Home

About
- Who We Are
- Community Guidelines
- Right to Respond
Advertising on BOR
- Advertise on BOR
- Buy on all Texas Blogs

Advertisements

Search




Advanced Search

Follow Burnt Orange Report on Twitter (@BOR) and Facebook.

Hillary Messes With Texas


by: Colin Kalmbacher

Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:25 PM CDT


(We are hearing this from afar and we are trying to both wrap our minds around what the Clinton campaign is doing and what this means for the unprecedented surge of new delegates and voters. We will absolutely be writing more as we find out the details.  The Texas Observer has this to add. - promoted by Matt Glazer)

Gonna do this one drive-by style and let the Dallas Morning News article speak for itself. I hadn't seen an article up about it yet on BOR so here goes:

Hillary Clinton and her lawyers are trying to cast doubt on the precinct conventions.

Hillary Clinton and her lawyers are trying to deligitimize the concept of the convention itself.

Hillary Clinton and her lawyers are trying to drag out the delegate selection process for their benefit.

And ultimately, Hillary Clinton and her lawyers are probably trying to null and void as much of the convention/caucus aspect of Texas' delegate selection process as possible.

As final results from the Texas Democratic caucus remain unknown, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign wants signatures from the March 4 contest verified before party conventions are held around the state later this month.

In a letter sent to the state Democratic Party late Friday, the Clinton campaign requests the March 29 count and state Senate district conventions be postponed until the eligibility of an estimated 1 million caucus-goers are double checked."

Disgusting.  
ADVERTISEMENT
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Hillary Messes With Texas | 109 comments
This SUCKS!! (0.00 / 0)
This, to put it simply, frigging sucks, but consider the source. About like saying that Michigan was a fair election when there was only one candidate (guess who?) on the ballot. Jonathan Chiat in TRB in New Republic was right: by the time she's done, she won't be able to beat Hitler's dog in November.

Verify a million signatures? Maybe by, oh, November. And in my precinct, 4640, the (Clinton) Temporary Secretary turned down my suggestion to do two different counts--one of verified, identified voters (stamped cards or receipts) and one with those plus those who couldn't prove they voted (we never got the rolls).

You've proven the point (0.00 / 0)
with your comment:

And in my precinct, 4640, the (Clinton) Temporary Secretary turned down my suggestion to do two different counts--one of verified, identified voters (stamped cards or receipts) and one with those plus those who couldn't prove they voted (we never got the rolls).

We can do this quickly if we want to. The fact that you are saying that your precinct chair didn't do something that would have made the process more verifiable just proves that we've got problems that need to be corrected.

[ Parent ]
I Don't Know How Your Precinct Worked... (0.00 / 0)
but in mine, the precinct chair didn't show up.  Clinton people got the packet.  Whoever was sitting on one side of the elementary school picnic table benches verified the people on the other side.  Some may have done a good job of verifying, making sure signatures matched etc. (I did), but who knows if everybody on that side of the bench did?  And, by now, who knows which sheets had the 50 or so people who didn't have stamped cards or receipts?  You're necessarily saying that each of 262 people must be individually researched--and trust me, those sheets ain't alphabetical.
[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
the names were supposed to be a signature and a printed name, right? If they voted in the primary, their name should now appear in a database that I assume is managed by our Secretary of State. If they are on the precinct convention sign-in list and they do no appear on the primary voting list, well, then, they shouldn't be counted. Not much "research" to be done there.
[ Parent ]
There are credentialing committees for each county (0.00 / 0)
that have the task of verifying these delegates.  And according to the Denton County Chair, they will all be done and by the book before the county convention.

I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein
[ Parent ]
Well good. (0.00 / 0)
I hope it's done by the book ~ or rather by the voting rolls.
[ Parent ]
Were you in Dallas County, Dell? (0.00 / 0)
If so, you may want to contact me privately.  I am President of the Irving Democratic Club.  My telephone number is in the phone book (sorry, I just don't feel comfortable putting it here).  

Michael McPhail
President, Irving Democratic Club

[ Parent ]
There is a process (3.00 / 1)
There is a three part process for filing a protest. It applies to both sides. If anyone does not follow the process then there is no case.

1. The protest must be in writing.
2. The name and address of the person protested must be given with the reason for the protest.
3. The protest must be reach the county chair three days before the county/senate district convention.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks for posting the process (3.00 / 1)
Your post is mostly correct.  Here's what the rules actually say:

Any Democrat may challenge any Delegate or Alternate or any group of Delegates and/or Alternates certified to any Convention, provided the challenger and the challenged parties reside in the same county (or senatorial district) whose Convention elected the challenged Delegate(s) or Alternate(s). In the case of the County or Senatorial District Convention, the challenger shall deliver the copy of the challenge to the County or Senatorial District Chair and to the challenged Delegate(s) or Alternate(s) at least 3 days before the date of the Convention.

[ Parent ]
The issue is not about the delegates (0.00 / 0)
We're talking about the "voters" who signed and printed their names on the sign-in sheets.
[ Parent ]
You're both right, but... (0.00 / 0)
that isn't the point.  They are challenging the eligibility not of any particular elected delegates, but rather the eligibility of each and every caucus-goer.

In my precinct, the election judges refused to give us the voter rolls, and so there was no way to verify those who didn't have a stamped card or a receipt.  I expect that problem was near-to-universal.

OTOH, who the heck would bother to go to a caucus, and suffer through the interminable delays, confusion etc. who wasn't a voter.

[ Parent ]
We were promised that "everything would be checked" (4.25 / 4)
When people got confused at the caucuses, that was the general theme - the Party was going to check to see if anyone signed in who hadn't voted or if there was anyone selected as a delegate who hadn't signed in - so everything would be worked out later, and delegate counts would be adjusted.

I know perfectly smart and capable precinct chairs who for some reason chose not to check IDs or if caucus goers had voted. They just let everyone who showed up sign in, with the idea that the state would work it out later.

So, no one is going to check the caucus lists for accuracy? Or compare the delegate lists to the voter rolls and sign-in sheets?

Disgusting.  

[ Parent ]
Amen! n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Lack of voter roll was nowhere near a universal problem (3.00 / 1)
I can speak only for Bexar County, where I've been doing data entry from the precinct convention sign-in sheets. Very few precincts in Bexar County reported that they were not given access to the voter rolls for verification of participants.

