TX Primacaucus Results: Obama Leads Clinton by 3 Pledged Delegates

You were right Phillip (3.00 / 1)

The Obama campaign learned the system and worked it to win Texas.  That's what we want - someone who pays attention to the rules, makes a strategy to win, and keeps the focus on winning.  

And kudos to you too for putting out so many great reports during this whole Texas primary season.

---

by: sonia @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:21:59 AM CDT

Thanks for keeping us updated (0.00 / 0)

I am not a delegate and could not attend my precinct convention b/c of work related responsibilities.  I really appreciate being able to stay current on the outcome of this awesome event.  

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:09:19 AM CDT

At large delegates? (0.00 / 0)

Anyone know where we can find a list of at large delegates for SD14?

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:09:41 PM CDT

They haven't been compiled completely (0.00 / 0)

I know of a few, but they should soon be done. I think I can post them when I get the final copy.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:14:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is even more confusing (0.00 / 0)

I live in New York City and want to pitch this story to political reporters and bloggers here, but these charts don't seem current.

This chart has Obama at 55.22% (37 delegates) and Clinton at 44.78% (30 delegates).

In her update to this post, KT writes that "this chart is based off of the current level of returns."

But the link in that phrase goes to the chart below, which has Obama at 56.04% and Clinton at 43.96%.

This makes a huge difference, since the latter would change the delegate break to 38/29.

Shouldn't these charts agree? If so, can you please update both the caucus and the delegate charts here, so that we can send reporters and bloggers charts that  reflect the latest numbers?

Many thanks.

---

by: horizonr @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:29:30 PM CDT

Reading the Chart (0.00 / 0)

55.22% equals 37 delegates because the percentage is being derived from the delegate split, not the other way around in this table.

I'm also not a she.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:32:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also (0.00 / 0)

Updated the post to clarify. I hope that helps.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:39:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You see the problem, though? (0.00 / 0)

(Sorry for the mistaken gender assignment -- mea culpa.)

Both the lede and the main charter header identify these numbers as the "current state of the TX primary." And your update -- which says that these charts are based on "the current level of returns" -- links back to the chart which does indeed show "the current state."

But, if I understand you correctly, what BOR is providing here is not the current state, but a set of projections based on what you now expect the current state to be, once 100% have reported.

What this means is that, when users link back to -- or look below at -- the current state chart, they are looking at apples and oranges. Although the percentages appear to be referring to the same thing, they're not.

In the interest of clarity, I think you have to either change the copy here -- i.e., make clear in the lede and chart header that these are projections -- or change the numbers.

Given that this is a dynamic process, my own preference, FWIW, would be the latter -- that you simply tack "(Developing)" onto the title of this post; add a note in the lede that, whatever the outcome of this set of votes,  Obama will complete this part of the process with a projected delegate lead of +3 or +5 delegates; continue to update the charts with the latest numbers; and continue to adjust the delegate totals as need be, both in the charts and in the title of the post, until you have 100% reporting.

Or am I missing something?

---

by: horizonr @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 13:23:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We updated our numbers (3.00 / 1)

We're back to the 37-30 split.

What actually happened was a 3-hour window where this one "hiccup" between "projecting" and "current state" wasn't accurate.

The dynamic change you're talking about is legit, but our projections still hold. As much as I (as a diehard Obama supporter) would love to report a 38-29 split, I just don't see it happening out of the County conventions.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 14:23:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

BREAKING: Mississippi offset (0.00 / 0)

Thanks, Philip.

Over at DU, thevoiceofreason points out that, when Mississippi updated its certified returns today, Obama cleared the 62.5% threshold and picked up two statewide at-large delegates.

So Mississippi broke 20-13 for Obama, instead of 19-14.  

---

by: horizonr @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 19:32:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I told you so (0.00 / 0)

On March 5, when the partial caucus returns were still running 52-48 (I forget which way), I crunched the returns from each senate district and projected a statewide 55-45 win for Obama.

Both sides worked hard between March 4 and 29 and consolidated their leads in their strongest areas. But for the most part, Saturday's results just confirm what we already knew a month ago. Put another way, Obama won the caucuses by about the same margin, 100,000 votes, that Clinton won the primary by.

