*******Breaking News AP: Obama wins Texas********

[grantcart]

DemcomWatch.com and a number of other sites will now be giving Obama full credit for his Texas win by using the numbers now provided by the Associated Press. Up until now the Associated Press had the Texas campaign at 93 delegates each pending the county convention.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_QDnA56kHa3qYl41FUYT3PLHJvwD8VOK68O0

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Barack Obama has won the overall delegate race in Texas thanks to a strong showing in Democratic county conventions this past weekend.

Obama picked up seven of nine outstanding delegates, giving him a total of 99 Texas delegates to the party's national convention this summer. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won the other two, giving her a total of 94 Texas delegates, according to an analysis of returns by The Associated Press.


ALSO BREAKING GALLUP NOW STATES REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AGREE OBAMA TOUGHER GE CANDIDATE THAN CLINTON

OBAMA AND CLINTON DEMOCRATS BOTH AGREE THAT CONTINUED CAMPAIGN INFIGHTING WILL HURT GENERAL ELECTION PERFORMANCE BY DEMS


http://www.gallup.com/poll/105904/Dems-Reps-Agree-Obama-Tougher-Opponent-McCain.aspx
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Panel survey finds a majority of both Republicans and Democrats saying Barack Obama has a better chance than Hillary Clinton of defeating Republican John McCain in the November presidential election.






The survey was conducted March 24-27, interviewing a nationally representative sample of 1,005 Gallup Panel members. Democrats were asked whether Clinton or Obama has the better chance of defeating McCain in November: 59% say Obama does; 30% say Clinton. Republicans were asked whether McCain has a better chance of defeating Clinton or Obama on Election Day. Sixty-four percent say McCain has a better chance of beating Clinton, compared with only 22% choosing Obama, meaning Republicans view Obama as the more formidable candidate

Implications

Clearly at this point, the party rank-and-file thinks Obama would present a stronger challenge to McCain in the fall than Clinton would. Those attitudes could certainly change over the remainder of the campaign, but it is notable that Obama maintains a wide lead in these perceptions shortly after the Jeremiah Wright controversy knocked his campaign off stride.

Also, the poll shows there is a fairly widely held belief among party supporters -- including a plurality of Clinton supporters -- that the ongoing campaign is hurting their chances of winning in November. It seems unlikely those attitudes would improve much going forward, particularly if the tone of the Democratic campaign remains negative. If so, then it is likely there would be further calls for Clinton to drop out of the race, and that would put more pressure on her to do well in the Pennsylvania primary on April 22 and all the contests that follow.

[DerekJ]

1. Stop it grantcart .

I heard there is a shortage of anti-depressants in the market, and you are not helping. :P

[DerekJ]

3. kick

[bilgewaterbill]

81. Good thang Texas ain't a BIG state.

[psychopomp]

2. Good news...though I consider this a lock already

GOBAMA!

[grantcart]

18. your right it was but the AP threshold is considered significant for

two reasons, 1) It is the definitive source by default and makes it as official as it gets until the state convention
2) Most sites like DemcomWatch use their numbers as official so it means an additional 7 pledged delegates in the count.

[hogwyld]

68. The really, really important question is

Will all the M$M news channels change their map colors?? Oh, yeah, K&R, and thanks for all your hard work as well as TVOR's work.

[DerekJ]

4. kick

[TML]

5. K & R

:kick:

[K Gardner]

6. Oopsie ! K&R

[DerekJ]

7. kick

[40ozDonkey]

8. K & R

[alteredstate]

9. K & R

:kick:

[JTFrog]

10. K&R

[readmoreoften]

11. Was it the delegate race or the total election?

The split was 65% for votes 35% for caucuses. Clinton was at a disadvantage in caucuses in that it's more difficult for rural and elderly voters to get to their polling places twice and I barely understood what was going on in English--I can't imagine how disenfranchised non-English speaking voters were. Voting is not supposed to be an all-day affair.

The whole day was a confusing mess. Only in Texas.

[WolverineDG]

14. OH PLEASE!

How come the Clinton folks had no problems with caucuses (even had a video showing how easy they were) until she started losing? Oh yeah, she started losing.

Where there is a will, there is a way. If something is THAT important to you, you will bend iron & the space-time continum to get there.

:eyes:

dg

[antigop]

87. Do you have ANY IDEA of what it's like to work for a Republican corporation?

That would be most of them.

So please stop the baloney about "Where there's a will there's a way."

And NO I am NOT a HRC supporter.

