Marc Ambinder (March 04, 2008) - Caucus Problems In Texas

Marc helpfully pointed out that Harris County contains Houston. Here are some more big cities corresponding with the unhelpful Texas county names:

Precinct 2316 in Tarrant County (Fort Worth)
Precinct 1205 in Dallas County (Dallas) (durrr)
Precinct 3127 in Bexar County (San Antonio)
Precinct 3082 in Ft. Bend County (Houston suburbs)
Precinct 18/224 in Harris County (Houston)
Precinct 3221 Dallas county (Dallas) (durrr^2)
Precinct 87 in El Paso County (El Paso) (on MST, don't think this issue should be arising yet?)
Precinct 458 in Travis County (Austin)

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 4, 2008 8:43 PM

So, basically they are objecting to mainly Obama friendly areas. Doh!

Posted by Andrew | March 4, 2008 8:56 PM

This is utter bullshit. The packet is first-come first-served. If you come to the convention site far in advance, you get the packet far in advance. THOSE are the rules.

Posted by Byron | March 4, 2008 8:56 PM

What they mean is "we don't have enough ground support to make sure that we get the packet first. Therefore, it is unfair."

Hillary, please please please GO AWAY.

Posted by Michael | March 4, 2008 8:57 PM

The difference between these two candidates is that Obama is building a democratic movement, Clinton is just trying to get herself elected. She'll do anything to win, she'll even probably take this straight to the Democratic Convention where Howard Dean and Al Gore will have to pry her and Bill off the podium as the Clintons shout is delerium.

Posted by Mark | March 4, 2008 9:00 PM

I was a total Clinton backer until she started with the attack ads in Wisconsin and has continued doing them in each and every state since. It has only gotten worse as she falls behind. She might as well hire Karl Rove because her campaign is taking these dirty tricks right out of his playbook. The whisper campaign and LIE that Obama is really a Muslim. Playing the fear card whenever she can. I voted for Obama today and will NOT vote for Clinton even if she is the eventual nominee. I might vote for McCain depending on how he conducts his campaign but as of this moment it is Obama or nothing. She is acting like either the party give her the nomination or she will take down the party so they lose in November. Obama stands for change and Clinton stands for more of the same.

Posted by former Clinton backer | March 4, 2008 9:03 PM

These claims may well be legitimate, but lets just recall the Clinton caucus strategy, as reported by Ben Smith recently:

Texas caucus hardball
March 01, 2008
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Texas_caucus_hardball.html

The Dallas Morning News gets hold of Clinton caucus "training materials," in which supporters are instructed to fight for procedural control of caucuses.
The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."
It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serve as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.
"The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions."
Some of the moments on the ground in Nevada showed how crucial technical control can be, particularly when -- there, as expected in Texas -- nobody has any idea what the rules are. Really makes you love the caucus process.

Posted by seanh | March 4, 2008 9:04 PM

I might care about this, except I'm fairly confident this is a strategy by the Obama campaign to ward off Clinton supporters getting the packet to control the caucus so *they can sway the results*. So far, the Obama campaign has been clean (see Nevada), and this seems to be not an effort to unfairly sway the results, but an effort to ensure that doesn't happen.

Posted by justinb | March 4, 2008 9:22 PM

Had she hired Karl Rove she would be winning.

Posted by Rich | March 4, 2008 9:28 PM

Ward off heck! The process is being hijacked by Obama supporters as my wife sits outside our caucus site here in Austin, TX. The Obama supporters are trying to keep the Clinton supporters from being heard and voting. So much for fair and clean. There are enough dirty tricks on both sides, guess you see what you want. Your silly if you think the Obama camp isn't about to play hardball and to win at any cost.

Posted by Cliff | March 4, 2008 9:31 PM

ok...want to complain about rigged results in Russia, why are such arcane rules for voting allowed to even exist in America, not very democratic to me.

Posted by Jas | March 4, 2008 9:34 PM

Well, the evidence? We're waiting...

Posted by Mike | March 4, 2008 9:34 PM

Seriously, where is that evidence? Saying "I have evidence" is not, as it so happens, the same as actually having evidence. So what's the hold up?

Posted by Ben | March 4, 2008 9:40 PM

Yo Cliff...I'm also at an Austin caucus site. Is your wife that morbidly obese woman trying to squeeze in past all those kids at the door? Dude...what have you been feeding her? Seriously.

Posted by Myron | March 4, 2008 9:50 PM

Yo Cliff...I'm also at an Austin caucus site. Is your wife that morbidly obese woman trying to squeeze in past all those kids at the door? Dude...what have you been feeding her? Seriously.

Posted by Myron | March 4, 2008 9:50 PM

Just got back from a caucus in Dallas. Our temporary chair was an Obama supporter and specifically asked for a Hillary supporter to be the secretary. Everything seemed fair, and Obama got all 4 delegates. Another precinct shared our location and went 4-3 for Hillary.

Posted by DDD | March 4, 2008 9:55 PM

Just got back from a caucus in Dallas. Our temporary chair was an Obama supporter and specifically asked for a Hillary supporter to be the secretary. Everything seemed fair, and Obama got all 4 delegates. Another precinct shared our location and went 4-3 for Hillary.

Posted by DDD | March 4, 2008 9:56 PM

This follows Obama's pattern. He will do anything to win. Hopefully he won't.

Posted by djjl | March 4, 2008 9:58 PM

Objectively, the process seems very messy and the state party seems in over its head

Told. You. So.

Posted by dry_fish | March 4, 2008 10:00 PM

Thank you seanh for reminding everyone that the Clinton crew PUBLISHED their strongarm tactics DAYS ago.

Posted by Jackie | March 4, 2008 10:02 PM

My caucus site in Austin was relatively clean. There was an old guy who stood up on a chair and claimed that the judge said he didn't have to abide by Democratic rules and would not release the packet, but the precinct chair quickly refuted that claim. Seems to me that the guy was trying to get people to leave, but who knows - he disappeared quickly after that. Other than this incident, the caucus was relatively peaceful.

