Previous Next Latest

It’s Official: Obama Wins Texas

4/1/08, 2:27 pm EST

The delegate battle in the Lone Star State goes to Obama 99-94.

To recap, Clinton scored a narrow primary delegate victory 65-61.

In the (ridiculously drawn out) caucus process, Obama won 38-29.

It’s a net of five for Obama.

So let’s revisit the delegate race since March 4:

Clinton wins
Ohio +9
and
Rhode Island +5

Obama wins
Texas +5
and
Vermont +3
and
Wyoming +2
and
Mississippi +7

Texas cancels out Rhode Island. Mississippi and Wyoming cancel out Ohio. Obama’s left with a three delegate surge from Vermont.

And that doesn’t count the 10 new delegates Obama netted at the Iowa county conventions. Or the five more he netted in the final counting of California.

I’ll say it again. The Math is the new black. And it’s a bitch for Clinton.

For more on how Obama secured his stunning victory in the Texas “two step” read this recent cover story from the magazine.


Previous Next Latest

Comments

Truth Teller | 4/1/2008, 3:23 pm EST

No, Clinton won the popular vote.

THE END

harpo | 4/1/2008, 3:29 pm EST

TT, you need delegates to win the nomination.
How hard is that to remember?

Travis | 4/1/2008, 3:30 pm EST

Last time i checked, delegates determine the nomination, not the popular vote.

Reality Check | 4/1/2008, 3:31 pm EST

Popular vote does not matter. Obama won the most delegates.

THE END OF HILLARY.

Doug | 4/1/2008, 3:34 pm EST

@”Truth Teller”

If the popular vote is what counts, why bother having delegates? Why do any states have caucuses, since caucuses always have lower turnout (because they take longer and demand more involvement)? Why does Texas, in particular, have both a primary and a caucus? It would make no sense if the popular vote is the salient measure. It does make sense if primaries and caucuses are each valuable in different ways to measure the will of the voters. Roughly speaking, primaries measure the width of support, caucuses measure depth.

FACT Checking "Truth Teller" | 4/1/2008, 3:35 pm EST

Obama is winning the popular vote nation-wide, the elected delegate count, he has won twice more states, and he is surging in the super delegate count, i.e., he is winning uncommitted super delegates and some of hers (John Lewis et al.).

Where THE END is, only Hillary can say. My guess, however, is before she has her say, the super delegates will meet and rightfully extend Obama the nomination.

geo | 4/1/2008, 4:27 pm EST

Doug, What is interesting is that Bill Clinton did well in the Texas Prima-Caucus, and was actually instrumental in setting up the two-step process.

The complaints from the Clinton camp about caucus voting only seem to apply to those that Obama does well in.

I also thought your comment was quotable:
“Roughly speaking, primaries measure the width of support, caucuses measure depth.”

Brnman | 4/1/2008, 4:29 pm EST

Congratulations to Sen Obama’s Texas supporters.

The power of the people is spreading all over the USA.

Hillary | 4/1/2008, 5:11 pm EST

Thank Goodness! There’s no way senator Clinton can be taken SERIOUSLY as a presidential hopeful after the Bosnia, story.

Also, how could she be expected to handle foreign policy matters, after alienating an entire race, Africans Americans, in her own country with the MLK remark and now Bosnians?

Hillary please please step down as everyone also, asked govenor Huckabee to do.

Kay Lane Ray Rafko | 4/1/2008, 5:26 pm EST

Obama cant argue the delegate count without Florida and Michigan. Thus popular vote those count. It is no surprice we won the delegate count in Texas with the Africam American strongholds in Dallas and Houston. It was expected. What he cannot win is big mixed states such as Texas, Ohio, California, NY and…Pennsylvania.

Gabriel | 4/1/2008, 5:57 pm EST

I remember a statement made by former president Clinton regarding the Clinton campaign probably having to come to an end if “Hillary doesn’t win both Texas and Ohio”. It’s not about that anymore; it’s about “Rocky”, apparently. Unfortunately for them this is not a movie.This statement issued before the Texas and Ohio primaries by Bill was an attempt to place more urgency on the would-be voters and fence-sitters in Texas and Ohio, and it probably worked to thier advantage. Not to mention Mr. Limbaugh’s call to all Republicans to vote for Hillary in order to keep the more electable candidate out. I predict another attempt sorta like this (Clintons, Limbaugh) just days before the Pennsylvania primaries.
My hope is that Hillary and Bill be true to thier word and bow out now, considering the final results in Texas. It’s time.