[WolverineDG]

89. Sorry, but it's true

We had to force the issue for some of our folks who work for a VERY Republican corporation. Funny what happens when you cite the Texas Election Code & mix in terms like "voting rights" & "my lawyer."

If you really want to get to the caucus, you will get to the caucus.

dg

[antigop]

90. Baloney. Citing the Texas election code is really going to score you points.

Yeah. Right.

Texas has employment AT WILL.

You obviously DO NOT UNDERSTAND the problem.

[WolverineDG]

91. It got us three delegates to their precinct conventions

And the Code is quite specific in what the employer can & cannot do. So, unless you are a lawyer yourself, don't lecture me about not understanding the problem.

dg

[antigop]

93. Well, it's obvious that you don't understand the problem.

You do know what employment AT WILL means, don't you?

[thevoiceofreason]

94. Wrong - even employment at will cannot violate state law

And Texas state law requires employers to allow a worker to caucus. If they fail to do so, it's a class B misdemeanor. Which would lead to negligence per se in the civil suit, giving the fired worker all their pay with an easy burden of proof.

[antigop]

96. NO, you don't understand the problem either.

So fine-- they let you go to the caucus.

They can STILL FIRE you because your employment is AT WILL.

And they don't need any reason. They can even say it's for some other reason. It doesn't matter. Your employment is AT WILL.

<edit to add> They can hold it against you for future promotions, raises, etc. And if they want to replace workers with an h1-b visa holder, whom do you think they will gladly replace -- a Republican employee or a Democrat?

<second edit> So stop the nonsense about citing the Texas election code.
The truth is that the corporation can hold it against you. I don't like putting my job at risk having to show up at a caucus.

[thevoiceofreason]

97. And under the penal code and elecion code, which are law

They have committed a crime. A class B misdemeanor. And in your civil suit for lost wages, you have negligence per se. I do this stuff for a living. You do not want to advise your employer client to fire someone because they caucused -- trust me. Now, it is certain that it is unfair to the employee because they will have to wait months or years to collect these damages, but they will collect these damages.

[antigop]

98. No -- you STILL don't get it. They can hold it against you.

<edit to add> They may not fire you immediately. They may not fire you the following week. But they can (and will) hold it against you.

It can impact future raises, promotions, layoffs.

And if you don't think it will, then you don't understand how these corporations work.

How many of the executives at Fortune 500 corporations are Democrats?

[WolverineDG]

107. Obviously it's YOU who has the problem

Two people have told you otherwise; you keep insisting on spewing out Clinton talking points. Buh-bye.

dg

[antigop]

108. I'm STILL waiting for proof that I'm a Clinton supporter -- and I'm sorry you don't get it

As I have stated REPEATEDLY on DU, I AM NOT A CLINTON SUPPORTER. Never have been. Check my previous posts.

And your remarks have shown that you don't understand what it's like for people who work for Republican management.

[antigop]

109. And "two people" who supposedly "told me otherwise" have not refuted my points.

All they have done is referred to the Texas election code.

As I said, yeah, right. That's going to score you a lot of points at raise, promotion, and layoff time.

And Texas STILL has employment at will.

[Nederland]

99. They will have to wait months or years...

And how exactly do they pay for the mortgage, food, etc. in the meantime?

I agree, you do not understand the problem.

[antigop]

102. With your job goes your health insurance. Yes, you can get COBRA but it is expensive

but it runs out. And God help you if you are an older worker looking for work in this job market, especially in the tech industry.

So, no, I don't think the problem is understood -- AT ALL.

[WolverineDG]

106. Actually, yes I do

but the employer cannot violate state law. In each case above, the employers were adamant that their employees could not leave because they didn't want to pay them for not working. We showed them a copy of the statute, & pointed out that the employer was allowed to have the employee clock out or use personal/annual leave. Oh yeah, & we mentioned we were lawyers. (We are.) We did this in a non-confrontational manner & got 3 of our folks to their precinct conventions. So yes, I DO understand the problem. In our county, we found a way to handle it. If the Clinton folks couldn't put two brain cells together to do the same, that's not my problem.

dg

[antigop]

111. You still have not addressed the real problem So big deal you show them the Texas election code.

Fine. You go to the caucus. AND YOU DON'T THINK THAT THE EMPLOYER WILL HOLD THIS AGAINST YOU?

And they can still fire you. They'll just never give the caucus attendance as a reason.

No, you don't understand what it's like working for Republican management.

