegates have to face an election of their constituents.

  • TOM

    MW- You are right about Texas and the caucus process. (Want to get confused- check these out – and ) Giving people 2 votes is BS.
    My point-
    Most voters don’t understand or care about how caucuses work. They just count the votes. Unless Obama keeps a large lead or Clinton can over take him, the greater the chances are that Supers and not the actual votes of the people will decide the outcome. If Obama loses this race to the vote of the Supers, the Democratic Party will fracture and Chicago ’68 becomes a real possibility. Convention chaos is never good for a political party. What brought the DEMS back was an influx of new voters, a lot of them young or black or independents – Obama’s base of support. A lot of their loyalty is for the candidate and not the party. If they feel cheated (FLA 2000 @ 2002 and Ohio 2004) a lot of them will split or just not vote. There is no anti-Bush vote this time. The more polarized this race becomes, the harder it will be for even Obama to convince these voters to vote for Clinton. Just my opinion.