But your point is well taken that the Clinton campaign is out of line if they are demanding that every caucus participant throughout the state be verified again. I hope the TDP response will be to allow the Clinton campaign to photocopy all of the sign-in sheets for the entire state, after the March 29 conventions and at their own expense, so they can analyze and verify to their heart's content.

In the interest of disclosure, I confess that I caucused for Clinton and will continue to support her. However, I find this action by her campaign, specifically their call for the county and senatorial district conventions to be delayed in defiance of the law, thoroughly reprehensible.

[ Parent ]
From what I understand (0.00 / 0)
the TDP always verifies all participants. However, due to the great turnout we had this year, they are unable to verify everyone before the county conventions this year and that is why the Clinton campaign is asking for a delay.

Can someone clarify this?

[ Parent ]
It has NEVER been the role of the STATE (4.60 / 5)
Party to verify anything.  These are local PRECINCT conventions.   The issue was at each and every precinct.  And if there is a reason to challenge a PRECINCT, then any voter can file a challenge, go through the establish process in the Rules, and get relief.  

There is an established process, in place for over 35 years that I've been going to these things.  It's called a Credentials Committee.

The Clinton campaign is in a public relations campaign to discredit the process.  And in the process, they are trying to make one of the most remarkable events in democracy in Texas in my lifetime (and I'm an OLD dude) into a questionable exercise.    I resent it mightily

 And it is mightily backfiring on them.

[ Parent ]
How so? (0.00 / 0)
I'm a Clinton supporter. It makes sense to me. I don't really see it as a public relations campaign.
[ Parent ]
Elsbeth (0.00 / 0)
I don't think you're quite in the target audience that press effort is trying to reach so that's understandable. :)

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.
[ Parent ]
Is that a compliment? (0.00 / 0)
I'll take it. It's late and it's closin' time. :)
[ Parent ]
Thanks for clarifying that, Glen (3.00 / 2)
The Clinton campaign is just trying to give the TDP enough time to do what the TDP wanted to do: verify the particpants.

Once the TDP verifies them, there will be no case for ANYONE to dismiss it a "questionable exercise."

[ Parent ]
sounds ok to me (3.00 / 1)
I see good reason to verify the participants and almost no reason to discredit the Clinton campaign for making sure that the caucus participants are properly verified.

I know there were major problems in Harris county with under staffing and their preparation. I've spoken with friends active in the county who said they voted on torn pieces of paper for the candidates. Two of my buddies weren't even on the voting sign in sheet and had to have workers call for their voting id #'s.

Harris county also had issues on election day with close to 1700 people voting twice. http://www.chron.com/disp/stor...

[ Parent ]
I'm with you Glen (3.00 / 1)
I think it really is nothing more than a P/R campaign, and the part that sucks is tearing down our process, right in the middle of a remarkable growth of Democratic participants. Despite the fact that a vast majority of these conventions went remarkably well considering the turnout.  You had a very energized base showing up to meet with their neighbors, in their own precincts.  For the first time in decades for some.  If there were problems, they were probably minor considering the turnouts.  I sincerely doubt that there was anything "corrupt"  happening in any of the caucuses.

This reminds me of the voter fraud campaign the republicans wage.  There are always thousands of allegations, but when the researches wade through the allegations, 99% of them turn out to be exaggeration, myth and simple mistakes.  Nothing nefarious at all.

[ Parent ]
Voter fraud (0.00 / 0)
There seems to be a lot of this comparing the Clinton campaign to the Republican Party and their voting fraud allegations.

That comparison seems outrageous to me.

[ Parent ]
Outrageous? (0.00 / 0)
So what you're saying is that the Clinton campaign doesn't think any voter fraud actually occurred, but it is still absolutely critical that TDP reverify every caucus participant using a procedure not provided for in the rules?

I don't think anyone here alleges that the motivations behind the calls are similar.  In no way do I believe that the Clinton campaign is motivated by a desire to prevent the poor, minorities, and the elderly from voting.  And in no way do I believe that the Clinton campaign is seeking to implement a regime that would systematically disenfranchise such voters in the future.

But the fact of the matter is that the Clinton campaign wouldn't be calling for a systematic reverification of all caucus participants if it weren't simultaneously implying that some of those folks participated illegally.  And it at least appears very strongly that this call is self-interested; otherwise, why isn't the campaign calling for a similar reverification of the primary vote?  Why isn't the campaign calling for a reverification of the caucus results in states where it won?

When the Obama campaign filed a complaint with the Nevada Democratic Party over irregularities in the Nevada Caucus, their complaint specifically stated that they were not requesting any modification or recount of the results, nor were they seeking an alteration of the result.  They said they simply wanted the party to be alerted to problems that occurred at many caucus locations.  Has the Obama campaign behaved irreproachably in every respect throughout this process?  No, and I can say as a supporter that I have occasionally disagreed with their actions.  But in this case, there is a strong overtone in the Clinton campaign's rhetoric that some systematic effort to game the system occurred AND that the result is therefore unreliable.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that my interpretation could be wrong.  Your perspective may turn out to be the right one.  Reasonable minds can disagree.  But unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should avoid calling each other "outrageous".  Let's be content to simply say we think the other person is mistaken.

"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

[ Parent ]
Being outrageous (0.00 / 0)
is sometimes a compliment. However, I didn't call you "outrageous." To be precise, I said:

There seems to be a lot of this comparing the Clinton campaign to the Republican Party and their voting fraud allegations.

That comparison seems outrageous to me. [Emphasis added.]


[ Parent ]
Understood (3.00 / 1)
I am sometimes overly preoccupied with the tone of discussion.  Your point is valid; I can agree that we can call a particular point of argument outrageous without implying that the person making it is also outrageous.  Not to concede, of course, that my argument is outrageous.  =)

"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
[ Parent ]
Glen you're wrong (0.00 / 0)
Verifying that voters are registered voters when attending the precinct conventions is the State party's responsibility.  The TDP agrees, it just says it doesn't have enough time to complete the process.

If you don't like it.... take it up with the Rules Committee at the state level.  You'll get your opportunity June 6-7.

In the meantime, we have a paper trail.  It's important for the integrity of the process to make sure that the process is followed.

If TDP is not able to meet their obligations by the 29th, then we should allow them more time -- or risk having ALL the caucus results tossed at the State or Natonal Conventions.  

