Home

About
- About Us
- Community Guidelines

Advertising on BOR
- Advertise on BOR

Advertisements

Threatening the Texas Primary/Caucus


by: Glenn Smith

Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:45 AM CST


There is method to the Clinton campaign's mad preemptive sword rattling over the Texas primary/caucus. They want to delay and disrupt the reporting of the delegate count. They hope that if they win the popular vote, they can avoid, at least for one news cycle,  news reports that even if they do so they will very likely lose the delegate fight in Texas and fall further behind Obama in the national delegate contest.

This is not speculation. This has been the subject under discussion. While I have not been part of that discussion,  plenty of sources last night and this morning confirmed this as the core of the dispute.

It is widely assumed that Obama's organizational advantage will achieve in the caucus portion of the Texas election just what it has achieved in earlier caucuses: a significant victory in delegates. There are 67 delegates at stake in those caucuses. The Clinton campaign would like to delay the reporting of the caucus results, and that is why they have continually "reserved the right to challenge" Texas law and Democratic party procedures.

Throw the Texas delegate results in dispute, and win or lose the popular vote, they will have advanced their case that the contest remains close and should go all the way to the convention if necessary.

The campaign in Texas is close. Delegates selected by popular vote out of the 31 Senate districts will probably be split more or less evenly. This is due in large part to the fact that 15 of those districts have 4 delegates to award. A candidate would have to get more than 62.5 percent of the vote in those districts to win a 3-to-1 split. The most likely outcome is a 2-2 split. In addition, Obama may have a slight advantage in that the districts with the largest number of delegates, Austin and inner city Houston and Dallas, are viewed as Obama strongholds. Still, just about every model shows an even split of primary vote delegates, no matter who wins or loses the popular vote. This is just because the vote will be close.

The Clinton campaign strategy is to justify taking the fight beyond Texas even if they fall further behind Obama in the national delegate count. To do that, they must cast doubt over the fate of the 67 delegates that will be chosen at the caucus level. Hence, their tough positioning in phone calls with Texas Democratic Party officials and others involved in the primary here.

The Texas rules have been in effect for decades. Bill Clinton ran twice under these rules. They are no surprise to anyone, and both campaigns know they have to play by the same rules. There is little point to raising concerns before the election -- except one campaign finds itself running a very unique kind of effort. To remain viable, the results of the caucus in Texas must be thrown into doubt. Almost any legal challenge will do. The Clinton narrative can be maintained-- but only if their falling further behind in delegates is not reported or is at the least cast into doubt for a news cycle, or two or three news cycles.

Texas' hybrid primary/caucus would not be questioned were it not that one candidate appears to have an advantage in caucus settings. Or that in a close race, the popular vote in senate districts will probably translate into an even split of delegates. Consequently, the Clinton campaign finds Texas to be a poor place to build a firewall or mount a comeback. That's an historical accident. Attacking the state party here would be irresponsible and damaging to Democratic prospects here in both the near and long term.

The overwhelming numbers of Texas who have voted early in the Texas primary is symptomatic of the changing political tide here. Much work has been done rebuilding the progressive movement in the Lone Star State. Attempts to taint the primary, and consequently the primary and caucus decisions of Texas voters, will set this effort back.

Cross-posted at MyDD.

ADVERTISEMENT


Copyright Burnt Orange Report, all rights reserved.
Do not republish without express written permission.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Our primary/caucus system may not be perfect (3.00 / 3)
be we sure as heck aren't going to let some Senator for New York tell us how we need to run our own primary/caucus.

Ha, like the old commercial (3.00 / 3)
This salsa is from...New York City!

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

[ Parent ]
I agree (3.00 / 1)
Great post, Glenn. And I also appreciate you recognizing the stakes of what is being discussed with this "sword rattling." I don't consider the future of the Texas Democratic Party -- not before, and especially not now when we've built our brand back so well in the previous years, months, and weeks -- to be something worth screwing around with for political scheming purposes.

If either campaign does sue, may it be the last thing their campaign does before they disappear.

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


word from inside Camp Obama (3.00 / 1)
For what it's worth, word from inside Camp Obama is that resources will come to texas in the General Election and it's a place he believes can be contested, especially considering the potential for a Rick Noriega Senate Seat run to electrify the Hispanic Voters (my addition).

