Clinton, Obama Press for Texas Delegates

AUSTIN, Texas — Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama scrambled to secure more Texas delegates Saturday as the state pushed to settle the outcome of the March 4 caucus.

Obama led Clinton 56 percent-44 percent in results reported from close to half the conventions held across the state _ the latest stage of a process that prompted frustration and challenges from supporters of both candidates. Obama showed strength later in the count after his rival built a 60-40 edge in Saturday's initial results.

Texas Democrats hold both a presidential primary and caucus. Clinton won the March 4 primary with 51 percent to Obama's 47 percent, earning her 65 national convention delegates to Obama's 61.

The state's caucus began immediately after polls closed primary night and quickly devolved into chaos in many parts of the state after an unprecedented turnout of more than 1 million Democrats. An incomplete and unofficial count by the Texas Democratic Party showed Obama was leading Clinton in caucuses 56 percent to 44 percent on election night.

A total of 67 national convention delegates are ultimately at stake in the Texas caucuses, and party conventions throughout the state Saturday were the latest effort to divvy up the prize. It appeared unlikely the bottom line would be immediately apparent for Obama and Clinton in their drawn-out Texas wrangle.

Because of the huge Democratic turnout in Texas' primary and caucuses, registration took hours Saturday. At large conventions in Houston, Dallas and Austin, arguments erupted and confusion set in as complaints were lodged about the legitimacy of some delegates.

Many of the challenges were brought by Clinton supporters questioning the validity of Obama delegates. The Clinton campaign said it wouldn't lodge any challenges itself but that it was helping supporters who would.

Obama has fared better overall in caucuses this year, winning 13 to Clinton's 3.

He entered Saturday's Texas conventions leading the national race for delegates, 1,623 to 1,499. It will take 2,024 delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, a prize probably to be decided in the end by party figures known as superdelegates.

___

Associated Press writers John Porretto in Houston and Paul Weber in Dallas contributed to this report.

Comments

[KimberlyKay]

Here are the latest results from the Burnt Orange Report:

Senator Obama leads Senator Clinton 55.79% to 44.21% (a 11.58% spread). 86.86% of the delegates have been awarded as of now. There are still outstanding conventions, but they will only produce 13.14% of the outstanding delegates. This spread will award Senator Obama at least 7 delegates which gives him the victory in the State of Texas. I suppose you could argue that every remaining delegate will go to Senator Clinton, but this is highly unlikely. My projections from election night (primary and caucus) show that Senator Obama should get at least 8% at the caucuses yesterday; he has already outperformed my projections in Houston (Harris), Dallas and Bexar. Senator Clinton did pick up steam in the South of Texas but I thought she would and gave her the whole area in my original projections -- Senator Obama outperformed my dismal assessment there (most of the numbers are in). There is one County that is caucusing today (rather than yesterday).

http://www.burntorangereport.com/

[ObamaSuperDelegate]

Thank you, this was very helpful!

[eXcommunicate]

Alright - the "Texas-Two-Step" I can full understand. I understand why they do it and I understand the results. So.... why the hell is there a CONVENTION a month later that could change the outcome of the CAUCUS? Isn't this a Texas-Three-Step?

[jdm58]

TEXAS TWO STEP = Vote in the primary during the day (or during early voting period). Caucus the night of the election at the PRECINCT you vote in, and then vote for delegates to represent your candidate at the DISTRICT convention. Total numbers of Delegates are awarded based on the voter turnout on the previous state election, and then divided by percentage of caucus turnout for each candidate.
DISTRICT CONVENTION = Number of delegates per precinct have been certified by the district to be accurate. Percentages are drawn again, and numbers downsized accordingly. If the actual numbers do not accurately represent the primary results, "at large" delegates are awarded to the candidates. The delegates chosen to represent their candidate then attend the State Convention in June.
STATE CONVENTION = Delegates are downsized exponentially by voting again, to be sent to the National Convention. Planks for the party platform are also ratified.
All states have this process in some form, to decide who goes to the national convention. Texas is the only one that doubles up the first step, and this is rather ufair, as it eliminates anyone who could only vote absentee or early in the Primary (handicapped, homebound, elderly, or out-of-town students for example), and can not attend the Caucus.

[sheperdess]

Should we be concerned about "Monkey business" on the side of The Clintons..­.challengi­ng the
"the validity" of Obama delegates??? Nothing is valid or legitmate if it's not leading to their entitlement to the Presidency.

[jrterrier]

wait, how can that be? hillary won the texas primary by more than 100,000 votes. how can he come out of TX with more delegates than she.