[ Parent ]
And again (0.00 / 0)
not only should they be registered Texas voters, but voted in the primary earlier in the day or during Early Voting.
[ Parent ]
HIllary & Company (0.00 / 0)
Need a cheese tray to go with their WHINE!!!  This is yet one more example of a spoiled brat acting out because she lost.

Doing My Part For The Left,Left Of The Rainbow
Actually (0.00 / 0)
the collective whine from Obama supporters is incredible to me.  I had never ever considered him to be a target for the Wimp label until I began to see the over-reaction among (a minority) of his supporters, coupled with the incredibe inconsistency of some of the more public arguments.  He is quite capable of standing on his own, and does not require kneejerk defense.

For example, Obama is "the change candidate", but the politics-as-usual type of defense of the caucus (it has been around for 35 years - [gosh what an incredible way to replace the poll tax, with leveraqed insider voting, how creative]).  The blindness to the constitutional rights of those unable to participate in caucuses. The undying defense of DNC overkill in Florida and Michigan - where the reasoned, practical Republican Party measure of halving the delegates and allowing full campaigns now would seem a literal godsend.

Neither candidate is a saint, but neither is Lucifer either.  Both are adult Americans who are giving their lives to public service, and I respect and commend both, and will be proud to vote for either over McCain.

The electronic medium seems ill-fitted to southern debate - when we talk face to face at least we speak slowly enough to think between syllables.  Thinking often actually does help.


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

[ Parent ]
I worked my ass off to run a fair convention (2.20 / 5)
And I'll bet that I am far from alone.  I can tell you right now I will not vote for Hillary for dog catcher or anything else.  Somewhere this insanity has got to stop.  I have voted Democratic in 8 presidential elections but I will work as hard as I can against any ticket with HRC on it.
I really do appreciate (5.00 / 1)
the fact that you ran a fair convention (as well as the many others across the state who did likewise) along with your many years of supporting the party, but who exactly would you be working hard to support if HRC did end up somewhere on the ticket?  I've been reading so many comments throughout the blogosphere from supporters (from both sides) claiming they won't support the Dem ticket if their candidate doesn't win the primary and it's beginning to get a little scary.  
[ Parent ]
Don't take your ball ... (3.00 / 1)
and go home and don't get your feelings hurt. This is a political play (for better or worse) and you can't get your feelings hurt every time a press release comes out or press sec. makes a statement. You're an elected official now, yes a real life politician, and you can't take every thing to heart as a personal attack.

I was at your precinct and you did a fine job; fair, open, and honest, so come off it, the press release doesn't have your name in the title.

So I hope you and every other Democrat doesn't throw away their hard work and the hard work of Democrats everywhere. Your decision to work against HRC would be petty and short sighted. If you decide to tear our party down then don't run for Precinct Chair next time around because you really don't care to support and further the purposes, ideals, and candidates of our party.

[ Parent ]
HIllary & Co. are the ones (0.00 / 0)
working against Democrats right now or that is the way it seems.

Doing My Part For The Left,Left Of The Rainbow
[ Parent ]
I do support the party (0.00 / 0)
That is why I will not support a candidate who is actively destroying it.  It has nothing to do with my candidate or a personal attack.  The party should be bigger than one candidate. It won't be me that is tearing down what the netroots has built over that last four years. Sometimes a loss is better than a win in the long run.  I appreciate your difference of opinion.  Should we have no standards whatsoever for an eventual nominee?
[ Parent ]
Okay, (0.00 / 0)
but many times a loss is not better than a win, in neither the long nor short runs.  Stevens is almost 90, Ginsburg is already 75, Breyer and Souter are almost 70.
[ Parent ]
Read the letter. (3.50 / 2)
Last week our Counsel, Lyn Utrecht, was told by Mr. Dunn that the State Party intended to verify the eligibility of participants and that the Party's IT people were working on a system for doing that electronically. On Tuesday the 11th, when Ms. Utrecht contacted Mr.Dunn to inquire about the status of the memorandum regarding the procedures, she was advised that the State Party no longer intended to verify the eligibility of participants or delegates because the Party would not have the ability to do that before the County Conventions. This was confirmed by Mr. Dunn yesterday

There is no lawsuit. What is wrong with merely trying to insure that the TDP has enough time to verify the eligibility of caucus participants?

I know I will get assailed for this but I really believe that this hysteria is misplaced. If it takes a delay to give the TDP enough time to verify the participants and do their job, than so be it. We will still have more than two months until the state convention.

A lot of county parties are not going to appreciate... (4.00 / 2)
...having to rebook already expensive rebookings of locations to host the county and senate district conventions. There are only so many large sites in the urban counties to host multi-thousand person conventions that there is no guarentee they will be able to move them off the March 29th dates. The venues don't have that sort of flexibility.

Has the Clinton campaign offered to pay for all the associated costs with moving those?

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

[ Parent ]
Democracy should be (4.33 / 3)
worth re-booking a venue. It's somewhat important to all of our lives.
[ Parent ]
i'm afraid that... (4.00 / 2)
...more than a few Clinton supportive county chairs might even disagree with that statement at this point. Notwithstanding the contracts signed, and materials and mail to delegates that may be in process. You have about 100,000 people that agreed to be delegates and alternates based upon their availability on the 29th.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.
[ Parent ]
It's the most important election (1.00 / 1)
of our lives. Like I said...and besides, there was so much interest that many agreed to be alternates to the alternates.  
[ Parent ]
that's not in the rules (0.00 / 0)
There is no such thing as an alternate to an alternate. :)


Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.
[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
not officially and not usually. But this year is different in so many ways. :)
[ Parent ]
It's a participation ribbon. (0.00 / 0)
Remember playing in the sports leagues at the Y (or insert your local youth sports league) and everyone got to play and everyone got a "participation ribbon." It sounds like a bunch of grown ups wanted participation ribbons for being a part of the democratic process. They were all so proud of themselves for being aware, educated, and socially active that they needed a pat on the back.  
[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
I almost drowned at the Y. But I do get your point. :)
[ Parent ]
Eligibility Double Standard? (3.67 / 3)
First, as Glen has pointed out elsewhere, the two parties in Texas are, in a rather bizarre regime, creatures of statute.  We do not have the option of changing our convention schedule since it's actually mandated by law.

