Huh? Yes, the headline is correct. According to CBS’s election coverage, Obama won 89 delagates and Clinton 84. Of course this was made possible due the the famous Texas Two step primary/caucus system. Hillary won the Texas primary with about 1.4 million votes in the primary. We still have no official numbers yet, but the caucuses were attended by a mere thousands of voters, which presumably awarded Obama a majority of the total delagates in Texas.
What is very interesting (again we won’t know for sure until the official vote comes in) is that it is very clear that a vote in a caucus is worth considerably more then a vote in a primary, especially in Texas. The weight of a vote cast in the caucus is worth roughly a thousand times more then a vote in the primary. This hardly seems democratic to me where one vote one person is the rally cry.
Of course, this is something that Obama doesn’t want to tout too loudly because he does much much better in caucus states then in primary states (although he has won some primary states). It seems clear that the caucuses do not reflect the general will like a primary does. If it can be 15 points different in Texas, then why not 15 points different in all the other states? Ultimately at the DNC convention, Obama is going to argue that the SDs should break his way because he won the most delegates, which of course reflects the general will of the party. However, if those delagates really do not reflect the general will because of the caucus system, then it is much harder for Obama to make that argument. We shall see how it all plays out.
March 10th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Can you hear Bill Clinton – “the will of the people has been subverted” crap while his wife will actively court delegates that Obama received as a result of the will of the people.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
He has won more PRIMARIES than HRC too, but great headline guys!!! And I do think he will tout it as it becomes official at the end of the month and we get closer to PA.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Hillary celebrated while in reality she ended 5 delegates behind??? Well, that’s the party that is so eager to celebrate any setback in Iraq, anyway.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
This is classic….they have a Che Guevara flag on the wall at BHO’s houston HQ. I love it!
A vote for Obama, is a vote for change….a change to Socialism!
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/02/14/msm-remains-incurious-about-obama-volunteer-che-guevara-flag
LMAO
March 10th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Run and hide C-Lo!!! Let’s send more troops and you will feel safer!!! We must protect your privilege!!!
March 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Run and hide C-Lo!!! Let’s send more troops and you will feel safer!!! We must protect your privilege!!!
Pat, any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
March 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
No, unfortunately its a result of this system
March 10th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
You are starting to sound mildly reasonable…Time to up my medication.
March 10th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
lol, I apologize for being a bit emotional but there is alot of truth what I am saying. Unforunatley through our media and government we only get a very small part of the picture and I think we’d all have better common ground if we knew all the facts, especially surrounding distant and recent history.
March 10th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Pat, you would be hard-pressed to find any of the regulars here who are not very conversant in our history. If you are talking about the black race of course many of us agree that the history of slavery and Jim Crowism is abhorable. The question we all must ask ourselves is how to we move on and fix the problem. You seem to be from the LBJ school of thought who said that “You can’t expect a man who has been chained for 200 years to run a fair race.” I think there is some validity to this point of view. There is little doubt in my mind that it is much more difficult as a black man or woman to achieve success in this country then it is for whites simply because of the condition they are born in (I’m talking being born in the inner-city ghetto etc.). Where you and I diverge though is in the solution. I have never thought that government is the best tool for change. All Democratic governmental policies have done is create a permanent underclass of people who are hardly better off today then 40 years ago. Real change can only come from you and I working with our brothers and sisters and giving of our time, talents and ability to make a positive change. When people come together like that (think underground railroad, Selma marches, etc.) wonderful things can happen. Government was not responible for any of that, it was people, God and faith that was responsible for it.
March 10th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Agreed BTM,but don’t you agree that the underground railroad, selma, etc. all civil rights have been hard fought against the law and policies of a conservative government and society resistant resistant to change?. The people working to do the thing to bring us together were labeled radicals, progressive, or for lack of better term-liberal. The Republican party (the liberal party of the day) and people of the north did fight to end slavery and give rights to those who never had them. if the Radical Republicans had been able to even the playing field back then (40 acres and so forth) it would be different today. But Johnson came in and pulled the troops from the south and ushered in the KKK. Johnson was a conservative democrat who had previouslly owned slaves then pretended to support the north but changed back when he got into office and became the first president to be impeached.