Meanwhile the Hillary Camp is trying to commit infantcide on Texas Dems in the name of "It's her Turn"...

It's a sad contrast, one that will be reflected in the final tallys


We've had these rules and procedures for decades... (3.00 / 7)
as screwy as they are.  Butthis episode is the screwiest thing I've seen so far (and I've seen a lot in going to 20 precinct/county/state conventions and 8 National).

We all agree we need to rewrite the rules.  We're going to do so AFTER this election, for sure.

But to hear folks talking about legal actions to mess with the release of results just to win a news cycle is insane.

So the rules say that the results are hand delivered OR mailed within three days.   The Clinton campaign now contemplates injunctions to keep the Texas Democratic Party from having Precinct chairs call in the results from the caucuses?

The Rules are clear.  Every meeting is open to the public and the press.   Any person calling in the results has every legal right to do so.

Both the Obama and Clinton camp do not dispute that the only "official" results are on those hard copy minutes that we'll be looking at in the weeks after.

But to try to CENSOR the Texas Democratic Party and all of the Democratic Precinct Chairs from talking about it on March 4th?  Unbelievable.

The bad will from this will leave a very bad taste in everyone's mouth.


The Clintons knew the rules in 1992 (0.00 / 0)
My first experience in a political campaign (before I was eligible to vote) came in 1992 when I phone banked Democratic Primary voters in Dallas for the Bill Clinton campaign. My message- remember to vote AND remember to go to your precinct caucus at 7:15 after the polls close. They've know and played by these rules for a long time. This is crap!

Elliott McFadden
Ignite Consulting
Direct Mail, Design & Automated Calling Services for Political & Non-Profit Clients.


[ Parent ]
Why change the rules? (3.00 / 1)
I know I'm one of the wierdos around that actually knew about the primary/caucus before it became national news fodder but I think we should keep it.

National party rules are clear that each state can select its own way of assigning delegates. This is the way we've decided. It doesn't have any inherent inequalities in the system, it doesn't discount anyone's voice anymore than another system.

To me, it makes sense, and actually provides a nice "bonus" for a candidate that can organize and energize. Think if we chose all our candidates this way, 66%primary/33%caucus, five bucks says we wouldn't have had a runoff between Radnofsky and Kelly.



[ Parent ]
Something political (0.00 / 0)
that predates the internet obviously is in dire need of change.  

Glen, I have learned not to believe anything I read in the Statesman about you.  I am learning sadly now not to believe anything I read on Daily Kos or Burnt Orange Report about Clinton.

"Specifically, Clinton aides questioned a provision allowing caucus attendees to vote to move the location if they choose to do so, and whether people who had cast so-called "provisional ballots" in the primary would have their votes counted in the caucus."  from te current AP story - reasonable concerns.

Also, as a civil rights attorney, I would have filed suit against the party fot the discriminatory nature of the caucus had a proper client asked me to in time.  I am sick of hearing that pre-election suits are unwarranted, although I am sure Representative Dukes thinks they are.  Sometimes the only way to protect civil rights are to seek extraordinary relief.  This usually happens with religious events at graduation and at election time.  Judge Sparks has even commented that he orders his hunting schedule around election and graduation injunctive relief suits.

Ever since George Bush filed a civil rights suit against Al Gore, I have been sick of the alleged rights of political parties, including mine.  The only right I am sure either party has is the right to follow the Whigs into oblivion and irrelevance.  The Republicans are threatening to do so by becoming a religious entity by pandering to the base.  Democrats will more likely do it by betraying the base.

The caucuses are a slap in the face to elder people, people who cannot drive at night, people who do not speak English, and people who cannot afford a babysitter - as well as shy people.  If Texas allowed, I would be married to my shy partner, who will at least attend with me.  My son, who supports Obama has to work.  I advised him of te law requiring his employer to give him time off, but he is a shy realist (a type that is sometimes hard to deal with) - its a new job, he'd haver to get his shift covered, etc.

Odds are there were more people in Seattle coffee house than participated in the Washington caucuses.  This is not something of which Americans of any persuasion should be proud.

Logic and an open mind are more useful than common sense.


