Texas's Unique Primaucus

Texas is the most un-primary of primaries there is.

For one thing, there aren't any delegates awarded to the winner of the state -- no statewide bonus delegates, nothing. For another, a third of the delegates will be chosen through a complicated caucus system.

And instead of proportional allocation by congressional district, the rest of the delegates will be proportionally allocated by state senate districts. George W. Bush's '04 performance really changes the math. That's because the number of delegates allocated in those districts are based on how well (or poorly) John Kerry did, as well as the performance of the last Democratic gubernatorial candidate (who himself had votes taken away by a liberal third party challenger.)

The delegate-rich districts are the most heavily liberal state senate districts. According to this calculation, they're in Austin and in two of the most concentrated African American parts of the state. Advantage: Obama.

Clinton will get plenty of support from Latino voters, but they tend to be more spread out and thus will see their votes somewhat diluted in the 31 separate primaries. In order to "win" -- both enough delegates and statewide, you need to organize what amounts to caucus-like campaigns in each of these districts.

The white vote in Texas will probably split, with Obama taking men and Clinton taking women. Though Latinos make up a slightly larger share of the electorate than African Americans, they tend to vote in lower proportions.

The process has two steps. First, folks vote. 126 delegates will be accorded proportionally via state senate district. Then, when polls close, they caucus in more than 1,000 precincts.

At the caucus, attendees chose the identity of the delegate and the presidential candidate that the delegate is supposed to represent. These delegates are sent to a "senatorial convention" a few weeks later, during which the final math is worked out and the actual delegate slate for the convention is chosen.

67 delegates will be chosen this way.

Suffice it to say: whatever you call Texas's system -- a hybrid, a primacaucus, whatever -- do not assume that, because it's a big state and the media calls it a primary, the math favors Hillary Clinton.

Comments

After assuming the math in Maine favored Obama, I will not be deterred from assuming the math in Texas favors Hillary Clinton.

Irrational Obama Supporter

Posted by alex | February 11, 2008 10:20 AM

"After assuming the math in Maine favored Obama, I will not be deterred from assuming the math in Texas favors Hillary Clinton."

Great post anyway - nice to see Marc hitting his stride again.

Posted by Claus | February 11, 2008 10:35 AM

One of the purported weaknesses of Obama's campaign used to be that he only did well in states where the population had time to get to know him (i.e., Iowa).

This argument suggested that he would start losing as the primaries came fast and furious, since he wouldn't have time on the ground.

As we are seeing, however, not only are his wins getting bigger but he's doing better among those demographics where he'd been weaker (including Hispanics). The reality is, as people start paying more attention, as he gets more national exposure, he is getting more votes. It's not just an increase in name-recognition; people are learning about him, whether through effort or cultural osmosis.

If my analysis is right, expect him to do much better in OH, PA and TX than is currently predicted.

Posted by Ryan S | February 11, 2008 10:56 AM

Hispanics are not the same in every state. I have my own suspicions about how likely they are to support Clinton versus those in California, but I hope someone who really knows something about these states and their Hispanic populations will weigh in.

Posted by Sue | February 11, 2008 10:57 AM

But as Texas gets closer we will see the margin of victory necessary for a clinton victory growing...I read that she will need a 10-13 pint win.

Posted by heather | February 11, 2008 11:15 AM

1/
Total national delegates allocated to Texas reflects the 2004 Presidential race, while the allocations of stae and national delegates by Senate District reflect the 2006 Governor's race.

2/
The Hispanic vote is split umpteen ways, and both parties support racial gerrymandering, election procedures, and patronage patterns that tend to suppress it.

3/
The big surprise in Texas may be generational politics, not the two varieties of race-politics ("inclusive" and "exclusive" economic discrimination) that both party establishments practice.

Posted by John Robert BEHRMAN | February 11, 2008 11:19 AM

Marc, your instructions as to unwarranted assumptions are distinctly less credible given the events of the last 24 hours. And of course, given the clear pro-Hillary slant of your recent posts, I'm forced to wonder whether you're just trying to lower expectations. Such is the fleeting nature of credibility, alas.

Good rest of the post otherwise, however. I had no idea how it worked!