Posted by Randall | March 4, 2008 10:08 PM

While it is probably safe to say that Obama will get the nomination, I will not be one democrat who will be voting for Barach Obama in the general election. As a centrist conservative democrat I do not see Barach as the savior everyone has purported him to be. How naïve everyone is, and how quickly their opinion will change when he is faced with the tough challenge to gain support for whatever programs he attempts to pass (which he has yet to articulate) are shot down because he either has to raise taxes, cut benefits or even trade off one class of voters priorities for another’s priorities.

Posted by Lou S | March 4, 2008 10:12 PM

Why don't people say what precinct they are in, instead of saying "funny things are happening in Austin." There are many, many precincts.

I voted in the primary and just returned from the caucus in precinct 444 (near dripping springs). The people running the show were a mix of Obama and Clinton supporters. Judging from the lines, it was a fairly even split between the two candidates among the voters too.

Posted by Jim | March 4, 2008 10:16 PM

Remember "I don't belong to any organized party, I'm a Democrat?"

Posted by sm | March 4, 2008 10:22 PM

Jas, these are political party nomination rules, not the actual elections. I admit they can be wacky, but parties are quasi-private associations and so can be as arcane as they like. The procedure for the general election is much different.

Posted by Jammer | March 4, 2008 10:29 PM

Your [sic] silly if you think the Obama camp isn't about to play hardball and to win at any cost.

Fighting fire with fire, then. Nice to see that the man I'm voting for is prepared to exhaust all posibilities to make my vote hold up.

Just sayin'.

Posted by Caucus Commando | March 4, 2008 10:33 PM

My daughter lives in Spring, TX, and she said blacks blocked the door so people waiting in line outside the caucus site could not get in. When one woman tried to push her way in and was assaulted by one of the people blocking the door, my daughter left. She has state testing at her school tomorrow and did not want to get beat up tonight.

Posted by Elizabeth | March 4, 2008 10:40 PM

I was at precinct 145 in Austin, lots of Obama supporters, but very orderly, everyone voted.

I must say that the Texas Democratic Party should change its primary system. Let's do away with this silly caucusing, and the runoff system while we're at it.

Posted by Jeff Versteeg | March 4, 2008 10:41 PM

Lou S, obviously you're a Clinton fan or you would have bothered to spell Barack correctly.

Posted by andrew | March 4, 2008 10:45 PM

Just finished caucusing in Montgomery County (just north of Houston) which is normally heavily republican; this is the first time in 20-something years they have held a democratic caucus. After we got someone to open up the cafeteria because there was no way the laws of physics would allow us to all fit in the allocated room, things went very smoothly. I know of at least two districts in northwest Harris County (Houston) that have not even begun yet because turnout was so big that the space could not accommodate the group that showed up, and the problem has not been remedied yet.

Posted by Carrie | March 4, 2008 10:46 PM

Seems odd that most of the Obama supporters do not convey the same type of message their leader does. So much for the change to hope, glory and a better way!
I guess Obama isn't the type of leader to elicit a real message of change after all!
Myron is a real champion for Obama's cause...making derogatory comments about a womans weight is not what I think Obama means when he talks of change. I think Obama wouldn't want your support.

Posted by jack | March 4, 2008 10:51 PM

I voted and caucused in precinct 1220 in Dallas.
Few to none of us had done this before and the room was packed.
The Precinct Chair, who turned out to be an Obama supporter, arrived and suggested we do a standing vote of who was for Hillary first and then those who were for Obama. We did that and, though Hillary had around a 25% win in the regular precict vote totals, the caucus votes came out for Obama, 82-96, or something close to that. Anyway, Obama got 11 and Hill got 10.

After that, no one knew who stayed and who left. So why didn't we sign in first and then vote?

Posted by Ramasan | March 4, 2008 10:53 PM

Jackie says: "Thank you seanh for reminding everyone that the Clinton crew PUBLISHED their strongarm [sic] tactics DAYS ago."

Jackie, sounds to me like the Clinton campaign figured Obama caucusers might well pull some shenanigans like this lock-out stuff. To prevent it, or at least minimize it, the Clinton campaign put out training materials warning their supporters not to let Obama caucusers gain total control of the precinct process. Looks like they weren't successful in all precincts.

Posted by Jo | March 4, 2008 11:03 PM

So a few eager Obama supporters beginning the caucus-packet-scavenger hunt a little too early. So what. These caucuses have such a disorganized process, I would assume this is fairly common. But it is petty and desperate to make an issue out of such minor technicalities. It reminds me of the election in Citizen Kane, in which, having been defeated, Kane is pressed to decide which headline to run on his newspapers in the morning, "Kane Wins" or "Fraud at Polls."

Posted by John | March 4, 2008 11:06 PM

Elizabeth sounds like a HUGE LIAR. Who even talks like that any more about "blacks." No black is going to keep people from entering anywhere they can rightfully be, for they know they'd have to answer to the law in a high profile time like this. Sounds they were hired to keep Clinton's people from cheating like the Dallas News reported here:

Texas caucus hardball
March 01, 2008
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Texas_caucus_hardball.html

The Dallas Morning News gets hold of Clinton caucus "training materials," in which supporters are instructed to fight for procedural control of caucuses.
The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."
It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serve as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.
"The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions."
Some of the moments on the ground in Nevada showed how crucial technical control can be, particularly when -- there, as expected in Texas -- nobody has any idea what the rules are. Really makes you love the caucus process.

Posted by Julie | March 4, 2008 11:29 PM

The Obama campaign had a plan to have Obama voters in strong Obama precincts vote provisional ballots in Clinton precincts instead of their own precincts so that they could overrun the caucuses and get the delegates for Obama.

If a voter shows up at a polling place, is not on the roll, and asks for a provisional ballot, the election judge is required to give one to the voter. Normal procedure is to offer the provisional ballot to the voter - whether they ask fo it or not.

Ordinarily, there would be between zero and two provisional ballots at any one polling place. So, if we see polling places with a large number of provisional ballots and then they show up at the caucus, we will know what Obama was up to.

