Texas System Worries Clinton Backers

Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest.

Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state's unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended.

What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston -- where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support -- could yield three or four times as many delegates.

"What it means is, she could win the popular vote and still lose the race for delegates," Hinojosa said yesterday. "This system does not necessarily represent the opinions of the population, and that is a serious problem."

-----

Texas Democratic Party officials said there is a good reason that some senatorial districts yield two or three delegates while others yield seven or, in one Austin district, eight. The numbers are determined by a formula that is based on the number of voters in each district who cast ballots for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) in the 2004 presidential campaign and for Chris Bell, the Democratic nominee for governor in 2006.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/17/AR2008021702461.html?hpid=moreheadlines

All a BIG problem.

If Texas has such a problematic system, they can decided to change it for 2012. It's too late for 2008.

like in Nevada? Might have a better chance in Texas.

Hillarycamp was so certain of her coronation after Super Tuesday that they never took the trouble to organize in other states, and this shows that they are still clueless.

backward and forwards.

WEEKS ago. I've been down here for 22 years and have NEVER gotten one of those calls from a Democratic candidate's group. Ever. Looks like Obama people got like a month's jump start of HRC's people in Texas.

Maybe she ought to just change the rules so that all of Obama's votes are hers!

gotta change more rules to help coronate the Queen

far be it for the peasants to have a say.

More rule changings.

Michigan
Florida and now -
Texas

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Tsunami Tuesday, Michigan and Florida

take it to the bank if it were reversed and Obama wins the popular vote and hilary gets the most delegates..it will be instant..Firewall!

What'll they come up with next?

It's been in place for quite a while now.

Hillary has surrounded herself with yes-people!

This isn't new. We've had a hybrid system for decades. Obama's campaign certainly knew about it.

Frankly it doesn't look good if the Clinton campaign is claiming they just learned about it.

Or maybe they just want to keep expectations down.

I'm more worried about getting that vote back out in Nov. too.

Sonia

for quite some time. I think they are leaking this to lower expectations.

For not showing up and voting DEM. I read the rules several weeks ago and I think they help OBAMA actually. I guess someone else finally read them as well.

More evidence that they wanted it wrapped up by 2/5. No one on her incompetent staff bothered to see what the rules were ahead of time.

Yeah -- thats Executive Leadership that I would be happy to vote for...

in the following post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4600962

Universal Health care after Chelsea's second term.

We didn't realize that it needed to cover everyone.

surely this did not come as a big surprise to her. After all the rules have been the rules for quite awhile now. She could not be just now finding out about this - she's gonna be ready on day one ya know - no surprises. And by the way, did I tell you she's tough too. Yessiree, she stands up to the right wing. Like when she voted for the Iraq War Resolution. and when she cosponsored that flag burning amendment. And how about when she skipped out on the FISA vote.

Maybe she can whine and get the rules changed like she is trying to do with the Michigan and Florida delegations.

by how they run their own campaign... it's really no contest, is it?

Hence, why we feel Obama will WIN Texas.

Gosh... talk about behind the curve.

So even if she gets higher turnout in South Texas, she's not going to get that many more delegates. Austin looks good for Obama. Houston is looking good. Dallas is looking better all the time.

So San Antonio is a lost cause. Austin will make up for it.

How stupid are they in Hillaryland? Really. The totally did not expect to be competing after 2/5. You're absolutely right on that.

2 find out how the 2 step works

To quote another poster: ready from day what?

dg

Burnt Orange site breaks it all down, and explains why even though HRC statewide polls may look good, it will all come down to subgroups/delegates and re-districting...and that is NOT in HRC's favor.

One of the interesting things to note in the subgroups, while HRC's camp is taking the TX Latino voters for granted, the subgroup polls show it pretty much even, she's only ahead by 2 points (44%-42%)..she may be putting all her eggs in the wrong basket.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4628152&mesg_id=4628812

democratic turnout in 2004 and 2006, which was kind of low in the hispanic districts. I think this is fair, if they didn't get out and vote for Kerry in 2004, their votes should count less. It just so happens a Lot of Hispanics voted for Bush in that election, so they get less say in our primary

From the NYT on February 14, 2008:





This will be a substantial problem for her campaign.


More discussion on that article in this thread.

to me it sounds like Clintons are trying to temper an expected loss by saying
that the election system is unfair.

lol

well, I thnk it's the Clintons, or maybe it's Mark Penn!

I still like both, I'd be fine with Hillary, but I really think Obama is what we need!

Here's my history: I was originally for Gore, I signed the petition on Draft Gore well about a year ago! And then, this summer I was supporting Kucinich, but then he was out, and then I like Clinton for awhile, but that was before I really saw any of Obama's speeches and that was before I really compared their policies on their website. I actually think Obama has more details than her, for what it's worth. Also, Bill Clinton's behavior in South Carolina, and some of the Clinton surrogates, like that guy that started BET, was hard for me to stomach, so there you have it

I supported Kucinich til I realized there was no way. Obama was my second choice, but I'm really happy with that.