Second, I think it's sending mixed messages for a Democratic campaign to be complaining about this issue at the exact time we're fighting onerous voter ID laws.  Bona fide, intentional attempts at fraud are rare, while demanding voters jump through a variety of hoops to vote invariably and significantly reduces access to the ballot.  Our party's position (which is the right position) is that plenty of procedures exist to address evidence of actual fraud, but by and large, it's sufficient to ask people to legally affirm that they are indeed who they are when they vote without the need to produce a bewildering variety of evidence.  If people are caught lying, the punishment is swift and severe.  Otherwise, to treat each voter as a potential criminal is to ensure that the poor and the elderly are denied the right to participate meaningfully.

As a volunteer for the caucuses, I considered my job to be as fair as possible while ensuring the maximum access to the democratic process.  If you showed me a receipt or voter registration card with the correct precinct and primary information on it, you could sign the form.  If you didn't have those things, I'd look you up on the voter rolls.  If none of those worked, you could sign the provisional form.  As a lawyer, I'm comfortable with folks signing in with the knowledge that they are legally affirming by their signature that they are who they say they are.  I'm not going to demand photo ID when I know that such a requirement is inherently disenfranchising to masses of people, particularly in our party.

Does that mean that everyone was 100% correct in their participation?  No.  In an unprecedented election with a largely unfamiliar process, many voters are inevitably going to make mistakes because of confusion or misinformation.  Does that mean I think there was a systematic effort by either campaign to subvert the caucus process?  Of course not.  Both sides acted in good faith, and I am confident that whatever mistakes or errors occurred on either side easily balanced each other out.

If any hysteria is misplaced, it's the deep and abiding suspicion by one side (and I'm not confining this to one candidate in this particular caucus) that there is a conspiracy against them without evidence.  We can expend enormous resources and time to go through the rolls again, but I fully expect that the result is that as many folks will be disqualified on one side as the other.  And I fully expect that the vast, vast majority of those disqualified will be for completely innocent reasons.  And in the end, the results will have shifted negligibly, if at all.

American democracy has for decades operated on the principle that the more voters can participate in the process, the better.  By feeding insinuations that either side systematically gamed the system, we simply play into the Republicans' hands.  Let's not give them any more fodder for their cynical crusade against democracy.

"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

[ Parent ]
So all the Clinton (0.00 / 0)
supporters should just go to their corners and be quiet?

To suggest that wanting to make sure that voting was fair and accurate is simply playing into the Republicans' hands is well, outrageous.

Good try, though.

[ Parent ]
Not what I said (3.00 / 2)
It is not my suggestion that Clinton supporters should go to their corners and be quiet.  My point was the same as Glen's - that procedures exist in the rules and statutes to address concerns about fraud.  Verification is already a requirement - one that is fulfilled by the precinct chairs who must verify their rolls before certifying the results of their caucus to the state party.  If mistakes or wrongdoing occurred, procedures are in place to address them.  As in litigation, the appeals process is clearly defined.  A particular litigant may feel wronged and that litigant may feel that a process not stipulated by law for appealing a decision would be "better" than those permitted by law, but that does not mean the courts should decide to change the existing rules in order to better reassure the parties that justice was done.  The time for setting such rules is a priori; to do otherwise is to raise questions, rightly or wrongly, about the motive of those requesting the change in procedure.  I feel strongly that this is a good rule of thumb for life, not just politics.

As you mentioned below, certainly there were out of state supporters from both sides volunteering at conventions.  They were there to help out, just as I did in Nevada.  There are plenty of folks on BOR who can attest that the trainings held for such volunteers on both sides told them exactly what they could or could not do.  Did some volunteers make mistakes?  Of course.  In my convention, a well-meaning, but misinformed, out of state Obama volunteer attempted to campaign after the sign-in began.  After our Obama precinct captains discovered this, they told her that she was breaking the rules and she retreated to a more appropriate role.  I believe wholeheartedly that the number of people supporting either candidate who acted with actual malice could easily fit in my bathroom.

You yourself indicate by your comments that you don't believe anyone was acting out of malice.  Mistakes were made.  I think we can both agree on that.  But to loudly call into question the veracity of millions of voters and suggest that the only way to have a legitimate election result is to re-verify, outside the established process, every single caucus participants' information, does indeed lend credence to the reasonable-sounding arguments of Republicans that every voter must have government issued photo ID to vote or must produce this or that official, certified document to register.  If we cannot trust that legal affirmations by signature, as with a legal affidavit, are sufficient guarantees of truthfulness within the regime we have created, then it's difficult to see what other alternative there is other than to require every voter produce numerous documents before being permitted to participate.  I know that reverification does not necessarily require ID, but I trust that if we passed a law requiring the complete reverification of every vote after every election that many folks would suddenly start to see the benefits of requiring verification beforehand, if only in the interest of efficiency.

Moreover, these arguments would apply with equal force to the primary.  If all caucus signatures should be verified one additional time by the state party, then why not reverify every single person who voted in the primary?  Why do we not do this for general elections as well?  Not to say, again, that there are no procedures for certain verifications when results are challenged or elections are close, but if we're going to demand that this be done for the sake of "trust" in this particular case, then there is no reason we shouldn't do it every single case, regardless of the margin of victory or whether either side even wants it.

Those of us who are concerned about this are not opposed to having measures to ensure that election results are fair.  What does concern us is when someone demands a process outside of the rules that, in the extraordinary nature of the demand itself, implies that someone is engaging in systematic dirty tricks.  I would prefer to spend our time leveling that accusation at the appropriate targets - Karl Rove, Tom Craddick, and the GOP slime machine.

Oh, and just to reassure the Clinton folks out there, if Sen. Clinton is our nominee, I will fight tooth and nail to make sure she wins the White House with the largest margin of victory in history.

"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

[ Parent ]
I rejoice that I am not a Republican, too (3.00 / 1)
What does concern us is when someone demands a process outside of the rules that, in the extraordinary nature of the demand itself, implies that someone is engaging in systematic dirty tricks.

But that's another stretch, I'm afraid. I quoted you this time to remind you that you did say it. When did Hillary Clinton say that there were "dirty" tricks. That's it for me. Good night.