[ Parent ]
question about getting time off (0.00 / 0)
My sister has been told she has to work from 4-10 on Tuesday, so it looks like she won't be able to attend her precinct convention.  Is there a law that allows her time off to attend?  She's asked for the time off and been told that she can only get it if she finds someone to switch shifts.  

[ Parent ]
There is a law... (5.00 / 2)
http://www.burntorangereport.c...

That journal shows where in the election code they are required, by law, to give her time off to caucus.

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


[ Parent ]
There was an excellent summary a few days (5.00 / 1)
ago here on BOR.  No the law makes it a class C misdemeanor (like public intoxication) for an employer to refuse to give time off to attend the caucus.  My point about my son's situation is that with small employers enforcing your rights can sometimes be a problem - it is just more "static" in the workplace.  He felt they would at least make him cover his shift - though as I read the law they couuld not.

However, we are currrently (parenting is a never-ending progress) on the "choose your battles life lesson", so I did not push him.  I would have offered to talk with his employer, buit he absolutely hates to play the "my Dad is a lawyer" card.

Logic and an open mind are more useful than common sense.


[ Parent ]
noted (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, my sis had been told she needed to find someone to cover her shift, and it's been difficult since when she tells coworkers she wants to go to her precinct convention they perk up and decide they want to do the convention thing also.  I'm going to make sure she knows about the law, because I really want to take her with me on Tuesday night.

[ Parent ]
Your argument (3.00 / 2)
Is a good one, but it is not a legal one. Parties are allowed under law, they are allowed to promulgate rules to hold their elections as they see fit.

A quick note, also -- you can move the location of the caucus, but not until everyone has been able to sign in and you've done the voting math. So everyone has to be counted first and foremost -- which is the important part.

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


[ Parent ]
As both a lawyer and a Master of Divinity - (0.00 / 0)
I occasionally recognize moral and ethical arguments to be superior to legal ones. :)

I am sorry to sound a little strident.  I have enjoyed BOR for a long time, but I really hate the Clinton Bashing (and I assure you I would hate it just as much if it were Obama bashing).  

For a while this site seemed a hate-free zone compared to Daily Kos, but I guess that was not to last.  Now it feels like if you are not against Clinton, you are unwelcome to be any part of the discourse.  I have never felt excluded by BOR before, and I do not enjoy the feeling.

I do at least feel more comfortable posting here, and I guess I belong because when I voted I only differed from your endorsements twice, on President and CC at Law 8.

In any event I hope we can all agree - no more Scalias.  The Supreme Court is too important for anybody to take their Ipod and go home (it used to be baseballs, but I guess Ipod is more in touch with the times).  Neither Clinton nor Obama would nominate a Scalia, Alito or Thomas to SCOTUS - so I do hope we can all kiss and make up before November.



Logic and an open mind are more useful than common sense.


[ Parent ]
I thought you were discussing (0.00 / 0)
potential fairness issues of the Texas primary/caucus process, not defending Clinton. Where in your previous post did you mount a defense of Clinton or her campaign for which you were then excoriated?  

Your sensitivity to counter arguments and disagreement - real or imagined - is of a personal nature, and I find it disingenuous blame-shifting to project unspecified attitudes and positions onto others in this instance, particularly in order to presume a moral authority which you seem to have done here.It is possible to argue your side of an issue without resorting to self-imposed martyrdom.  


[ Parent ]
Absolutely (0.00 / 0)
We try to refrain from bashing any candidate. But there are times when, at least as far as I see it, we are passionate about defending the long-term goals of Texas Democrats. The threat of a lawsuit damages the opportunities of achieving that goal, so Glenn (and I) feel passionately about protecting ourselves.

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

[ Parent ]
Let's not forget the lazy (0.00 / 0)
Texas does not provide drive thru voting.  This is clearly a slap in the face to us lazy people.  I for one am sick of the shy people getting all the attention.  I reserve the right to sue at any point when the candidate I like looks like they may not win (provided it doesn't require too much effort).

[ Parent ]
actually we do have drive thru voting (5.00 / 1)
if you have a physical condition that would make it unreasonable to go inside to vote, you can call ahead and the election judge will come out to the nearest curb for you to vote.

Please refer to KT's signature.