In fact, becuase of Obama's planned shenanigans, the Texas Democratic Party had to issue special instructions about how the caucus should be run if there were provisional voters at the caucus.

The clarification by the state party may have stopped the Obama people form pulling this dirty trick.

Essentially, the state party said that the provisional voters would have to be identified and that their would have to be 2 caucuses - one with the provisional voters and one without so that if the provisional voters ballots were invalidated, their caucus votes wouldn't count.

A provisional ballot is given to someone who shows up at the polling place but is not on the voter roll for that precinct. That means they are either not registered or they are at the wrong polling place. The voter's validity is determined by the elections department and if the person is entitled to vote in that precinct their ballot will be counted, if not, it won't.

In fact, the provisional ballots are not even evaluated unless the number of provisional ballots could actually change the outcome in a close race. (If the provisonal ballots wouldn't make any diffeerence, they aren't evaluated or counted.)

Every provisional voter is asked to fill out a new voter registration or change of address card so that they will not have a problem in the next election.

Posted by Geoff Staples | March 4, 2008 11:30 PM

Ramasan:

If they didn't sign people in and do some administrative stuff like elect a temporary chair, and follow the script provided by the Democratic Party, they violated the caucus rules.

When you sign in, you specify yor presidential preference and the people signing in are supposed to be checked against the voter roll. If you didn't vote in the primary, you are not allowed to caucus.

Posted by Geoff Staples | March 4, 2008 11:37 PM

Marc,
We here in Precinct 94 Collin County, TX also see the same problem. Obama precinct captain got the packet early, plus a lot of people were allowed to sign-in without an driver-license or a voter registration.
Doesn't look right at all

Posted by Frank T | March 4, 2008 11:44 PM

I just voted at precinct 107 in Galveston. There were about 200 people as precinct 107/108 were at the same place. There was a line wrapping around the block just to get in the door. The allocated room was much to small to hold all the people. The atmosphere was chaotic, no one seemed to know what they were doing, and we kept getting conflicting information about whether or not we needed to stay after signing in. There was an hour wait before anyone moved and quite a few people left before signing in.

Posted by Margaret | March 4, 2008 11:57 PM

The packet cannot be received until the election judge closes the polls and then gives it to the precinct chair. If there is not a precinct chair in that precinct then the election judge is to give the package in one of two ways 1) either the first person for a party that request it after the polls close, or 2) by flipping a coin if both parties ask the election judge for the packet at around the sametime: These are the rules. If the packet is given before the polls are closed then it is violation of the process.

Posted by Rob Galvin | March 5, 2008 12:14 AM

OMG like anyone could keep a redneck out of someplace he wanted in. All one has to do is piss em off and, like in the case of Santa Anna, even putting on a dress and sneaking away won't save ya. I rather feel that the Clinton campaign has done exactly what they claim the Obama campaign is doing in all the rural counties. I think misdirection is par for the course for the Clntons.

Posted by Roger Ware | March 5, 2008 12:17 AM

Obama has hoodwinked and bamboozled so many gullible lefties into thinking that he can magically end all partisan politics in Washington and forge some kind of new, wonderful coalition to save the world.
I ask you to take a real hard look at just what Obama is talking about here.
Look at the guy's record of getting played as a sap by Republicans.
Look at his role model for bipartisanship, Tom Daschle.
You know what Tom Daschle's idea of bipartisanship is?
Total capitulation to the Republican party!
I'm so glad that Obama's true colors are showing. He's nothing but hot air and hollow rhetoric.

Posted by OxyCon | March 5, 2008 12:35 AM

I voted in precinct 218 Travis County. Our space was too small and things were disorganized at first, but after rearranging the room and shifting the lines it went smoothly. I was there at 6:45 signed in around 8:05 and the line was still wrapped out of the building. Nothing shady though.

Posted by David | March 5, 2008 12:43 AM

Lou S.: "While it is probably safe to say that Obama will get the nomination, I will not be one democrat who will be voting for Barach Obama in the general election."

Let me just say, as a supporter of Hillary Clinton, that I'll gladly support whoever becomes the nominee of our party - period. Regardless of my current concerns about Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy during this spirited primary season, he's still light years ahead of John McCain, and I'd be just as proud to call him "my President" as I would Sen. Clinton.

But as the great American philosopher Yogi Berra once said, it ain't over 'til it's over - and this one ain't over.

Posted by Donald from Hawaii | March 5, 2008 12:47 AM

count me and precinct 2171 as a caucus that was completely FUBAR. our precinct captain was totally unprepared and overwhelmed. her explanations of the process were vague and incomplete throughout the whole process which lasted 2 hours before they even collected the caucus sheets. first they told people they didnt need their addresses, every1 fills out the sheets we dont have enough sheets and we write who they vote for and return them. then she states that she does in fact need the addresses but we need to use new pieces of paper but the only pieces of paper available were the backs of sheets little kids color on since we are out of sheets. we finish. she kinda mentions people can leave if they want but at the same time she doesnt mention that when the process of reaffirming the vote takes place if questions arose on your name or vote or anything was not clear then you must be there to reaffirm your vote or your vote is thrown out. then after 2/3 of the caucus members in our precinct had left they begin reviewing names. i was sitting with 5 people i know voted for obama, we all witnessed each others' vote and signature and every single one of us was brought up as a problem. now, either we all had problems writing the correct information in the correct box, or she was targeting obama supporters. thats what i felt was happening. when i walked up to check the procedures they were busy calling names they felt were questionable and removing those who were not there to reaffirm. realize that the ability read it legibly was dictated by one woman. when she stated she could not read one i looked at the sheet before it was quickly pulled away and it was obviously an 'h' in the name and not a 'p' 2 others witnessed the same thing and we called her on it and then his name was matched up correctly, but it was only matched up after some1 had called her on it and otherwise the vote, like many i assume, would have been dismissed. we had multiple precincts in the same room yet if a question arose whether perhaps voters had gotten jumbled up in the confusion and blending of the 2 precincts and there names were on one precincts caucus sheets and on the other precinct's voter records sheets they refused to work together and insure that that individual caucus goers caucus vote counted. instead it was thrown out. (there was 600 people in 2 separate precincts in the same cafeteria and not one microphone was available for coordination of a process few understood including the precinct captian i felt.) i left after 3 hours and after making sure that every1 i was with had their vote reaffirmed on both sheets. thats when i left.