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 11, 2008 11:49 AM

I'm officially setting the "Magic Numbers" for Obama at 9 and 30: 9 states, 30 days. If Obama wins all 9 states through March 4th (a tall order, but not out of the question at this point), Hillary will have no choice but to concede. She'll basically be on a week-long campaign death-watch, as she tries to spin her way to March 11, with a couple small states voting, because after that it's a LONG way until PA on April 22. There's no way she can sustain her campaign for 6 weeks with no voting and no way for her to regain momentum on the ground. Even if Obama only goes 8 for 9 (losing either OH or TX), it'll probably still be the same scenario, although at least Hillary will have a single victory between Feb 5 and March 5 to put on her "resume."

Just my two cents.

Posted by doofman | February 11, 2008 12:47 PM

I goofed up my math slightly above; 30 days gets us through March 11, so I should have either said "9 and 23" or "11 and 30." (Counting WY and MS) But the rest of my point still stands.

Posted by doofman | February 11, 2008 12:50 PM

This is the most amazingly screwed-up system I've ever heard of. I mean, WTF?

Posted by Korha | February 11, 2008 1:23 PM

I am a Latino and from what I know about Latinos and their feelings about the Clintons, I can say with full confidence that Obama has no chance. Most people are not amused or impressed by him. The majority of Americans seem to be unaware that the Clintons are the most popular American leaders to have ever lived in the eyes of the world. They are more popular than JFK, FDR, and Lincoln combined. This is due in large part to the fact that they have built amazing goodwill with immigrants and international communities. As the name Gandhi is to peace, Clinton is to leadership.

Posted by JAVIER | February 11, 2008 2:48 PM

If Hillary wins big in Texas, then the delegate apportionment won't matter at all.

Posted by Cal | February 11, 2008 3:15 PM

Funny post Javier, I guess great leaders lie about why they support bad wars? Or vote no against a ban on cluster bombs in civilian areas? Or how about refuse to release tax records on the massive donation she gave herself, I wonder what she is hiding there? The Billary boat is sinking fast I don't think anyone can save it now.

Posted by Sam | February 11, 2008 3:25 PM

The state of Texas has three times as many Latinos as AfricanAmericans (namely 35% versus 12%). Turnout difference for the Primary vote will be lower than that, and perhaps much lower for the Caucus vote, but nevertheless Latinos will be very substantially more numerous than African Americans.

Marc Ambinder is excessively terse in his explanation of the two-thirds-primary and one-third-caucus Texas arrangement. For more clarity see http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4877

Posted by Obama will lose Texas primary | February 11, 2008 3:41 PM

Sam,

The bottom line here is that no politician is perfect and much is yet to be learned about Obama. The media has been at times his cheerleader or pretty much given him a free pass so far, but as the clock ticks every politician is proven to be just that, a politician.

Obama has already supported an unilateral attack on Pakistan which has shown his great ignorance and stupidity in international affairs. That's pretty much Bush 2.0. Why is Obama so idiotic? Does he not know that that could spark a war with a nuclear armed country? At the least does he not know it could sway the balance of power in Pakistan towards extremists and create another Talibanized country? A Taliban with a legitimate nuclear arsenal is exactly what we want right?

Even with all the media negligence in regards to Obama, we can see the signs of another great speaker who is as dumb as a stump in Obama.

Many people have bought into this myth that this man will improve our image around the world yet none in our media seem to reflect foreign press as to what the prevalent feeling is in their countries regarding our leaders. Obamas stated positions on many foreign issues have made him persona non grata.

On the domestic front he has already made enemies with the Indian-American community by chastising Hillary for having a close bond with their community. He could not even garner a majority of Latinos in his own state of Illinois to vote for him. When he was asked in a recent debate as to why Latinos did not vote for him, he said that in his state they did. Why did he lie? What was he trying to conceal? There is much to discussed about Obama and I am afraid that Obamaniacs such as yourself may be eventually left disappointed and hurt by the real Obama once his media created facade becomes history.

Posted by Javier | February 11, 2008 4:28 PM

Thank you Javier for letting me know how I should be voting. I guess I didn't get the memo that goes out to all Latino voters. By the way, I'm still trying to wrap my head around this sentence:
"The majority of Americans seem to be unaware that the Clintons are the most popular American leaders to have ever lived in the eyes of the world."

Posted by Robert | February 11, 2008 4:38 PM

Hey Robert,

I should have phrased that sentence better. English is my second language but I keep trying to better myself.

