OBAMA WINS TEXAS (from the dreaded Kos):
A few commenters are trying to make a point that Clinton maintains the popular vote lead in Texas. This is factually incorrect.
According to NPR, more than 1 million voters showed up to caucus.
Let's do a little math (Primary vote totals from ABC News):
TX Primary Result
Clinton 1,459,814
Obama 1,358,785
TX Caucus Result
Not formally tabulated but if we derive from the available totals we have good approximate numbers
Clinton 440,000
Obama 560,000
Grand Popular Vote Totals (Primary + Caucus)
Clinton 1,469,814 + 440,000 = 1,909,814
Obama 1,358,785 + 560,000 = 1,918,785
nerdoff,
thank you. you're very smart. the popular vote doesn't matter. the only thing that matters is who gets the most delegates, no matter how absurd the allocation system. which, of course, includes the super delegates. being on the record about that, i trust you won't be whining should the super delegates give hillary the win. you might also appreciate what big tent had to say.
Posted by Turkana at March 7, 2008 01:32 PMAnd nerdoff is the kind of intellectually honest person who'll be combing through the Clinton tax returns "doing the math".
Posted by snark at March 7, 2008 01:39 PMWaitaminit, didn't I read somewhere that you couldn't caucus in TX unless you voted in the primary? Wouldn't that mean those caucus votes are duplicates?
Posted by iamcoyote at March 7, 2008 01:52 PMcoyote..when you went to the poll they gave you a ticket to your caucus when you told them you were voting with the Dems. You could go if you didn't vote, or you could vote and not go, or do neither, or both.
Posted by T2 at March 7, 2008 02:04 PMWhoa, T2, I'm trying to unwrap that one. No wonder they called it clusterfuck. But it looks like there could be duplications in your scenario. Boy, let's hope if we make it out of this election alive, the Dems figure out how to fix this stupid system.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 7, 2008 02:10 PMWhat kind of duplications? you are supposed to vote both times, if thats what you mean.
The main problem this time is there were twice as many Dem caucus voters as ever before. Being a GOP state, the Dem caucus' were traditionally just a place to go moan and groan after voting for a candidate that was sure to lose in the general.
So if the same people voted twice how can you add the caucus votes to the total popular vote?
Just another example of why any attempt at figuring a national popular vote is basically hoocus poocus.
Posted by snark at March 7, 2008 02:40 PMSo if the same people voted twice how can you add the caucus votes to the total popular vote?
That's what I was talking about. It's one person, two votes. A duplicate vote. And it can't be added to the "popular vote" because that's understood to be "one person, one vote," right?
Posted by iamcoyote at March 7, 2008 03:21 PMAnd that's not even getting into the really crazy automated phone call biz that the precinct captains apparently didn't know they were supposed to do, which is why the count is taking so long. Doesn't seem like a very secure system to me...
Posted by iamcoyote at March 7, 2008 03:23 PMA question for fervent Clinton supporters:
If Hillary Clinton loses the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, but the superdelegates overturn the result and choose her as the nominee, what was the point of the vote? Why not just let the superdelegates determine the outcome in the first place?
It seems to me that if you're OK with this, you are in effect arguing the votes of the people shouldn't matter.
I await your tortured responses.
"More than any other politician, McCain is identified with the Iraq War. From the mid-1990s on, he and his advisers were staunch supporters of "regime change." Scheunemann helped write the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, which funded Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress..."
In other words, he fully supported the Clinton Iraq regime change policy - a policy which Hillary also supported whole heartedly during and after her husband's administration.
And we are supposed to believe another Clinton in the White House will solve the Iraq problem - yeah, right!
Posted by Shirin at March 7, 2008 03:49 PMnerdoff,
If the vote is so close that 100 or so superdelegates can make the difference then neither Obama nor Clinton has a clear claim to be the "real winner." To the extent that the superdelegates actual votes are needed they are *always* intervening on one side or the other and there is always some question as to which side "should" have won. The electorate is pretty evenly split. I was never a clinton supporter and I voted for Obama but I have no trouble saying that if I had supported clinton I'd support obama if he wins the nomination--hoewver he wins it--and the same goes for clinton. This constant need for people to try one downing the other candidates supporters with charges of poor sportsmanship etc... is just nauseating.
aimai
Posted by aimai at March 7, 2008 04:00 PMNerdoff,
You keep insisting that there can be some "result" to be overturned before either candidate has 2025 delegates. There can not be. There is no "result" until one of them has 2025. And the Democratic Party has seen fit to empower certain delegates with the authority to decide who they think will be the person to best represent the party regardless of the primary elections. So yes, I'm fine with that.
Despite what you seem to think the "people" have not expressed a clear favorite to this point evidenced by the fact that neither has enough delegates to claim the nomination. And spare is the talk about the national popular vote. There is no such thing in this contest. Obama supporters are already claiming that crossover
Republican voters are responsible for the big Hillary numbers in Texas. The "popular vote" means nothing when you have people voting èn masse for the person they want to lose.
