Texas Caucus Results Page

***Updated March 11***

OBAMA WINS TEXAS CAUCUS: CNN is reporting that Barack Obama has won the Texas Caucus, the second part of the so-called Texas Two-Step, giving him more delegates than Hillary Clinton from the Lone Star State:

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has won the Texas Democratic caucuses and will get more delegates out of the state than his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won the state's primary, according to CNN estimates.

Under the Texas Democratic Party's complex delegate selection plan, Texas voters participated in both a primary and caucuses on March 4. Two-thirds of the state's 193 delegates were at stake at the primary, while the remaining third were decided by the caucuses.

An additional 35 superdelegates were not tied to either contest. Clinton, of New York, defeated Obama in the primary by a 51-47 percent margin. But results of the caucuses were up in the air on election night and for several days afterward, due to state party rules that did not require local caucus officials to report their results to a centralized location.

Partial caucus results, representing 41 percent of all caucus precincts, showed Obama last week with 56 percent of the county-level delegates chosen at the caucuses to 44 percent for Clinton. The state party says it will not be able to provide a further breakdown of the caucus results from March 4.

After a comprehensive review of these results, CNN estimates that Obama won more support from Texas caucus-goers than Clinton. Based on the state party's tally, Obama's caucus victory translates into 38 national convention delegates, compared to 29 for Clinton.

And though Clinton won more delegates than Obama in the primary, 65 to 61, Obama's wider delegate margin in the caucuses gives him the overall statewide delegate lead, 99 to 94 -- or once superdelegate endorsements are factored in, 109 to 106.

Read HuffPost's OffTheBus Superdelegate Investigation

Story continues below

EARLIER:The Associated Press is reporting that Obama is regaining delegate ground in the caucus results:

Barack Obama regained lost ground in the fierce competition for Democratic convention delegates on Wednesday based on results from the Texas caucuses, partially negating the impact of Hillary Rodham Clinton's string of comeback primary victories.

Late returns showed Clinton emerged from Rhode Island, Vermont, Texas and Ohio with a gain of 12 delegates on her rival for the night, with another dozen yet to be awarded in The Associated Press' count.

Via the Texas Democratic Party:

All Precinct Convention Results are unofficial until certified by the Credentials committee at the County or Senatorial District Convention on March 29th. However, in response to overwhelming interest from the public and the press, the Texas Democratic Party developed a reporting system that will allow the Chair of each Precinct Convention to call in results as soon as their meeting adjourns.

The results posted below reflect the number of delegates elected from the Precinct convention to the county or Senatorial District convention. Precinct convention results are likely to come in more slowly than primary election results because the convention may not begin until the last voter in line has voted, and other party business is conducted in addition to signing in and selecting delegates for presidential candidates.

Check the results here.

Comments

[skyreader7]

A month ago, I was ready to vote for either Clinton or Obama. Now, I will probably not vote for Clinton in the presidential election. I think her tactics the last month have shown she has serious character flaws. Her experience she keeps flaunting must be in whining, dissing, and backbiting. I don't think those traits will transfer to being a successful commander-in-chief or president. It is time for a change. The bottom line is that she has lost my vote come November by her tactics (so reminiscent) of Rove).

[LeaderofMen]

I find it amusing that regardless of math, emotion is ruling this primary/caucus.

The simple fact of the matter is that math wins. Obama has all the math in his favor at this point. All of it. Popular vote. Number of states won. Amount of delegates. Etc. The math can't lie.

On the other hand, emotions are well-known to lie. Especially emotions built out of vitriol, anger, arrogance, hatred and fanaticism.

It's unfortunate that the Hillary camp is basing their strategy on fear now. Fear that Obama can't do the job. The fact of the matter is that the most inexperienced Presidents in history are the nation's most remembered. The Presidents with the most experience are historical failures. The facts are there.

[DRPike]

Finally we can put this to bed.

[TheRealist1]

Here in Texas, a different story is being told. I posted this previously but it seems Huffpost did not approve my post so i will try again. Texas has stopped counting the caucus votes.

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=6000547&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1

[TheRealist1]

Hmm. Interesting headline. Huff post and CNN might be jumping the gun. Quite a different story down here in Texas, though.From what it looks like that has yet to be determined.

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=6000547&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1

[XYZ]

Fuzzy math at it's finest. Texas was a wash, nobody won. The Clintons said they needed a solid win in both TX, and OH. Well sorry they did get a solid win in OH, but TX nope. Time to pack it up, but wait the MSM wants a story so they gave her a pass. When it's all over I wonder if the historians will call this the Clinton dupe. They wanted a story so bad they let her believe she actually won TX! Oh well the campaign goes on. Let them fight over PA, if they can dupe those people into thinking that she is the better candidate then hell, I guess the dems don't want to win the General Election.

