If Hillary wins Texas by 14% and loses in the delegates to Obama, there will be an uproar

[Herman Munster]

Latinos will protest and it'll get very ugly. Hillary will then have a legitimate point that the super-delegates are necessary to ensure the people's choice gets the nomination because the delegate system disenfranchises latinos.

[NJSecularist]

1. I don't hear Hillary complaining about Alabama

[LordJFT]

47. "I don't hear Hillary complaining about Alabama" QFE

[babylonsister]

2. Borrowing trouble? Hillary winning in TX remains to be seen. nt

[Tom Joad]

4. damn right. such a scenario is highly unlikely

doubt she will win, and if so, not likely by much.

[tekisui]

3. Don't worry, she won't win by 14%. She may not even take Texas.

[Tom Joad]

7. aren't we relieved!

i think by the time the election night is over on March 4th, most people will know that the clinton's have lost this fight.

never again will a serious presidential candidate vote for a war of aggression without knowing that their political future may be jeopardized.

[elixir2]

33. Rasmussen does agree w/you, HRC 54% BO 38%

[MzShellG]

39. That poll is approx. 2 weeks out. It's irrelevant. Once Obama gets to TX, it will be over for her.

Just saying, dont hang onto false hopes.

[ORDem]

54. Only polled democratic voters, not indies or goopers. n/t

:kick:

[tekisui]

55. Insider Advantage and ARG, from 2/14:

Insider Advantage Feb. 14 HC- 48% BO- 41%
ARG Feb. 14 HC-42% BO-48%

[donheld]

69. How often is Rasmussen right?

What's the track record?

[bluestateguy]

5. Where do you come up with that scenario?

Yes she may lose the TX delegates and win the state's popular vote, but by 14%?

Don't forget that 25% of TX delegates are chosen in caucuses.

[WillyT]

6. Wow... This Was One Of Your 3 Huh ???

If this was a math problem you just solved, could you maybe, like... show us your work?

:shrug:

[Tom Joad]

11. a totally substance-less post. should count as two.

[JVS]

8. Well then she'd better lose.

And nice race baiting.

[BringBigDogBack]

9. You've got nothing to worry about.

She'll lose Texas, with each candidate splitting the latino vote.

Thanks for your concern, tho. :hi:

[Orangepeel]

10. There wasn't an uproar in Nevada

:shrug:

[earthlover]

12. Sure hear this charge of "disenfranchisement" a lot from the Hillary Camp

Must mean they are losing or something....

I understand that the delegate selection process in Texas is complicated. But the rules have been established a long time ago.

Why do I get the sneaky feeling that if the results are not to Hillary's liking, they will try to change the rules? I mean, look at what they are trying to do with MI and FL!

There just doesn't seem to be much of the spirit of fair play in the Hillary Herd.

[John Q. Citizen]

63. I don't recall Hill in Miami 2000 or in Ohio 04 worried about the disenfranchised. But

I guess her ox wan't being gored.

[JVS]

13. How come it's the Latinos who are going to protest and get ugly, but not older white women?

:shrug:

[rzemanfl]

18. Oh God, please keep me from going where your last five words

are making me want to....

[JVS]

24. Well I'm really interested in why one demographic that's supposed to be big supporters of Hillary...

gets ugly protest (possibly even violence) attributed to them, while the other group is not mentioned at all. Is it because they're white?

[tritsofme]

26. Texas' complicated delegate selection rules give lesser weight to predominatly Latino

districts.

I don't think there was an ulterior motive here, just a lack of information on your part.

[tammywammy]

29. Only because they've had a lesser turnout in the last elections

It's all based on turnout, and the more Latino districts had light turnout in 2006 & 2004.

[tritsofme]

34. I find the concept some votes being more equal than others to be bizzare and foreign

About what I expect out of a place like Texas.

[JVS]

35. Hey, have you heard of these things called super delegates.

Mind blowing stuff!

