An Alternate Theory About Texas

Texas Democratic activist Glenn Smith writes on MyDD:

The campaign in Texas is close. Delegates selected by popular vote out of the 31 Senate districts will probably be split more or less evenly. This is due in large part to the fact that 15 of those districts have 4 delegates to award. A candidate would have to get more than 62.5 percent of the vote in those districts to win a 3-to-1 split. The most likely outcome is a 2-2 split. In addition, Obama may have a slight advantage in that the districts with the largest number of delegates, Austin and inner city Houston and Dallas, are viewed as Obama strongholds. Still, just about every model shows an even split of primary vote delegates, no matter who wins or loses the popular vote. This is just because the vote will be close.

The Clinton campaign strategy is to justify taking the fight beyond Texas even if they fall further behind Obama in the national delegate count. To do that, they must cast doubt over the fate of the 67 delegates that will be chosen at the caucus level. Hence, their tough positioning in phone calls with Texas Democratic Party officials and others involved in the primary here.

In a few minutes, the Obama campaign will hold a conference call to discuss what they're calling the "Clinton lawsuit threat."

Comments

I'll confess, I was thinking about not caucusing on Tuesday. It'll probably be crowded, I've never done it before, it won't make much difference, I'm busy with work . . .

But Hillary, if you try to win like this, I'll be in line at 6:15 p.m., prepared to caucus for Obama. AND I'll have a copy of the caucus rules that you wanted in writing; come find me if you still need a copy.

Don't mess with TEXAS!

Posted by Trevor in Austin, Tex. | February 29, 2008 1:29 PM

Right - the Texas doesn't count strategy. So, knowing that the system was gamed this way, why did the Clintons insist until today that Texas not only counted, but was their last stand? Did they expect a different outcome there? Did they think a big victory in OH would overshadow a draw in TX? Or, did they say what they had to say after losing 11 in a row prior to 3/4 & now are saying what they have to say to proceed past 3/4? Where does this leave PA Guv Rendell, who insisted she had to win both TX and OH to get to his?

Posted by neilrlca | February 29, 2008 1:32 PM

Good for you, Trevor. As they say:

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing"

The Clinton's and their supporters are evil personified.

Posted by Jay | February 29, 2008 1:34 PM

What's with saying Austin and inner city Dallas and Houston "are viewed as" a "slight" advantage for Obama?

These districts:

1. Award more delegates;
2. Have seen the largest (10x-15x) increases in early voting over 2004; and
3. Are populated by the demographics most favorable to Obama's base of support.

Plus there's the fact that virtually every recent poll has underpolled Obama's support in the past several states. If Obama outperforms by even a modest margin, and racks up big gains in these favorable, delegate-heavy districts, then I don't see any indication at all that the delegate split is likely to be even "no matter what."

I have no doubt this was written with a pro-Clinton agenda in mind, but it's awfully tough to tell what exactly they're trying to game out here. Maybe trying to characterize any delegate gain as minor if Obama pulls out a popular vote victory?

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 29, 2008 1:35 PM

...because of course we rely on Obama supporters to tell us what the Clinton Campaign's real strategy is.

Why can't we get some fair reporting on issue that isn't clearly trying to slag one campaign or the other?

Posted by dry_fish | February 29, 2008 1:40 PM

Again, this is the clinton strategy to take the focus off Ohio, so that they can get a decisive 5 point win there on Tuesday.

Even if obama wins Texas, this blog post proves that the delegate split will be just about even, so hillary will lose no ground there. This despite the totally undemocratic caucus process there.

But the real goldmine is Ohio - don't forget this state has decided a ton of General Elections. if obama can't win there, he can't win in November.

Automatic delegates know this.

Posted by Fred Agbot | February 29, 2008 1:42 PM

The Clinton's and their supporters are evil personified.

Posted by Jay | February 29, 2008 1:34 PM

Yes, indeed-y, the politics of hope.

Jay -- you voting for McCain if Clinton somehow (magically) gets the nomination? C'mon...

Posted by dry_fish | February 29, 2008 1:43 PM

The Clinton's and their supporters are evil personified.