I think a more accurate way of elaborating the mentioned sentence would be: The majority of Americans are unaware that in world opinion, the Clintons are the greatest political leaders our country has ever produced.

My uncle sometimes says that as the name Gandhi is to peace, Clinton is to leadership. One of my friends from India once told me that there was an opinion poll done in India for The Times of India Newspaper asking which non-Indian world leader they would prefer to be Prime Minister of India and the winner was Bill Clinton. And this is a country that had cold relations with us since 1947 until the first Clinton administration. Now India is considered an ally and a major business opportunity for American companies. What a difference a Clinton can make! Hillary to me seems smarter than even Bill. The possibilities of international reconciliation and growth are limitless. I think we really need that at this time in our history. We need to regain our status in the world. I am confident that Hillary can position us to a point where we can leave Iraq on honorable terms as victors and count on them as allies for the future. The main thing here is that the world believes in Hillary. They trust and often adore the Clintons. That will prove to be a major advantage for us.

Posted by Javier | February 11, 2008 5:38 PM

Javier:
Even with all the media negligence in regards to Obama, we can see the signs of another great speaker who is as dumb as a stump in Obama.

You know nothing of Barack Obama. Anyone who can seriously allege that that man is "dumb as a stump" has no credibility whatsoever.

Posted by Rieux | February 11, 2008 6:10 PM

Rieux,

Suggesting a unilateral attack on a sovereign nuclear armed country as Obama has, is as crazy as one can get. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Even my 90 year old senile grandfather has enough brain cells left to understand that a potential nuclear conflict would be a tragedy.

Then again it is possible that you like war and do not mind a nuclear face off. I think most Americans would disagree.

Posted by Javier | February 11, 2008 6:37 PM

As a Brit, that's nonsense. Bill Clinton gets his dues, but JFK, Washington, Lincoln, and quite often FDR are the presidents we really admire, on the whole. Hillary Clinton doesn't even come into it. Certainly popular opinion in the UK favours Barack Obama over her, and this crosses party lines in fact.

Posted by Nathan Cook | February 11, 2008 6:42 PM

Javier:
Suggesting a unilateral attack on a sovereign nuclear armed country as Obama has, is as crazy as one can get.

You have conveniently changed the subject, just as you have dishonestly omitted the specific (and extreme) hypothetical context in which Senator Obama has said he would consider such an action. Your mendacity does your preferred candidate no credit.

But no matter. Anyone who can claim, with a straight face, that Barack Obama is "dumb as a stump" does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Posted by Rieux | February 11, 2008 6:44 PM

"He could not even garner a majority of Latinos in his own state of Illinois to vote for him. When he was asked in a recent debate as to why Latinos did not vote for him, he said that in his state they did. Why did he lie?"

The following data come from CNN.com. I wonder where Javier gets his data?

==============================
Illinois Vote by Age and Race
______________________________________
________________Clinton-Edwards-Obama
White 18-29 (6%)----27%----3%-----70%
White 30-44 (15%)---32%----3%----65%
White 45-59 (20%)--42%----1%-----56%
White 60 + (16%)---53%----1%-----45%
Black 18-29 (3%)---N/A----N/A----N/A
Black 30-44 (9%)---6%-----2%-----93%
Black 45-59 (8%)---2%-----N/A----98%
Black 60 + (4%)----N/A----N/A----N/A
Latino 18-29 (4%)--N/A----N/A----N/A
Latino 30-44 (6%)--41%----1%-----58%

Posted by Pollster | February 11, 2008 8:09 PM

I wonder where Javier gets his data?

He invents it. Javier is a lying shill.

Posted by Rieux | February 11, 2008 8:14 PM

Javier, Bill Clinton did the same thing in 1998 that you're claiming today that Obama is "dumb as a stump" for suggesting.

Also, Obama won IL hispanics 50-49, according to CNN's exit polls.

Posted by dbt | February 11, 2008 8:40 PM

"The main thing here is that the world believes in Hillary. They trust and often adore the Clintons."

lol

Posted by erin | February 11, 2008 8:45 PM

Hi Javier,

Please do not generalize your opinion on Obama for Indians. India, the largest democracy in the world, a country where Chess, Algebra, Trigonometry, Calculus, The 'Place Value System', the 'Decimal System', Martial Arts and yoga originated and a country that never invaded any other country in her last 100000 years of history.