[Zeusthunderbolt]

Senator Obama stripped of his color has nothing to propel him to victory. Obama supporters are asked to look at him as a white man and search their souls, for the absolute truth about their support for him? It is his color, multicultural background and his middle name Hussein that his followers find attractive according to Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro. Take those invaluable and unfair attributes away and they would flock to Senator Hillary Clinton.


I am an Obama supporter. Open minded, college educated, and expensive coffee drinker.
Geraldine Ferraro said and I paraphrase: Obama is only where he is, because he is black. He would not be where he is if he was a woman, or white, and he is lucky for who he is.
I would like to presume it not a racist statement. I think she is completely and utterly wrong. It is amazing for me to see how Clinton supporters are blown away by Senator Obama’s persistent wins, no matter how many kitchen Sinks are thrown at him. They cannot understand how he can win, having no experience in a governor’s office as a spouse or as a first man in the white house. They really believe that he is winning because of foolish starry eyed 18 year old college kids, who are high jacking caucuses all across the country with strong armed tactics. They actually have bought into their own rhetoric of cultish stupid mesmerized followers. What was news to me was that Ms Ferraro believes him to be so unqualified a candidate that we, his supporters and followers are blinded by his story and race. The fact that he had an African father, he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and he is black are his only qualifications based on which I or others like me support him. We are so blinded by the above facts that we choose to ignore that he has no other qualifications. According to Ms Ferraro, we have been duped by his color and background. If you take away his color, his background, and his father away and only leave behind a white man or woman with his remaining attributes, he or she would have no chance of winning.
So, my fellow starry eyed, foolish, young, rich, white collar professional cultish followers of Senator Obama here are the questions being raised by Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro.
Take away his color, imagine him to be a white man or woman who grew up in a town called hope in Arkansas, and was raised by his parents and not his grandparents, his name is John Smith and not Barak Hussein Obama, who never travelled outside of the United States, would you still support him?
I want to give Ms Ferraro the benefit of the doubt and hence to the best of my understanding, this question can be answered only by Obama voters. Hillary supporters who are racists, sexist or bigots are out because they are definitely not supportive of him because of his color, gender or name. The ones who would not vote for him because of his name are also out. This is an exercise only for the so called open minded, change supporters, who call themselves beyond race and for his African American supporters. She is calling their support into question.
You are to imagine him to be of the same character, a senator from Illinois, who happens to be honest, holds the same policy positions, puts together the same grass root organization, has the same unparallel ability to inspire and make Americans proud to be who they are. He is young, 46, with appeal across the party lines, will attract independents, and has the potential to change the American landscape, tilting a generation of voters forever liberal and democratic. Ms Geraldine Ferraro asserts that given all these attributes, and stripping him of his color and background family story and he would have bowed out of the race by now, back in Chicago, with his Methodist blonde wife and his lovely daughters. Hillary Clinton would have pocketed the nomination and the democrats would be on their way to the white house.
If only Obama was white or a woman this race would be long over and a deserving woman, with 35 years of experience and solutions would be on her way to make history supported by 100 percent of women and not just 70 percent of over 50, more than half of white men, white and black voters all across America, Midwest, south, West including Hawaii, and Alaska. Senator Obama without the color of his skin and his upbringing stripped has nothing to propel him to victory. He is a pale empty shell.
Please post your responses taking into account all fore mentioned details. Thank you.

[foreffectivegovernment]

Here is a funny story about Texas politics.

Two candidate supporters were in a Texas Cemetery copying the names from the headstones to notepads.

One told the other, "I can't read the name on this headstone". The other said, "Try harder, everyone is entitled to vote in Texas."

THAT WAS A JOKE!

Don't you Obama supporters attack me for condoning voter fraud.

[VOTER]

But you ARE CONDONING voter fraud?

Duh! Huh?

[Covenant]

We do that in Chicago as well. As the saying goes, "Vote early, vote often."

However, in defense of a caucus, it's rather hard to sneak a bunch of corpses into your corner there. So at least we know the caucusers are among the living.