As for +3 vs. +5, the numbers right now are clearly +3, but will shift in the direction of whoever does best in the remaining 10 primaries. If Clinton is essentially out of it by June 6, then the state superdelegates will break for Obama, as will many of the pledged delegates. But if she still has a realistic chance, then she'll probably carry the superdelegates, most of whom are county chairs from rural counties.  

---

by: LSadun @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:32:18 PM CDT

I'm not sure (0.00 / 0)

Most news organizations had Obama's lead in the caucus at 38-29. If it is cut to 37-30, the county conventions will have done more than to merely confirm what we knew a month ago.

Also, your assertion that Obama won the caucuses by 100,000 is based off of the estimate of 1 million participants, while I have heard the actual numbers are closer to 650,000.

Good job predicting the 55-45 split. The difference between the 56.71% that Obama was projected for in the pct caucuses and 55% in the county convetions may turn out to be two national delegates.

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 13:39:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair points (0.00 / 0)

One thing I think we can all agree on now though is this is not headed anywhere close to a 36-31 split. I think that was the Clinton best case scenario.

So right now the debate is whether this reflects the 37-30 split we thought came out of the precinct caucuses or whether Obama pushes the margin to 38-29.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 14:52:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wait (0.00 / 0)

CNN and other organizations had reported the split coming out of the precinct caucuses was 38-29.

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 15:09:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My point is that (0.00 / 0)

it won't be Obama "pushing" the margin to 38-29. 38-29 was already presumed (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX) to be his lead coming out of the precinct caucuses.

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 15:18:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

so... (0.00 / 0)

are we debating the finer points of how much Hillary lost by now?

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 15:39:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that's clearly your intention (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Pat C. @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 15:44:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No ... we are debating (0.00 / 0)

the effect of the county conventions.

Right now, it seems that what had been projected as Obama's lead (38-29) has been reduced to 37-30.

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 16:02:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Neither pushed nor reduced (0.00 / 0)

See my comment below, but both the terms "pushed" and "reduced" are inaccurate when describing the results of the county convention.  38-29 was always understood as a highly provisional estimate, both because only 41% of the precinct convention results were reported and because no one knew exactly how things would shake out at the county conventions.  

I'm not sure of the statistical specifics, but it seems to me that any result from 36-31 to 40-27 should be within the margin of error.

No expectations were shattered.  Things played out more or less as predicted.  Neither campaign can be said to have meaningfully altered the final result.  Both campaigns apparently did an excellent job of getting their delegates to show up and stick around, for the most part.  All we can responsibly say is that the smoke has cleared a little.  

"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H.L. Mencken

---

by: PI Lawyer @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 16:23:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thats what we do (0.00 / 0)

Clear out the smoke...although, as you note, the TDP numbers w/ 41% were extremely, extremely close. Still a good job on their part.

I'd say our +93% reporting (and still counting!) just cleared the uncertainty.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 16:27:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

I completely agree that no expectations were shattered in the statewide totals, though there certainly were some surprises county by county and senate district by senate district.

It will be interesting to see if major news outlets change their national delegate projections based on this.

I also agree with Phillip -- the TDP numbers were very, very good.

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 16:47:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not exactly (3.00 / 1)

Given that the 38-29 projection was based on about 41% of the precinct delegates and given how few votes it takes to shift one delegate (yielding the net two delegate difference), I don't think it's accurate to state that any candidate's lead was "cut."

We simply don't know what Obama's true delegate lead in the Caucus was a month ago.  If the split out of the county conventions was 35-32 or 34-33, then I'd definitely say that there are strong indications that Obama's lead was "cut."  But shifting one delegate from Obama to Clinton from a projection based on 41% of tens of thousands of precinct delegates is evidence of very little.

I think based on what we knew then and what we know now, the best conclusion is that the previous estimate was just about right.  Without far more data, it's impossible to say whether the minor shift was due to the limited results on which the previous estimates were based or who showed up and how they voted at the county conventions.  I would guess that it's a little bit of both.

"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H.L. Mencken

---

by: PI Lawyer @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 14:55:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What can be said (0.00 / 0)

is that Clinton has one more "projected" national delegate and that Obama has one less "projected" national delegate than they did yesterday ... whether it be due to county convention attendance or the relative inaccuracy of the initial numbers.  