So the votes of the people do matter. But according to the rules the peoples votes have not determined a winner yet. You seem to want to ignore the party's rules, or worse yet, make up your own. So who's the tortured one here?
Posted by snark at March 7, 2008 05:13 PMdamn -
this is very useful info.
i have spent so much time focusing on george, dick, and rummy and their gangs,
that i had not noticed mccain might be a true-believing neocon warrior.
good god!
all i ever noticed about mccain was that he, along with his pal joe lieberman, got lots of attention and stoking from press and pundits for "fixing" things every time something was "broke" in the u.s. senate.
Posted by orionATL at March 7, 2008 05:14 PMaimai--
Let me try another way:
Assume Hillary loses the pledged delegate count. Assume she loses the popular vote. Assume the superdelegates vote to give her the nomination.
Why bother counting the votes? If the superdelegates are making the decision, what difference does it make if Obama won a million votes or a trillion? Or an infinite number?
A "close" election--to use your word--is completely arbitrary. "Close" could be whatever Hillary's supporeters say it is.
snark--
I appreciate your response, but you answered a question I did not ask.
This "clusterfuck" Texas election concerns me.
Remember those maps showing the advance of fireants? And then it was the scary killer bee maps.
It looks like the adverse mental effects from Arkansas inbreeding has completely engulfed Texas.
Is Arizona next? Oh crap, I forgot the polygamists have been making "inroads" here for over a hundred years.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 7, 2008 05:51 PMWill McCain go along with this? Bush to Veto Bill Banning Waterboarding http://www.adn.com/24hour/topstories/story/338176.html
Seems to me rather than go after Hillary or Barack, we need to unite for whomever is running against McBush rather than tearing into each other's candidates.
Posted by Jackie at March 7, 2008 05:54 PMNerdoff,
I answered your question. You just don't like the answer.
This is party nomination, not a general election. Thé party made the rules and you don't like them. If the voters had expressed a clear preference for one or the other we would have a winner already. They have not. So now the super delegates will have their say. Those are the rules. Again, who's the tortured one here?
Posted by snark at March 7, 2008 06:20 PMJackie, we don't even need to unite; just find a way to get the Dem candidates to double up to challenge McCain from two different directions. That way, Dems will still be in the news while McCain still has no money to fight back, though he does have the media's love now that he's fed them Bar B Kew.
snark's right, and Rachel Maddow was talking about it today - to continue this bickering even though no one can pass the delegate threshhold is totally stupid. Neither has a reason to drop out, and the supers don't decide until the convention. That's months from now - time enough to sour the public on the bicker twins and find the maverick war hero the "saner" choice. Clinton and Obama need to cooperate at this point if any Dem is going to win in November.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 7, 2008 06:20 PMiamcoyote, that's my point; Barack or Hillary are much more qualified to be President than McBush. I know I plan to vote for whomever wins the Dem seat. It's the BS of "if Hillary wins I'm voting for McBush," or "if Barack wins I'm voting for McBush" that drive me crazy. Our "problem" is having two excellent candidates running for pres and at the moment we seem equally divided on which of the two is the most "excellent" - which is causing many to tear apart the candidate they didn't vote for in primaries or caucuses.
Myself? One day I'm all for Hillary and the next I'm all for Barack. Politics is dirty business and there's going to be mudslinging by both candidates, as is usually the case when trying to prove one is better than the other, but bottom line is either will help bring respectability back to our country and the White House. I don't see McBush doing anything but taking our country down even further than Bush has.
Posted by Jackie at March 7, 2008 06:53 PMiamcoyote,
Thank you! The first relevant comment on this tortured thread. This senseless bickering is the only way McSame has a chance to finger the button. It's really time to stop and think!
So, Obama ended up winning Texas, just like I said the night of the election -- lose in the primaries (barely), take the caucuses and get more delegates. Thanks for the news, Nerdoff. How sad that I have to read about it in a comment thread or elsewhere instead of the front page of this liberal news blog.
I said it was going to be just like Super Tuesday an it was: Spin, spin, spin by Hillary's team -- "HRC wins! HRC wins!" -- but when it comes down to brass tacks, the delegate count and the real results, Obama would quietly win. And that's what happened.
I'm glad to see so many Hillary supporters letting their true colors show. It's a legitimate question they ask, previously asked by people like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, even old King George, and it's now being asked by Hillary's organization and her supporters. Why should the will of the people count? Thanks for illustrating exactly why I won't be voting for Hillary, you Hillary supporters.
About McCain and his neo-con views of the Mid-East, i.e. Syria and Iran, how is this any different than Hillary and her neo-con views of the Mid-East?
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 05:41 AMbrian bell..when the time comes..she isn't gonna need your vote...so you know what you can do with it...you sure are wrong alot
Posted by dennis at March 8, 2008 06:47 AMDennis, LOL! You're the one who is wrong. If Hillary gets the nomination, she damn well will need my vote. I live in a swing state. LOL! Just think, my personal vote actually matters. And there's probably hundreds of others, if not thousands, who frequent this blog who have a vote just as important as mine. Hillary and her supporters ought to be thinking about that as they proceed to assassinate Obama's character.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 08:30 AM