Posted by jason slick | March 5, 2008 12:57 AM

Please cool it... Everyone...
I was an obama precinct captain in 149 and we made mistakes, but it was insanity and we got thru it ok. The obama campaign did train us to get the packet, but they also trained us on how to run the process fairly. If it weren't for that training, no one would have known what to do. Clinton didn't have any knowledgable supports there and there was no one from the county party either. It was total chaos. If we didn't have group that planned it would have failed. If unfair things happened, which I can believe, its bc of the anarchy and not malicious intent from the obama campaign. If not for the I team tonight, nothing would have been done. And also, Clinton didn't have enough people to be delegates so I'm going to go to the convention to vote for her.

Posted by Tim T | March 5, 2008 2:11 AM

I voted in an Austin precinct where 5 people had attended the last Precinct Convention(caucus) in 2004. Tonight there were 250 people there. It was handled very well despite the large number (there was no way to anticipate the turnout at all) participating. It was a congenial group with no real unpleasantness. Clinton's group was just a third of the total and seemed worried that they might get cheated. But we had people from each camp overseeing everything that was done. Obama got 20 delegates and Clinton got 10.

Posted by JDS | March 5, 2008 2:20 AM

Hello. I'm not from Texas but I was trying to understand your causus voting (we don't have caucus voting here in Tennessee). What is the reason/purpose of it? How does it (or should it) work? How can a canidate win a primary vote but not a caucus vote? I tried reading all yall's comments so I could understand, but I think I'm more confused now than before. LOL Anyways, if someone could explain this I would really appreciate it. Thank you. - Laura

Posted by Laura | March 5, 2008 2:45 AM

*Sigh*. The law of unintended consequences bites all Democrats in the nether regions. A Texas primary/caucus system that was created in the hope of fostering participatory democracy seems to be setting us up for the demise we most feared and least needed: The presidency was the Dems' to lose, and we seem on course to get ourselves fractured enough to pull that unlikely defeat from the jaws of victory.
But, my Lone Star State friends, we Californians shot ourselves in the foot, too. We moved our primary up from June to Super Tues so that we would be "relevant", and wound up contributing to the deadlock that contributes to two great candidates behaving badly. If we had not been so arrogant, the Golden State's huge delgate count would have been the deciding factor after all.
Our only hope is that Democrats stop eating our own young. Texans, PLEASE wake up Wednesday with civility and perspective. Nobody's bad behavior wound up swinging things one way or another.

Posted by Mark from CA | March 5, 2008 2:56 AM

I am so sick and tired of all of this bull! White men created this mess, not black men, white men are at fault. They have no solution. None at all. McCain is a multi-term loser. He has no answers, and everyone knows it. Hillary has consistantly backed those same losers. She has no answers. Does Obama have the answer? Who knows for sure, but one thing we all know, niether of the other two do have them either.

Why should that black man be used to solve the white man's problems anyways. They heck with you all, I say. If he doesn't win, mark my words, Osama bin Ladan and all those terriost will soon own this country. Heck, they probably already do. The white man is too proud to bring the troops home, retreat and establish a new plan for the "war on terror" no, they have to kill all the people, and steal all the oil first. But somehow I have a feeling the middle east won't be that easy a defeat. Until then, McCain and Hillary voters, lose your houses and pay ten dollars for gas, lose your jobs to outsourcing...that oil money is comming...keep holding your breath!

Posted by mzlisa | March 5, 2008 5:03 AM

I am so sick and tired of all of this bull! White men created this mess, not black men, white men are at fault. They have no solution. None at all. McCain is a multi-term loser. He has no answers, and everyone knows it. Hillary has consistantly backed those same losers. She has no answers. Does Obama have the answer? Who knows for sure, but one thing we all know, niether of the other two do have them either

lol....this is the ignorant reason obama has won.....unfortunately obama has pulled them from clubs and rap concerts so he can get more votes but these people don't have a clue who obama is except that he's black..........how sad.........

Posted by cory | March 5, 2008 7:04 AM

I realize that in the "old days", a person with a miniscule amount of "black" blood could be considered a person of color. However, those days are over and the fact of the matter is that Obama is just as much white as he is black. Perhaps we should call him whack or blite. I have read his books. He's faced his demons and any argument about his race is as silly as calling him whack or blite. Barack is an American.

Posted by David | March 5, 2008 8:14 AM

Geoff Staples:

This year broke all records for voter turnout and many who had never voted before showed up at the poll for the first time. As you so eloquently stated one of the reason a voter is given a provision ballot is that that showed up at the wrong polling location. Normally, only diehard voters show up for democratic primaries, as evidenced by the often anemic total vote counts. It seems to me that the Democratic Party was concered that there would much higher provisional ballot because of the large increase in first time voters. Can you tell me where you heard about this plan by Obama to distort the caucus results? That is an extremely serious charge uou are leveling at his campaign and integrity that should not be uttered lightly.

Posted by Eric | March 5, 2008 9:20 AM

I voted in Fort Worth, and last night some loudmouth girl was discussing and holding 'the packet' as we waited before we could go in. Obama supporters were in complete control of the whole thing, running it actually. No one really knew where to sign in, they ran out of sign in sheets so they used notebook paper. No one knew what to do.

Posted by unhappy voter | March 5, 2008 9:39 AM

I voted in Fort Worth, and last night some loudmouth girl was discussing and holding 'the packet' as we waited before we could go in. Obama supporters were in complete control of the whole thing, running it actually. No one really knew where to sign in, they ran out of sign in sheets so they used notebook paper. No one knew what to do.