If I recall correctly, after the election in 04 Skinner might have had a period of time where those with names like yours can change. Or, you could send him a PM, though I don't know if that would work.

Whomever McCain wants to get the votes is who will get the votes in this state. Or rather, whomever Republican governor Rick Perry (who supports McCain) wants to get the votes will get the votes. We have not had an honest election here since they created e-voting and forced us to adopt it and our Republican Attorney General said that paper trails were for wusses and were illegal.

Watch the exit polls and pray that the news media and the exit poll companies are not also in the pocket of the RNC, because it does not matter whom people vote for, Karl Rove will apportion the votes in this state, and so far the trend has been for him to want a brokered convention. That means favor Obama when he is down, favor Hillary when she is down.

Note, local Democrats have no control over what comes out of the machines. It is only state Republicans who know how to hack it. Go look up how some of Rick Perry's hand picked Republican candidates "beat" out their opponents in primaries in 2006 when though the opponents were clear favorites, thanks to e-vote hanky panky.

reading this made me sad, I definately agree with the previous poster, please post this on it's own thread

And Diebold isn't the only voting machine used in Texas,

they also have Hart Intercivic and ES&S, paperless and with paper.

Hillary will win the primary portion of the voting, but Obama is going to win more delegates out of Texas because of the caucus system where 30% of the delegates are selected.

Hillary is going to barely win the popular vote, but not make any significant gains in the delegates.

Primary voters have to go back 15 min. after the polls close for the precinct convention.

EDIT: You'd be voting on the same day if you didn't participate in early voting.

In order to participate in the caucus, you must have voted in the primary.

:)

"Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state's unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended."

Haven't these people ever heard of advance planning? I mean, I've never even been to Texas but I knew they had crazy congressional districts over there. The entire Democratic membership of the Texas legislature boycotted the chamber a few years ago to protest about the redistricting there, it was international news. I wasn't even living in the US at the time. Team Clinton should have known and planned for this a year ago. They didn't have to foresee Obama's success, just ask themselves 'so, suppose we are still facing a strong challenger - what's needed to win a primary in texas?'

I think this is one reason the Obama campaign has been doing well. They did their research and planning on a state by state basis and consensus seems to be that they've had more effective ground operations than team Clinton has had. If this Texas thing is news to the Clinton campaign, then they deserve to do badly there.

causus system is biased against Clinton voters because only Clinton voters apparently work.

:mad:

Yeah, like Obama supporters don't work and don't have complex lives that make caucusing a challenge? Let me tell you how it is. We ALL have complicated lives! On the day of the primary, I will be leaving my home at 6:30 a.m. to take my 5yo to daycare/kindergarten before driving to Tyler for an all day meeting, then back to pick up my son, then home to my daughter, feed both of them dinner and then haul them BOTH to the caucus with me because my husband is WORKING in the evening. Hopefully, dh can arrange his schedule so he can come caucus for Obama too, but the reality is he's self employed and if he doesn't work, he DOESN'T GET PAID.

But you know what? I am an enthusiastic Obama supporter, and I'll make it work. I'll get to that caucus come hell or high water.

Representative Hinajosa can eat me.

:mad:

Probably one day this week. March 4th, I'll be sure to leave work at 5 that way I'll have plenty of time to make it to my caucus. :)

at the polls with my kids in tow.

I think I may have just talked dh into volunteering to be precinct captain. :bounce: He'd be great! I think he recognizes how important this is, and he just won't work that night. :-)

Supposedly Obama's going to be in the DFW area Wednesday. I've already told my boss when he comes I'll be using a vacation day so I can go. :)

and I'm back-to-back in meetings from 9:30-5 :banghead: I probably can't move things either, dad blame it. I considered taking 11yo dd out of school to go to an Obama rally - seeing history made is a great educational experience! :-) However, Wednesday probably won't work for me. :-(

Keep checking the Texas forum, as soon as it's know it'll probably be in there.

Also check the Texans for Obama blog http://blog.texansforobama.com/

Who works more hours per week, a checker at Wal-Mart or a $200,000 a year lawyer?

If Hillary supporters think it's the checker, they're crazy.

My side of the city could have come in with 3, 300, or 3,000 voters and the overall number of delegates that we sent to the state convention from our neighborhood would have been exactly the same.

No wonder her campaign is a train wreck. Hopefully, it will be over very soon.

It's all just one big conspiracy to deny Hillary Clinton her right to be president. Those darn DNC people not letting her change the rules, and the bad mean caucuses discriminating against her voters (even though they don't), and now Texas just isn't cooperating with giving her its delegates. Poop!

Peace:thumbsup:

What's undemocratic is refusing to abide by the votes of the duly-constituted party committees.