[tritsofme]

37. I don't much care for that concept either.

The nominee should be chosen by primaries and delegates allocated in a direct proportional manner.

[WolverineDG]

67. Would you be arguing this if it was 2004?

Back then, my Senatorial District in the alleged Clinton-Land had oodles & skads of delegates to the state convention & was able to select 6 to 8 delegates to national, based on our strong turn-out in the 2002 governor's race. Metro areas like Houston, D/FW, got less delegates because their turn-out was lower than ours.

No one did squat here in 2004 or the 2006 guv race, so we're getting less delegates. Nothing unfair about it, & someone with as much experience & as many connections in Texas as Sen. Clinton claims to have should have figured this out waaaay before now.

dg

[rzemanfl]

31. Now that you've followed "ugly" with "protest" I can rest easy

and not feel the urge to crack wise.

[jackson_dem]

28. Gerrymandering I presume. I don't think any districts have been created for old white women

[tammywammy]

30. Gerrymandering in what way?

[jackson_dem]

36. Someone said Latino districts have less weight than others under Texas's primary scheme

I haven't seen anyone explain why this is but I have heard it a few times. If this is true I would not be surprised if it becomes an issue.

[tammywammy]

41. Because of past turn out

Those districts had a lighter turnout in 2004 & 2006. The districts with higher turnout receive more delegates.

And Texas is also a primary & caucus hybrid.

[jackson_dem]

43. Is that true? Latinos were 25% of 2004 primary voters

That sounds right on target. Latinos are 35% of the population but a chunk of that does not have citizenship, Latino's tend to have lower voter registration rates than the general population, and Latinos are disproportionately (relative to the national average) young and hence ineligible to vote. 25% sounds like being right on target considering the percentage of voters Latinos probably accounted for in 2004. I could be wrong, though. Maybe they were 30% of voters in 2004. Any Texan here?

[tammywammy]

46. Um, hello? I'm from Texas

I'm telling you that's why. Districts with higher turnout receives more delegates compared to those with lower turnout.

BTW, there are plenty of other Texans on this thread too.

[jackson_dem]

48. Cool. I didn't know you were

[WolverineDG]

45. Then you must have me on ignore

I've posted it several times, but I'm more than happy to share again.

The delegates to the state convention as well as national convention are apportioned among Texas' 31 Senatorial districts according to voter turnout in the past 2 general elections. Here the election cycles being looked at are 2004 & 2006.

In 2004, delegates were apportioned based on the 2002 gubernatorial election. In 2002, South Texas cranked out the vote. Why? Because Tony Sanchez from Laredo was running for governor. So, my SD & in particular, my county, had oodles & scads of delegates. We were able to send at least 6, possibly 8 delegates to the national convention.

In the general elections of 2004 & 2006, the South Texas machine remained in "neutral," so to speak. Accordingly, despite grassroots efforts (which were often derided & always unsupported by the party establishment), voter turnout in South Texas was low. Ironically, voter turn out was high in the areas that the party establishment favored: Houston, Austin, SA, Dallas/Ft. Worth. So this time around, those counties & SDs get more delegates while those of us down here get less.

My SD went from 6 to 8 delegates to national to only 4. But it's not Obama's fault or the media's fault or Texas' fault. It's the party establishment's fault for taking South Texas for granted.

dg

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Another non-issue. It's too late now to whine about the rules. If you don't like the rules,

then work to change them, before the start of the contest.

I have a feeling it won't be long until the super delegates tell Hill to take a hike. They certainly aren't going to go down in flames to save Hill.

It's really sad that such a smart, talented, women as Hill has run such a poor campaign. Perhaps the US Senate is where she belongs. She seems to do well there, and it makes her look good and competent, a perception her presidential campaign is seriously undermining.

[BringBigDogBack]

17. Agreed.

Too bad the campaign won't take it to heart.

[Tatiana]

40. Agreed.

:toast:

If she loses this nomination, I think she should focus her efforts on becoming a good Senator.