Posted by Jay | February 29, 2008 1:34 PM

I feel your hatred. Good, good, very good.

Posted by Emperor Palpatine | February 29, 2008 1:44 PM

I feel your hatred. Good, good, very good.

I can feel your anger. It gives you focus. It makes you stronger.

- Supreme Chancellor

Posted by Jay | February 29, 2008 1:59 PM

"A decisive 5-point win"?! Ha ha ha.

Posted by Abby | February 29, 2008 2:00 PM

I'm getting my Clintonian talking points a little confused here.

Talking point one: Only reliable Democrats should count!

Talking point two: The delegate allocation favors Obama because urban districts are overweighted!

Hey, geniuses, why do you think African American districts are overweighted in Texas? Oh yeah, because they're RELIABLE DEMOCRATS.

Posted by Seth | February 29, 2008 2:34 PM

new rule: anyone using the phrase "automatic delegates" in their posts (without irony) immediately loses all credibility.

Posted by Parker | February 29, 2008 2:50 PM

The Texas Sue if you can't win by the rules Plan is typical Clinton Thugpolitics.
The She-Weasel and her inside the beltway flying monkey toadies realize that they can not win Texas. As usual, the failure to plan or at least review the information has yet again exposed the she-weasel's inherent stupidity. Just like her Iraq vote where she failed to read the documentation before voting to allow Bush to sacrifice so many of our brave military.
Trevor, I hope you can attend the caucus. This Republican will be proudly casting my Ohio vote for Obama on Tuesday.
It is time for the Clinton duoacracy fade away-AFTER the tax returns and White House logs are released-what a couple of razzle dazzle scumbags!

Posted by Remus | February 29, 2008 2:53 PM

Alright, let's please stop the stupid:

"if obama can't win there [Ohio], he can't win in November."

In the primary, he's running AGAINST ANOTHER DEMOCRAT!!!

Unless you assume that all of Hillary's voters are either McCain voters in drag, or so in love with Hillary that they'll sit the general out, then your argument (which I am seeing all over the internets) is irrelevant to the point of total idiocy.

Posted by brewmn | February 29, 2008 2:59 PM

Even if obama wins Texas, this blog post proves that the delegate split will be just about even, so hillary will lose no ground there.

Hillary is behind in the delegate count by about 150. Wherever she does not win delegates she falls further behind, because there is one less opportunity to regain the lead.

Posted by goethean | February 29, 2008 3:18 PM

"if obama can't win there [Ohio], he can't win in November."

Let's explore this logically.

Hypothesis: If Candidate X cannot win State Y in a party primary, Candidate X cannot win state Y in the general election.

Given: John McCain is Candidate X, Alabama is State Y.

Therefore, since McCain did not win the Alabama primary, therefore cannot win Alabama in the general election.

Does anyone else see the logical fallacy here? Or is it just me?

Automatic Delegates know this too.

Posted by Bubba | February 29, 2008 3:24 PM

I hope all you Texans out there will make the right choice. Part of being tested means that there will be no surprises and no new skeletons will come out of the closet. Hillary has been tested and although she has many critics she has come out as someone who has worked hard for change her whole life. She was fighting for change in her college years when Obama was four years old. Obama has not been tested. Only now are stories starting to come out in more detail to his exact dealings with Rezko (under federal investigation.) At the very least Obama admits he made a "Bone-Headed" mistake with the property deal he was involved in to get his mansion. If he can make this type of judgement error, what other errors will he make and who will they affect.

Just because someone has been a political law professor for 12 years at a local college and is good at giving speeches does not make them a good President. Words mean nothing without action. If you look at his voting record in his short three years in the US senate, he has very little indication that he has crossed party lines to get things done.

Please vote for Hillary and make the right choice.

Posted by Joseph | February 29, 2008 3:37 PM

Bubba,

McCain may very well lose Alabama against Obama. The Deep South has gone Republican these many years not just on the strength of white male voters, but on the lack of enthusiasm on the part of its African American community. They represent 26 or so percent of the electorate in Alabama but only 11 percent of the vote in 2004. Expect them to turn out in higher numbers for potentially the first African American president. Add to that the lack of evangelical enthusiasm for McCain, and it spells a lot of trouble.

