CBS Projects HRC As The Winner In Texas

But it will be narrow..

And Marc Ambinder projects that Barack Obama will almost certainly win more delegates in Texas than Clinton.

BTW: reader J.D. writes:

Haven't seen this written anywhere yet but what's happening here in Texas is that precinct judges are so swamped by huge caucus turnouts that they are not turning in election returns. These folks had to close the polls and immediately turn over to organizing hundreds and in some cases thousands of caucus-goers. I'm in Houston which is ground zero for this problem.

Comments

Marc, why do you refer to yourself in the third person in this post?

Posted by Kim | March 5, 2008 12:46 AM

Damn.

I was really hoping for an Obama win.

Posted by Phil | March 5, 2008 12:49 AM

This has got to make you wonder about caucuses - like regular voting/balloting isn't problematic enough on it's own.

Posted by A Running Commentary | March 5, 2008 1:01 AM

It is interesting to me that the major networks are calling the race for HRC when the big cities haven't reported yet and the boxes that haven't reported are in predominately black neighborhoods (reports of 3000 caucus-goers at a double precinct location on the north side of Houston in a mostly black neighborhood). Harris County is reporting only 34% of precincts!

Posted by anotherMarc | March 5, 2008 1:02 AM

Echo this. I was a precinct secretary in East Austin, took us until past 10 to get it done, and we don't have to turn the packet in until Friday. Our precinct went 27-4 Obama.

Posted by Phil Hussein | March 5, 2008 1:02 AM

Caucuses are just peculiar square dances and you can't have fair square dances that involve the thousands who are registered. Miley cyrus concerts are more democratic than caucuses.

Should obama get out for the good of the party?

Posted by michael C. | March 5, 2008 1:05 AM

Oh, man. Texas is going to be such a disaster in the morning. This will not end well. It wasn't going to end well even if this had been a clean win for either side, but this is just not good.

Posted by Zeta | March 5, 2008 1:08 AM

With 76% reporting, it's a safe bet that HRC has won the primary -- regardless of reporting biases.

An important take-home message here: HRC's camp has won the primary, but will likely lose the caucus. This represents a controlled experiment on the caucus vs. primary debate -- and watch HRC's surrogates use this result to push their argument that caucuses are undemocratic, and to further diminish and disrepute the caucus-derived delegates that Obama's camp has earned thus far.

Posted by miked98 | March 5, 2008 1:10 AM

As of this moment, according to the NYT totals, Obama would have to get 60% of all remaining votes to catch up. Judging by the current results in the counties that are still coming in, that's not happening. But it could get a little closer.

Posted by Brendan | March 5, 2008 1:15 AM

JD is exactly right the votes haven't been counted in the heavily urban areas because of the TEXAS SIZED CHAOS due to the caucuses. It was a mess. The networks called this too early because they needed something to talk about. Look at Dallas and Harris Counties, barely any votes in and Obama is spanking Clinton 60-40 and 64-38 in those counties with less than 50% counted, Hillary's counties are practically done. Early tomorrow morning, someone is going to have a lot of egg on their face. Obama by 1%.

Posted by Alex | March 5, 2008 1:20 AM

Obama will still win the night in delegates, which is what counts. All Clinton attempts to redefine the race are just bogus: the contest is one for delegates, just like the general election is a contest for the electoral college.

And what about the Rush Limbaugh factor: one has to figure that Republican sabotage voters going for Hillary as the least electable candidate accounted for Hillary's margin of victory.

How blind do some Democrats have to be? The other side is salivating to face Hillary...they are being honest but no one wants to notice.

If the Democrats choose divisive Hillary, then they do not deserve my vote. And there are many many who feel the same way.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 1:20 AM

Yes, Obama should get out. He has delegate lead built on caucus wins in red states. Clinton would clearly be the more competitive general election candidate, and I assume the superdelegates will recognize this. They were created exactly for a situation such as this, let's hope they do their job.

Posted by Tom | March 5, 2008 1:22 AM

Obama to win Texas primary by 2-3%, caucuses by 10-12 per cent.

Posted by maraschion | March 5, 2008 1:23 AM

Excuse me let me correct myself, Dallas and Harris BARELY have 30% of their vote totals in where Obama is winning 60-38 and 64-39 respectively. This isn't over and I think I will wakeup and see Florida 2000 all over again. Goodnight

Posted by Alex | March 5, 2008 1:24 AM

The Limbaugh effect really should be investigated. My sister lives in a heavily GOP area of NE San Antonio. At her precinct, the GOP voters were overwhelmingly crossing party lines to vote for Hillary, per Limbaugh's instruction. Obama won the caucus.

Posted by JR | March 5, 2008 1:32 AM

Um, Tom, you have looked at head-to-head national and swing state polls right? Clinton runs 4 pts better in OH, but both win. Both run very well in NM and have statistically insignificant leads in MO. But Obama runs massively better in IA, CO, NV (!), VA, NH (!) and more crucially in WI, OR, and to a lesser extent PA - states that Clinton is in severe danger of losing.

Posted by John M. | March 5, 2008 1:44 AM

The pledged delegate math is much worse for Hillary than you realize:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751

I still haven't gotten a Clinton supporter to lay out a path for a Hillary victory that doesn't either involve a massive scandal for Obama or lead to a GE loss.

Posted by John M. | March 5, 2008 1:48 AM

i too, agree the limbaugh effect should be investigated. ben smith mentioned it on politico, as did bill bennett on cnn, and there's mentions of it in the dallas morning news.
still, obama has the delegate lead and popular vote lead.

Posted by JY | March 5, 2008 1:53 AM

the disparity in delegates vs. popular vote is not a consequence of the caucus, but instead proportional delegates in voting districts. the number of delegates is based on past voting performance, so in el paso where turn out was poor in '04 and '06, the 50,000 or so votes count as 3 delegates. areas with high percentages of past voters get much higher delegate counts.