[jdm58]

I was a delegate to the 16th district convention here in Dallas. Although I have voted in every election in Texas since moving here from California in 1993, this was my first "caucus", and subsequent convention. In fact, this was the first election that I even KNEW we had a "Texas two-step". When asked by the Convention Chairperson how many were first time attendees, about 90 percent responded. Although speakers declared "here we are all Democrats", it was apparent that the divide between the two candidates was vast. The majority of attendees did not realize how the system was supposed to work, causing frustration and boredom to get in the way of their voting, especially on issues that were not well explained, beyond "I support Obama!, or I support Hillary!, so therefore agree with me!". The long lines to register (I waited over 1.5 hours to get in, and the event started over an hour late) didn't help. I wondered why the party leaders didn't do a better job preparing their attendees. Our venue was moved from a high school to Southern Methodist University. The irony that our convention was being held on the college campus chosen to house the Bush Presidential Library and Institute was not lost on us.

[jdm58]

(cont from above)
I was surprised at the questions asked on the participant forms, and realized that by trying to be "inclusive", the Democratic Party is being extremely partisan. On our delegate cards, we were asked to identify our race, gender, and sexual preference (I was amused that several of the delegates in my precinct had to ask what GLBT was). It was later explained, that after the district caucuses were held, in order to have representation that reflected the voting turn-out for the candidates, "at large" delegates would be chosen, to fairly balance the percentages in attendance at the state convention in June. This would explain why, in our Precinct, although Hillary won the most "Primary" votes, she was awarded no delegates, due to the huge Obama turn-out at the "Caucus" held that evening. In my precinct, we ended up with 2 delegates (Obama) and 2 alternates (Clinton) to be sent to the State Convention in June. Supposedly "at large" delegates will be awarded to more closely resemble the Primary turnout results, but since the "at large" form again asked age, race, gender, sexual preference, and additionally, what work we had done previously for the party I have to wonder on what basis the delegates will be chosen. I turned in my form, but when I asked when I would hear if I had been chosen, I was told that since my "profile" was the most common, that there was probably little chance of being selected.

[jdm58]

(cont)
Apparently, if I was young, and from a racial or sexual preference minority, I had a better chance.
If the Democratic party of Texas is to continue to profile voters and volunteers based on age, race, gender, and sexual orientation, instead of willingness to learn and work, ability to attend the convention (both in time and money- some did not realize the State Convention would be for 3 days, and at their own expense!), and committment to a cohesive and unified party ticket at the end of the process, then I believe it is doomed to continue to fail. These are the very divisive politics that we are accusing the Republicans of playing, and are calling out the candidates on in the press. Racist!" "Sexist!" "Homophobe!" they cry. But do we ask why it is necessary to "identify" in the first place? I resent polls that rely solely on percentages of respondents race, gender, education, pay scale, etc to identify a candidates strength or weakness. Issues are what are important. We are all Americans, at the end of the day, regardless of our backgrounds. I hope that the Presidential primary process is re-evaluated at the end of this season. I especially hope that Texas abandons its "two-step" system. I believe that many people, especially those who were raised to be gender inclusive and color-blind, are becoming alienated by a system that was designed most likely with good intentions, but is ending up being a farce.

[karmafriend]

after texas conventions

1,858 delegates for Obama

and

1,270 for Clinton

wake up, super delegates, and stop the fall of the deomocratic party!

[echeola]

Really? Can you source this?

[utd]

Those will still need to be pared down at the TX state convention, but ultimately it means Obama won TX bigger than was previously thought is all.

[sandtats]

http://www.burntorangereport.com/

Burnt Orange Report - Results from County Conventions

TIMESTAMP - 3:18PM, 3/30/08








Clinton Delegates
Obama Delegates
TOTAL

of 7,649
Conventions Reporting

(of 284)

TOTAL
2,944
3,715
6,659
162

PERCENT
44.21%
55.79%
86.86%
57.04%

[Smartey]

Obama has won the caucus, and will ultimately gain more total delegates from Texas than Shrillary. I have been told by my precinct chairman, who has looked at the preliminary tallies from the state.

Sorry, clintonites. Something elde for you to get your hemorroids in an uproar about.

[JanetBerns]

I suppose Obama will just pay them off with special interest money?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004315532_campsupermoney30.html

[ragtopdodge]

Hmm...noticed "for her Senate re-election, Hillary Clinton received a $4,200 contribution from Obama."

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=336


Democrats constantly donate to eachother. Is ths new news?

The Seattle Times has become a right-wing hack rag, ever since they endorsed Bush for President.