[ Parent ]
A stretch? (5.00 / 2)
I agree with you.  Sen. Clinton never said that.  Nor did I say she said it.  (Even if a representative of her campaign did say it, I would never say Clinton said it.)  As you noted in your quotation of my comment, I said that the nature of the demand "implies" it.  As I mentioned in another comment above, I'm happy to allow that my interpretation is incorrect.  But nonetheless, it is the interpretation that I and many others draw, and I think there is at least a not completely ridiculous explanation for it.

To reassure you that I am not attempting to put words into anyone's mouth, here is my line of reasoning, which I hope is at least plausible:

1. The caucus process in Texas is largely unfamiliar to the vast majority of voters.

2. In a year of unprecedented participation, this lack of familiarity resulted in confusion and occasional errors by party officials and supporters of both sides.

3. In the absence of remarkable or abnormal circumstances, the incidence of confusion and errors should be statistically similar across the board, particularly given the one million plus voters and thousands of precincts in the sample size.

4. Given a statistically similar incidence of errors and/or irregularities across the board, neither side would come out of the caucus having an unfair advantage of any meaningful or statistically significant size.

5. Asking for a comprehensive reverification of signatures over and above the existing regime would be pointless unless there was a strong concern that the results were significantly inaccurate.

6. Given 3 and 4 above, a significant inaccuracy would only result from remarkable or abnormal circumstances over and above the widespread incidence of confusion throughout the state.

7. Thus, a strong concern of a significant inaccuracy implies a belief in the presence of remarkable or abnormal circumstances over and above the standard confusion.

8. Such remarkable or abnormal circumstances would typically be attributed to systematic efforts by one side to distort the process.  Certainly, another possibility is that some bizarre, statistically improbable coincidence in favor of one side was occurring in the majority of precincts, e.g., lots and lots of precinct chairs were all accidentally hearing Obama instead of Clinton when people were telling them their preference.  I suppose it's possible that the Clinton campaign is actually concerned about the latter rather than the former, but that strikes me as unlikely.

So maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe the Clinton campaign's motives are pure, and it's solely interested in ensuring accurate results without respect to any other consequence.  But if that's the case, I have to wonder why they have not called for similar verifications in every state, in every primary, and in every caucus.

"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

[ Parent ]
Very nice analysis! (0.00 / 0)
Two thumbs up!  
[ Parent ]
That's funny (0.00 / 0)
Both of my thumbs were down after I read this in the early morning hours. And they're still down, now.
[ Parent ]
Ouch =) (2.00 / 1)
As someone with a strong appreciation of wordplay, I have to give you props for that one.

"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
[ Parent ]
Because there are not paper trails in every state (5.00 / 1)
Texas has them, we should use them.

Or is all the foot-stomping and outrage about Diebold and such just posturing?

[ Parent ]
Aren't you listening? (0.00 / 0)
As several people have pointed out already, there is a process for making sure that the caucuses were fair and accurate, and because there is such a process, it's entirely unnecessary to delay the March 29 conventions.

And I'm not seeing that the discussion in this thread is rallying around the notion that "the Clinton supporters should just go to their corners and be quiet." But as a Clinton supporter, I would suggest that some Clinton supporters, including the litigation-happy lawyers on the campaign staff, would do well to go to their corners and calm down a bit instead of screwing up our entire convention process.

[ Parent ]
Are you willing at the Credentials committee meetings (5.00 / 1)
to sit down with the voter rolls and verify that each person that attended the caucus was a registered voter?

If so, you should start now.  

[ Parent ]
And (0.00 / 0)
...sit down with the voter rolls and verify that each person that attended the caucus was a registered voter?

And important to add this to your comment: had voted in the primary.

[ Parent ]
Well apparently some weren't even registered to vote (0.00 / 0)
So yes, I'll amend if (here)

Are you willing at the Credentials committee meetings to sit down with the voter rolls and verify that each person that attended the caucus was a registered voter and had voted in the primary.

[ Parent ]
Good! (0.00 / 0)
That's it. :)
[ Parent ]
Credentials committee meetings? Me? (0.00 / 0)
Heavens, no. I'm busy enough working through the 762 resolutions submitted to my senatorial district convention. But the Credentials Committee for each convention should be getting an early start already for their hugely important task.
[ Parent ]
I don't think so (3.00 / 1)
Is Hillary really messing with Texas? I don't think so.

As a Hillary Clinton supporter, I would like to see the votes from the precinct conventions verified as well. Since the precinct officers in many of the precincts were so overwhelmed by the turnout, it stands to reason that people may have shown up and signed in who hadn't actually voted in the primary part of the process.

Maybe they thought they could just show up for the precinct convention. I do know that only two or three people I talked with at my precinct convention had ever before participated in a precinct convention. Many weren't even sure what was going to happen and they arrived to discover that there wasn't going to be anything other than a sign in and a meeting. And this particular precinct (new precinct, by the way) in a southwestern Dallas suburb, was mostly disorganized. But it got better when they finally found a microphone and made additional copies of the sign in sheets (after about 30 or 40 minutes).

Under these conditions, and with the race being so close, it stands to reason that the precinct convention sign-in sheets need to be re-verified with the actual voting roles. It's very likely that mistakes were made the night of the conventions due to the overwhelming turnout.

I've heard rumors that out-of-state Obama supporters were sent in to precinct conventions. Anyone else heard this? I don't want to think this happened...but the fact is, the rumors only produce doubt. And verifying the votes will make everyone trust the final results better.

I had out of state Clinton people at mine (0.00 / 0)
It was funny trying to watch them take over our convention with their fake precinct chair badge after grabbing the packet. Of course, I had the bullhorn, lol.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.
[ Parent ]
Our chair (0.00 / 0)
needed a bullhorn, too. I think that needs to be a new requirement for all precincts.  
[ Parent ]
No mandatory bullhorns please (0.00 / 0)
My precinct convention (along with two other precincts) took place at a retirement home. Mandatory bullhorns would have helped people hear the announcements and instructions, but would have been a big aggravation for the residents, some of whom go to bed as early as 8:00!
[ Parent ]
Mandatory (0.00 / 0)
bullhorns if needed. Obviously, they wouldn't be used unless necessary. I'm tempted to give you a "1." But I won't. I'm so enjoying my status as the top "1" getter.  
[ Parent ]
You got a 1 rating on this thread only once so far (0.00 / 0)
as of the last time I checked. This thread seems to be improving your rating overall. So if you really want to be a top "1" getter, try being more flippant!
[ Parent ]
So (0.00 / 0)
..."rumors" justify the endless delay necessitated by the "need" to verify 1.1 million caucusgoers?