As a proud Indian, this is my message to Obama,

Dear Obama,

You are more than just politics, you are hope, dreams, substance and the future…you bring about positive energy which is what the world needs today. If the world had its say, they would elect you President for you are the People’s President. Countries and cultures have fences and there are different views from both within and outside the fence. From where I see it, following you is like a religion; it is a more than just a routine, it is becoming a way of life, and if you are elected President of the United States of America, you could change the world as YOU would become a way of life for the world.

Ashwin Sreekumar

INDIA

Posted by Ashwin Sreekumar | February 11, 2008 8:51 PM

Javier is peddling the nonsense that Bush peddled yesterday, saying that Obama would attack Pakistan. Obama said he would IF PAKISTAN WAS NOT DOING THE JOB, go after terrorists. He said nothing about attacking Pakistan's government or military. Bush reportedly wants to see Clinton over Obama in the White House, which should be among the top reasons to vote for him.

On another point, I am disgusted and appalled at the Clinton campaign's seeking to seat Florida, and especially Michigan delegates. In October, she said of the Michigan primary on public radio: "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything." She coincidentally starting saying it "counted for something" when her poll numbers started going down and lost Iowa. If this utter lack of dignity, integrity and truth is what this country values and elects, then I will be left utterly speechless and abject. What kind of message are we sending our children? Play as ruthlessly as you can no matter the carnage you leave in your wake? Please America, vote for dignity and honor.

Vote Obama.

Posted by Tom O'Connor | February 11, 2008 11:09 PM

There seem to be many Obamaniacs here. I guess they are well known to be the rich wine and cheese liberals and activist types, not like us more moderate to conservative immigrant groups that don't have a lot of time to be sitting at the computer.

Rieux, when you post wrong data and then want to pose it as being real, you my friend are the liar. Look above and you will find dbt has posted the the truth. I don't understand why Obama people such as yourself would go to the extent of lying and posting false data. Then again this seems to be the trend in the Obama campaign. It is not totally your fault since the biased pro-Obama MSNBC is like a 24 hour advertisement for this man.

Yes, exit poll data from CNN mentioned that Obama got 50 to Hillarys 49 of the Latino vote in his own state of Illinois. He did not win a majority. Since exit polls do not reflect exact numbers 50-49 is considered dead even by pollsters. As an Obama supporter, if you are not worried looking at those statistics you are not the type to crunch numbers for an hypothetical match up between Obama and McCain in the general should that happen. If he can't win at home, he can't win anywhere. Come general election he will need this demographic more than any other and I simply believe that much of this electorate would swing to McCain.

And whether Obama was speaking hypothetically has no significance. If his hypothetical scenario came to fruition it would still be a foolish person who ever considered such a course of action. Pakistan has rightly spoken against this and though I do not support President Bush on many occasions, he rightfully criticized Obama for his derelict assertion. dbt, your comment about Bill Clinton having said the same thing is also false. He has never advocated an attack on nuclear armed nation. Attacking Afghan soil is one thing, but attacking a nuclear armed Pakistan is quite another. You should read Hillary Clintons comments about this. She is the most intelligent person who knows exactly how to approach this issue. She clearly warned that a surprise attack by the United States may lead Pakistan to suspect India which could ignite the powder keg that is India-Pakistan and cause an all out nuclear war. She has clearly outlined her plan on acquiring permission through Pakistani government channels before partaking in such a move.

Not surprisingly, India and Pakistan, two arch enemies have for once united against the Obama doctrine.

In regards to my so called international friends who have posted here, Ashwin Sreekumar your data is totally inaccurate. My Indian friend online with me today is reading your entry and giving me some feed back. He says to you in Hindi: Buckwas mat kar, Hindustan ne apni khud ki raksha ke liyeh auro pe hamla kiya hain. And do not think that India is happy with Obama. Major Indian newspapers with interviews from government officials have already expressed concern with him. In fact many Indian-Americans that once were willing to support Obama have pulled back and are now supporting Hillary due to his campaigns racist comments that chastised Hillary for having a strong relationships with Indians. Obamas South Asia foreign policy is aimed at promoting the United States to foster a mediating role between Pakistan and India for the Kashmir problem. This is something India has vehemently argued against and calls any talks of mediation an intrusive move violating the integrity of India. If you support Obamas policy on India, you are basically a traitor to your own country. You know this quite well unless you are not an Indian at all. This would cross party lines from Congress I, to Marxists, BSP, DMK and obviously BJP. No one would support your opinion. Also Obama is the most protectionist of all candidates left standing and his policies would certainly hit the Indian economy hard. If your job involves any American investments, you may be out of a job if Obama becomes President.