[ Parent ]
Great (0.00 / 0)
I'm glad to hear that laziness is now considered a disability and should be accomodated the same as those people who are too shy to ask that their employers follow the law and let them off.  I'm not sure how 'curb voting' would help with the caucus, however, which is actually what we were talking about.  Can I retain you as my lawyer when they refuse to move the caucus to my house?

[ Parent ]
sign me up (0.00 / 0)
i'm not sure that party rules don't very closely follow state election laws in terms of procedures. i can't imagine the party sanctioning discrimination because someone in a wheelchair can't get up the steps of a home and needs to sign in outside.

but i'll gladly serve as your attorney. i'll have to go to law school first, but i'm sure we can get a continuance for a few years.

Please refer to KT's signature.


[ Parent ]
Clintons gutting Texas again (1.00 / 1)
The Clintons have never given a crap about Texas other than to take our money. They seriously hurt down ballot candidates running in close races in the 1990s, and I'm sure a Hillary nomination would do the same to our chances of taking back the Texas House this year. They've already admitted they'd right Texas off in the general election, and the fact that they'd hurt the Party to serve their own purposes is not surprising.

Elliott McFadden
Ignite Consulting
Direct Mail, Design & Automated Calling Services for Political & Non-Profit Clients.


really? (5.00 / 1)
"never given a crap about Texas"???

that seems like a little much. i don't think hillary was here 30 years ago registering voters in south texas because she didn't care about Texas.

i assure that garry mauro, paul begala, ann richards, lloyd bentsen and many others would disagree fully with that kind of outrageous, ad hominem attack.

unless there is some major evidence via scientific polling, no candidate of either party should spend any money in a state where they cannot win. to do so would be entirely irresponsible.

Please refer to KT's signature.


[ Parent ]
That 'responsible' thinking has destroyed Dems in red states (0.00 / 0)
What Hillary is proving to everyone is that everything she has done over the years as been about her and her alone.

[ Parent ]
I know (0.00 / 0)
it is a common response to failure to blame an external entity, but Dems weren't destroyed in Texas because the national party didn't spend money here.  For jeebus' sake, we have plenty of money here to take care of ourselves.  

[ Parent ]
Jeebus Responds (0.00 / 0)
It's not the money as much as the 50+1 strategy that has hurt us.  Does anyone honestly believe Clinton would campaign in Texas for the general if she became the nominee?  Obama will help build our party, Hillary apparently will tear down the party if it helps her.

[ Parent ]
Elliot (0.00 / 0)
When did they admit they'd "right" off Texas in the general election?

I believe all she said was that Texas was not typically in the Democratic nominee's electoral calculation. That seems like an accurate statement to me.


[ Parent ]
It's defeatist, David - (3.00 / 1)
and it's that very mentality and surrender to 'conventioanl wisdom' that has gotten Texas Democrats precisely ZERO statewide wins in the last 5 election cycles. It's that very attitude and bet-hedging that scared Texas Democrats in 1998 to the point that they begged your father not to run against Bush - which he did courageously, showing the only fighting spirit Texas Dems had left at that point. It's the same attitude that sank our entire statewide ticket in 2006, despite the gains we made in the legislature, in large part because the TDP was too timid about Grandma Strayhorn, fer chrissakes, and failed to recruit and get fully behind a viable candidate for governor in what was a VERY winnable election.

Enough of it. Hillary registered voters down here and campaigned for McGovern over 30 years ago. Good for her. The tragedy is that she's long since left that type of activism and sense of possibility behind in favor of short-selling and her own political survival.  


[ Parent ]
Thank you (0.00 / 0)
for your kind words, Robert. Honestly, they really do mean a lot.

I completely agree with your point about 98 and 06. I am in 100% behind those who say "run everywhere" and "concede nothing."

I think the only thing we disagree with is how we each interpret what Hillary Clinton said. I read it as an observation of the last 32 years of presidential results here in Texas.


[ Parent ]
i think i see their point, but disagree (3.00 / 1)
allocating delegates unevenly in a manner that under-represents the Hispanic community could very well be cause for legal action.

i disagree that it should be considered.

i also disagree that some senate districts should receive more delegates than others, but that isn't the point.

if community leaders in under-apportioned parts of the state want to be better represented in the delegate selection process they should get off their cabooses and turn out their votes.

hell, john kerry lost many south texas and rgv counties that he should have taken with 70%+.

the time for a legal challenge to apportionment and/or process was last year and the plaintiff should be a Dem from texas.

but for the record, any obama supporter who thinks he won't sue to protect the votes of his supporters should stop supporting him. same for clinton's folks.

from my understanding, both campaigns have refused to rule out a lawsuit. i'm not sure why so much of this is focused against the clintons.