How many executives at Fortune 500 corporations are Democrats? How many? Funny, you don't seem to answer that one, do you?

[antigop]

112. And I'm STILL waiting for proof that I'm a HRC supporter. Where is your proof? n/t

[SoCalDem]

23. PRIMARIES/CAUCUSES ARE ALL ABOUT DELEGATES

Hillary "won" the silverplated pie pan..

Barack ate the pie..

It was yummy :rofl:



NOW I want to see CNN re-shade that MAP and show Texas for Obama..

[Erin Elizabeth]

31. The totals from the whole thing:

from the primary on March 4, Clinton got 65 delegates and Obama got 61.

from the caucuses later, Clinton got 29 delegates and Obama got 38.

Obama: 61 + 38 = 99

Clinton: 65 + 29 = 94

Obama received the most Texas delegates overall, including the numbers from the primary

[kwenu]

56. Whaaaa. Waaaaaaa. Snif. snif. Waaaaaa!!!!!!

What's so confusing? Obama has 99 delegates, Clinton has 95 delegates. Obama won the most delegates in Texas. Texas is Obama country.

[DerekJ]

62. I had a big f!@## thread showing that Obama wins anyway you slice it.

So HE WINS. There is no disadvantage. If you proportion the delegates to reflect the number of voters in each context (primary or caucus) he still wins. He wins by anywhere from 1 delegate to 3 delegates.

[VolcanoJen]

79. Again, I refer all to "What Joe Trippi Said."

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/obamamachineryofhope/page/5

Clinton has since complained that caucuses are "dominated by activists" who "don't represent the electorate." But that bellyaching, says Trippi, "is pure cover for 'We blew it.' If you can win a precinct just by getting ten people there — and that's true — then why the hell didn't she get ten people there?"

Adds Moulitsas of Daily Kos, "I don't know how a candidate can say she'll be ready to lead on Day One, when she can't even organize a simple caucus."

This dog stopped hunting a long time ago, readmoreoften. Clinton wasn't at a disadvantage in caucuses, she chose not to contest them, feeling that a) she'd lock it up on Super Tuesday and b) top-down campaigning is her style.

Her old-world view of the current political scene is precisely why she'll lose the nomination. Enough with these ridiculous excuses. She blew it. The End.

[thevoiceofreason]

92. So that's why so many of the valley districts went unanimous for Hillary

That's right stud, she got 'em all - pretty often too. So don't whine to me about language problems. Give me a real life scenario, and I'll listen to you.

[thevoiceofreason]

12. There you go again with those number thingys!

K&R!

[progressoid]

13. In your view, would a three toed sloth have a chance of defeating John McCain....

Jeez, other than the 29 percenters, I can't believe anyone is considering him.

Oh, wait, this is America. Never mind.

[frog92969]

71. My money's on the sloth

As long as there's a (D) by it's name.

[Scurrilous]

15. K & R

:thumbsup:

[DangerousRhythm]

16. K&R

YEAH!! :thumbsup:

[Craftsman]

17. So the voters inTX do not matter?

So the will of the voters only matter when it helps Obigot?

[GarbagemanLB]

20. I think I hear the waaambulance..

[clevbot]

24. KICK

[Justitia]

26. THIS voter caucused 12 hrs for Obama on Saturday. TX voters want OBAMA. -eom

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Erin Elizabeth]

36. Steal?

What are you talking about? Do you understand a two-part primary?

Let me break it down for you (and Texas, btw, is not the only state with this kind of primary system).

There's a primary during the day, in this case March 4. You come and you vote.

THEN, that night, you go BACK and you caucus. This is essentially voting again.

From the primary AND the caucuses, the state is able to determine the breakdown of how many delegates each candidate collected. Hillary's supporters barely edged out Obama's supporters during the day at the primary, but for both the caucuses that night AND for the district convention three weeks later (this past Saturday), Obama supporters turned out in much larger numbers.

Which means he collected more delegates, 99 to 94. Which means he wins the state. That's how it works. It's not just voting during the day, but which side is more motivated to show up that night AND later at the district convention.

There was no stealing involved. I voted on March 4, showed up that night and caucused for five hours, then I showed up at my district convention and was a delegate there for 10 hours. I noticed my precinct had 6 Hillary delegates from March 4, but only three of them showed up at the district convention. We had 30 Obama delegates from the caucus and all 30 showed up at the district convention. If that same pattern held all over the state, THAT'S why Hillary lost Texas. Her peeps didn't show up later.