Exactly how many of these out-of-state Obama supporters were at your precinct--and how many of them did it take, at your precinct, to get one more delegate to the district convention?  My precinct was 194 to 68 for 27 delegates, so there were, what, "rumors" of 10 or so there?  This is, with all due respect, bunk.

[ Parent ]
Come on, Elsbeth... (4.67 / 6)
There were out of state (New York) AFSCME folks at dozens upon dozens of precincts in Austin.  They were for Clinton, and they distrupted my convention to the point of a motion to silence their outbursts.

There were "out of state" Obama people and "out of state" Clinton folks at hundreds of conventions.  This is a national election.  We were front and center.

And the Texas Democratic Party Rules say every meeting is open to the press and the public.

I'm so over folks whining about things that happened on BOTH sides.

Were there overzealous Obama folks?  Damn right.
Were there overzealous Clinton folks?  Damn right.

And we're all Democrats, we're all adults, and we should all get this behind us to beat the Republican corruption and all that stuff.

A pox on supporters of both candidates who say they are going away.  We're in for the fight for our lives.

[ Parent ]
Amen to that (0.00 / 0)
We must unite behind the nominee.

[ Parent ]
Well, then (0.00 / 0)
why is this diary front and center with the title, "Hillary Messes with Texas"? From what you've just said, "Obama Messes with Texas," too.
[ Parent ]
Glen didn't write the title (0.00 / 0)
It's the author's, krikkit4. We don't typically alter the content of promoted posts, other than technical changes like fixing a blockquote or linked text.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.
[ Parent ]
Yes (1.00 / 1)
KT, but my question for Glen was intended to be rhetorical.

We're all in this "diary" or apparently stuck in it for better or for worse.

[ Parent ]
we are indeed stuck in it (0.00 / 0)
no one is allowed out until 10 am.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.
[ Parent ]
But I wanted to go to early service in the morning. (0.00 / 0)
It's Palm Sunday and I wanted to go to the 9am early service. Can we let people out starting at about 8:30ish? People can stick around if they want but the others can go ahead and write new diaries, walk the dog, or go to church.
[ Parent ]
I think (5.00 / 1)
I've received more "l" ratings than anybody, recently? Am I winning? It's good for my over-inflated ego.  
[ Parent ]
Thanks for that KT! (0.00 / 0)
I suck when it comes to formatting.  

"There's nothing new except for the history that you don't know."
-HST

Justice Addict

[ Parent ]
Or maybe I should be thanking Matt? (0.00 / 0)
I'm a little tired.

"There's nothing new except for the history that you don't know."
-HST

Justice Addict

[ Parent ]
Umm because... (0.00 / 0)
...the "mess"ing has to do with the attempt to delay the conventions on the 29th.

It's not that hard.

"There's nothing new except for the history that you don't know."
-HST

Justice Addict

[ Parent ]
Thanks (0.00 / 0)
But I really don't think it's a fair title. Lots of spin in there.
[ Parent ]
Attacking the Caucuses... (0.00 / 0)
...seems to have gone over real well in Iowa. +9 delegate swing to Obama at the county conventions there today. Writing on the wall?

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.
The great majority (0.00 / 0)
of those were former Edwards delegates, right?
[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
But Clinton didn't gain any from the Edwards pool. Enough apparently defected to Obama that she lost one of her own making the margin even worse. It's noted in the linked post.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.
[ Parent ]
Not so surprising (0.00 / 0)
since Edwards came in 2nd. Stands to reason that those who changed probably always had Obama as their 2nd choice. The writing on that wall isn't anything profound.
[ Parent ]
Each Camp Provide Help (5.00 / 1)
On one side we have the party that doesn't want to delay the senatorial/county conventions.  On the other we have the Clinton campaign asking to verify all the signatures.

How about a compromise.  The Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign provide an equal number of volunteers or paid staffers to help the party verify the signatures.  Maybe 5 from each campaign per senate district.  And maybe two per county convention.  Or if all the data is going to the headquarters in Austin, maybe 10 or more from each campaign to go help at the party headquarters.  

Just a thought.  

I believe each side was doing so (0.00 / 0)
Or at least, had been in a number of counties. There was apparently a directive that had come out from the TDP to alert counties to then disallow any campaign volunteer from even touching the materials or assist out of concern borne (at that time) from a "pending" request or suit by one of the presidential campaigns. I believe that was then clarified to some degree to allow counties to move forward again but it seems a request of some sort has come anyways. Not sure as to all the details though because that happened in part after Matt and I hit DC.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.
[ Parent ]
I think at this point (0.00 / 0)
I may not even vote.  

If the caucus was so great, then how come the TDP and the County parties were not ready for it?  My precinct caucus was anything but the greatest think since sliced bread. In fact it was a cluster.  As days have gone by, I have been questioning if everyone who attended were from my precinct.  They ran out of sign in sheets, we were told to sign in on a piece of a legal pad.  Name, address, signature, voter ID number, no phone number or email address.  It was passed around the room.  Nobody check anything.  One person yelled up to the front that he didnt have his voter card and didnt know his number, he was told by the person in charge that it was ok just put down his name.  Another lady said her husband couldnt be there, she was told to put his name down.  

I read now that there are rules to follow and procedures in place for disputes.  How do I even know anyone in the chain is doing their job?  Who is looking out for MY vote?  I dont know if anyone was allowed to caucus in the wrong precinct, but I thought it would be checked and verified with who voted in the primary.  How do I know that has happened?  

Not to alarm you, but... (0.00 / 0)
Variations of those problems occur with primaries and general elections too.  That's why statisticians say that in most states, any result within even tens of thousands of votes is statistically unreliable.

"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
[ Parent ]
So that makes it OK (0.00 / 0)
I understand now.  
[ Parent ]
Not OK (0.00 / 0)
No one is arguing that what you experienced is OK. (And somehow I think you already know that!)

Scroll up to the top of this thread, and you'll see the rules concerning the challenge process. That's the way the Texas Democratic Party addresses problems of the nature that you described, in the interest of fairness.