Posted by unhappy voter | March 5, 2008 9:39 AM

Yet another pathetic attempt by the Clinton Campaign at a claim of unfairness. The woman disgusts me to be honest. She so DESPERATELY wants to win that she is willing to dehumanize her own fellow American. She talks about of both sides of her mouth constantly and my respect for her has dwindled down to almost nothing. She reminds me of Anne Coultier. Frankly I've refused to vote in the primaries (wasn't able to anyway - unaligned). However, now it seems that us undecided folks are being pushed out there to make this freaking crap stop. Hillary showed some ugly colours within the last week or so. Really turned alot of us off. My friends and I are gamers professionally and we're pretty apathetic. However we all feel that this has gone WAY to freaking far. She was so ready to make an accusation of unfairness that she had her campaigers already plant some BS information with the papers. Geezus H. When will she stop? I'm going to try my best to make up for not voting by throwing my chips in for Obama. Frankly, out of the two of them she just seems like a nasty, angry, desperate, and bitter freak... he's pretty freaking calm, cool, collected, and dignified. He throws no low-punches at her. Unfair wretch....

OBAMA '08 HAS THE SUPPORT OF NY/NJ GAMERS!!!!!

Posted by Rebecca K. | March 5, 2008 9:49 AM

david, who just posted, is hopelessly naive, because people are so happy that even if NO-bama's .25 black, they want to vote for him because of racial payback. people are instructed to vote for 'their own,' and obama can be seen on a youtube clip saying 'this campaign is about our OWN people.' if anyone who isn't black thinks that obama considers you, look at his stance in the 'our own people' clip... it bugs me that so-called educated people are voting for this man who is so thinly veiled, with no experience and a vague slogans like 'change' and 'yes we can.' yes, the current political scene needs a change, but what does that change mean and for whom? who is this guy really to change his views so radically and not definitively state where he's coming from? ask yourself who the 'we' is in 'yes we can.'

bill clinton was an excellent president, and what's our thanks? bogus news stories calling him racist come out of the east early in the primary to silence him. hillary is very strong too. why are so many white males afraid of her? are they more sexist than they are racist? the guy who posted above about the fat wife jokes qualifies but can't you see that obama isn't for you, especially if you earn a lot? i thought texas was ridiculously sexist and racist and moved away as soon as i was able... today i wish i could have been there in the caucuses to vote for my girl HILL, early and often.

**PLEASE WAKE UP AND DON'T NAIVELY SUPPORT RACIAL PAYBACK!** racism is lose-lose; it's a two-way street. don't vote for a candidate based on color or sex and disregard the facts. don't listen to people who say that people in the minority can't be racist. (as this is the Atlantic site, check the archives for an excellent cover story about racial payback regarding the o.j. trial. the author was on charlie rose too and is in those archives. the author stood up to michael eric dyson's racial payback message. jurors were urged by cochran to send a message to whites by voting to acquit, and one white juror who voted with the jury cried her eyes out over her conflict. racial payback is insidious and willfully ignorant of the facts). has a black man really 'arrived' if he can get away with it?

the message of racial payback is that the ends, the advancement of the race, justifies the means, but if we are truly all related, so that hurting one person or group hurts all people, we will only be hurting ourselves as a whole with this garbage!

btw, who decided that martin luther king jr's message was irrelevant and that we just need to pay back the injustices in the country with more injustice. if we waste our time doing that, how will we advance as a nation? if we suspend thinking and judgment and facts and let our anger blindly lead us, where will that angry non-thinking mob lead us?

it drives me crazy that people try to compare obama to martin luther king jr and others. MLK JR. would NEVER SAY "THIS CAMPAIGN IS ABOUT OUR OWN PEOPLE!" why isn't that clip on national news? MLK JR. must be rolling in his grave. abe lincoln, jfk and the messiah must also be rolling in their graves. i feel sorry for whoever obama is being compared to and hope he doesn't cheapen their good names.

surely there must be a true straight-shooting progressive leader on our horizon who is not too cynical to have the dream in this day and age. right now HILL IS MY GIRL AND THE BEST BET!! obama won't fool everyone, and that's why even republicans voted for hillary today. i'll return the favor and vote republican if NO-bama gets the nomination.

former Texan turned Californian

Posted by tabatha | March 5, 2008 10:02 AM

I was in Precinct 3127 in San Antonio TX volunteering and I say that I know for a fact an Obama person not even from Texas was signing other Obama supporters up inside the polling place and telling them that they didn't need to come back. This other woman there reported him to the Judge and the county sent out attorneys looking for him.

Oh and you can only get the packet ahead time if your name is on it which means to applied and were accepted as precinct coordinator. This guy wasn't even from the state and he got it!

Posted by SG | March 5, 2008 10:02 AM

I attended the caucus for precinct 4204 in Tarrant county Texas. At least three precints use the same location so we had to go to different rooms. My precinct had to go to an upstairs room. The only access to this room is stairs. Did they not want people who cannot climb stairs to caucus?
Also the room was too small, all the people could not get in the room, we were told we could leave after we signed in if we did not want to vote for delagates. This system has to be changed!

Posted by Rosa | March 5, 2008 10:16 AM

I attended the caucus for precinct 4204 in Tarrant county Texas. At least three precints use the same location so we had to go to different rooms. My precinct had to go to an upstairs room. The only access to this room is stairs. Did they not want people who cannot climb stairs to caucus?
Also the room was too small, all the people could not get in the room, we were told we could leave after we signed in if we did not want to vote for delagates. This system has to be changed!

Posted by Rosa | March 5, 2008 10:16 AM

I think we need national reform legislation to outlaw all voting systems that do not respect the one man one vote principle which has been repeatedly violated. Disrespect of democracy has given us the current train wreck of an administration.

I haven't seen so casual and unprofessional a polling place as the one I voted in yesterday in North Dallas. I was not even given a ballot when I checked in. I had to wander around looking for one. Then I looked over and observed that no one was monitoring the voting area. It occurred to me I could have just picked up a handful of ballots and voted several times and no one would have noticed.