Please refer to KT's signature.


Either campaign should have the right to sue... (0.00 / 0)
if the current rules are not followed.

[ Parent ]
Both campaigns (0.00 / 0)
Exactly!  Both campaigns have threatened to sue, so why is Hillary the only one that is eeevil (pinky in mouth)  

[ Parent ]
The reason is clear (0.00 / 0)
She is threatening to sue because she does not like the current 20+ year old rules NOT to ensure the rules are followed.

[ Parent ]
1976 (0.00 / 0)
The primary/caucus system we have here was first done in 1976.  Not just 20+ years, but 30+ years.

[ Parent ]
We need to follow the state law & TDP rules on Precinct Convention to a "T" . . . (2.50 / 2)
particularly with the threat of litigation hanging in the air ...

For example:

1.  The precinct convention is to start at 7:15 p.m., or after the last voter has voted, whichever is later.

As provided by Texas Election Code § 174.022:
"(c)  The hour set for convening the conventions may not be  earlier than 7 p.m. or later than 9 p.m. Notwithstanding the hour set for convening, the convention may not convene until the last voter has voted at the precinct polling place."

Logically, there can be no Temporary Chair of a convention that has not "convened" yet, and my reading of the law and TDP rules is that the precinct enrollment sheets cannot be filled out until the convention formally convenes.  More details below.

2.  The Temporary Chair of the Precinct Convention is not simply "anyone who gets the packet", but by law is the Precinct Chair, unless there is no Precinct Chair, or the Precinct Chair is absent at the time for convening.

Texas Election Code § 174.025.  ORGANIZING THE CONVENTION.  (a)  The precinct chair is the temporary chair of the precinct convention held under this subchapter.
(b)  If the precinct chair is absent, a person who is eligible to participate in the convention may act as temporary chair.

Gromer Jeffers of the Dallas Morning News was misleading when he wrote a column on Wednesday that said: "If you gain possession of the packet, you can appoint yourself temporary chairman, get a friend to nominate you as permanent chairman and then quickly elect a secretary.  If you do this, you control the flow and pace of the meeting."

In reality, after the convention "convenes", the temporary chair must open up nominations for Permanent Convention Chair and Convention Secretary to the floor of the Precinct Convention as a whole, and nominations cease after a motion, second, and 2/3rds approval that nominations cease.  The positions are then filled by a majority vote for the winning nominee for each position.  The order of business is outlined in statute and state party rule:

Article IV(B)(6) of the Rules of the Texas Democratic Party State:

"6. Order of Business. The order of business at Precinct Conventions shall be as follows:

(a) Call to Order by the Precinct Chair or, in the Chair's absence, by any qualified participant.

(b) Preparation by the Precinct Chair of the Temporary Roll of the Convention. This shall be a list of qualified participants who are present, including their residence addresses with city or town. Persons arriving after the list of participants is completed and who are otherwise qualified to participate shall have their names entered on the list and may participate in proceedings subsequent to their arrival. Such persons, however, may not vote on matters previously voted upon or on which a vote has been called for by the Chair. Their political preference shall not cause a change in the proportional allocation of Delegates if the same has been announced at the time calling for the election of Delegates and Alternates in the Order of Business prescribed by the Rules.

(c) Election from among those present of a Permanent Convention Chair, a Secretary, and such other Officers necessary to conduct the business of the Convention.

(d) Election of Delegates and Alternates to the County or Senatorial District Conventions.

(e) Other Business: Committee reports, if any, resolutions, etc.

(f) Adjournment."

while the Texas Election Code in § 174.025(c),(d) and §174.026 states:

(c)  Before conducting business, the temporary chair shall
prepare a list containing the name and residence address of each person who is admitted to participate in the convention.
(d)  The temporary chair shall call the convention to order.                  
(e)  The convention shall select a convention chair and a
convention secretary.  The convention may select any other officers
considered necessary to conduct the convention's business.

