Obama is winning the Texas Caucus --- so,

Does that mean we (Obama) really won Texas?

Yes.

Read this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4913951

Your thread is inaccurate on the procedure. This system has been in effect for 20 years. It is crazy and it is confusing. But they are the rules. Rules that Sen. Clinton embraced before she campaigned in the state of Texas.

1. 65% of the Texas delegates are awarded on the primary election.
2. Precincts are weighed differently based on prior years participation in Democratic primaries. The reason the urban delegates are given greater weight is b/c those areas voted in great numbers in prior Democratic races. It is not because of race or ethnicity. Many of the Valley voting areas had very low participation b/c of support of Bush - in the Republican primaries.
3. 35% of the Texas delegates are awarded in the caucus. The caucus takes place and anyone who voted in the primary is permitted to attend the caucus and vote to give their precinct's delegates to their candidate of choice. Therefore, in those precincts that Clinton carried, she should get a greater number of delegates b/c, usually, those who appear at the caucus reflect the electorate of that precinct.
4. I am a precinct chair and I was elected by my caucus (unanimously - including the Clinton folks) to be the permanent chair of the caucus. We had 84 participants. We gave 6 delegates to Obama and 4 delegates to Clinton. It was a 60/40 split in favor of Obama.

There are many DUers that participated in the caucus, and maybe they can explain this better than I can. But I can assure you that I will not be writing dissertations on how the election system works in let's say, Mississippi, Nevada, or any other state. I would not be qualified to render that opinion.

We rest our case.

8000 in the county. So, I guess Sen. Clinton has nothing to worry about. I"m sure the Clinton supporters in my caucus will be inspired by your ridicule of them. Sen. Clinton needs to stop ridiculing southern states. We, all of us, need the southern states to win.

not sure how this particular family gets their own precinct, but, I digress. They got their own precinct convention & it was 100% Obama (which is why the Clintonistas at the same site, but different precinct, wanted to illegally combine the precincts & have 1 convention out of "convenience."

So, don't let this person make you feel bad about your 84-person caucus. I have another friend who also had a 2 person caucus & they only showed up because the election judge told them to stay for it. Neither one had anything better to do, so what the hey? Yet another precinct that went 100% Obama.

dg

Dismissing states/delegates that don't vote for her as lacking importance. It looks like her supporters use the same insults.

:rofl:

NGU.

Here you go!

You just don't say stuff like this when you are running for president. How can she be ready on Day 1?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102402425.html?hpid=sec-politics

Lott Waits for Clinton's Apology and Gets One

By Mary Ann Akers And Paul Kane
Thursday, October 25, 2007; Page A23

It's a good thing she apologized, because Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) was fixin' to give Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) a piece of his mind.

Lott was on the cusp of issuing a serious condemnation of the Democratic presidential front-runner for insulting the Magnolia State this week when his phone rang.

"To her credit, she called me and apologized," Lott told On the Hill.

Clinton chose wisely to make the quick apology after insulting Mississippians with a comment she made in an interview with Iowa's most important political reporter, the Des Moines Register's David Yepsen. Clinton was quoted expressing complete "shock" at learning that Iowa and Mississippi were the only states that have never elected a female governor or a female member of either chamber of Congress.

"How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi?" she asked, implying the Hawkeye State is above such distinction. "That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."

Lott was furious when aides notified him of the put-down. He said he wanted to sound off right away but instead paused and waited to read the entire context of her remarks, something he said he has learned to do the hard way because of his own various guffaw-inducing statements over the years. (Those include not just his praise of the 1948 Dixiecrat presidential candidate Strom Thurmond, but also his comments after Clinton won her Senate race in 2000 that "maybe lightning will strike" her and she would die before getting sworn into the chamber.) "I understand that we sometimes say what we don't always mean to say," Lott said.

Still, he is a little disturbed that Clinton views Mississippi as politically sexist. He noted that the last two lieutenant governors have been women and that the first female jurist was recently appointed to the state's U.S. District Court.

Plus, Lott added, who is Clinton to talk? "Having lived in Arkansas, which is something of a whipping boy, too, she knows better than that," Lott said.




:spray:

:rofl:

NGU.

Still counting votes in Texas

by kos Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:28 PM PST

Texas

Caucuses

Obama 56
Clinton 44

It's looking more and more like Obama will officially win Texas.



Permalink

...shared by many Northerners.