[Ashall]

foreffectivegovernment -
Let's see, you're talking about voter fraud from the caucuses since that's what Barack has won...so how do you figure he did it,? At a caucus the voter has to show up in PERSON and raise their hand for who they want! If youre insinuating voter fraud it has to be on the primary side which Hillary won, so in effect you're saying it's Hillary who is the culprit. Since by your profile you're not for Barack and not for Hillary, it seems you are a republican who has nothing better to do than interfere with the democratic race...another Steve King mistake.

[StephenS]

Clinton won the popular vote by 51% to 47% and more than 100,000 voters. She got 52% of the primary delegates to Obama's 48% (65 to 61).

If CNN is right, then in the caucuses, where a portion of primary voters voted a 2nd time on a Tuesday night, Clinton got only 43% of caucus delegates to Obama's 57% (29 to 38).

That's the same as if 420,000 of Clinton's primary voters (29%) were disenfranchised but Obama kept all his voters.

HuffPost posters have claimed that the Texas caucuses "moderate" the primary vote or weed out Repugs who voted to stir up trouble. (How they can tell such Repubs from those inspired by Obama or Clinton, no one has told us.)

Moderation that effectively throws out 420,000 of one candidate's votes and 15% of all voters when choosing 35% of delegates is a gross distortion of the will of the Texas voters. And, by the way, Texas caucuses do not weed out anyone who voted in the primary.

[sef2121]

You know who those disenfranchised people are? Single moms with no babysitter, senior citizens, people who work night jobs or can only get a small shift break to vote in the primary and people who are just plain tired and don't want to vote twice.

It sounds less and less like democracy every day-and this is how Obama is winning the majority of his delegates. He is very lucky that he can't attract bread-and-butter blue collar workers because they actually have to work for a living and can't caucus for their preferred candidate, HRC. This is tantamount to discrimination, but the Obama camp only cries discrimination when it works for them.

[dijo]

Texans who go to caucus have to have a receipt verifying that they voted in the primary and they must be registered democrats. Only democrats can caucus, so the Limbaugh republicans can not participate and affect the outcome,

[MrHumidty]

I guess all the Limbaugh-following Republicans chose not to caucas for Hillary. Maybe Hillary should call into Rush's show and ask him to give her voters clearer instructions.

[HFh]

I don't understand how you draw the conclusion that the voters were disenfranchised. It doesn't actually follow from the results. After all being disenfranchised *means* something in particular. The Texas system is unusual but is essentially a re-weighting of votes based on enthusiasm. For a nomination process that strikes me as important, so absent a strong argument that it is fundamentally unfair I don't see why it is either a bad idea or inherently disenfranchising. Do you have a good argument for either?

An interesting question, nonetheless, is: "Why don't all voters then go to caucus?" It would be nice for someone to conduct the study in a place like Texas. It might go a long way toward providing an actual rational argument one way or the other.

[ejay579]

For some reason the 420,000 "disenfranchised" elected not to participate in the caucuses. Whose problem is this? Hillary's obviously.

[lamarguerite]

Agree, headlines all over the papers should read:

'Obama Won Texas"

Lets keep the facts straight. Obama never got off the tracks . . .

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com

[rzan]

I would just like to add that so far, with 92% of the vote in, Obama is ahead by 20 percentage points in Mississippi, %59 to %39. He is doing well. If we did not like the caucus system, we needed to get rid of it before this campaign got started. I am from Washington State. We have caucuses for the Democratic party. But anyone would tell you here that Barack would have done just as well in a primary.

[JavaCityGal]

Obama actually did win both the caucus AND the primary in Washington State. So much for the caucus theory here, Washington State is Obama country do matter how you spin it (says every single county in the state).

[ME08]

Texas lives up to its rep as the most fucked up state in the union besides Florida...

[manumoka]

Sorry, but only about 50% of the caucus votes have been reported in Texas. I wouldn't chaulk that yet.

[Turkman]

this is EXCELLENT !!!!!! NEWS FOR HILLARY!!!!

[Darnamell]

Huh? Is this another example of Success through Failure?

[winkin]

Am I right that this process dates from the days when local delegates traveled by horse carriage to the county convention and then to the state convention? Especially given the size of Texas?
Totally outdated -IMHO.

[clearvoyant]

No you are not , where are you people coming from ?

[CountryOver]

Headline: "Correction: Obama Wins Texas."

[MysticMichael]

Agreed. But which of the MSM is going to actually publish the correction?