[SouthCentralDel]

Those donations from Obama to other democrats is a good will gesture to help them all in their contests. He is not stingy in helping others. Of course others will try to spin this and say Obama is trying to buy their vote. So typical.

[MarkieBee]

a little context would be nice Janet, but I realize that is a tall order for most Hillary sock puppets. Obama has donated MORE THAN Hillary because he has more to donate not because of some ethical lapse.

[GLBorchert]

I just returned from Texas 12th Senatorial District Convention, one of three in the Fort Worth area. I left elected as an Obama delegate to the state convention.

You read this stuff about caucus problems in Texas, but you have to understand that in our county, for example, there are maybe two full-time Democratic Party employees and fairly skeletal volunteer organizations. The logistics of suddenly dealing with district conventions that have ten times as many participants as two years ago is more than the system can handle.

But to me, even though the caucus and convention process here is messy and stressful, it is very worthwhile. It is democracy in action. It is the voice of the people seeking expression. The people who show up at these caucuses and put up with all of the hassle are people who really care, who really love their country and want to make it better. And, even though there is tremendous passion for Obama and for Clinton among their supporters, getting together in these events does tend to bring us together. We leave these events exhausted, but energized – hoping to not only help put our candidate in the White House but turn Texas blue.

[apresdeluge]

So what is wrong with a simple "closed" primary where the Democratic voters decide who the Democratic nominee is? The system in Texas is absolutely crazy and tends to disenfranchise voters because of its complexity. If the Republicans in Texas had developed such a system, Democrats would be crying fowl and rightly so. The "will of the people" is not well served by caucuses and certainly not by the convoluted system in Texas.

[jsinclair]

It's true the state systems all seem kind of wacky, even primaries when you look at the different voting machines...ballot designs, etc.

But the IDEA of the caucus is that its actually more "direct, participatory democracy" than trying to fill in the pieces of paper in a primary (we all remember how accurate that was in Florida 2000).

Caucus is supposed to be for those who really care, are knowledgable and get together to discuss and decide which candidate really is best.

I've never been to one, but my friend in MN said its very exciting and interesting. So...I think there are some good points about caucuses that many people are overlooking.

[KimberlyKay]

Actually, the system does not disenfranchise anybody -- unless you don't want to participate. In Texas, it is against the law to make anyone work who wants to vote (and this includes caucuses). Anybody who wanted to participate on election night could. Anybody who could get their neighbors to elect them as a delegate to yesterday's county conventions could go. And anybody who got elected yesterday by their neighbors gets to go to the State convention. It is called energy for the growth of the Democratic party.

But yes, after all who wants neighbors to meet each other? Who wants neighbors to discuss issues that are important to them and get the Democratic party to listen to their issues by getting proposals passed first locally, then county-wide, then state-wide and finally get them presented at the Democratic convention? Why would we ever want something so democratic? Please think before you type.

[BikerJim]

Does it disenfranchise voters or does it reward activist and strong supporters. I kind of like the concept. This way you measure the voters preference and also measue how active a candidate's supporters are...

[SShaw490]

I think the Two Step process is pretty effective, although hard on the nerves. For shallow but wide support, you have a primary with early voting and easy access; to gauge deeper commitment you have a caucus electing delegates to another caucus, electing delegates to yet another caucus. You wind up measuring both width and depth.

[MiddleRoad1]

Huh! So Clinton lost this big state after all. There goes another argument. What WILL she come up with next?

[AnninCA]

Claiming victory before the count is in is tacky. But then, you guys have been doing that for weeks.

In the meantime, Hillary Won Texas!

Could be June until Texas validates the delegate count. Happy waiting!

[cinnysmom]

so it's ok for you to claim victory but Obama supporters should wait until the final count? WTF !!!! So happy waiting to you!!!!!

[HaveyouPerspective]

Ann, if your bravado wasn't so humorous, it would be downright offensive. At least it has the redeeming quality of bringing your audience laughter.

You do realize that you contradict yourself within a few sentences, don't you?
Or at least obliterate your own argument by your own petard.

The waiting will be plenty happy in the Obama camp as the real winner of Texas is declared. This isn't revisionist history; this is simply correcting the "misstatement" of Clinton in claiming victory.

[hardsun]

Love the logic :)

AnninCA, you are a TRUE HRC supporter and while I may disagree, I admire your tenacity!!!

