HRC's Texas Caucus Plan

[DFW HOYA]

"Do not allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in [caucus] leadership roles," reads the latest Clinton literature. "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."



trailblazers.beloblog.com/archives/2008/03/caucus-strategy.html

[jerseyhoya34]

Just looking at the numbers, it looks like tonight's results generally for the Democrats will come down to TX. As of now, Obama is ahead with the early voting numbers in and many of the rural counties northwest of Dallas. It seems to be coming down to HRC's El Paso/southern TX bloc and Obama's bloc in Dallas and Houston.

[AustinHoya03]

Not that anyone is interested, but at my precinct's caucus tonight the split was about 60/40 for Obama. Barack's staunchest supporters? Older white Democrats. Apparently the spirit of the sixties lives on.

Right now it looks like South Texas is reporting more slowly than the urban centers, so Hillary could gain ground as the night goes on. Really surprised she has made this race competitive -- I expected Obama by at least 7 percentage points.

[AustinHoya03]

Mar 4, 2008 22:21:21 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Jand many of the rural counties northwest of Dallas.

Uh, no. Those urban counties are part of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.

[DFW HOYA]

County by county results:

enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_136_race0.htm

[Bando]

What's interesting is that while Hillary got all these wins, she didn't make so much as a dent in Obama's delegate lead. She's even more of a long shot now.

[Boz]

Mar 5, 2008 10:44:24 GMT -5 Bando said:

What's interesting is that while Hillary got all these wins, she didn't make so much as a dent in Obama's delegate lead. She's even more of a long shot now.

See, this is the part I don't get. Yes, Obama has a lead of, say, 75-90 pledged delegates or so, right? I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but it's somewhere under 100.

He has also won more states, and -- if you don't count Florida and Michigan (and you really can't count Michigan since he wasn't on the ballot) -- a lead in the popular vote of about 500,000-600,000. If you do count Florida, his popular vote lead is cut in half.

Forget the superdelegates for the moment. There's still roughly 350 of those who have made no commitment, so I don't think anyone can predict what they will do (not to mention predict what those who have made a "commitment" will do).

So, OK, it's correct to say that HRC can't catch him completely, given the way Dems allocate delegates (and who's brilliant idea was that?).

But, isn't is also true that Obama cannot win on pledged delegates if she stays in, due to those very same rules? Given the number of delegates remaining and the number required, the math really doesn't work for him either.

And isn't it likely that -- if she stays in -- they will end up roughly tied, both in pledged delegates and in popular vote? Obama will have a few more states in his column, but she will have the bigger states.

So, I am trying to understand why there is any reason she should get out of the race.

Obviously, you know that I'm not a fan of either (less a fan of Clinton than of Obama, but I'm not going to vote for either one).

At the same time, neither am I one of those who is cackling with schadenfreude delight at the prospect of a long, drawn out battle. Yes, it could (probably will) get very bloody and hurt both their chances, but on the other hand, it is months of free publicity for the Democratic platform while McCain is on the back pages. So, I am not asking these questions with any conservative agenda in mind.

I'm just honestly wondering, if neither of them can "win" before the convention, why would either of them not stay in all the way (save running out of money, which isn't a problem for him, and shouldn't be a problem for her anymore).

It also makes me certain that the Dems better figure out what to do about Florida and Michigan before they get to Denver or there could be a real bloodbath there. And not counting those states? Not a good idea if you want to try to win them in the general. I can just see the Republican commercials now.

Opinions welcomed, because I can't figure it out.

(PS, Bando - if you think I'm a d***, read Michael Gerson's column in the WP today. You can expect a LOT more of that sort of thing from conservatives over the next several months).

[kchoya]

Mar 5, 2008 11:23:49 GMT -5 Boz said:

Mar 5, 2008 10:44:24 GMT -5 Bando said:

What's interesting is that while Hillary got all these wins, she didn't make so much as a dent in Obama's delegate lead. She's even more of a long shot now.

See, this is the part I don't get. Yes, Obama has a lead of, say, 75-90 pledged delegates or so, right? I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but it's somewhere under 100.

He has also won more states, and -- if you don't count Florida and Michigan (and you really can't count Michigan since he wasn't on the ballot) -- a lead in the popular vote of about 500,000-600,000. If you do count Florida, his popular vote lead is cut in half.

Forget the superdelegates for the moment. There's still roughly 350 of those who have made no commitment, so I don't think anyone can predict what they will do (not to mention predict what those who have made a "commitment" will do).

So, OK, it's correct to say that HRC can't catch him completely, given the way Dems allocate delegates (and who's brilliant idea was that?).

But, isn't is also true that Obama cannot win on pledged delegates if she stays in, due to those very same rules? Given the number of delegates remaining and the number required, the math really doesn't work for him either.

And isn't it likely that -- if she stays in -- they will end up roughly tied, both in pledged delegates and in popular vote? Obama will have a few more states in his column, but she will have the bigger states.

So, I am trying to understand why there is any reason she should get out of the race.