The caucus i hardly a suitable system for a democratic country. We established democracy to get away from a small group of people controlling the government. Nothing should count but the popular vote, period.

Posted by Joe Lindsay | March 5, 2008 10:27 AM

I am an Obama Precinct Captain and I, along with dozens of others, were stunned when the Precinct Chairs of Precincts 3131 and 3069 in Bexar County received the caucus packets before the close of primary voting. The Precinct Chairs then, in contravention of caucus rules, opened the packets and began signing in voters - again prior to the close of the polls.

We witnessed the sign ins to make sure they were fair but had to cite the Chairpersons chapter and verse of the rules before they would cease the start of the caucuses prior to the close of the polls.

This is such a new process for everyone that I think at least small breaches of the rules were likely commited in a large number of precincts.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 5, 2008 10:40 AM

to rebecca, the ny/nj gamer,
please unplug your games long enough to reflect a little more. CHOOSING A CANDIDATE ISN'T ABOUT CHARISMA ALONE, IT'S ABOUT CHARACTER. (read the book 'the making of the president 1968' about how television by its very nature led to distortion of the issues with slick appearances. nixon had to repackage himself in 1968 to make himself more palatable and secure a win). please don't tell me we're in an era where the look is all that matters. after all, i hear that some criminals are calm, cool and collected under fire... that doesn't mean anything! how about listening to their words?

historical figures like abe lincoln weren't slick; they were just honest people with strong minds, high ideals and good hearts. would abe lincoln make it today? would he be good-looking or cool enough? don't go with a smooth voice or look. also, ask yourself if you might be dismissing hillary for fighting back, because many times women are expected to do things like cry, apologize for themselves and cave in... maybe her against-the-grain behavior is disappointing to you, but that signals hope to me. read my earlier post if you will, because obama thinks this campaign is about 'our own people' (see the clip on youtube) and maybe you are not included in his select group... is that fair?

black superdelegates are being urged to not be the one vote that holds obama back, and if that's not racial payback, i don't know what is!

rebecca, ask yourself what fairness is. is it fair for obama to call one race 'our own people,' when he's of mixed race? what does that say about him, that he would betray half of himself? can a candidate play to both sides like that and be of good character? is he not a chameleon? a chameleon politician, how does that represent 'change?' please wake up, rebecca! this isn't a game!

Posted by tabatha | March 5, 2008 10:42 AM

tabatha,

I may not completely understand your point and want to give you the benefit of the doubt but must say that you come across as quite the hypocrite.

Let's see if I get this right: it is somehow wrong in your view for people to vote on the basis of racial identity but repeatedly you keep calling Hillary Clinton "your girl". So it's OK, then, to vote on the basis of gender identity?

Please clarify.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 5, 2008 11:26 AM

I am in Laredo (predominantly Hillary Country) and I can tell you that an Obama precinct captain found a ballot-box lock (supposed to be on the ballot box) that had been broken. It is obvious that someone tampered with the ballots in that precinct. And yes, I did personally see the broken ballot-box lock.
In one of the caucuses, Hillary supporters wheeled in around 13 people from the nursing home with oxygen tanks and all. One lady was overheard by one of my co-workers as saying she didn't even want to be there.

Posted by jack | March 5, 2008 11:45 AM

Tabatha, your candidate joined forces with Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum to attempt a $90 million congressional investigation on how video games are harming children. She has advocated a government takeover of the ESRB, which could dramatically decrease the number of titles available to the public. I think it's safe to say that Clinton will not be winning the gamer vote.

You are similarly unlikely to convince Obama supporters that the Clinton campaign is more "fair" than his, for reasons too numerous to elaborate.

Posted by Steven the all-knowing | March 5, 2008 11:59 AM

tabatha

Well inspite of you're "nobama" assertions, i find that u are viewing things completely wrong.

This is a historical election! And being that there are 2 democratic candidates that seemingly share a similar platform many of the first time voters are choosing their candidate base on superficial commonalities--- this can be clearly seen on BOTH sides though.

So how do we choose between candidates with only slight platform differences without resorting to looking at superficial distinctions beyond gender and race??? Well, beside their stand on major issues, i say we look at the Character revealed by the candidate. We should observe their reaction to winning and losing and how they attempt to connect to the people as a whole ( not by isolating certain ethnic groups in attempt shift a vote). WE ARE ALL AMERICANS and we should want to vote for a candidate concerned with americans as a whole. We are a diverse mixture of ppl and we need a president that represents us all!

Hilary has shown that in situations that are not going in her favor, she becomes desperate... she starts the mud slinging and the finger pointing. By taking that into consideration we are left to wonder how she would deal with a disaster or huge issue if ever she were to become president? Hiliary seemingly just wants to win votes, not represent a diverse group of people. And if ever we were to face a major problem in the future under her leaderships and she were to respond so lowely as she has in face of past campaign defeats, we are setting ourselves up to be walked all over by the rest of the world!... and a SNL skit ref won't save her

Obama on the other, although seemingly too idealistic, has maintained composure throughout his campaign. and in the end i think we as Americans are looking for someone to represent US and to show the rest of the world that we will continue to stand strong!!!

And to all claiming that there was some kinda of Obama attempt to underhandedly control the caucus, i find that to be quite a stretch. There was an unprecedented turnout for a very unorganized process... confusion was inevitable. I was at my precinct 618 caucus until almost midnight! Obama won in almost all the precincts held in our area by and overwhelming amount! In our particular precinct he won 20 to 7! I believe that this will prove to be a silent victory for Obama as he claims even more of the Texas delegates!

Posted by melvy | March 5, 2008 12:20 PM

How are precinct numbers assigned in the State of Texas? I keep seeing 3082 and being in Ft Bend County; yet, I'm in San Antonio (Bexar County) and I live in precinct 3082. I did check it out and there is a 3082 in Ft Bend County also. Are these numbers repeated in each county???? VERY confusing.