Asian American groups in California overwhelmingly voted for Hillary by 75%. She won Indians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Japanese, Koreans, and other Asian groups. This is undeniably a very diverse group of people. Not to mention she won among Latinos by a 2 to 1 margin. She also won gays and lesbians by that margin. She also won the 18-29 year old youth vote in California, the most populous state of the union. People can chime in all they want but facts speak louder than mere opinions.

Nathan I appreciate your opinion but as you know the UK has itself been criticized for walking lock and step with Bush. The UK and Tony Blair himself could have prevented the fall out in Iraq by giving wise counsel to Bush. But I do want to say I truly appreciate the efforts of your country to support our nation against terrorism. When I speak of international relations obviously my interest is directed more towards those parts of the world where we have aggressive conflicts. Europe is not one of them. Since you live in the UK yourself I am certain you are exposed to many people of the Islamic faith. If you know anything about Islam you are sure to understand what their opinion of an apostate could be. Obama due to his Islamic heritage is considered an apostate though he has a Muslim brother and both his fathers were Muslims. How would Arab countries, all monorachy-theocracies, view a person such as Obama that their orthodox clergy consider an apostate? There would not be much respect for him as you would know if you have spent any time speaking to an orthodox Imam at your local mosque. Obama has an uphill battle on his hands if he is to be a friendship ambassador to the Middle East. I suppose he could seek the help of Bill Clinton who is looked upon with a great deal of trust. That would be his best bet.

Anyhow, I do not dislike Obama personally because I think he has overcome a lot of obstacles in his personal life to become successful in politics. I think he is a tremendously flawed candidate and I do not want to continue talking about him and inadvertently advocate his candidancy. At this time though, I believe it is paramount that we reconcile the two polarized factions of the Democratic party. Whether it be you that support Obama or the Hillary side of the party that I support. I simply believe Hillary is the best to lead us at this time and she is most likely to have the best chance of winning a general election and also world cooperation. Her coalition of a broad range of minorities, women and working class individuals will serve us best in building bridges with the rest of the world. The Clinton leaderships guidance of our economy to great resurgent heights is what I look forward to most.

Posted by Javier | February 12, 2008 12:48 AM

It's time for woman!!! Chromosome XY is no change. XX is real change.

We support Hillary!! Go Hillary!!!!!!!!

Posted by Kat | February 12, 2008 1:03 AM

The white vote in Texas will probably split, with Obama taking men and Clinton taking women.

This is nuts....Texas, despite the cowboy mythology, is more Southern than Western, and Georgia is the only Southern or border state where Obama won white men (by just two points).

Posted by Shawn | February 12, 2008 1:08 AM

If they are still tied come August, Do you think the super delegates award the nomination to Billary? Although Obama would have won the popular vote ?

Posted by steve | February 12, 2008 6:04 AM

Javier,

Would you please quit with your propaganda ? We know you're biased and the wrong and false stats that you're spilling out is disgusting. Please stop it. we know you're Billary supporter. but please stop with your propaganda! it's making me sick and makes me hate Billary even more !!

Posted by steve | February 12, 2008 6:07 AM

steve: by using anti-hillary rhetoric like "Billary", you are bringing her supporters out en mass. Leave that to MSNBC. It is abundantly clear that Javier is a very passionate HRC supporter. More power to him. We need more young Latinos getting involved. Most of his data was on the money. I am unqualified to comment on the India-Pakistan angle.

I like Obama but I think it is time for a woman. Ladies first.

Posted by ZackAttack84 | February 12, 2008 7:12 AM

Javier:

Are you an illegal? Time to head back to the border, hombre!

Posted by Leio | February 12, 2008 7:42 AM

Javier,

I've lived overseas and see your pseudo-worldly bullshit for what it is: a pathetic and ignorant sack of crap. You embarrass all of us who really do have an international perspective. Thank God people in other countries and cultures aren't the dumb asses you portray them to be.