§ 174.026.  CONVENTION BUSINESS.  After the convention is organized, the convention shall select its delegates to the county or senatorial district convention and conduct any other convention business.

3. Regarding the "sign-ins":

You may notice that state law in 174.025 differs from the TDP rule in the order of business, in that 174.025 states that the temporary chair prepares a list and then calls the convention to order, and the TDP rule states that the convention is called to order first and then the temporary roll is prepared by the Precinct Chair (or Temporary Chair of the Convention).  Robert's Rules of Order states in Chapter 1, Section 3 that "When the time of the meeting has arrived, the presiding officer opens it, after he has determined a quorum is present, by calling the meeting to order."

However, keep in mind that the Election Code also provides that "the convention may not convene until the last voter has voted at the precinct polling place."

Especially given that some of the precinct convention materials floating around out there state that people can simply sign in and leave, it makes sense to me to insist that the official Precinct Convention Enrollment Form must include only as "attendees" the names of the attendees present when the convention is convened, and the list of attendees must not be created until the last voter has voted.  Otherwise, you may have people listed as convention attendees that were not there when the precinct convention began, because some people signed up and left before the last voter had voted.  In my view, it is critical that the sign-ins reflect accurately who was there when the convention was convened after the last voter has voted, and not before.  Anything different in my view risks legal challenge.

I know this will mean a long wait at a few high volume precincts before people can sign in, but I think the bigger concern right now given the litigation threat is to avoid the complete mess open to legal challenge that would be presented if the sign-ins were done before the last voter has voted.

Besides, wouldn't it be a hugely positive news story that there were so many voters and precinct convention attendees at some precincts that some conventions had to be delayed to accommodate all of those interested?

On another level, given the high stakes of the delegate fight, in Collin County we have created enough Precinct Convention Enrollment Sheets, each with a unique document control number, to provide for up to 20,000 people to show up at our Precinct Conventions.  That is probably big-time overkill, but maybe not in some precincts given the level of activism we have seen here.  We want to make sure we have enough, and we are treating the Precinct Convention Enrollment Sheets like ballots, keeping track of what particular documents are in each precinct convention packet, and who ends up with the packet, to ensure security and accountability.

As a reminder, the Precinct Conventions are to be run according to state law, TDP rules, and Robert's Rules of Order.  I highly recommend that anyone who intends to run a precinct convention needs to review parliamentary procedure ahead of time. Additionally, as provided in Article IV of the TDP rules:

A. General Rules Governing Party Conventions

1. Compliance with Rules. Delegates to all Party Conventions shall be selected in accordance with state law and with these Party Rules and in compliance with the rules, regulations, and official directives of the previous National Convention and of the Democratic National Committee, as such directives pertain to the next National Convention.

2. Rules.

(a) It shall be the duty of the presiding officer at the opening of each convention to explain the rules governing that convention and the ways in which convention actions will influence important Party actions and decisions at subsequent convention levels.

(b) The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern parliamentary procedure in all conventions, caucuses, and convention committees, except where contrary rules or procedures are specified in these Party Rules or by state law.

There is real responsibility to running a precinct convention this time, and state law provides that whoever ends up being the Permanent Convention Chair is legally responsible for making sure the County Chair gets the Precinct Convention materials back.

Let's show the nation we can do this!

Shawn Stevens
Vice-Chair & General Counsel,
Democratic Party of Collin County


The irony is that the precinct caucuses may not even matter (3.00 / 1)
The caucus rules allot a ridiculously large number of county delegates to each precinct.  In my precinct, we're selecting 37 delegates and 37 alternates! I'll be shocked if 37 people (much less 74) actually want to spend a whole day at the county convention on March 29. Unless the precinct caucus is incredibly one-sided, both sides will get slots for all of their political junkies. The fight on Tuesday night will be over how many additional slots they get for warm bodies who then won't show up on the 29th.

Those additional slots, and the votes behind them, matter a lot for election-night PR.  If precinct 214 chose 25 Obama delegates and 12 Clinton delegates, it would look very good for Obama, while the opposite result would look very good for Clinton. But the people who actually go to county and state from precinct 214 would probably be the same either way.