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 16:50:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One district at a time (0.00 / 0)

The total votes based on 41% didn't mean much, but the breakdown of each senate district did. By extrapolating to full turnout for each district, I projected a 55-45 Obama lead in the March 4 results. (I imagine the campaigns and news organizations did something similar). Compared to those projections, Saturday's results show a little movement in each direction -- Clinton gained where she was already strong, especially in El Paso, and Obama gained where he was already strong. That movement pretty much canceled out, and the net result is the same old 55-45 split. That was on the borderline of 38-29 and 37-30 on March 4, and it's still on the borderline.

In other words, the score for the caucus is Obama 37, Clinton 29, plus one delegate that won't be determined until the uncommitted state superdelegates make up their minds. (My hunch is that this will go to Clinton if she is still viable in June)

BTW, I've been saying that caucus turnout on March 4 was around a million. AP says "over 1 million", while David cites a figure of 650K. Does anybody have authoritative numbers?  

---

by: LSadun @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 16:59:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fort Bend 13 (0.00 / 0)

I was going to write that the Houston Chronicle reported 58-0 Obama for SD 13 in Fort Bend.  When I was on the Obama site on Saturday getting updates because my husband was at the SD 18 caucus for so long, a lady from Stafford, TX in SD 13 reported the same thing. She said Clinton was not viable.  I see you all made a note of this on your county by county spreadsheet. Is there a County Chair someone could call?

GOOD LUCK!  And thanks for all your hard work.  

---

by: CLKTX @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 13:09:03 PM CDT

It's right here... (0.00 / 0)

http://fortbenddemocrats.org/c...

17 / 41

I already emailed it in.  Hopefully, it will be reflected soon.

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 23:01:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that's just mirroring.... (0.00 / 0)

...earlier incorrect data that was posted here by a user who lied.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:04:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Need to Recheck Delegate Selection Plan (0.00 / 0)

First let me thank the BOR team for a great job!  As a former Texan who now lives across the pond, you have really made it easy to stay in touch with Texas politics.

You do, though, need to check the selection plan.  Only 64 PLEOs and Pledged At-Large Add On delegates are selected based on the composition of the State Convention sign in.  There are 3 additional UNPLEDGED At-Large (Add-On) delegates to be selected at State.

Candidates for these 3 delegate slots will be selected by the Committee to Nominate At-Large Delegates.  This committee consists of one rep. elected from each SD and 3 appointed by the convention chair.

With your current numbers Obama has a majority of delegates in 18 districts, Hillary in 11 and one is too close to call.  Unless some people get stupid, that should mean 3 delegates supporting (but not pledged to) Obama (2 if it's decided to play nice).

The projected delegate total would then be:
PLEO and Pledged At-Large
Obama     Clinton
36        28
Unpledged Add-Ons
3
Total
39        28

 

---

by: LelaWhisnant @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 16:00:33 PM CDT

Actually (0.00 / 0)

Those "3" are actually Superdelegates...

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 16:17:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Incorrect (0.00 / 0)

Granted, this is all very complicated, and you almost got me on that one. But a close read will show the following.

228 total

--126 Pledged primary

--67 Pledged caucus
----42 at large
----25 PLEO

--35 Unpledged "super"  
----17 DNC members
----13 Congressional
----03 "add on"

Those 3 are in the unpledged (35) category even though they will clearly be influenced by the nominations committee (so effectively 2 or 3 more for Obama) but we aren't counting those eggs before they have even been laid yet.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 16:33:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

RE recheck plan/incorrect (0.00 / 0)

As the above post notes, the 3 "unpledged" PLEOs are part of the unpledged "super-delegate" category.  

What people need to understand is that there will be four separate elections at the state convention.

First, by caucuses of the individual Senate Districts, the pledged Primary/District Delegates will be elected based on the results of the Primary in that Senate District.

Second, the convention as a whole will elect 3 unpledged PLEO "add-ons."

Third, the convention as a whole will elect 25 pledged PLEO add-ons.  The distribution of this 25 will be based on the presidential preference indicated by the state convention delegates when they sign in.

Fourth, the convention as a whole will elect 42 at-large delegates.  The distribut of this 42 will again be based on the presidential preference indicated by the state convention delegates when they sign-in.