Posted by Bexar County | March 5, 2008 12:41 PM

to michael nash and others who responded to my posts:

i'll quote what i said: "don't vote for a candidate based on color or sex and disregard the facts." in other words, if condi rice ran against a man, i wouldn't vote for her...

if i didn't believe in hillary's positions, i wouldn't be for her, and i did not choose her because she's female. there's nothing in what i wrote to say i would choose a candidate for superficial reasons. i am simply proud that she is a strong female candidate. (thank God she's in there, or i'd be voting republican).

yes, this is a historical race, melvy, but let's not lose our heads over it. where do you get your insight into hillary's political motives or desperation? if obama is affiliated with corrupt figures or has told canadians that he is keeping mum about his real opinions about nafta, then why shouldn't she say something? yes, it's an exciting time in politics, but let's keep our eyes open.

the other commentary was disappointing, because actually hillary and obama are not as similar as it's painted in the press. obama has views that are more extreme: hillary wants to pull out of iraq in a reasonable amount of time, and he simply wants to pull out immediately. his positions sound like a high school candidate who is extremely naive and lacks experience... like bill clinton rightfully said, a fairytale (see below).

i find it interesting that NO ONE addressed obama's own divisive comments about race. when bill clinton was accused of being racist, he had simply said that obama's position about the war was a fairy tale. yet obama says the entire election is about 'our own' people, and no one says a word in the press. no one addresses it here. they say i'm just wrong with no backup to their assertions, which are just opinions. i'm giving an objective source that can be viewed, look at obama yourself on youtube. there he is being racist, making racist comments, hello? i guess people choose to ignore that, but it is totally unprofessional and should be in the news... maybe people are afraid to call it like it is. beneath a slick veneer, he is a deeply disturbing candidate, and i don't think mlk jr. would be proud of his divisiveness.

Posted by tabatha | March 5, 2008 1:23 PM

i forgot stephen, the all-knowing,
why should kids be allowed to play games like mortal combat where the command is 'finish him,' and then the character gets beheaded or thrown in front of a train? i have no problem with making the games less accessible to kids. a lot of these games are misogynistic or gratuitously violent, hardly like tetris, millipede or q*bert, which were always my favs.

Posted by tabatha | March 5, 2008 1:28 PM

For Stephen the all-knowing:

Sen Clinton has spent much of her adult life trying to protect children. It doesn't surprise me that she would work with Sens Brownback and Santorum to initiate a congressional investigation as to whether video games are harmful.

I think Sen Obama might approve of the idea. He seems to be advocating a "we society" instead of a "me society" Maybe we adults can back off on the types of games we play if it protects our country's children. Didn't he also say last night that parents should put books in their children's hands instead of video games at least once in a while?

If Sen Obama expects to reduce the polarization in Washington he too will have to work with the likes of Sens Brownback and Santorum.

Ironic isn't it that Sen Clinton has a longer and deeper working history with Republican Senators to use as a platform to negotiate legislation with bipartisan support?

Posted by Anne in NYC | March 5, 2008 2:21 PM

I'm getting really sick of Obama's cult followers.

These people won't even let Hillary blink incorrectly before they pounce on her.

BREAKING NEWS: OBAMA IS RUNNING A NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN TOO!

Anyone who believes otherwise is an absolute fool.

Obama is the biggest two-faced liar I've ever heard speak in my entire life. He's a politician, and a dirty one at that.

He says on thing and does another.

Pigs will fly and Hell will freeze before I EVER vote for Barack Obama.

Posted by Kyle | March 5, 2008 2:43 PM

totally agree with you Kyle, although I will most likely vote for him if it comes down to it.

I would also like to say that here in San Antonio TX, there was an Obama person from Washington DC who got a hold of an orange envelope in the neighboring precinct. And was signing up only Obama supporters during the day telling them they didnt need to come back. The state attorneys were called and they found him doing the same at other precincts. They interviewed him, took his picture and told him to stay away.
How someone not even from Texas much less that precinct got the envelope is beyond me!

Posted by leni | March 5, 2008 3:03 PM

oh I would just like to add not just anyone can get the packet, only the precinct coordinators.

Posted by leni | March 5, 2008 3:05 PM

tabatha,

Thank you for your response.

If I thought, based on said response, that you actually had a firm grasp on the issues I might believe you were judging Obama and Clinton on something other than race or sex (not that there's anything inherently wrong with doing so). And I also have reservations believing you given your pejorative name-calling (NObama?).

As to the facts,

Point 1 - Barack Obama did not talk to Canadian officials about NAFTA, Austan Goolsby did. This is the equivalent of saying Clinton brought up teenage drug use by Obama instead of Bill Shaheen.
Point 2 - Barack Obama has not called for a full and immediate withdrawal of forces from Iraq. He has called for a phased withdrawal to conclude by the end of 2009.
Point 3 - "(H)is positions sound like a high school candidate who is extremely naive and lacks experience"? Please be specific instead of throwing out juvenile, unsubstantiated charges (opinions?).
Point 4 - Bill Clinton did not simply say "Obama's record on Iraq was a fairy tale" and then get charged with racism. This claim is disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst.
Point 5 - If you are refering to Obama's victory speech in South Carolina, I have no idea how you come to the conclusion Obama was speaking only about African-Americans ("our own people"). On at least three occasions in the final 10 minutes of the speech he specifically refers to all Americans - regardless of race - being one America.
Point 6 - I'm not sure you should be attempting to speak for Dr. King, given your apparent dissembling in this conversation.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 5, 2008 3:13 PM

What is happening with the final caucus vote in Texas? The CNN news as only 37% posted.