March 10th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Obama’s response today to Clinton’s talk of his being her #2 was spot-on.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I dunno, Bob. To me, Obama is getting “had” on this VP discussion. Hillary is very cleverly stealing a few votes from people who want Obama on the ticket but feel uncomfortable about his naivety. She is promising the 2-for-1 ticket, and he is not. Advantage Hillary.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:59 am
Most Obama supporters don’t want Clinton on the ticket, they want the promise of a new kind of politics, one that moves away from the Clintons .
March 11th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Hillary saying that BHO would make a good VP is a stroke of political genius. She must have some internal polling that says the Democrat electorate wants to be able to pull that lever for a black man running for national office, but deep down they know she is the more qualified candidate. By saying BHO would be a good VP, she is telling the undecideds that they can vote for her and still have BHO on the ticket.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Why in the world is Right Pundits suggesting that Obama is “losing” the Vice President argument? He’s not losing it – he’s winning it. Ever since the Clintons opened their big condescending mouths and floated the preposterous idea of Obama as VP, Hillary has tanked in the polls. Obama leads now 48-41 on Rasmussen! That’s a fifteen point swing since the Clintons started talking about this idea.
And also, why is Right Pundits saying that Obama has won “some” primaries? He’s won FIFTEEN OF THEM, same as Hillary. And it just so happens that the caucus states were mostly Western mountain states and Northern Plains states – states that Obama WOULD HAVE WON ANYWAY. Sorry people, Hillary doesn’t poll well with upper Midwest and Western rural folks. They despise her there.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Right Pundits is also LYING about the Texas Caucus. It was attended by 1.1 million people. You can call the Texas Democratic Party and verify this independently.
What is confusing about caucuses in the bigger states is that out of each precinct, delegates are chosen as a small percentage of the people that actually show up. So sometimes when you see the results, it looks like only 4,000 people showed up, when in fact 400,000 showed up and the 4,000 “state delegates” are just a representation of that.
Now in small states like Wyoming and Nebraska, they run their caucus more like a primary where they just list the popular vote AS IS.
In Texas, there were 8,300 precincts – averaging over 100 person per precinct. It was probably the biggest turnout for a caucus in the history of the United States.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Bill Clinton’s ties to the Carlisle Group and to sweatshops in South America are going to be spilling out all over the place if Hillary becomes the nominee. And Hillary is THE WORST campaign manager in the history of the Democratic Party. Obama is CLEARLY WINNING the VP debate because suddenly Hillary is tanking in the polls.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I know it’s like people aren’t paying attention or just listening to other people’s opinions but not noticing the tide turn as it’s happening.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Everyday since she made the VP comment he has gone up in the polls.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:34 am
well the past 4 or 5 days anyway
March 11th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Is Obama “naive”or “lacks experience” because he’s 44 yrs old vs Hillary’s 60? Because it is of record that his substantive legislative achievements since entering the Senate are more nationally significant than Hillary, even with more years’ “experience”! Go online to Library of Congress and review both records – there’s no comparison. Just a few of his:
2007 Ethics Reform Bill to restrict the influence of Lobbyists
2006 Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act
S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq
S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts
S.1180 and Homes for Heroes
S. 3475: bill to expand and improve services for homeless veterans
S.1084: A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans
S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts
-2005 S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections
March 11th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Um, no matter how you count the delegates, Obama has over 600,000 more votes than Clinton. So your argument is bunk no matter how you count it. Funny how you’re trying to make everything look against Obama right now – getting afraid?
March 11th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Clint, please provide a source for your numbers. I’ve looked around and there are no official numbers yet for the caucuses. If you can provide a link that would be appreciated.
Accusing us of lying is uncalled for, if my numbers are off I’ll gladly add a correction, but these were the best numbers that were available to me at the time of my post. Either way, a lot more people vote in the primary then the caucus, so the general premise holds true, a vote in the caucus is worth a lot more then a vote in the primary.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Clint…The fact that no one understands you doesn’t mean you’re an artist.