[clearvoyant]

CNN is grasping for news. They can't find any so they make some up. OK, I live in Texas and I voted twice last Tuesday. So this is what is happening. The canvass of the so called caucus votes is tomorrow. That means anything any one has, is sooo unofficial. What we had were precinct conventions and I have gripes for both campaigns about the way they screwed up our local process. The 67 delegates that are not yet decided will not be completely determined until the State convention. "It ain't over till it's over" Yogi Beara. BTW delegates to the national convention are not locked in, anyone can change their preference. The ultimate nominee is decided at the National Convention. This is Politics don't hold your breath.

[KDH]

You are correct. CNN has ESTIMATED the delegate tally. The actual delegate count in Texas as it stands now, is a 92-92 tie. There are 9 delegates remaining to be decided, and the official results wont be known until after state precinct and senate district conventions are held. The results should be final and official on March 29th.

See the full details here:
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010289120

[MarkieBee]

Not exactly the 60-40 split Hillary HAD TO HAVE to get back into the race huh sock puppets?

[cherylmo]

It is a sad state of affairs when a candidate wins the popular vote, the vote of the people, and then they have a chance for the same people to vote again at a time when your average working class people might not be able to come because of work shifts. So much for the people having a say. It is as bad as the super delegate thing.

Cheryl Morris

[Riemann]

Deal with it

[Riemann]

Actually Clinton won the primary thx to republicans. They didn't care about showing in the caucuses. That's why she lost.

Actually she shouldn't have won Texas.

[robXdion]

So true. 8% of Republicans crossed over and voted for her.

[TxWonderWoman]

Riemann that is flat wrong. Obama won more Republicans than Hillary did. Look at the exit polls. And I know for a fact that a lot of older voters were too intimidated by the huge crowd of raucus young Obama supporters to stay and vote at their caucus. I saw them leave. And believe it or not, my housekeeper who voted for Hillary was not able to caucus for her because she had to babysit for another client of hers so they could go caucus for Obama. I think no matter which side your on in this election, we should all agree that caucuses are not democratic in the way secret ballot is. They remind me more of what we hear about banana republics, or communist countries where voter intimidation runs rampant.

[MrClean]

Actually she shouldn't have won Texas.

Ummmm....she DIDN'T!!

[rzan]

Because of how ugly this whole thing is getting, I personally think we need to strongly acknowledge the popular vote, if that is possible and if Hillary doesn't come up with 25 new excuses. I don't think Obama won the popular vote in Texas, but he is still ahead when it comes to delegates, and he is still ahead in the popular vote nationwide so far.

[dpmol]

Cheryl,
I am absolutely against Clinton, BUT I also absolutely agree with your post. This whole caucus thing just blows my mind (let alone the Texas vote-a-caucus, which is even more a mind blower; people vote TWICE????? sheesh...what a way to run an election). I do not believe in a national primary (too weighted against incumbents/big names, but I also hate this system. Some sort of mini regional primaries should take place so that candidates can campaign regionally. The party should assign primary dates, with the input of all the states. And also I'm not sure why delegates from locations that cannot vote for president are voting delegates....politics is indeed ugly sausage making.

[rinpochet]

The caucuses were no problem to the Clintons when Bill was running and winning them. Guess they're only a problem if you lose them!

[AvgPseudoIntellectual]

Well, perhaps it makes up for the *possibility* that Clinton was only able to get the margin she got in the primary because of vast numbers of Republicans who voted for her --as spoilers -- at the behest of Rush Limbaugh. We will never know!

Oh, and I hope you have the same opinion when Hillary is trying to steal the nomination by strong-arming superdelegates at the convention.

[rinpochet]

I read that it was 8% of Republicans that voted for Clinton. They gave her the win. So it was not really a Clinton win, it was a Rush Limbaugh win!

[foreffectivegovernment]

I am so sorry you don't know what you are talking about so I will try to enlighten you. Don't accuse anyone of strong-arming delegates until you look at this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/02/AR2008030202434_pf.html

"NBC's Andrea Mitchell interviewed Lewis about his decision to switch his endorsement from Clinton to Obama. Lewis told Mitchell that the decision was extremely difficult, "much tougher" than when he helped lead the famous march on Selma, Alabama in 1965.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/27/civil-rights-icon-lewis-o_n_88757.html

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri had this to say;

In an interview, Cleaver offered a glimpse of private conversations.

He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only super delegate. ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?

"I told him I'd think about it," Cleaver concluded.

Jackson, an Obama supporter, confirmed the conversation, and said the dilemma may pose a career risk for some black politicians. "Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position" in the future, he added.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/16/black-superdelegates-threatened-pressured/

[ZombieKiller]

oh really? is it more sad than Obama winning more states, more delegates, and more popular votes overall and Clinton still trying to steal the election?