Of course, your point is well-taken -- you just picked a poor example of a "safe" state for McCain. He lost Utah, too. And Obama won it convincingly. No one thinks McCain won't win Utah. (For the inverse, see New York.) (Converse?)

Posted by Seth | February 29, 2008 3:43 PM

IF OBAMA loses OHIO he cannot win a general election and he should step down and allow Hillary to claim the Democratic nomination....Ohio is the key state on Tuesday... If it goes to Hillary it will be party time for the Clinton's. The superdelegates know that Ohio is the state that counts cause the Republicans have Texas sewn up in November. Hillary is winning all the big states and that is what counts in a general election......Also just how crooked and corrupt obama really is will be revealed soon and make him totally impotent..Hillary will make the best president. She is by far the smartest candidate...///The Clinton's beat the media again.

Posted by Bobby Gillespie | February 29, 2008 3:50 PM

You know what I cannot understand, is why common sense is never brought up in this continuing inevitable blow up of the Democratic Party!
I am proud of both candidates regarding what they can do for our country. But let’s look at the facts. Clinton has lost 11 states in a row. Probably will lose Texas and win Ohio.
She will not catch up to Obama in the delegate count. It mathmaticly will not happen. For Clinton to win, she will have to turn this democratic process into a high intense business deal. This election is having a record number of voters. This is a direct reflection on the message that Obama has had on the American people.
If this election is won by biter self centered super delegets or chaging of rules, rregardless of what candidate creates this division. I will guarantee you that the race for presidency will not even be close. The breath of fresh air from record number of voters will be siphoned up. Mc Cain will be victorious.

Posted by Erik | February 29, 2008 4:32 PM

If Hillary gets the nomination in an underhanded way, I will vote for McCain and hope he reverts to the maverick that he once was and the neocons fear he still is. At least I'll still have hope for a little longer.

Posted by Steve | February 29, 2008 4:54 PM

Steve you have made my point.

Posted by Erik | February 29, 2008 4:57 PM

Calling all fellow Obama supporters. Please, for the sake of the party and for the sake of the race, do not refer to Hillary supporters as "evil." They are nothing but. Hillary has done some excellent work in the senate and I admire her for it. After thoroughly researching all of the candidates this past year (and years before with Hillary) I find that I disagree with some of the important positions she has taken, and find that I trust Obama more to be bipartisan and get things done once elected. That said, we must remember WHAT we are fighting for and WHO we are fighting for. We are fighting not for Obama, or Clinton, but for the disenfranchised, the voiceless, the poor. As Democrats, we disagree about who is best to lead, but we must remember that we are coming from the same point of shared values. Take even one look at the issues on McCain's website- his blind support for No Child Left Behind, his willingness to go to war with Iran, his Bush policies on the economy- and realize that though you may dislike the dirty politics of campaigning, we are all on the same side. The Republican party poses a threat to the country that is far bigger than the threat either Democratic opponent poses to the other.

Posted by Anne | February 29, 2008 5:12 PM

Bill and Hillary Clinton have proven their evil natures time and time again. They are vile, diabolical, wretched. devilish, unholy, fiends.

Frankly they scare the crap out of me.

Posted by Melba Jones | February 29, 2008 6:09 PM

Joseph:

The University of Chicago Law School is not exactly a "local college"

Posted by Ethan | February 29, 2008 10:47 PM

"The University of Chicago Law School is not exactly a 'local college'"

Hey! Check the number of UofCers at Kirkland, Sidley or Mayer Brown and tell me it's not "local."

(P.S. Met my wife on 59th, got married on 57th, and my daughter was born on 58th.)

Posted by Joe '01 | February 29, 2008 11:10 PM

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Posted by jacksmith | March 1, 2008 9:42 AM

jacksmith is one of my favorite posters. There's something endearing about that message, in equal parts "YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT" and smiley faces, posted over and over, and always signed off with "best regards."

Keep on reaching for that rainbow, jacksmith.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 1, 2008 2:17 PM