Things may be different in smaller precincts, or in Republican-leaning precincts. But in big, urban, Democratic precincts, the campaigns need to think more about turning their activists out on March 29 and less about turning them out on March 4.

[N.B. I am not telling anyone to skip the caucuses!! They're an important show of strength, a good way of building the party, and the ticket to county and beyond for political junkies (like me and whoever is reading this). I'm just saying that their importance for the national delegate race has been overstated.]


Timing (1.50 / 2)

Will Clinton's lawsuit come before or after the Clinton 527 you wrote about last week starts swiftboating Obama?

To review ... (0.00 / 0)
the 527 that we were told was ready to "swiftboat" Obama in Texas has not spent a single penny.

The one ad they have released online, as I wrote about on BOR, was not negative.


[ Parent ]
Hi David (0.00 / 0)
I think you missed the sarcasm in Jobu's post.  I believe he was trying to make a point about the manufactured anti-Hillary controversy that BOR has partaken in lately, case in point being the supposed "swiftboating" ads.

[ Parent ]
I've been a little confused (0.00 / 0)
This isn't necessarily germain to the original post, but I wanted some insight from people smarter than I.

I understand there is an 800 number for precinct chairs to phone in the results of the conventions.  Presumably the party takes all these numbers for an unofficial tally on election night.  The press would be eating those numbers up and divining winners and losers.  However, those delegates at the precinct convention have to go on to the county and state conventions before an official count of delegates gets sorted out.

I guess I'm wondering, since the official delegate count won't be known until June, if there is any way to look at the results of the precinct convention and reasonably predict the June outcome.  Do you just add up all the precinct delegates in the state (in the tens of thousands if I had to guess) then take the ratio and apply it to 67?  Would that be an accurate measure?

There's also a good chance this will all be for naught, if Hillary does poorly in the popular vote in Texas and/or Ohio, she'll most likely drop out and everyone will coalesce around Obama.


You'll be even more confused if you try to predict the March 29 results this week (3.00 / 1)
I wouldn't suggest trying to "look at the results of the precinct convention and reasonably predict the June outcome" because the delegates elected at the precinct convention are not legally bound to the candidate for whom they are elected. They can change their mind at any time, even at the national convention if they make it that far. You might try to get a pledge from delegates they elect that they will continue to support they are elected to represent, unless the opponent drops out of the race, but even such a pledge might not be legally enforceable. At least it's a word of honor, and some people still have that!

[ Parent ]
Oops, major typo! (0.00 / 0)
I meant to say that before you elect delegates at your precinct convention, you might try to get them to pledge that they will not change their support to another candidate unless the candidate they are elected to represent drops out of the race.

[ Parent ]
Yeah but ... (0.00 / 0)
most of the people that will be elected from the precincts will be those that are very passionate about their candidate. Very few delegates will be switching between now and March 29th and beyond.

So yes, looking at the outcomes of the precincts you can make some pretty reasonable predictions about the "other 67."


[ Parent ]
Well, you can sort of guess based on how many delegates each precinct can send to *State* (0.00 / 0)
We can send 37 to our SD and (I think) we send 4 to state.  So depending on the sign in at our precinct convention you could have a pretty good guess at the 4 we are sending to state.  

[ Parent ]
New Moniker! (0.00 / 0)
Hillary, respect our Texas Delegate Electorate!

Connect With BOR
    

2014 Texas Elections
Follow BOR for who's in, who's out, and who's up.

Candidate Tracker:
-- Statewide Races
-- Congressional Races
-- State Senate Races
-- State Rep. Races
-- SBOE Races
-- Austin City Council

Click here for all 2014 Elections coverage

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Texas Blue Pages

Texas Blue Pages
A career network for progressives.

Advertisement

Shared On Facebook

Burnt Orange Reporters
Editor and Publisher:
Katherine Haenschen

Senior Staff Writers:
Genevieve Cato
Joe Deshotel
Michael Hurta
Ben Sherman

Staff Writers:
Omar Araiza
Emily Cadik
Phillip Martin
Natalie San Luis
Katie Singh
Joseph Vogas

Founder:
Byron LaMasters

Blogger Emeritus:
Karl-Thomas Musselman

Read staff bios here.

Traffic Ratings
- Alexa Rating
- Quantcast Ratings
-
Syndication

Powered by: SoapBlox