The distribution of the 25 Pledged PLEOs is a separate mathematical calculation from the distribution of the 42 at-large.  There will not be any mathematical calculation using the number 67 (the combination of the two groups of delegates).  If you attempt to estimate delegates by one calculation of 67 instead of two calculations of 42 and 25, your estimate could be wrong.  

---

by: tmess2 @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 00:49:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

we're not using any calculation based upon 67 (0.00 / 0)

It's separate math. But it goes through the nominations committee first an then gets reported to the floor of the convention for a vote. The convention as a whole does not partake in the selection process (which would be a madhouse).

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:03:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Wall Street Journal (0.00 / 0)

In Texas, the Vote Count Goes On...and On and On

June Kronholz reports on the presidential campaign.

Texans took the third step Saturday in a nominating process called the Texas Two-Step, and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama seems to have won it. But check back June 6 for full results.

As Washington Wire readers know, Texas held a primary on March 4 where New York Sen. Hillary Clinton won 50.9% of the popular vote, which allocates 126 of the Lone Star State's 228 delegates to the national convention. That translated into 65 delegates for Clinton and 61 for Obama.

Later that same night, Texas held caucuses that elected 88,000 delegates to Saturday's county and state-senate district conventions, which in turn were to elect 10,000 delegates to the state convention. The state convention, on June 6 and 7, will elect 67 delegates to the national convention.

But local and county parties aren't required to report the outcome of their caucuses and conventions to the state party. That means that the outcome of the March caucuses was never clear, and the outcome of the county conventions may not be sure until the June meeting.

Saturday, the Web site burntorangereport.com urged county-conventiongoers to call in results, and now reports that with 200 of 284 conventions reporting, Obama is ahead with 55.5% of the delegates to Clinton's 44.5%. If his margin were to hold, Obama would win 37 delegates to Clinton's 30, wiping out her lead and her claims to have won Texas.

But hold on, says the Web site: about 10% of the delegates are yet to be counted, and most of them come from smaller, rural counties where Clinton generally does well. Also, Texas has its own superdelegates-300 party bigwigs who will go to the state convention with the option of supporting either candidate.

By the Web site's count, Obama generally won Dallas, Houston and Austin. Clinton won 164 of 182 delegates in El Paso's two state-senate districts.

---

by: Pat C. @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 17:37:53 PM CDT

Sorry (0.00 / 0)

forgot to cite.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...

---

by: Pat C. @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 17:39:52 PM CDT

Current State of the Texas Primary (0.00 / 0)

All of this delegate counting and math makes my head spin, because it loses sight of the fact that the majority of Texans who voted in the Primary favored Hillary Clinton.  The "Texas System" (at least this time) may thwart the will of the majority of Texas voters.  Is that a good thing?  Perhaps Obama thinks it's enough just to get nominated, but I had higher hopes:  the ELECTION of a Democratic President.  It seems to me that we are in danger of having Obama block the will of the people in three states needed to elect a Democrat:  Texas, Michigan and Florida.  We call ourselves the "Democratic" Party?  I thought "democratic" signified government by the will of the governed.  Hmmmm.  

---

by: whoknew39 @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 13:26:51 PM CDT

Many Texans agree (0.00 / 0)

Texas' choice for President is Hillary Clinton. However, Obama supporters will defend the caucus system at ever corner in order to claim victory here.  

I encourage you to read Phil's explanation of why our caucus system is in place.
http://www.burntorangereport.c...

---

by: Pat C. @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 13:48:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not quite correct (0.00 / 0)

Referring to the "Texas Primary" refers to only one part of the "Texas Presidential Nomination System". In most states, the "XXX State Presidential Nomination System" is the same as referring to the "XXX State Primary" or "XXX State Caucus".

In those states, the primary or the caucus is entirely their nomination system. In Texas, our nomination system includes both a caucus and a primary within that system. In order to win the Texas contest, you participate in both and the measure of who 'won' it in the end can only be determined by the number of national delegates earned.

In this case, Obama has earned more delegates after participating in both pieces and has won Texas.

To claim a candidate won Texas based either on just the caucus or just the primary is incorrect. To claim that only the caucus or primary mattered is intellectually dishonest (and implies that the votes of 1 million or 3 million Texas are irrelevant).  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 22:10:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]