Posted by Wilson | February 12, 2008 7:46 AM

My uncle sometimes says that as the name Gandhi is to peace, Clinton is to leadership.

Javier...this must be what Bill Clinton's PEERS were thinking when they DISBARRED him from the legal profession? Maybe your know-nothing uncle should revise his little saying to:

"What Stalin was to mass murder, Clinton is to lying sacks of shit"

Posted by Wilson | February 12, 2008 7:52 AM

That Texas Primacaucus

The analysis by Philip Martin using Lone Star Project data probably understates the Obama potential. The "Primacaucus" is far, far from decided on 4 March, as Philip and his sidekick, Matt Glazer, note.

The analysis reflects race-based segmented marketing techniques habitually employed by our not very successful "likely voter" consultants. They use these projections to solicit funding from gullible "investors", much like paper-hangers use a "red herring" to sell shares.

Only, we are already way beyond likely voters here now with projections of turn-out in the Democratic primary (which is only semi-closed) running up to three times the norm. We call this Queuing Theory. The cornpone party establishment -- trial-lawyers almost exclusively, straight out of the latest Grisham novel -- are not real good with math.

Also, Democratic Primary voters are not really sympathetic to the "soft-quota" racism of the "cringing liberal" (white, male, lawyer) party establishment -- a decrepit patronage-chain, not a real party -- who prop up the consultants and subvert anything like republican democracy within the party. They run an undisciplined party that is designed to collaborate with moderate Republicans, not to compete with an extremist or disciplined GOP.

So, (a) there have been significat defections to the Obama camp by prominent Hispanic leaders in Texas; (b) there is an ongoing rebellion against the wildly unpopular state party establishment, which was pro-Edwards, not pro-Clinton, at the outset; and, finally, (c) the state convention itself is designed to simply ratify a dead-certain front-runner, not to resolve either competition between two front-runners or to replace an entrenched establishment in power, much less both. We call this Chaos Theory.

The Texas story will run from 4 March to 6 June. It will be as good as anything Molly Ivins or Larry McMurtry ever wrote about.

Posted by JRBehrman | February 12, 2008 8:00 AM

Posted by John Robert BEHRMAN | February 12, 2008 8:11 AM

I am a woman.
I am white.
I am a grandmother.
I've struggled my whole life to work and raise my children.
My top income was $31,000.
I hate to say how little I live on now.
I read.
I research.
I want a good life for my grandchildren.
I want them to grow up in a country where they are not divided by race.
I want them to count on health care that they can afford, not be penalized because they can't.
I want them to be able to go to college and to learn what a great feeling it is to help others as they earn money for college.
I want a leader that's not afraid to say no and not afraid to admit a mistake.
I want a leader my grandhildren and all the children of this great land that they can respect and count on.

I will vote for Obama for President for the UNITED States of America.

Posted by Mary B | February 12, 2008 9:01 AM

Mary B: Thanks for a fantastic summary. You put it so beautifully. I'm also a white grandmother who wants exactly the same for my children & grandchildren. I've been volunteering for Barack Obama--the first time I've been involved in a presidential campaign since 1968 when I worked my heart out for Eugene McCarthy (the courageous candidate of peace & hope.) It feels like we've come full circle--we finally have another candidate who promises unity & an opportunity to "overcome" divisions. I and my whole family are doing what we can to help Barack win because this country can't afford another 1968 result (where the democratic party machine squashed the peace movement & threw the election to the establishment candidate, who lost to Nixon!) Hope everyone will volunteer to make calls & visits on Barack's behalf. Yes we can!

Posted by HopeAgain | February 12, 2008 11:49 PM

Hello, I am Armando the Armadillo. I have a Ph.D. in Latin American labor history. Does that mean I should vote for Clinton or Obama?

Posted by Armando | February 13, 2008 3:15 PM

A dane chiming in...

Javier would be right on the international reputation of the Clintons IF he had written in past tense. Bill CLinton has an amazing reputation that dwarf any other president from Nixon onwards.

But Obama has been noticed and been compared to JFK, a notch above Bill, in his approach to politics. And we also saw Bill Clintons unflattering role in his wifes campaign i January... And even if Bills reputation hasn´t been devastated completely since new year, Hillary is a separate person from him and his glamour isn´t magically transferred to her.

I think thats why all the polls I have seen here in northern europe (scandinavia, germany, benelux) faavor Obama over Hillary, sometimes by a small margin, sometimes by a large.