[JayFredMuggs]

37. Thanks for explaining to us non-Texans just how it works

Interesting that Hillary's delegates couldn't even be bothered to show up when they are supposed to.

Interesting that all Obama delegates have commitment!

[Erin Elizabeth]

39. Probably not all.

But in the case of Texas, more than the Hillary people.

In my precinct for our district convention, since only three Hillary delegates showed up and all 30 Obama delegates showed up, when the district told us we were allowed (based on our numbers) to send three delegates and three alternates to the district (to be winnowed down for the state), we made sure all three delegates and all three alternates were Obama people and that all three Hillary people didn't get to the district level. Each delegate only had one vote, but that meant we had 30 votes and they had three. They nominated each other, but still had no chance against 30 other votes.

So we eliminated the three of them at that level and only sent Obama delegates on to state. I'm quite sure the other precincts around us (it's a HUGE district, comprising three suburbs of Dallas--we filled up a large high school gym) did the same thing where ever they could and sent on as few Clinton delegates as possible.

But my county went 80% for Obama in the primary so it wasn't hard in our case.

And what I wrote above is why it's SO important to show up and caucus the night of the primary. Just voting during the day and going home doesn't cut it in a two-step system if you want your person to win. I noticed the Obama people were hugely motivated, bringing folding chairs, coolers, laptops, you name it, like they were planning on camping there, LOL.

[WatchWhatISay]

85. Thats because a certain percentage of them aren't Democrats

Many Republican Rushbots followed his order during the primary and voted Democrat for a day - most of them voted for Clinton because they are terrified of Obama, but they will not be voting Democratic in November.

Its easy to vote in the primary. The is no party registration in Texas. But to show up at the caucus, where one might be recognized as a wolf in sheep's clothing, and which requires a much higher level of committment, is a whole different thing.

[quantass]

65. .

[juajen]

83. Who won the juggling contest and how many delegates were

awarded for this? Even in Louisiana we are not this stupid. Yep, rules in states should have been studied and any actions taken to ensure fairness early; but, because individual states make these decisions, challenging would be problematical. Honestly, this is ridiculous. Why in hell can't all states have the same kind of elections?

[John Q. Citizen]

105. It's that pesky US constitution, giving states sovereignty over their own elections.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

55. What is this with you and "Obigot"??? ...Are you crazy??? The man's a walking UN.

:crazy:

[Arugula Latte]

59. So in your world, "Hillary not winning" = "Obama stealing"

How sad. How very, very sad and pathetic.

[Erin Elizabeth]

35. Ditto, my friend. 10 hours here.

And the my precinct caucus on the night of March 4 wasn't over until 11:35 pm.

[Justitia]

44. I have never seen such committed Democrats as our Obama voters. -eom

[Erin Elizabeth]

46. We were camping, man! LOL.

[Erin Elizabeth]

33. In a state with a two-part system, you can't really

call a winner until after the caucuses are done and tallied. In this case, we had to wait until after the district conventions were done, three weeks later, to get a perfectly clear picture of how many delegates each candidate garnered (see article in OP for details).

Overall, from BOTH the primary on March 4 AND the caucuses, Obama received 99 Texas delegates, and Clinton received 94. Which means he won Texas.

The media was being misleading/confusing when they called Texas for Clinton that evening. There was no way you were going to know until after the caucuses were properly tallied and that's true for the other states with a two-part system (there ARE others).

I knew it that night, that it was silly to say anything other than who won the PRIMARY. But you couldn't say yet who won the STATE overall.

Well, now we know. Obama did.

[VolcanoJen]

84. You guys rocked it in Texas, Erin!

:bounce: :bounce:

[Cheap_Trick]

64. no, only when it helps Hilarity

that's why she's pinning her hopes on the Super Delegates.

[D23MIURG23]

78. Now that Clinton lost there I expect not...

Just like all those other states that don't matter!

[DevonRex]

19. K&R nt

[Az_lefty]

21. Great News...K&R....

didn't Bill say it was over if they didn't win Texas?

[ginnyinWI]

45. correct.

Now I want the media to ask him about that. Will anyone but KO step up?

[Botany]

75. He said it .... now he owns it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/bill-clinton-i...

Bill Clinton: If We Lose Ohio Or Texas, It's Probably Over
ABC News | RICK KLEIN and SARAH AMOS | February 20, 2008 05:30 PMHe

[gateley]

76. Yeah, but I think the goal post has been moved again. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. kkkkk&rrrrrrrrrrr.....nt

:kick:

[EnviroBat]

25. k&r!!!!!