Elizabeth | 4/1/2008, 6:09 pm EST

What does it say about a candidate when his/her own peers, from work, support your opponent and not you? Well, in the past month and a half, eight senators have thrown their support to Obama, while only one has come forward for Hillary. These are our elected officials who work with both Clinton and Obama. Does that not speak volumes? Think maybe they know something we don’t?

Andrew Kenneth | 4/1/2008, 6:27 pm EST

How can the democrats run against a decorated war hero(John McCain) and nominate Hillary someone who lies about her heroism.
Ill take Reverand Wright anyday at least Obama didn’t make those statements

Anonymous | 4/1/2008, 6:40 pm EST

(Jed Clampett)

Why do you think they left 6 weeks between primaries at such an important and pivotal time in the election? could it be to stiffle the momentum a candidate might have if he’s not the one the ‘establishment’ can depend on to play the game their way?

Jack Smith | 4/1/2008, 6:48 pm EST

I was going to vote for Clinton but I am starting to think that she can’t be trusted. Everyone agree on Michigan and Florida incluidng her and now suddenly she is saying “all votes need to count”. only after the fact. Bosnia – well that was a lie as well. Really why did she say that – she knew the media would be all over it. Now to McCain- who in the right minds can vote for more Bush – The GOP does not deseve another term- they have lied an lied….. Obama is at least change and we need that….

francis | 4/1/2008, 6:51 pm EST

Hillary Clinton supporters better soften up on Obama, and Obama supporters better soften up on Hillary, i dont like how Hillary has run her campaign but in no way will i be stupidly angry and go vote against her if she is the nominee, the enemy is the man who wants to carry on the legacy of George Bush, if Hillary wins fair and square let us support her.Let us not break into pieces and make Rush Limbaughs dream true, sure let us disagree but when Obama is the nominee or Hillary, let us do a 360 and show them unity!

Julie | 4/1/2008, 6:52 pm EST

I thought Hill and Bill said that she must win Texas and Ohio or it’s over? (I guess not, I hear the Rocky music playing.)

Peggy | 4/1/2008, 7:20 pm EST

Hope Clinton doesn’t keep using the Rocky analogy to much. Especially since Sylvester Stallone has openly endorsed Senator McCain!

thenounproject | 4/1/2008, 8:06 pm EST

while on the subject of Bosnia, will someone please ask Hill and Bill why they handled the death of Ron Brown’s the way they did? That would speak volumes to her foreign policy experience or her crisis management experience. Although Ron Brown saved Bill’s presidency, it would surely sink her chances.

cpindc | 4/1/2008, 8:43 pm EST

Yeah, but overall Obama leads in the popular vote, won more primaries and won more caucuses. I don’t see any room for Clinton to make her case anymore.

Richard Williams | 4/1/2008, 8:47 pm EST

Obama’s Bible Study Class

James Meeks – an Illinois state senator, pastor of one of the largest churches in the state and a declared Spiritual Adviser for Obama – came under fire for comments rebroadcast last week calling white American mayors “slave masters” and referring to black preachers and politicians who “protect” the “white man” as “house n-ggers.”

“We don’t have slave masters, we got mayors,” Meeks said in an August 2006 sermon broadcast on a Chicago community television channel.
Aside from his senatorial duties, Meeks is an Illinois Superdelegate pledged to Obama and also presides over Salem Baptist Church, described as the largest church in Illinois.

In 2006, Meeks informed his church during a sermon he may run for Illinois governor. He was recorded telling the mostly black congregation any “white Christian” who doesn’t vote for him is a “racist.”

Obama told the Sun-Times that he is an attendee of Meeks’ Salem Baptist Church for Wednesday night Bible Study.

Bouh | 4/1/2008, 9:12 pm EST

Let’s see the change coming with Obama.