I was born in Illinois, which I think qualifies as North. Since then I have lived in Missouri, Virginia, Minnesota, and back to Virginia.

I can tell you that the stereotypes of southerners in the north are unreal! When I lived in Minnesota, an otherwise progressive state, the south was particularly viewed with stereotypes. Whatever. A progressive democratic mayor of my old home town viewed southerners as insurrectionists and traitors because of the civil war ( which I believe, even accounting for Minnesota Winters, clocks still say that was a long time ago).

The democrats in the south I think are more progressive than many of the democrats in the north. You can be racist and still be a democrat in ohio. After all, 20% of voters yesterday had race as their major issue, and 85% against Obama. However, it is my observation that those who are Democrats in the South, although a minority, are more progressive than their counterparts in the North. Especially with regard to race....in the north, they talk the big talk about being racially cool, but don't walk the walk as well as the democrats in the South. Just my observation.

Flotsam is troublesome, don't you think?

but you haven't done so yet...

:D

you just want someone to tell you Obama won.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4913951


Because the only people who would consider Texas a victory for Obama are those ignorant of the caucus process in Texas.

whats your point? even if the delegates take a long time to arrive, they will still get here. If he has a 12 point lead like he does now, he will certainly come out with more delegates.

(btw, will it really take 3 months? the post wasn't too clear what was going on)

Someone brought this to my attention the other day.

this - I thought she won.

I really do hope Texas goes to Obama!

See this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4913951

I thought experience was everything.

NGU.

It's not official yet, but it's looking like he'll get more delegates out of Texas.

Thanks for explaining.

because facts shouldn't distort your optimism.

:pals:

There's no reason for that sort of vicious nastiness. And you're not letting the fact that Hillary is down by somewhere in the neighbourhood of 140 pledged delegates and unlikely to close the gap enough distort YOUR optimism, are you?

As an aside, I've been away a while, but you're one of the posters I had respect for; it's kind of sad to see you descending to this sort of pettiness.

She'll change her mind tomorrow.

do you really believe it will take 3 months for a winner to be determined?

I read your post, but it doesn't make much sense to me.

The only caucus that took more than a day to determine the winner was Nevada (I think?) and thats because it was incredibly close the whole time.

If, lets say 60% of the vote comes in (38% now), and Obama still had the lead, what makes you think they won't call it?

Results will be complete tomorrow morning. So, she is wrong about the timing. Since she isn't in Texas I don't know why she speaks with such authority.

I still think that the Texas Caucus was nothing more than legalized "double dipping"

How can that represent the "will of the people"? No one was able to even participate in the Texas Caucus unless they first voted in the Texas Primary. So it was really just an instant "do over" opportunity for those who had a flexible schedule and could make it to a caucus site.

A small subset of the voters in the Texas Primary got to "vote" twice. Not a single new person was included. The caucus was just a smaller and less representative cross section of the voters who voted in the much legal Primary. As a result a minority of people double voting got a chance to swing the results from the much larger primary vote pool back to Obama after Clinton won the massive secret ballot primary.

The results are "legitimate" since it was in the rules, I grant that. But after watching Obama supporters claim victories over situations like this which fly in the face of real democratic principles I do not expect to hear complaints from them about the need for Super Delegates to be bound by the "will of the people". The Texas Causus system seems to have been designed to maximize the influence of party insiders at the expence of regular voters. It dilutes the principle of one person one vote. Anyone who gladly trumpets this has no grounds to object to DNC rules that allow Super Delegates a special role in the nominating process either. That at least is clear to me.

last year. I'm from Texas and was the chair of my caucus. And the descriptions provided by non-Texans are not accurate. There is an earlier post in this thread that has a map which generally explains the system. It's crazy but it's the rules. I just don't like non Texans telling this Texan how this is done.

work in Texas and it looks like Texas came through for the Obama delegates!

Such good work for all you Texans..so appreciated! :loveya: :loveya:

I do not approve the process, but I know that all campaigns played by the same rules. Some people don't approve of Super Delegates, but they are in the rules also.

I caucused in Texas last night.

It was a clusterfuck, but in a good way. Unbelievable particpation. Started 1.5 hours late because voting was still going on.

I got there at 6:50 and didn't leave till 9:50, most of that time spent outside. They wouldn't let us just sign in and leave, so we went thru the procedures, 5 different precincts grouped in a gymnasium, their captains shouting the just-learned rules of procedure, which ended up just being a headcount and sign-in, really.