[Justitia]

27. kick from a Proud Texas Democrat! -eom

[polichick]

28. Texas, ya done good!!!

[quantass]

29. Congrats Obama

[Erin Elizabeth]

30. Bill's words in February:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/bill-clinton-if-we-lose-_n_87670.html

[JayFredMuggs]

38. RIGHT, Bill !! It's "probably over"!

Wish every station will replay that tape today !

Maybe some Hillary people will be listening.

Nah, they don't listen to ANYTHING negative anymore.

[Greyskye]

48. "Just chill!"

Oy. :eyes:

I love Bill, but COME ON!

[blm]

47. That deserves a thread of its own that includes the new reality of Texas.

.

[JayFredMuggs]

32. Excellent summary of the issues, the "problems" with Hillary and...

Now, how will the Hillary deputies handle this?

"Let every vote count"? Nothing new there! Obama is ahead.

Wait until the convention when we can ignore the will of the voters? I've heard some Hillary supporters want a show down in Denver to deny the voters their choice.

So which will it be?

[grantcart]

50. tks

[Dawgs]

40. K & R

:bounce: :headbang: :woohoo:

:bounce: :headbang: :woohoo:

[ampad]

41. Kick

For good news and to get rid of some of these obvious, stupid, April Fools threads.

[knixphan]

42. that's the way, uh-huh uh-huh...

[liberaldem4ever]

43. K & R!! Awesome!

Thanks Texas Democrats! GOBAMA!!! :kick:

[nebula]

49. Texas puts a giant nail in her coffin.

Say goodnight Hillary.

[otohara]

51. So Does This Mean He Can Say

he won Texas!

Texas two-step confuses me.

[IndyOp]

52. Yes he can say that he won Texas, because he did. The question remains: Should he?

While we wait for the bitter end, if Obama claims victory too loudly then he'll be attacked. His campaign will put out word that he got the greater number of delegates from Texas and he may stay silent.

[IndependentDem]

54. my guess is that he wont say anything until she claims that she won...

then he will put the smack down. When is next debate?

[TBF]

57. Texas confuses me too

and I live here. But one thing I do know (and I knew it at our initial caucus when we blew Clinton out of the water 75%-25%) is that Obama DID win Texas. No matter what the media reports.

[otohara]

61. Thank You -

that's cool - yeah, win one more for Obama!!!

[Just-plain-Kathy]

53. YES!!! ...n/t

[catgirl]

58. Way to go Texas!!

[meow mix]

60. K&R

[quantass]

63. :-D

[NickMorgan]

66. kick n/t

[zulchzulu]

67. So no one is asking Bill the BIG QUESTION?

I'd love his answer...

:rofl:

[grantcart]

70. he has gone very quiet

There were rumors that all of the credential challenges and the disruption tactics were aimed at sabotaging the caucus results so that bill wouldn't have to face the question.

[Fyddlestyx]

69. K & R!

:bounce:

[blonndee]

72. K & R

[ThatsMyBarack]

73. YEE-FREAKIN'-HAW!!!!

I like those odds! :woohoo: :patriot:

[quantass]

74. woohoo

[Orsino]

77. Dang. That's three times he's won Texas, right?

That's a lotta delegates.

[mcollier]

82. Texas is a Big State.....

Penn Stae loves Obama too...

Bring the troops home...

[sonias]

101. We still have to win it one more time too

The final, final vote and allocation of delegates happens at our state convention in June. Then our big ass state has finally been secured, signed, sealed and delivered!

Se se puede - Obamanos Tejas!


Sonia

[grantcart]

103. They earned it

[BeyondGeography]

80. Thank you, Texas!

:patriot: :hi:

[Spiffarino]

86. Damn you, and damn your facts!

You know that your cursed facts have a terrible anti-Clinton bias, yet you use them flagrantly!


:sarcasm:

[thevoiceofreason]

88. And AP now recognizes Mississippi at 20-13. Sorry, Maddy!

[thevoiceofreason]

95. Kick!

[orleans]

100. "obama wins texas" not according to fucking joe scarborough

on gregory's show, rachel said he won texas and the asshole was arguing with her. ugh. (will someone PLEASE get republika joe off the tv?)

[muryan]

104. i cant stand watching him on msnbc

but when hes on the daily show or real time he morphs into this quasi legitimate resonable person, its quite strange

[joeprogressive]

110. kick n/t