[billyoc]

57. I'm thinking she'd make a good Senator from Montana.

:hi:

[John Q. Citizen]

58. That's a good one, Yee Haw! ,

I think she's probably found a home, though,
where the buffalo no longer roam,
-except in place names.

[billyoc]

60. We'll see about that, we got 19% of the '06 primary vote from her

with a relatively unknown challenger. The stigma of losing the '08 Presidential Primary, combined with the ill will her campaign has bred with a lot of New Yorkers will go a long way toward increasing our chances of unseating her in '10.

[John Q. Citizen]

62. Hopefully she will learn from her mistakes and you can train her up to be a good public servant.

If not, what can you do?

It's so hard to find decent help these days.

[billyoc]

65. We're currently interviewing replacement candidates. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

66. It's always hard when you have to let one go, but if they expect to be paid for chatting all day

on the phone with their friends over at the insurance company, the bank, and at the weapons manufactoring plant, well they should expect to fired. I'm sorry, but I don't pay people to do thier business on my time.

[billyoc]

68. Yeah, we have to make an example of her. Spotty attendance will not be tolerated. nt

[Tatiana]

15. By virtue of the hybrid primary, that could very well happen. n/t

[tammywammy]

16. Texas delegate rules have been set for a long time now

If she was truly upset with possible disenfranchisement then she should have spoken up long ago.

[WolverineDG]

19. Keep tellin' yourself that

SOME Latinos (mostly the party bosses) will do that, but most won't. The TDP has been giving out information on delegate selection for some time. The rules haven't changed, just the allocation of delegates among the various SDs. If the South Texas SDs have less delegates, it's the Clinton's own fault for not insuring the South Texas machine turned out the vote in 2004 & 2006.

from the heart of South Texas,


dg

[tammywammy]

21. Yep yep

:) Good post.

[babylonsister]

22. Hey, Wolvie, were you shocked

the CC Caller Times endorsed Obama? I was!

[WolverineDG]

38. Yup

They're not exactly what's thought of as a liberal rag.

dg

[grantcart]

20. Yes Hillary should move now and tell Texas that their system is wrong

and that their caucuses are not fair. She should get Bill to complain now about how stupid their system is and how unfair it is. Hurry, please make it public now.

[Lerkfish]

23. and be sure to mention "race" and "latino" and "get ugly" as much as possible

:)

[tyne]

32. And don't forget

to tell the Latinos to yell, loudly, why they didn't choose Obama, eh?

[madrchsod]

51. gee another racist post....and people don`t see it

[SPKrazy]

25. Uhm, the superdelegate system wasn't designed by Hillary

and with both open and closed primaries, it was the way that predecessors saw as balancing the playing field to counter the influx of non-Dems voting in open primaries to sway the election.

Until you close the primaries to registered dems, you will have to have some way of balancing it out.

[Yael]

27. Don't lose any sleep over this one

:)

[rucky]

42. I'm glad we can all agree that our nominating system is flawed.

There should be an uproar for anything that doesn't reflect the will of the people, and 1 person = 1 vote.

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

44. Good thing she won't lose in delegates if she wins Texas by 14%...

and this thread won't need to surface again.

[Renew Deal]

49. That's not really possible.

It's not even worth speculating what it would take. But a 14 point margin with delegates flipped won't happen.

[madrchsod]

50. why will just the latinos protest and get ugly?

"delegate system disenfranchises latinos."? what the hell are you talking about?

never mind it`s just a piece of crap racist post

[billyoc]

52. An interesting point. There are uanticipated consequences to some proportional

voting systems, particularly ones that are based on past voter turnout.

[thevoiceofreason]

53. If Hillary wins by 14%

I'll eat my shorts.

[JVS]

56. If she wins by 14% but gets less delegates from the state, I will laugh my ass off

part of my laugter, of course, will be from watching you eat your shorts.

[thevoiceofreason]

59. You get a gold star for that one.

[JVS]

61. Thanks!

[BringBigDogBack]

64. Alerted for race-baiting bullshit.