KT built this list and this google document - I'm just going to be updating it today while he's at the convention. Additionally, both Michael Hurta, David Mauro, and others here at BOR will be helping provide results throughout the day. This is a true team effort, so keep checking back throughout the day for more. -- Phillip
There are "national" Superdelegates from Texas, and "state" Superdelegates from Texas. Here's the big difference:
The "national" Superdelegates are the ones who get to cast individual votes at the national convention. We've been tracking them here in Texas for some time -- you can, too, by going to our TX Superdelegate Watch page.
The "state" Superdelegates is the same premise as the national system, only at the state level. There are 351 "state Superdelegates" from Texas, made up of the SDEC membership from each County, and the County Chairs from each County. In other words, if you are on the SDEC or serve as a County Chair, you automatically get to go to the State Convention, where you can cast a vote for either candidate.
There are going to be 7,315 delegates allocated to the State Convention via the process that is occuring over the weekend for the state convention.
Therefore, about 4.5% of the total delegates to the State Convention are "Superdelegates" -- 351 of the total 7,649 delegates (NOW I've done the math right, and thanks to someone for correcting me).
We've created a "state Superdelegate" tracking page as well, which we will be updating throughout the course of the weekend as best we can. The link is below:
On that page, we've got the complete list of the "state Superdelegates" along with which candidate they support, and a note about how we know who they are supporting. As I said, we hope to update/build that list more over the course of the weekend -- but it's an entirely people-powered document, so if you are on that list (or know how someone voted on that list this weekend) let us know and/or give us contact information to verify it.
60 Minutes was doing a little wrap-up on March 4th primaries and they captured to truly poignant moments that hopefully remind us all the importance of new leadership in the White House.
I saw a grown man cry tonight.
The paper mill in which he has labored for 27 years is closing in Ohio. The same one his father labored in for a lifetime.
He doesn't know what he'll do. But he is sure he'll do something.
When queried, "And what of your health insurance?" by the reporter. This big, strong, hardworking American man's eyes welled up and his voice broke as he mentioned his wife's Multiple Sclerosis. The tear rolling down his face betrayed the tough, proud demeanor he fought to exhibit.
The guy has worked hard his whole life and played by the rules. On the back end of middle age, wife a terminally ill wife, he's been thrown to the unknown and has nary a clue about what he'll do to support his family and secure care for his wife.
I am pretty sure this is by far the largest Texas lead that I have seen so far. I decided that I am not going to trust this poll after reading the article about it, but the major margin is worth this post.
Arlington, Texas (Feb 21, 2008)- Barack Obama has a double digit lead over Hillary Clinton in Texas, according to a statewide survey of 678 registered voters planning to vote in the March 4 Democratic Primary. The survey was conducted February 20 and 21 by Decision Analyst, a major national survey research firm. Decision Analyst projections indicate that if the election were held today Obama would win 57% to 43% over Clinton. The survey's margin of error is 3 percentage points, plus or minus, at a 90% level of confidence.
Already here I saw a problem (although it is a minor one). Almost every [political] public opinion poll uses a 95% confidence level. Usually the level of confidence is not even reported for this reason. I do not know enough about public opinion research to say how much that would affect the Margin of Error, but to read this poll accurately -- the margin of error would clearly find itself above 3% normally.
This was just a minor issue for me, though. On a normal poll, I would imagine that a 678 sized sample for the state of Texas wouldn't get any obscene margin of error. What bothered me was the paragraph I read about the poll and the firm.
Results based on scientific sampling of registered voters from American Consumer Opinion® (www.acop.com), one of the largest online research panels in the world. The sample was carefully balanced by gender, ethnicity, age, and geography; the data were weighted as necessary to fully represent the different demographic groups.
About Decision Analyst (www.decisionanalyst.com), based in Dallas-Fort Worth, is a leading international marketing research and marketing consulting firm specializing in advertising testing, strategy research, new product development, and advanced modeling for decision optimization. In addition, Decision Analyst owns and operates American Consumer Opinion® Online, one of the largest research panels in the world with over 7 million members.
A "scientific sampling?" I realize that American Consumer Opinion has over 7 million members worldwide, but I'd be willing to bet that there are over 7 million registered voters in the state of Texas (I could be way off, but I'm sure the number is in the millions). I'm sure the number of American Consumer Opinion's Texas panelists is a minute one compared to the actual population of registered voters.
Scientific samples are supposed to be a random sample of the population, and this was not random -- instead, it was a sample of Texas registered voters who decided on their own accord to register with www.acop.com. Some pollsters believe that public opinion research will eventually get to become electronic based, but we are not yet there.
--
Ok, so what does this survey tell us? Well, it probably tells us that Barack Obama is winning the internet users of Texas Democratic voters by a wide margin.
As if we already did not know that.
(I'm only an amateur on analyzing public opinion. I take a class on it at UT from Daron Shaw. It's possible that he has taught me wrong thus far, but I doubt it. I trust the man on this - if I remember correctly, he worked on polling for President Bush's presidential campaigns, and you have to be good if you can help get that man elected.)
Barack Obama's strong performance on Super Tuesday all but guarantees that Texas primary voters will play a key role, maybe the key role, in selecting the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.
Few saw this coming. Ever since efforts failed to move up the Texas primary, we thought we were sidelined. Then Michigan and Florida broke the rules, taking two big-state delegate counts off the table. Then Obama's captivating campaign of hope interrupted a Clinton coronation.
Until the last few days, most old Texas pols, and new pols for that matter, hadn't given much thought to the possibility of a historic Texas presidential primary. Now, here it comes, and early voting begins in 13 days.
To put this in perspective, Texas voters have never played this role in a Democratic primary. Good luck on your targeting, and good luck exit pollsters. It's a first-of-its-kind election in more ways that one. The universe of likely voters just got much, much larger.
Who will win Texas? Here are some things to think about.
Hispanic voters. Hillary won big among Hispanics in California. I believe this advantage has more to do with voter familiarity with Clinton than any black/brown friction. Exploiting a perceived antipathy between blacks and browns is a losers game for Democrats. No matter what side anyone is on, we need to vigorously contest the narrative of black/brown friction. And we're about to hear a lot about it, fueled by Clinton insiders and Republicans as well, from national and state pundits.
Women voters. Clinton has been winning the votes of older white women. But when Hillary hit the national stage in the early 90s, Ann Richards was the hero of Texas women. Hillary was never the figurehead here she was in some other places. The Clintons have a few friends in Texas, but they never really played on this field, and consequently don't have the deep leverage they've had elsewhere.
Fairly or not, there's a perception among Democratic opinion leaders that while a Clinton candidacy in 2008 will have minimum down-ballot impact, a a Clinton presidency will set Dems back. 2010 is a target year for the Texas Democratic comeback. Many fear the 2010 presidential midterm election will not go our way if voters have suffered through two more years of right wing Clinton bashing. I'm noting only the perception, not the reality. The perception will play a role in the March 4 outcome.
I don't think endorsements mean that much, and I really don't think a Houston mayor in machine-less Houston can make much of a difference, but I am curious about what Houston Mayor Bill White will do. White, a Clinton family friend and political appointee of Bill's, wants to run statewide in 2010. He has to be considering the impact of all this on his chances.
Finally, has anyone asked the Secretary of State if Texas can handle the massive turnout increase we are about to see?
On this week’s episode of Who's Blue, we are joined by Dennis Kucinich, Congressman from Ohio's 10th District. Kucinich is currently seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination in the 2008 race for President of the United States. We discuss his early political career, his proposal to create a Department of Peace, and how the Congressman intends to win the presidential primary.