[ Parent ]
challenge process (0.00 / 0)
Mark, in your experience, how have you seen this challenge process play out in the past? Has the challenge process ever had to deal with a problem associated with large turnout like this year?
[ Parent ]
Re: challenge process (0.00 / 0)
I'm not involved with the credentials process and have no experience with challenges to a delegation. But I do know where the rules are to be found, so I am qualified to advise people who have a complaint to follow the procedure outlined in these rules in registering their complaint, and to keep their eyes open to see that others are following the rules also.

My experience is with other aspects of the conventions, and as one of the thousands of people who are volunteering their time to make the conventions work, I can tell you that despite the problems that arise when more than a million people take part in this system, most of them for the first time ever, their sheer number is posing enormous demands for what needs to be done. But this massive turnout is good for the party, which is why we embrace the challeng... oops, there's that word again.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for your response (0.00 / 0)
 
Any Democrat may challenge any Delegate or Alternate or any group of Delegates and/or Alternates certified to any Convention, provided the challenger and the challenged parties reside in the same county (or senatorial district) whose Convention elected the challenged Delegate(s) or Alternate(s). In the case of the County or Senatorial District Convention, the challenger shall deliver the copy of the challenge to the County or Senatorial District Chair and to the challenged Delegate(s) or Alternate(s) at least 3 days before the date of the Convention.

I don't see this process applying to the Clinton campaign. This would suggest her campaign organize caucus-goers within selected conventions throughout the state to file a complaint to the credentials committee. Do I have that right?

[ Parent ]
Yes, go for it (0.00 / 0)
If precincts can be identified where there were mistakes that affected the makeup of the delegation, then the campaign should get involved in filing challenges with the credentials committee. This will put a big strain on the credentials committee, but the integrity of the process really falls on them now. It will be a lot more work for them, but a heck of a lot better than postponing the conventions.

It's important that the credentials committee comprise members of both camps in nearly equal numbers. If you think you can contribute to this effort fairly and impartially (your posting of certain videos on this site notwithstanding), you might see whether your CEC or Senate District Committee would elect you to serve on the credentials committee.

[ Parent ]
ok (0.00 / 0)
You know as well as I do this 'challenge process' is for the birds. It should require the same kind of changes that the caucus process needs since this 'challenge process' has never had to deal with the enormous turnout on March 4th. It would be near impossible for the campaign to go about organizing caucus-goers within specific conventions across the HUGE state of Texas.

I feel comfortable with my level of activity in the party. I've done things to support many Democrats not only in my hometown of Galveston county, but I've also volunteered to help a couple local races where I am currently living. On that note...my #1 priority in life is my family and as a new father I make the decision to spend most of my downtime with them. I'm also a national honors student which means I dedicate a lot of time to my studies. http://www.magnacumlaude.org/h...

I'm 23 years old and have plenty of time to join committees like the ones you suggest...but for the benefit of my family and my grades....I choose not to do so now...I hope you understand.


[ Parent ]
Well, if you don't go for it, SOMEONE should (0.00 / 0)
In every precinct where the Clinton campaign has identified discrepancies, they have names of people who were at the convention. These are people who were present and have first-hand knowledge of the discrepancies, and who are well qualified to issue a challenge. The campaign should contact them and encourage them to help address the discrepancies.

The campaign should NOT impugn the integrity of the entire caucus system. The time for that would have been in 2006, when the rules could have been changed without affecting an ongoing race to the White House. And as several have pointed out on this site, the Clinton folks knew the process of delegate selection in Texas, because this is not the first time that the Clintons have made a run for the White House.

[ Parent ]
And how do you know (0.00 / 0)
that isn't taking place? How do you really know?  Garry Mauro is no slouch.
[ Parent ]
No it does not make it ok (0.00 / 0)
I was merely stating a fact.  Of course it's problematic that the result of any close democratic election is unreliable.  But it's still important to recognize that as the number of participants in any election grows, the margin of error also necessarily rises.  Improved election technology and processes can reduce this problem, but we're never going to eliminate it in a country of 300 million people.

"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
[ Parent ]
This is nothing but a brazen attempt... (0.00 / 0)
...by the Clinton campaign to change the rules after the game is played. It's acting like a team trailing badly with no runners on base and two outs in the bottom of the ninth demanding that the whole game be nullified. It would never happen in Major League Baseball, and it must never happen here. The Clinton campaign knew the rules when the primary process started and even encouraged its supporters to participate in the process. And now, when it's clear that it won't come away from our state with more delegates, they want to nullify the caucus results. This is sour grapes at best and a silly and despicable effort to nullify the results of a legitimate process at worst.  
Quit denigrating the process, Hilary (2.33 / 3)
I had a real strong sense she was going to do this and it makes me so damn mad.  

The caucuses were, as far as I'm concerned, astounding.  I was a poll watcher in my precinct in '04 - just over 300 people turned out to vote, total, that year.  When I caucused on primary night, there were over 200 people there for Clinton and close to 1000 for Obama.  I never imagined that many people would ever care enough about our process - and this is a participatory democracy that looked to be dying - to show up like that.  The numbers are stunning and I think they are important.

I have written to the damn Dallas News about their characterizing the thing as contentious and chaotic and implying it is somehow cartoonish and thus not really legitimate.  I think thousands of people turning up to have a direct affect on the future of the democracy is about as legitimate as it gets.  Clinton has the same overarching problem Bush has - she is a divisive figure.  She's going to really demonstrate that fully during the rest of the primary campaign.

I admired her, I liked her, but not anymore.  One too many complaints when she doesn't get her own way; one too many dirty tricks, and now one too many racial references - she's pulling this campaign season to pieces, damn her.

Quit comparing Clinton to Bush (0.00 / 0)
Clinton has the same overarching problem Bush has - she is a divisive figure.  She's going to really demonstrate that fully during the rest of the primary campaign.

If you and so many believe she's divisive, it's only because the right wing attack machine has demonized her. Stop the Hillary Express, etc. as promoted by conservative talk radio darling Sean Hannity.

Too many Democrats have bought into all of that bs. You too, apparently.

[ Parent ]
I haven't (0.00 / 0)
I don't listen to right-wing radio, and I don't watch Fox News. I made up my mind to think that the Clinton campaign is being decisive, and I assume you made up your mind to think they're doing a great job.

If each side stopped assuming the other one was too stupid to think, we'd be taking a step in the right direction.