Posted by Anders | February 13, 2008 4:11 PM

Just as a personal comment --

I'm a longtime Obama supporter, and I have close friends who are Hillary supporters. There are legitimate reasons for supporting all of the candidates running, though I think the reasons for Obama are far stronger and more numerous.

I'm very disappointed though, when I read comments from fellow Obama supporters that insult or name-call people who aren't on board. You need to think about how that reflects not only on you, but on the candidate, and all the other people who are part of this movement.

That's not the kind of politics we're trying to replace. Respond to distoritions and fabrications with FACTS not vitriol. Compare the candidates, but don't tear down and name-call. It's unbecoming, and all it will ever accomplish is to harden the opposition, and turn people off to Obama!

Posted by Dave | February 13, 2008 4:32 PM

Thanks Dave. Choose who you want to support and support him or her with passion not by name calling. I too am an Obama supporter, but I believe that we are lucky because we get a choice. With that choice we have to make the decision to be fair to others opinions. And Mary B you said it the best... this is all for our future and for the future of the children. I am a 30 year old white woman with children. I want my children to be able to attend college without having to sell their souls. I want to know that this war will be over and that no one else has to die. I know all this takes time but I want a President that has the same hope that I have for the future.

Posted by Dana | February 14, 2008 10:59 AM

On the day of our caucus, our precint was almost evenly split between Obama and Clinton supporters. My husband and I looked around the room, and saw that about 60% of the Obama supporters were under 30 and about that same percentage of Clinton supporters were over 65. (We are of the same generation as the Clintons)

When we saw that we made our choice, and it was this: "Our generation has had the chance to choose the direction of this country for too many years, and we have failed, it's time to pass on the torch to the enthusiastic, passionate young people in this room and put our trust in them" We moved to the Obama side of the room and continue to support his candidacy.

Posted by Lynne B | February 16, 2008 12:53 AM

Hillary has put together an Economic Plan that will be better than President Bill Clinton's Plan. Gov. Rendell has seen the plan and states, "It is one of the best plans I have ever seen." Hillary is way ahead of the game. I just see Obama getting the country deeper in debt. Think people. Think.

Posted by Ann | February 16, 2008 3:00 PM

Fairly AND unfairly, Hillary is the most polarizing political figure of the last 10-15 years and accordingly will not be able to do about removing the cancerous and debilitating gridlock in Washington. She will be the Democrat Party's version of Bush.

Her "governing" style has been very secretive, confrontational and partisan(i.e. Republicans are deceitful and evil). Her health care efforts in the 1990s were simply a prelude of what you can expect if she is elected. The more gentle and states(wo)man-like Hillary that we see now is simply the result of a campaign strategy that has been in development for more than 8 years in anticipation of this moment. She will revert to form.

Does it bother any Hillary supporter that she will not allow public access to her records from the prior Clinton administration? How can we gauge this so-called experience when she will not allow the public to review this experience. Additionally, she will not provide the beneficiaries of her earmarks. I want transparency by all public figures, starting with the President.

If you are truly concerned about solutions and want the juvenile behavior of congressional members and perpetual gridlock in Washington to removed, she is NOT your candidate.

In addition, the thought of 36 years of dominance by the Bush and Clinton families makes me ill and should be reason enough not the vote for her or another Bush:

Bush(VP), Bush(VP), Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, and Clinton

In a land of 300+ million, surely we can find another qualified individual not from the Bush or Clinton families.

Finally, when the Clintons ran in 1992, they said that they would have a co-presidency. Therefore, a legitimate argument can be made that we have already had a Hillary presidency. At a minium, we know that she was highly influential in her husband's administration. What can she claim as accomplishments as the most influential member of his administration?

Bill Clinton will be omnipresent in a Hillary administration. He will be the de facto VP if not co-president. This is a clear violation of the spirit of the 22nd amendment to the constitution.

The country needs to move on with new leadership.

Posted by Anthony | February 17, 2008 6:28 PM

Hillary has pandered to illegals in a way that Obama has not ("no woman is illegal.") It doesn't mean that she supports policies that are more favorable to illegals; just that she panders.