Posted by eska | March 5, 2008 2:18 AM

John M.

Not that have a huge amount of confidence in polls this far out from an election, but 4% might be the whole margin of victory in Ohio in November. And Ohio's 20 electoral votes could be the election.

Obama isn't worth the risk.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 2:18 AM

Right, so let's nominate the wife of the second president to be impeached because of a nonsensical scandal that could have been avoided if not for his infidelity. Makes total sense.

Posted by blahblah | March 5, 2008 3:04 AM

Hey Tim et al,

If Obama wasn't worth the risk, why would repubs be voting for Hillary in order to get rid of Obama?

Please, explain. Or are you just a Clinton talking-points troll?

Posted by hank | March 5, 2008 3:34 AM

Excellent use of logic there, Tim K.

Of course, Ohio won't be THE MOST IMPORTANT STATE EVER if we lose Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and potentially New Hampshire.

Clinton simply isn't worth the risk.

Posted by Franz | March 5, 2008 4:05 AM

Lol Franz, with your arguments i can make the same anology that with Obama as the nominee, we'll lose California, New York, Ohio, New Jersey, Florida And Michigan.

It's obvious that the Presidency this Nov will go to a democrat unless some unforseen catastrope strikes the campaign. So no need to play on the other side will win card if so and so is the nominee.

Posted by StevenT | March 5, 2008 4:55 AM

It's obvious that the Presidency this Nov will go to a democrat unless some unforseen catastrope strikes the campaign. So no need to play on the other side will win card if so and so is the nominee.
Posted by StevenT

It's not obvious that a Dem will win in November. They will not be running against George Bush as they are now.
Thanks in part to a MSM now slowly fading as a force in America, Dems started the 1976, 1980, 1988, 2000, 2004 races with substantial leads over the Republican thanks to glowing media propaganda and lost each one but the 1976 contest which would have gone to Ford if the contest had gone another week. Add that Perot took enough votes from HW Bush to prevent his surge back - and even the most partisan Democrat can see a pattern.

Plus, after fielding a most dislikable candidate in 2004 that staunch Democrat Vets could not vote for as a matter of honor - this year, they have two finalists with the weakest level of past executive experience since Warren Harding.

McCain is, to be sure, a flawed vessel. At 72, he is Old Guard in a time where America wants change. But America also recognizes a world of mounting economic and military danger where 100 a barrel oil and the very light casualties of Iraq and the 9/11 attacks(compared to other real wars and terror acts that threaten) - means we need a President that protects the security of America. Not necessarily a "I know best whats good for you!" Nanny-in-Chief, or a young untested man who makes pretty speeches.

IMO, Iraq is less important than the Presidential candidate that is trusted, competent on National Security and points to how to fix America's competitive crisis and our present oil energy crisis (not the future CO2 crisis).

A reason why Hillary's "3AM" ad was so effective.
It tapped into that mood and gave dem voters a reality check on the silver-tongued Obama.
1. Hillary has problems because "the Clinton Couple" is not trusted on integrity, people distrust nepotistic political processes and dynastic politics. She isn't a great politician and she has detailed Big Government, more taxes solutions and programs that play well with the Left Dem base and minorities that pay no taxes and see all she promises as "More Free Stuff For Us!!!" - but that is not the general electorate.

2. Obama makes the argument that his charisma, oratorical skills, and his making a speech 6 years ago about Iraq that ideologically argued against war despite the evidence Bush and Congress worked off of - entitle him to the Presidency. Despite his only having two years of national experience, with no military or executive civilian or State Government experience.
And people really haven't reflected on who, along with Obama, were making anti-war speeches like his in October of 2002, operating off Leftist or Muslim ideology. If Obama is to be credited with Superior Judgment, then we must also credit the wisdom and brilliant judgement of such anti-war speechmakers of 6 years ago as Vladimir Putin, the Muslim political parties from Morocco to Indonesia, Euroweenie Greenies, Jacques De Villepin, the Saddam-Bribed UN officials of Kofi's, the anti-war wisdom of Saddam himself. And inside the US, the 2002 anti-War oratorical brilliance of others who Obama seems to be arguing, match his main claim to be President. Barbara Boxer, Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakan, Noam Chomsky and other fellow-travellers of the Hard Left Jewish Intelligensia. The 9/11 Truther Crowd who argued that Bush did 9/11 so he could "seize all the oil".

Obamites all.

Posted by chris ford | March 5, 2008 6:04 AM

For a long time it has been quite clear that Clinton could lose the general election by losing several states Kerry barely won, such as New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, and maybe Washington. And I am not saying that just because Obama has won several of those states (note, for example, I didn't include Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, or CT, all Obama states which I think Clinton would likely win in the general election). Rather, it is combination of Clinton's support being regionally based and her lacking appeal among independents.

As far as I can tell, most Clinton supporters refuse to even acknowledge this problem, and if they do, they turn it into a strawman (e.g., by implying this concern is only based on the fact Obama has won several of those states). But in any event, I doubt the superdelegates are overlooking this extremely serious hole in Clinton's electability argument.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 6:35 AM

I was at a caucus in San Antonio and we had the opposite problem. The precinct captain was overwhelmed but she held up starting the caucus in order to prepare the primary returns. We waited two hours for the caucus to begin and many people left.

When people started to leave I did a quick count of where we were - 182 people. By the time we had the sign in sheets counted there were only 120. Obama won (60% to 40%).

Posted by Flannery | March 5, 2008 11:23 AM

OBAMA will be our next President and it couldn't come at a better time.

Posted by Clint | March 6, 2008 9:26 AM