There were only 3 sign in sheets for each precinct, not nearly enough, so they had to use the manila envelope the precinct voting packet came in as a sign-in form as well.

Yeah, it all seems silly, but I was there because I was motivated to be there, along with 700 or so other people similarly motivated.

superdelegates for 80% I hope that the superdelegates continue to do their job.

Let's summarize

Obama has

won more votes
won more delegates
won more dem senators endorsements
won more dem govenors endorsemetns

raised more money
recrutited more volunteers
has more donors

and has reduced his magic number to 466. with 1030 delegates left that means he will win if he continues to pick up 45% of the vote.

he has established a clear title for "will of the people". Clinton will continue to raise $ 1 million a day for her future poliltical interests but she is not spending it now. Not competing in Mississippi or Wyoming. It has become a money machine.

Do you really want to quibble about defining efficacy of 'trumpeting' Obama's Texas delegate win.

Here is the hard cold truth: On Clinton's best day in the primary calendar she gained about 10 delegates net. So far this week Obama has added 5 new superdelegates. Obama lost the spin war. He has won the delegate war and he will be the nominee. Clinton may damage Obama enough to sabotage the GE but that is only a side benefit to her walking away with $ 50 million in a campaign warchest she can use in the future.

If he continues to overall lose it and keeps dropping in the polls from here to June, you won't be.

is that her current super delegate lead is entirely made up of DNC members.

Then again, as Molly Ivins said, what can you expect -- it's Texas politics! :hi:

And that should seal the deal. Obama should be thought of as the new leader of the Democratic Party. :woohoo: :woohoo:

</sarcasm>

I was at my caucus and they were there along with the Obama folks. I'm with Obama and we outnumbered the Clinton supporters 60/40; BUT, unlike this forum, we actually got along. We agreed that the most important thing in this election is for the Dems to win the presidency. I swayed 4 Clintons to vote for Obama. But it was a respectful discussion. There was only one jerk (Clinton supporter - we've all got one somewhere) and the other Clinton folks made her pipe down and be respectful. I hope the rest of the Democrats can get along like those in my precinct.

A hundred thousand more people voted for Clinton than Obama. There might have been more voters that voted for Obama twice (primary + caucus), but that doesn't change the fact that more people voted for Clinton than Obama. A lot more people.

so far! They did a report today on the "Texas Two-Step" that Hillary may take one step forward and two steps back, so the numbers won't add up!

Thank you!

:hi:

to go ahead and have more weighting?

That "million people" is a VERY impressive number. At my caucus, the turnout was incredible, and we all waited outside for 2 hours before getting to go inside the gym for another hour of chaotic boredom.

should count more is ridiculous. Why not allow people who donate the $2,300 maximum to Democratic candidates have a bigger say while we're at it? They can meet in special high end hotel meetings, similar to a caucus, and choose delegates due to their loyalty to the party.

one candidate benefits more because of this. It's not like this caucus thing was just sprung on us overnight either.

One candidate has supercharged the motivation of voters. It's that simple, and very democratic.

Some have all day. They shouldn't have a greater say. Evidence is that caucuses don't reflect the will of the state as a whole.

What is the will of the state. I don't give a damn about these delegate games.

You should probably give a damn about them.

He'll STILL be a great president! :D

After all, the pledged delegate count far more accurately represents the will of the people than superdelegates, right?

If you add things then Obama actually got more votes last night than Hillary.

Of course, but then you better duck. Here comes the shit flying and spinning at the same time. Texas TWO step because their are TWO steps. Geez......oh, I know, but caucuses don't count.

that means Obama won TX.

The media, which has been manipulated successfully by the Clintons once again, and who will once again turn on the Clintons when they realize what happened... god... it is like a bad movie... the media and the Clintons dating back to 1992...

Anyway, the media will continue to say that only the Primary counts as far as "who won," but the delegates, the only count that actually matters in the end will say that Obama won.

i didnt know. didnt see it. but he had a lot of people calling and emailing him. i didnt notice the camera until quite a while. told husband, aaahhhhhm, get him on camera at a democratic caucus, lol lol and here he was wearing a jacket with company na,e. people were going to point a finger at him and call him a democrat.

we giggled.

and he was on. lol lol