Obama Wins Texas?

Obama Wins Texas?


When the caucus votes are FINALLY tallied, that’s the probably outcome.

From NPR:

[…] one-third of the 193 delegates at stake this week were not awarded by the primary but by the caucuses held after the polls were closed. A record 4 million voters showed up for the primary, and a record 1.1 million also stayed for the caucuses at more than 8,000 sites around the Lone Star state. And in these caucuses, Obama won handily.

They call this hybrid the “Texas Two-Step,” and it’s had its fans and critics since invented in 1988. But this year it’s really going to cause some howling.

The Texas Democratic Party says Obama’s wider caucus margin will probably give him a 37-30 break in the delegates allocated from the caucuses. The primary had almost twice that many delegates at stake, but Clinton’s primary margin there was much narrower. So when the two steps are all done, the projection is for Obama to emerge with 98 delegates to Clinton’s 95.

So it’ll be kind of like Nevada, right? Where she claimed a win, but he won more delegates? I’m sure the Obama camp will be completely fine with that.

  • http://itsthe21stcenturystupid.wordpress.com/ Jim S

    I admit that I was rather surprised when no one was noticing this on Wednesday. What little was being reported as of the end of the day and Thursday morning seemed to be giving Obama the edge. Republican Hillary won’t be pleased.

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/ mw

    JIm S,
    Actually she will be. Or should be. Because there is no longer any illusion that pledged delegates have any claim on the will of the voter. You see, Clinton won the popular vote in Texas. The fact that Obama won more pledged delegates, means that a pledged delegate plurality is pure BS. It means that superdelegates have the moral authority to override the pledged delegates. Done deal. Get used to saying this –President Hillary Clinton. Vice President Barack Obama.

  • http://sporkmonger.com/ Bob Aman

    I love this picture. Anyone notice the reporter on the right? She’s holding like 6 recorders in one hand.

  • Philip Huang

    Delegates by caucus are every bit as much a delegate as those chosen through the primary. Everyone agreed to these rules beforehand. Every voter had the chance to attend a caucus as they did a primary. Period.

    It’s ludicrous to suggest that not only are caucus delegates worth less, but that they are “worthless” as persuasive evidence to superdelegates who aren’t voted all. As for any claim on the will of the voter – I think over one million Texans would disagree with you there.

  • http://itsthe21stcenturystupid.wordpress.com/ Jim S


    Like it or not, Texas has a bizarre two part system where the primaries and the following caucuses count. I’m not a big fan of the caucus system but it still is a method of determining the will of the members of a political party. If, as looks entirely possible, Clinton wins the primaries with a slim majority and then Obama wins the caucuses by a wider margin then the appropriate delegates will be awarded by the rules of the Texas Democratic Party. Hopefully they will learn something from this and simplify how they do things but what it comes down to is that it rewards those whose supporters are the more committed to their candidate with the caucus results.

  • TerenceC


    So it’s your contention that the popular vote is what matters, and only the popular vote should dictate to the Super’s how to vote?

  • Nancy

    Everyone in TX knows that many republicans actually followed Limbaugh’s suggestion of voting for Hillary in the primary because they want her to be the nomineee. There were republicans who voted for Obama but they did so because they believe in Obama’s candidacy. The problem with Rush Limbaugh’s plan is that republicans who voted for Hillary could never stomach, in a million years, caucusing for her and Obama’s republicans/democrats/independents are proud to support him in private and in public. So that’s why he won the caucus by a bigger percentage than she won the primary.

  • DT Strain

    These latest stories were suggestive that the ‘momentum’ was now with Clinton when, even if she HAD won Texas, it would only mean her margins had been slimmed to nothing. Now, with the truth being that she lost Texas, it makes those headlines all the more ridiculous. Obama’s alleged slow of momentum is nothing more than manufactured. Why? Not because of some evil plot, but merely because the media sources get more business (readers/viewers/listeners) if they can make the contest out to be closer than it really is. The math is exceptionally difficult for Clinton now and the only thing that can change it is some sort of underhanded deal with the superdelegates that will inflame the party and curse any chance of a Democratic victory in the general election. At this point a vote for Clinton has the same logical outcome as a vote for McCain.

    As for a joint ticket, if Clinton gets the nomination, Obama as running mate would be an asset. However, if Obama gets it, adding Hillary would be a liability. Too much baggage. She would only energize the republicans against them. The democrats NEED the independents who are supporting Obama. Their core will vote for Obama if he’s the nominee. But if Clinton is, then those independents with no loyalty to the party will scatter to the wind, ensuring McCain’s victory. The Dems have one chance to get a person into the White House, and that’s by giving the independents what they want: Obama.