Truth and facts don't matter to some around here

especially concerning the Texas caucus...but here are the facts. The more you ignore them...the more idiotic you look to those who have actually taken the time to understand them.

Without dispute, Hillary has won the Texas Primary vote.
However....the caucus will NOT be decided until June and there cannot even be a projected winner until June. So those of you who breathlessly keep posting that "Obama won the Texas caucus"...well, it it just a lie. Read the entire article. Educate yourself about what this particular caucus is...and what it is NOT.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/030708dnpolconventions.de9cc4.html
With tight Texas race, don't count on delegate answer until June

AUSTIN – Hillary Rodham Clinton won the popular vote in the state's Democratic primary, but Barack Obama is poised to walk away from the Texas two-step with more delegates, if his current lead in delegates from the precinct conventions holds through June.

NOTICE IT SAYS "IF HIS LEAD HOLDS THROUGH JUNE...IMPLYING THAT IT COULD CHANGE"

>>>snip
"It is important to remember that what happened Tuesday night was the first step in a three-step process," said Hector Nieto, spokesman for the Texas Democratic Party. "The final allocation of the 67 delegates that the presidential candidates are vying for won't be determined" until the party's state convention in June.

>>>snip
In other words, to paraphrase Mark Twain, claims of victory for either side would be greatly exaggerated.

>>>snip
None of this uncertainty has stopped either campaign from prematurely claiming victory in the delegate race, though. Both hope to capitalize on Texas' astoundingly slow and intricate process by grabbing some momentum-fueling headlines in the first days after Tuesday's hard-fought contest.

But, perception counts, and the perception is that Obama is winning the caucus.

In fact, did you know that the precincts don't even HAVE to report their caucus results?
>>>snip
The state party is under no obligation to continue tallying and releasing the precinct results between now and the county conventions. Numbers have been made public up until now under a voluntary reporting system created and paid for by the state party, under intense pressure from the campaigns and the media to tell the public who's ahead in the delegate count as early as possible.

How about the perception that Hillary won big on Tuesday, when the delegate count(not including the caucus) for Hillary won't even gain on Obama. He has gained 8 or 9 from re-counts in CA.

The win in the TX Primary was by 100,000 out of nearly 3 million. How can that be a big win, when she was up double digits weeks ago?

There is NO winner of the delegates yet.

They're totally hopeless, but it's good to keep putting the truth out there, regardless.

the way things worked, unbiased news reports about the politicians backed up by solid sources...this was the place to come.
Now--any old blog, RW rag, nefarious source is good as long as it conveys the message they want put out there.
It's embarrassing to watch what used to be a bunch of savvy Democrats keep ignoring the truth because the truth doesn't fit the agenda.

This place will clean up once we have a nominee.

Her own dealings with the Canadian government involving her NAFTA position, her plagiarism accusations after doing the EXACT same thing, her slamming Obama for using 'dishonest' mailers while doing the exact same thing, her Rezko attacks when she has her own ties to the current trial, her blatant backtracking on her pledge regarding Michigan and Florida, etc.


Don't lecture us about truthfulness, take a look in the mirror.

However...this particular "talking point" that you have pulled in doesn't quite fit the situation--you might go back to wherever you get them and find one that is a little more applicable to what I said.
It makes you look stupid to mention something that wasn't even being talked about in the first place.

Pot meet kettle.

:hi:

Had to get the broom and dust bin out again! :D

:evilgrin:

are lies. Do some research.....

When I got on today I had to do some more "housecleaning." It continues still as I get one stupid snarky reply after another. In the many years I've been on DU I think I have put only a couple of people on ignore before yesterday. I didn't like to do it, but it is really the only way I can tolerate this board anymore. And things promise to get worse as the Democratic primary drags on.

Thank goodness there are still good people like you, Horse, providing voices of sanity on DU. I'm hoping that I will be able to keep reading and posting now that I don't have the aggravation of dealing with the maniacs.

I mean, sure, it's a freaking message board. There's going to be a lot of garbage. That's what a message board is.

But to be so proud as to make a thread about ignoring people (which you did last night IIRC), and then brag about it again today?

Well, it's not the most favorable light to put one's self in.

:silly:

I keep coming back but sometimes I wonder why.:(
This place is in as big of a disarray as our party.
That isn't a compliment.

don't give up....keep posting.

Not counting the caucuses is not counting the vote. That's what you're advocating.

The New York Times doesn't count any of the caucus delegates from any of the states,
because they all vote in July. That doesn't mean that Obama didn't win: it just means you don't like to count it when he does.

You cannot compare the Texas caucus to the other caucuses because we are the only state with a primary and a 3-part caucus.
To keep lying in the face of the truth makes you look quite desperate and quite deceitful.

You see, they're votes and votes count. All the votes count, even yours.

That's the name of the game: that's the Texas election, which Obama won.

I don't even know what you're advocating in this OP: Are you trying to say that there's two Texan elections and that Hillary only lost one of them? Or are you in denial about her losing the caucus?
If so, then why isn't your OP about how all the votes should be counted in the caucus?

Or are you only saying that none of it should count until June... stretching it out as long as you can for the good health of our party? Riding it down the yellow line all the way, dead armadillo and all?

Is that Texan?

:crazy:

Obama was never supposed to have been able to make Texas or Ohio close.

Devastated is clearly the wrong word. Disappointed, maybe.

If you mean revamping in terms of applying the kitchen sink strategy, I hope it's not true. I really don't want to see him demean all the work he's done with that type of garbage.

from the OP:

"With about 40 percent of precincts reporting Thursday, Mr. Obama had about 55 percent of the precinct delegates to Mrs. Clinton's 45 percent.,,, The rest of the precinct counts aren't due until Saturday."