Women for Obama

[TheRealMacDaddy]

Ain't that what Hillary did on Mar 4? Even before the Polls in Tx closed? We won, we won, we won...LMFAO...NO SHE DIDN'T! So much for the FIREWALL and the Kitchen Sink and the 3:00 Phone Call and all the other BS, you've spouted Annie

[Fitzy]

AnninCA......You make no sense at all. Do you realize you just poked fun at yourself?
Maybe you don't.

[GLBorchert]

I just returned from Texas 12th Senatorial District Convention, one of three in the Fort Worth area. I left elected as an Obama delegate to the state convention. Yes we can! is now becoming Yes we will!

You read this stuff about caucus problems in Texas, but you have to understand that in our county, for example, there are maybe two full-time Democratic Party employees and fairly skeletal volunteer organizations. The logistics of suddenly dealing with district conventions that have ten times as many participants as two years ago is more than the system can handle.

But to me, even though the caucus and convention process here is messy and stressful, it is very worthwhile. It is democracy in action. It is the voice of the people seeking expression. The people who show up at these caucuses and put up with all of the hassle are people who really care, who really love their country and want to make it better. And, even though there is tremendous passion for Obama and for Clinton among their supporters, getting together in these events does tend to bring us together.

[JWLANDSCAPES]

When Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill endorsed Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, she said she'd found a candidate who "gives us a reason to believe again." Obama believed in her, too, donating $10,000 from his political action committee to McCaskill's 2006 campaign. She received nothing from the PAC of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

. . . Since 2005, [Obama's] PAC has donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Clinton's PAC has. Her PAC distributed $236,100 to superdelegates during the three-year period.

-By Talk Left p.s :Who really is leading the insurgency to steal the election....please tit-for-tat won't get us anywhere

[IslandGyal]

To steal the election, LMAO!

[RealistDem]

Well instead of helping other democratic candidates in the 2006 midterm election, hillary spent a record 30 million on her NY senate re-election. A contest should could of won spending a 100 bucks. But remember this is the Clintons, who are more concerned about whats good for clintons than the democratic party. 1994 ring any bells.

[Mesaywar]

Hold on, you float ideas from Talk Left, and you admit it? Is Hillary still "inevitable," and "the best prepared" over there? ROFLMAO.

Here's the thing, one of the problems Clinton has is her lack of coat-tails, lack of vision, lack of support for down ticket candidates, lack of understanding that it will take the concerted effort of "we" to change things, not just "me, me, and oh yeah,...me"

Obama supports his party in word, deed, and the money it does need.. Hillary Clinton, like her husband, former president Clinton, have a history of shall we say,...fair weather friendship with their own party. Don't forget, Bill left us with a Republican majority in both houses, and a Vice president who could not win in part, because of the trail of slime Bill left behind. His suck up the best and leave the rest strategy is what helped get us here. Hillary Clinton has not seemed to learn from that mistake. If she had, she, like Obama, would have been putting her money where her mouth is, and supporting other Democrats in their fights. considering her name, connections, and time in the senate, she should be ashamed of being outdone in "Support your party 101" by a freshman.

[TheRealMacDaddy]

Maybe that's because nobody donates to Hillary's PAC and the DLC. I guess she felt entitled to SuperD support, after all if it weren't for her and Bill the Democratic Party would have went the way of the Whigs and the BullMoose Party, right?

Hillary is in the RED and can't afford to pay her bills, let alone help other Democrats get elected to office (which by the way her Husband's policies had a lot to do with the Democrats loosing those Congressional Seats)!

Obama even contributed to Hillary's reelection campaign...but I don't think she's be voting for him, so WTF is your point?

[AnninCA]

The story coming out of Texas is that it's nasty as heck! Trujillo is quoted as saying that Obama's camp has resorted to a multitude of illegal tricks to win. Obama's camp is claiming dirty tricks from Hillary supporters. Both agree: It's nasty.

Obama's caucus leaders who may have cheated initially are now being challenged, so the final tally may not be until June.

[RealistDem]

Go to burnt orange report, Obama gained 9 delegates.

[fortuna]

Listen, if you weren't at one of the conventions yesterday (which I was), you can just shut the f*ck up. Obama's camp basically did NOTHING in regards to these conventions except to call the attendees and remind them to go. At the SD17 convention in Houston, Obama didn't even have an official surrogate to speak for him. All of the problems were due to HUGE turnout and total lack of understanding of how the process works. You'll be happy to know that despite the fact that our Precinct Chairman told all of our delegates SEVERAL times that they HAD TO STAY at the convention for the duration, 2 of the Clinton delegates just left before we voted on our state delegates. We even tried to call them on the phone to get them to come back. Because of this, they didn't have the numbers to even elect an alternate. Your candidate so inspires people that they don't even bother to stay to vote for her. None of them even applied to be at-large delegates which are meant to balance the results. On the Obama side, there were several people who campaigned to be delegates, alternates and at-large delegates. On the Clinton side, no one even bothered. Anyway, I know that the orifice you generally speak out of is intended for other purposes, but you really need to mind your own business. This is Texas and we don't let Californians MESS WITH TEXAS.