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

[ Parent ]
I don't either (0.00 / 0)
except to know what they're up to. Certainly not for accurate news reporting. Contrary to what a lot of people believe, the right wing radio jocks and Fox influence a lot of people. Hillary Clinton's campaign should never be compared to them or Bush.
[ Parent ]
I can think for myself, my dear (3.00 / 1)
No I haven't bought into anything about Hilary.  Actually, I admire her and I've always liked her, but that fact is whether it is her fault or not, she is divisive and she's proving it.
[ Parent ]
Why no urgency from Clinton campaign (3.00 / 1)
to verify the eligibility of every Democrat who voted in March 4th primary?  Seems like all the same arguments -- record turnout stretching precinct resources, complaints of fraud, etc apply to the primary she won.
Not the same (0.00 / 0)
The primary voting did not have the same issues statewide. The precinct conventions were a mess.  
[ Parent ]
Harris county (0.00 / 0)
Harris County had issues with their primary voters. Those voters who participated in the Republican and Democratic primaries and those who voted twice should be ineligible to caucus for a candidate. So really (it's fair to assume that some stayed and caucused), the primary vote does play a role in sorting out the caucus mess.

http://www.chron.com/disp/stor...

[ Parent ]
Not to any extent (0.00 / 0)
Bettencourt said it does not appear that any of the races were close enough to be affected by the provisional ballots and double voters.

[ Parent ]
MY PRECINCT CONVENTION WAS NOT A MESS (3.00 / 1)
You made a blanket statement there, Elsbeth.

My convention was barely controlled chaos merely because of the number of people who showed up.  But the rules were followed - the chair waited until 7:15 and then opened the convention and the rest went smoothly.

The chair talked to Austin before they did anything and got Austin's instructions.

They were not all a mess - that's not true.  Who's being influenced by the press now?  You are - that's how the press here has covered the conventions and I've written to the Dallas paper twice now to try to get them to correct the false picture they are painting of what happened that night.

[ Parent ]
Not really (0.00 / 0)
I'm going by what I experienced and heard about in the Dallas area from real people (not the press). I'm glad your convention went smoothly. There were problems elsewhere. But don't worry. You are fortunate that yours went so well. It will somehow all work out.
[ Parent ]
Hillary Messes With Texas | 109 comments
Burnt Orange Reader
Checking back in on the Farouk Shami/Bill White primary
- Shared by KT
Shami And His Beefy Aides!
- Shared by KT
Come see Bill White tomorrow
- Shared by Phillip
The Mayor & The Mogul
- Shared by Phillip
Perry camp use of "R" word draws spotlight on Palin support (updated)
- Shared by Phillip
McCaul challenger dies weeks before primary
- Shared by KT
Katz's money campaign report.....tardy
- Shared by KT
Has the Internet Broken America?
- Shared by KT
In Texas, Resistance Over Stricter U.S. Smog Limits
- Shared by Phillip
Tonight’s Lost Final Season Premiere Bootlegs Online — And Fans Turn Away
- Shared by Phillip

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Poll
Who would you vote for in the Democratic Primary for Ag Commission?
Kinky Friedman
Hank Gilbert

Results

Advertisement

Best of Texas Left
- (Complete Directory)
- A Capitol Blog
- As the Island Floats
- B & B
- Bay Area Houston
- Blue Bloggin
- Bluedaze
- Brains and Eggs
- Capitol Annex
- Collin County Democrats
- Collin County Observer
- Community Forum
- Dog Canyon
- Dos Centavos
- Easter Lemming Liberal
- Eye on Williamson County
- Feet to the Fire
- Greg's Opinion
- Grits for Breakfast
- Half Empty
- Houtopia
- In the Pink Texas
- Kiss My Big Blue Butt
- Letters from Texas
- McBlogger
- Mean Rachel
- Musings
- North Texas Liberal
- Off the Kuff
- Panhandle Truth Squad
- Para Justicia y Libertad!
- Pink Dome
- San Antonio Mayor
- South Texas Chisme
- StoudDemBlog
- Texas Clover Leaf
- Texas Kaos
- The Caucus Blog
- There..Already
- Three Wise Men
Best of Texas Right
- Blogs of War
- BlogHouston
- Boots and Sabers
- Lone Star Times
- Publius TX
- Rick Perry vs the World
- Safety for Dummies
- Slightly Rough
- Urban Grounds
Other Texas Reads
- Burka Blog
- D Magazine
- DOT Show
- Statesman Elections
- Strong Political Analysis
- Texas Monthly
- Texas Observer
- The Texas Blue
- Quorum Report Daily Buzz
Around Austin
- Austin Bloggers
- Austin Chronicle
- Austin Contrarian
- Austin Metblogs
- Austin on Two Wheels
- Austin Real Estate Blog
- Austin Statesman
- Austin Texas Bike Shit Stuff
- Austin Towers
- Austinist
- Capital MetroBlog
- Daily Texan
- Do512
- Downtown Austin Blog
- East Austinite
- Elise Hu
- Flash Mob Austin
- Keep Austin Blue
- M1EK
- Travis County Democrats
- University Democrats
TX Progressive Orgs
- ACLU Legislative Blog
- Atticus Circle
- Criminal Justice Coalition
- Equality Texas
- Latinos for Texas
- NOW Texas
- PFAW Texas
- Public Citizen
- SEIU Texas
- Tejano Insider
- Texas AFT
- Texas HDCC
- Texas Watch
- TFN
- TSTA
- TSEU
- Texas Young Democrats
- United Ways of Texas
TX Elections/Returns
- TX Returns 1992-present
- TX Media/Candidate List

- Bexar County
- Collin County
- Dallas county
- Denton County
- El Paso County
- Fort Bend County
- Harris County
- Jefferson County
- Tarrant County
- Travis County

- CNN 1998 Returns
- CNN 2000 Returns
- CNN 2002 Returns
- CNN 2004 Returns
- CNN 2006 Returns
- CNN 2008 Returns
Traffic Ratings
- Alexa Rating
- Quantcast Ratings
-
Syndication

Burnt Orange Reporters
Publisher - Karl-Thomas M.
Editor-in-Chief - Matt G.
Staff Writer - David M.
Staff Writer - Katherine H.
Staff Writer - Michael H.
Staff Writer - Todd H.
Man of Mystery - Phillip M.
Founder - Byron L.

Powered by: SoapBlox