Obviously, you know that I'm not a fan of either (less a fan of Clinton than of Obama, but I'm not going to vote for either one).

At the same time, neither am I one of those who is cackling with schadenfreude delight at the prospect of a long, drawn out battle. Yes, it could (probably will) get very bloody and hurt both their chances, but on the other hand, it is months of free publicity for the Democratic platform while McCain is on the back pages. So, I am not asking these questions with any conservative agenda in mind.

I'm just honestly wondering, if neither of them can "win" before the convention, why would either of them not stay in all the way (save running out of money, which isn't a problem for him, and shouldn't be a problem for her anymore).

It also makes me certain that the Dems better figure out what to do about Florida and Michigan before they get to Denver or there could be a real bloodbath there. And not counting those states? Not a good idea if you want to try to win them in the general. I can just see the Republican commercials now.

Opinions welcomed, because I can't figure it out.

(PS, Bando - if you think I'm a d***, read Michael Gerson's column in the WP today. You can expect a LOT more of that sort of thing from conservatives over the next several months).

I'm even more interested in how this plays out in the media in the coming days. For the past few weeks, it's been mostly about Obama's momentum and winning streak. Now that Clinton has won three out of four, Obama is switching his tone to "the math is on my side." Not very sexy if you ask me.

I think the media will be torn between their love affair for Obama (which may or may not be dying down) and their natural inclination to paint everything as a horse race and who has the momentum, who's faltering, etc.

[GIGAFAN99]

Call me stupid, but why is the math on Obama's side? He currently has more delegates but if Hillary wins PA wouldn't it come down to superdelgates for either of them? Even with a decent but unspectacular win in PA, Obama would essentially have to win out to get the nomination without SD votes.

And being that the remaining supers are mostly DNC members, doesn't that favor the entrenched DNC favorite in Hillary?

Throw in possible re-runs in Michigan or Florida and it gets even less clear.

Howard Dean is the most important man in politics right now it seems.

[DFW HOYA]

Mar 5, 2008 11:23:49 GMT -5 Boz said:

It also makes me certain that the Dems better figure out what to do about Florida and Michigan before they get to Denver or there could be a real bloodbath there. And not counting those states? Not a good idea if you want to try to win them in the general. I can just see the Republican commercials now.

Or this one:

"It's 3:00am and your children are asleep. There's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing. Something is happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether someone knows the world's leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead. It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?"

The camera pans to John McCain...

[Bando]

Boz, I think you're absolutely right about the math here. The problem lies in that Clinton has never really destroyed Obama anywhere, while he's walloped her in a number of states. Without such a win, there's no way she can catch him, but she can prevent him from reaching 50% +1 in the delegate count.

The argument for Clinton not staying mostly has to do with presenting a united front against McCain, not that she's too far out of it to compete. Personally, I don't think a protracted nomination fight is that big of a problem for the Dems; it keeps them in the news while McCain does nothing of interest, and McCain doesn't have a lot of money to really hammer anyone with anyway. I agree that the Florida/Michigan thing could change that, but we're not there yet, so it's premature to cede the race to McCain, especially when the numbers are still very much in the Dems' favor.

[Bando]

Mar 5, 2008 14:21:17 GMT -5 GIGAFAN99 said:

Call me stupid, but why is the math on Obama's side? He currently has more delegates but if Hillary wins PA wouldn't it come down to superdelgates for either of them? Even with a decent but unspectacular win in PA, Obama would essentially have to win out to get the nomination without SD votes.

And being that the remaining supers are mostly DNC members, doesn't that favor the entrenched DNC favorite in Hillary?

Throw in possible re-runs in Michigan or Florida and it gets even less clear.

Howard Dean is the most important man in politics right now it seems.

The Democrats divvy out delegates via proportional representation, so unless someone wins big (something Clinton has not really been able to do), they're still going to be splitting delegate roughly 50/50. For example, last night Clinton picked up 6-8 delegates, even though she had 4 wins (also, part of this is due to the fact that Texas has a primary and a caucus; Obama seems to be winning the latter). Additionally, each primary that happens lowers the pool of available delegates. If she can win 2 of the biggest states in the Union but only gain 6 delegates, she's not going to be able to close Obama's ~100 delegate lead.

[Jack]

The math favors Obama because there is no way Hillary can catch up to Obama in elected delegates. Yes, both sides will need superdelegates, but the argument goes that there will be a full-scale revolt among Democratic voters if Obama has the most elected delegates but these inherently undemocratic superdelegates swing the nomination to Clinton. Yes, the process was designed to give those superdelegates the chance to do exactly that, but it is so unpalatable that it would doom Clinton in a general election. All but the most loyal Clintonistas have to see that, and have to understand that as things currently stand, Obama stands the best chance of winning independent and even GOP voters against McCain.