Jay Lane | 4/1/2008, 10:22 pm EST

What I don’t understand is the Clinton argument that the superdelegates have an “obligation” to select the most “electable” candidate. How, I ask, will they divine this information? What sort of supernatural powers are they blessed with that allows them to see months into the future? And if they pick Hillary and the wheels come off, should all of them resign in disgrace?

Ms. Dee | 4/1/2008, 11:09 pm EST

Hillary I am waiting to see your taxes……for the last past six years. Atleast we can trust Obama – the way I see it he is not hiding anything.

coop | 4/1/2008, 11:20 pm EST

I’d feel better if John McCain was back in a bamboo cage.
This man is dangerous. 100 years in Iraq, no clue about economics. I have and idea “My Friends” why don’t he run for president in Iraq or panama where he was born.

serena1313 | 4/2/2008, 12:04 am EST

Truth Teller

No Clinton has not won the popular vote. Obama is ahead by 800,000 or more.

Doug

Caucuses give the grassroots voters a say. I was a delegate in the Texas Convention last Saturday.

And to the person who said Obama won because of the African stronghold in Texas does not know what she is talking about.

Obama won Texas last Saturday 52% to Hillary’s 41%. My district convention (1 out of 265) Obama won 60% where whites outnumbered African Americans by at least 2 or 3 to 1. The idea Obama only does well with AA is not true.

UrbanHillbilly | 4/2/2008, 12:36 am EST

I image that if Hillary expects to win the nomination with fewer pledged delegates, she’ll expect to win the election with fewer pledged electors. They don’t have to vote for their candidate either! The Clinton campaign is growing increasing delusional.

FaceThe Music | 4/2/2008, 1:14 am EST

Hill & Bill Out For The Kill,
They Thought It Would Be Easy.
If Things Went Bad,
She’d Act Real Sad,
Then Turn The Campaign Sleazy.
But Hill & Bill, They Soon Found Out,
With Obama Not To Toy,
Now Dirty D Must Face The Fact,
His President’s a “Boy!”

FatMan | 4/2/2008, 2:07 am EST

So Serena, Are you saying that Obama does just as well without Alchoholics Anonymous?

I knew AA was a scam!

obamababy | 4/2/2008, 3:19 am EST

Obama: Won more states. More delegates. More of the popular votes. More campaign donations from small donors. Nationwide grassroots efforts. You say you want a revolution? Yes we can.

BurnDaddy | 4/2/2008, 8:37 am EST

Note to TD.
Apparently any thread with the name “Obama” in it is getting deluged with all of these auto-posts and “Dick” jokes.
Maybe, just maybe, you could simply refer to Obama as “Superman.”

DirtyDennis | 4/2/2008, 12:36 pm EST

BD/Coach,

I’m at the library and just now, officially, have resigned my support of HRC. No, that doesn’t mean I’ll be attacking her now. I’m disappointed, not angry. It was hers to lose from the beginning and she’s managed to do it. I think she’s lost this contest more than BHO has won it. And I mean no discredit to him by saying that. He hasn’t done anything to defeat her other than to stand back and watch her implode.

This doesn’t alter my opinion that HRC has a better chance to win in Nov or that the Right will attack BHO in an unparalleled ugly campaign. It’s really just an ‘endorsement’ and whilst it means nada, after all the quarelling we’ve done on the matter, I thought I should make it known to you.

Doughboy | 4/3/2008, 10:17 pm EST

Excellent step dirty dennis. That’s the first on your 12 step program to enlightenment!

Celebrate with a beer and an homage to MaryJ!

Matt Garville | 4/5/2008, 9:28 pm EST

It’s amazing how the media ran with the narrative of a “Clinton Comeback.” They showed no restraint in the reporting of the results and failed to mention that the final results would not be in for weeks.

The verdict is now in. Obama won Texas and Clinton did not.

What about Bill Clinton’s statement that Texas and Penn. were must-wins? Anyone in the media going to hold him accountable for that statement?

Post A Comment

Caution: Off-topic comments will be deleted

Name:

Comments:



Advertisement

Advertisement