Posted by Janet | March 5, 2008 3:46 PM

I am in Precinct 147 in Collin County and was a Precinct Captain for Hillary. (I was her Precinct Captain for my precinct. Each side has Precinct Captains) The interactions I had with Obama supporters were very positive...even laughing going on as we muddled through this nightmare of a system. However...I have been reading up on how to conduct a Precinct Convention for weeks. Here is what went wrong in ours:
The two Obama supporters who got the election packet from the judge honestly did not know what to do so they set up a table, had everyone line up and sign the sign in sheets (this was not to be done first, and is done after a nomination and vote of who will run the caucus) and then told people they could leave. I wrongly assumed they knew what they were doing and did not want to be pushy so when I went to sign the sheet, I asked the self-appointed guy in charge where we would be caucusing after the sign in. He responded "this is the caucus". It was a nightmare. I explained that no, we had to nominate and elect delegates based on the delegate count after everyone signed in. They had no idea, but thankfully we miraculously had a total of 12 people out of the 71 who signed in remaining to meet our threshold to hold a caucus. I had a huge, organized notebook with all of the info from the Texas Democratic website and they listened to me because I was the only one who knew how the hell the thing worked. We worked together politely and it was a good experience, but I wonder how many clusterf*cks happened elsewhere. How it SHOULD have worked was...1) Whoever gets the packet from the election judge is the Temporary Precinct Chair and can start the meeting 2) Everyone present then can nominate and vote for the Permanent Precinct Chair who runs the show. This may or may not end up being the person who initially got the packet.(A permanent secretary is also elected...and I DO think it is fair and a good idea to have them each be from opposite sides for oversight.) 3) THEN and ONLY THEN do people start signing the sheet for who they support. 4) The totals for each candidate are counted and there is a math formula to calculate how many of the possible delegates each candidate gets. 5) Then ACTUAL LIVING, BREATHING people in attendance are nominated and voted as in delegates, as are an equal number of alternates. No one understood that delegates are YOU and I...real people, and your candidate has to have to have delegates move up through county and state conventions then on to the National Convention to vote for their candidate. Delegates are not just names on paper. I explained we had to actually caucus for the benefit of both of our candidates. I am not a politician... I am a registered nurse and did not know squat about caucuses (also called Precinct Conventions) until I TOOK THE TIME TO STUDY IT AND EDUCATE MYSELF ABOUT IT!!! There is all the info you need available on the internet if you take the initiative. If you are going to run a caucus you should at least know what you are doing. I do not think people were trying to cheat, they just did not understand a very complex system.

Posted by Dawn | March 5, 2008 4:00 PM

thanks for your time, but i have checked and rechecked my facts and have included my sources, that means direct quotes from the horse's mouth. btw, i have a right to say no-bama, because it's my opinion.

you are very condescending in your messsage to me, saying that i don't know my facts, when most of these comments are from clips on youtube. interestingly, you say nothing about obama's corrupt friendships. people on this blog who claim he has a positive campaign make me laugh. they are dirty, dirty, dirty, and there's evidence of it all over the net.

point 1-it's obama that's been bashing hillary. obama has tried to paint hillary as a nafta supporter, and yet who is the supporter? it says on wtkk. on ctb news "don't worry. this is just campaign rhetoric." obama then LIED and said there was no contact... and then the memo from the meeting came out in the ap. first he said they never met and then when caught he admitted it. you can HEAR HIM YOURSELF on the wtkk clip on youtube. BARACK HIMSELF SAID THERE WAS NO MEETING, UH LIAR... are we too afraid to call a liar, a liar??
point 2-this was in the san francisco chronicle in a spread about the candidates.
point 3-again, you are condescending calling me juvenile. did i ever once cut you down in my communication? no. i will quote bill clinton who called him a 'kid' and rightfully so as he is a jr. senator with no experience.
point 4-from the Washington Post and MSNBC. YOU'RE INCORRECT ON THIS ONE TOO; please watch the youtube news clips. clinton's fairy tale clip is on youtube, and so is the msnbc newscast. in bill clinton's clip, he said that obama said his position in 2004 was the same as president bush and then recanted and removed that speech from his website, later claiming as of 2005 that he always opposed the war. cnn's donna brazile him racist following this, and the anchors of msnbc called it dicey and the dumbest comment made by a political pundit that week. so no, bill didn't say anything but the fairy tale comment and was called a racist. in response to these attacks bill clinton said he has to keep fairly silent during his wife's campaign because of the way his words were being twisted by obama supporters. that last bit about clinton was in the washington post, where i first read the facts. yes, what i wrote is based on facts.
point 5-the clip from youtube is not specified, but he is surely not talking about all americans. talk about outrageous! i've seen a lot of people do this, mention two groups americans and our people. you might try watching the clip to see what speech it may be from. he's standing in front of an african american choir in blue and white robes. anyone can talk about being one america, by the way, and talk is cheap!
point 6-condescending and not worth addressing except to say that dr. king made truly believable eloquent comments that spoke to all americans. i don't hear that being carried on. if i heard it, believe me, i would be a supporter, but like i said, i don't. i believe he is a phony, and his speeches are fairy tales. and his supporters are blind followers and frightening to boot. what happens when the elderly vote dies off? what then?????

Posted by tabatha | March 5, 2008 4:54 PM

This sort of mischief is typical of Obama and his supporters. He got a judge to sign an order to keep the polls open in a predominately black county of Ohio. When the Secretary of State got a hold of it she over ruled it because their was no basis for his request other than he was losing. By the time it was over turned, the people of the county had an additional 82 minutes.

He will try any thing to get elected. I feel sorry for the young girl who tried to caucus and was afraid of being beat up. Is this what the supporters of Obama are like. Is this what we want are children to witness? Is this America?

Furthermore, an Obama supporter calls a man's wife the fat lady. What happened to respect? The caucuses are not a fair determination of the voters. They aren't designed for people that work nights, have kids, or the elderly. The system should be changed and primaries are a true reflection of the voters concensus.

Posted by Nanci | March 5, 2008 4:55 PM

I attended a caucus in Plano, Texas. Our city is known for diversity and education. However, we needed Super Nanny to rescue us!!!!! It was UNREAL!!!!!

God Bless ALL of the volunteers for trying! It was worse than an overcrowded, snowed in group of airline passengers. What happened?

Posted by L.R. | March 5, 2008 5:01 PM

In response to the comment from SG:
I am not completely clear on what you are stating in your comment. I am

Caucus Problems In Texas

TrackBack

Comments (132)