It's fine for Clinton to stay in and test Obama's credentials on national security, to strengthen her influence on the platform, and even to have some say in the VP (although I would prefer she just go away). But unless the Rezko thing totally blows up or Obama commits some unspeakable gaffe, he has to be the nominee and Hillary's ongoing attempts to tear him down will only hurt her party and show her to have self-aggrandizement ahead of what is best for the country.

[GIGAFAN99]

Mar 5, 2008 14:36:09 GMT -5 Jack said:

The math favors Obama because there is no way Hillary can catch up to Obama in elected delegates. Yes, both sides will need superdelegates, but the argument goes that there will be a full-scale revolt among Democratic voters if Obama has the most elected delegates but these inherently undemocratic superdelegates swing the nomination to Clinton. Yes, the process was designed to give those superdelegates the chance to do exactly that, but it is so unpalatable that it would doom Clinton in a general election. All but the most loyal Clintonistas have to see that, and have to understand that as things currently stand, Obama stands the best chance of winning independent and even GOP voters against McCain.

It's fine for Clinton to stay in and test Obama's credentials on national security, to strengthen her influence on the platform, and even to have some say in the VP (although I would prefer she just go away). But unless the Rezko thing totally blows up or Obama commits some unspeakable gaffe, he has to be the nominee and Hillary's ongoing attempts to tear him down will only hurt her party and show her to have self-aggrandizement ahead of what is best for the country.

More unpalatable than just kicking a union stronghold and a massive swing state out of your nomination process?

I don't understand why people are saying that the SDs would be "reversing the will of the people." Are voters in Michigan and Florida not people?

I mean that's pretty f'd up (official political term) to be the national - 2 states winner and act like you're entitled to the nomination.

I know that's the Obama party line, but I don't think anyone really buys that Obama is such a better candidate or that he has such overwhelming support that he's owed this. I keep hearing "if the election were held today" on Obama and can't help but remind people "it isn't." It is 8 tough months of a guy who has been a senator for 57 seconds getting dragged through the mud.

[Boz]

Frankly, I'm amazed that there hasn't been some huge court battle yet.

But there's always tomorrow. . .

(OK, yes, I put on my snarky conservative hat again for that one)

[Jack]

Do I think Michigan and Florida are important states for Dems? Absolutely

Do I also think the primary system and almost everything else with the way Americans select a President is totally broken? 100%

Given that the system is already set up and well more than 50% down the tracks, do I believe Hillary's desire to include Michigan and Florida, when she knew they did not count from the beginning, comes across as more of the same political gamesmanship than makes people hate her and hate politics in general? Yes

That said, if they can figure out some way for a do-over in Florida and Michigan, I won't mind a bit, but it won't really change my opinion on the SDs. I don't think anyone can assume Hillary would win either one of those states, and I imagine they would both be about as close as Texas and Ohio were, thus netting precious few delegates for either side and leaving us with status quo.

The original roll of the SDs, as I understand it, was to prevent the primary voters from selecting a candidate who could not win a general election. True, the original thought was that such a candidate would be a grass roots outsider with radical ideas. It turns out, in this election, that the grass roots outsider also happens to be the one with a chance to win, whereas the insider is abhorrent to a large section of the country. Problem is, too many SDs are beholden to the party machinery and not able to see the broader picture of who will best carry the flag.

[theexorcist]

As a Republican, this is sort of a dream come true. Every primary, it gets bloodier and bloodier.

[kchoya]

Mar 5, 2008 15:22:52 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

As a Republican, this is sort of a dream come true. Every primary, it gets bloodier and bloodier.

I agree. It took my wife a few moments last night to realize why I, as a right-winger, was taking delight in HRC's wins in Ohio and Texas.

And as to Jack bringing up the argument that some may revolt if the superdelegates go against the will of the people (expressed through the regular delegates), I think the HRC camp can temper that by saying that she's winning the popular vote (if you count MI and FL). That argument seemed resonate with the Dems in 2000.

Whatever your party or affiliation, you have to be hoping for old-fashioned contested convention with some drama.

[hifigator]

Mar 5, 2008 15:22:52 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

As a Republican, this is sort of a dream come true. Every primary, it gets bloodier and bloodier.

Hee hee hee .... on that we can agree. McCain is not my ideal choice, but you have to dance with who brung 'ya. And as of now, he brung me.

[hifigator]

Mar 5, 2008 15:42:50 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Mar 5, 2008 15:22:52 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

As a Republican, this is sort of a dream come true. Every primary, it gets bloodier and bloodier.

I agree. It took my wife a few moments last night to realize why I, as a right-winger, was taking delight in HRC's wins in Ohio and Texas.

And as to Jack bringing up the argument that some may revolt if the superdelegates go against the will of the people (expressed through the regular delegates), I think the HRC camp can temper that by saying that she's winning the popular vote (if you count MI and FL). That argument seemed resonate with the Dems in 2000.

Whatever your party or affiliation, you have to be hoping for old-fashioned contested convention with some drama.

I know just how you feel. A good friend of mine and my wife are still somewhat confused as to why I was such a strong fan of Hillary last night.