That said, Obama's message is a universal one of hope and common sense solutions. There is no reason to believe that people will respond to it differently based on national origin or ethnicity. People just have to tune in and stop getting their information from the Clinton campaign. And as election days approach, I think that they will. They may also want to notice that they have more in common with Obama who, at least on his father's side, is a first generation American and who spent several years of his childhood living outside of this country.

I have wondered if people for whom English is a second language miss some of Obama's wit as well as Hillary's dullness and Bill's recent whackiness. I just think how I would respond to a political speech given in a language other than English. If I understood it at all, I'm sure I wouldn't get either wit or nuances in tone. I would be utterly at the mercy of someone else to explain it to me.

Posted by Gisela | February 17, 2008 10:02 PM

I grew up in South Texas and let me tell you why hispanics will vote for Hillary. First hispanics traditionally in impoverished or lower income areas vote the democratic party line. The democratic power structure has alway been alive, strong, and well in these areas. Essentially these democrats believe they owe the Clinton's something and they will lead their constituents to the polls to vote what they believe is the party line. Lets not forget what demographic Hillary seems to win. She mostly only wins the un-educated lower income vote. I wonder why that fact exists. I think she should withdraw in disgrace for this fact alone. Yes We Can, stop HC from ever making it to the Whitehouse....

Posted by KEE | February 18, 2008 1:23 AM

To some people who leave comments on blogs,

I respectfully ask you all to actually think twice before you post these comments about these individuals (Leaders). Some of you use incorrect or inaccurate data to support and win your arguments. The most important thing in each person's life should be honesty, because that is the source of one's credibility. So it's very important that you check your facts and think twice before you post your comments. I believe that it's harder to say something without thinking about it twice than to write something, because if you say it, it's harder to take it back, but if you write it , it is easy to erase it.

I personally think these two candidates are phenomenal. I respect and honor what they do and what they go through each and everyday. It's inappropriate to make inappropriate judgments about these people just based on our biased and narrow minded media outlets. Lets spend sometime by going through their websites and seeing them at their rallies before we form our personal opinions of these people. Thank you for your time!

Leadership starts with us, so lets take some responsibility!

Posted by Independence day! | February 18, 2008 12:05 PM

I'd like to object to JRBehrman's criticism of the Texas Democratic "party establishment". Admittedly, the Texas Democrat party is often unorganized and working at cross purposes on specific issues. That's to be expected for an organization that relys on volunteers with only limited funding for paid staff. Anyone who supports Democratic candidates and is willing to work in cooperation with others will find opportunities to help in the party. It's not that hard. I managed to get elected to president of a local Democratic club for several years mostly by showing up and being willing to help organize meetings. In my experience, most years, almost everyone who shows up at the precinct convention gets to go to the senatorial convention. And a majority of those at the senatorial convention who want to go to the state convention get to go, although they might be elected as an alternate. I've been to the state convention on those years I could afford the time and cost.

As this year is the hottest primary contest since 1972, it might be a little more difficult, simply due to the unusual enthusastic numbers, but any Democratic voter who volunteers in their local presidential candidate's organization and talks to their neighbors in the precinct should have good chances of having as much voice in the process as any "party establishment" member. Both candidates know how the system works, so gaming the system won't be a major factor in the overall number of delegates each candidate sends to the national convention. Yes, it's a bit complicated, but it gives a fair representation both to those who just vote on election day and to those who volunteer and will work to get out the party vote come the general election.

Any eligible voter who choses to vote in the Democratic primary can return for the precinct convention Tuesday evening and show their support for their candidate. "Insiders" won't prevent the voice of the people from carrying through, in part because there are plenty of experienced party activists backing both candidates. Any funny business will be overruled at the convention level by folks who's sense of fair play will keep things honest.

Posted by Patrick | February 18, 2008 8:36 PM

The African American population may be smaller in Texas, but when it comes to voting they show up. I worked polls in Galveston County for years, and the population I always saw turn out the best was the African American population.

For those who are afraid that "insiders" will run things - go to your caucus meeting. That's where you choose delegates to go to the next level of the convention. Keep working your way up. My first time when I was 18 (in 1996, so it wasn't that long ago), I was able to be selected as an alternate to the state convention. Upon arrival, I found I'd been moved up to delegate due to someone not being able to attend. I didn't even try to run for national delegate at that time, but going to the state convention and participating in all the levels between the precinct caucus and there was a great experience.

Posted by Jenni Simonis | February 22, 2008 5:04 PM