In other words, soon after Saturday, we can expect an update on the preliminary count that's as reliable as the 55-45 preliminary count released yesterday.

If you want to split hairs, NONE of the delegate counts from ANY state primary or caucus are "official" until the Credential Commitee rules on delegate seating in Denver.

Chuck Todd (MSNBC), a veteran of election reporting, often opines about how the "indoor game" of primary politics in the past has picked off pledged delegates at state party meetings prior to the National Convention. But this time, the whole world is watching, and shenanigans of the past may not be possible.

How is what is going on in Texas any dfferent from what's going on in Georgia, Virginia, New Jersey, or anyplace else?

Sheesh...

It is IRRELEVANT what this caucus shows--NOTHING comes out of this caucus except delegates that vote at the next caucus.
It is a preliminary step.
Surely you aren't so stupid that you don't understand that?

And Chuck Todd is a political hack...you idolize a political hack? :rofl:

You CANNOT compare the Texas process to other caucuses. Other states have ONE caucus and it's over.
Texas has a series of THREE.
Not only that...but there were irregularites IN ALMOST ALL AREAS of the caucus...especially with the obama fans.
Find some Texas newspapers and start reading about their shenanigans.

that's as reliable as the 55-45 preliminary count released yesterday.'

Do you DISAGREE or AGREE with this statement??????

as long as you obamites can "chalk up a win" (real or imagined)...everything is a-okay. Simply pathetic. :rofl:

whether the newspapers and other media are quoting a different PRELIMINARY count of precinct results in the Texas caucus, and projected caucus delegate counts that almost certainly will wipe out HRC's 4-delegate advantage in the primary.

Is there some secret web site you can share with us?

From what is on record as to how a Democratic nominee is picked, it's based on the delegate count. It is almost a mathematical impossibility that Hillary Clinton can win based on delegate count.

Sure, she won the popular vote in Texas. I congratulated her and her supporters as well as many other Obama supporters, who had the class to congratulate her.

Regardless of WHO THE WINNER IS...nobody will know until June. Period.
Read the newspaper link.

The fact is that Texas democracy is fiction ... at least the Democratic Party version.

And include this link from yesterday: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4925807

:hi:

k and r.

http://txdemocrats.org/grassroots/precinct_convention_results

"...the results are non-binding, and delegates are free to vote for whomever they choose."


http://precinctconventionresults.txdemocrats.org/election08district


I wonder how many people who voted in the caucuses know that and I wonder how many people will actually AUDIT the results to ensure that the people they elected as delegates actually vote the way they were elected to vote?

candidate and was basically called a liar.

The caucus was designed to circumvent the will of the people. Proving you could stack the caucuses and pay off, arm twist, threaten the delegates until you get the desired result.
There are many instances of obama people locking the Clinton people out of the caucuses, threatening them, etc.
One of my Democratic buddies that lives in the next town over told me this morning that they got to the caucus and nobody knew how to run it so they all went home.
One of my Democratic buddies in the next county said that for some reason the caucus chair never showed up with the rolls so their caucus was canceled.
These were heavy Clinton areas that this happened.
It is the biggest sham I think I have ever experienced.

And THEY don't like it being pointed out.

There were LOTS of new people showing up at the caucuses -- how were they supposed to know whom to vote for? It's not like they knew everyone else there.

And I'll bet they have NO idea how to audit the March 29 convention results.

Whatever victory comes through is unlikely to "resound." This was an incredibly tight race.

and let Obama have the stage before Hillary so damages his chances in GE, McPain is handed the election. Why is this so difficult for some of you to comprehend? If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd be urging Obama to stop embarrassing himself and get out too. Hillary can stay in the Senate - and even take over as Majority Leader for Harry Reid, who's become utterly useless - and do lots of good. Ted Kennedy excepted his role in the party and has performed admirably for the cause. Hillary, there's no shame in looking out for the common good and doing what's best for the party. The alternative is President McPain. I can't take another 8 years of Rethug rule.

GObama!

and that shows Obama might not be able to close the deal come November.
That could be a serious problem.

Yeah, that worked so well for Kerry in 2004, dintt it?

Not this time. Not me.

However, he didn't fight for it.
Which gave Ohio--and the Presidency--to George Bush.

I suppose you think he is the President, too?

Shit! Living in denial ain't gonna help anyone this year.

He'll win those states and some of the purple/red ones too, which Hillary will NEVER win. Why can't you see that?

Real Democrats.
Not political junkies like us who know that the SCOTUS is the prize--not the Presidency.
It is nasty in the real world between the two candidates.
Do you TRULY believe that the voters that voted en masse for Hillary in these key states will ALL show up and vote for Obama? I don't believe it for a minute.
I know people that aren't politicaholics and don't blog or aren't activists.
I know that they don't see the big picture...they see that their large state voted for Hillary...yet the smaller states chose Obama...so why should they even bother--let his folks vote for him.


We have a massive problem here. After the primary, the big states still matter yet the delegate counts won't.
So when you are weighting two candidates (which NEITHER one can put up the majority needed to win the nomination)...which ends up weighing the most?
Something that matters after the primary or something that doesn't?

As I said earlier...I think BOTH candidates have been marginalized and NEITHER will be an effective representative of the party--if for no other reason than the entrenchment of the supporters and reluctance you will see for each of their supporters not to vote for the other guy. We NEED a third candidate to emerge here. At this point, I don't even think a Unity ticket would work.

Texas's are NOT pledged because there are still TWO caucuses to go.