[KimberlyKay]

I currently live in California, but have loads of family in Texas. I have been waiting to hear a Texan say what you just said for months. You are doing a great job of turning Texas blue, keep up the excellent work and don't let the ignorant nonsense coming from folks who know little, or nothing about your state get you down! By the way, I would never mess with Texas -- I know better.

[Slord]

Austin Precinct 369 here - If having people take the time to educate you on the process is considered a dirty tricky, then yes we're guilty.

If taking the time to gather with your neighbors in advance to discuss the caucus and determine how best to carpool, rendezvous, and pick your state delegate is bad form, then damn, we're out of control!

If moving 7,000 (or was it really 13,000 like I heard at one point?) people into place, coordinating 100's of badge exchanges alternates, and getting dozens precincts' votes on the spot --- all before dinner --- is "chaos" (as described by MSNBC), then please send in Blackwater.

Prior to voting, my wife and I were educated on the Texas two-step process. We voted early and came back days later to caucus the first night. There's been educational material available every step of the way.

If you didn't know about it, it's your fault. We were inundated with information this year. This includes the news media that have been "confused" by the whole process. Have a producer read a damn pamphlet.

This was no more time consuming or chaotic than any other event that requires thousands of people to get together in once place.

[Slord]

BTW - my last comment was meant to echo fortuna's post, not as a response.

Obama's people went out of their way to make sure their delegates were as informed as possible. Nothing more, nothing less.

[TheRealMacDaddy]

What story? Give us some evidence...how about a link to a credible source.

What I've read is that Hillary Clinton is losing Big Time. and that the majority of the nastiness is coming from her supporters (of course except when her surrogates tell Pledged Delegates to switch sides).

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5659260.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-conventions_30pol.ART.State.Edition2.463133e.html

[Plowboy]

There are many spins given out to bolster Clinton. One is that while he wins caucuses, she wins primaries. But the fact is that he has won morte primaries than she. Moreover, some like caucusses better because the dedication shown there is greater, requires more knowledge of the candidates and issues. And it is true that he has a 13-3 edge in caucusses.

But the real issues are being forgotten. War: this is a big issue being hidden by those promoting Clinton. It was the reason Molly Ivins, my favorite Texan, said that she couldn't support Hillary! Who is a better manager? Clinton squandered a big warchest given her by lobbies and PACs, while Obama just keeps on keping on with small contributions from people like me. Who can best unite us? Chuck Hagel spoke for Obama on that, and Hillary is a known divisory figure. Who is more trustworthy? A bullet dodging Hillary or a man who has addressed workers whose jobs were lost overseas and said that those jobs would probably not come back, that we would need to find new jobs to replace them?

[ObamaSuperDelegate]

I think he has won more primaries and more caucases than her. People just spin, spin, spin!

[simplify]

Well its obvious who won Texas and its not Hillary Clinton!

[Purple Girl]

If they HAND Her the Nomination I'm done with the Dem party. In fact He is the only thing barring my Immediate UN Registration. they have been a party of Compacency & Complicity. I have a lsit of 'Dems and long as the List of Repugs who need to be brought Up on charges, Treason to begin with, then War Crimes and their contribution to this OIL situation (Crimes against Humantiy)
Obama Was NOT my First Choice Candidate, But He is th eOnly Choice If we are to REGAIN OUR DEMOCRACY. Clinton and Mac Are Corp Operatives!

[GLBorchert]

I just returned from Texas' 12th Senatorial District Convention, one of three in the Fort Worth area. I left elected as an Obama delegate to the state convention. Hooray! Yes we can! is now becoming Yes we will!

You read this stuff about caucus problems in Texas, but you have to understand that in our county, for example, there are maybe two full-time Democratic Party employees and fairly skeletal volunteer organizations. The logistics of suddenly dealing with district conventions that have ten times as many participants as two years ago is more than the system can handle.

But to me, even though the caucus and convention process here is messy and stressful, it is very worthwhile. It is democracy in action. It is the voice of the people seeking expression. The people who show up at these caucuses and put up with all of the hassle are people who really care, who really love their country and want to make it better. And, even though there is tremendous passion for Obama and for Clinton among their supporters, getting together in these events does tend to bring us together.